Actually, the record of the Iowa Caucuses is pretty darned good

Kathie O'Bradovich of the Des Moines Register takes on the fiction that the Iowa Caucuses necessarily produce unelectable winners, and thus should be displaced as the first step in the nominating process.

It is true, as I myself have pointed out more than once, that both of Iowa's political parties tend to be somewhat more extreme than those in other states.  The nature of a caucus rather than a primary as the format for a presidential choice exacerbates the problem; participants tend to be the most politically active members of the body politic, who are generally found either on the extremes or within special interest groups, or both. It's the same phenomenon which results in such impressive showings by marginal candidates like Ron Paul in volunteer gatherings of party activists like the Republican Leadership Conference. Contrary to the wishful thinking of the extremist Paulistas, this triumph by an unelectable candidate whom the Republican party would never actually consider is a function, not of the candidate's support among voters or Republicans generally, but of the makeup of the group participating in the poll.
But the notion that Iowa produces losers is simply not borne out by history. People forget that Barack Obama became the Democratic front-runner last time out by winning in Iowa (true, Mike Huckabee was the Republican winner; the eventual nominee, John McCain, finished fourth). George W. Bush won the Iowa Caucuses in 2000 (and, of course, in 2004); Al Gore, the eventual nominee, was the 2000 Democratic winner. John Kerry, who ran a very competitive race in 2004, was the Democratic winner in Iowa that year. Bob Dole- hardly a fanatic- won the GOP caucuses in 1996; President Clinton was unopposed for the Democrats.  In 1992, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin ran as a favorite son on the Democratic side, while President George H.W. Bush was the Republican winner.

1988 was an aberration, with both eventual nominees- Vice-President Bush and Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis- finishing third (Dole and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt were the winners). But in 1984, the Democratic nominee (former Vice-President Walter Mondale) and President Reagan were both winners. The two eventual nominees- President Carter and Reagan- were the winners in 1980. 1976, of course, was the year Carter's strong showing on the Democratic side first put the caucuses on the map; he finished first among the candidates, though a slate of uncommitted delegates ran ahead of those committed to him  The Republican winner was the eventual nominee, President Gerald Ford.

1972 was another aberration, with Sen. Edmund Muskie, the 1968 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, defeating the eventual winner, Sen. George McGovern.

To sum up, then, the Democratic winner of the Iowa Caucuses has gone on to be the party's eventual nominee seven times in the last ten cycles, and the Republican winner has gone on to the nomination in six of the last nine. And despite all the complaints that Iowa produces unelectable winners, the fact is that only twice in the last ten presidential elections has anyone been elected president without winning the Iowa Caucuses first.

Criticism of the Iowa Caucuses will no doubt continue among those who are jealous of the state's influence on the presidential nominating process. And the fact is that marginal candidates do better here than they would in most places. But they rarely win. On the other hand, caucus winners go on to win their party's nomination at least twice as often as not, and 80% of the time the candidate who is eventually been elected has been the winner of his party's contest here in Iowa.

Off hand, I'd say reports of the demise of the Iowa Caucuses are much exaggerated. In fact, now that I actually look at the results they've produced over the years, I just may have to revise my previously-expressed opinion of them.

HT: The Beanwalker