by Paul West
DES MOINES, Iowa--No advantage is too insignificant in the tight-as-a-tick Iowa caucus contest. But there's one key factor that's beyond the control of the presidential contenders.
Weather, which can influence turnout, is particularly crucial in Iowa. Unlike a primary, when voters have all day to make it to the polls, caucus participants must show up at 7 o'clock, Central time, next Thursday night to make their choice count.
The weather figures to be uppermost in the minds of campaign strategists, who are already tracking extended forecasts for any sign of a portent, good or ill. At the moment, the news seems to be good for Hillary Clinton...that is, unless it helps Barack Obama, instead.
"It isn't a situation where you vote all day long," Dave Roederer, a former Iowa Republican Party chairman, explaining the caucuses to a roomful of Iowans and several dozen national reporters at a rally for John McCain.
Roederer, a top official of McCain's campaign in the state, bemoaned the recent run of bad weather that had, he said, produced the sixth wettest December on record in the state. Snow and ice have repeatedly paralyzed the presidential campaign in both parties, forcing candidates to skip events and making travel difficult.
An ice storm or heavy snow on caucus night is the nightmare scenario for many campaigns. It could be particularly troublesome for Clinton, who is depending heavily on support from older women, many of whom have never been to a caucus before. Her campaign, and others, have elaborate plans for getting supporters to caucus sites, regardless of conditions, but a blizzard could create insurmountable difficulties.
For the moment, at least, that seems unlikely. The long-term forecast is hinting at a warmup in the middle of the week, with temperatures possibly rising into the high 30s, a virtual heat wave for an Iowa winter.
A thaw could prompt an even heavier than expected turnout than party officials are anticipating, at least on the Democratic side, where a record number of caucus-goers is a good bet. And that might benefit Obama, whose chances improve when voters who are less likely to venture out are included in polling calculations.
Republican turnout is projected to be low, a measure of the dispirited mood among the party's voters. But milder weather could help Huckabee, who is hoping for a big showing by evangelical voters. Many are new to the caucus process and could be looking for any excuse to stay home.
Huckabee himself is encouraging those who aren't supporting him to do just that.
"If you're not for me, I hope you don't go vote," he told a 1,000 people at a religious-themed rally in West Des Moines on Thursday night. "There's an Orange Bowl on! We might even buy you a movie ticket."
No word yet from the Rev. Pat Robertson, who has tried in the past to steer hurricanes through prayer. He's a supporter of Rudy Giuliani, who could be helped if Huckabee crushes Mitt Romney in Iowa.
Paul West is the Baltimore Sun's Washington bureau chief.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
The fact that Dems are excited and the Republicans are dismayed means that big gains are in order for 2008. The congress and Senate which is been held hostage to Senate fullibusters could be solved with ten red seats turning blue. To those who scoff at the concept just look at Iowa. Democrats are coming out in droves and Republicans are coming out in trickles. Go Dems in 2008, can you say Landslide?
Posted by: Jeff Langer | December 28, 2007 2:03 PM
I'd like to know when Iowa and New Hampshire became a bellwether of the rest of the nation.
There are many other states that are much more representative, yet these two states appear to have a huge impact on who the Presidential candidates will be.
Anyone know how many times in recent history that the candidates who won in those two states actually became the Presidential candidates for their respective parties?
Posted by: dogjudge | December 28, 2007 2:33 PM
dogjudge,
You're being lazy. All the information you ask about is easily to find on the net.
digdogjudgedig
Posted by: Doug Zook | December 28, 2007 4:26 PM
THE NIE SPEAKS - WE ARE NOT ONLY WATCHING FROM THE SKY, BUT FROM ROOM 641 IN THE CORNER OF THE WHITEHOUSE. YES, WE ARE EAVESDROPPING ON EVERY AMERICAN WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, I REPEAT WITHOUT A COURT ORDER ON THE SECOND TUESDAY IN JANUARY AND ON THE FIRST TUESDAY AFTER THE FIRST MONDAY IN NOVEMBER.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS.
