And a revised mission statement as well.
My dual role as press-activist, which was what led to the invention of the beret as the "blogging hat," back in 2007 when I unexpectedly found myself back in a professional journalism job for a year and a half, has been getting in the way of the activist role. (It's actually a TRIPLE role, but we'll leave my job out of the mix for the moment.)
Lately I found myself not able to have conversations that were critical to my activist role. I was getting left out of other things I wanted to do. And I felt less and less like I really "belonged" on press row - including a few nasty looks the last time I sat there at the Hall Of Fame event in Cedar Rapids in June.
It's a lot harder to justify the travel and time at events when it's a hobby, not a second job. I haven't really written enough in a long time to justify a press pass - including no long form blog posts at all the entire month of July and nothing in August but a music post. Twitter has really been my main medium for a long time.
Another problem for me as "press" is that I really, really, really hate doing interviews. As I get more open about being on the autism spectrum I can confess that I always felt extremely uncomfortable and awkward asking the questions. But if YOU interview ME about MY favorite subjects I'll talk all day (again: the spectrum).
So the beret is going into semi-retirement. I'm not going to attend events as "press" anymore. This isn't "quitting" as much as it is an acknowledgement of what my reality has been for some time.
Irony: At the first event where I deliberately decided not to go as press, Elizabeth Warren's Thursday rally on campus. I walked out of the closed door, no-press pre-event and out to the main rally - and Team Warren was playing my song as pre-rally music.
Literally the only good thing about Prince's death is that now you can find his videos on the internet. He was extremely aggressive about blocking his content online.
I'm always happy to be a source for real working journalists. The actual beret may appear on special occasions. And I'll still write occasional long form posts when I feel like it, when that medium works best, and when it's my specialty: number crunchers, caucus process, election law, and history.
In a post I first wrote back in 2006 and have updated periodically. I've
looked at and ranked all the caucus cycles back to 1976. As for
history and the caucuses themselves, a mixed bag. Irrelevant nearly
half the time, critical a little less often.
Not Worth The Airfare To Waterloo
20. 1984 and 2004 Republican. The Republican tradition was to hold no presidential vote at all in incumbent re-elect years.That tradition looks likely to end in 2020, not because of Trump's minor opponents but because state party leadership seems to think not having a vote in 2020 hurts the case for First in 2024. Ironically, this is happening as other state Republican parties are canceling their contests.
19. 1996 Democratic.
The word went down from Des Moines to the Democratic county chairs:
“The President would like a unanimous re-nomination and this WILL
happen.” Self-starters in a couple lefty college precincts elected a very small handful of Nader and Uncommitted protest delegates, but those
results got swept under the rug. Clinton came out and campaigned the
final weekend, largely to step on the GOP story (Actually Being
President trumps winning the caucus), but it was in basketball arenas,
not chat n’ chews.
17 (tie). 2012 Democratic. As
close to an unopposed caucus as possible short of “The President would
like a unanimous re-nomination and this WILL happen.” The state party
went to bat for actually having an alignment, which Chicago didn't want. But without a live
person as an Obama opponent (despite Bernie Sanders' suggestion), the dissenters were split between Uncommitted and
crossing over for Ron Paul. In the end the Uncommitteds, mostly made up of folks allied with the simultaneous Occupy movement, made a lot of
noise out of proportion to their 1.5% of the delegates. Rated up one notch because that 1.5% actually got honestly reported, not suppressed as in 1996.
17 (tie). 2020 Republican. Iowa Republicans broke with tradition in 2020, in part because they were concerned that with no actual vote they would put First at risk (this was before the 2020 Democrats removed all doubt). But even though they counted the votes against Trump, Bill Weld and Joe Walsh proved to be woefully ineffective even as protest vote placeholders.
16. 1992 Republican. The Pat Buchanan
Brigade was looking like a serious threat to win New Hampshire - he ended up at 37.5% there - but the
inside the Des Moines Beltway crowd stuck with the tradition of not
having a vote in an incumbent year. That decision was a small win for George HW, and that no-vote decision was more important than the 2020 decision to vote. So this gets the highest rank of the de facto uncontested caucuses.
15. 1992 Democratic.
