Iowa Caucuses are at Stake This Election

David Yepsen had a good article (yes, I just wrote that) last week about the future of the Iowa Caucuses.

Those rules fights will continue if Obama loses. Unlike Republicans, Democrats won't decide their 2012 process at their convention. They'll continue to discuss and haggle over it for months. But unlike the last rules fight, Iowa's critics will have more ammunition to make the argument that the state's leadoff position doesn't work for the party, since, once again, it elevated a candidate too liberal or too bad at campaigning to win the general election.You can also bet that the Clintons will be out to torpedo Iowa's caucuses. She would most likely be a candidate again in 2012. After her poor finish in Iowa and other caucus states, the Clintons became critics of caucus processes. You can look for them to side with the anti-Iowa and anti-caucus factions in those rules fights.

While all Americans have a lot at stake in this presidential election, Iowa also has its caucuses at stake.

$43 million Spent on Campaign Ads in Iowa

Iowa Politics has a study posted about campaign ads so far this election cycle. The study shows that the most money on campaign ads was spent in Iowa with $43 million. 22,000 ads were played in the Des Moines costing $15 million alone.

Best Primary Season Ever?

After a lot of talk about Iowa and New Hampshire having too much impact and then questioning of the impact of the compacted schedule, the primary season seems to be working out pretty well.

Stephen J. Dubner of Freakonomics blog explains why this has been the best primary season ever.

I’d like to suggest an opposing view: this primary season has been remarkably successful at letting the public come to know the candidates and what they’re about. Why?

For one thing, there has been massive exposure to every significant candidate, thanks in part to the scattered primary schedule. There have been so many debates that a voter would have had to try hard not to at least read about them, let alone see them.

But the second reason is, I think, far more important. This year’s primary schedule has forced candidates to act a bit less like candidates and a bit more like managers — and, therefore, a bit more like an actual President.

Think about it. The schedule called for a dazzling array of primary variables: some were public caucuses and some were standard private votes; independents voted in some primaries and not in others; both parties held primaries on the same day in some states and on different days in others. And then there’s the intense clustering of many primaries in many states in a relatively short time.

So what have the candidates been forced to do? Strategize intensely, adapt to a slew of different circumstances and formats, and, most of all, figure out how best to allocate precious resources — money and time chief among them — in order to optimize their outcome.

Huckabee and the Catholic Vote in Iowa

Matthew Yglesias had an interesting post today that shows Mike Huckabee had a poor showing in Iowa counties with a high Catholic population.

Here are the maps...

Huckabee won the counties in blue, Romney won the counties in red.


The redder the counties, the more Catholics.

Iowa Did It's Job

A week ago I wrote...

Iowa is supposed to put the candidates through the ringer, toss out the duds, and send the rest on to the other states.

and that is exactly what we did.

I know you've probably seen these, but here are Edwards and Obama's speeches from Thursday night...

Obama and the Creativity of Des Moines

One of my favorite authors is Richard Florida, who wrote Rise of the Creative Class. Florida responded to something Chris Bowers wrote at Open Left and gave some interesting analysis of Obama winning the Iowa Caucuses..

Chris Bowers writes:

I'm looking over the 2008 and 2004 Iowa entrance polls right now. Four years ago, 79% of the Iowa electorate were Democrats. This year, 76% self-identified as Democrats. The huge turnout was just about as Democratic as the 2004 turnout. The new voters were Democrats, not independents. No real surprise in the core of Obama's support. The younger a voter was, the more well-educated a voter was, the higher income a voter was, the more self-identified liberal a voter was, the more likely that voter was to support Obama. It is the same coalition for Obama that people have identified for months. Obama won on the back of the creative class vote.

