Case for Iowa's Caucuses

Case for Iowa's Caucuses

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, March 1, 2020, p. D3
Every four years Iowa takes a beating from the 49 states that aren’t reporting first-in-the-nation presidential primary results.

Arguments include “Iowa’s too small, white and rural” -- and many Iowans can’t or don’t participate.

Could caucuses be improved? Of course. Nevada offers one option: four days of early “caucus” voting; ranked voting of up to five choices; and Saturday afternoon (instead of a weekday evening) for the in-person caucus gathering. [Photo: portion of Iowa City Precinct 3 caucus, Field House, Feb. 3, 2020; photo credit: Nicholas Johnson.]

The bi-coastal Democratic Party elite who confuse Iowa with Idaho and Ohio literally fly over the state going to New York or LA. They are the same folks who were willing to hand Republicans the 80 percent of America’s 3100 counties Trump won in 2016 – mostly counties they’d never visit.

Iowa is far more representative of America than they will ever know.

In 1974, after 12 tempestuous years in Washington, I planned to drive thousands of miles to revisit America. Then, invited to run in Iowa’s 3rd Congressional District primary, I realized those 3rd District counties were a microcosm of America. Moreover, they would take much less gas to drive around and visit than covering the entire country.

I closed my eyes and poked my finger at a map of the district. It landed on a small farming town of 100 residents that became my campaign home. A young farm family rented me an empty house on their property. A neighbor gave me some straw bales for insulation around its base. And the one church’s congregation welcomed me to its Sunday services. My checking account was with the town’s one bank. Businesses for miles around offered local banks’ blank counter checks. No ID was required. I’d just sign the blank check, take my purchase, and my new home’s bank would recognize my signature.

At that time these 3rd District counties had African-American, Latino and Native American populations. Farm families, sure, but also young professionals, small colleges and a state university, daily and weekly newspapers, entrepreneurs, industry (John Deere Tractor Factory), and union members (Waterloo’s UAW Local 838). Iowa was a state that invited, rather than rejected, immigrants, a state where students from around the world, in excellent K-12 schools, spoke over 100 languages.

The ability to go to any farm, business, home, or union hall and visit with anyone, the stories I heard, the friends I made, gave me an understanding of America no Washington job, book or TV show could offer. Those were some of the most rewarding months of my life.

Today, Iowa also has its share of counties with rural poverty; shuttered main streets, high schools and hospitals; opioid addiction and suicides. Iowans who, ignored by elite Democrats, look to Trump as their only salvation.

And those are just some of the reasons Iowa is the perfect state to be first-in-the-nation.

Here are some more.

Iowa’s size is an advantage. It’s possible for candidates to visit its 99 counties, to get a sense of an entire state while meeting, one-on-one, with a meaningful proportion of its diverse citizens.

Iowa can be to politics what spring training locations are to baseball. The number of Iowa’s national delegates are so insignificant that little’s at risk. Iowa lets candidates scrimmage, hone their talking points, interact with “real people,” better understand their opponents, experience hiring and managing staff while raising money. Iowa helps improve candidates’ national name recognition with free media coverage that’s also informative for the nation’s onlookers.

Keeping Iowa’s first-in-the-nation role is good for the candidates, for both political parties, all Americans, and our democracy. A wise Democratic National Committee should know that.
______________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City, is the author of Columns of Democracy. Comments: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #

Tags: Democratic National Committee, Iowa caucuses, politics, precinct caucus, presidential primary, ranked voting,

Democratic Party's Past -- and Future

A friend emailed me a reminder, this "morning after the night before," that Last July 25 I wrote a blog essay here titled "Why Trump May Win; Discouraged By The Democratic Party's Self-Inflicted Wounds." Others expressed comparable views at the time. None of us had much, if any, impact on the Party's actions this summer. But on re-reading that essay this morning, I realized that it might be worth posting excerpts from it again. For the next few days, weeks and months, both major parties' leadership will be engaged in trying to understand the presidential election and devise a change in course for their party's future. This may be of some help.

-- Nicholas Johnson

July 25, 2016

As a lifelong Democrat, I have for some years now been discouraged by the actions of the Democratic National Committee, and others who are considered members of the Party's establishment . . ..

The Democratic Party establishment had historically served, and been supported by, the poor, working poor, working class, union members, family farmers and a broad range of other demographic groups. Were it still both perceived and functioning as such, it could elect most officials from school boards and city councils to the U.S. Senate, House and White House. . . . [Photo credit: President-Elect Donald Trump, Wikipedia.org]

[But now] the Party's leadership has become -- and obviously wishes to remain -- funded by, and the legislative advocates for, Wall Street, large corporations, and the top 1% of America's socio-economic elite. It's mission, far more than the enactment of populist policies, is the perpetual re-election of office holders whose highest priority daily activity is raising money. . . .

