What are caucuses and why is the first one in Iowa so important?

Published

2 years ago

January 14, 2024

admin

It might be nine months away – but the race to the US presidential election has well and truly begun.

The first step in deciding which candidate will get their party’s nomination begins in Iowa on Monday evening.

Since 1972, the midwestern state has been the first to hold its caucus – which has routinely acted as a litmus test for how candidates will fare later along the campaign trail.

But with the Democrats not voting at their Iowa event this year – and Donald Trump’s multiple brushes with the law, this year’s proceedings may not be straightforward.

Here we look at what happens in Iowa, what a caucus is, and whether the winners will be the ones to watch.

What is a caucus – and how does it work?

The road to a US presidential election is long, beginning almost exactly a year before the incumbent is inaugurated with a star-studded ceremony at the White House.

It begins with primaries and caucuses – two ways Democrats and Republicans begin the process of nominating a candidate.

The vast majority of states hold primaries, but Iowa and some other, traditionally Republican states opt for caucuses instead.

While primaries are like mini-elections, whereby party members can cast their vote at any point throughout the day, or sometimes by post, caucuses must be attended in person.

Primaries are run by the state whereas caucuses are organised by the parties themselves.

Caucuses take place at precinct, district, and state level in places such as schools, churches, and community centres.

Those who attend listen to speeches made on behalf of each potential candidate by their campaign representatives. Caucus-goers then vote for their preferred candidate and these are tallied in a matter of hours.

Primaries and caucuses can be open or closed, with the former allowing anyone to take part and the latter restricted to party-registered voters.

The outcome of the caucus or primary determines how many delegates each candidate gets to represent them at the party’s national convention in the summer.

At the convention, the candidate with the most delegates becomes the presidential nominee, but if there is no clear winner at primary or caucus level, the delegates vote again at the convention.

Why does Iowa go first?

Iowa has long been a traditionally Republican state, with its current governor, House representatives and senators all belonging to the GOP.

But from the 1950s, Democrats have had more of a presence there.

With the increasing influence of trade unions came calls for the state’s cities to get better political representation, more in line with rural areas.

Then after the Democratic National Convention of 1968, where protests over the Vietnam War resulted in a protester’s death and hundreds of injuries, Democrats in Iowa demanded reform of the state caucus system – to move power away from party bosses and more into the hands of grassroots activists.

This saw separate conventions created at state and district level, which elongated the caucus process and meant the whole thing had to start earlier.

As such, since 1972 Iowa has been what is commonly referred to as “first in the nation”.

Why has it become so important?

Iowa’s “first in the nation” status means it often acts as an initial performance indicator for nominee candidates.

“The results in Iowa sends a signal to the rest of the country on the tenor of each of the candidates and whether they really will have the chance of proceeding on,” Jim McCormick, emeritus professor of American politics and US foreign policy at Iowa State University, tells Sky News.

This was capitalised on in its first year, when South Dakota’s senator George McGovern realised Iowa would be first and made a particular effort there – with him going on to win the nomination for the Democrats.

Ahead of the next election in 1976, Jimmy Carter’s campaign team honed in on Iowa, which gained nationwide media coverage and ultimately helped propel him to the White House.

From then on, every US president since Carter, aside from Bill Clinton in 1992 and Joe Biden in 2020, has finished within the top three of the Iowa caucus.

Barack Obama often credits his win there with his election to the presidency in 2008.

But historically, coming first in the caucus has not guaranteed winning the party nomination, particularly among Republicans.

As such, there have only been three times when the winner of the Iowa caucus has gone on to win the Republican nomination.

Iowa has proportionately more white and elderly people than many other states, so despite efforts made by campaign teams, the result there can still turn out to be misleading.

Poor weather in January and the timing of the event can also lead to low turnout, with only 30% of registered Republicans taking part in 2016, the last time the race was competitive.

But Prof McCormick argues: “International observers have a tendency to look to New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles to see what the US is all about.

“But Iowa is so-called ‘flyover country’, which is more reflective of the values of middle America. So even with its demography and relatively small ethnic minorities, the message that comes out of Iowa is consequential.”

To that effect, the Iowa caucus has consistently succeeded in getting weaker candidates who perform badly to pull out of the overall race.

What’s happening this year?

Although both parties are holding their Iowa caucuses on Monday, only the Republican one is important this year.

In 2020, the Iowa Democratic caucus was plagued with technical issues, mainly around a new app, and failed to produce a clear winner.

The result had to be recanvassed and the series of blunders resulted in the resignation of state party chairman Troy Price.

Consequently, this year’s Democratic caucus will not include a nominee ballot. This will happen via a postal vote beginning on 12 January and ending on 5 March instead.

Joe Biden is largely seen as uncontested, being so far ahead of the other major candidates, Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson, in the polls.

