The Iowa caucuses are an event widely considered a barometer to determine the pretenders and contenders of the presidential election. Republicans have been looking forward to it since Jan. 21, 2021 – the day after President Joe Biden began his term. It is regularly touted as the first step in “hiring” the president. History tells a different story, however. Analysis of the results of past caucuses suggests it has been given a political prominence that it probably doesn’t deserve.
Do the Iowa caucuses represent any significant political importance, or are they just a relic from the GOP presidential campaigns of yesteryear? Given how much attention it garnered in recent months and the importance many pundits placed on it, the results might surprise you.
Donald Trump dominated the 2024 Iowa caucuses. And, barring some unforeseen circumstances, Trump will most likely be the 2024 Republican nominee for president. However, does that really mean anything as far as electoral success? Well, not really. History has shown that winning the Iowa caucuses typically does not translate into winning the party’s nomination or general election.
Since the first Iowa caucuses in 1976, not counting the years in which a Republican was the incumbent, the candidate who won the Republican caucuses has gone on to be the eventual nominee in presidential elections only twice: Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. Moreover, the winner of the Republican Iowa caucuses has gone on to win the presidential election only once in 2000. Furthermore, the winner of the Republican Iowa caucuses has never won the popular vote in the presidential election.
Consider the results of the Iowa caucuses in recent years (in which the Republicans did not control the White House). Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) won in 2016, finished with 551 delegates, and won only 11 state primary contests. Conversely, the eventual nominee, Donald Trump, won 41 contests and wound up with 1441 delegates. And, as everyone knows, Trump would go on to win the 2016 presidential election.
In 2012, former Sen. Rick Santorum won the Iowa caucuses, defeating the eventual nominee, Mitt Romney. Santorum fared even worse than Ted Cruz in 2016, obtaining only 245 delegates and winning six contests. In 2008, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won Iowa. He won only eight contests and ultimately finished in third place, behind the eventual nominee, John McCain.
Comparatively, Democrats have fared only slightly better. Since 1976 (using Jimmy Carter as the winner of the 1976 caucuses even though he technically finished second behind “uncommitted”), not counting when Democrats controlled the White House, only five winners of the Iowa caucuses became Democratic nominees. Of those five, only Barack Obama in 2008 won the presidential election.
Also, consider the results of the 2020 Democratic caucuses. That year, Pete Buttigieg won Iowa, and then-candidate and (eventual president) Joe Biden finished fourth. Buttigieg finished fifth place in 2020, winning only two contests and receiving 26 delegates. Other than propelling him to a Cabinet position that he arguably wasn’t qualified for, the results in Iowa meant nothing.
Yet, in every presidential election, the hype surrounding the Iowa caucuses repeats itself. Politicians visit Iowa, the media scrutinize the candidates in the caucuses, and donors spend millions of dollars on candidates with little chance of being the presidential nominee or winning the presidential election. It raises the question: Why?
Objectively, the Iowa caucuses are a political tradition that, while interesting and exciting, has little relevance to the actual election. It is little more than a necessary evil. There is little reason for the Iowa caucuses to garner the attention it does. As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
It would not be an exaggeration to say the Iowa caucuses are a futile political relic. This might run counter to contemporary traditions of presidential elections. However, the truth is often a hard pill to swallow. The only important thing that seems to come from the Iowa caucuses is determining who usually will not win the party nomination or general election. And all the analyzing, scheming, and fussing for a candidate likely to finish second, third, or fourth place in the general election is silly and, quite frankly, kind of a waste of time.
Historically, winning the Iowa caucus has shown to mean little in terms of election success. This is especially true for Republicans. It might be time to move on from continuing to hype up an event that has little impact on the actual presidential election.
