Sure, but you left out Hillary in 2016 and Obama in 2008, and the 2020 result was too ambiguous and overshadowed by the disastrous result-gathering process that year to give either candidate the typical post-Iowa boost. I'll admit it doesn't seem to matter that much on the GOP side, but I do think Trump's second-place finish there in 2016 did a lot to legitimize him as a candidate in the eyes of later GOP primary voters that year.
More important is the fact that the political class views Iowa as a crucial state, which gives Iowans far greater pull on policy than many other states. (Remember ethanol?)
Sure, but you left out Hillary in 2016 and Obama in 2008
Points to Iowa for not nominating John Edwards, I guess. But both Hillary and Obama were the front-runners nationally long before the Iowa caucuses were decided.
the 2020 result was too ambiguous and overshadowed by the disastrous result-gathering process
Nothing was ambiguous about how badly Biden performed.
More important is the fact that the political class views Iowa as a crucial state
Iowa is important in so far as it demonstrates whether you have any meaningful base of support. I agree that sequential state voting is dumb and the caucus model is dumb and generally speaking Presidential politics is a fucking farce. But asking the basic question of whether you can do the physical act of politicking in a relatively small state is very meaningful. Kamala Harris basically failed to show up in Iowa and it illustrated her overall weakness as a national candidate. Michael Bloomberg skipped the state entirely, only to place a meager 4th in his states of primary focus.
There's a lot of bullshit that goes on in Iowa, but one thing that isn't bullshit is proving you have the simple ability to organize a large group of people to show up in a single location and say "I want that guy to be my President".
Sure, but you left out Hillary in 2016 and Obama in 2008, and the 2020 result was too ambiguous and overshadowed by the disastrous result-gathering process that year to give either candidate the typical post-Iowa boost. I'll admit it doesn't seem to matter that much on the GOP side, but I do think Trump's second-place finish there in 2016 did a lot to legitimize him as a candidate in the eyes of later GOP primary voters that year.
More important is the fact that the political class views Iowa as a crucial state, which gives Iowans far greater pull on policy than many other states. (Remember ethanol?)
Points to Iowa for not nominating John Edwards, I guess. But both Hillary and Obama were the front-runners nationally long before the Iowa caucuses were decided.
Nothing was ambiguous about how badly Biden performed.
Iowa is important in so far as it demonstrates whether you have any meaningful base of support. I agree that sequential state voting is dumb and the caucus model is dumb and generally speaking Presidential politics is a fucking farce. But asking the basic question of whether you can do the physical act of politicking in a relatively small state is very meaningful. Kamala Harris basically failed to show up in Iowa and it illustrated her overall weakness as a national candidate. Michael Bloomberg skipped the state entirely, only to place a meager 4th in his states of primary focus.
There's a lot of bullshit that goes on in Iowa, but one thing that isn't bullshit is proving you have the simple ability to organize a large group of people to show up in a single location and say "I want that guy to be my President".