For those who have followed the polls over the course of this election, it may be a relief to know the final numbers on January 3rd. Many dozens of polls have been taken, often showing results ten percentage points or more away from the poll taken next. Pollsters call voters in Iowa and NH three or four times a day. Campaigns add to the telephone traffic. The Obama campaign has made 1.6 million phone calls in New Hampshire, which has a total population of 1.3 million people.
But as the election has gotten closer and the media coverage become more intense, the polls have swung even more wildly. Governor Mike Huckabee was a media darling with low poll numbers until his numbers inched up in a couple of polls; then talk of a Huckabee surge brought the spotlight to him, and he was suddenly up by 22 points in Iowa. But the increased attention brought increased scrutiny. In fact, it was just enough scrutiny to bring Huckabee’s numbers to the level of former Governor Mitt Romney’s, effectively creating a “horserace.”
The same thing happened with McCain in New Hampshire, and to a lesser extent, Obama and now Edwards in Iowa. Remember the pre-Thompson buzz, too?
It all smacks of the rise and fall of Howard Dean. The Media brought him increased attention, and his poll numbers went up. But then they kept going up, and the media went into full-scrutiny mode (remember “Doubts About Dean” for weeks on end?). It was a big story when his numbers finally topped off, and the moment the media was waiting for came on the night of the Iowa Caucuses. The media flexed its muscles, and the ‘default-nominee’ faltered.
Did the media buzz create high poll numbers, or vise versa? Whether the powers-that-be artificially engineered these contests or not, these multi-way horseraces are nothing but good for the political press.
Noneed4thneed liveblogged John Edwards’s Marshalltown campaign stop today, and he relays a particularly interesting tidbit (emphasis added):
The first question asks if he would require oil companies to invest their large profits in building refineries.
Edwards says one long term solution is to cap carbon emissions (receives applause). He would auction off these caps, which would raise billions of dollars and then invest in renewables and build the infrastructure. He says Americans will need to conserve and uses the line Americans need to be patriotic about something other than war. He says we need to use coal sequestration technology and not build anymore coal plants until this technology is available. This was surprising to hear since there is a $1 billion coal-fired powered plant proposed to be built in Marshalltown.
It sounds like Edwards knew of the proposed plant before he said what he said. So why did he say it?
This week marked the first time that candidates were competing head to head with TV ads for the Iowa Caucuses, as John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Chris Dodd all announced ad buys on local networks and cable. The Edwards and Richardson ads are so unique, that one might call the more boilerplate Dodd ad ‘distinctively normal.’
The first two of the three, from Edwards and Richardson, were not what one might call standard TV ads. In Edwards’s 30-second spot, the first 27 seconds feature “everyday-looking” Iowans finishing each others’ sentences about what Congress should do to end the war (the answer is support Edwards’s call to send the same bill that Bush vetoed back to his desk unchanged). The Senator does not come onto the screen until the mandatory “I’m John Edwards, and I approved this message” tag at the end. It is clearly intended to portray the sense that Edwards’s campaign is more about its supporters than its principal, and it drew quite a bit of notice from media when it was first announced.
In Richardson’s two 30-second spots (one is airing currently, the other is sitting in the can to be aired later), the Governor sits at a desk while a middle management-type interviews him for a job. The tone is something akin to the film Office Space, as the interviewer begins by rattling off impressive facts from Richardson’s resume and ends the second ad by saying, “For what we’re looking for, you might be a little overqualified.” Most people will think the ad is funny, but they won’t realize why: it is because, from Richardson’s point of view, the public is behaving like the caricature of the middle manager, ignoring his resume as if experience weren’t important. The ads are intended to change minds with humor, and the media has been buzzing about them ever since they launched.
On Tuesday, Chris Dodd’s campaign released its new Iowa ad, and it provides a stark contrast to Richardson’s and Edwards’s ad in that it follows the fairly standard format of the candidate talking to a camera for 30 seconds. Although Dodd’s was not the first ad to go up, it is the first standard political ad of the campaign to hit the airwaves. In it, Dodd maintains a serious expression while explaining his support of the Reid-Feingold plan in the Senate. Next to Richardson’s informative-but-funny ad and Edwards’s community-oriented, borderline gimmicky ad, Dodd’s looks stately but uninspired.
Perhaps the Dodd camp has made the calculation that they aren’t going to win by trying to run the most inspiring (or inspired) campaign; they see their opening in wonkish policy plans and sober assessments of reality. I couldn’t get them to reveal this entire campaign strategy to me, but I did ask Dodd’s Iowa Press Secretary, Taylor West, about the distinctive seriousness of the new ad. “There can be no more serious issue confronting the nation than how we bring this war to a responsible close,” she began. “[Dodd’s] campaign and his ads reflect his understanding that at a time when the stakes have never been higher for the country, we need proven, bold leadership.”
