Professor of Political Science and Director for the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University David Redlawsk will discuss his new book, "Why Iowa?: How Caucuses and Sequential Elections Improve the Presidential Nominating Process," today at 12 p.m. in Barnum Hall 008.
The Daily spoke with Redlawsk last week to discuss the role of the Iowa caucuses in American politics and the 2012 Republican presidential primaries. Kathryn Olson: In your book, "Why Iowa?", you claim that had the New Hampshire primary taken place before the Iowa caucuses in the 2008 election, [Secretary of State] Hilary Clinton may have won the election instead of [President] Barack Obama. Can you explain the importance of the Iowa caucuses in electing America's first black president? David Redlawsk: We opened the book with this counterfactual. Actually, if Iowa hadn't happened at all, the election would have been really different, and the reason for that is that Iowa gave Barack Obama an opportunity to a build strong grassroots organization. He used Iowa as a way to test this and you have to remember that in late 2006 and early 2007, Obama was well behind in the polls, but Clinton had a really strong advantage ... Had there been no Iowa, we speculate that Obama would not have been able to get the kind of traction he got because of the need to build grassroots operation in Iowa which served him well for the rest of the nomination and the general election campaign. KO: Is the importance of the Iowa caucuses a result of the ability of candidates to build this kind of momentum, or is it more a result of the media spectacle that surrounds it? DR: It's a bit of both. The most important point is that the Iowa caucuses come first in a sequential system. Over time, candidates can take key states, which sends information to later voters. The decisions made at an early stage have an effect on later voters. But it doesn't have an effect without media involvement. What we find in the research is that why Iowa really matters is because the media can shift to whatever candidate does better than expected. This was the case for Obama. Iowa created a sense that he had a real chance. It's about Iowa being first, about Iowa being a caucus and the media shift that results after failed or raised expectations. KO: Can you explain why the dynamics of a caucus differ from that of a primary? DR: In a caucus, you have to motivate voters to come out at a certain time and to spend two hours talking politics. It's harder to get them to do that, and it takes a lot more personal contact. Candidates have to be accessible in Iowa. They have to go to town halls, to people's houses, to diners. In later primaries, you can't do that. You really have to do most communication on television. Candidates can become sucked into a bubble. They're surrounded by people that agree with them and become disconnected with voters. Iowa forces them to go out and talk to voters. Candidates learn a lot about interacting with people. If all they did were television appearances, they would never interact with voters. KO: If candidates lose in Iowa, what disadvantages do they have to work against compared to the winners, and how can they recover from such a setback? DR: Iowa is characterized by a large pool of candidates going in and a small number coming out. The ones who really fail to get any attention drop out fairly quickly. For the most part, candidates who get no traction in Iowa have a difficult time recovering. It's also possible that you can barely win in Iowa, but the media hypes up the victory. For example, a 10 percent margin of victory isn't very good but if the media is able to talk about you, it can work to your advantage. But if you're in the bottom half, you're not going any further. KO: What are your expectations for this January's Iowa caucuses? DR: Right now, it's a really unclear environment. There's no question about that. This is a crazy year partly because Republican primary voters aren't quite sure what they want. [Mitt] Romney may not be able to close the deal with the conservative elements of his party. It seems sure that he will win in the New Hampshire primary, and if he doesn't win, he'll regroup. Because Republican voters in Iowa will be very split, it will be hard for the media to develop a clear narrative coming out of Iowa. As for [Herman] Cain, you've got a guy riding high who has no experience and who isn't running a traditional campaign. What this all means is that these next elections will witness the comings and going of many different Republican candidates.
