'Folks: Joe Biden has murdered Iowa.' Jim Vondruska/Getty Images
In 1988, Dick Gephardt’s mother moved to Iowa. He was running for the Democratic nomination for president and Loreen Gephardt, at the age of 79, wanted to make sure he ate properly in the run up to the Iowa caucuses. She did his laundry too. After he won the contest, he joked that mum —a widow — might stay: “She may never leave Des Moines. There are several gentlemen who have taken a fancy to her. One man asked us if he could please take her to church.”
Iowa and New Hampshire. Those states: that vision. The glory of American small-town quirkiness. Amid the vastness of the United States — sea to shining sea and all that — Iowa and New Hampshire have been, since 1972 when the caucuses became the kick-off event for the presidential race, a tether, a tent peg holding the whole political structure to firm ground, to a place, where people actually live, and think, and talk to each other.
So when you hear that Donald Trump is ahead in the national Republican polls, with all the other Republican hopefuls competing merely for second place in the race for the nomination, remember that not a single vote has yet been cast. And when they start the process on January 15 and 23, Iowa and New Hampshire will make up their own minds, thank you very much. In their own way.
This means talking to the candidates, often with no cameras present. Actually meeting them face to face. It means discovering that Ron DeSantis, the Governor of Florida, may well have fulfilled his promise to visit all 99 counties in the whole of the largely empty state of Iowa — but that, in all of them, he seemed to those who met him, a bit weird. That Vivek Ramaswamy, the libertarian tech bro who has been living full time (without mum) in the capital Des Moines, is hugely polished but maybe too polished to be true. And weird to boot. It means that the black Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina was a nice fellow but little more (he’s dropped out now) And that Doug Burgum, the Governor of North Dakota, might make a passable Agriculture Secretary (though he has also now dropped out).
Alright, I know what you’re thinking: Donald Trump is way ahead in the Iowa polls as well as the nationals. And let’s be clear: ahead in a way that is unprecedented in recent Iowa history. Trump is averaging just under 50% support among Iowa Republicans, with DeSantis and Nikki Haley tied at second but with less that 20% support each. It’s a slam-dunk, isn’t it? As Trump himself is beginning to ask, isn’t it time to end this meaningless process, appoint the big man, and get to work on Biden?
Not so fast. Remember it’s “Iowa and New Hampshire” they are a double act, these reality checks in the snow. Trump will (almost certainly) win Iowa. He would be finished if he did not, given his current poll lead. But even though the Democrat Dick Gephardt — to his mum’s joy — won in 1988, along with Bob Dole for the Republicans. Neither got the final nod: in the end, it was George H. W. Bush versus Michael Dukakis. In more recent times, we did not get president Ted Cruz (who beat Trump in Iowa in 2016) or Mike Huckabee as the final candidate (although he won there in 2008).
Winning is not the thing. These contests — taken together — are about momentum, direction of travel. The appeal in each state has to be different. You can triumph in one and collapse in the next. Here’s why: just because they are cold and their inhabitants overwhelmingly white, and there aren’t any big cities, doesn’t mean their populations think the same. They are diverse.
New Hampshire is a tougher place than placid, midwestern, God-fearing Iowa. Its population is mobile and transient. A survey for the University of New Hampshire found that only a third of state residents aged 25 and older were born there. It’s a high-income state too (hence the immigration) and one of the least religious in the whole USA. Look at its cross-party support for abortion rights: with 69% saying abortion should be allowed in some circumstances, it’s among the highest state percentages in the nation.
That’s why second place in Iowa this time round matters hugely — if Nikki Haley can beat Ron DeSantis, she is suddenly the huge story, the coming woman. In New Hampshire, she already appears to be in second place. Yes, alright: still 27 points or so behind Trump but stuff happens. Trump has largely ignored all the traditions of campaigning in both states — the town hall meetings, the cosy chats in over-heated diners, and we don’t yet know if this will have an impact. If she were to overtake a faltering Trump in New Hampshire, the next big contest is her home state of South Carolina. She would be motoring: very much in the race and ready to pounce just as Trump begins his most serious court appearances.
And yes, Iowa and New Hampshire are small scale and hokey but they are also tricky to manage. This year, trickier than ever. Because this year a terrible crime has been committed by Joe Biden — or so his many Iowa and New Hampshire critics aver. Something which could blow apart the Republican race.
Folks: Joe Biden has murdered Iowa and New Hampshire. He always hated them; never did well in them during his multiple presidential runs. And now there is blood in the snow. Iowa succumbed to the slaughter without much of a fight as Biden decreed that the caucus will become a write-in for the Dems (literally on postcards), whose results will be revealed in March. It is no longer the kick-off event. It no longer affords the victor momentum. It is no longer a contest worth thinking about.
In New Hampshire though, Biden went for the kill and missed. He attempted to demote it, while taking his name off the ballot. But New Hampshire is still alive: and the tradition that it holds the first primary is so important to local Democrats (it’s actually a state law) that they are now locked in an ill-tempered struggle with the White House which looks likely to cause Biden significant grief at a potentially crucial moment.