All this isn’t to say that Senator Dodd does not have a sense of humor, because he does have at least one joke that we know of that he tells regularly on the campaign trail. Still, Dodd’s new web site has launched, and it promises to make full use of all the latest Web 2.0 crazes that often impress netroots activists. Perhaps what we are seeing now is the beginning of Dodd’s repositioning himself to appeal more to policy wonks, technocrats, and bloggers, and this experiment might just work.
Video of all three candidates’ ads is below:
Edwards ad:
Richardson ads (the first is airing now; the one that plays after it in the clip below is likely to air later on):
Frankly, none of us here at IowaProgress have any reason to believe that this rumor is true, but we wanted to report that, after Edwards cancelled an appearance in Indianola, Iowa on Tuesday night to fly home to North Carolina, rumors in campaign circles that Edwards may be dropping out began to make the rounds (we first heard rumblings yesterday morning). We want to stress that this is a wholly unverified rumor, but enough people have been repeating it that it seemed worthwhile to report that it’s out there among Iowa politicos.
The story from the Edwards campaign is that the Senator flew home to support his wife at a medical checkup appointment. This diary from Edwards’s online community reflects what Edwards’s supporters are thinking, and we will echo the good wishes written there. We sincerely hope that Elizabeth Edwards’s health is OK and that this rumor and the Senator’s unexpected event cancellation will turn out to be much ado about nothing.
That said, the Edwards campaign’s Events Page has only two upcoming events scheduled, both of which will take place in the next 10 days. Moreover, it is not clear that either of the two events listed will require the Senator’s attendance (one is a nation-wide day of house parties, and the other is a concert featuring a member of Dave Matthews Band other than Dave Matthews).
John and Elizabeth Edwards have scheduled a press conference in Chapel Hill at noon today, and it’s being characterized as “something major.” We hope it isn’t bad news.
I just want to stress that the decision to post a story about this unverified rumor was not made lightly. After hearing about it early Wednesday, we spent a full day deliberating before posting. Reporting on rumors has a tendency to perpetuate stories that are false and potentially damaging, and we didn’t want to do that. But the rumor is significant enough that we felt that the very fact that it was circulating, regardless of its truth or falsity, was worth reporting.
After the Edwards campaign released its list of “senior Iowa staff” the other day, I thought it might be prudent to discuss how each campaign’s staff is shaping up. Their differing approaches are interesting, at least, and they could make a difference by the time the caucuses come around next January.
First up, the Obama campaign has been doing quite a bit of hiring over the last month. All of their key positions (regional field director, state field director, state director, and deputy state director) are filled, and they are hiring on new field organizers every week. Some have compared Obama’s staff to Howard Dean’s from four years ago, because it seems to include an unusual number of ideologically motivated young people, many of whom have never worked a caucus before. Their typical field organizer offer, which is the lowest of the candidates reviewed here, is $2,000 per month. Because Senator Obama is so magnetic, they are having no trouble filling positions, but the low salary may not be enough to entice experienced operatives.
Next, the Edwards campaign has staffed all or most of its key positions as well, and has begun hiring field organizers. In contrast to Obama’s staff, most of Edwards’s staff so far have Iowa political experience, and many have also worked with state director Jennifer O’Malley or state field director Jackie Lee before. General impressions from folks seem to be that the Edwards staff has things together, that their hiring process is quicker and perhaps more organized than Obama’s, and that they already have a more specific plan in place. Their typical field organizer offer seems to be $2,500 per month.
And finally, Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been a bit slower to announce their hiring decisions here, but those whom they have hired have impressive resumes. Staffers who may not have significant Iowa experience but who have significant experience elsewhere are taking positions on the Clinton campaign that are well below where the staffers might be in most campaign hierarchies. Clinton is paying field organizers about $2,750 per month — the most of any candidate — although from what we know here, many positions have not been filled.
Beyond these “big three” campaigns, none of the others have hired (or begun to hire) a full staff here. Dodd, Richardson, and Biden all have a few folks on the ground here, but not enough to get a general impression yet.
How the staffing differences will affect the caucuses, nobody knows, but past caucuses have proven that staff strength can be a major factor in the final delegate counts. Without a sound field strategy in place, a campaign cannot win Iowa, and that takes a good staff.
Today John Edwards announced that his presidential campaign will aim to be carbon neutral. As the email the campaign sent out explains, “In February, Governor Tom Vilsack announced he would be the first presidential candidate to plan a carbon neutral campaign. Edwards shares his commitment to protecting our environment and reducing our carbon footprint.”
Edwards is angling to fill the “Vilsack Vacuum,” only weeks after Vilsack announced he would drop out of the campaign. He is trying to recruit as many former Vilsack supporters as possible at this point, and this was one of the Vilsack campaign’s more novel ideas — although the Vilsack folks seemed to want to use it more for fund raising than anything else.