But Republicans will be voting on their preferred candidate at 7pm, with only registered party members and those aged 18 or over come election day allowed to take part at one of 1,700 local precincts.

As has been the case since the 1980s, the ballot will be carried out in secret.

Conditions are expected to be -19C (-2F) in the state on Monday, likely preventing many of its 600,000 registered Republicans from getting to the event, particularly those in rural areas.

Who’s in the running and what about Trump?

Despite multiple ongoing legal fights, Donald Trump is still dominating the polls.

While Ron DeSantis was long tipped to be his main competitor, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley has now surpassed the Florida governor in polling.

According to Prof McCormick, Mr Trump’s performance in Iowa is likely to determine whether either of the other two stand a chance of beating him to the nomination stage.

“Given that Trump has a very large lead, this is going to be an important signal to other states about whether there really is a chance of forestalling his getting the nomination,” he says.

While Ms Haley appears to have outperformed Mr DeSantis in the Iowa debates, her success in the caucus will depend on how well-organised her campaign team has been across the state, he adds.

“She’s been very well organised in New Hampshire (the next primary after Iowa), but in Iowa she’s been concentrating on people in the suburbs, because they are the people who will be able to get to the caucuses.

“DeSantis keeps saying he’s visited all 99 counties in Iowa – so he’s booking everything on it.

“But a lot of his support will come from rural counties, evangelical Christians, and older voters, who may not be able to get to the caucus sites in -26C.”

Mr DeSantis has also suffered from high staff turnover in his campaign team, weaker debate performances than Ms Haley, and having some views that are similar to Mr Trump’s, Prof McCormick adds.

These factors combined mean there is a greater risk of a poor result and him being forced to bow out.

Mr Trump, by contrast, skipped the debates, and took part in a Fox News town hall event instead.

As well as the economy, issues caucus-goers will be focused on include state laws recently passed on transgender and abortion rights, along with agricultural exports.

So is this year’s Iowa caucus really ‘one to watch’?

The short answer is yes.

Prof McCormick stresses: “If Trump comes out with a very large lead in Iowa, that should be taken as a very good indicator he’ll get the nomination.

“But if Trump doesn’t get at least 50% of the vote – and either Haley or DeSantis come up close, even within a 10-point margin, that really raises a question about his ‘slam dunk’ ability to dominate the process – and we could be looking at a different story.”

But beyond the nomination, Trump’s future is still uncertain, he adds.

“The Biden campaign has indicated they’ll be focused on Trump’s persona rather than a lot of the national issues. So he’ll be handicapped even if he gets the nomination.”

Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts

While efforts by states such as Georgia and Maine to bar him from running are considered likely to be struck out by the Supreme Court, it is still unclear whether the lawsuits against him would prevent him from returning to the White House.

But if an Iowa win does see him secure the nomination, his supporter base is still very large, which means Monday’s caucus could end up having consequences far beyond the US.

Prof McCormick says: “Every time he’s been indicted, his popularity has gone up.

“So if Trump succeeds in getting voter turnout in Iowa that suggests we could see a foreign policy at odds with what Biden has been pursuing, which, given his attitudes towards NATO, Ukraine, and Russia, would be a huge concern for a lot of people.”

US

Ukrainian diplomat involved in 90s nuclear deal with Russia warns Trump about ‘very big mistake’ with Putin

Published

1 hour ago

August 19, 2025

admin

Ukrainian diplomat involved in 90s nuclear deal with Russia warns Trump about 'very big mistake' with Putin

Ukrainians have given a lukewarm reaction to this week’s White House summit.

There is bafflement and unease here after US President Donald Trump switched sides to support his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, dropping calls for a ceasefire and proposing that Ukraine surrender territory.

While allies are talking up the prospects of progress, people here remain unconvinced.

Ukraine war latest – Trump rules out using US troops

The Trump administration’s contradictory statements on possible security guarantees are causing concern here.

MP Lesia Vasylenko told Sky News it is not at all clear what the allies have in mind.

“Who is going to be there backing Ukraine in case Russia decides to revisit their imperialistic plans and strategies and in case they want to restart this war of aggression?”

For many Ukrainians, there is a troubling sense of deja vu.

In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine agreed to give up not land but its nuclear arsenal, inherited from the Soviet Union, in return for security assurances from Russia and other powers.

They know how that ended up to their enormous cost. Putin reneged on Russia’s side of the bargain, with his invasion of Crimea in 2014 and once again with his full-scale attack three and a half years ago.

We met veteran Ukrainian diplomat Yuri Kostenko, who helped lead those negotiations in the 90s.

He said there is a danger the world makes the same mistake and trusts Vladimir Putin when he says he wants to stop the killing, something Mr Trump said he now believes.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈        

“It’s not true, it’s not true, Russia never, never, it’s my practices in more than 30 years, Russia never stop their aggression plans to occupy all Ukraine and I think that Mr Trump, if he really believes Mr Putin, it will be a very big mistake, Mr Trump, a very big mistake.”

