“Swing States”: Iowa
Jun 3rd, 2008 | By gopnation | Category: BreakingThrough springtime, the GOPNation.com will look at the shifting winds in the 2008 presidential election campaign by analyzing the swing states that include Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. These 18 states total 215 electoral votes.
Note: Barring significant changes to the current electoral trends, we are assuming that the Democrats will start off the 2008 general election with 174 safe electoral votes, with the Republicans with 149.
Iowa
Iowa gained statehood in December 1846. It is currently a swing state in presidential races. In 2004, it reversed a string of four straight Democratic victories by picking George Bush over John Kerry by just 0.8%, or about 10,000 votes. Only Wisconsin had a closer tally, percentage-wise. Prior to that, the state mostly voted Republican, choosing a candidate from that party all but five times from the Civil War years through 1988. After peaking at 13 from the 1880s through 1920s, Iowa gradually lost electoral clout as the state’s population growth slowed relative to the rest of the country. Today, the state has seven electoral votes and there is a chance that that number could drop to six in 2012, pending the outcome of the 2010 census. However, the closeness of the general election vote and the importance of its caucuses, which kick off the nominating process every election cycle, give the citizens of Iowa great influence on who ultimately gets elected president.
(Source: 270towin.com)
Our Analysis
Iowa has voted with the winner in seven of the past ten elections and voted (narrowly) for George W. Bush in 2004, which along with New Mexico were the only two 2000 blue states to turn red in 2004. This year’s caucus was the starting point for Barack Obama’s unlikely nomination for the Dems. Assuming that Iowans are still unhappy with the war and economy come November, this state will likely go blue in 2008.
TREND: Democrat (Pickup from 2004)
Sphere: Related Content









The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided “battleground” states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill would make every vote politically relevant in a presidential election. It would make every vote equal.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Susan