Princess Tare wrote:
So, does winning the caucus actually mean anything? Or is it just a fun way to kick off the "road to the White house"?
Yes and no (of course). Obviously, you get that state's delegates when it comes time to see who won the primary race for the general election. But as far as "impact", plenty of candidates have done poorly in Iowa and still went on to much more success. However, it does set the tone for some campaigns. Obama is seen as a much more viable alternative to Clinton now that he beat her (and had amazing young voter turn-out) and Edwards showed himself not to be entirely irrelevant (although he probably will be). Likewise, Romney went from expected champion to distant second-placer. So candidates like Obama and Huckabee will see more media headline time and get more contributions and candidates like Clinton and Romney get the "Where did they go wrong?" opinion columns.
New Hampshire is a completely different state than Iowa though in demographics and which issues resonate. The combination of Iowa and NH will matter more than Iowa itself.
The Democratic turn-out in Iowa was pretty amazing (doubling the then record setting 2004 turn-out). Especially the number of young voters who traditionally can't be counted on to vote. When you consider the silly dog & pony show Democratic caucus goers have to endure to vote and then see that they still had several times the turn out of the Republican "Vote & Go" caucus, we might see Iowa flip from red to blue this general election.