Hometown boy Tom Harkin runs and wins big, though not as big as it
looked because of some skilled realignment work at viability time. That
76% Harkin delegate count included a lot of stealth supporters of other
Paul Tsongas was already on the ground in
Iowa when Harkin announced, but he quickly bailed. There were a couple
feints from Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown but nothing serious. Everyone showed up for the cycle's lone cattle call, the then-Jefferson Jackson dinner, but between low interest and a blizzard the hall was half empty.
In the end,
Iowa kept first place after `92 only because Tom Harkin was the only Bill Clinton rival who enthusiastically jumped on the bandwagon. The other also-rans could barely hide their obvious
contempt for Clinton. (Kerrey and Brown probably wrote themselves in that
The long term importance of the 1992 caucuses may be that Bill, and by extension Hillary, Clinton did not have to retail campaign in Iowa, and that had a ripple effect into 2008 and 2016.
14. 2000 Both. On the Democratic side Al Gore easily beat Bill Bradley in what was merely the first moment in the overall national dynamic; Dollar Bill made his stand on friendlier turf in New Hampshire and fell just short there, and that pretty much ended it.
the Republican side it was like one of those boycott-era Olympics: W
won but the toughest competitor, McCain, was a no-show playing a Screw Iowa strategy. The truly
significant GOP event was the straw poll that winnowed out more
candidates (E. Dole, Quayle, and Buchanan bolting to Reform) than the
actual caucus (Orrin Hatch, as if that wasn’t obvious). Comic relief:
People who took Gary Bauer seriously, Alan Keyes in Michael Moore’s mosh pit.
Secondary event in nomination contest
13. 2016 Republican. Whichever contest was first would have narrowed a field that peaked at 17 candidates. The biggest event of the cycle was actually a non-event - the Ames Straw Poll that had been the dominant pre-caucus event from 1987 to 2011 was first moved out of Ames, then canceled entirely when the leading candidates refused to show up.
The field was down to a mere 12 by caucus night. Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Marco Rubio, in that order, each took about a quarter of the vote, with the other nine splitting the remaining 25%. The immediate two past Iowa winners, Huckabee and Santorum, fizzled, and that effectively ended their campaigns.
Rand Paul failed to keep his father's coalition, because all of the "he's alternative, dude!" vote was caucusing for Bernie Sanders. The dudebro overlap between Ron/Rand Paul and Sanders supporters, which makes little ideological sense but is clearly a Thing, is a Ph.D. dissertation for someone.
Cruz's win turned out to be an anomaly and a relatively minor event. Cruz wasn't even Trump's final opposition - that turned out to be John Kasich, merely because he refused to quit.
12. 1980 Democratic.
The incumbent won the first test of Kennedy-Carter, but that battle of
giants was played out on a national, even global, stage and Iowa was a
11. 2008 Republican. Important to the dynamic of the contest, but not central to the result.
Romney was looking like the guy to beat in December 2007. Which Mike
Huckabee did in January 2008, after first beating Sam Brownback at the
straw poll to win the mantle of THE religious conservative candidate.
Had Iowa Republicans gotten behind the Mitt, they may have headed off
the chaos that was the GOP field in January. Instead, we proved that
there was no there there for Fred Thompson, and that the Ron Paul Яэvo┘utionaries
were noisy in disproportion to their actual numbers (but see 2012
below). But really, we just stirred the pot, and the decisive event was
in Florida between two men with Screw Iowa Lite strategies, Rudy
Giuliani and John McCain.
Our next contest was very similar, but the tiebreaker is that the Iowa winner actually won the nomination:
10. 1996 Republican.
What might have been: Pat Buchanan was within 3% of Bob Dole, but the
social conservatives in Cedar Rapids backed Alan Keyes instead; Keyes
thus won the second biggest county. One minister at one mega-church
makes a different choice, and we’d have had a major upset.
Some all too obvious field winnowing (Dick Lugar???) happens. Phil Gramm
gets out too, but his real stumble was in Louisiana’s
jump-the-starting-gun contest a week earlier.
Comic relief: Easily the funniest caucus! Dole, genuinely witty
in his non-Satan mode, Steve Forbes the android, Alan Keyes… but they
all pale next to Morrie Taylor, the tire magnate who literally tried to
buy a win one vote at a time. Failed miserably but looked like he had
more fun than the rest put together.
