Responding here at that seems to be the breakdown now - here for specific election stuff and the older thread for more US general politics…
It’s arguably more relevant this year than it has been for many cycles, if not for the normal reasons but for what the nature of Trump’s win there says about how the party has shifted since his last time there in 2016.
Iowa has a reputation for being a proving ground for candidates. The fact that it comes first means candidates get to spend more time there, and in turn the electorate has come to expect that of them, with a reputation for taking their responsibility very seriously for thoroughly vetting candidates. If the candidate doesn’t show up and do the work Iowa wont pick them, but by being so present it exposes weaknesses of a campaign (see Kamala 4 years ago) or of the candidate themselves (see DeSantis). The problem is that on the GOP side the state has increasingly been driven by reactionary evangelicals politics meaning their choice has also increasingly become less predictive. Their choice has not only failed to predict the winner since Bush in 2000, but in that time their choice has also been a wacko with no real hope (Huckerbee in 08, Santorum in 12, Cruz 16).
So why is it relevant this time around? Trump didn’t show up. He didn’t do the work and still won with historically big margins. Just as important, this evangelical vote is a portion of the electorate who were most resistant to Trump in 2016. They eventually came around and by the end of his first term, driven by Q Anon type adherence, were his strongest supporters. Now they have roundly dismissed months of campaigning by other candidates to overwhelmingly support a guy who hasn’t even participated in the process. Its a really bright marker for how Trump 2024 is not the same thing as Trump 2016.
I think it’s also relevant to point out though that this is not a normal election cycle. Trump’s campaign is far closer to his incumbent 2020 campaign than his one in 2016 where he was in a contested nomination. If that were really the case then for all of the talk of this historically big margin he won by, it’s actually an indication of a big softness in his support in the party that a state like Iowa could still find a way to cast nearly 50% of their votes for someone other the presumed nominee.
I think only a mug makes predictions based on this, but I think it still tells us some really interesting and important things about what, who and how big his base of support is within his party