The importance of the Iowa caucuses in the race for the White House comes from the fact that since 1972 it has been the first state to vote (even if it uses the unique caucus system). We should always remember that the voters in Iowa do not reflect America -- far from it. Except for the precedent of Jimmy Carter in 1976, Iowa will always have a limited effect on who eventually wins, but a great effect on who the loser is. Iowa brings news; it doesn't bring the final announcement. Every four years, the pundits explain to the world how Iowa votes. Everyone nods their heads in understanding without really understanding. Some claim that the caucus system was invented so that only Iowans would understand it, not outsiders. Iowa is a small state that is home to more pigs than people (I checked this). It allows candidates to breathe the air at the top, if only for a little while. In the 2012 election, Rick Santorum won among the Republicans. He was preceded by Mike Huckabee in 2008. Where are they today? Exactly where they were then. Candidates then, and candidates now. That's Iowa. For now, the 2016 election story is about Hillary Clinton in the Democratic camp and Donald Trump in the Republican camp. One feels an obligation to become president, and the other is a stranger who has long ceased to be a curiosity. The results from Iowa are of interest for both candidates: Clinton couldn't win here in 2008. She desperately needed an achievement after her name has become more involved in the scandal about secret emails she sent from her personal account ("endangered lives"), that isn't fading from the headlines in the U.S. and might still end up in an indictment. Trump, on the other hand, we know only as the leading candidate in this election. It will be interesting to keep tabs on how he conducts himself, regardless of the Iowa results. In either case, it will be interesting to see how he reinvents himself. Iowa, as we said, is not decisive -- but it gives candidates a push. Imagine for a moment how many headlines, how many newspaper headlines, each winner in the small state will get. A loss, as we've said, can be catastrophic. And when it comes to Clinton, in 2008 she went into the state with a 20-point lead over then-Senator Barack Obama. Obama won in Iowa and the gap dropped to a mere five points. We all know what happened next. Obama didn't win the election in Iowa, but Clinton lost it in the small state. This time, she was looking for a corrective experience. The results from Iowa are a sort of barometer, with candidates wanting to stay in the game. They do not mind winning, either. In any case, past winners can always tell their grandchildren that they'll always have Iowa.
