Local Media Kicks The Caucus Around Again
Living in Iowa, the Caucus has always been something I write about. I love all manner of Presidential politics, but I have branded my writing around the Caucus, since I have such an upfront view of it.
It is an important part of Iowa's role in the nation.
So, little doubt why it showed up again as the headline story of the Des Moines Register this past Sunday.
While I know it would be inaccurate reporting to gloss over the failings of the Iowa Caucus, I think many Iowa media outlets delight in the 'trainwreck' aspect.
The article highlights words like 'fiasco' and 'disaster'. Yet it leaves out any mention of the App and the usage of it, nor does it mention that things were complicated when the -for-private-use- phone numbers were shared online, and lines were jammed by trolls and National media.
Some Dems I know will tell you that they want change too, but I think much of the furor comes from the outside looking in. There was a tremendous amount of work put in by county Democratic Parties and many of the Candidates' themselves.
It is also interesting to note the article mentions the campaigns of Deval Patrick, Joe Sestak and Richard Ojeda specifically. Before the Caucus, the Register barely covered (more successful) candidacies like Tom Steyer, Tulsi Gabbard and Bill Weld. Interesting that now once the election is over that they mention these candidates.
Of course, I am starting to go down the road of sensationalism that I am accusing them of. It was a decent article.
Here are some things that they identified that are an important part of the discussion.
Results had to be accurate - Yes, the Caucus is run by volunteers. Yes, it's history reflects the informality of neighbors coming together to select a candidate. But after the contentious 2016 Caucus, it was vitally important that results were captured accurately.
There were less than three-tenths of a percent that divided Clinton and Sanders. (If you want to talk crazy close, the 2012 Republican caucus featured a 3/100th percent margin between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney-fewer than 50 votes- so close that Romney was prematurely declared the winner).
With an argument from polling that any one of four candidates might come out on top, it was critical that Iowa Democrats got the numbers right. It had to be a legitimate election with data to back up the results.
Which leads to ...
Everyone wanted Results Quickly- Was it realistic to finish up a Caucus at 8:30 and watch the results on the 9 o'clock news?
But it was a close race. A tenth of a percent.
Unlike a primary, it wasn't like the news outlets could do some exit polling and poll-place surveys to get a feel for the way votes were falling
As a caucusgoer, I, at least had the closure of getting at least "some" results. Since this is 2020, I was able to tap into friends through text and social media to find out how their precinct voted.
What shocked me as a viewer was that the Media seemed to be only interested in numbers. It felt as they were caught with their pants down. Their lack or preparation just fed the outrage.
To a certain extent, I felt more tuned in knowing what happened in four or five precincts than the Media who were too afraid to mention anything. So in 2020, perhaps in situations like this, the media is outdated when it compares to real life information passing.
I would also like to suggest these as some other reasons why the Caucus had such insurmountable obstacles.
There were so many candidates. It was certainly a task for Iowa (as it would for anyone) to narrow it down.
I am always shocked when a reasonable looking candidates fails to get traction and drops out before the finish line. I shouldn't be shocked -money and time towards a futile cause is not money and time well spent. In any case, we will never know how far Steve Bullock or Tim Pawlenty might have got.
Trump looks beatable, so it fell on the Hawkeye State to get the 20+ candidates winnowed down to a handful as quickly as possible.
The Democratic Party found it hard to manage the debates in an useful way, and many voices ended up muted to a certain degree.
Which leads me to....
The Path to Success for Newcomers is Narrow- When the Register mentions that Iowans go see candidates like Sestak and Patrick, they are not wrong. To Iowans credit, they generally take the responsibility seriously.
The National Media controlled the Narrative and ran the headline as Biden vs Sanders from the beginning. Reasonably viable candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were non-entities in the National narrative up until the Iowa Caucus.
So candidates flooded Iowa to get their message out. While I won't argue that Iowa has to go first, we do need an outlet besides the TV (debates and talk shows) to give a soapbox to a candidate.
Are we going to completely shut out someone with interesting new ideas like Andrew Yang. Well, you can, but I think you would be dumb as a Party to do that.
The Yang Gang was a massive phenomenon, and would not have existed without Iowa. Pete Buttigieg made the leap to Top Tier by being an amazing orator and putting the groundwork in.
Admittedly, some candidates barely got Iowa press coverage, but at least it was something more than literally just eight to ten minutes on national TV.
Hopefully, the Dems can keep the Independents and Republicans who were energized by candidates like Yang and Buttigeig, because...
