Iowa Caucuses

[muscadine]

Well, well...an "upset" in Iowa (although, despite the media's "surprise" at the results, they already knew it might go this way based on their own polls). Being reported: Kerry & Edwards made unexpectedly strong showings, Dean had a disappointing showing, and Gephardt's campaign is over. (I wonder who he'll endorse? It obviously won't be Dean.) This doesn't tell me anything except that the race doesn't look like it's going to be an immediate run-away for any one candidate.

Iowa Caucuses: A Short History
7 caucuses since 1972
4 caucus winners went on to win the party nomination
Bill Clinton won 2.8% of the delegates in 1992
Al Gore won 63% of the delegates in 2000

Tim Russert says the Iowa caucuses are "changed forever." What a drama queen. This time, last-minute primary-style rallying beat out more traditional "organization" style caucus campaigning. We'll see if this is a real, long-term shift.

Next up is New Hampshire. Poll numbers from yesterday:
Dean 28%
Kerry 20%
Clark 19%
The ever popular candidate Undecided 13%
Edwards 8%
Lieberman 7%

Keep an eye on those results this week. Conventional wisdom says to expect a boost for Kerry, and possibly Edwards. And that the NH race will be neck and neck Dean/Kerry. Of course, conventional wisdom also held that Iowa was a Dean/Gephardt state. We'll see.

Predictions (as usual, it's all about expectations):
If Dean wins NH, Iowa won't mean much. If he loses to Kerry, he'll have a tough time maintaining momentum going into other states, and it may very well spell at least the effective end of his campaign.
If Kerry gets either first or second place, and it's hard to imagine him not doing so, he's sitting pretty going into the other primaries. If he manages to upset Dean, it will give him "frontrunner" standing, which has its pluses and minuses (just ask Dean). If by some unforseen chance he slips to third, it'll check the momentum from Iowa.
If Clark manages to beat out Kerry and/or Dean for one of the top two spots, he'll gain momentum for his campaign. Third place will keep him in the running. Anything else makes it hard for him to get rolling.
If Lieberman doesn't place in the top 3, he's out. IOW, he's out. ;)
If Edwards somehow pulls out a top 3 showing, he's definitely one to keep an eye on. If he doesn't show, nobody will care, though...so it's win-win for him.

I'm still a Dean supporter, but I'd be satisfied with any of the apparent top candidates: Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry. So it looks win-win for me too. :)

Comments

[arielspirit.livejournal.com]

I was watching the Iowa coverage on CNN last night and I have to say I was fascinated by the process. It was great to watch a group of people sitting around a living room debating their candidate choice. Am I correct in my understanding that this is a process specific to Iowa?

Are there other states where it's one person one vote? Also I heard somewhere that you don't have to be a Democrat (card carrying member) to vote in the primaries. Is this true?

I hope you don't mind all the questions. It's just that at 31 years, while I have a very firm grasp of how things work here (having run for Parliament once) - I'm still a little confused by the US's electoral system. :) Thanks.

[legolastn.livejournal.com]

Tough questions! The most important thing to know in order to understand the US primaries (and, really, its political system as a whole) is that each state determines how their "primaries" will be run. Here's a schedule of primaries with descriptive names for each state's process.

I believe 12 other states have "caucuses," but as to whether their processes are the same as in Iowa, I can't say. I've only ever lived in "voting primary" states, and have never made myself familiar with caucus procedures of other states. Many Americans are equally fascinated by the process in Iowa, but it gets attention because it is the first to hold its primaries, not because its process is unique.

It is true that in some states you don't have to be registered for a particular party in order to vote in their primaries. Those are listed as "Open" in the link above. States where you must be registered for the party in order to vote in its primary are "Closed."

Are there other states where it's one person one vote?
Can you clarify this question? I'm not sure what you are getting at here.

[arielspirit.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link.

The one person one vote question just meant what I assume you are refering to as a voting primary. Go somewhere and you as an individual vote for your candidate. Votes are counted, who ever gets the most votes wins the primary. As opposed to the caucus, which from my understanding has the opportunity for people to jump ship to a different candidate when they realize the one they support will not win. On CNN it was described by showing a square box with a bunch of different coloured round circles moving around in it. :)

Also a one person one vote model (if it's the same as in Canada) wouldn't allow campaigning at the polls. Which I guess is one way of looking at what happens at a caucus meeting.

I guess I'm confused by the open primaries, because I don't understand what's to keep a bunch of people who have no intention of voting for a Democrat for president from sabotoging the primary process. But I assume that if this happened commonly Democrats in areas with open primaries would work to change the system. And I can certainly understand why you would want people who feel alienated by the political process or uncomfortable with joining a political party, yet are progressive and would support a Democrat for president, to vote in the primaries.

[princesswitch.livejournal.com]

Let's remember that NH is close to Dean's territory. He needs this.