The question is whether [this] will still work in this or any other country when one considers the Tea Party, Occupy movement, Brexit, and the unprecedented numbers and enthusiasm of the supporters of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.

Whether justified or not, millions of angry Americans now look upon government, corporations, other powerful institutions, and those who run them, not just as uncaring for people like themselves, but as an enemy, deliberately adopting policies and budgets knowing the harms they will impose.

I am not arguing . . . that every Democratic Party official should have joined the Bernie Sanders campaign. But to so obviously trivialize, or oppose, his candidacy -- now documented in the DNC emails revealed by Wikileaks (not that it wasn't well known before) -- and carry on with 20th Century politics, was unnecessary and counterproductive. For the angry Americans, independents, youth, Democrats, Republicans, and others, it was "a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."

However experienced and well qualified for the presidency Hillary Clinton may be thought to be, when millions of potential voters (and what may turn out to be non-voters) have taken to the streets with pitchforks in hand, for the Democratic Party leadership to offer them its preeminent establishment icon only confirms their worst fears about their Democratic Party, not to mention America's future and their own.

And that's, I believe, "Why Trump May Win."

# # #

The DNC Still Just Doesn't Get It

The Real Significance of DNC Emails

[A] man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter.

-- Mark Twain, "Corn-pone Opinions," (1901)

Update on polls: They vary, both over time and between pollsters. The only one that really matters, because it is definitive, is the one that counts voters' ballots on November 8, 2016. Meanwhile, here is what The New York Times "National Polling Average" reported on July 30, 2016: Hillary Clinton 42.6%, Donald Trump 42.1% -- in other words, a toss-up. Of the 5 polls averaged, among the 3 putting Clinton ahead they range from 43-42% to 40-35%; the two favoring Trump are 48-45% and 44-40%. Results for 11 swing states show Clinton leading in 9, by 0.2% (Ohio) and 1.3% (Florida) to 4.5% (Virginia) and 7.0% (Wisconsin). Trump leads in Georgia by 3.3% and Missouri by 8.2%. "2016 Election Polls; National Polling Average," New York Times, July 30, 2016. _______________
Contents
The Convention

The Morning After

How the Democratic Party of 2016 Has Become the Republican Party of the 1940s and '50s

Why The DNC Still Just Doesn't Get It

The Growing Cancer of Campaign Finance

Why Sanders is Not Just a Candidate, and His Followers Are Not Just Campaign Supporters

Things Worth Losing an Election For

_______________
On Monday of this week [July 25] I wrote:

Today [Monday, July 25, 2016] before watching any of the Democratic National Convention, or reading any of the news reports coming from Philadelphia, I'm going to write about some of the reasons for my discouragement. Later this week, once the Convention is concluded, I plan to write on the same subject once again to see what impact the Convention has had on my thinking.

"Why Trump May Win," July 25, 2016. Now that the Convention is over, here are my thoughts.

The Convention

The Convention got off to a bit of a bumpy start. Senator Sanders' "Revolution" had been mollified earlier, somewhat, with a party platform incorporating most of Sanders' proposals. But the DNC's and party establishment's disdain remained, and was confirmed with the revelation of DNC emails confirming what Sanders had complained of from the beginning (e.g., the number and scheduling of debates to favor Secretary Clinton, joint fundraising by the DNC and Clinton campaign, and emailed discussions of how best to set back the efforts of Sanders' followers). See, Aaron Blake, "Here Are the Latest, Most Damaging Things in the DNC's Leaked Emails," Washington Post, July 25, 2016.

Monday morning DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was booed so loudly by her own Florida delegation that, in an effort to minimize the booing in the full Convention hall, it was decided to relieve her of the normal DNC Chair role of opening and closing the Convention. Nonetheless, the Sanders' backers continued with booing every time Clinton's name was mentioned by a speaker.

Tuesday through Thursday, with Sanders' appeals to his followers, and full-throated support for the election of Secretary Clinton, the booing subsided somewhat and a rumored walk out Thursday evening did not occur -- although Sanders' flip left many of his followers with a sense of betrayal, and some in tears.