I think Bowers is right about this. And it seems to me the 2008 election may well turn on class lines. I have long said the central animating issue in American politics is neither partisan polarization nor the culture wars but a festering class divide. Obama may appeal to progressive members of the creative class who swung Iowa, but can that group (roughly a third of the workforce) swing the general election his way. Seems to me there is an even larger group of working and service class people who are frightened, scared, anxious, angry and resentful about what is happening to "their" America. Critics of my own work have already attempted to reduce the creative class to "yuppies, sophistos, trendoids, and gays." My hunch is these same types will be all too eager to hang the label "elitist" all over Obama, framing him as a Harvard educated, Washington insider surrounded by a gaggle of Hollywood glitterati backers and the same old liberal establishment economic advisers (think Robert Rubin and Larry Summers). If the Democrats (and the creative class) cannot figure a way out of this box - to articulate an inclusive agenda for the future which shows in plain and simple terms how working class and service class people can participate and prosper from the global creative economy, my assessment is that the electoral playing field will remain heavily tilted toward a reinvigorating Republican populism. Huckabee has the potential to tap into this zeitgeist in a way that could move far beyond the "Reagan democrats." And Obama, despite his personal attractiveness and oratorical skills, runs the risk of being framed as another Gore or even Kerry. I'm just saying ...

I wouldn't give up on Obama being able to speak to the middle class. His first job out of college was working as a community organizer for factory workers after they lost their job. However, maybe an Obama/Edwards ticket would mesh this divide and unify the creative class and the working class behind a progressive agenda.

Caucus Results from My Precinct

Thursday was my first time participating in the caucuses. I expected it to be a little crazy and it was even crazier than I had imagined. People were told to show up at 6:30 and the doors closed at 7. I arrived at 6 and the room at the Iowa Veterans Home was already crowded.

I signed in and then helped people who needed to change their party to Democrat or register to vote. I would say I collected well over 50 registration forms from people who are now new members of the Democratic party and this was just one of 8 precincts in Marshall County. This is great news for Democrats come November 2008.

People were all signed in by 7, the doors were shut, and people made their way to their preference groups. There were 22 delegates to be had in my precinct. The caucus chair gave the introductory speeches, read a couple letters, and announced there were 372 people in attendance and each candidate needed 56 people to be viable.

Here is a look at the results...

First Count
140 Obama
103 Clinton
55 Edwards
33 Richardson
23 Biden
4 Kucinich
1 Dodd
6 Uncommitted

A few minutes were given for the non-viable groups to move around. Edwards needed 2 people to become viable and they quickly grabbed 2 from the Biden group. Then 10 people from the Biden group moved to Richardson. 3 of the 4 Kucinich people went to Obama.

Second Count
144 Obama
103 Clinton
57 Edwards
43 Richardson
25 Uncommitted

Then the 30 minute period to realign began. I was in the Obama corner and my job was to be the persuader. I talked a girl, who was home from college. She was concerned about Obama's stance on invading Pakistan to find Osama bin Laden. I was unsuccessful and I think she went to Edwards. There were two former Biden supporters that I tried to bring to Obama by saying that I grew up in the house they now live in. That personal connection didn't work and they went to Clinton. I did have some success. I talked the one leftover Kucinich voter to come to Obama over Edwards by telling her a lot of the same things I wrote in my endorsement of Obama.

While this was going on the Richardson group was able to get 3 more people, but were still 10 people away from becoming viable. They tried to pull some people from Clinton and Obama, but no one would budge. Finally, after 20 minutes or so the Richardson group gave up the hope of becoming viable and their group dispersed. The Richardson supporters split pretty evenly between Edwards and Obama, with just a couple going to Clinton.

Finally the 30 minutes were up and the counting for the final numbers began. The Obama group counted 3 times because we had some people that had left over the realignment time. Someone said 4 people, who are residents of the Veterans Home, had to go take their medication and then couldn't return. The final count numbers didn't match to the total number people at the beginning, so other groups had this problem also.

Final Count
159 Obama
107 Clinton
77 Edwards
5 Uncommitted

Delegates Won
10 Obama
7 Clinton
5 Edwards

Clinton's Manufactured Politics

The surprise of the Iowa caucuses for many in the national media was Hillary Clinton coming in 3rd place. However, Iowans covering the caucuses weren't as surprised for one simple reason: Clinton didn't embrace retail politics.

