| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
Could the Iowa court decision mark the end of the Iowa caucus?
Chris Cillizza has argued that the Iowa Supreme Court decision that established gay marriage might disadvantage moderate candidates in the 2012 GOP primary. Cillizza notes that Heartland Iowa, a lefty Iowa blog, lays out a timeframe that would include a November 2011 ballot initiative that Nate Silver seems to think would be close, but the pro-traditional-marriage forces would prevail. (I have to say, I wonder what the presence of married gay couples does to his model)
UPDATE: This even happening would require getting it on the ballot, which would require the cooperation of the Democratic legislature. I kinda doubt that'll happen, don't you?
Anyways, back to Cillizza:
Assuming that time line is right, the fight over the constitutionality of banning same sex marriages would fall right in the heart of the run-up to the 2012 presidential caucus.
And, with the Republican caucus typically dominated by social conservatives, you can imagine the long-term impact today's ruling could have on the presidential jockeying.
At first glance, the decision should help candidates -- like former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who won the Iowa caucuses in 2008, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who are closely aligned with the social conservative wing of the Republican party.
He then argues that this could really hurt Jon Huntsman:
One person who could potentially be hurt by today's ruling is Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) who has staked out a moderate position on the issue -- expressing his support for civil unions earlier this year despite the fact that large numbers of Utah voters oppose the idea. "I'm a firm believer in the traditional construct of marriage, a man and a woman," the governor told the Deseret News. "But I also think that we can go a greater distance in enhancing equal rights for others in nontraditional relationships."
Let me offer another thought. This could lead to a further minimization of the Iowa Caucus. My understanding is that Mitt Romney, who must be considered the front-runner, is already trying to figure out how to avoid Iowa or somehow reshuffle the deck. A number of candidates could reasonably try to skip it.
Iowa Republican Party politics will be very, very interesting over the next couple of years. I expect this to be ask much solved by the rules guys and party officials as by actual voters. But that's really the point of caucuses, isn't it?


Comments
The anti-gay rights camp can, it if wants, decide that Iowa
The anti-gay rights camp can, it if wants, unilaterally decide that Iowa no longer matters. However, that doesn't mean that they can convince pro-gray rights Republicans, the media, and the American public that is the case.
Skip Iowa and go to...New Hampshire, where on March 27 the state House approved a gay marriage act?
Skip BOTH of the historic early contests and go straight to South Carolina, highlighting the fact that the Republicans are no longer a national party?
If a candidate is afraid to go into the living rooms of the good folks in Iowa and explain his or her positions and ask for their votes despite the fact they may not see eye-to-eye on every point, then maybe that candidate is just not a very good national candidate.
Iowa certainly did a huge favor for the Democrats last time around.
If my understanding is
If my understanding is correct, Soren's point is not that the anti-gay rights crowd will skip Iowa, but that moderate republicans will skip Iowa because the issue will now have so much resonance with the social conservatives there. If he's right, that's unfortunate for Iowa, the republican party, and the country. It's bad for Iowa, because they have a smaller group of candidates to choose from and the moderate conservatives will have to hold their nose and vote (or switch parties); the republicans, because intolerant candidates aren't really that competitive with Democrats who campaign in part on being non-judgemental; and the country because competitive two-party rule is better than one-party dominance.
Thanks for the correction.
Thanks for the correction.
So, the problem is the base gets "basier"?
Only 35% of Americans are opposed to any kind of legal recognition for gay partnerships.
How about a candidate who has the courage to tell the base "no", and "time to move on"?
Isn't Iowa, where you can have lots of one on one time with voters, an ideal place for that conversation?
The conventional wisdom in 2007 was the Iowa would never vote for an inexerienced black man - Obama had the opportunity to convince them that neither of those issues were important, given the intellegence and tempermant that he displayed.
Not so much...
But it does seem like the GOP needs to find some balance between the social conservatives and their libertarian wings - and soon.
I'm not optimistic on that front. It would require people looking for a unified message, and so far, too many on the right are more interested in acting like commissars.
Thank you for this
Thank you for this informative read, I really appreciate sharing this great post. Keep up your work. burs
sbs sonucu
nedir
Celil's World