The debate over whether the Iowa caucus should be the first test for presidential hopefuls is not new, as the issue bubbles up every election cycle. What has been a bit different this time around is that candidates who are seeking to win in Iowa are also willing to step up and say: Maybe something is wrong. In the past, this issue was danced around by editorial boards, party insiders, and voting rights advocates. To have presidential candidates themselves, including front runners, debate whether or not Iowa should be first signals a change in the calculation of how important the Iowa caucus is to these campaigns.
Since the 1970s, Iowa has been first. But since the 1970s, many things have changed. Once viewed as a state small enough for campaigns to start and grow in, the attention and tourism Iowa receives, as well as the airtime and candidate resources, dwarf the state’s comparative size in electoral votes. Do candidates spend this much money, generate this much tourism revenue, or buy this much airtime in, say, Mississippi or Tennessee? No.
The debate over Iowa being first has changed over the years and now presents Democratic leadership with new challenges. How does a state that is not representative of the Democratic base benefit from being first in the nation?
The answer is simple: It shouldn’t.