Many people here are political junkies, so may already know much of what I’m going to say. However, I thought it might be beneficial to remember how Iowa caucuses work at the ground level. Attempts to allow people to participate remotely were called off due to security concerns, so participants will need to be physically present at a certain location at 7pm local time when doors are closed. This means that participants will continue to skew older (no younger children to worry about) and richer (no part time/third job work) than the Iowa population in general. Support must be stated publicly, meaning that social demands are often overlooked in planning and reporting. I know of sororities, for example, that threaten to kick out any “sister” who does not caucus for their chosen candidate. Employers and children at home also receive such pressures.
How it’s reported: In addition to the stupid “expectations” game, Iowa is generally reported on the basis of who won how many delegates. This can be very different than which candidate had the most supporters. As with our country in general, smaller, rural precincts often have a caucusgoer:delegate ratio smaller than urban precincts. The system privileges dirt over people. There will be an “entrance poll” reported at 7 local time, but that’s often filler until results emerge.
How delegates are awarded: Each precinct has a certain total of delegates at stake, usually 4-8. Candidates win delegates proportional to how many caucusgoers in a certain precinct support them – with one important caveat. And that is, a candidate must have 15% of committed supporters to be “viable”. So if Buttegieg has 14 supporters out of the 100 who show up, they must either convince someone else to join them, or they are non-viable and have the chance to go somewhere else. There is also an “uncommitted” option. Some caucusgoers are so invested in their candidate they are immovable. Others can be moved, especially if campaigns make a deal (like the notorious agreement to share delegates between Kucinich and Edwards in 2008).
Being a second choice for candidates can be important. Looking at Iowa polling, one can expect Biden and Sanders to be viable nearly everywhere, and Warren in many places, though it is important to note how easily influenced and prone to changing their minds Iowa voters are. That said, there will be many, many caucuses where the margins are determined where supporters of non-viable candidates go. Supporters of candidates such as Booker, Steyer, or Yang may arrive having reconciled themselves to having to go to a second-choice, but a large number of caucusgoers decide on the spot.
How this matters in the long term: In terms of momentum and media coverage, this matters a lot. In terms of the selection of delegates to the national convention…very little. See, when it is determined that Biden will get, say, 2 delegates, those people are selected right there. Those 2 delegates have no formal binding to keep their word when they arrive at the county convention weeks later, where the whole exercise is repeated to select delegates to the state convention, then from their to the national stage. Iowa is rife with delegates pledged to one candidate flipping to another at the county or state level. If there is a brokered convention, this sort of thing might matter.
A final note: Often, successful campaigns have a strategy on caucus day about who to target among non-viable candidates, and how to get people of their choices into those delegates spots. As Dean learned in 2004, having locals who are strong supporters is essential in this process.
You explain the process well, but your spin seems rather negative.
Well, that’s probably because it’s a horrible institution that shouldn’t be part of our nominating process, much less arguably the most important part.
It is long past time to remove the nearly all white Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary as the first two contests in the Democratic Presidential selection process. In 2024, the DNC should not seat their delegates unless they are chosen after Nevada and South Carolina delegates, both of which are much more racially diverse and reflect the electorate that Democrats need to win the Presidency. And it will free the Democratic nominee of Iowa’s demand for a commitment to massive subsidies for corn, and in particular corn based ethanol, a hideously wasteful and environmentally destructive fuel source.
NH has a law keeping it’s primary first and while SCOTUS I believe in the early 20th century ruled that the Call to Convention was the governing authority I doubt either party will fight this. I think it actually makes sense for the first votes to come from states that don’t represent our base because they would boost candidates who could attract those voters in November.
NH can insist on being first in the nation, just as FL did in 2008, but the DNC is not obligated to seat delegates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Florida_Democratic_primary
Your suggestion is offensive to African-Americans and Latinos, which is being born out tonight with an all white field on the debate stage in Iowa. Your justification for the status quo is another reason why so many states cannot motivate people to support down ballot candidates. If SC had an earlier place in the process, Lindsay Graham would be in a lot more trouble this year. So much for the Democratic Party’s commitment to diversity.
SC is earlier than all but three states and I’m not sure what Lindsay Graham who is not running for President and certainly not as a Dem has anything to do with this. I know the DNC is not obligated to seat delegates, but then they disenfranchise voters if the states do it anyway. In 2008 both FL and MI defied the DNC, but I argued for seating the delegates anyway on behalf of their voters. Besides this isn’t partisan; in all but a couple of states the two parties use the same calendar. I suspect if the DNC tried to dethrone IA and NH the candidates themselves would rebel, campaign there anyway, then raise a big stink about seating the delegates. This is yet another solution looking for a problem as I see no evidence that the status quo has hurt anything in terms of results. We did not get an all white field tonight because IA and NH are first (not that such per se should matter anyway). People should support downballot candidates because they agree on the issues, not due to internal rules.
