Iowa implications

From an objective perspective, the results of the Iowa caucuses may tell us very little about the Democratic and Republican presidential nomination campaigns.  After all, because of its sparse population (less than one percent of the nation's total), Iowa is allocated very few of the delegates needed to secure either party's nomination and the preferences of its largely homogenous population may prove to be atypical of the electorate in general.  Unfortunately, like many things in life, political outcomes tend to be interpreted through a subjective lens.  Thus, the results of the first in the nation caucus will go a long way in shaping the media's narrative for both the Democratic and Republican campaigns.  How this narrative is presented will have significant implications for what occurs in Nevada on January 19th.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama's clear and decisive victory validated his candidacy and indicates that he is anything but a flash in the pan.  More importantly, if Obama is able to implement the impressive ground game that he demonstrated in Iowa in Nevada this will provide a major challenge to Hillary Clinton's perceived lock on the Silver State.  To this end, Obama recently announced the opening of additional field offices in the state and his first place showing in Iowa should further energize his already impressive army of campaign workers in Nevada.

Although not unexpected (Bill Clinton only got three percent in Iowa in 1992), the fall-out from Hillary Clinton's third place showing has at least three significant implications.  First, the Hillary as the inevitable winner strategy that the Clinton campaign has championed throughout the summer and fall proved to be a dud when it mattered most.  Thus, Clinton will need to switch gears and adapt her strategy to the changing landscape that now finds her playing catch-up.  My guess is that this can be best accomplished by forcing Obama to articulate specifics that go beyond the generic Obama as the agent of change theme that he relied on heavily in Iowa.  Second, the pressure on Hillary Clinton to win next week's New Hampshire primary increases dramatically.  Indeed, because of the high expectations that have accompanied her campaign, anything less than a victory in New Hampshire will be viewed through the media's filter as a loss.  Third, regardless of what occurs in New Hampshire, Nevada may well become Clinton's firewall, which should serve to further put Nevada in the national spotlight after New Hampshire. 

John Edwards, Iowa's second place finisher on the Democratic side, did what he needed to do to sustain his campaign for the time being.  Edwards bet heavily on Iowa, where he pulled-out a surprising second place finish in 2004, by choosing to transfer assets from Nevada and other early states to the Midwest.  Now the challenge for Edwards will be to hold his campaign together through New Hampshire and hope that in the next two weeks that he can put together the semblance of a get out the vote organization in Nevada if he hopes to be relevant on February 5th. 

More broadly, the changed political landscape on the Democratic side is likely to be affected by two additional considerations.  First, by the time the process moves to Nevada the field of candidates is likely to be reduced by at least two or three.  This, of course, means that voters in Nevada, as well as in subsequent contests, will have fewer choices and the supporters of the exiting candidates will now become free agents ripe for the pickings of the surviving candidates.  Although not large in number, in close states, these voters could prove to be the difference and if they are predisposed against Hillary Clinton, this could spell further trouble for her campaign.

Second, in most nomination campaigns when the perceived front-runner stumbles (such as with George Bush in New Hampshire in 2000), the consequences are ephemeral because these candidates typically are the only candidates who have the resources to sustain their campaigns through the rough patches.  Unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama not only has momentum, but also the resources to go the distance.  Moreover, Obama has created the largest donor pool among all candidates and in comparison to Clinton, many of his donors have not given to the maximum limits.  Thus, Obama will be able to return again to the same donors who have fueled his campaign to date, while Clinton will need to search out new givers if she is going to keep pace with Obama after February 5th.

Gleaning meaning from Iowa on the Republican side is more difficult because many in the field, most notably Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, did not contest the caucuses and the Iowa Republican caucuses are more-or-less dominated by a single interest, evangelical Christians.  At the very least, the results of Iowa indicate that Mitt Romney is in trouble.  Despite spending millions in Iowa and banking on an early win, Romney was clobbered by the upstart campaign of Mike Huckabee.  Like Clinton on the Democratic side, the pressure on Romney to win in New Hampshire increases significantly; a task made more difficult by the resurgent John McCain who is seeking a repeat of his 2000 New Hampshire performance.  If Romney fails to fulfill expectations in New Hampshire, Nevada may prove to be his last stand and the increased attention (relative to the other GOP contenders) that he has given to the state may be the tonic needed to maintain Romney's viability into February. 

More generally, Obama and Huckabee's strong results in Iowa where fueled by similar dynamics.  Both candidates sought to emphasize positive politics, articulated populist economic rhetoric, railed against the influence of entrenched interests, and sought to advance policy platforms that cut across traditional ideological distinctions.  As such, this suggests that the anger of the electorate towards politics as usual that led to the rebuke against the GOP in the 2006 midterm elections is still very much alive.  Indeed, from my perspective, the most interesting consequence of what occurred in Iowa is that during a period in history where the United States faces unprecedented economic, social, and foreign policy challenges, voters in Iowa offered their support for candidates with little or no foreign policy knowledge, limited national political experience, and who are the youngest candidates in their respective fields.  If this is not a wake-up call for politicians at all levels of government to move beyond partisan ranker and knee-jerk ideological reactions and get the people's business done, I do not know what is.