To start this blog off right to show my geekiness by posting on New Year's Eve (Amateur's Night), I want to share my thoughts on what will shake down on Thursday.
Being a native Iowan, I had the pleasure of returning to Waterloo to visit my parents for the holiday (I now live in the fine burg of Charleston, IL). The intensity of this caucus is something I've never seen before in the state. Since my Dad is registered Democrat and he caucused in '00, ole Virg is a sought-after man for sure. I've had him keep all the campaign literature he's received, which I've perused, and no one--unless you don't watch TV or read the newspapers--can get away from the glut of TV commercials.
Regardless, from looking at all of the campaign propaganda, I was most impressed by Edwards' literature. While one can justly criticize how credible his claims about his ability and will to go against the system, he's doing a good job of tapping into Iowans' values and beliefs. In a state that takes their caucus seriously and collectively likes to think of itself as working class, Edwards is preying upon the anxiety of the middle class by talking about economic issues. His pr documents and a number of his commercials that refer to Maytag shutting down, I would suspect, hit home with many Iowans who are fearful of what our economy has become. In addition, he's been to Iowa before, and he has a good network built in the state.
Obama is doing well, no doubt, and Clinton is robotic especially when Bill is along for the ride on campaign stops [Their stop along with Magic Johnson (?!) in a grocery store was comical.].
While I'm certainly biased because I'm supporting Obama, I see Edwards pulling off a upset on Thursday. I predict the win, place, and show going like this: Edwards, Obama, Clinton.
What complicates matters, however, is what happens to the caucus goers whose candidate doesn't garner 15%? If I recall correctly, I think the supporters of Richardson, Dodd, and Biden can defect and then caucus for someone in the running. I could be wrong about that arcane fact about the Iowa caucus, but I don't see supporters of the aforementioned latter three going with Clinton.
Then again, my dislike of Clinton nomination might be coloring that read too. As one of my friends described it, we're "ABC" Democrats: Anyone But Clinton.
What I wonder also is what happens when Richardson, Dodd, and Biden drop out? Will they throw support behind a certain candidate or let the field play out? Richardson in the debates seemed very deferential toward Clinton, but who would want to be the VP in the Clinton Administration Part Deux? He'd be more frustrated than Gore was with Bill.
On the GOP side, I see Huckabee messing up Romney's spending spree in Iowa, which only strengthens McCain, who I think will win New Hampshire. McCain is the best national candidate for the Republicans, if they want to go that route.
6 comments:
I have no idea what your blog means but happy 2008!!
Looking forward to reading your propaganda.....
Propaganda? I strive for the truth, comrades!
I've always wanted to ask you Iowans (Iowaegians?) how a caucas works.
My only experience is with 'regular' balloting, that is, secret, in a booth with a curtain, punch out the ballot and drop it in a box.
My understanding of how a caucas works is that everyone that wants to stands up and talks about their preferred candidate and after everyone has spoken you raise your hand to indicate your vote. Is that right? I don't think I would like the knowledge of how I voted to be open to everyone.
Also, how do Iowa-residents feel about going first? Do y'all think its a 'good' idea to start in a relatively rural state? Or is it just a historical oddity that isn't worth changing?
As a relatively reliable Republican supporter, I'm becoming more and more depressed about our choices. I support Fred Thompson, but I increasingly think he has no chance of making it through the primaries.
I'm afraid that we'll go with McCain as "the guy that can win the general against a politically vulnerable opponent". You saw how well that worked for Kerry in '04.
Most of all, I'm glad that the primary season is finally starting, so we can get on with it.
Happy New Year
As for the proces, I'll talk to my dad about it and get back to you.
Speaking as a Iowan by birth and temperment, we probably take a little too much pride in our leadoff position for the political season. But we like how it calls attention to our state and how we can offer some judgment for the nation.
One can argue that three relatively small states (Iowa, NH, and now South Carolina and Nevada) are emphasized too much, but it's hard to go against tradition with the first two. Other states (Illinois is one this year) have moved their primaries up (Feb. 5) to get more of a voice in the process, which I think is good overall.
However, as my parents have related, they'll be happy when the caucus is over so they can be left alone. After so many TV commercials and phone calls and mailers barraging them, it just gets old.
You do find a lot of folks who caucus do some comparison shopping by going to rallies of various candidates all throughout the process. My dad, for example, has gone to get-togethers/campaign stops by Richardson, Bill Clinton, and others. He wanted to go to an Obama one, but he said "it's too crowded."
Waterloo, in particular, has probably the strongest African-American population in the state (13%), so Obama and Clinton are battling for their votes as was detailed in an interesting NY Times article that profiled Waterloo. Add that to the strong blue-collar town it is already, and politicians stop by quite often.
I'm sort of baffled by Thompson's inability to do anything. I know Romney hired the best person to run a campaign in South Carolina (the guy who did the hatchet job to McCain for Bush in '00), so I could see where Thompson could slip into irrelevance there. But then again, he's Southern and more consistent on his positions.
Both contests for the nomination are very intersting, but I find the GOP one much more up in the air. There are many stirrers of a bad stew: 911 (Rudy), McCain, Flip-Flopping Mitt, and Huckabee.
I listened to Huckabee on Meet the Press on Sunday, and I can see how people like him. He seems down to earth--not grumpy acting like Thompson, not slick like Mitt, not wooden like McCain. When I was in Waterloo, I saw a lot of Huckabee signs--no Romney ones.
For the GOP, a party that seems to revel in internal discipline and having the next-in-line ready, the race is wide open. The Dems, on the other hand, like to revel in chaos for choosing their candidates, so now that it's essentially a three-person race nationally is somewhat surprising to me.
The Iowa Caucus usually counts more for the Dems than the GOP for that reason, but Huckabee might be changing that this year.
Travolta,
I didn't talk to my dad, but a talking head on MSNBC explained the caucus logistics as I was eating lunch.
At each precinct, supporters group themselves together sort of like folks at an All Greek at the TKE Barn in Kirksville. It sounds like it's a two-hour time commitment. At some time during the process, the administrators of the caucus count groupings of supporters (no secret ballot in Iowa), and if a candidate doesn't garner 15% of the room, his/her supporters can then choose a second candidate who is viable.
So in most precincts, the supporters of Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich have to decide among the top three, which is an interesting wrinkle to the process for sure. Kucinich has told his supporters to caucus for Obama, which I don't know if that's a ringing endorsement since the guy admitted to seeing a UFO.
Take me to your leader!
Post a Comment