Politicians and media alike flock to Iowa every four years to cover the first in the nation caucuses, but we might want to start asking ourselves if that is the wisest decision considering the winner of the Iowa caucuses usually doesn't win the nomination of their respective party. In fact, it almost seems like the kiss of death for a candidate of either political party.
Only two Democrats (who went unopposed) that won the Iowa caucus since 1972 have gone on to win the Presidency. Their names are Bill Clinton and President Obama. And only two Republicans (who went unopposed) that won the Iowa caucus since 1972 have gone on to win the Presidency. Their names are Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
So while there will a lot of hoopla over who wins the 2016 Iowa caucuses, I encourage everyone to remind themselves that a lot more American citizens will get to have their say before the eventual nominee of either party will earn enough delegates to secure the parties nomination.
This is a great point. I am in my mid thirties and I've always wondered why a state like California, New York, Texas, or Florida doesn't have their say first. I get why smaller states should get to have their say in the nomination process, but they shouldn't have a bigger say than the states where the vast majority of Americans live.
Max Wrote: I agree with some of your argument, but it's hard to overlook the fact that Iowa picked four of the last five Presidents we've had. I know that's a short history, but it's still something to think about.