Iowa’s Presidential caucuses, fast-approaching this coming Monday, typically play a large role in shaping the rest of the nomination process, beginning with the nation’s first primary eight days later in New Hampshire. But there are several reasons to suspect that the Hawkeye State’s outsized influence might be blunted in 2020.
A well-trod political adage says that there are three tickets out of Iowa: that is, in any competitive presidential nomination cycle, only three candidates emerge from the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses with their hopes intact.
In practice, it’s something closer to three stories out of Iowa. Those stories are determined and shaped by expectations as much as results. A third-place finisher might be a “comeback kid,” a “surprise contender,” or a “fallen frontrunner,” depending on where the conventional wisdom stood the day before.
In 2004, for example, the three stories leading coverage and conversation were Senator John Kerry’s come-from-behind victory; the collapse of early Iowa favorite Congressman Dick Gephardt; and the odd-sounding “scream” emitted by Governor Howard Dean after his disappointing third-place finish.
That left little attention for the remarkable second-place showing of Senator John Edwards. Though he had clearly obtained one of the “three tickets,” Edwards finished a disappointing fourth in New Hampshire—he had failed to gain the momentum, attention, and resources he needed.
By contrast, Dean’s poll numbers in New Hampshire quickly plummeted, but then—in a not unusual reaction of New Hampshire voters against excessive negative media coverage—rebounded in time to give him a strong second-place finish in the Granite State.
This year, four candidates have led Iowa polling averages in the past four months: Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Joe Biden, and now Bernie Sanders. Several others, led by Amy Klobuchar, are struggling for a needed breakout. Whoever finishes first out of that scrum will be one story. Whichever of the top four most under-performs will probably be another. The third will likely be either one strong finisher from the rest of the pack—if Klobuchar finishes in the top three, for instance—or the second-place finisher.
But, here are some reasons why those stories might not matter as much going forward, or might matter in different ways than usual.
Impeachment distraction. It’s true that impeachment has not been a big issue on the campaign trail. But it’s a big distraction in the media.
President Donald Trump reportedly wants the Senate to vote, against removing him, before his State of the Union address the night of Tuesday, February 4th, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to have that timing in mind.
That would mean a Senate vote either the day of or the day after that Monday’s caucuses. Either way, the historic event will require heavy media coverage, even if the outcome is not in doubt, taking away from the coverage and attention on the Iowa results.
Perhaps an even bigger distraction, however, could come if the Senate decides to hear from witnesses—a path that became much more likely with this past weekend’s revelations about the contents of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s upcoming book.
The vote on witnesses is expected by the end of this week—and if there are enough votes in favor of calling Bolton, it’s likely he won’t be the only one. We could suddenly, on the eve of the caucuses, be in the middle of a media circus of testimony and court arguments that would swallow up much or all of the week leading to the New Hampshire primary.
New reporting of results. The selection, and amplification, of the top stories out of Iowa depends on clear, unambiguous results—or at least something the media can pretend is clear and unambiguous. “Hillary Clinton finishes third, campaign in peril” was a great storyline in 2008 (and resulted in a New Hampshire backlash similar to Dean’s four years earlier); whether that really reflected how voters felt in the complex caucus dynamics, let alone the actual delegate count, could be sorted out later.
This year, for the first time, the Iowa Democratic Party will report on caucus night the initial tallies of voter preference at each caucus around the state, in addition to the tally after the final rounds of determining “viability” and re-voting, as well as the delegate allotments.
That might not prove to make much difference—but it could significantly muddle those story lines.
For one thing, knowing that those first-round votes will be reported might encourage supporters of lower-polling candidates to line up for them initially, and then switch to one of the top candidates when their first choice fails to achieve the 15 percent viability measure.
In 2008, for example, polling suggests that perhaps 15 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers supported someone other than Obama, Clinton, or Edwards in the first round. But, the official results showed them accounting for just three percent of the vote.
With so many candidates splitting a decent share of the vote this time, it’s likely that even strong candidates such as Klobuchar, Warren, Buttigieg, and even Biden or Sanders will fail to reach 15 percent in some local caucuses, affecting their totals. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which Klobuchar finishes third in the initial vote but fifth in the final one. Or, results that show one candidate winning the first vote, and another winning the final one.
Campaigns always try to spin victory out of defeat anyway; this year, many more might have ammunition to do so. Also, lower-tier candidates such as Andrew Yang and Tom Steyer, might have good enough first-round numbers to go forward unperturbed, while the final tally shows them with a one- or two-percent embarrassment that might have ended a campaign in previous cycles.
Money isn’t a problem for some. What ultimately drives candidates out of a Presidential nominating contest is a lack of resources to keep competing. Early success demonstrates viability, prompting big donors to see a worthwhile investment, which provides the funding for the next round of contests. Even if cash-poor candidates stay in the race, their inability to run ads or maintain staff levels usually dooms them.
Self-funding billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg are not subject to such dynamics. Neither seems likely to drop out or reduce their massive spending if they do poorly in Iowa—Bloomberg isn’t even competing there, and Steyer has been concentrating more on Nevada and South Carolina, which vote later in the month and where he has been polling better.
Sanders, whose national legions of small-dollar donors power one of the most potent fundraising operations in politics, will almost certainly maintain a full-scale campaign regardless of how he fares in Iowa. The same might also be true for Andrew Yang.
Others, including Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar, could be helped by the avenues available for wealthy supporters, via Super PACs and other means, to keep moving forward despite a stumble in Iowa. In fact, there is reason to think that one or more of those candidates could get a big influx of funding if they do poorly. That is, big money could come off the sidelines to help those more moderate candidates, if the Iowa results make a Sanders or Warren nomination look more likely.
The Iowa myth might be dying. The arguments against taking the Iowa results so seriously have been around for a long time. But this time, they might actually blunt the impact of those results.
Most notably in that regard, Biden might stumble out of Iowa with few delegates and little money—but the support of half of all African-America Democrats in the country. Maybe that black support will fade quickly if an Iowa loss shakes the inevitability glow from Biden’s campaign; that’s what we would normally expect. But this year, Biden’s supporters might shrug off Iowa as a nearly all-white anomaly, and Biden will maintain his frontrunner status nationally.
Warren’s campaign, meanwhile, is emphasizing that it has been built for a long haul, with staff and support in states through Super Tuesday on March 3rd. Plus, there might well be a rallying around her if, post-Iowa, it seems possible that the last women in the field might drop out.
Similarly, voters elsewhere might be less inclined to flock toward those who do well in Iowa. Although neither Buttigieg or Klobuchar are looked at as holding “native son” advantages, the way Tom Harkin and Gephardt were, both are Midwesterners who haven’t yet proven their ability to draw voters elsewhere. Either one might find that an Iowa boost leaves them with a lot still to prove in subsequent contests.
Polling suggests that Democrats all over the country—including Iowa, just a week away from voting, don’t feel confident about their preference for a nominee. Large percentages, even of those who have a choice, say that they could easily change their minds.
That could be a recipe for the Iowa caucuses to have their usual big effect, guiding those uncertain voters to two or three candidates.
Or, it might mean that Democrats are still a long way from making up their minds—regardless of what Iowa has to say next Monday.
