Search Results for ‘rap star’
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?
March 6th, 2007
I have to admit something right up top: I am a reluctant subscriber to the Atlantic (Monthly). It came free as some credit card rewards program, so I get it. I’m not always proud of it, but whatever.
So when a fellow IowaProgress team member told me that I should check out the March issue for a mention of the local State House race here last year (between Democrat Eric Palmer and ousted Republican Danny Carroll), I was pleased to find it already sitting on my coffee table. Then I started reading it (online version here), and even before I finished the second sentence, I knew I wasn’t going to be happy. Here’s how writer Joshua Green begins:
A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified.
Yes, Danny Carroll was a rising star, victimized by “unseen forces” at work in House District 75. Perhaps had Carroll simply leaned on this leading consulting firm a little more, he would’ve won. But these “unseen forces” at work weren’t ghosts, ghouls, or the powerful anti-pumpkin lobby, it was something of a gay political stealth force (led by this man), out to get good little homophobes like Danny.
Yes, it is true that Eric Palmer got money from out-of-state donors, and perhaps some of them are gay. Some of them are also probably straight. Many out-of-state donors give money to one person hoping that their opponent will lose, and many of them do so on the basis of the different candidates’ political positions. Danny Carroll got money from such donors (although much of it was channeled through Christopher Rants’s PAC), as did Eric Palmer. This is not news.
It seems that even Danny himself didn’t think there was anything to this story at first. In fact, Danny probably had the right idea before the reporter tried to change his interview subject’s mind mid-interview. This paragraph is the kicker:
Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism.
Yup, that’s right: Danny’s pretty sure it was us. We’re pretty sure it was us. And the number of college students who voted for Eric Palmer is remarkably close to the number of votes Danny lost by. But Joshua Green still blames the gays. Green convinces Danny to look at the IECDB reports from the 2006 race, and here’s where things go from there:
Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Sharon. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”
Eric Palmer got $1,000 from New York?!?!?! And more donations from Dallas and Denver?!?!?! Shucks! I guess that means Eric won because of the gay agenda then.
Seriously, though, how is this puff piece journalism? People with certain interests donate to political campaigns across the country all the time, on both sides. Not everyone knows why every donor donates, and in many cases the candidates don’t even know what a donor’s agenda might be. It isn’t like Eric had a huge resource advantage over Danny, either. It may be sensational because a few of Palmer’s donors were gay, but it is certainly nothing new.
If this was our 15 minutes of national media fame, I’m going to be very disappointed.
February 13th, 2007
If Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post can already start looking at 2008 US Senate races, we feel like it’s not too soon to start looking at 2008 Iowa Senate races. Today, we’re going to take a look at the top Democratic pickup opportunities. Although the Democrats picked up seats in 2004 to reach a 25-25 tie in the Senate, the Republicans will still be defending 15 seats in 2008, 5 more than the Democrats. Not only will the GOP go into 2008 with more seats to defend, they will be a party that is deeply divided. Nearly half of the Republicans in the State Senate walked out of the leadership election in November. They haven’t become much more unified since. Here are a list of the three most vulnerable seats that the divided Republican caucus will have to defend in 2008:
1. Larry McKibben (Marshall and Hardin Counties). McKibben represents a district that Chet Culver won by nearly 1500 votes in 2006. It consists of Marshall County, a traditionally strong Democratic county and Hardin, a mildly Republican leaning county. In 2004, McKibben edged out the Democratic candidate, Wayne Sawtelle, a labor activist, by less than 800 votes. McKibben owed his victory to piling up a huge lead in Hardin County, despite running significantly behind George Bush in Marshall County. The large labor community in Marshalltown will still be gunning for McKibben in 2008 and McKibben won’t be running on anywhere near as strong a ticket in 2008. With Tom Harkin up for Senate and Selden Spencer making a more serious attempt to run against Tom Latham, McKibben won’t have the advantages he had in 2004. He’s hanging on by a slim thread and this race will probably be decided again by less than 1000 votes.
