A Contrarian Theory of the Iowa Caucuses
Politics posts tend to fare poorly on N&B, but if people are desperate for procrastination, I want to suggest a new theory about Iowa & NH primaries. Here goes.
It has become very trendy to bash Iowa and NH for their central role in the primaries: They have too much influence on the nomination (see, e.g., what Iowa did for Kerry in 2004). They have poor judgment about the general election viability of the candidates (again, Kerry). They're not representative of the national Democratic electorate. Only a few thousand people vote or caucus. It's cold there, etc.
But is it possible that Iowa and New Hampshire aren't really disproportionately shaping the results of the race -- but simply ratifying the conclusions the rest of the country is slowly coming to?
Political reporters always assume the rest of the country is paying as much attention to politics as they are. But this isn't true at all. In fact, most of the country -- even Democratic primary voters -- could care less for 98% of the year.Survey after survey shows that voters don't pay attention at all until a few weeks out from the election. And so when pollsters come calling months ahead of time asking people who they're voting for, name ID and other handy mnemonics tend to decide the results. (Remember Joe Lieberman's "lock" on the 2004 nomination in early 2003?). But when voters finally start to think about things, their opinions can change dramatically.
Iowa voters are starting to think about things. NH too. And so forth through the early primaries. With this in mind, take a look at this list of current polling in the first six major Democratic primaries or caucuses, in the order in which they go to the polls. The number represents Hillary's average lead over Obama, according to Slate's Election Scorecard (and the most recent NV poll, which Slate doesn't have).
Iowa: + 0.1%
New Hampshire: + 7.3%
Nevada: + 8%
South Carolina: +9.6%
Florida: + 30.9%
California: +32%
In other words, in perfect lock-step, the sooner the state is about to vote, the more Hilary's lead shrinks. The more the voters are thinking about the election -- filling out their sample ballots, meeting the candidates, seeing TV ads, watching debates, reading newspaper coverage -- the more they like Obama instead of Hillary.
This could be bad, bad news for Hillary -- even more so than the pundits are already talking about. It looks like the more the public sees of Senator Clinton, the less they like about her.
If Obama indeed wins the nomination, it might not necessarily be because of his last-minute surge in Iowa and New Hampshire. It might just be because when voters finally think about things, they're not so keen on the Senator from New York.
(PS -- I'm personally torn about all three major candidates (and I even like Biden a little too), but I figure I have winter break to worry about that.)
It has become very trendy to bash Iowa and NH for their central role in the primaries: They have too much influence on the nomination (see, e.g., what Iowa did for Kerry in 2004). They have poor judgment about the general election viability of the candidates (again, Kerry). They're not representative of the national Democratic electorate. Only a few thousand people vote or caucus. It's cold there, etc.
But is it possible that Iowa and New Hampshire aren't really disproportionately shaping the results of the race -- but simply ratifying the conclusions the rest of the country is slowly coming to?
Political reporters always assume the rest of the country is paying as much attention to politics as they are. But this isn't true at all. In fact, most of the country -- even Democratic primary voters -- could care less for 98% of the year.Survey after survey shows that voters don't pay attention at all until a few weeks out from the election. And so when pollsters come calling months ahead of time asking people who they're voting for, name ID and other handy mnemonics tend to decide the results. (Remember Joe Lieberman's "lock" on the 2004 nomination in early 2003?). But when voters finally start to think about things, their opinions can change dramatically.
Iowa voters are starting to think about things. NH too. And so forth through the early primaries. With this in mind, take a look at this list of current polling in the first six major Democratic primaries or caucuses, in the order in which they go to the polls. The number represents Hillary's average lead over Obama, according to Slate's Election Scorecard (and the most recent NV poll, which Slate doesn't have).
Iowa: + 0.1%
New Hampshire: + 7.3%
Nevada: + 8%
South Carolina: +9.6%
Florida: + 30.9%
California: +32%
In other words, in perfect lock-step, the sooner the state is about to vote, the more Hilary's lead shrinks. The more the voters are thinking about the election -- filling out their sample ballots, meeting the candidates, seeing TV ads, watching debates, reading newspaper coverage -- the more they like Obama instead of Hillary.