9. 1988 Democratic.
Other than Tom Harkin's favorite son run, this is the only time in the post-Carter modern era of the caucuses that Iowa Democrats did not vote for the eventual nominee. The nomination contest came down to Dukakis vs.
Jackson, neither of whose fortunes were affected by Iowa.
In `88 Al Gore, dirty Prince lyrics still ringing in his ears, was the
first candidate to use the Screw Iowa strategy. It's never worked (save
for the Harkin year), but nevertheless Gore wound up outlasting the
two Iowa leaders.
There's a story, long told by Paul Simon loyalists, that a county chair
sat on his Simon-friendly results until the Register had printed its
GEPHARDT WINS headline, which mattered in the pre-internet era. Rules got changed after that so that results are reported direct from the precinct to the state without going through a county chair, but this one proved the
winner-take-all-news theory that was prevalent at the time (and which was supposed to be the anchor of my aborted masters' thesis).
Gary Hart’s last minute return to the race, campaigning with his wife.
8. 2012 Republican. The real importance of the 2012 Republican caucuses was not its
relatively small role in designating the nominee. That was always going
to come down to Mitt vs. Not Mitt. Rick Santorum never really got the bump from the
win, because of the dead heat, the botched result announcement, and the recount that delayed the final result. And also because Sheldon Adelson kept Newt Gingrich on life
support far too long,
No, the real importance was what happened to the Republican Party of Iowa after
the presidential vote. The Romney and Santorum people both said "yay,
we won," went home, and both in turn were right. The Ron Paul people
stuck around, elected themselves as all the delegates and committee people, and
took over the state party structure.
had a huge ripple effect through state, and even national, internal
Republican politics for the next two years, until Terry Branstad, Jeff
Kaufmann and the rest of the grownups took party control back in 2014
(the most important OFF-year caucus). This one may move up the charts depending on the
long-term fate of the caucuses, and so may the next:
7. 2016 Democratic. Iowa was a big deal - in the same way that the first post in an epic flame war that eventually breaks Godwin's Law is a big deal.
Had Hillary Clinton solidly beaten Bernie
Sanders in Iowa, 2016 would have been over as fast as you can say "Bill Bradley"
and the whole Sanders phenomenon would never have happened. Oh, he
might have stayed on some ballots and accumulated a few votes. But
without the dead heat in Iowa, and the money and attention that followed, he would have been an asterisk, like Dennis Kucinich playing out the string in the late states in 2004 after John Kerry had clinched and everyone else had quit.
I have long said that half the Sanders vote was simply Not Hillary, and that
alone would have gotten Martin O'Malley to 30 points in Iowa had Sanders not
run. Indeed, that was probably O'Malley's whole strategy, to be the only person willing to run against Clinton.
The fact that Sanders was even allowed to run in 2016 without joining the Democratic Party was a decision by the DNC - ironically, headed at the time by the same Debbie Wasserman Schultz who supposedly "rigged" the nomination against Sanders. DWS's inability to take Sanders seriously as a threat to Clinton, and her under-estimation of Clinton's negatives, are just more signs of her ineptitude.
Sanders himself may have faded (from 49.9999% in Iowa on Caucus Night to 11% in last night's Register poll) but his campaign mainstreamed a progressive stance that other candidates without Sanders' negatives, most notably Warren, are now seeing success with. The long range ranking of 2016 may move up if this turns out to be a permanent change.
Significant event in nomination contest
6. 1988 Republican.
Pat Robertson pushes George HW into third place. Robertson was
insignificant thereafter, but the blow made Bush go on a fight of his
life attack against Bob Dole in New Hampshire. Dole took the bait and
was goaded into “stop lying about my record.” This convinces HW that
hard negative was the way to go. That road went through the flag factory
and Willie Horton, and ended at the White House. Comic relief: Al Haig.
5. 1984 Democratic.
Gary Hart barely squeaked past his old boss, George McGovern. But
second, no matter how distant, was enough to make him the Not Mondale
and propel him up about 40 points in eight days for a New Hampshire win,
a brief but genuine shot at the nomination, and (pre-Donna Rice) 1988
front-runner status. The Right Stuff sank like Gus Grissom’s capsule,
and you're an old timer if you catch that reference.