I won't review them all here, but I thought many of the speeches throughout the week were excellent and even moving (see, e.g., Philip Bump, "The Father of Muslim Soldier Killed in Action Just Delivered a Brutal Repudiation of Donald Trump," Washington Post, July 28, 2016). However, the media seem to have given Hillary Clinton's acceptance speech mixed reviews. The PBS panel, including David Brooks, seemed to think her speech text and delivery to be no better than just "acceptable." But even a couple New York Times' folks whose evaluation of the speech was a little snarky, had to acknowledge that their fact check of her assertions found them mostly 100% accurate. Michael D. Shear and Thomas Kaplan, "Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton's Acceptance Speech," New York Times (online), July 29, 2016.

If you haven't read her speech text I urge you to do so. "Hillary Clinton's DNC speech: Full Text," CNN Politics, updated July 29, 2016, 1:14 a.m. ET (with 59:22 video). Frankly, I liked it -- from the perspective of what she needed to say, and wanted to say, and did say.

No speech can erase her ties to Wall Street billionaires and refusal to share with us the texts of what she told them in $650,000 speeches, or her support of costly, unnecessary wars of choice that have diminished, rather than enhanced, our national security, or whatever else has produced negative opinions of her that are the second highest of all those who have ever been presidential candidates. (Trump's are the highest negatives.) But in the speech she embraced the Sanders' Revolution. ("Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion. That's the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America. We wrote it together -- now let's go out there and make it happen together.") She provided a State-of-the-Union-style list of what she wanted to do as president, along with how she intended to pay for it. She made an effort to accommodate her advisers' urging that she try to make herself more human (with references to Chelsea and Bill Clinton, her mother and grandmother). I could go on with all the other bases she touched on her way to bringing it home. But you can come to your own judgment about that.

Only time, and continuous polling, will tell what impact it had.

As for general impressions of the Convention, I thought it was professionally well produced and for the most part smoothly executed -- a real contrast with the Republican Convention and Trump performances the prior week.

The Morning After
Because this morning [Friday, July 29, 2016], as I stretched, wiped the sleep seeds out of my eyes, and ground the coffee beans, I realized that we are now, at best, back where we were on Monday morning, July 18 -- before the Republican Convention.

She came into the Democratic Party Convention well behind Trump in the polls, nationally and in the states she must carry: Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, among others. Trump's performances in Iowa Thursday [July 28] afternoon and evening stole some of the media attention and poll bounce she otherwise would have received. He was back to calling her "Crooked Hillary." And Secretary Clinton had done herself, and the Democratic Party, no favors by going out of her way to honor the disgraced, and overtly anti-Sanders, former DNC Chair with the title of Honorary Chair of her campaign! At a minimum, this does nothing to refute the suspicion that she was complicit with Schultz's efforts to turn the DNC's resources to helping Clinton and defeating Sanders.

Her selection of Senator Tim Kaine as her vice president -- for all his virtues in that role for her -- only added to the disappointment among members of what the late Senator Paul Wellstone used to call "the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" that the Party establishment was offering them just the same-old, same-old.

How the Democratic Party of 2016 Has Become the Republican Party of the 1940s and '50s
Yet Senator Kaine, perhaps inadvertently but clearly ill-advisedly, provided one of the most revealing assessments of his party during his acceptance speech when he said:

"Any party that would nominate Donald Trump for president has moved too far away from [the Republican] party of Lincoln. And I’ll tell you [disaffected Republicans], if any of you are looking for that party of Lincoln, we have got a home for you right here in the Democratic Party."

Will Drabold, "Read Tim Kaine’s Speech at the Democratic Convention," TIME, July 27, 2016

As I and others have earlier observed, the Democratic Party today (as distinguished from, say, the Democratic Party of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, or Lyndon Johnson) most closely resembles the Republican Party of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and presidential candidate Nelson Rockefeller.

Alabama Governor George Wallace used to say, "There's not a dime's worth of difference" between the Democratic and Republican parties. That's not true. One has to evaluate the differences issue by issue. Then there is a dime's worth of difference, especially with regard to some social issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). But when it comes to capitulation to the demands of Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Oil, large corporations, major donors generally, the NRA and other special interests, it is very difficult to make the case that those earning less that the median income (say, $50,000 a year) are better off with Democrats than Republicans.

