Iowa’s ‘Winnowing’ Role on the Line in Republican Caucuses

If Trump wins, it may threaten the state’s coveted status as the first test in the nominating process.

Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally in Clinton, Iowa.
AP Photo/Charlie Neibergall
S.V. Dáte
Add to Briefcase
S.V. Dáte
Jan. 31, 2016, 8 p.m.

DES MOINES, Iowa—Mer­ri­am-Web­ster defines the verb “win­now” this way: “To re­move (people or things that are less im­port­ant, de­sir­able, etc.) from a lar­ger group or list.”

If Don­ald Trump winds up win­ning the Iowa caucuses Monday night, that pre­cise defin­i­tion is prob­ably something that Iowa Re­pub­lic­ans who care about their role at the head of the pres­id­en­tial-nom­in­at­ing pro­cess hope the rest of the coun­try will over­look.

Oth­er­wise, they will have to ex­plain how a pop-cul­ture en­ter­tain­er with a seem­ingly tenu­ous grasp on world af­fairs, the func­tion­ing of the eco­nomy, and in­ter­na­tion­al trade has nev­er­the­less won their first-in-the-na­tion con­test with policy pro­nounce­ments that barely go bey­ond his cam­paign theme to “make Amer­ica great again.”

While tra­di­tion­al Re­pub­lic­ans around the coun­try might have the lux­ury of not un­der­stand­ing Trump’s ap­peal, it is, in the­ory, the job of Iowa Re­pub­lic­ans to as­sess his qual­i­fic­a­tions and policies. And should Trump par­lay his polling lead in­to ac­tu­al votes, it will once again call at­ten­tion to Iowa’s un­even per­form­ance in that role.

Un­like the cen­tury-old New Hamp­shire primary, the Iowa caucuses be­came a fix­ture in the pres­id­en­tial race re­l­at­ively re­cently, after Geor­gia Gov. Jimmy Carter rode a strong show­ing here to the Demo­crat­ic nom­in­a­tion in 1976. But while Iowa has fre­quently pres­aged nom­in­a­tion wins for its Demo­crat­ic caucus win­ners—Al Gore in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, and Barack Obama in 2008 are just the latest—its track re­cord choos­ing the Re­pub­lic­an nom­in­ee has been dis­mal.

Even in 1980, the first time that the Re­pub­lic­an caucuses were act­ively con­tested, win­ner George H.W. Bush was un­able to main­tain “the big mo” in­to New Hamp­shire, los­ing there to Ron­ald Re­agan, who went on to win the nom­in­a­tion. In 1988, as the sit­ting vice pres­id­ent, Bush came in third in Iowa, be­hind Sen. Bob Dole and tel­ev­an­gel­ist Pat Robertson, be­fore win­ning the nom­in­a­tion. In fact, only twice in the past 36 years has the Iowa win­ner gone on to head the GOP tick­et.

Be­cause of these res­ults, con­sult­ants, elec­ted of­fi­cials, and even voters who de­fend Iowa’s place in the pres­id­en­tial-nom­in­at­ing pro­cess use the word win­now­ing to de­scribe the state’s role.

“We take it ser­i­ously. I’d really hate to see it go away,” said Meg Cour­ter, a West Des Moines re­tir­ee. “It’s part of the win­now­ing pro­cess. We do this bet­ter than any­one else.”

In real­ity, though, any “win­now­ing” that hap­pens fol­low­ing a primary con­test oc­curs not be­cause can­did­ates do poorly in the vot­ing, but be­cause they run out of money. (Sen. John Mc­Cain, for ex­ample, fin­ished fifth in Iowa in 2000 after not really cam­paign­ing there. But after win­ning in New Hamp­shire later, he was able to raise enough money to stay in the race against George W. Bush through sev­er­al more primar­ies.)

And in that con­text, Iowa de­fend­ers have ar­gued over the years that the state’s voters get an hon­est sense of a can­did­ate away from the stage­craft and me­dia glare of a mod­ern cam­paign. And in get­ting the true meas­ure of a per­son, the ar­gu­ment goes, their as­sess­ment is more mean­ing­ful than those who only see can­did­ates at large ral­lies or on TV. Iow­ans’ judg­ment is to be trus­ted be­cause the can­did­ates come to big cit­ies and small towns and every­where in between and look caucus-go­ers in the eye as they ex­plain why they’re best suited for the job.

Yet if Trump man­ages to win Iowa any­way with large ral­lies and on TV—without hav­ing vis­ited voters’ liv­ing rooms, Amer­ic­an Le­gion halls, and oth­er small ven­ues—then why should Re­pub­lic­ans con­tin­ue to give Iowa any spe­cial re­gard? Or even per­mit it to al­ways go first, for that mat­ter?

The ques­tions are already troub­ling Iow­ans who care about the state’s spe­cial status.

“Trump is such an an­om­aly com­pared to what Iowa is used to,” said former Iowa GOP chair­man Matt Strawn. “If it’s a na­tion­al phe­nomen­on, it would be un­fair to point the fin­ger at Iowa.”

And that ap­pears to be the con­sensus re­sponse to the pos­sib­il­ity of a Trump win: that he rep­res­ents a con­flu­ence of na­tion­al celebrity, deep pock­ets, and brash­ness, un­likely to re­peat it­self any­time soon. Be­sides, if Iow­ans wind up giv­ing him a vic­tory, they have only done what any oth­er state would have done, ac­cord­ing to na­tion­al polling.

“There are way too many people who pay far too much at­ten­tion to real­ity TV,” Cour­ter said. “But would it be any dif­fer­ent any­where else?”

What We're Following See More »
McMaster Retiring This Summer
4 hours ago
After Saudi Visit, Massive Arms Sale Approved
6 hours ago
House Committee Calls Mark Zuckerberg To Testify
9 hours ago

"The House Energy and Commerce Committee will summon Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to testify, following recent revelations that Trump-linked Cambridge Analytica improperly obtained information on some 50 million Facebook users. 'We believe, as CEO of Facebook, he is the right witness to provide answers to the American people,'" said Reps. Greg Walden and Frank Pallone. On Wednesday, Zuckerberg told CNN that he was open to testifying. "The House panel said it plans to send a formal letter to Facebook in the days ahead."

Tillerson Receives Applause for Farewell Remarks
9 hours ago
House Passes Omnibus Spending Bill
9 hours ago

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.