Ch-Ch-Ch-Changes
Despite the fact that John Delaney is running ads every night, there is
not much that there is to blog about for the 2020 Iowa caucuses yet.
However, there are some big changes that were announced in December that will change the Caucuses forever.
This probably did not get a lot of attention, but actually could have big implications.
If you don't understand the Iowa Caucus (particularly the Democrat caucus), you don't understand how weird the process is. I lived in a state prior that had primaries and those are fairly straight forward. You go in some time from 7am to 9pm (or whenever) and cast a ballot.
The caucus requires physical presence for the vote. It takes place on a Tuesday night at 7pm. The people who show up, vote. If you have to work, you are out of town, you are sick, the Iowa January weather does what Iowa January weather does, or anything prevents you from attending at your designated location at the specific time, your vote does not count.
That will be forever changed, when the Democrats allow absentee ballots going forward. Will it change things? Well, it might. The people who attend the caucus are generally 9-to-5ers. Will this open up a younger demographic or a less affluent crowd of second shifters. Would this have put Bernie Sanders over the top in 2016, stunning the world (instead, Sanders stopped just short of the stun, with a great showing but on the wrong side of 49.8 to 49.3.
Would Howard Dean have fared better than a disastrous 18% Third Place finish if his supporters could have been organized to get ballots in leading up to Caucus Day? Would he have at least survived to make it as the primary competition to John Kerry and went into Super Tuesday in that role instead of John Edwards?
The other change seems insignificant but may be more important than you think. The Democrat Party plans on publishing the vote tallies of the caucuses. This is a big deal, but again, only if you understand the process.
While the Republicans also caucus, their vote is basically a straw poll, and they post the vote totals. The Democrat process is a bit more complicated. A vote is taken, but if a candidate does not get 15% of the vote, then they are not considered 'viable', and a revote is taken. At the end of the process, delegates are assigned on that revote (and sometimes multiple revotes).
What does that mean? Well, at my caucus in 2016, Martin O'Malley had 12 votes, while clearly not game changing, was just over 6% of the crowd assembled. Because, he was not at 15%, the results of my caucus was HilRod 4, Bernie 3, Martin 0. Well, which sounds better 6% or zero. (Also worth noting, another local caucus, Hillary had 44 votes while Bernie only had 29, but because of the math, what was reported was that this caucus was a 2-2 tie).
Again, I am not sure if this would have changed winners in 2016, but as close as it was, we would have a more accurate picture of where people stood. If indeed Bernie was more popular, or (don't yell at me) if maybe his numbers were inflated.
In any case, it became a two person race. O'Malley had half a percentage point in the delegate count. Now, if he had polled more accurately at 5%, it might not have been enough to convince him to stay in the race, but then again, he may have thought it worthwhile to hang around a little longer, and given both candidates' baggage, he may have got some momentum.
You can probably pick any caucus, but I would also point 2008 when Bill Richardson and Joe Biden polled in the 5-10% range. The eventual headline was that it was now a three person race (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) since Richardson only had 2.1% of the delegate vote and Biden less than one percent. Still, if a more accurate count was given of actual support, maybe four candidates could have moved forward.
Also of note, it likely was those second-choice Richardson and Biden votes that pushed Obama over Clinton. Would Obama's victory have been so shocking if it had been printed side-by-side with the fact that Hillary was still the most popular candidate with everyone figured in.
In any case, history can't be changed and we don't know what the future holds, so we just have to wait to see if these changes have massive effects or none at all.
However, there are some big changes that were announced in December that will change the Caucuses forever.
This probably did not get a lot of attention, but actually could have big implications.
If you don't understand the Iowa Caucus (particularly the Democrat caucus), you don't understand how weird the process is. I lived in a state prior that had primaries and those are fairly straight forward. You go in some time from 7am to 9pm (or whenever) and cast a ballot.
The caucus requires physical presence for the vote. It takes place on a Tuesday night at 7pm. The people who show up, vote. If you have to work, you are out of town, you are sick, the Iowa January weather does what Iowa January weather does, or anything prevents you from attending at your designated location at the specific time, your vote does not count.
That will be forever changed, when the Democrats allow absentee ballots going forward. Will it change things? Well, it might. The people who attend the caucus are generally 9-to-5ers. Will this open up a younger demographic or a less affluent crowd of second shifters. Would this have put Bernie Sanders over the top in 2016, stunning the world (instead, Sanders stopped just short of the stun, with a great showing but on the wrong side of 49.8 to 49.3.
Would Howard Dean have fared better than a disastrous 18% Third Place finish if his supporters could have been organized to get ballots in leading up to Caucus Day? Would he have at least survived to make it as the primary competition to John Kerry and went into Super Tuesday in that role instead of John Edwards?
The other change seems insignificant but may be more important than you think. The Democrat Party plans on publishing the vote tallies of the caucuses. This is a big deal, but again, only if you understand the process.
While the Republicans also caucus, their vote is basically a straw poll, and they post the vote totals. The Democrat process is a bit more complicated. A vote is taken, but if a candidate does not get 15% of the vote, then they are not considered 'viable', and a revote is taken. At the end of the process, delegates are assigned on that revote (and sometimes multiple revotes).
What does that mean? Well, at my caucus in 2016, Martin O'Malley had 12 votes, while clearly not game changing, was just over 6% of the crowd assembled. Because, he was not at 15%, the results of my caucus was HilRod 4, Bernie 3, Martin 0. Well, which sounds better 6% or zero. (Also worth noting, another local caucus, Hillary had 44 votes while Bernie only had 29, but because of the math, what was reported was that this caucus was a 2-2 tie).
Again, I am not sure if this would have changed winners in 2016, but as close as it was, we would have a more accurate picture of where people stood. If indeed Bernie was more popular, or (don't yell at me) if maybe his numbers were inflated.
In any case, it became a two person race. O'Malley had half a percentage point in the delegate count. Now, if he had polled more accurately at 5%, it might not have been enough to convince him to stay in the race, but then again, he may have thought it worthwhile to hang around a little longer, and given both candidates' baggage, he may have got some momentum.
You can probably pick any caucus, but I would also point 2008 when Bill Richardson and Joe Biden polled in the 5-10% range. The eventual headline was that it was now a three person race (Obama, Clinton, Edwards) since Richardson only had 2.1% of the delegate vote and Biden less than one percent. Still, if a more accurate count was given of actual support, maybe four candidates could have moved forward.
Also of note, it likely was those second-choice Richardson and Biden votes that pushed Obama over Clinton. Would Obama's victory have been so shocking if it had been printed side-by-side with the fact that Hillary was still the most popular candidate with everyone figured in.
In any case, history can't be changed and we don't know what the future holds, so we just have to wait to see if these changes have massive effects or none at all.
Comments
Post a Comment
Contact us