A Farewell to Iowa
Our long national nightmare is almost over . . . the Iowa caucuses are tonight. One of the most ludicrous aspects of the 2008 campaign is that we’re doing this two days after New Year’s. (If a few other states had gotten their wish, we’d have done it around Christmas.) January 3 is the earliest the caucuses have ever been held—although I was surprised to learn they haven’t moved up as much as I originally thought. In 2004, the caucuses were held on January 19; in 2000, on January 24. From 1984 through 1996, they were held in February, as early as the 8th and as late as the 20th. From 1972 through 1980, they were held in January. The time between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, like everything else in this nominating season, has been compressed. From 1984 through 2004, it was held eight or nine days after Iowa—this year, it’ll be five days later.
It seems clear that the nominating process in both parties will be over and done by February 5, a date dubbed “Super Duper Tuesday,” when 24 states will hold primaries or caucuses. But at the same time we’ve moved up the primary campaign season, we’ve moved the conventions back. The Democrats, who usually convene in July when they’re the out party, won’t meet until August 25, the latest in history. The Republicans will convene on September 1, the Sunday of Labor Day weekend.
I keep reading that this is the last time Iowa and New Hampshire will hold pride of place in a presidential campaign, and clearly, it’s time for that to happen. How they’ll be replaced, I don’t know—although the undemocratic caucus system clearly has to die. I like the idea of regional primaries. I think it would be possible to have enough of them—eight, 10, even a dozen—on a reasonable campaign calendar, which could preserve at least some of the beloved “retail politics” that’s supposed to be so great about Iowa and New Hampshire. But no matter what happens, the horse-race aspect of the campaign—who’s up, who’s down, who’s meeting expectations and who’s defying them—will make the later primaries less relevant than the earlier ones. But if they’re run by the national parties instead of the states—as they most certainly should be—at least we won’t see a backward rush onto the 2011 calendar in an attempt to be first.
Since everybody else in the world is picking winners, I’ll jump in: On the Democratic side, I think Obama wins, Edwards comes second, and Hillary third, with Biden getting a boost from a stronger-than-expected fourth. Everybody else will be done after tonight. On the Republican side, Huckabee wins easily, but because his sudden ascendancy seems like an act of God (just ask him), everybody else remains viable. Except maybe TV’s Fred, who’s itching for a reason to get out. Three percent ought to be it.
Please add your guesses in the comments.
Posted: January 3rd, 2008 under Biden, Democratic Debates, Dumbocrats, Edwards, Hillary, Obama, Pigtards, Romney, Sir Rudy, The Primary Season, Uncategorized.
Comments: 16
Comments
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 3, 2008, 8:23 am
Actually I really like what you refer to as the “undemocratic caucus system.’ I don’t see anything undemocratic about it. And it allows the party to make the decisions about who will represent them. The Thugs have a straight up vote, just like in a primary. The Democrats have a vote too, they just have more complicated rules. And some of that allows us to test out alternatives to an all-or-nothing vote. What’s undemocratic?
I keep hearing this regional primary suggestion but that would mean (1) that the states have no role and (2) that the parties wouldn’t be allowed to decide how to run their parties. That is intrinsic in basically ordering them to have a primary and deciding that the democrats and republicans have the same rules. Who is going to decide?
I agree that reform is needed but as for that reform? No thank you. (And no, I don’t have an answer. But that doesn’t mean that I have to like that one.)
I’m not predicting in a caucus. For the Democrats the 15% or choose somebody else rule confuses things such that I can’t guess. The weather, age of the turn out, etc. just makes everything too uncertain. I hope they aren’t stupid enough to choose Huckabee for the Republican side. That said, the “winner” is much less important that it might seem this early in the process. The more important nuanced outcome is about who will exceed expectations and who will fail to meet them. For example, Sen. McCain doing third would be an amazing victory for him. Sen. Clinton coming in anything but first will burst that sense of invincibility bubble around her.
After all of that is said, I remain entranced by the process.
