Editorial: Don’t look to Iowa as a barometer

Monday, Oct. 27, 2003 | 8:50 a.m.

Last week Democrats in Iowa were upset to learn that two of the party's top presidential candidates -- Sen. Joseph Lieberman and retired Gen. Wesley Clark -- will skip Iowa's caucus in January. The winner of the nation's first test for presidential hopefuls gets considerable media attention, ostensibly providing the victor with momentum heading into New Hampshire's primary a week later. But it's hard to blame Lieberman and Clark, who aren't faring well in Iowa polls, for their decision.

The reality for Lieberman and Clark is that because so many states are holding their presidential primaries or caucuses much earlier this election, it is impossible for a number of candidates to compete in all states given their limited financial resources. Lieberman, a political centrist, hopes he now will be able to spend more time in other states with early contests, such as Arizona, which has a larger bloc of moderate Democratic voters than can be found in Iowa. It's also refreshing to see a presidential candidate focusing on a state in the West. It's a region that often has different priorities than the Midwest or East -- and also gets overlooked by the national media.

It also needs to be said that the importance of Iowa is overblown by political pundits. The conventional wisdom that Iowa is a barometer of success in presidential politics can be tied to Jimmy Carter's victory there in 1976, which gave the little-known Georgia governor a huge boost. But, until George W. Bush won the Republican nomination in Iowa in 2000, Iowa hasn't been a reliable weather vane in presidential politics. Ronald Reagan managed to win two terms even though he lost in Iowa in 1980. George H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan despite losing there in 1988. Bill Clinton, who served two terms in the White House, didn't win in Iowa in 1992. Even New Hampshire, which has the nation's first primary, has lost its cachet: Bush lost there in 2000 as did Clinton in 1992.

It would be healthier for our representative democracy to have the candidates -- and the media -- focus on other states. Right now an inordinate amount of attention is given to Iowa and New Hampshire. In the past, Nevada has been left out completely because our caucus has been so late in the process that the nominations had essentially been decided before we could vote. In light of the diminishing relevance of Iowa and New Hampshire, coupled with the front-loading of the primaries and caucuses, it's time that both national political parties overhaul how we nominate presidential candidates. A national group, made up of state election officials, has recommended that states take turns in holding their primaries. Some observers have suggested allowing Iowa and New Hampshire to still go first, even if there is a reshuffling of when states conduct their primarie s, but it's time for those two states to take their turn standing in the back of the line just like the rest of us have.