Indeed, one of the most shameful and revealing bits of information in the DNC emails were the workings of the DNC in their relationships with major donors -- the provision of special perks and benefits, up to and including government jobs. Nicholas Confessore and Steve Eder, "In Hacked D.N.C. Emails, a Glimpse of How Big Money Works," New York Times, July 25, 2016, and Aaron Blake, "Here Are the Latest, Most Damaging Things in the DNC's Leaked Emails," Washington Post, July 25, 2016 (see "10) Flippant Chatter About Donors"). For an independent, professional, detailed and coherent report of a single event to explain this horrifying process, see Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick, "After Lying Low, Deep-Pocketed Clinton Donors Return to the Fore," New York Times, July 29, 2016, p. A1 (e.g., "While protesters marched in the streets and blocked traffic, Democratic donors congregated in a few reserved hotels and shuttled between private receptions with A-list elected officials. If the talk onstage at the Wells Fargo Center was about reducing inequality and breaking down barriers, Center City Philadelphia evoked the world as it still often is: a stratified society with privilege and access determined by wealth. . . . 'It’s business as usual,' said Libby Watson, who monitored lobbying events in Philadelphia on behalf of the Sunlight Foundation, a group devoted to government transparency.")

If one needs more illustration of the inequality created, and then ignored, by both major parties, one need look no further than the contrast between the Convention delegates' $600-a-night rooms (arranged by the DNC) with the 650-a-night homeless sleeping on the streets of Philadelphia while delegates ate, slept, partied, and met in comfort. ("[T]here are more than 500,000 homeless people in the United States. Out of all of them, 31 percent are living on the streets . . .. Philadelphia alone has more than 13,000 homeless people, both living on the streets and involved in programs and shelters. Approximately 650 homeless individuals sleep on the streets of Philadelphia on any given night." "South Philadelphia: Homeless People Are Struggling To Survive In The City," Philadelphia Neighborhoods, July 15, 2015.) Who spoke for them, let alone did anything?

Bluntly put, the Democratic Party has lost its soul, where access to power is gladly exchanged for access to money, and elected officials (not to mention DNC staff) spend up to half of every working day "dialing for dollars" rather than legislating.

Why The DNC Still Just Doesn't Get It
The afternoon of September 7, 2015, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley stopped by the Iowa City Federation of Labor's Annual Labor Day Picnic, held in the usual City Park Shelter #3. There were then five Democratic candidates in the race in addition to O'Malley: Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Larry Lessig, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb. During my visit with Governor O'Malley he asked me who I was supporting. I explained that I was solidly behind Bernie Sanders, but that he, O'Malley, was my second choice. Given the field of competitors, rather than expressing disappointment he indicated that he was quite delighted to be my second choice.

And why was he my second choice? Because from among the conventional candidates he scored highest on my checklist: range of experience, accomplishments, values, and political/social skills; that is, both elect-ability and capacity to function as president. As it turned out, few primary and caucus-going Democrats seemed to share my assessment.

So why am I writing about Martin O'Malley in a race that narrowed to Clinton and Sanders and stayed on track at the Democratic National Convention to select Hillary Clinton?

Because I need an example of what I mean by a "conventional candidate" to explain the three examples of why it is I think "the DNC still just doesn't get it."

The DNC (and Party establishment) has failed to recognize and embrace what Sanders was offering them. And I don't mean his candidacy. They could be thankful for his gifts to them and still decide that, for whatever reasons, they believed someone else would make a better candidate. (Although given that most of the polls indicated he would run stronger against Trump than Clinton, elect-ability could not have been among the reasons.)

Why was what Sanders was offering of value to the Party?

Americans are increasingly unwilling to give their unwavering, lifetime loyalty and trust to major institutions, whether government, corporations (as employers or suppliers), or traditional organized religions.

Not surprisingly, they are also falling away from political party identification, which Gallup reports is now at all-time lows. Nearly a half of all voters (42%) now identify as "independents;" only 29% are still Democrats, and 26% say they are Republicans.

There are many ways to increase party identification and membership, but the long-term most efficient may be to focus on (1) the young (Robert Kennedy used to "campaign" among high school students too young to vote) and (2) that 42% who are independent. Senator Sanders was dramatically successful with both groups.

He walked away with the youth vote. "In the Democratic primaries and caucuses overall, Mr Sanders won 70% of the under-30 vote . . .." "Young v Old Votes for Bernie and Hillary in the 2016 Primaries," The Economist, April 27, 2016. And Nate Silver 538 has explained Sanders' attraction to independents:

Sanders does much better among independents than among Democrats. In New Hampshire, for instance, Sanders won Democrats by 4 percentage points while winning independents by nearly 50 percentage points, a split we’ve seen repeatedly since then. Some of Sanders’s strongest performances in primaries have come in places such as New Hampshire, Michigan and Wisconsin, states whose rules allow independents to vote in either primary. In fact, to date Sanders has compiled an unexpected record, performing very well in caucuses but having won just a single closed primary (Oklahoma’s). So why is Sanders doing so well among independents? It appears to be driven not by their ideology so much as their dislike of partisan politics.

