Remind me again--why does it matter who wins Iowa?

[dorkulon]

Seriously--if 3 candidates are a hair's breadth away from each other, why should the fact that one of them edged the others out affect anyone's feelings/decisions about voting/donating to any of them in the future?

Is this supposedly vital contest and its consequences just a media fabrication?

[Yael]

1. MSM attention which leads to donations

More people will pay attention to their message.

[dorkulon]

2. So it is a media fabrication. /nt

[Yael]

3. Not fabrication -- it is the only way to get the word out to the masses

in this day and age unless you want the candidates to go back to scratching out their platforms in the dirt with a stick and hoping people walk by.

[dorkulon]

9. Maybe I'm not being clear.

Let's say, for example, Edwards wins, and Obama takes 1% fewer votes than him. According to conventional wisdom, that's the end for Obama. I just fail to see why that would be. Shouldn't the results be seen as a pie chart rather than a winner-takes-all sort of thing? I mean, what do they really win, aside from the title of guy-who-won-Iowa?

[Yael]

15. It isn't winner take all

Not until the May in Iowa anyway.

It will be a 3-4 way race going into NH and likely 3 way going into SC.

Super Tuesday is likely when we will be down to a single candidate or 2 at the most.

[TwilightZone]

4. People like to vote for a winner. Iowa and NH put a name out there.

[mudesi]

5. Answer to your last question: YES

The media gives the winner "momentum", and all of a sudden, the sheep in the other states follow.

[Ravy]

6. Winning is good, beating expectations is the name of the game, though.

I believe you are right, if the three are a haris breadth away and the others are way back, it won't change a lot.

However, if one of them runs away with it, or if two are close and the third drops way down... or if a lower tier candidate comes up to join the top three, there will be lots of news coverage about why that happened. Of course, that may be mostly speculation.. but it can either rocket a candidacy or throw it into a tailspin.

[Nye Bevan]

7. Howard Dean was the strong front-runner in 2004

until Kerry unexpectedly won the Iowa caucuses with 38% of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2004

[dorkulon]

10. Yes, I know that.

What I'm asking is, why? Is it because Iowa really means anything, or because the media use Iowa as an excuse to ignore and push out candidates?

[iamjoy]

13. It's The Media And The Sheep

There are enough people dumb enough to believe that if a candidate is good enough for Iowa, he (or she) must be right for the nation. Of course, the media is pretty convincing in that.

At least, that's the way it was in 2004. It didn't used to be like that. However, given how compact our primary schedule has become, I see it being the same in 2008. We really shouldn't rush. The way I see it, the party that picks its nominee first is at a disadvantage as it allows the other party to concentrate all of their opposition research on the other party's nominee. Meanwhile, their candidates get lots of free media time (conveniently called debates and campaign activities) to attack the other party candidate.

PS - I know the nomination isn't official until the convention, but the convention is just a big pep rally. In modern times, the nomination has usually been an all but certain thing prior to the big convention.

[Penndems]

8. "Is this supposedly vital contest and its consequences just a media fabrication?"

Yes and no.

The Iowa Caucuses are the official start of the Presidential campaign season, so the coverage is going to be extensive. Then, there's the question of the winning candidates' abilities to hold on to their momentum throughout each succeding primary and caucus: Will they or won't they maintain the lead and the "big mo", as Bush 41 called it? It's an exciting, nerve-racking process.

The number of debates leading up to Iowa has been ridiculous. Why so many this early?

That's the real media overkill!

[gateley]

12. I'm grateful for all those debates. This is the first election I've paid close

attention to, and if I hadn't had the opportunity to see ALL the candidates, I would have had to make my decision from those who the media presented to me. Unfortunately, a lot of people haven't been paying attention for the very reason you cite -- the number of debates and it was "too early in the game" to worry about it (quoting some of my friends).

I'm glad I've been involved and have learned an incredible amount in a short time, and have been rewarded with being able to align with a candidate I truly feel passionate about.

[madrchsod]

11. it does`t

[jwirr]

14. To me it doesn't but to the MSM and to the people who like to follow

the leader it probably will.

[robcon]

16. If you don't know why it matters, why are you posing on a political board?

It affects momentum among voters in other states, it affects money-raising, and it affects enthusiasm, morale and recruitment of volunteers and paid workers for the various campaigns in other states. It's not "vital" since many nominees have lost Iowa before, but there is no doubt that winning Iowa is an important, positive step for a candidate.

Iowa doesn't "determine" the nominee at all, but if you don't know the reasons why the candidates expend so much time, effort and money there, I don't know how to begin your Politics 101 course.

[Little Star]

17. Momentum. I like the idea of caucusing where it forces

the candidates to speak to real people. However, I wish each state took a turn at being first to caucus. That is not to say,Iowa doesn't do a bang up job of grilling these candidates and I applaud them for this. They also really educate themselves and take their task seriously. Good on Iowa from Massachusetts!

[shadowknows69]

18. I wonder how much attention it will get if it isn't Obamillary

I'm sure the instant spin will be that Edwards won, yes, but........

[ThomWV]

19. Because its how we elect a President - delegates lead to nominees lead to Presidents

[paulk]

20. it's important because media fabrications

have a way of becoming the truth.