Iowa is won through face to face interaction with the voters. A candidate must shake hands, hold babies, and, most importantly, answer people's questions. Clinton rarely took questions at her events, and when she did there were planted questions by her own campaign and she accused legit questions as being plants from other campaigns.

Clinton's campaign was cautious and the result was a campaign that seemed manufactured. John Deeth wrote that Clinton understood the surface, not the spirit, of the caucuses.

Clinton kept errors to a minimum but failed to capture the spontaneous spirit of the caucuses.

This left people asking how well do you really know Sen. Clinton? Last night showed that Iowans did not know Hillary Clinton very well.

This all played out last night with Clinton's 3rd place finish, even thought it was by less than one percentage point. The national media finally observed Clinton's manufactured politics right before Clinton's speech, where Andrea Mitchell observed...

This room was, until about five or six minutes ago, completely empty. This is a manufactured 'celebration.' It really felt more like a funeral as people started strolling in from upstairs where they had obviously been gathered. This is unlike anything that I've ever seen, a completely empty, dirge-like event.

2008 Iowa Caucus Predictions

Thought I'd give it a shot at predicting tonight's caucus results.

I was getting the feeling last week that John Edwards was going to win, but the tide seems to be moving Obama's way the past few days.

So here they are...

Democrats
1. Barack Obama 38%
2. John Edwards 30%
3. Hillary Clinton 20%
4. Bill Richardson 7%
5. Joe Biden 5%
6. Chris Dodd 0%

Republicans (note the percentages are purely a guess here since I haven't paid as much attention to the latest pulls)
1. Mike Huckabee 34%
2. Mitt Romney 27%
3. John McCain 18%
4. Ron Paul 10%
5. Fred Thompson 8%
6. Rudy Giuliani 5%

I will be participating in my caucus here, so I won't be blogging during the caucuses. I will have some posts later tonight and tomorrow about the process and to analyze the results.

Second Tier Democrats Draw Larger Crowds Than Republican Frontrunners

MSNBC's First Read reported something that I have been seeing on the ground all summer long...

Yesterday, we spent some time with the so-called second tier on the Dem side. The most striking thing: the crowd sizes. Biden and Richardson seem to get similar crowds as the GOP front-runners.

Marc Ambinder says Biden's crowds have been impressive the past few days.

Some of the second tier candidates are beginning to draw large crowds, like Joe Biden, for whom 500 showed up in Des Moines, 300 in Mason City, and 250 in Dubuque. I doubt that Biden will finish in the top three, but he's clearly got the deepest well of support among the second-tier Dems, and he's a strong second choice candidate for many supporters of the top-tier Democrats.

Crowds like that mean one of two things: Iowans aren't 100% certain on the rock star candidates and are still considering the second tier candidates or Iowa is definitely going to be a blue state come 2008.

Iowa's Job

On Monday I wrote...

Iowa is supposed to put the candidates through the ringer, toss out the duds, and send the rest on to the other states.

Andrew Sullivan has a post up that goes into more detail about how well Iowa did it's job this time around.

I'm with Phil Weiss:

The Iowa process is completely transparent and charming. It is quirky. Again, if you have the gumption, you get to play your part. And the people who take part are highly informed and willing to dig their cars out of the snow, etc. That's the sort of elitism I like: a democratic elite.

Whatever happens this week, the process has done one thing: it really has flushed out a lot about the candidates. If Clinton wins, her opponents will at least be reassured that we were able to put all the bad stuff on the table, prevent an unexamined rush to a coronation, and air the salient issues (with the sole and understandable exception of her husband's potential bimbo eruptions). If Obama wins, the question of his relative newness to national life will have been thoroughly aired. Even the slick Romney machine has been laid bare - and the real Rudy revealed. These are good things; very few other countries get to do this kind of thing. The current prime minister of Britain, for example, went through no such democratic hazing. I've been particularly impressed by the GOP: they've let it all hang out. And given what has been done to conservatism under Bush, that was more than necessary.