2. James Hahn (Cedar, most of Muscatine and a little of Johnson counties). Hahn, one of the 8 anti-Lundby Republicans in the State Senate, defeated incumbent Democrat Thomas Fiegen after redistricting in 2004. Fiegen previously only represented the Cedar County part of the district and lost his bid for re-election in the new district by less than 2000 votes. This will be another place where the Democrats will benefit from having a much stronger ticket. The 2004 Democratic candidate for U.S. House, long-shot Dave Franker will be replaced on the ticket by incumbent Representative Dave Loebsack. This means there will be a whole lot more resources available in Muscatine County, a county which isn’t that important in a statewide race but is a crucial swing county in the 2nd Congressional District. John Kerry won Muscatine County in 2004 by 500 votes despite a weak showing statewide. Chet Culver won it by 2000 votes. If the Democratic Presidential nominee has a Chet Culver-like performance in the Presidential and gets 55% of the vote, this seat should go. If Iowa continues to be a tightly contested swing state, it probably won’t.
3. Mary Lundby (Linn) Although Lundby is the Republican leader in the State Senate, she is one of the most moderate members of the Republican Caucus who replaced former leader Stew Iverson in a coup in April 2006. She was also one of two Republican State Senators to oppose an amendment to the Iowa Constitution to ban gay marriage during the last legislative session. Her socially moderate views make her a good fit for a State Senate district that has about 12,000 Democrats, 12,000 Republicans and 17,000 Independents in the suburbs of Cedar Rapids that she won with nearly 60% of the vote in 2004. However, it does not make her a good fit in the Republican Party of Iowa which is dominated by social conservatives. Her only ally in the Republican caucus on the gay marriage issue, Maggie Tinsman, was defeated in the 2006 primary by an extreme right wing organization called Iowans for Tax Relief. She was beaten by a fellow who can best be described as the Steve King of East Iowa, David Hartsuch. Considering that half the Republicans in the State Senate don’t support Lundby, it won’t be a surprise if Iowans for Tax Relief tried to beat Lundby in the primary. If they do, an ultra conservative will be very vulnerable in this moderate seat. The other possibility is that Lundby, a cancer survivor may call it quits. After all, why would anyone in their right mind really want to manage a Senate caucus with a proclivity for sectarian violence that would make an Iraqi province blush? If the seat becomes open, it will become an extremely competitive race and with compartively high costs to run a campaign in the Cedar Rapids media market, it will easily become the most expensive State Senate race in the state. However, if Lundby stays on the nature of the district makes it Republican favored but still competitive. However, the mix of all three possibilities, a Republican primary, retirement and re-election keeps this seat highly competitive.
Other vulnerable Republicans are (in alphabetical order): Jeff Angelo (South-Central Iowa), Jerry Behn (Boone and Dallas Counties), John Putney (Benton, Grundy, Tama and part of Iowa County), Brad Zaun (suburban Polk County) and Mark Ziemann (Allamakee, Chickasaw, Howard and Winneshiek Counties)
February 6th, 2007
In the latest must-read political story of the week, Adam Nagourney chronicled Hillary Clinton’s plans for her run for President. However, in the New Hampshire heavy article, one paragraph stood out,
“Mrs. Clinton has less experience with presidential politics in Iowa than in New Hampshire because in 1992, when her husband ran the first time, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa was also seeking the presidential nomination, so other candidates steered clear of the race”
This misses one of the big challenges that Hillary faces. Rogue polls aside, she has next to no traction among Iowa caucusgoers. Vilsack has been Governor for eight years, Edwards still has a formidable base of support left from 2004 and Obama is not only seen as a political rockstar but, as a Senator from Illinois gets local television coverage in much of Eastern Iowa as well. In contrast, Bill Clinton never had to campaign in the Iowa Caucuses and Hillary has no hometown advantage in Iowa.
Hillary will have none of these advantages and right now is clearly running fourth in Iowa. Although she may have a lot of money, media is secondary to field in caucuses and among Democratic activists, all the candidates have high name ID. It’s still early and as Chase pointed out recently, the Iowa Caucuses are still wide open. But, Hillary is clearly starting behind the eight ball and it would not be a surprise if she doesn’t compete in the caucuses at all and tries to build up New Hampshire and South Carolina as firewalls.
January 3rd, 2007
There has been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about who is going to win Iowa in 2008. I’ve been resisting the temptation to join, because it’s pretty unlikely that the picture we see now will look anything like the picture we see a year from now.
Think of how much has changed from four months ago: Warner, who has since dropped out and now might be un-dropping out, was attracting a lot of Iowa support. Obama, whose candidacy I have been predicting for a year, was written off as too green and inexperienced to run in 2008. Bayh looked like he had too much money not to play in at least the first four primary states. John Kerry was not a favorite, but he was in as good a position as any of the candidates. And John Edwards was probably getting the most buzz around here. (Incidentally, Hillary’s position as the elephant in the room everyone either loves or loves to hate has remained relatively consistent this whole time.)