Comment from jabartlett
Time: January 3, 2008, 9:08 am
I’m not suggesting the parties shouldn’t continue to run their own primaries, only that they should find a more sensible way to do them. And I disagree with your characterization of a caucus as a “vote.” The caucus system disenfranchises people who cannot attend a three-hour meeting at 7pm on a weeknight. It isn’t a secret ballot, it isn’t one-person-one-vote—it’s only marginally better than the smoke-filled-room method, where a few power brokers made the decisions. And it gives disproportionate power to the 15,000 mostly white, mostly older, mostly more affluent Dems who are willing to jump those hoops. I’m a fairly active Democrat who understands my stake in the process, but I live in Wisconsin, which does not hold its primary until March, therefore, I have no right to help decide my own party’s nominee. That decision will be made for me. I am not sure how the current system can be defined as anything other than undemocratic, by the broad definition of democracy we supposedly have in this country.
(You’re right about expectations being the ballgame, though.)
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 3, 2008, 10:01 am
JAB, I totally agree. The Iowa process is totally undemocratic: if you are in the Armed Services and stationed overseas (remember Iraq and Afganistan?) you can’t participate. If you are required by your company to be at some convention or on a business trip today, you can’t participate. If you a poor and can’t afford a baby sitter for more than an hour, you can’t participate. And so on.
It is also undemocratic because it is not “one man, one vote”. You get to vote several times, not just once. And each Iowa vote has a multiplier effect for the winner of 20:1 on other states according to one study.
Finally, Iowa is one of the most unrepresentative states in the Union. You couldn’t get much whiter or more Protestant or more cow-shit on your boots.
What I would still like to see is a modified Iowa process (or even the Iowa process–the above comments not with standing), rotated each election by region. That would still give everyone the ground testing, Beta testing, retail politics, etc., but do it in Virginia, Connecticut, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington (state).
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 3, 2008, 10:07 am
Again support for the “regional” primary. Would somebody please respond to the fact that that (1) removes the states from the process and (2) removes that parties from the process? That much increased centralization, in my view, just moves us closer to an oligarchy.
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 3, 2008, 10:41 am
Under my scheme, the states would still be in charge. At least we won’t have Iowa shucking the corn for the rest of us. One time it could be peanut farmers, or tobacco farmers (did he say tobacco farmers?), or salmon fishermen, not to mention the modern engine of technology, the techies.
Comment from timr
Time: January 3, 2008, 10:49 am
JAB, I read somewhere-I read news and opeds about 4-5 hours a day, so don’t remember exactly where I read this-that the Iowa caucus has only a minority of a minority of a minority of people actually sitting down to do this. I actually don’t remember ever hearing anything about Iowa before Carter in 76. But every election since then has started in Iowa. How does Iowa come out historically, by that I mean, how many winners in Iowa went on to win as prez, and second, since Iowa is more of a horse race than anything else and since it is pushed so hard by the MSM, has anyone ever looked at whether the prez who came in first in Iowa was actually a good prez? I mean we have had some real jerks as prez, how many have been elected, not because they had good ideas but because the sheeple see/hear the MSM touting the “winner” in Iowa, so they just follow along with the herd and vote that person as the winner in nov. Just wondering
Comment from jabartlett
Time: January 3, 2008, 12:28 pm
Sasha: The parties would control the primaries under my regional plan. The DNC and RNC would say OK, on January 8, New England has theirs; on January 15, the Middle Atlantic States, on January 22, the south, and so on. I don’t care that state party organizations are not involved.
timr: Here are the Iowa caucus winners, Dem and Rep, and the president elected in each year:
2004: Kerry, Bush (unopposed), Bush
2000: Gore, Bush, Gore (no matter what the Supremes said)
1996: Clinton (unopposed), Dole, Clinton
1992: Tom Harkin (Iowa senator/favorite son), Daddy Bush (unopposed), Clinton
1988: Gephardt, Dole, Daddy Bush
1984: Mondale, Reagan (unopposed), Reagan
1980: Carter, Daddy Bush, Reagan
1976: Uncommitted (Carter second), Ford, Carter
On the Dem side in a wide-open race, as opposed to a reelection race, Iowa has never picked the winner since 1976, unless you count Carter coming second to “uncommitted” that year. On the Rep side, it’s picked the winner once in a wide-open race: Bush 43 in 2000.