They forgot to mention knocking on doors when the wind chill is 10 below zero.

What if Iowa Settles Nothing?

The New York Times asks what if Iowa settles nothing?

Good, because Iowa is not supposed to settle the race. Iowa is supposed to put the candidates through the ringer, toss out the duds, and send the rest on to the other states.

Some Neighborly Advice for Iowans

Here is some neighborly advice from Illinois for Iowans to consider before caucusing.

Biden on Campaign Finance Reform and Why Iowa Should Be First

Joe Biden talks about campaign finance reform and why Iowa should be first at a recent campaign event in Iowa.

What Edwards has Going for Him in Iowa

Time's Mark Halperin says John Edwards has a chance to shock the pundits and win Iowa. Halperin has compiled a list of what Edwards has going for him in Iowa...

1. The endorsement of the First Lady of Iowa.

2. The support (some secret) of people close to Governor Culver.

3. Big Labor help being quietly marshaled by one of Iowa’s top Democratic operatives and by Edwards’ 2004 campaign manager.

4. A consistently confident, upbeat demeanor.

5. A re-tooled stump speech that has audiences rising up, and that is filled with specifics of his agenda.

6. Caucus rules that work to the advantage of those with strong support in rural and blue collar areas.

7. Dedicated supporters who will likely turn out even if the weather is cold and inclement.

8. National trial lawyers who are going to do something (read: “everything”) to get their guy elected.

9. A popular, visible spouse.

10. More than enough money to be competitive.

11. Fearlessness.

12. A stronger work ethic than anyone in the race.

13. Perfect pitch in handling Clinton-Obama conflict.

14. A strong Des Moines Register debate performance.

15. New polling showing him as a strong general election candidate and some new boffo national media clips.

16. High favorables and strong second choice support.

17. Trained precinct captains in almost every precinct – a true, old-fashioned organization.

Still Undecided

I have seen all the candidates in person (Edwards 7 times, Obama 6, Biden 5, Dodd 4, Richardson 4, and Clinton 3), been to the Harkin Steak Fry and the Jefferson Jackson Dinner, read the candidates positions on the important issues, and seen all the TV ads.

Most every candidate has positives that interest me. I like the fact that Edwards is pushing the important issues (Health care, Fair Trade, etc). I am impressed with Dodd's leadership on protecting the constitution and standing up against domestic wiretapping, and he is excellent on education. Biden is extremely knowledgeable on foreign policy and I like his straight forward attitude. When I see Obama and talk to his supporters, I feel that I might just be missing out the movement of my generation. Out of all the candidates, when it comes to Iraq, I agree most with Richardson.

Now consistent readers of this blog can probably tell what candidate is the flavor of the week by who I am posting the most about. However, with less than 40 days to go until the Iowa caucuses, I have yet to commit fully to one candidate.

Chris Bowers at Open Left writes about the reasons he is still undecided. While I don't agree with everything Bowers writes, his article sums up my feelings pretty well.

At the same time, when the nomination is decided, I don't think I will lament the loss of any of the six candidates who don't win. Even leaving specific issues aside, this is because, at some fundamental level, I don't really trust any of them. Biden has always struck me as someone who talks a good game, but mostly seems to enjoy having the spotlight on himself and gets little done policy-wise for progressives. Clinton seems to vote well, but I can't shake the feeling that on many issues she has her finger in the wind, and will turn to the right as soon as it is politically advantageous to do so. Where was Dodd on these big fights before he started running for President? Edwards has changed so much over the past ten years that I have to wonder how complete or how permanent his progressive transformation is. Kucinich seems self-aggrandizing, occasionally loopy, and uninterested in doing what it takes to change a national campaign. Obama doesn't seem to actually like the activists who are supporting him, and he strikes me as more of a technocrat than a progressive. Richardson has a serious gaffe problem, and also has a real libertarian streak on things like taxes and government spending. While I can see good things coming from any of them winning the nomination and the presidency, I can just as clearly see moments when I will feel betrayed by all of them.

