Can Iowans do justice to traditional trust reposed in them to select best candidate(s) free of prejudices?

Question

Probably the following BBC report explains:

Extracted from BBC News item :
Iowa: the reality check for candidates

The BBC's North America Editor Justin Webb explains why this sparsely populated, rural state is so crucial for White House contenders.

Why should our presidential election be so heavily influenced, other Americans sometimes ask, by 100,000 or so people who actually turn up to the Iowa caucuses, most of them white and most of them over 55?

The honest answer is that Iowa and New Hampshire, and the other handful of early votes, for all their unfairness, at least give the system a connection with local communities.

The following appeared on Boston.com:
Headline: Iowa caucuses Thursday could make or break top
Democrats on road to presidential nomination
Date: December 29, 2007

"Iowa could make or break a Democratic candidate on
Thursday. The
question is, who? While the state has long played a key
role in
choosing the Democratic presidential nominee, it has
unparalleled
influence this year, even after several larger states moved
up their
contests to try and muscle in.

Answer 1

I don't think the words bias or prejudice are necessarily fair. Iowans care about the issues that affect their state, just like New Yorkers, Californians, etc.
The comment about the numbers that turn out and their age could be said about voter turnout in almost any state. In Iowa, any party member can attend their county's caucus, so it is not much different than other primaries or elections in general (those who wish to vote do so). The fact that it is an overwhelmingly white state does not seem to be hurting Obama any!!
Whatever bias or prejudice there might be is combatted by the fact that Iowa gets to see all candidates and a lot of them. Most candidates blanket the state and make use of small, local media outlets due to the early caucus date.
Since Iowans do not have to rely completely on the national media, and can sometimes see the candidates speak locally, they have the opportunity to make informed decisions. In other words, the most $$ will not give you an easy win in Iowa (See Huckabee).

Answer 2

I am not sure that they have ever been trusted to select the best candidates free of prejudice. Most everyone involved in the system knows the biases of Iowa and New Hampshire (which is why the Democrats added Nevada and South Carolina to the early states). Iowa and New Hampshire do not choose the nominee (nor are they expected to choose the nominee). What they do is start winnowing out some of the lesser candidates. To survive Iowa, you need to be competitive, not necessarily the winner.

Answer 3

The point is that they usually set the pace, and the loser or third place candidate who wins in Iowa, usually wins the presidency. Be watchful. Jimmy Carter is the only one who actually won the presidency after he won the caucus in Iowa in 1976.

Answer 4

there replaced into no argument, only bigot christians attempting to stress their ideals on the international some civil company that has been around in the previous christianity. Kinda humorous how christianity stole the belief of marriage yet its a sin to steal... hmm thats a tougheroo top there.

Answer 5

I'll let you know in just a few more days.

Answer 6

we all have prejudices