Since then, Warner and Bayh dropped out, and a lot of people started talking about what that might mean, often concluding that it was because the caucuses were close to being decided — already. (Kyle’s post here is actually what provoked me to write this.) Here are five reasons why it’s still wide open:
- The caucuses are an expectations game above all else. Given two candidates with equal money, talent, charisma, etc., the candidate who is favored more heavily is actually in a weaker position right now than the candidate nobody is talking about. To “win” the caucuses, you have to beat expectations, not just the other candidates, and the job gets harder and harder as expectations get higher and higher.
- Nobody knows what to expect from Tom Vilsack. Before he announced, I didn’t know very many people who took his candidacy seriously. But his campaign has assembled an excellent staff, and he keeps on impressing me. He isn’t expected to do all that well nationally (his strategy is clearly to paint himself as the underdog of the race), but nobody really knows how well he’ll end up doing in Iowa. (Drew has some thoughts on how well he has to do to stay in, but even he’ll admit that it’s guesswork at this point.) Again, though, I think it’s clear a fair number of candidates have to play in Iowa (particularly Edwards and probably Obama), and, if Vilsack can even hold his own against them, he isn’t out of the picture.
- The majority of the field hasn’t even declared yet. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry are all staying above the fray by not making themselves candidates yet. As soon as they do, expect a lot of rhetoric to change. Even if attacking Obama will hurt the attacker more than it will hurt Obama, somebody will start doing it as soon as he declares in hopes of shaking the tree a little bit. Expect a wave of attack dog pundits and surrogates as soon as Obama and Clinton declare. We don’t know how that will turn out.
- Nobody is talking about John Edwards right now. Even though Edwards is a fundraising force with name recognition, a strong biography, charisma that rivals Obama’s, and a reputable staff, he has avoided high expectations. Polling in Iowa has consistently put him on top, and it looks like he’s going to declare pretty soon, so it isn’t clear how he will end up.
- In the end, staff quality and political strategy make a much bigger difference in the caucuses than buzz and media coverage. John Kerry was not a frontrunner in November of 2003; he was closer to a longshot. But his staff put together a better field program than Dean’s staff, and he ended up winning. (And because Dean was the frontrunner before losing, it pretty much knocked him out.) Field work is huge in Iowa, and we probably won’t know who has the best field program until the caucuses are over.
Of course, keep checking here for more news and analysis as the field of candidates continues to narrow.
December 20th, 2006
In what is either the most scathing diss track since Nas noted Jay Z took Tae Bo, or the most misguided political intervention by a rap “star” since Kanye West spilled the beans at the Grammys, hip hop heavyweight $trick9 has weighed into Iowa’s gubernatorial debate with a youtube “endorsement” of Jim Nussle.
Whatever Iowa’s biggie intended in his video, I’m thoroughly confused. You can watch for yourself, but here’s a highlight:
Jim Nussle’s got the ten commandments/ God Damnit/ You will lose/ Just give it up smooth…/ Republicans are on top and we can’t stop/ Until gay couples can’t adopt
Should we say thanks? Is this guy popular? Why is the Register covering this? Has hell frozen over?
Those are just a few of the questions that necessarily surround this brand of mega-event.
The intersection between Iowa and hip hop does, however, make one thing clear: if these are Nussle’s ideas, Iowa’s got 99 problems and $trick9 ain’t one.
October 25th, 2006
Via Hotline On Call, we learn that Rudy Giuliani will be campaigning for Republican gubernatorial hopeful Jim Nussle and Republican congressional candidate Mike Whalen in the days leading up to Election Day. There’s no question that spending time with Iowa Republicans is good for Giuliani as he mulls a presidential run in 2008, but what could be the effects on these two Iowa races?
Sure, Giuliani brings a lot of star-power with him, and he conjures up memories of 9/11 — we all know how good Republicans are at wrapping themselves in the flag — but he is also widely known as a liberal Republican, particularly for his pro-choice views. Should we be surprised that two pro-life candidates like Nussle and Whalen have attached themselves to the Giuliani teat? I don’t think so.
We’ve watched Nussle do his hustle on choice since the beginning of the campaign. And in such a split electorate, it should come as no surprise that he is trying to pivot a bit to the left; in fact, that has been a nationwide trend among GOP gubernatorial candidates according to the New York Times.