NO DEMOCRATIC CONVERSATIONS WILL GO UNHEARD OR DATA MINED. SO IF YOU GET SPAM ON YOUR COMPUTER NO NEED TO FEAR, ITS A REGENTS GRAD LOOKING TO BECOME YOUR NEXT U.S. ATTORNEY LISTENING AND ATTEMPTING TO CAGE YOUR VOTE.
Posted by: Roger Morris | December 28, 2007 5:44 PM
The Republicans didn’t hold a caucus in 1972 since no candidate opposed incumbent Richard Nixon in the state that year. But since then Iowa and New Hampshire have had the same winner in only 4 elections and every time the winner was the incumbent President.
In the same period Iowa and New Hampshire supported the eventual Republican nominee in only 4 elections and again the winner was the incumbent every time.
In 1988 George H. W. Bush won New Hampshire, but came in 3rd in Iowa.
In the 9 Iowa Caucuses since the Iowa Caucuses were first held in 1972 Iowa and New Hampshire have had the same Democrat winner only 5 times and for 2 of these times the winner was the incumbent occupant of the White House.
In the same period Iowa and New Hampshire supported the eventual Democrat Nominee in only 4 elections and again in two elections this person was the incumbent occupant of the White House.
Bill Clinton did not win either Iowa or New Hampshire in 1992.
If history is any guide, Iowa doesn't matter.
Posted by: flaja | December 28, 2007 8:13 PM
hi
Posted by: Anonymous | December 28, 2007 8:52 PM
Well, Dogjudge, they're important because they're the first primary and caucus (the two forms of primaries, i believe), and Iowa state is like a giant network of typical suburbs connected by rural areas, so it has ended up being a fairly reliable forecast for the coming election. 75% of candidates to win Iowa since 1972 have gone on to become President.
Posted by: Zark Five | December 29, 2007 1:37 AM
NO more Clinton dynasty, McCain's Politics of Fear, Edward's Phony tactics and corrupted Health Industry.
ITS SICKENING.
Also its time to end 20 years of Clinton/Bush political
dynasty.
!!! ITS TIME FOR CHANGE !!!
Hillary Clinton Voted for War on Iraq.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
Hillary Clinton recently labelled Iran as a terrorist country.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
Hillary Clinton supported Bush on aid to Pakistan for wrong reasons.
Barack Obama opposed this and he was right.
BARACK OBAMA's JUDGEMENT TRIUMPHS OVER HILLARY's WRONG EXPERIENCE.
!!! VOTE FOR BARACK OBAMA !!!
Posted by: jkojs | December 30, 2007 8:08 PM
The dollar slid across the board on Friday as data showing a 9 percent decline in sales of new U.S. homes last month heightened concern about the economy, putting the greenback on track for its worst week in more than a year.
The housing report, which was weaker than economists had expected, also bolstered the case for more Federal Reserve interest rate cuts in 2008. Earlier this week, the S&P/Case-Shiller index showed a record decline in U.S. home prices in October.
This is what's happening to YOUR house. All the 'money' and 'equity' you thought you had saved - eliminated! The equity through falling house prices - and the money because we are DEBASING OUR CURRENCY. That low fed rate you're reading about gets created by printing money and lending it to people. With more money, the money YOU have is worth LESS. So your money is worth less and your property is worth less - where can you turn to keep ahead of inflation? I think you BETTER turn to Dr. Paul. He's the ONLY one running that has a HOPE of being able to deal with this.
Posted by: Louis Nardozi | December 31, 2007 3:17 AM
As Louis commented the inflation rates are rising. There are many factors that contribute to this, some preventable, some not. One major factor that would make the rate rise would be raising the national minimum wage. Don't get me wrong, the minimum wage needs to be raised, but only slightly. If the wage is raised too much it causes many problems, the most important being a significant rise in the inflation rate. Raising the minimum wage causes corporations to dish out more capital to its employees, and where does the capital come from? The price of the corporation's goods rise, therefore raising the national inflation rate.
Posted by: mr. moose | January 2, 2008 9:23 PM