New Hampshire Democrats are holding a primary in the teeth of his opposition. And there is a candidate, a congressman called Dean Phillips, who has paid $1,000 dollars to put his name on the ballot. But can Phillips be allowed to win? Should Biden supporters ignore it, write in the president’s name, organise for Mr Phillips to be offered the ambassadorship to Tahiti?
Politico’s Jonathan Martin, a veteran commentator, has a message from history: “Other incumbent presidents have won New Hampshire but still been bruised by the stronger-than-expected showing of their opponents. That list includes, perhaps most famously, Lyndon Johnson in 1968 …. and Gerald Ford in 1976 and George H.W. Bush in 1992, who both had to fend off opponents to their right. None of them survived to win another term.”
President Phillips? Probably not. No: certainly not. But he could still have a real impact: a troubled re-election campaign could yet be made more troubled still. And here is why the Democrats’ difficulties matter in the Republican race: there is not much to do in Iowa; it gets dark early in the winter. If you are an Iowan Democrat, you really do look forward to the jamboree coming to town every four years. So if this time, you know your opinion doesn’t count. So how about… whisper it… becoming a Republican for a night? You can: Iowa has same-day registration rights. Your nice neighbours are already voting for Trump: maybe go with them to the church hall and pay a small dollar sum and take part. Cast a ballot. And remember these are Midwesterners with no sense of wickedness or irony: they will take it seriously and vote not for Trump (who, if they are Democrats they will think is evil), but for someone they can approve of, probably Haley, even if she might go on to win the nomination and beat their man Biden next November.
Might the result of the Iowa Republican caucus be significantly affected by disaffected Dems? It’s not beyond the realms of the possible. Trump in Trouble would be the headline. New Hampshire is suddenly in play. With two fingers raised to New York and LA and indeed to Washington DC: snow-bound, small-town Iowa and New Hampshire gloriously reminding the world, and the Donald, that place matters, and these places live on to fight another day.
Justin Webb presents the Americast podcast and Today on Radio Four. His Panorama documentary “Trump the Sequel”, is available now on Iplayer
JustinOnWeb 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeAnd will she be handing back the money she made the from globalist, neo-liberal Goldman Sachs etc? Will the Clinton Foundation be compensating the families of the tens of thousands of Americans who died from opioids at least partly due to NAFTA.
I thought not. The Clintons make Trump look like Mother Theresa. And having got rid of him they are copying his policies. By God these people are evil.
Sounds like a rip off of Trumps America First agenda to me. America has given their power and influence away to China in less than 30 years. I dont see it coming back any time soon.
Yes they seem to be lurching from one policy to the next, first cancelling the pipeline and creating a lot of unemployment , then stating they must put America first. I don’t know how Hilary Clinton fits into this new regime as I thought she had lost fairly conclusively in 2016? I suppose she is younger than Biden-perhaps there might be a Trump v Clinton 2024 run for President?
This sad yet evil woman so desperately wants to remain relevant.
With no mention of her own involvement in the China policy of the past 30 years Were you really expecting self-awareness from Herself? China represents a vision of the fantasy US that she and other leftist control freaks have always wanted.
The economic logic of re-shoring would seem to hurt the Democrat’s middle class voting base. However, I suspect they’ll mitigate its impacts, by turning a blind eye to illegal immigration and using government money to pump up asset prices, for the asset owning classes, who vote for them.
It will sow the seeds of a future crash but will win elections, so they don’t care.
The economic logic of re-shoring would seem to hurt the Democrat’s middle class voting base.
The Dems have no use for such a voting group, as those people tend to have jobs and are not dependent on govt handouts. They’re not victims, they don’t go around breaking things and screaming.
You have a strange notion of who votes for Democrat candidates. For example, over 81 million Americans voted for Biden — is it your claim that they are all victims that go around breaking things and screaming?
I’ll answer this. Yes, because those who are breaking things and screaming are acting in what is held by the Bidens of this world (and their supporters) to be a ‘noble cause’, that is, of erasing the individual and his ‘rights’ and replacing them with duties towards the ‘collective’.
And what would the appalling Hillary Clinton, who has never done a day’s useful work in her life, know about ‘the means of production’? Of course, given her involvement in Libya and other similar ventures she knows quite a lot about ‘the means of destruction’. Will these people ever go away?
H Clinton lacks the moral gyroscope without which it is not possible to become a woman worthy of respect, let alone President of the USA. The fact that she failed, twice to become President. says much for the democratic system. I would not pay attention to, let alone follow, one word from this woman.
I’d have thought a lack of moral gyroscope would make one almost over-qualified for high office.
She is like a flag in the wind. Where is the humility? She can say – we got it wrong . I made a mistake. I could listen to that. But this pure plagiarism of Trump policy.
I don’t even like Trump, I like her even less.
Hello, welcome to just that choice that most Americans made in that election.
“Maybe some unintended consequence of war down the road.”
