Political reporters and commentators are descending on Iowa and New Hampshire as the caucuses and primary approach.
It’s amusing to listen to the talking heads, almost in a reverential tone, discuss how “serious” Iowa and New Hampshire voters are about the presidential election.
Two things about this:
(1) What do they mean by serious? And how do they know how serious the voters are? Do they take exit polls asking: Where you serious about the vote you just cast?
(2) The implication in emphasizing the seriousness of these voters is that people in other states must be unserious about their vote. Presumably, they must go to the polls, wait in line, pick a random candidate, or doodle all their ballots.
OK, I confess that a few times I’ve cast a “statement” or “protest:” vote rather than choosing the candidate who I thought was most qualified. But I’ve done this in contests where the winner was a foregone conclusion. By the time Tennesseans get to weigh in during the primaries, the race is often over. So what’s the point?
In contrast, Iowa and New Hampshire voters, being first, determine the momentum of the primary season. They get all the campaign and media attention, so of course the atmosphere is a bit different there.
I’m pretty sure that if candidates were tripping over each other in every town in Tennessee, or Delaware, or Kansas, the voters in those states would also be “serious” enough to pay attention to the campaign. I don’t think there’s anything special in the drinking water in the Granite or Hawkeye State.