Dan Hopkins, "Why Sanders Does Better With Independents; It's Not Because They're More Moderate Than Democrats," FiveThirtyEight.com, April 18, 2016.

The Growing Cancer of Campaign Finance
The number one political concern for overwhelming majorities of Americans is the corrupting influence of money. Even 80% of Republicans oppose the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court opinion. A New York Times/CBS poll revealed that 85% of Americans believe we need fundamental changes to our campaign finance system. Another found 72% preferred small-donor financing of campaigns as a solution. A Des Moines Register poll of Iowa's caucus-goers revealed that 91% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats were somewhere between "unsatisfied" and "mad as hell" about money in politics. Jeff Robinson, "There's Nothing Naive About Wanting To Change Our Broken System," Every Voice, January 20, 2016.

Needless to say, campaign finance is the elephant in the political living room when it comes to building party membership and winning elections -- even for those benefiting from the system who see no ethical or moral problems with a democracy choosing legislation based on the size of campaign contributions.

Indeed, as mentioned above, one of the most embarrassing revelations to come from the 20,000 DNC emails revealed by Wikileaks has to do with what they explain about how the DNC trades benefits, and even government jobs, for the biggest political contributions.

When challenged, most professional politicians come back with resigned explanations regarding the costs of electioneering, and how PACs and large donations from corporations and the top 1/10 of 1% are really just the only way they can pay for the process.

Well, Bernie Sanders has just shown them how he could run a very successful and well-funded campaign with roughly 8 million donors contributing an average of $27 to what became a $200 million campaign.

Trump may be despicable, but he has figured it out. So had Bernie Sanders. The DNC has not.

Americans are angry; only 24% believe the country is headed in the right direction. "Right Direction or Wrong Track; 24% Say U.S. Heading in Right Direction," Rasmussen Reports, July 25, 2016. Over 90% want a change in campaign finance. Young people are less interested in committing themselves to traditional, 20th Century political parties. The fastest growing American "political party" are independents.

Senator Sanders offered the DNC an example of how to cure their woes -- how to generate enthusiasm instead of disdain, how to appeal to the new, young voters and independents, and how to eliminate the crippling burden of multi-million-dollar fundraising from the wealthy. Like Swiss watchmakers ignoring the growing market for digital watches, or Kodak rejecting the opportunity to develop videotape and the Xerox process, the DNC turned its back on what Sanders was not only advocating, but demonstrating by example was possible.

Not only did the DNC ignore him, worse still it actively opposed his efforts. It bulled ahead with its 20th Century notion that the Democratic Party could win a national election all by itself, using nothing but what we called in Texas "yellow dog Democrats" (those who would vote a straight ticket for Democrats even if a candidate was a yellow dog). It assumed it could once more ignore the overwhelming public opposition to the way it finances its operations. It got behind a quintessentially establishment presidential candidate (and then vice president) who would enhance, rather than suppress, its ability to raise money. And it did everything in its power to prevent Sanders' success.

Why Sanders is Not Just a Candidate, and His Followers Are Not Just Campaign Supporters
All of which brings me back to Governor Martin O'Malley and Senator Bernie Sanders.

If you've noticed, as far as I know there has not been a peep out of Governor O'Malley, or any of his supporters, objecting to the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. By contrast, although most of the Sanders supporters say that if they are in a toss-up state they will hold their nose and vote for Clinton (though they are unlikely to contribute money or work in the campaign), they also say that if they are in a state that is overwhelmingly either pro-Trump or Clinton they will stay home, or vote Green or Libertarian.

Why are the Sanders supporters so upset? What's the difference between them and the O'Malley supporters?

Conventional political campaigns are kind of like a game. Indeed, the media is sometimes criticized for treating them like "a horse race" -- poll results, money raised, and crowd size. That doesn't mean they aren't hard fought, or that there aren't often bruised feelings that take a long time to heal. But the attitude among what we call "political people" is kind of like what I imagine the attitude among professional football players must be.

Pro football is rough and tumble. Games are hard fought. There are lots of injuries, and an occasional death, or lifetime consequences from too many concussions. At the end of a game there is a winner and a loser -- with financial rewards for the winner. But there are rules, and there will be another game next week, or next season. Players are traded from team to team. There is a kind of camaraderie among players, given their similar backgrounds, experiences and lives.