In the general, Iowa went for Bush in 04, Gore in 2000, Clinton in 96 and 92, the Duke in 88, Reagan in 84 and 80, and Carter in 76. So they were most off the mark in 88.
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 3, 2008, 1:24 pm
I’m missing something. Are you insisting on primaries instead of caucuses? And saying that the DNC and RNC have to agree?
Comment from jabartlett
Time: January 3, 2008, 1:55 pm
Primaries: yes. Caucuses are, in essence, a 19th century political practice, and undemocratic for the reasons I’ve already stated. Fie on them.
DNC and RNC agreement: no, although I think it could be in their best interests to agree on a system, much as they have agreed to caucus on the same dates in Iowa.
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 3, 2008, 2:01 pm
I guess I just really disagree about the caucuses. The parties choose their representatives. It is their business how they go about it. If they want to be “undemocratic” so be it. If the people don’t like it, they shouldn’t vote for the choices. I just don’t get imposing that kind of constraint on political parties. And, I assume your constraints would apply to all political parties including the Libertarians, the Constitution Party, the Socialists, the Communists, etc. etc. How is that even remotely constitutional.
In most states primaries have the same dates; in others no. Here’s a list. I don’t have the details on the caucuses and I’m too lazy to go look it up right now.
http://polstate.com/?p=5171
Comment from Josh Hammond
Time: January 3, 2008, 3:56 pm
Iowa is entitled to do what they want: if they choose to exclude soldiers, business people who travel, sick people, poor people, etc., that is “their” business (Sasha, aren’t you the one who is afraid of an oligarchy?). BUT they are not in entitled to go first. In fact, their insistence on going first is totally undemocratic and it should no longer be tolerated.
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 3, 2008, 4:48 pm
Yes I am concerned about oligarchy. And I trust the voters to right the problem if and when they see one.
I agree that they aren’t entitled to go first. Nor is New Hampshire. I seriously think it is time for the RNC and DNC to do something about that. I wouldn’t hate the notion of a national holiday on which everyone could hold a primary, say the third thursday in March. If states wanted to ignore that, then I imagine that the citizens could throw an appropriate fit.
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 3, 2008, 7:02 pm
If anyone is interested C-SPAN is showing a Democratic caucus and C-SPAN2 a Republican one. Live.
Comment from jabartlett
Time: January 3, 2008, 9:23 pm
From Salon today (http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/01/03/iowa/print.html)
The Democrats: The winner of the Iowa caucuses has gone on to win the Democratic presidential nomination in four of the last five “normal” cycles. We don’t count 1992 as normal because the other Democrats left Iowa to favorite son Tom Harkin, nor do we count 1996 because Bill Clinton ran unopposed. Outside of 1992, the only Democrat to lose in Iowa and go on to win the nomination since 1980 was Mike Dukakis.
The Republicans: With only two exceptions, the winner in Iowa has won the GOP presidential nomination in every cycle in the last three decades — and George H.W. Bush played a role in both exceptions. Bush finished first in Iowa in 1980, then lost the nomination to Ronald Reagan; he finished third in Iowa in 1988, then went on to win the nomination.
The presidents: Aside from the Harkin anomaly in 1992, no one from either party has lost in Iowa and gone on to win the presidency since George H.W. Bush did it in 1988.
The big losers: Aside from 1992, no candidate in the last three decades has finished worse than third in Iowa and gone on to win his party’s presidential nomination.
Comment from John McCreery
Time: January 3, 2008, 10:24 pm
Hats off to the prescient Bartlett. Obama, Edwards, Clinton, it is. But, hey, who was expecting that spread?
P.S. To fellow sentimental fools like me, I recommend
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-wins-iowa-why-ever_b_79663.html
Comment from Sasha
Time: January 3, 2008, 10:35 pm
I’m not a huge Arianna fan but I loved that piece. I guess I’m just sentimental too.
Write a comment