2:43 p.m.
Why the Iowa Caucus Matters -- and Why It Doesn't
This blog essay is deliberately being written and posted the afternoon before the evening when Iowa's 1600-plus precincts will hold their Republican and Democratic Party caucuses. It's not designed as spin for any candidate's effort to explain the outcome after the fact.
The caucus process does matter -- just not in the way many people think (because that's the way the media told them to think). It's analogous to the way we will "elect" our president in November -- though, once again, not in the way we think (it is the Electoral College that picks the president).
One can accurately speak of the "winner" of the Democratic National Convention's presidential nomination process the week of July 25 in Philadelphia. Only one will be chosen from among however many potential presidential candidates there are at that time; the one selected can be said to have "won" the nomination. Similarly, only one of those nominated for president by our country's political parties will get the most electoral votes on November 8, 2016. That person can be said to have "won" the presidency.
So why does no one "win" the caucus?
The answer requires a little explanation of the categories of caucus significance.
(1) The nomination process. Technically, the precinct caucuses are the first step in a process of intra-party governance. The precinct caucuses are like town meetings of everyone registered to vote who has expressed a party preference. They are, subject to those limitations, open to all. What they produce are delegates to the next stage: the county conventions. The county conventions choose delegates to the congressional districts' conventions. They, in turn, select delegates to the parties' state conventions. And it is at the state conventions that the delegates to the parties' national conventions are chosen.
There will be 4,763 delegates at the Democratic National Convention. It will take 2,382 to win the nomination. Of those, Iowa will have 44 -- about 1% (roughly the same as Iowa's percentage of the national population). It is in this sense that even Iowa's ultimate national convention delegates will have relatively little impact on who is ultimately nominated. And if they have little, the delegates to the county conventions, selected in tonight's precinct caucuses will have essentially no impact at all.
So there will be no "winner" of the caucuses tonight in the sense of impact on the parties' governing processes or ultimate selection of their presidential candidates.
(2) The campaign. Even in terms of the campaign, except for one possible scenario, the caucus results mean little (separating out the media consequences, discussed next). With 50 states, there are a string of caucuses and primaries between now and the summer, starting with Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. As they progress, and a candidate has a substantial lead in the race to line up the magic number of 2,382 delegates, an individual state's primary may take on relative significance. But in the early stages -- and Iowa is the first -- the outcomes are of relevance primarily in weeding out, or further propelling, candidates. (Of course, with a billionaire's backing, a candidate can stay in the race so long as the money keeps coming regardless of how disappointing the outcomes may be.)
It is in that sense, so far as the campaign is concerned, that a candidate can be a "loser" -- in the sense that the support proves to be so minimal that the wisest (or only financially feasible) choice is to drop out -- but one cannot be a "winner" in any meaningful sense. Not only is it not a winner-take-all contest, there is really nothing to "win." The result is one of dividing up shares of support. And so long as a candidate's share is above -- name your percentage; I'd say 20-30% with three or fewer candidates, maybe as 10-20% when more -- it is reasonable for him or her to continue on. If you want to call that "winning," OK, but by this definition essentially everyone "wins."
As of this afternoon it is impossible to know the outcome. But I think it reasonable, based on the polls, to assume that both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will end up with at least 30% of the "state delegate equivalents" (which is the measure) and rationally conclude there is no reason to consider dropping out.
(3) The media. It is the media, TV and newspapers primarily, that have turned the Iowa caucuses into a winner-take-all phenomenon in which the candidate who gets the most state delegate equivalents is declared by them to have "won" the Iowa caucuses, while all others have "lost." Given that Donald Trump is not the only American who prefers winning to losing, the declaration by the media of a "winner" is of significance -- even though it could not rationally have been but for their declaration.
A sub-set of this presentation involves "expectations" -- the candidates who exceed, or fail to meet, the percentages of delegates that the media's pundits said they would have. (It is, in this sense, as much a matter of winners and losers among the media as among the candidates.) But "expectations" in politics, as in sports, can be manipulated by the parties as well. That does not, however, reduce their potential impact in the media-created horse race.
The media-anointed winner goes on to New Hampshire with the wind at his or her back, and tries to hold on to the title until is is wrest from their grasp by a different candidate in a future primary.
This is, in the final analysis, why it really is important to be proclaimed the winner -- even though it is of little consequence otherwise in any rational analysis.
So do go to your precinct caucus. It is important. Besides it is fun. It is rewarding. You are engaging in an important, and meaningful act of responsible citizenship in a democracy.
But its most meaningful impact will be measured only in terms of the next couple of days' news cycles.
Nobody "wins" the Iowa caucus.
# # #
Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette
January 26, 2016, p. A8
Some 40 years ago in Washington, D.C., I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to come from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.
How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair, or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball, were attractive but rejected by the producer.
