(C) Iowa Capital Dispatch
This story was originally published by Iowa Capital Dispatch and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Iowa, New Hampshire stand tall as first-in-the-nation presidential contests [1]

['Dave Nagle', 'More From Author', 'February']

Date: 2024-02-02

Iowa and New Hampshire again demonstrated why they should be first in the nation in holding presidential nominating processes.

To be sure, by all appearances, this will be one of the shortest selection periods for both parties in choosing their nominee for the highest office in the land. But while brief, both states proved their merit.

The major factors that a selection process should provide were present. It is essential that the state does not lie at the feet of one or two powerful individuals who essentially can dictate the chosen one before the process even starts. This proved true in Hawkeye land when our own governor, Kim Reynolds, turned her support and organization over to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. For maybe the first time in her seven-year career as our highest elected official, her followers rendered a rather loud, “No.”

The same happened with New Hampshire governor’s endorsement of candidate Nikki Haley. Early states must be open to all, and both states were. (A side development of this is that we won’t have to learn to say, “Vice President Kim Reynolds.”)

You want a state, as both were, where money is not the deciding factor. While all contenders spent way too much, I cannot remember any ad that was defining in determining their place at the finish line. You want processes of selection where capability outweighs a financial advantage. In both states, as the candidates’ chances improved, so did the money supporting them.

Further, the strong negative ads that, most unfortunately, dominated the closing days of the race, were offset by the fact that the candidates were seen up close and very personal throughout the campaign. If early campaigns were run in large states and dominated by media advertising and stops at airport tarmacs, the only places a voter could see a person who wants to president would be on T.V. The greater the population of a state, the more likely large donors will determine the outcome.

Speaking of ads, thank the good Lord for Jan. 15. I fully expected one candidate to discover that an opponent owned a dog, which would be followed by a broadside claim that the owner drowned their dog’s puppies, followed by a denial asserting in fact that they’d owned a cat, followed by a claim that the first even drowned little kittens. All this would be finalized by another claiming they didn’t even like dogs or cats and didn’t own either.

Fortunately, New Hampshire appeared on the horizon, the field was narrowed, and the debate went on to if the Civil War could have been averted if Donald Trump had been president.

Which brings us to another aspect of the two states: Voters talk to each other. They discuss matters at the diners after the candidates leave, even on caucus night as they gather in their precincts. I remember Matt Paul, the esteemed political consultant and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Iowa campaign director, discuss with a national correspondent why some Iowans were still undecided on caucus night. Matt pointed out that they were waiting for any last-minute developments. He could have added that discussions like those on Jan. 15 were happening in precincts all over: voters listening to each other to try to reach a consensus on who should be the party nominee.

Trump did, however, change one feature of our caucus process. Through the years, I have often been quoted saying that the key to winning Iowa was Nagle’s Three Rules: Rule 1 – Organize. Rule 2 – Organize. Rule 3 – Get hot at the end. Trump came in hot, stayed hot, finished hot and while doing that, organized.

Haley ran the more traditional campaign, got momentum at the end and almost caught No. 2, DeSantis, and then was propelled to a strong finish in New Hampshire.

Iowa Republicans deserve statewide credit. They kept Iowa and rural America in the national spotlight, as did New Hampshire for New England.

But here is the final observation worthy of note: No candidate, when they withdrew from the campaign, complained that they were not treated fairly and given a real chance to fulfill their dream of becoming president. That, my friends, when you review the history of the two states, is very hard to accomplish.

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2024/02/02/iowa-new-hampshire-stand-tall-as-first-in-the-nation-presidential-contests/

Published and (C) by Iowa Capital Dispatch
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-ND-NC 4.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/iowacapitaldispatch/