Will the non-secret caucus ballot be a factor in Iowa?

Will the non-secret caucus ballot be a factor in Iowa?

The rap against Iowa, and the stated reason for the 2008 primary schedule shuffle, is lack of diversity. Barack Obama faces an Iowa that’s one of the whitest states in the nation. Hillary Rodham Clinton opens the campaign in one of only two states that have never elected a woman either to Congress or as a governor. The other is Mississippi. We Iowans are a bit embarrassed about that.

But not embarrassed enough to elect Julie Thomas, Ann Hutchinson, Elaine Baxter, Jean Lloyd-Jones, Bonnie Campbell or Lynn Cutler.

Pollsters are flummoxed by an inherent weakness in their trade: there’s no way to account for the “none of your business” answer or, even less, the bald-faced lie. Time and again surveys have confronted the “white lie”: voters are statistically more likely to report a vote for a minority or female candidate that they are to actually cast that vote for said candidate. They know they’re “not supposed” to be prejudiced, but in private, well, they are. The classic case is the 1989 Virginia governor’s race. Doug Wilder was something like a dozen points “ahead” going in and won by about 0.1%.

(Tangent: Contests in the four off-cycle states that elect governors in odd numbered years are always overanalyzed. That’s particularly true of Virginia and New Jersey due to their proximity to D.C. and New York.)

Iowa saw a misleading poll in the 1992 ERA ballot issue – well ahead in advance, on the losing end on election night. Susan Faludi’s “Backlash” was published a year earlier, and in that moment of privacy in the booth, Iowans could take out their secret frustration against having to replace Miss or Mrs. with Ms. and child support payments and not being able to hit on your secretary anymore and all the other “evils” of feminism. Not a proud night for our state.

Well, on caucus night Iowa Democrats don’t get that in the booth moment. You literally stand behind your choice, in front of your neighbors.

That’s one of the reasons caucuses have mostly moved out of picturesque private homes the last couple cycles. If the caucus is in Millie’s house, and Millie is for Dick Gephardt, it’s damn hard to go to Millie’s house, eat Millie’s cookies, and caucus for Howard Dean under the big picture of Millie giving Dick Gephardt a tray of cookies.

(The other reason residences have died as caucus sites is the Americans with Disabilities act – that was Tom Harkin’s baby after all.)

It’s actually a lot less neighborly than Millie’s cookies; picture a crowded school cafeteria. And given the changing social dynamics in 21st century Bowling Alone America, with personal networks based around factors other than neighborhood, there’s some anonymity. But there’s still that exposure. And in this cycle with two superstar barrier-breakers running, it makes me wonder if the lack of secrecy will affect voting behavior.

Democrats lean more PC than the GOP (new slogan: “Talk English!”), and know they’re supposed to care about this stuff even if they privately really don’t. So will that sort of pressure and expectation influence caucus goers? Think of Catholic John Kennedy essentially daring protestant West Virginia to prove they weren’t bigoted in the primary by voting for him over Hubert Humphrey in the 1960 primary.

How do you deal with this if you’re Humphrey?

Or, more to the point, John Edwards? Will folks who sincerely support a white male candidate stand up instead for Barack or Hillary, for fear of accusations of prejudice?

I don’t see how Iowans will feel like we’d “prove” anything by caucusing for Obama. We’re not much accused of being old-South style racists in national Democratic circles; we’re just blamed for being very very very very white. Guilty as charged, pass the tuna fish casserole.

My guess is the uniqueness of Obama’s story and his much-vaunted charisma will make the race thing a non-factor. Besides, the real vitriol in Iowa is reserved for Hispanics anyway and we do have something to prove there (paging Governor Richardson...) Tom Vilsack will suffer less nationally for the questions of racial bias in state job promotions that came up late in his tenure than he will for signing – signing! - Steve King’s English Only bill in `02.

It’s with the Clinton campaign that things get interesting.

How does a white male candidate compete against a “time for a woman” subtext that will never be explicitly stated? In a situation where every single vote is public, in a party where gender balance is mandated down to the precinct level?

(Aside: gender balance doesn’t always WORK down to the precinct level, but by the time you’re at county convention it’s being raised, and at district and state convention it’s enforced by electing Male Delegate and Female Delegate as separate offices.)

During the World War 2 generation, when male military service was nearly universal, candidates used “served in wartime” as a surrogate line for “vote for the man.” Eseentially it argues that Commander In Chief is the ONLY presidential role and only a combat vet can fill the role. That’s not an option for some of the male contenders, and seen as ham-handed and transparent by an increasingly sophisticated electorate.

But how many Democratic men are gut-level uncomfortable both with a woman president AND at the same time uncomfortable saying “I’m uncomfortable with a woman president” in public?

And how many WOMEN feel that way? The dynamic is fading with age, but polling shows that women born and raised in the pre-feminist era are a tough demographic for female candidates.

And another interesting question: are the other early Democratic caucus states, Nevada and South Carolina, operating under similar stand behind your vote rules? Race could be a verrrry interesting factor in South Carolina…

No answers. But they’re good questions.