More than a week after the primary, it’s time to put Leonard Boswell’s victory over Ed Fallon into perspective. While the Fallon campaign is claiming “a partial victory,” the facts don’t bear out the silver lining that Fallon is trying to discern from his defeat. (Although after such a devastating loss, one certainly can understand while Fallon is looking for a silver lining). Fallon seems to think that his primarying Boswell was the reason Leonard Boswell’s voting record suddenly improved in 2007. However, Fallon didn’t have anything to do with it. Nancy Pelosi did. Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives meant that Republicans weren’t able to bring bills up that would place Democrats in swing districts like Boswell in tough positions. Once they weren’t and once Democrats had a governing majority in the House, Boswell was able to take better votes even though he still represents a district that George Bush won in 2004. Boswell supported a lot of progressive bills before Fallon declared his candidacy, during the campaign and will continue to do so now. Fallon’s claims otherwise are just attempts to justify his defeat and find a partial victory in a 22 point loss.
In terms of Iowa politics, it’s pretty clear Ed Fallon’s political career is over. Although Fallon had pockets of strength in North and West sides of Des Moines, Fallon still wasn’t able to win his former House District, HD 66 and was throughly trounced in the rural areas by margins not seen in a federal election in Iowa since Art Small was beat by Chuck Grassley. Despite Fallon’s much vaunted army of volunteers, his field efforts proved poor as turnout was low in his base precincts and he lost absentee ballots in Polk County by a nearly 3 to 1 margin (and by even more lopsided margins outside Polk County). In addition, Fallon is now bogged down by $35,000 in campaign debt, in addition to the $21,000 of debt still listed on his gubernatorial campaign account. If Fallon had won, or even lost narrowly, he might have had a strong claim to political credibility. Instead, he is firmly a niche candidate, one popular in Sherman Hill and among the Volvo drivers South of Grand but not anywhere else.
Boswell’s left flank is once again totally secure. Having easily fended off Fallon’s challenge, it seems clear he will be the Democratic nominee for Congress until he doesn’t want to be. However, Boswell, in the past few cycles, has proven to be much more vulnerable in off year elections than in Presidential years. While he should be able fend off Kim Schmett successfully, Boswell certainly be an NRCC target once again in 2010.
Polk County politics should also change too. The failure of the Fallon’s base to turn out shows the continued impotences of his limousine liberal base in local Democratic politics. The power in the Polk County Democratic Party will continue to reside on the southern banks of the Des Moines River for the near future.
In short, almost nothing has changed as a result of Fallon’s congressional run. Leonard Boswell is just as liberal as he was before and just as secure as the Democratic nominee as he was before. The balance of power has not changed in Polk County politics or on Capitol Hill. The only difference is that Ed Fallon has thrown his political career away in a quixotic challenge against a relatively progressive Democrat in a swing district and only has a debt of $35,000 to show for it.
The Politico is reporting that Sam Brownback is expected to end his bid for the Republican nomination for President tomorrow. Brownback never recovered from finishing third, behind fellow social conservative Mike Huckabee, in the Iowa Straw Poll in August. Brownback’s withdrawal from the field helps consolidate Huckabee’s position as the leading social conservative amongst the Republican field.
Brownback’s withdrawal leaves several key Iowa Republican activists up for grabs. Chuck Hurley, one of Iowa’s leading social conservatives, was a Brownback backer and will be courted by Presidential candidates seeking support amongst caucusgoers from the religious right. Another major Brownback supporter was convenience store millionaire Don Lamberti. Lamberti’s son, former Republican State Senator and Congressional candidate Jeff Lamberti, is a leading John McCain supporter. Given their family relationship, not to mention the close ties between McCain and Brownback, it’s quite possible that Lamberti will switch his support to McCain.
Brownback joins Tommy Thompson as the second Republican candidate to drop out directly or indirectly because of the straw poll. (Jim Gilmore also had a short-lived and rather pathetic bid for the Presidency but dropped out to focus his energies on trying to lose a U.S. Senate seat to former Democratic candidate Mark Warner). The Straw Poll will have once again have significantly winnowed the Republican field, depriving Republican caucusgoers of choices in order so that the Republican Party of Iowa can make a few extra bucks.
Stephen Colbert announced on his show last night that he was running for President, albeit only in his native state of South Carolina and as both a Democratic and Republican candidate. Colbert follows a long line of candidates mounted runs for the Presidency as a joke, ranging from Pat Paulson to Al Sharpton. However, unlike both of those candidates, Colbert may draw actual support. Colbert’s television show has millions of viewers every night, some of whom may support him for a lark. Although it is doubtful that Colbert’s support will be more than negligible, his run has to worry second tier candidate from both parties. While previously, candidates like Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback could run without consequences. The absolute worst that would happen to them was that they would finish behind a fringe weirdo like Dennis Kucinich or Tom Tancredo. It would be embarrassing, but both Kucinich and Tancredo are members of the United States Congress. Now respectable second tier candidates face the risk of a truly embarrassing result-finishing behind a comedian who is only pretending to be a fringe weirdo. Candidates who would normally limp through February 5th in hopes of a miracle might get scared off by the risk of humiliation.
In the meantime, Colbert now joins Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel as the only candidates yet to open a field office in Iowa.