Politics is kind of like that. Going in, the candidates, staff and consultants know there will be winners and losers. There's a rough sense of the rules, and how the game will be played, and admiration for one's more skilled adversaries -- with whom one may work in the future. There is an understanding and acceptance of the role of big money in politics (as they say, "money is the mother's milk of politics"). No matter who wins they will probably have more in common with their opponent than differences -- like football players, due to their similar backgrounds, experiences and lives. Even if the election is stolen, there's a certain admiration for someone who can "steal it fair and square." It's a game played out within a closed system. You live to run another day.

Bernie Sanders "campaign" was not like that at all. He was, after all, not even a member of the Democratic Party (although he became one for purposes of the primaries). He was a Democratic Socialist. He had virtually no national name identification. He had virtually no money. He had no powerful, or wealthy, political friends, fans, or armies of followers. He did not agree with the golden rule of politics that "those who have the gold make the rules." He was, in every sense, an outsider, one of the least likely persons to be thought a serious presidential candidate. No, Bernie Sanders did not have a "campaign" to get himself nominated (though it had that appearance). He had a "revolution" in nearly every sense, and acknowledged it as much. (His continuing efforts now bear the name, "Our Revolution.")

He did not think campaigns should benefit, or be paid for by, the wealthy (later paid back on their "investment"). He thought they should include all demographic groups, including former non-voters, not just the older, regular voters. He believed that governments' primary responsibilities were to those without a voice, rather than those with the megaphones of modern media.

When Bernie Sanders did not win the nomination, when he was rebuffed and actively opposed by the DNC, it had almost no similarity to the significance of Governor O'Malley not getting the nomination. It was the defeat of a political revolution, the rebuff of an effort to democratize both the process and the public benefits that would flow from such changes. The closer analogy would be if those wishing to break from England in 1776 lost a vote, and those opposing the separation then asked them to please join in supporting their candidate for the Virginia House of Burgesses.

When Clinton seeks the support of Sanders' supporters (as distinguished from O'Malley supporters) she is not just asking them to switch from the candidate who lost to the candidate who won. It is as if Bill Maher was appealing to devout Catholics to abandon their faith and join in his campaign for president of an atheist organization. She is asking them to abandon their beliefs, their motives, what brought them into politics in the first place; she is asking them to suddenly switch from opposition to everything they hate about the present Democratic Party, and her, and work to perpetuate it.

Things Worth Losing an Election For

Then-Senator Joe Biden once told me, "Nick, there are some things worth losing an election for."

I don't know if he still believes that. I'd like to think he does. But if so, it would put him in a very small minority amongst today's professional politicians. Well over 90% of those in the U.S. House now have things so rigged that if they want to be reelected they will be. And they want to be reelected. There is, in the minds of many of them, no thing worth losing an election for. Like football coaches of old proclaimed, "winning is not the most important thing, winning is the only thing." Some are neither show horses nor work horses. They're not even sleeping in the barn. They spend their days raising money, and then paying back the donors at ratios of 1000-to-one to 2000-to-one. See, Nicholas Johnson, "Campaigns: You Pay $4 or $4000," Des Moines Register, July 21, 1996. For what? To keep their job. Because, they believe, "there's nothing worth losing an election for."

As I started this blog entry, it turns out that Mark Twain was right over 100 years ago when he observed, "[A] man is not independent, and cannot afford views which might interfere with his bread and butter."

# # #

"Least-Worst" Florida, Michigan Solution

March 15, 2008, 7:15 a.m.

Here's a 'Least-Worst' Solution for Florida, Michigan

Nicholas Johnson

Des Moines Register

March 15, 2008, p. A11
As president, Bill Clinton used to talk about those who "work hard and play by the rules." He and his wife are still working hard. They just don't want to play by the rules.

The Democratic National Committee's rules for this primary season -- agreed to by all -- were that the penalty for additional states moving their primaries earlier would be the inability to have their delegates seated at the party's national convention. Candidates were not to campaign or otherwise participate in such states' primaries. The nominee would be whoever got the most delegates (elected and super) from rules-abiding states.

Florida and Michigan gambled that their ultimate role in candidate selection would be greatest by violating the rules, thereby gaining the impact of earlier primary results in exchange for sacrificing the ability to seat their delegates.

Like the choice of "buy, sell or hold" in the stock market, it turned out they sold when they should have held. Their originally scheduled times would have given them real leverage. Now they're left raking through the rubble, searching for the "least-worst" way out.

If any delegates from those states are seated, it will render the Democratic National Committee and its rules toothless. But political opportunists don't find that troubling.