Before the Alaska summit, allies agreed the best path to peace was forcing Mr Putin to stop his invasion, hitting him where it hurts with severe sanctions on his oil trade.

But Mr Trump has given up calls for a ceasefire and withdrawn threats to impose those tougher sanctions.

Instead, he has led allies down a different and more uncertain path.

Ukrainians we met on the streets of Kyiv said they would love to believe in progress more than anything, but are not encouraged by what they are hearing.

While the diplomacy moves on in an unclear direction, events on the ground and in the skies above Ukraine are depressingly predictable.

Russia is continuing hundreds of drone attacks every night, and its forces are advancing on the front.

If Vladimir Putin really wants this war to end, he’s showing no sign of it, while Ukrainians fear Donald Trump is taking allies down a blind alley of fruitless diplomacy.

US

What would US-backed security guarantees for Ukraine look like?

Published

4 hours ago

August 19, 2025

admin

What would US-backed security guarantees for Ukraine look like?

Promises of security guarantees for Ukraine have been lauded as “game-changing” and “historic” in the hope of bringing an end to the war with Russia.

As all eyes moved from Donald Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska to talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Washington, the White House claimed Russia has agreed to the US providing ‘NATO-style protection’ when the fighting ends.

Trump rules out US troops in Ukraine; latest updates

Although there has been no confirmation from the Kremlin, Ukraine, the UK, and other Western allies say details of a post-war security agreement will be finalised in the coming days.

What has been said so far?

Security guarantees have long been talked about as a way of ensuring peace in Ukraine when fighting comes to an end.

Since March, when the UK and France spearheaded a largely European ‘coalition of the willing’ and potential peacekeeping force, many have claimed it would be ineffective without American backing.

The US has repeatedly refused to be drawn on its involvement – until now.

Two days after Mr Putin travelled to Alaska for talks with the Trump team, US special envoy Steve Witkoff claimed Russia had agreed to Ukrainian security guarantees.

He claimed that during the summit, the Kremlin had conceded the US “could offer Article-5 like protection”, which he described as “game-changing”. Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all.

This was bolstered by the US president himself after he met his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington on Monday. He said the pair had “discussed security guarantees”, which would be “provided by the various European countries” – “with coordination with the United States of America”.

Writing on X the following day, the Ukrainian leader said the “concrete content” of the security agreement would be “formalised on paper within the next 10 days”.

US reports say security agreement talks will be headed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

What would security guarantees look like?

Very few details have emerged so far, despite the series of high-profile meetings.

Speaking to Fox News on Tuesday, Mr Trump said European nations are going to “frontload” the security agreement with soldiers.

“They want to have boots on the ground”, he told the broadcaster, referring to the UK, France, and Germany in particular.

He insisted the US would not send ground troops, adding: “You have my assurance and I’m president.”

Sir Keir Starmer said the coalition of the willing is “preparing for the deployment of a reassurance force” in the event of “hostilities ending”.

This was the original basis for the coalition – soldiers from various European and allied nations placed strategically across Ukraine to deter Russia from launching future attacks.

But troops alone are unlikely to be enough of a deterrent for Vladimir Putin, military analyst Sean Bell says.

“This is all about credibility and I don’t think boots on the ground is a credible answer,” he tells Sky News.

Stationing soldiers along Ukraine’s 1,000-mile border with Russia would require around 100,000 soldiers at a time, which would have to be trained, deployed, and rotated, requiring 300,000 in total.

The entire UK Army would only make up 10% of that, with France likely able to contribute a further 10%, Bell says.

Several European nations would feel unable to sacrifice any troops for an umbrella force due to their proximity to Ukraine and risk of further Russian aggression.

“You’re not even close to getting the numbers you need,” Bell adds. “And even if you could, putting all of NATO’s frontline forces in one country facing Russia would be really dangerous – and leave China, North Korea, Iran, or Russia free to do whatever they wanted.”

History of failed security agreements in Ukraine

Current proposals for Ukrainian security guarantees are far from the first.

In December 1994, Ukraine signed the Budapest Memorandum alongside the UK, US, and Russia.

The Ukrainians agreed to give up their Soviet-inherited nuclear weapons in exchange for recognition of their sovereignty and a place on the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Twenty years later in 2014, however, Russia violated the terms with its illegal annexation of Crimea and the war between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian in the Donbas region.

Similarly, the Minsk Agreements of 2014 and 2015 were designed to bring an end to the Donbas war.

Mediated by France and Germany, they promised a ceasefire, withdrawal of weapons, and local elections in the separatist-occupied Donbas, but were repeatedly violated and failed to result in lasting peace.

