Iowa and Beyond

The 2008 Iowa Caucus, held on January 3, surprised many when Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won Iowa's endorsement in the Democratic and Republican nomination fight, respectively, beating out predicted front-runners Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney. So what does this mean for the upcoming election? This question is particularly salient, considering that the January 8th New Hampshire primary yielded nominations for neither of the Iowa winners; they went to Senators Clinton and John McCain.

Christopher C. Hull, author of Grassroots Rules: How the Iowa Caucus Helps Elect American Presidents, has been making the rounds in the press the past few weeks, offering his expertise on this extremely topical issue in Newsday, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Huffington Post, among others. Hull emphasizes the influence of grassroots activist-heavy Iowa, a state replete with voters who throw their support to steadfast candidates and discourage the use of mudslinging campaigns and television ad attacks.  According to Hull, the Iowa caucus helps shape which candidates will sweep the New Hampshire primary, the first official stop in determining the presidential nominees. David Glenn points out in Chronicle of Higher Ed that the Hawkeye state has the ability to make or break a candidate as they head to the primaries, just as it did for Jimmy Carter and Howard Dean.

But what are the possible explanations for the discrepancy between the Iowa and New Hampshire results? In Glenn’s Chronicle interview with Hull on January 2, the Grassroots author discusses the unusual circumstances of this year’s caucus: “This is by far the most compressed schedule we’ve had. I tend to agree with those who say that compression is dangerous. It becomes harder to vet candidates. As we cavort toward having what is effectively a national primary, I’m worried. I think we could see something strange happen this time, especially on the Republican side.”