Decisive event in nomination contest
4. 2004 Democratic.
Iowa was the whole ball game in 2004. Nothing that happened after Iowa mattered nearly as much as what happened in Iowa. The guy who won got the nomination, and the guy in second got VP. And the guy in third?
The Dean Scream goes down as the single most memorable caucus moment, but everyone forgets The Scream was after The Much More Important Disappointing Third Place. After Dean had been the front-runner for months, Iowans got scared at the last minute - mostly thanks to Dick Gephardt, who went on a suicide attack that took them both out and set Gephardt up for reward in the Kerry Administration.
3. 1976 Democratic.
This one made both Jimmy Carter and the caucuses themselves. Carter
didn’t actually win this, you know. He was second to Uncommitted. But I
know folks who still brag “Jimmy Carter slept on my couch.”
I’m torn about ranking a caucus that directly produced a president below one that didn't. But read on.
2. 1980 Republican.
In the first true Iowa Republican caucus, an obscure former ambassador,
spy boss, and failed Senate candidate George Herbert Walker Bush
shocked the ten foot tall colossus of the GOP, Ronald Reagan. This one
win puts Poppy on the map and ultimately on the ticket (after the
botched Ford “co-presidency” deal at the `80 convention).
why rank this ahead of Jimmy Carter, especially since Bush Sr. lost
that 1980 nomination? The ripple effect. No Iowa win = no Bush 41. And
with no HW, do you REALLY think Bush 43 or 45 (please clap) would have made it
on their own? 1976 made a president, but 1980 made a dynasty.
Number 1: 2008 Democratic.
There's no question the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses created a
president. Iowa was the honing ground for Barack Obama's message and
appeal and ground game. We eliminated the entire second tier, and proved
that voters in one of the whitest places in America would support a
black candidate. Remember, a lot of African-American voters were
sticking with Hillary Clinton before Iowa, because Obama "couldn't win."
Iowa shattered that myth and the perception of Clinton's inevitability.
It's too soon to tell, and Trump's win blurred things, but the 2008 caucuses may have ushered in not just one president, but a whole era,
a new alignment of states that ends the 1968 Nixon-Wallace
southern-western coalition for good, at least at the presidential level.
was a whole new map. As late as the first John Edwards campaign, people
were sill seriously saying it was impossible to break the Republican
"electoral college lock" without southern rural white male voters. Trump has since proven those voters are gone forever - maybe in the urban and exurban North as well.
But that old
South has been replaced by the new South, driven by suburban voters who migrated from the North, women, and minorities. Virginia three times, Florida twice,
North Carolina once, Georgia becoming an in-play mega-state, and even Texas on the horizon. Barack Obama fueled this alignment, which would not have been possible without that Iowa win.
1976 caucuses made one president, but his victory is a mere footnote to
a Republican era, brought about by the intensity of Watergate and the
Nixon pardon. The 1980 Republican caucuses made two presidents, but they
followed the electoral footsteps of others.
presidents in an era? Obama wasn't able to transfer
this alignment to a successor, because some anchors of the old coalition fell in 2016 (Trump essentially drew three cards to an inside straight with his narrow Wisconsin-Michigan-Pennsylvania wins). If the 2008 caucuses ushered in an Obama
Realignment, like the FDR Relignment or the Nixon-Wallace Realignment,
they could lead to four or five presidents.It's a weaker case than it was four years ago, but 2008 still deserves the number one spot.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Friday, September 06, 2019
Virtual Caucus is dead.
That became official today when a Democratic National Committee rules and bylaws meeting confirmed what was loudly leaked last week: that the phone-in "Virtual Caucus" plan that the Iowa Democratic Party developed, with nods of approval from DNC every step of the way, was unacceptable because of security concerns.
The most likely outcome, hinted at already last week, was that DNC would be willing to grant a waiver to Iowa and fellow early caucus state Nevada from the new requirement that caucus states be required to provide an absentee voting process.
The uncomfortable truth is: No one really wants the Iowa Democratic caucuses to have an absentee process.
Iowa Democratic leadership - both in the official Iowa Democratic Party structure sense and in the elected official-donor-activist base sense -doesn't want it because they're scared about risking First.
The bully of Concord, inscrutable New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner, doesn't want Iowa to have absentees either, because he thinks that's an election and HE insists on the first election.