Whalen’s pro-life cred has been questioned as well. Last April, the Krusty Konservative noted Whalen’s “general ignorance and his lack of interest” in the issue and that he once told people that he was only pro-life “because his consultants told him he had to be.” But again, we shouldn’t be surprised of his posturing; he is running in unfriendly territory, a district that Kerry and Gore both won.
But therein lies the rub! If Nussle and Whalen go too far off the right-wing reservation, the base will be less enthusiastic about the election, perhaps not volunteering or not voting at all. Besides, as we have learned these last few years, when voters have a chance to vote for a Republican or a Republican-lite, they go for the real Republican. As we’ll likely find out in a mere two weeks, the same goes for Democrats.
October 24th, 2006
A big thanks to Chris over at Political Forecast for highlighting our favorite candidate Eric Palmer’s new television ad. In 1992 they used to say that a vote for Clinton was a 2 for 1 deal. I’d say that this year a vote for Palmer is a 6 for 1 deal. Heck, they may be young, but I think those kids know more about what Iowa needs than Danny Carroll.
I can imagine Danny’s negative response ads already.
Black silhouette appears on screen amidst sounds of nails on a chalkboard.
Action movie announcer voice- Candidate Eric Palmer says he wants to get “strict about homework” with Iowa’s families. But it is theoretically possible that his children have forgotten to complete an assignment in full. Tell Eric Palmer that he should watch his own litter before he goes into your home and starts burying your pups in pencils and paper. Tell Eric Palmer that Iowa needs more than homework–it needs fun. And tell Eric Palmer that while homework may be good for his family, he needs to stop imposing his values on hardworking, humble Iowans. On November 7th, teach Eric Palmer a lesson.”
Can we expect anything less from the Republican Party? The swift-dopes are accusing Boswell of scraping children’s knees…
October 18th, 2006
As the election countdowns begin, we’re starting to see some more frequent polling data, which is a relief after the snazzy, yet frustratingly out-of-date 2006 Election Guide the New York Times has had up for the past few months. Sure it is color-coded and has interactive features which allow users to act out their fantasies regarding the November results, but they’re using polls from March.
The Wall Street Journal and John Zogby released polling data on Monday showing Nussle leading Culver 46-43. The Nussle campaign’s email, after employing a bizarre analogy comparing the gubernatorial race to the upcoming Cy-Hawks game (is Nussle ISU or UI? I have no idea…), was cautiously optimistic:
We are prepared for this race to go down to the wire - and we know the only poll that matters in the one on Election Day.
Even so, it’s worth looking inside the WSJ numbers, and the news is not good for Chet Culver.
(The IRP offers a more triumphant and less credible analysis.) Of course, looking inside the numbers would reveal that they are within the margin of error, just as has been reported in a KCCI poll released Wednesday that shows Culver up 48-43, with a 4 point margin of error.
Given that is seems unlikely that Nussle would lose three points while Culver gained five in the span of a few days (would that it were so), let’s assume that the differences arose from the fact that Zogby is a conservative pollster, KCCI being more liberal. So what’s the take home lesson? Surprise, surprise, it is going to be a close race.
Update: the Register just released a poll today (September 17) that shows Nussle and Culver tied 44-44. It offers some interesting demographic analyses.
September 15th, 2006
It looks like John McCain is setting himself up for a presidential bid in 2008. Yesterday, McCain spoke in Cedar Rapids to help fundraise for Nussle–but also it seems to start ingratiating himself in a state that receives tax credits and subsidies that he has repeatedly criticized.
McCain acknowledged that he was considering running in 2008, and that in order to win Iowa he would need “an army on the ground.” He didn’t seem to care much about Iowa in 2000, when he skipped campaigning here altogether to focus on New Hampshire. However, now it appears that he wants our support. To that end:
“At $10 a barrel (for oil), I don’t think ethanol was a very viable option,” he said before an appearance to bolster the Republican gubernatorial campaign of Jim Nussle. “At $60 or $70 a barrel, I think it needs to be examined. There’s also national security implications.”
This is a big ol’ about face from the days when he called ethanol tax credits and subsidies “outrageous” and a “boondoggle.” Given that he is announcing this while in Iowa and campaigning for Nussle, it is hard to believe that his reversal is due entirely to economics and not politics, as he said that it was.
April 14th, 2006