The goal is to "Find someone electable". The caucus is weird, sure, but there is a reason behind it.
Much is made of the homogeneity of the State, but it's one of those uncomfortable arguments. There are more diverse areas in the country sure, but there is a 'Will it play in Peoria?' aspect by running your election in Iowa.
Forces have painted such a strong picture of the "Left Coast" and New York Liberals, that I don't know a candidate from either coast can succeed in the Midwest. Ask a midwesterner what they think about Chuck Schumer, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez or Nancy Pelosi, and you may get a different answer than if you ask that question to someone in California.
(I couldn't live without knowing if my assumption could be proven by polling. Sure enough, Pelosi polls see around an 8% increase in net-unfavorable ratings in the Midwest and South, and Shumer does even worse).
That said, as Republican Senator Charles Grassley argues (defending Iowa's first-in-the-nation-status), the Caucus proved that the Nation was ready to elect an African-American President.
Obviously, hindsight after the November election will give us some answers. I would hesitate though that Middle America is more interested in having a woman, a gay man, or even a progressive Jew than settling for the standard default of "Old Moderate White Male".
Of course, the National Democratic Party didn't see it that way, pushing Biden (and to a lesser extent Mike Bloomberg), and I think they were wrong, but we will have to wait six months-plus to see what the results of that strategy are.
Now, this is a bias from my own experience, but I can't help but think that I was in a room full of Iowa Dems and not 15% had Joe Biden as their first choice.
In any case, yes, the Caucus maybe had too gargantuan of a task of finding someone electable, or Finding someone besides Joe Biden.
I can't help but going back to the results of the last couple of caucuses (on the Democratic side). They told us Barack Obama was electable. They told us that Hillary Clinton had elect-ability issues.
I still think the "ranked voting" aspect of the Iowa Caucus is important.
Consider this: A room of people who want to order Pizza. Four people want Anchovies. Three groups of three want Sausage, Pepperoni or Beef. You have groups of two that want Cheese, Chicken and Mushroom. You have individuals who want Pineapple, Bacon and Ham.
In this hypothetical, you can only one kind of one-topping pizza for everyone. So a quick tally would give everyone in the room Anchovies based on it having the most votes. You are making a decision for 22 people based on 4 votes.
This is why the Caucus and Ranked Choice Voting finds a more agreeable candidate.
The Libertarians have started to use a form of this for some of their primaries. Ohio did Instant Runoff Voting.
It is a better system than just assuming you can only vote for who has a chance of winning.
Now, it does not help when a divisive candidate is in the field.
Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Vermin Supreme that have extremely dedicated groups might lose in a field of elimination style voting.
In any case, it is too soon to second-guess that Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg or Cory Booker would have been better candidates than Biden.
But, I am already at that point.
Could have got the Wayne's World vote
Of course, I am starting to go down the road of sensationalism that I am accusing them of. It was a decent article.
Here are some things that they identified that are an important part of the discussion.
Results had to be accurate - Yes, the Caucus is run by volunteers. Yes, it's history reflects the informality of neighbors coming together to select a candidate. But after the contentious 2016 Caucus, it was vitally important that results were captured accurately.
There were less than three-tenths of a percent that divided Clinton and Sanders. (If you want to talk crazy close, the 2012 Republican caucus featured a 3/100th percent margin between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney-fewer than 50 votes- so close that Romney was prematurely declared the winner).
With an argument from polling that any one of four candidates might come out on top, it was critical that Iowa Democrats got the numbers right. It had to be a legitimate election with data to back up the results.
Which leads to ...
Everyone wanted Results Quickly- Was it realistic to finish up a Caucus at 8:30 and watch the results on the 9 o'clock news?
But it was a close race. A tenth of a percent.
Unlike a primary, it wasn't like the news outlets could do some exit polling and poll-place surveys to get a feel for the way votes were falling
As a caucusgoer, I, at least had the closure of getting at least "some" results. Since this is 2020, I was able to tap into friends through text and social media to find out how their precinct voted.
What shocked me as a viewer was that the Media seemed to be only interested in numbers. It felt as they were caught with their pants down. Their lack or preparation just fed the outrage.
To a certain extent, I felt more tuned in knowing what happened in four or five precincts than the Media who were too afraid to mention anything. So in 2020, perhaps in situations like this, the media is outdated when it compares to real life information passing.
I would also like to suggest these as some other reasons why the Caucus had such insurmountable obstacles.
There were so many candidates. It was certainly a task for Iowa (as it would for anyone) to narrow it down.
