Speaking of Clark and Lieberman (see below), both have announced that they will not compete in January’s Iowa Caucuses. I think this makes perfect sense for both campaigns.
Lieberman has found almost no support in Iowa, where voters have largely disliked his hawk-like approach to foreign policy and his ultra-moderate domestic policy priorities. Had Lieberman made a serious effort to compete in Iowa, he would have been spending his limited resources on a statewide race he is unlikely to win. In fact, forget winning, Lieberman would have been lucky to finish sixth in the state.
For Clark, it was simply a matter of not having enough time. In a primary state, voters go to the polls and support a candidate at the ballot box. In a caucus, it all comes to down to an organized campaign structure, which takes a long time — and a lot of money — to create.
Clark could have probably gone ahead and given it a shot and finished fourth, but why bother? Instead, Clark can focus his energy and resources on the next round of races, especially in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona, and Oklahoma.
Press spin on the Clark and Lieberman decisions is mixed. Many are saying that no candidate has ever skipped Iowa and won the nomination, but as I said last week, Clinton came in fourth in Iowa in 1992 after deciding early on not to compete against favored son Tom Harkin.
Many more are noting the comparisons to John McCain’s 2000 strategy. The Arizona senator decided early on that he’d fare poorly in Iowa and decided to focus his attention on New Hampshire. It paid off in the short term — McCain beat Bush in New Hampshire by 19 points. Though McCain ultimately came up short, I’d argue this had far less to do with skipping Iowa and more to do with the Bush campaign’s sleazy personal attacks in the South.
One interesting thing to watch is how Clark and Lieberman’s decision changes the dynamic. Will a Dean or Gephardt victory in January be minimized by lesser competition? Maybe. As the New York Times noted today, “[T]he absence of General Clark and Mr. Lieberman could plant an asterisk alongside the results of the caucuses on Jan. 19. Even Iowa Democratic leaders, eager to maximize their quadrennial exercise of influence, say it could diminish the state’s role in choosing the a nominee.”
Remember, losing in Iowa doesn’t have to be a disaster, so skipping the state’s caucuses certainly doesn’t mean Clark and Lieberman are in trouble. And every time you hear Dean or Gephardt say over the next couple of months that an Iowa victory is critical for the eventual nominee, remember that three of the last four presidents — Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton — all lost in the Iowa caucuses.