As Chris Cilizza reports, Joe Biden is staking his entire campaign on a strong performance in Iowa. He has moved almost his entire national staff into Iowa in hopes of a strong performance in the caucuses. Biden seems to hope that this increased focus, combined with support from many Iowa legislators (including his recent endorsement by Iowa House Speaker Pro Tem Polly Bukta). His strategy, as reported by Marc Ambinder seems solid, based on having surrogates hit smaller towns with a particular focus on the blue collar Democratic counties along the Mississippi River. However, there is one inherent flaw. Ambinder notes that Biden has “nine field offices and 23 full-time staffers” which is puny compared to the number of staffers and field offices that Obama, Edwards and Clinton have. In fact, even Chris Dodd has 59 full-time staffers on the ground in Iowa right now.
Not only does Biden have very few staffers, they aren’t very experienced either. According to this roster of Biden field staff. Six out of his 14 field staffers (all of whom are titled Regional Field Directors) have never worked on a campaign before. And of those who have worked on a campaign, most have worked on campaigns for Chicago alderman or Colorado Board of Education, not for major statewide or federal offices. The ground game is crucial in the Iowa Caucuses and with the limited field program that he has, Biden is in trouble. Unless Biden is able to fully tap into the organizations of the legislators to endorse him, he will not do well in Iowa and get one of the proverbial “three tickets out of Iowa” that go to the top three finishers in the caucuses. Unless things change, Biden’s hoped for third place finish will be just like Joe Lieberman’s “third place finish” when he went all out in New Hampshire in 2004. A third place finish that actually means he finished fifth.
Via Jonathan Martin, we see Mitt Romney “unplugged” in an interview with Iowa’s top conservative radio talk show host, Jan Mickelson. Romney, whose plastic smile never seems to fade, pretty much loses it in an argument with Mickelson over his Mormon faith. The disagreement becomes most pointed during commercials, as in, when they were off the air. But Mickelson’s show was also videotaping the whole thing, so we can see what Romney looks like when (he thinks) the cameras aren’t rolling. They go off the air about 10 minutes in.
Hillary Clinton held a event this afternoon in a coffeeshop in Newton. It was a small event, maybe 80 people were there. Christine Vilsack spoke briefly and introduced the senator, stating that she supports Clinton because her extensive experience will allow her to get results in Washington.
Clinton herself spoke for a half hour. She called for universal health care and attacked insurance company bureacracies for making it hard for ordinary Iowans to receive inexpensive medical treatment. Also, she spoke in favor of college education being more accessible and inexpensive for everyone. There was a lot of applause for that. However, when she voiced her support for a women’s right to choose, there was a mixed response from the crowd.
She spoke out against the corruption by lobbyists and large corporations in Washington, asking for a return to honesty in the political arena. The crowd seemed to find this message quite appealing.
She gave the most attention to the subject of Iraq, when she stated that the U.S. had helped Iraqis and given Iraqis the chance to form a stable government in their country, but that it was time to take the troops out and let the Iraqis form a stable government for themselves. She did not outline a plan for withdrawal. However, when she next brought up Iran, she spoke out against the lack of diplomatic talks with Iran by the U.S. and asked for “diplomatic solutions” to the nuclear issue.
At the end, Clinton graciously thanked the crowd and asked for support. She took only a few questions. One man asked how much Senators earn a month. She fielded it fluidly, giving her guess in the six-figure range and taking it as an opportunity to claim that she had not voted for any pay increases in Congress. The next question came from a woman from Progress Industries, asking for Clinton’s support for people with disabilities in the workplace. She championed Tom Harkin as the leader of rights for people with disabilities in Congress, but did not go into much detail about her own position. The last question was hard to near and not repeated, but her response was to speak against the Bush administration for bypassing the UN before the invasion of Iraq.
She ended the event by mingling with the crowd and answering a few questions individually.
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.
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.
There are starting to be whispers that Mike Huckabee might drop out of the Republican Presidential Primary to run for Senate back in Arkansas. Huckabee is a right wing Republican who has done better in the “liberal media” than among the Republican faithful. However, if Huckabee ends his Presidential bid, it would have major ramifications on the Republican primary. It builds up Sam Brownback as the default candidate of social conservatives and allows more room for an underdog like Brownback (or Duncan Hunter or Tom Tancredo) to emerge on the right of the Republican field.
It also has big ramifications in Iowa. Why? Because recently Huckabee received endorsements from two of Iowa’s major social conservatives, Bob Vander Plaats, who earned his conservative street cred by undercutting Doug Gross in the 2002 Republican Gubernatorial Primary and Danny Carroll, who defrauds the elderly and runs dirty campaigns. (However, in Carroll’s defense, he doesn’t smoke, drink, or make graven images). With Huckabee out of the race, the endorsements of these highly moral members of the Moral Majority would be up for grabs. If they both endorsed someone like Brownback, Brownback would automatically become a credible challenger to the “Big Three” of McCain, Giuliani and Romney in Iowa. However, if their endorsement went to a “Big Three” candidate, most probably Romney, it further starves the remaining second tier candidates of media attention and increases expectations for the endorsed candidate. Although Huckabee probably will not make any final decision until after the Ames straw poll in August, it seems increasingly likely that he may be Tom Vilsack’s counterpart as the first to be culled from the Republican field.