‘Article 5-like protection’

When Mr Witkoff first mentioned security guarantees again, he described them as “Article 5-like” or “NATO-style”.

Article 5 is one of the founding principles of NATO and states that an attack on any of its 32 member states is considered an attack on them all.

It has only ever been invoked once since its inception in 1949 – by the US in response to the 9/11 attacks of 2001.

Russia has repeatedly insisted Ukraine should not be allowed to join NATO and cited the risk of it happening among its original reasons for attacking Kyiv in 2022.

NATO general-secretary Mark Rutte has said Ukrainian membership is not on the table, but that an alternative “Article 5-type” arrangement could be viable.

The alliance’s military leaders are due to meet on Wednesday to discuss options.

It is not clear how such a special security agreement and formal NATO membership would differ.

Bell says that negotiations on this – and any surrendering of Ukrainian territory – will be the two most difficult in ending the war.

But he stresses they are both key in providing the “flesh on the bones” to what the coalition of the willing has offered so far.

“It will be about trying to find things that make the Western commitment to the security of Ukraine enduring,” Bell adds.

US airpower, intelligence and a better Ukrainian military

Other potential options for a security agreement include air support, a no-maritime zone, intelligence sharing, and military supplies.

Imposing either a no-fly over Ukraine or no-maritime zone across the Black Sea would “play to NATO’s strengths” – as US air and naval capabilities alone far outstrip Russia’s, Bell says.

Sharing American intelligence with Kyiv to warn of any future Russian aggression would also be a “massive strength” to any potential deterrence force, he adds.

Ukraine is already offering to buy an extra $90bn (£66.6bn) in US weapons with the help of European funds, Mr Zelenskyy said this week.

And any security agreement would likely extend to other military equipment, logistics, and training to help Ukraine better defend itself years down the line, Bell says.

“At first it would need credible Western support, but over time, you would hope the international community makes sure Ukraine can build its own indigenous capability.

“Because while there’s a lot of focus on Ukraine at the moment, in five years’ time, there will be different governments and different priorities – so that has to endure.”

US

Putin wasn’t at the White House, but his influence was – the moments which reveal his hold over Trump

Published

13 hours ago

August 19, 2025

admin

Putin wasn't at the White House, but his influence was - the moments which reveal his hold over Trump

Vladimir Putin wasn’t at the White House but his influence clearly was. At times, it dominated the room.

There were three key moments that revealed the Russian president‘s current hold over Donald Trump.

The first was in the Oval Office. Sitting alongside Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the US president told reporters: “I don’t think you need a ceasefire.”

Ukraine talks latest: Zelenskyy ‘ready to meet’ Putin after Trump summit

It was a stunning illustration of Mr Trump’s about-face in his approach to peace. For the past six months, a ceasefire has been his priority, but after meeting Mr Putin in Alaska, suddenly it’s not.

Confirmation that he now views the war through Moscow’s eyes.

The second was the format itself, with Mr Trump reverting to his favoured ask-what-you-like open-ended Q&A.

In Alaska, Mr Putin wasn’t made to take any questions – most likely, because he didn’t want to. But here, Mr Zelenskyy didn’t have a choice. He was subjected to a barrage of them to see if he’d learnt his lesson from last time.

It was a further demonstration of the special status Mr Trump seems to afford to Mr Putin.

👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈

The third was their phone call. Initially, President Trump said he’d speak to the Kremlin leader after his meeting with European leaders. But it turned out to be during it.

A face-to-face meeting with seven leaders was interrupted for a phone call with one – as if Mr Trump had to check first with Mr Putin, before continuing his discussions.

We still don’t know the full details of the peace proposal that’s being drawn up, but all this strongly suggests that it’s one sketched out by Russia. The White House is providing the paper, but the Kremlin is holding the pen.

For Moscow, the aim now is to keep Mr Trump on their path to peace, which is settlement first, ceasefire later.

It believes that’s the best way of securing its goals, because it has more leverage so long as the fighting continues.

👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈      

But Mr Putin will be wary that Mr Trump is pliable and can easily change his mind, depending on the last person he spoke to.

So to ensure that his sympathies aren’t swayed, and its red lines remain intact, Russia will be straining to keep its voice heard.

On Monday, for example, the Russian foreign ministry was quick to condemn recent comments from the UK government that it would be ready to send troops to help enforce any ceasefire.

It described the idea as “provocative” and “predatory”.

Moscow is trying to drown out European concerns by portraying itself as the party that wants peace the most, and Kyiv (and Europe) as the obstacle.

But while Mr Zelenskyy has agreed to a trilateral meeting, the Kremlin has not. After the phone call between Mr Putin and Mr Trump, it said the leaders discussed “raising the level of representatives” in the talks between Russia and Ukraine. No confirmation to what level.