Bowers go on to talk about two of his favorite candidates and how these candidate fail to stack up...

While I can see arguments for why one candidate would be better, or at least less worse than others, the only candidate I have really ever felt that way about was Howard Dean. Notably, I also felt that way about Russ Feingold, and worked quietly behind the scenes to support him during much of 2005 and 2006, but he didn't run. When it comes to both Dean and Feingold, there are issues on which we disagree. However, I never had the sense that supporting them and working hard for them would make me feel used. When I have disagreed with Dean or Feingold, I never felt that it was because either was fundamentally conservative in any way, that they were elitists, that they valued power more than treating their supporters and allies decently, or that they were following a politically expedient path instead of sticking to their guns. It always felt compatible, open, and honest. It felt like they would have my back. Even when they made mistakes, they would never do so for underhanded reasons or because of bad motives. Dean even sometimes reminded me of my father, I trusted him so much.

This post is a bit confessional, but I felt a need to say it nonetheless. Yesterday, when I was removed a four-year old Howard Dean sign from the back of my brother's car, I felt there had to be a good reason, apart from just policy, that was keeping me from making up my mind in the 2008 primary campaign. I think, in the end, it comes down to a question of trust. If I am going to really put myself on the line for a candidate, I have to trust that person even when I disagree with him or her. When it comes to the current crop of Democratic candidates, I just don't trust any of them strongly enough to volunteer for them during the primary. With only a few weeks to go, it is hard for me to see that change now.

I don't see myself being undecided up until the day of the caucus. However, I am no closer to deciding who to support now than I was back in March. I guess I will just wait and see how things play out the next few weeks.

It's a Three-Way Race in Iowa, Even if the Media Doesn't Want it to Be

I watched Iowa Press on IPTV this morning and was surprised about how easy the talking heads, David Yepsen, Mike Glover, O Kay Henderson, and Jeneane Beck, fell for the line the mainstream media is trying to peddle, that it is a race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

However, when discussing these campaigns the talking heads stressed the importance for Clinton to get woman out to the caucuses and for Obama to get young people out to the caucuses and questioned if these campaigns will be able accomplish that. Yepsen added that Clinton's campaign has been sloppy the past few weeks.

The talking heads then blew off John Edwards' chances to win the Iowa Caucuses. They all said Edwards sounds too angry, is too wishy-washy on the issues, and Yepsen even said that Richardson has a shot pass Edwards for 3rd place. None of the talking heads even gave Edwards a chance to be in the top 2.

I agree with Iowa Independent's Chase Martyn, who ranked John Edwards first in his Democratic Power Rankings.

Edwards started about a year ago with the best organization in Iowa, and most of the foundation he built here is still in place. Although concerns persist that his sharpening rhetoric may be alienating a few of his earliest supporters, his solid performance at the Jefferson Jackson dinner, his endorsement from Caucus 4 Priorities (and the potential 10,000 caucus-goers it could bring him), and his ongoing commitment to retail politicking keep him in the top spot -- for now.

A Zogby poll earlier this month, showed Edwards wins the most support when you calculate people's second choices. Edwards has spent the least amount of money on ads in Iowa. Jerome Armstrong from MyDD points out...

On the Democratic side, for every 1 ad that Edwards has run, Obama has ran 9, and Clinton has ran 5, and yet, when you look at who regularly attends the caucuses, John Edwards has the lead; and even among those polled is right there in the mix. I think given Obama's huge spend at this date, he's probably reached his ceiling of support in the state. The other candidate thats already blown his wad in Iowa is Richardson, who got a bump off of it, but hasn't been able to keep growing his numbers. And it looks like, if Biden can get the money, that he's going to see some upward movement. And if I were to guess at whose expense a Biden bump would be, it'd be Clinton & Richardson I'd choose.