Sen. Hillary Clinton also violated the rules, by keeping her name on the Florida and Michigan ballots. (Even without Sen. Barack Obama on the Michigan ballot, 40 percent of the Democratic Party voters preferred "uncommitted" to voting for her.) She now insists "her delegates" from these uncontested primaries be seated. At a minimum, she wants a mulligan: "do-over" primaries.

But even those who consider politics a game acknowledge it's not golf. You don't take your mulligan six months later on a different golf course. Like trying to make a soufflé rise twice, asking voters to make a second trek to the polls cannot possibly re-create what would have happened had both states played by the rules.

And wouldn't it be a little odd if the "penalty" for violating their party's rules would not only permit Florida and Michigan to seat the delegates they expressly sacrificed, but to choose them in a do-over when the results will have the maximum possible impact on candidate selection?

Fair play aside, what would be gained by do-overs? If they only add to Obama's elected delegate lead, they'd change nothing. If they narrow, or reverse, his lead such that, with the super delegates, Clinton is able to snatch the party's nomination, it will be seen as unfair, old-style politics of the worst kind.

This would be precisely the sort of special-interest-funded, manipulative, do-anything-to-win politics Obama and his supporters advocate be changed.

How will the newly found independents and youthful Obama enthusiasts he has managed to turn out by the tens of thousands at rallies, and million-plus in caucuses and primaries, respond to such a result? They may vote Republican, third party, or just stay home. Undoubtedly, some will leave politics sufficiently disillusioned never to return.

Many, including me, believe the "least-worst" solution would be to go ahead and violate the party's rules, seat delegations from Florida and Michigan, but allocate those states' delegates' votes according to the percentages of total elected delegates each candidate has earned nationally in rule-abiding states.

Although this weakens the Democratic National Committee's rule-making ability, it welcomes the prodigal son-shine state and Michigan -- fourth- and eighth-largest in the United States -- back into the fold of the faithful. It avoids giving Clinton a second bite of an apple she never should have initially tasted. It is fair to both candidates, increasing the delegate count of each by the margins they actually earned.

And, not incidentally, it saves for the general election the $10 million to $20 million or more the party and its contributors will otherwise have to spend to conduct these additional primaries.
_______________
NICHOLAS JOHNSON, a native Iowan, former Federal Communications Commission member and congressional candidate, writes about Iowa and Washington in his blog, FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.

# # #

Primary Thoughts: Gingham Dogs & Calico Cats

March 6, 2008, 12:30 p.m.

Nobody "Wins States"
Following Super Tuesday I commented here about what seemed to me the media's misrepresentation of the story. Nicholas Johnson, "The Meaning of 'Win,'" February 6, 2008.

To borrow and play on James Carville's wall poster for Bill Clinton, "It's the delegates, stupid!"

Once again the media talks of state "wins." Obama has "won" 12 straight primary and caucus states. Clinton "won" three out of the four states March 4 (Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island); Obama "won" Vermont.

Of course, the only reason "winning states" is of any consequence at all is because the media says it is. It represents "momentum" for the same reason -- the media bestows it on the "winner."

But the fact remains that what determines who gets the Democratic Party's nomination for president is not who "won" the most states -- or, for that matter, who gets the largest total popular vote.

It's who gets the most national convention delegates -- a calculation admittedly complicated by the so-called "super-delegates" -- but nonetheless a matter of delegates.

So by that standard -- the only standard that really counts -- Obama had over 100 more delegates than Clinton before March 4, and still had over 100 delegates more than Clinton on March 5. Once the delegates awarded that evening were sorted out and allocated she ended up with 12 more than he did -- by some counts. That's what she "won" -- not "three states."

By other counts (namely, those of the Obama camp) the results were even less decisive. There were 370 delegates up for grabs in the four states. Clinton's net gain, they say, was four delegates -- roughly 1 percent of the 370. Her "win" in Texas -- after the caucus delegates are tallied -- may be no more than one delegate more than those Texas delegates now aligned with Obama.

To put this in perspective, Obama had net gains from prior primaries as follows: Georgia, 33; Washington state, 12; Nebraska, 8; and District of Columbia, 9.

After next week (Wyoming and Mississippi, 45 delegates total, and both states in which Obama should do well) there will be no more than 566 pledged delegates. The Obama folks say they now have a 150 pledged delegates lead. If true, that would mean for Clinton to tie she would need to win 358 (566 less 150; divided by 2; plus 150), or roughly 63% of all the remaining delegates -- something somewhere between impossible and extraordinarily unlikely.

