Vilsack Declares Caucus Victory; Game Not Yet Over

Vilsack Declares Caucus Victory; Game Not Yet Over

National Journal Hotline has an interesting take on why Iowa, seemingly against the odds, kept first place while New Hampshire was the big loser: subtlety.

As he dodged the question, Vilsack seemed to suggest that IA's cautious, private lobbying won out over NH's public campaign. We had also asked, as part of a preface, whether Vilsack regretted not speaking up in public about proposed calendar changes.

"There are two ways to operate this process. You can be public about it and you can be very private about it," he said. IA chose the former. (sic)

I think we mean latter, but that's how the original reads.

This is contrasted favorably with New Hampshire's public statements. Not mentioned: the Granite State's threats to ignore the calendar and frontload the primary back into 2007.

I'm guessing at this point they'll do just that. The DNC will threaten or even take away their delegates, but as we all know that's not the real importance of New Hampshire, or Iowa. The key question is what the candidates will do.

Will they ignore an off the calendar New Hampshire primary, the way they blew off the non-binding DC primary in 2004? A cautionary tale from the right side of the aisle. In 1996 Louisiana held an pre-Iowa GOP caucus that MOST candidates skipped. But Phil Gramm and Pat Buchanan went to LA in `96 and there were some interesting trick pool shots. Essentially, Dole's folks (and others - I can barely remember who ran!) got behing Buchanan to take out the better-funded, more threatening Gramm. So anyone who skips an "unofficial event" may run a risk.

Will they campaign on as if nothing has changed? New Hampshire has one thing that DC and Louisiana did not have: tradition.

Remember how well the To Hell With Iowa strategy has worked for Presidents Al Gore (1988), John McCain, Wes Clark and Joe Lieberman.

What are the negative consequences? Does the mainstream media and the blogosphere criticize candidates who campaign in off-the-calendar states? The left side of the national political blogosphere is not a very Iowa-New Hampshire friendly place, though there's not a consensus coherent alternative. The MSM hates hates HATES Iowa and prefers New Hampshire. It's more commuter flight friendly, and the rules are more comprehensible than Iowa's four-tiered system that never gives you an actual statewide count of voters.

Everyone wants a system that serves their interest. The MSM would love the whole process to take place at a DC cocktail party (no bloggers allowed), or if there HAS to be a primary and a caucus, make it Maryland and Virginia. The bloggers would like more input and influence (and maybe more hits and ad revenue).

Me? I'm in Iowa. And anything that hurts New Hampshire ultimately hurts Iowa in a "you pig farmers are NEXT" way.

New Hampshire has gotten lucky the last few Democratic cycles by giving victories, moral or otherwise, to the ultimate winners. In 1992 it was the scene of Clinton's Comeback Kid win. Oh wait, he was second behind Tsongas. No one else noticed either. Gore essentially finished off Bradley in 2000, though Bradley might have won without massive McCain crossover. And Kerry picked up his second win there.

Similarly, Iowa's fate comes down to this: The ultimate winner needs to come out of Iowa with at least a moral victory. For Kerry Iowa was the whole ball game. Gore won big in 2000 with the entire structure of the state party behind him. (I was actually called, to my face, a "bad Democrat" by a state central committee member for supporting Bradley.) And as I've noted, we survived the 1992 Harkin campaign when Harkin immediately and enthusiastically endorsed Clinton - something Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown never did.

But we won't get lucky again if Vilsack runs.