The ultimate solution was found in a question I have put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” (One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets, or oil company subsidies.)
Some candidates would stare blankly. Some would become angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.
When I put the question to Senator Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief! I was mistaken.
Senator Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” by saying, “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he’s said.
Of course, like most Americans, I like his specific proposals — increased minimum wage, health care for all, higher taxes on the wealthy, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, jobs improving infrastructure, and many more.
But far more important than the specifics is his belief that government should serve all the people, the socio-economic bottom as well as the top 1 percent. That a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That when candidates of either the Democratic or Republican parties’ establishments talk of proposals, the results look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.
Of course, I’m impressed with the more conventional things said about Sen. Sanders. His authenticity. His enormous, enthusiastic crowds, and millions of supporters. That he not only talks against Wall Street and PAC funding, he walks the walk by refusing their money — while raising enough from small donors. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman and senator, one who understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as easily (or more) electable as the others. He has the best “unfavorable” numbers.
But most important to me? His lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent. His ability to answer my 40-year-old question; his knowledge of what’s required before a government can serve the people. A campaign that’s already begun building that citizen organization.
Are you in the 1 percent? There are establishment candidates for you. If not, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sen. Sanders’ vision and voice comes booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear across America throughout 2016. It’s up to you.
__________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City has held presidential appointments during the administrations of three U.S. presidents, and been involved in presidential elections since 1952. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com. Comments mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org
[This column appeared online as Nicholas Johnson, "Why I'm Supporting Bernie Sanders for President," The Gazette (online), January 26, 2016, 10:51 a.m.]
____________________
Why Support Sanders
Nicholas Johnson
The Daily Iowan
January 28, 2016, p. A4
This is the story of how I came to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. It’s a true story — or at least as true as a fading memory can provide.
Some 40 years ago in Washington, I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to be coming from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.
How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball were attractive but rejected by the producer.
The ultimate solution was found in a question put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal-mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” (One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets or oil-company subsidies.)
Some candidates stared blankly. Some became angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.
When I put the question to Sen. Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief. I was mistaken.
Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” with “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’ ” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he has said.
I like his proposals for increased minimum wage, health care for all, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, justice for African-Americans, and equal pay for women, among others.
I’m impressed with his authenticity, enthusiastic crowds, rejection of PACs, and funding a campaign with millions of supporters making $27 average contributions. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman, and senator. He understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as (or more) electable than the others. He has the highest Net favorability numbers.
But most important to me? His belief that a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That the establishment’s proposals, whether from Democrats or Republicans, look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.
It’s his lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent; his knowledge of what’s required before a government can serve the people — that the people must lead before their leaders will follow. His campaign has begun building that citizen organization.
Are you in the 1 percent? You have many establishment candidates to choose from. Otherwise, whether you’re a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sanders’ vision and voice comes booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear.
[This column appeared online as Nicholas Johnson, "Why I Support Sanders," The Daily Iowan (online), January 28, 2016.
Earlier, yet a third variation of this material appeared in the Iowa City Press-Citizen as as Nicholas Johnson, "Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus," Iowa City Press-Citizen (online), January 21, 2016, 4:04 p.m., and in the hardcopy edition as Nicholas Johnson, "Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus," Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. A7, a copy of which is embedded in this blog site in an entry headed, "Why I'm Caucusing for Sanders and You Should Too," January 22, 2016.]
# # #
Sanders the Right Democrat for Caucus
Nicholas Johnson
Iowa City Press-Citizen, January 22, 2016, p. A7
This is the story of how I came to support Sen. Bernie Sanders. It’s a true story — or at least as true as a fading memory can provide.
Some 40 years ago in Washington, I agreed to host a series of TV interviews with presidential candidates. Questioning the first few proved problematic. Their responses to questions seemed to be coming from tape cassettes implanted in their skulls. They’d heard the questions before, and we’d heard their answers.
How to make their performances more revealing? The possibilities of someone tipping over a candidate’s chair, or unexpectedly throwing them a baseball, were attractive but rejected by the producer.
The ultimate solution was found in a question put to presidential candidates then, and throughout the years since, often in Iowa living rooms. “Senator, let’s make two assumptions. One, those of us here think you are ‘right on the issues.’ And two, you are elected president. Now tell us, why will coal mine owners have less ability to maintain coal miners’ unsafe working conditions than they do now?” One could substitute the military-industrial complex’s control of defense budgets, or oil company subsidies.
Some candidates would stare blankly. Some would become angry. Apparently, few if any had ever thought about the problem, and none offered a solution.
When I put the question to Sen. Barack Obama in 2007, he replied, “Well, Nick, I’ve been a community organizer.” I’d visited with Saul Alinsky and read his books. Both Obama and I were familiar with Heather Booth’s Midwest Academy in Chicago, where I’d learned community organizing. I too quickly leapt to the conclusion that Obama got it. He would become our national community organizer-in-chief! I was mistaken.