I am always shocked when a reasonable looking candidates fails to get traction and drops out before the finish line. I shouldn't be shocked -money and time towards a futile cause is not money and time well spent. In any case, we will never know how far Steve Bullock or Tim Pawlenty might have got.
Trump looks beatable, so it fell on the Hawkeye State to get the 20+ candidates winnowed down to a handful as quickly as possible.
The Democratic Party found it hard to manage the debates in an useful way, and many voices ended up muted to a certain degree.
Which leads me to....
The Path to Success for Newcomers is Narrow- When the Register mentions that Iowans go see candidates like Sestak and Patrick, they are not wrong. To Iowans credit, they generally take the responsibility seriously.
The National Media controlled the Narrative and ran the headline as Biden vs Sanders from the beginning. Reasonably viable candidates like Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar were non-entities in the National narrative up until the Iowa Caucus.
So candidates flooded Iowa to get their message out. While I won't argue that Iowa has to go first, we do need an outlet besides the TV (debates and talk shows) to give a soapbox to a candidate.
From Zero to Hero
Are we going to completely shut out someone with interesting new ideas like Andrew Yang. Well, you can, but I think you would be dumb as a Party to do that.
The Yang Gang was a massive phenomenon, and would not have existed without Iowa. Pete Buttigieg made the leap to Top Tier by being an amazing orator and putting the groundwork in.
Admittedly, some candidates barely got Iowa press coverage, but at least it was something more than literally just eight to ten minutes on national TV.
I don't feel like only Iowans should have gotten to enjoy Steve Bullock TikToks
Hopefully, the Dems can keep the Independents and Republicans who were energized by candidates like Yang and Buttigeig, because...
The goal is to "Find someone electable". The caucus is weird, sure, but there is a reason behind it.
Much is made of the homogeneity of the State, but it's one of those uncomfortable arguments. There are more diverse areas in the country sure, but there is a 'Will it play in Peoria?' aspect by running your election in Iowa.
Forces have painted such a strong picture of the "Left Coast" and New York Liberals, that I don't know a candidate from either coast can succeed in the Midwest. Ask a midwesterner what they think about Chuck Schumer, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez or Nancy Pelosi, and you may get a different answer than if you ask that question to someone in California.
(I couldn't live without knowing if my assumption could be proven by polling. Sure enough, Pelosi polls see around an 8% increase in net-unfavorable ratings in the Midwest and South, and Shumer does even worse).
That said, as Republican Senator Charles Grassley argues (defending Iowa's first-in-the-nation-status), the Caucus proved that the Nation was ready to elect an African-American President.
Obviously, hindsight after the November election will give us some answers. I would hesitate though that Middle America is more interested in having a woman, a gay man, or even a progressive Jew than settling for the standard default of "Old Moderate White Male".
Of course, the National Democratic Party didn't see it that way, pushing Biden (and to a lesser extent Mike Bloomberg), and I think they were wrong, but we will have to wait six months-plus to see what the results of that strategy are.
Now, this is a bias from my own experience, but I can't help but think that I was in a room full of Iowa Dems and not 15% had Joe Biden as their first choice.
In any case, yes, the Caucus maybe had too gargantuan of a task of finding someone electable, or Finding someone besides Joe Biden.
I can't help but going back to the results of the last couple of caucuses (on the Democratic side). They told us Barack Obama was electable. They told us that Hillary Clinton had elect-ability issues.
I still think the "ranked voting" aspect of the Iowa Caucus is important.
Consider this: A room of people who want to order Pizza. Four people want Anchovies. Three groups of three want Sausage, Pepperoni or Beef. You have groups of two that want Cheese, Chicken and Mushroom. You have individuals who want Pineapple, Bacon and Ham.
There's only one candidate not afraid to talk about Pineapple Pizza
In this hypothetical, you can only one kind of one-topping pizza for everyone. So a quick tally would give everyone in the room Anchovies based on it having the most votes. You are making a decision for 22 people based on 4 votes.
This is why the Caucus and Ranked Choice Voting finds a more agreeable candidate.
The Libertarians have started to use a form of this for some of their primaries. Ohio did Instant Runoff Voting.
It is a better system than just assuming you can only vote for who has a chance of winning.
Now, it does not help when a divisive candidate is in the field.
Divided into groups of "like" and "love", amirite?
Candidates like Bernie Sanders and Vermin Supreme that have extremely dedicated groups might lose in a field of elimination style voting.
In any case, it is too soon to second-guess that Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg or Cory Booker would have been better candidates than Biden.
But, I am already at that point.
Comments
Post a Comment
Contact us