In addition to the moral and political force of these numbers ("pledged delegates") for a political party's selection of its nominee, there are also the "super-delegates" -- who also gradually seem to be moving toward Obama as well.

[RealClearPolitics.com (drawing on the AP and other sources) reports:

Of the 795 super delegates, 207 have indicated support for Obama; 242 for Clinton (a 35-vote lead). Among pledged delegates, 1366 are Obama's, 1222 are Clinton's (a 144-vote lead for Obama -- which, even after subtracting Clinton's 35-vote lead among the super delegates, still leaves him with 109 delegates more than Clinton).

Politico.com, using the same general sources reports that -- including super delegates -- Obama has 1564 and Clinton 1463.]

Gingham Dogs and Calico Cats
As a result of these numbers, the perpetuation of the primary fights -- especially given the Clinton camp's effort to win them with "kitchen sink" negative attacks on Obama -- reminds me of Eugene Field's poem about the Gingham Dog and Calico Cat, containing this excerpt:

. . . [T]he gingham dog and calico cat
Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
Employing every tooth and claw
In the awfullest way you ever saw-
And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!

. . .

Next morning where the two had sat
They found no trace of the dog or cat;

. . .

[T]he truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!

Eugene Field, "The Duel," Poets' Corner.

For Clinton and Obama to continue with attacks and counter attacks weakens the Democratic Party in general and both of them in particular. It consumes tens of millions of dollars that might otherwise have been available for the general election. It increases the difficulty of bringing the Party together around the ultimate nominee.

Polls have consistently shown Obama beating McCain by significantly larger percentages than Clinton. Moreover, she's starting off with relatively high negatives in the public's mind. If Clinton is ultimately successful -- notwithstanding the fact Obama won more pledged delegates -- because she narrowed the gap with the aid of negative campaigning, or because she wins the right to count "her delegates" from Michigan and Florida, or because enough super-delegates vote for her, or through some other manipulation perceived by party members and public alike as fundamentally unfair and "old school politics" -- the Democratic Party may once again succeed in demonstrating its magicians' uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of what would otherwise have been certain victory.

The sooner the Party can put all of this behind it -- as the Republicans, characteristically, have already succeeded in doing -- the better off it will be. Maybe this could be accomplished with some agreement between the two candidates. Maybe it could be done by large numbers of super delegates (who will be necessary for the ultimate nomination) talking with each other and agreeing to delare themselves now as either (a) supporting Obama, or (b) agreeing to support whoever ends up with the most pledged delegates. Neither option seems likely. But the Party fails to act at its peril -- thar is, if it wishes to avoid finding that its candidates, like the Gingham Dog and the Calico Cat, "ate each other up."

Florida and Michigan
All of which brings us to Florida and Michigan.

I'm fuzzy on the details, but the bottom line as I understand it is that the Democratic National Committee announced that any state that moved its primary or caucus earlier in the year would thereby forfeit its right to have its delegates seated at the national convention.

Notwithstanding this rule, Florida (via a Republican governor) and Michigan did so.

A part of the Party's rule was that candidates were not to campaign in those states. Most (there were more than just the two now left standing at that time) stayed out of those states and off of their ballots. Clinton, however, put her name on the ballot (and yet, even with no organized opposition, managed to get no more than about 54% of the votes in Michigan as I recall).

Now there is a movement on the part of Clinton supporters -- including those who voted for the rule excluding Florida and Michigan -- to either (a) count the delegates Clinton won in those two unauthorized primaries, or (b) have "do-over" primaries in which she would get to run a second time.

My own compromise preference -- sort of the "least worst option" -- would be to have delegates from both states, but require them to cast their states' votes at the convention in the same proportion as the proportion of total pledged delegates nationally for each candidate.

The Party will do itself great damage, in my opinion, if it is seen -- by public and Party members alike -- as having established a rule resulting in two states not having delegates, which it then changes with a sort of "oh, never mind" when objections to the rule are raised after the fact. Especially is this so if (a) it is done at the behest of supporters of one of two candidates in a close contest, and (b) doubly especially when, instead of having no delegates these two states are actually rewarded (by circumstance) with the opportunity to have their delegates determine who the nominee will be -- after all the other states (which complied with the rule) have voted.

Anyway you slice it, as Oliver Hardy used to say, "This is a fine mess you've gotten us into" Democrats.

But then there's always a slight change in the lyrics of Merle Haggard's "If We Can Make it Through December":

"If we can make it through November
Everything's going to be all right, I know . . ."

Unfortunately, whether we make it through November is going to turn in large measure on whether we make it through March and April.

# # #