The point Yepsen, Glover, Henderson, and Beck missed is that Clinton and Obama's support is not as strong as the polls in Iowa show and that Edwards' poll number are more firm.

Now, I am not saying that John Edwards has Iowa locked up, but that it is a three way race in Iowa, even if the media wants to make battle between Clinton and Obama.

Problems with Polling Iowa Caucus Goers

This article from Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics explains why it is hard to find accurate polls of Iowa caucus goers...

A poll of Iowa Democratic caucus goers does not really mimic the process in which they participate. In a general election - you go into a voting booth, select your first choice, leave the booth, and drop the ballot in the box. And so, a poll that asks you for your first choice and then moves on to other questions does a reasonably good job of mimicking the act of voting.

However, this is not the experience of Democratic caucus goers. Iowa Democrats begin by standing in an area designated for their first choice candidate. Then, for thirty minutes, they either persuade or are persuaded by others to switch their choices. At the end of the half hour, electioneering is halted and caucus officials count the number of supporters that each candidate has. Candidates who have less than 15% or 25% are deemed not to be viable. And so, another thirty minutes for electioneering is once again granted. The supporters of nonviable candidates must find new candidates to support, team up with supporters of other nonviable candidates to make their candidate viable, or abstain.

The longtime Iowa voter probably knew this already, but the article goes much more in depth and worth looking over.

New Zogby Poll in Iowa

There is a new Zogby Poll that shows a tight race in Iowa getting even tighter.

Here are the results (results from August in parenthesis)...

Clinton: 28 (30)
Obama: 25 (19)
Edwards: 21 (23)
Richardson: 9 (10)
Biden: 3 (3)
Dodd: 1 (0)
Kucinich: 0 (1)
Unsure: 12 (13)

The race even gets tighter when you take out the candidates that don't reach the 15% threshold to become viable.

Clinton: 30
Obama: 29
Edwards: 27
Not Sure: 15

According to Zogby...

However, the race tightens dramatically when second choices are factored into the mix – a critical wrinkle in the Iowa caucuses. In the caucuses, a first round of “balloting” is conducted, and those candidates who do not win at least 15% support are ruled “unviable” and supporters are directed to a second choice among those who remained “viable” before a second round of “balloting” is conducted.

The survey shows Edwards wins second–choice support from Richardson backers and from Biden backers – both experienced pols with long Washington resumes. Obama also benefited more as a second choice than Clinton, making the race extremely tight.

Being a caucus-goers 2nd choice is also important because of the viability threshold of 15% in the Iowa caucuses. Even Clinton, Obama, and Edwards might not be viable in every precinct, so you can win someone's vote by being their 2nd choice. Zogby has some insights on people's 2nd choices...

However, the picture changes a bit among second–choice voters, where Edwards wins 25% support, compared to 23% for Obama and 18% for Clinton.

This poll shows this race is a 3-way race and it is far from over in Iowa. The media will continue to try to make it a Clinton-Obama matchup, but Edwards is neck and neck with them here.

How Does a January 3rd Caucus Date Affect Young Voters?

From Political Wire...

Iowa's January 3 caucus date -- "11 days earlier than first anticipated and the earliest in state history -- means that most Iowa college students will still be soaking up holiday break when the caucuses kick into gear," the Des Moines Register reports.

"Some observers believe that's bad news because many of those students have already registered to vote in the cities where their schools are located and are less likely to make the effort to caucus once they are home.

"But others say the change is a political windfall that will scatter potentially thousands of young voters into virtually every area of the state, where they can advocate for their preferred candidate."

Someone from the Obama campaign also noted that Iowans who attend college out of the state will be home over winter break and be able to vote. More importantly though, college student won't be clustered in a few precints, but will be spread around. This could make a big difference in rural areas where a few people can change the results.