The DNC doesn't really want Iowa absentees, despite lip service to the new absentee requirement, because they are really more concerned about the much older standing fight about preserving the early state calendar.
The DNC found out the hard way in 2007, when Florida and Michigan broke the rules and went too early, that a broken calendar is unenforceable against states that are unwilling to cooperate. In part that's because election law is mostly state law, and in part that's because the only possible penalties are so nuclear that they won't be used. There was no way the DNC was ever going to refuse to seat the delegations from two huge swing states at the 2008 national convention, and everyone knew it. It ends up making the party look weak and they want to avoid having to referee between Iowa and New Hampshire.
Iowa haters and caucus haters don't want the caucus to have absentees because they think this may finally be the way to kill us. (And they have cynically recruited the tech security community as allies.)
The presidential candidates, despite rhetoric from one or two campaigns, don't really want the Iowa caucus to have absentees. They have already made battle plans that actively discouraged Virtual Caucus because "it counts less."
The Des Moines Register in particular, and the rest of the Iowa media in general, are against absentees at the caucuses because they believe it risks First - and thus risks their polls, editorial boards, national TV appearances, and bottom line.
Iowa Republicans don't want Iowa Democrats to have an absentee process because they are worried about First and about double voting - people voting for the Democrats early and then attending the Republican event on caucus night (because they want to vote against Trump twice?). That's technically illegal - but can only be discovered after the fact and only with an unusual level of bipartisan cooperation.
Rural Iowa Democratic county activists who like to brag about how badly their county swung from Obama to Trump don't want absentees because they worry that without forced attendance in order to vote, no one will show up and they will not be able to organize their county committees.
No, no one really wants the Iowa Democratic caucuses to have an absentee process...
...except for two small groups. And no one seems to much care what we think.
The first is made up of actual normal Iowans who don't want to or can't spend three hours on a Monday night just to vote, and who care more about that than about the benefits (?) of First. These are not the people asking questions or getting selfies or even going to candidate events. They don't care how many candidates are at your county party event or how the platform is worded or who is on the county central committee. They just want to VOTE.
These are also the people who work second shift or get mandatory OT or are traveling or who have small children or can't drive at night or who have problems standing or who (like me) can't handle the stress of large and sometimes hostile crowds.
The other group that wants absentees is also like me - actually, I'm pretty sure I'm the loudest: Urban county Iowa Democratic activists who are concerned about literally not being able to fit into the biggest room that exists in the precinct. No one at IDP has ever given us any constructive suggestions as to what we should do about it. Even honest acknowledgement is rare. We just get the occasional "it won't be so bad" pep talk.
You cannot "organize" and "party build" when precinct attendance is approaching quadruple digits. You can't fix The Biggest Room Is Too Small with "better planning." You CAN fix it, you can ONLY fix it, with absentee ballots.
If you're with me in those last two groups, we have two weeks to convince Iowa Democratic leadership that we NEED an absentee process and that the apparent direction from both Iowa and DNC - a waiver from the absentee requirement - is the wrong way to go.
In today's conference call, DNC Rules and Bylaws chair James Roosevelt (yes, grandson of FDR and Eleanor) said:
Roosevelt notes that Nevada's delegate selection plan includes in-person early voting, which is "already an expansion from what they did in 2016 and is clearly within the rules." He says Iowa is exploring other options to expand absentee participation within their constraints.— Megan Messerly (@meganmesserly) September 6, 2019
If Nevada can have in person early voting for caucuses, Iowa can and must do the same.
It is time to stop caring about New Hampshire thinks. It is time to stand up to Big Bully Bill Gardner.
DNC approved a calendar with Iowa first and New Hampshire second. They also approved rules that said caucus states need absentees, and we should not let New Hampshire break the rules just because we are following the rules. If New Hampshire moves in front of Iowa, let them - and then throw their delegation out of the national convention, the way Florida and Michigan should have been thrown out in 2008.
We also have one last chance to convince Iowa Democratic leadership that the 10% delegate cap, no matter what the attendance, on an absentee process is unfair. Absentees should be reported back to the individual precincts and counted equally, and should also be actively encouraged in order to address overcrowding.
We need real early ballots and we should not settle for anything less.