I cannot believe I have to go through this with you. OK.
First, you argued that the DNC should keep the Ivory soap standard of 99.44% pure white vote of IA and NH at the front of the nominating process. So two of the whitest states in the nation drove out of contention people like, Castro, Harris, & Booker, who did not appeal to white people in IA and NH.
Because the Dem nominee can count on the Af-Am and Latino vote to just gravitate back??? Have you been paying attention in the past four years??? People of color did not show up in 2016, because they were not a valued part of the community, which is one of the big reasons why HRC lost votes in places like Milwaukee and Tampa/Hillsborough. compared to 2012.
Second: you clearly do not understand SC. It is round two but much more diverse and delegate rich than NH. If you actually have to talk to the huge AfAm and latino communities it would be better than hearing the bleating of IA corn farmers..
D’oh! Of course Graham is not running for POTUS but he is running for re-election in SC against the charIsmatic Jaime Garrison. If Dem Prez candidates spent their anti-Trump/GOP money in SC, it would have hit Graham where it hurts. As if the “I need to meet him/her three times” arrogance on IA and NH builds the party.
I will not respond to any response . Fluff.
There has been plenty of campaigning in SC and Castro and Booker did not catch fire within their own demographics, plus IA gave Obama his first win in 2008 thus dispelling doubts that a black candidate could attract white votes. If anything for him to prevail in IA very much helped his electability argument. I stand by my assessment that it’s good to go after voters not our traditional base and I have no sympathy for those who sulk and stay home because they don’t feel adequately courted.
Great description sabutai. As someone who worked the 2008 caucus for Obama, I can tell you we were all just as shocked as the world was that he took first place. Doorknocking I thought that Clinton or Edwards had the advantage. It turns out Obama was the second choice for a lot of candidates who didn’t make quota (Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, etc.).
I think the second choice factor is what will make things interesting this time around too.
The sad fact is that New Hampshire and Iowa are no longer the first. That distinction goes to the fundraising primary, which has been going on for a year and which has eliminated a slew of candidates before any actual voters get to vote.
As white and unrepresentative as the two primary states are, the fundraising primary is whiter and even more (much more) unrepresentative. And more powerful. And its influence will increase, long after everyone has forgotten about Iowa and New Hampshire.
I feel similarly about the debates this season, especially after last night’s.
We have turned the primary campaign into yet one more “championship”, dominated by super-hero graphics, “winners” and “losers”, squeezing serious issues into bumper-stickers, sound-bites, and 30-second virtual tweets. If I want to watch a slug-fest, I’ll turn on cable wrestling. These “debates” have more to do with old episodes of “Crossfire” than anything informative or constructive.
For example, Bernie Sanders may well have said — in a private conversation in 2018 with another high-profile progressive Senator — that he doubted that a woman can win the 2020 election. So what? I’ll wager that pretty much every man or woman who is interested in political strategy expressed the same doubts in 2018.
This is how the the media DESTROYS democracy. Wealthy media owners get a twofer — both of the leading progressive Democrats are hurt by the senseless exchange.
We have become a society where a teachers are fired for QUOTING somebody using the n-word and elected officials cannot express private doubts to each other in private conversations.
I turned off last night’s debate about halfway through, mostly because I was falling asleep from the boring repetition of the same content-free talking points these men and women have been repeating for months now.
All while a rogue President and his band of thugs does everything in their power to destroy everything America believes in while our democratic institutions are powerless to even slow them.
The questions were awful last night and fell back on let’s pick a fight mode. I’m confident that if Sanders said anything close to a woman cannot win it was with his pundit hat on and not because he believes himself that such a standard is appropriate.
That is definitely a fair and unfortunate point.
Do you have a link explaining how the delegates are distributed? My understanding is that nationwide they’re allocated based on the number of votes the Democrat received in the last three Presidential elections and the population of the area. See https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P20/D-Alloc.phtml
Of course Iowa could have different rules more locally, but it would surprise me if the DNC would permit that.
States have wide latitude on how they distribute their delegates. There is a good description here
https://ballotpedia.org/Democratic_delegate_rules,_2020
Very well done. Thanks. Ok to share?
By all means.
A last note from a recent change: this year for the first time, the party will report the number of delegates won, and the number of raw votes. So candidates who will benefit from support by original supporters of non-viable candidates may encounter a counter-narrative of who “really” won.
I thank the goddesses that I will never have to participate in a caucus CF like Iowa. LOL