Sen. Sanders not only gets it, he makes it explicit. He rejects chants of “Bernie, Bernie” with “this is not about ‘me,’ it’s about ‘we.’” “This campaign is about creating a movement of millions of Americans fighting to transform our country with demands that government represent all of us,” he’s said.
Of course, like most Americans, I like his specific proposals — increased minimum wage, healthcare for all, higher taxes on the wealthy, avoiding unnecessary wars, tuition-free college, jobs improving infrastructure and many more.
But far more important than the specifics is his belief that government should serve all the people, the socioeconomic bottom 50 percent as well as the top 1 percent. That a government of the major donors, by the lobbyists, for the wealthy is not what the founders had in mind. That when candidates of either the Democratic and Republican parties’ establishment talk of proposals, the results look a lot more like capitulation in the cause of campaign contributions than compromise on behalf of the American people.
Of course, I’m impressed with the more conventional things said about Sen. Sanders. His authenticity. His enormous, enthusiastic crowds, and millions of supporters. That he not only talks against Wall Street and PAC funding, he walks the walk by refusing their money, while raising enough from small donors. He’s had experience as a mayor, congressman and senator, one who understands the federal government’s working and impact. Up against Republican candidates, he’s as equally electable as the others. He has the best “favorability” numbers.
But most important to me? His lifelong advocacy that governments exist for the 99 percent. His ability to answer my 40-year-old question; his knowledge of what’s required for a government to serve the people. A campaign that’s already begun building that citizen organization.
Are you in the 1 percent? There are establishment candidates for you. If not, whether Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Green, it serves your interest and mine if Sen. Sanders’ vision and voice come booming out of Iowa’s precinct caucuses, loud and clear across America throughout 2016. It’s up to you.
_______________
Nicholas Johnson of Iowa City has held presidential appointments during the administrations of three U.S. presidents, and been involved in presidential elections since 1952. He maintains nicholasjohnson.org and FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com.
# # #
May 19, 2010, 2:30 p.m.
[For BP disaster see, "Obama As Finger-Pointer-In-Chief," May 18, 2010; "Big Oil + Big Corruption = Big Mess," May 10, 2010; "P&L: Public Loss From Private Profit," May 3, 2010.]
What's Take-Away from May 18 Primary Elections?
(bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There were four elections yesterday, one each in Arkansas and Kentucky, and two in Pennsylvania. What do their outcomes tell us about November we didn't know before?
Very little.
What follows is just one, relatively uninformed, blogger's intuition; not the result of having worked in any of the campaigns, memorized the piles of polling data, or even having read a significant amount of others' commentary.
There are some things we at least thought we knew before the results were in.
"All politics is local." There are so many factors that help shape the outcome of a given congressional or senatorial primary, or general election, that drawing any national (or even local!) generalizations from their outcomes runs the risk of being wide of the mark.
Especially is this so in light of the fact that most outcomes are relatively close. When there are less than 10 points separating the candidates anything from cold or rainy weather to a last-minute news item could have made the difference. In such cases, for purposes of deriving meaning from an election, it's a little silly even to designate a "winner" and "loser," let alone to discard from consideration the "meaning" behind the votes of the 40 percent or more of the voters who supported the "loser."
An incumbent President's party tends to lose seats in the Senate and House during off-year elections.
Aside from that, incumbents tend to get re-elected. No matter how angry the public is with "Congress" in general, voters tend to think their own Member of Congress is OK. The number of Members who want to be re-elected, and are, is generally well above 90 percent.
Most districts are solidly either Democrat or Republican. The real contests occur in the ones that are neither.
Perhaps the largest percentage of voters consider themselves "independent" or third party.
On the other hand, those who vote in party primaries are necessarily more partisan, more concerned about party loyalty, candidates having "paid their dues" to the party, and the impact of primary choices on general election outcomes.
Overall election results tend to reflect the economy. When the economy is trending down, or seems stuck there, voters want "change" -- often manifested in ousting incumbents. When the economy is booming, or clearly recovering, they're less likely to "throw the rascals out" -- or even bother to vote.
Lengthy incumbency cuts both ways. There is at least a lingering concern on the part of voters that "old age" and too many decades in Washington may make an elected official less, rather than more, effective on their behalf. (This is, of course, offset by the increased power, and ability to help the state or district, that comes with seniority.) But it is especially so if constituents detect (whether true or not) a growing disconnect between the Washington elite lifestyle of the elected official and that of the residents of the local area.
My thinking is that nothing happened yesterday to change any of that conventional wisdom.