Clinton makes it sound so trivial.
Given Clinton is likely heavily involved in giving orders to Biden and well connected in Globalist circles, this is very important. I thought it was just me, but as others have said this is practically Trumpian.
Beggars belief that the only recent Clinton reference on publically funded BBC News is her exortation to throw more good money and American children at Afghanistan in the name of Who Knows What. As a preference to saying “We Screwed Up”, perhaps.
(As an aside, I agree with Clinton’s concerns about “many thousands of Afghans” who had worked with the US and Nato during the conflict and short of her proposal for “a large visa programme should be set up to provide for any refugees” – please God she means just the USA – I’ve no solution).
Anyway, well done Unherd in picking this one up.
I very much hope that Biden pays no attention to HC, and that the Clintons are not allowed anywhere near the White House.
Is she basically saying Trump was right?
Somebody earlier made a not unreasonable point that there is not much love being shown to Clinton in the comments.
My question to those that view her positively (and so follow her speeches more closely) is this – how do you square what she has said here, with your understanding of her position up to this point?
Then on to your point which is in what way does this materially differ (taking for granted that style and tone are very different) from what Trump has been saying since GE2016?
Free speech forever, sure, but there was no need to rebroadcast anything this appalling woman extruded. Bad judgement, Unherd.
Many days late and even more dollars short. Thanks, neoliberals!
Looks as though Hilary Clinton has few admirers on this site.
From their vehemence I’d be suspicious of how detached or neutral their viewpoint..
So people ignorant of all her years in the public eye should voice their viewpoint? This lady has a very public record to come to anyone’s conclusions about her.
Yes, it’s good not to presume what a person will say, but it is also good to listen to what they say, and what they have said, and to which audience.
Kick China out of the WTO, impose huge sanctions (like happened to South Africa with apartheid) that’s just for starters
One of the rew things I can go along with her on. See Nikki Haley – the first woman destined to be US President! – on PragerU extolling the same point. We minimised trade with Soviet Russia in order to frustrate their world domination attempt, with success. We now need to reverse our trade dependence on China for the same reasons.
In the 90’s Bill Clinton tried to bring them into the fold as did Bush and Obama. That failed. Problems could be big if Biden really does have interests in China. It is a relevant matter for investigation. The US security services need to get back to the day job.
Haley says, “Making America dependent on China for critical supplies didn’t happen by accident. It’s part of a strategic plan.” She then proceeds to insinuate that it’s entirely the fault of the Communist Party of China, when US companies were happy to stop producing these critical supplies, or to produce them in China, whenever they saw it as profitable. These Western companies are as much responsible for China’s edge over the West as the CPC, and they are equally as responsible for this strategic plan.
Not what she said in the vid. But her over riding point is that we need to treat the CCC like we treated the USSR. That means a total reversal of a great deal that has been accepted by all Western Democracies. It has massive implications across the board. And she is right.
If we’re talking about the same PragerU video, China – Friend or Foe, then “Making America dependent on China for critical supplies didn’t happen by accident. It’s part of a strategic plan” is exactly what she said, according to both the subtitles and my ears (01:42-01:50). She may be right about the need for Western disengagement, but her implication that China is solely responsible for this strategic plan is ridiculous. Western companies were not forced to cease production or move to China, and if the West continues to allow these companies free rein to pursue profits regardless of social costs, further problems can be expected.
Was that really Hillary saying that? Does she not know that our country was given to China by absolute power-seeking-regardless-of-cost-globalists? That would include David Rockefeller and every administration from Bush-Reagan until today with but one exception. That exception had his place taken, and I mean taken, by one who bragged about having the most fraudulent voting system in United States history at work for him. Orwell knew.
I would like to have my interview at the Pearly Gates just behind Hillary, just to eavesdrop on the codswallop she would spew. I would be waiting quite the while through her hearing. Ha. Then I would be sent down as well for my mirth and eye rolls, surely.
How naïve of Ronnie Ray-Gun and Tatcher to believe that the consequences of their moronic neoliberalism would be any different. Their governments never played fair in international trade, so expecting the Chinese to do it is downright pathetic.
It would be interesting to compare the economic cost of reestablishing western manufacturing systems to the obscene profits made by the “liberal industrialists” that were set free by Ronnie & Tatcher to sell the whole system overseas.
Even more amusing is the “cover” this ridiculous narrative that trade would liberalize China gave to the Americans who enriched themselves by offshoring industrial production at the expense of their fellow citizens in the working classes. Revolting.
When the facts change, the lady changes her mind. Which is entirely sensible. Well done, Hillary
Unfortunately she is always wrong.
Reshoring supply chains and taking back the means of production are a long way from challenging the economic model of “everything is a market” and things are only valuable if someone can make a profit from them.
Still, perhaps Ms Clinton is “on a journey” as they say. We must allow even those disliked by UnHerd to change.
Change begins by saying “I was wrong,” and you will never hear those three words coming from that evil person.
Unless she changes, perhaps?