Posted on 01/29/2016 7:25:06 AM PST by Kaslin
First, kill the Iowa caucuses.
Please note: I didn't say, "Kill the Iowans." I like Iowans and I like Iowa.
But we need to get Iowa's boot off our neck.
That may be misunderstood, as well. You see, we're not under the heel of all Iowans. If we were, that'd actually be better because that would mean lots of Iowans turned out to vote.
But most don't. As Jeff Greenfield recently noted in Politico, rumors of Iowa's commitment to democratic engagement are wildly overstated. In 2008, a record-shattering 350,000 caucus-goers caucus-went. All the buzz was about the precedent-shattering turnout for the Democratic longshot, Sen. Barack Obama. He got first-time and young voters to come out in droves. "This is what democracy looks like!" was the spirit of the moment.
Greenfield quotes a study from the Kennedy School of Government: "In percentage terms, Iowa's turnout was hardly earthshaking -- only 1 in 6 of the eligible adults participated. The Democratic winner, Barack Obama, received the votes of just 4 percent of Iowa's eligible voters. Mike Huckabee, the Republican victor, attracted the support of a mere 2 percent of Iowa adults."
The turnout in New Hampshire: More than 1 in 2 (51.9 percent).
Such appallingly low turnout in Iowa underscores the real problem with the caucuses. They've been hijacked by party activists -- on both sides.
It's a lot like school board elections in many cities. Teachers unions do not like high turnout because they know they can control the results if they are the only ones who show up on Election Day.
That's not true this year, of course, because high turnout is required to beat Sen. Ted Cruz, who has publicly opposed federal subsidies for ethanol.
We'll come back to Cruz in a moment. But first, ethanol. Nearly half of all the corn in Iowa goes into ethanol production, because Washington says we all have to put it in our gas tanks, and Iowa is the Saudi Arabia of corn.
Almost no one else benefits from ethanol. It's not good for our cars' mileage or longevity. It's not good for the environment (many environmental groups oppose the mandate). It's not good for food prices (every ear of corn you put in your gas tank is one more you can't feed to a child or to livestock).
It's not even particularly useful in the fight against global warming. One study, by Princeton professor Tim Searchinger, published in Science magazine, found that over a 30-year span, ethanol ends up contributing twice as much carbon dioxide to the air as the same amount of gasoline would.
The stuff is government moonshine, and like moonshine in the 19th century, it's sold as snake oil for what ails ya.
Ted Cruz recognizes this and had the temerity to say so in Iowa. He's more diplomatic than I am, but he's basically stuck to his principle that government shouldn't be subsidizing an industry that wouldn't survive in the free market and that is propped up by the grasping political class in Iowa.
The graspers took note, and there's a short distance between a grasp and a fist. Terry Branstad, Iowa's Republican governor-for-life, broke the custom of neutrality and singled out Cruz. Branstad said Cruz "hasn't supported renewable fuels and I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him."
Whatever you think of Cruz, it would be a shame for Branstad's gambit to be perceived as successful, because it all but guarantees that no presidential candidate, running in Iowa, will ever oppose the mandate again. Ironically, Donald Trump, who has pandered to Big Corn even more than most of his competitors, needs a record-breaking turnout to put Cruz away in Iowa.
But the ethanol subsidy isn't the reason we should get rid of the caucuses, it's an illustration of the problem. We've created a monster. It hasn't always picked the winner, but they all bent the knee to an un-representative cabal of consultants, politicians and plutocrats. In effect, the Iowa caucuses are a subsidy for the Iowa political establishment. Get rid of that subsidy, and maybe some others will go with it.
Never understood why some other state(s) with a real primary don’t just move up to before the Iowa caucuses and put and end to this lunacy.
Having only voters who are interested enough to get off of their butts and go to a local caucus to vote is a very good thing. It also makes it difficult for illegal aliens to cast multiple votes. I wish that all states would adopt the caucus system.
The Iowa caucuses are for conducting party business. How are party officers and platform planks determined in other states?
The presidential preference vote was added in the ‘70s to add a little interest. Until this year, the results didn’t mean anything and were conducted mostly informally.
Goldberg’s willingness to interfere with neighborhood meetings in Iowa smacks of totalitarianism.
It’s not Iowa’s fault that the MSM and political junkies go full retard over neighborhood meetings.
As an Iowan you have an excellent point which I respect.
In IL we have caucuses just for the party business aspects.
But I have to say, it’s a great economic development tool for Iowa to draw all these people and media into the state every four years!
It’s not Iowa’s fault that the MSM and political junkies go full retard over neighborhood meetings.
No. Not true at all.
Iowa politicians - and their national fellows in Washington and most especially the DC press corpse - staked their “claim” and ALL of their power on the “first of the nation” caucus ever since the combination of the three (liberal farm voters with Washington-favored habits, Washington press pundits who HAVE TO SELL their own power and influence, and Washington consultant industry and party “leaders”) found they can drive the first elections towards Washington-favored outcomes.
Iowa now drives their claim to be first through the national parties in DC to maintain the national party favorites. And national party favorite positions and policies. It is now a very, very deliberate choice BY Iowa to maintain Iowa power early in the process - and thus in the nation.
All primaries are subsidies to the political parties.
Why should any state spend public funds to help political parties choose their candidates?
There should be a separation between political activity and government business.
Iowa is “first” by historical accident and remains that way because there’s no agreement on replacing it.
Now that the Iowa GOP has dropped the caucus format for a primary vote followed by the caucuses, I expect Iowa will lose its default hold on “first”. There’s no real reason not to rotate it around, just because of the money involved.
The caucuses will probably bring in $50 million or more this cycle. Another reason to rotate the first status at least a bit.
The New Hampshire/Iowa thing was originally a way to humble candidates by making them trudge around Nowheresvilles in bad weather. Not so true today with transport and communication what they are.
It’s not just the Iowa political establishment that benefits. Even lowly researchers such as yours truly get paid by more than one campaign for certain kinds of historical and demographic information.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.