But there are two conclusions that at least some commentators seem to be drawing from yesterday's returns with which I really disagree. One is that the results reflect a turn to the right, a resurgence of conservatism -- and hope for the Republicans in November. The other is that what we witnessed was an anti-incumbent movement. (E.g., Jeff Zeleny and Carl Hulse, "Specter Defeat Signals a Wave Against Incumbents," New York Times, May 19, 2010, p. A1.)
Sestak's Victory Over Senator Arlen Spector: An Example of "Anti-Establishment, Anti-Incumbency"?
Voters are not in a good mood -- whether discouraged, depressed, angry or violent. Admittedly, that did not cut in favor of Spector's re-election.
But there were so many other factors at play in Spector's case that I think it is woefully overly simplistic to put the results in the "anti-incumbency" column.
For starters, he got 47 percent of the vote. That's not exactly a rout.
Bear in mind, this was a Republican Senator running in a Democratic Party primary! He only recently switched parties, and acknowledged he did it because there was no way he was going to get the Republican Party nomination. The switch enabled the winner, Congressman Joe Sestak to utilize a very effective commercial that left few if any Democrats unaware of Sestak's assertion that Specter was just a Republican opportunist.
Moreover, he was a five-term, 30-year, 80-year-old Senator. The political meaning from the ouster of a one-term incumbent Senator is one thing. But when a Senator has served as long as Specter, and has reached 80 years of age, to be voted out of office involves much more than mere "anti-incumbency."
Admittedly, "'close' only counts in horseshoes," and it really hurts to lose an election. But for what it's worth, under the circumstances, and against all the odds, Specter should take some considerable personal solace and satisfaction from the 47 percent vote of confidence, admiration, and appreciation that he was able to win as an 80-year-old Republican running in a Democratic primary.
How About Senator Blance Lincoln in Arkansas?
The meaning of the outcome in the Democratic Primary in Arkansas is a little more clear cut than the one in Pennsylvania. But it's still not unambiguous -- especially with regard to the assertions that yesterday's four elections represent a "swing to the conservative right" on the part of voters.
For starters, Lincoln "won" in the sense that she got more votes than the runner-up, Arkansas Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter -- just not enough to prevent the need for a runoff, since she did not get 50 percent.
Second, the winner of the Republican Primary election, John Boozman, who defeated seven opponents, has been an Arkansas Representative in Congress since 2001. So that can scarcely be said to be the result of an "anti-establishment, anti-incumbent" vote.
Did Lincoln's failure to win outright illustrate the voters' move to the conservative right? No, the fact is that in her case it was exactly the opposite.
The SEIU and AFL-CIO weighed in heavily on the side of Halter precisely because she was perceived as being too conservative -- especially with her votes against healthcare reform, and her perceived support of the Wall Street banks. The voters wanted a more liberal candidate.
Republicans vs. Democrats in Congressman Jack Murtha's District
Following Democratic Congressman Jack Murtha's death, the only election yesterday pitting a Republican against a Democrat was in Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District.
If an overwhelming Republican victory anywhere could have been seen as a harbinger of a national tectonic shift to the conservative right and a Republican sweep of the House in November it would have been this one.
On the other hand, the same could be said for the Democrats were they to win. Even though the 12th had been a Democratic district with Murtha, it also happens to be a district that went for Senator McCain over Obama a mere 18 months ago.
However conservative the district may be said to be, the majority did not vote for the Republican. The Democrat, Mark Critz (a former Murtha aide), won over a Republican businessman, Tim Burns, by a substantial 53 to 45 percent.
Incumbency was not in issue in that contest. But the issue of a possible shift -- from the Democratic Party, to a pro-conservative, Republican Party -- certainly was. And the verdict on that race would have to be that it just wasn't there for the conservative Republicans..
Paul's Win is Republicans' Problem -- Not Nation's or Democrats'
Rand Paul, son of Presidential candidate and Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex.), scored a 24-point Republican Senate primary victory over Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson -- the favorite of the Republican establishment, up to and including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
Thus, while it contributes nothing to an understanding of "anti-incumbency" (as neither held the Senate office), it certainly does say something about the division within the Republican Party between the Republican establishment and the anti-Establishment, Tea Party, wing of opposition.
Given that this was a Republican Primary it necessarily tells us little about the conservative, anti-Establishment leanings of Democrats and Independents. Indeed, there are those who believe that Paul will be much easier for the Democratic Party candidate to beat than Trey Grayson would have been. And Tea Party membership, to the extent it can be measured, seems to be disproportionately made up of those who would otherwise be (or still are) Republicans.
But we scarcely needed this Primary to know that there is a schism between the conservative, right wing, take no prisoners, anything to bring down Obama, just say no wing of the GOP, and the Establishment, moderate, reasonable, come let us reason together wing. Nor have we been unaware that the former seems to be gaining adherents over the latter.
In sum, they were an interesting four elections, but when Chris Matthews says, "Tell me something I don't know," I'm not sure what one can offer based on the results.
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself.
-- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