Exactly one week ago, the Edwards campaign sent out another press release claiming “more than 100 Iowa Democrats who were formerly supporting Governor Tom Vilsack’s presidential bid are now supporting Senator John Edwards for President” (it provides the list of 100 names to prove it). 100 activists isn’t exactly a lot considering Vilsack released the names of over 1,100 of his supporters a while back, but Edwards’s list does contain a few big names.
At this point, although other candidates have certainly paid lip service to Vilsack’s service as our governor, etc., Edwards is the only candidate making explicit attempts at recruiting former Vilsack supporters — at least through the press. Whether this will make much of a difference, I don’t know; but frankly I’m surprised that we haven’t seen more attempts at the same sort of thing from other candidates. Maybe outside Iowa few appreciate the level of support Vilsack had here. He has been our governor for a while, and even those Democrats who weren’t supporting his presidential campaign like him.
I know, I live in Iowa, so a defense of the caucuses that comes from me is just going to seem like I’m greedy. I should say that before I moved to Iowa for college four years ago, I shared the opinion that the importance of the caucuses is unjustifiable, and that a national primary would be more democratic. Then I experienced the caucuses (in 2004), and I changed my mind.
Over on MyDD, desmoinesdem published the second part of her diary series, “How the Iowa caucuses work.” She echoes concerns that we brought up here about inequalities in the caucus system based on delegate assignment, demonstrating that it takes more caucus-goers to elect a delegate in precincts with higher concentrations of activist Democrats who have free evenings than in precincts with lower concentrations of said activists. (E.g., it took about 70 caucus-goers to elect one delegate in the Poweshiek County, where I caucused in 2004, while in less-Democratic and less-populous Fremont County, it only took 22 caucus-goers to elect one delegate.)
The conclusion of all of this? The caucus system (according to our own Geraldine) “favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa.”
Why is this wrong? Well, while the caucus system seems to create inequalities on the surface, it can compensate for deeper inequalities. Many have complained, here and elsewhere, that the Iowa Caucuses are unfair to families with young children, workers who have evening shifts, handicapped persons, and, generally, people with busy schedules, because it requires them to take several hours out of a weekday night to argue with their neighbors about politics. Not everyone can do that, and it’s understandable.
That is why precincts are assigned delegates before caucus night: if a disproportionate number of Democrats in X precinct have to work the night shift or have young children (or even if there’s a blizzard), the system currently in place ensures that their precinct will still be important. And precincts are the smallest geographic unit our election officials recognize for general elections, so it is assumed that others in your precinct likely represent similar interests to yours. Think of it as a much more geographically specific version of the electoral college. (Maybe you have your problems with that system, too, but at least this caucus math has a constitutional precedent.)
Aside from that, though, here’s a question nobody has asked: what is the harm in giving Iowa’s downtrodden rural hamlets and agricultural areas a little attention from the rest of the country every four years? It isn’t like John Edwards is going to spend the last week before the caucuses camped out in Keokuk and Grundy Counties just because each caucus-goer is worth more there. At the end of the day, Keokuk and Grundy still represent a tiny fraction of the total delegates needed to win, and putting on events and doing GOTV work is easier and far more efficient in urban areas like Des Moines and Cedar Rapids.
While disparities in caucus-goer to delegate ratios from county to county may seem a little alarming, the truth is that urban areas are still immensely important, and that a candidate can win the caucuses without putting practically any resources into the less populous half of Iowa’s 99 counties. A campaign will hire more than 10 full-time field organizers for Polk County before they will hire a single full-time organizer for Grundy County. And most importantly, I don’t know a single Iowa Democrat who will argue that Polk County (Des Moines area) Democrats don’t have enough influence on state politics, the state party, or the caucuses.
I hope this will be the start of a series of posts written here as a defense of the Iowa Caucuses. Toward that end, I’m looking for more arguments to respond to. So, dear readers, please participate: What arguments against the Iowa Caucuses do you find most compelling?
John Edwards recently sent out the first mailing of the 2008 primary season to 70,000 Iowans. The mailing includes a detailed description of his health care plan and a DVD (found here) that describes the plan. The video is quite effective though it’s unclear how many of the 70,000 people who received it will actually watch it. However, it is a clear sign of how serious Edwards takes Iowa and also of the emphasis that he is placing on health care. It also gives away his campaign strategy.
Edwards’ focus on health care makes Iraq a secondary issue for him. Although he voted for the Iraq War in 2002, he has since made a very public mea culpa and has been forgiven by anti-war left (as Ed Fallon’s endorsement of Edwards shows). This enables him to dodge the debate over Iraq, which will be the most divisive part of the campaign. From this, one can surmise the Edwards’ road map to the nomination. The second tier candidates (Biden, Dodd and Richardson) are running on experience, specifically that they have the experience to help avoid further American embarrassment in the Middle East and one of Barack Obama’s major selling points was that he was against the Iraq War from the beginning. And we all know how Hillary Clinton voted on Iraq. They will all tear each other apart while Edwards can avoid the entire mess. Edwards then sails through the early primary states as the field narrows. Once it becomes a two-man race, he takes on the wounded survivor of the Hillary-Barack fight over Iraq on February 5th. He defeats his badly bruised opponent and becomes the nominee.
With l’affaire Geffen and Artur Davis’s comments in Selma, Clinton and Obama seem to be doing all they can make this scenario possible. However, with Edwards tipping his hand, both Clinton and Obama still have time to change gears before Edwards successfully takes advantage of the media obsession with them so that he can become the nominee.
Health care is shaping up to be the most important issue in the United States for the first time since the early 1990s in the coming election. It is an issue that all the Democratic candidates have been addressing here in Iowa and one that they will continue to address until the caucuses. A recent New York Times poll gives a lot of perspective about how the candidates are and should be addressing the issue. According to the poll, 90% of Americans think our health care system needs either fundamental changes or to be completely rebuilt and a disproportionate percentage of Americans, 62%, trust Democrats to improve the health care system. One may think this is an easy chance for Democratic candidates to push a massive reform like a single payer health care system but popular opinion about health care reform is much more complex than it seems.
64% of Americans think the government should guarantee health care for all Americans, which is an increase of 10% since 1996 and by a 2 to 1 margin, Americans think its worth paying higher taxes so everyone can have health insurance. When asked on the details of health care plans, Americans favor a single payer solution over the current model by a margin of 47 to 38 percent. However there is a big gap between how people percieve health care in general in the U.S. and their own individual health care coverage. While 57% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the state of health care in the United States, only 20% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with their own health care. This trend also holds with the cost of health care. A whopping 81% of Americans are somewhat or very dissatisfied with the cost of healthcare in the U.S. but only a bare majority, 53%, are dissatisified with the cost of their own health care.
Only one candidate has introduced a health care plan so far, John Edwards. His health care plan tries to balance the concerns expressed in the poll of universal coverage without affecting people who already have health insurance. Unfortunately, it comes across as a little complex as a result. The poll results belied this. People who expressed an opinion about it favored the plan by a margin of over 2 to 1. However, nearly half of all poll respondents were unsure, which is a sure sign that it confused a lot of people.
This deftly illustrates the problems that candidates face. When like John Edwards, or Bill Clinton in his first term, they fix our dysfunctional health care system while taking into account the relative satisfaction that individuals feel about their personal health care plans, the result is confusion. However, if you try to set up a single payer plan, it makes people afraid that they will lose their health care. The result gives a candidate two difficult choices between what type of health care plan to propose. John Edwards has already picked one option and it will be interesting to see what the other candidates do.
In today’s Des Moines Register, Tom Beaumont officially bestows the mantle of frontrunner in the caucuses on John Edwards. Now that Tom Vilsack has dropped out, there is no native son running and everyone can comfortably call Edwards the frontrunner. Beaumont notes that being the frontrunner gives Edwards’ certain advantages but it also means that he now has even more riding on the caucuses.
However, there are rumors in Des Moines that Edwards may have an ace up his sleeve. There has always been a close relationship between Edwards and Chet Culver. Their staffers are to some extent, interchangeable. Key Culver staffers like Patrick Dillon and Brad Anderson worked for Edwards in 2004 (and in Anderson’s case, on his 1998 Senate race.) In fact, Edwards’ state director, Jennifer O’Malley, is engaged to Culver’s Chief of Staff, Patrick Dillon. These ties are the tip of the iceberg. The Culver and Edwards people are heavily intertwined, and the list of connections goes far deeper. The current rumor is that while Chet Culver will not endorse any candidate (since he has to preserve Iowa’s first in the nation status), Mari Culver will endorse John Edwards at some point. This would follow the precedent set in 2004, where Christie Vilsack served as a surrogate for her husband in endorsing John Kerry.
Mari Culver’s commercial during the campaign where she called her husband “a big lug” was considered a turning point in the campaign. It’s unclear exactly how important an endorsement from Mari Culver would be for the Edwards campaign. But it would definitely help Edwards’ standing as the “frontrunner” and add momentum whenever he decides to make Mari Culver’s endorsement public. ( This is assuming, of course, that this speculation is correct)
While we’re speculating on endorsements, it’s worth noting that Mike Gronstal and Tom Courtney appeared at a Chris Dodd event in Des Moines last week. It’s the first reported public appearance at a Presidential candidate’s event by either man. With Vilsack out of the race, state legislators will have a lot more freedom to endorse and it will be interesting to see if either Gronstal or Courtney take advantage of that freedom. An endorsement by either man would give Dodd a lot more credibility in Iowa.