This could be bad, bad news for Hillary -- even more so than the pundits are already talking about. It looks like the more the public sees of Senator Clinton, the less they like about her.
If Obama indeed wins the nomination, it might not necessarily be because of his last-minute surge in Iowa and New Hampshire. It might just be because when voters finally think about things, they're not so keen on the Senator from New York.
(PS -- I'm personally torn about all three major candidates (and I even like Biden a little too), but I figure I have winter break to worry about that.)
Labels: Elections
posted by Earl Warren at 2:52 PM
23 Comments:
Good post. I'm going to outthrow you.
I like the theory. I also like its implication: we don't need to have caucuses and primaries 11 months before the election. Like more sane countries, we could do these things just a few months out (or less!) and still come to a rational choice about who our next leader should be. Then we the people wouldn't have to put up with nearly 2 years of campaign prattle.
I don't like what it says about Mike Huckabee. EW, if you're right, then the rest of the nation will soon find the other guy from Hope, Arkansas to be the best republican candidate. Ugh.
If only Arnold could run. Continue the tradition of CA governors running for national office, like his predecessor EW.
Smart post, EW. I sincerely hope you're right. Another four (and probably eight) years of the Clinton-Bush disease is just about exactly the last thing we need right now.
I would love for 9:31 to explain how Clinton is part of the Bush disease. (ew!)
since we're in the habit of posting links, how about a Huckabee one?
Huckabee for President!
[read: dripping sarcasm - check the link]
I for one FULLY support Huckabee as the GOP candidate for president.
Disclaimer: I'm a democrat.
Yeah, that's a great point about Huckabee. I hadn't thought about that, but it seems to be the same phenomenon. Don't they say it's the social conservatives that control the GOP nomination? Now that those voters are finally paying attention, they've realized neither Romney nor Giuliani nor McCain come anywhere near to checking all the evangelical boxes. But Huckabee has all of his boxes filled tight.
(Incidentally, this also explains the near-universal, visceral disgust with Huckabee coming from the GOP establishment. I've long subscribed to Thomas Frank's theory of Republican politics: GOP political and pundit leaders don't really care about social issues; they just mouth fealty to them to get elected, and then promptly use all their energy to help rich people and business interests. A Huckabee candidacy would be a genuine threat to this arrangement, because a) he would actually spend his political capital on behalf of social conservatism and b) his faux populism means he might not tow the WSJ line on economic issues. This possibility has scared the shit out of the GOP establishment, so it's trying its damnedest to sink Huck. (Not that they have anything to really worry about.) This is why Arnold could never win a GOP nomination. (Though he could give Boxer a helluva run.) But that's about all the energy I can spend thinking about the GOP without getting aggravated, and I don't need that this week.)
A final thought: if Iowa is a true harbinger, we're in for a wild 3 months of primaries -- and maybe even a brokered convention. I think Hillary is too strong to blow over with one or two early losses. This could be a fight to the death. Which is good for us, good for the country, good for the party, good for everyone. Makes the eventual winner battle-tested, causes more people to pay attention to politics, and keeps the GOP firing at a moving target. Let's get three cheers for a two-person photo finish!
Yeah 9:31, define Clinton-Bush disease. I liked Bill Clinton as a president and like Hillary as a candidate. Hillary may not be a super lefty like Kucinich, but I don't see how she is anything like Bush.
I'd definitely like Hillary more if, like Kucinich, she'd claim to have seen a UFO and be willing to provide strange UFO statistics for no apparent reason.
I don't think 9:31's point is that Hillary or Bill are at all like Bush. The point is that with four (and probably eight) more years of Clinton, we will have had two families heading the executive branch for almost three decades. An entire generation. And that's not counting Poppy's stint as vice president. That is dynasty, and that is, in and of itself and by definition in a country that purports to be a democracy, a sickness.
It may be a symptom of something larger. It may be a disease in its own right. Whatever it is, we need to excise it. Go Obama! Go Edwards! Go any Democrat but Hillary! Please, please, please let us be free from that shouting and triangulating and self-indulgent, sanctimonious Baby Boomer silliness.
4:41 your logic is all over the place. "Whatever it is, we need to excise it." ... well no, actually what "it is" has a direct impact on whether the trend is a problem.
But aside from using the logical depth that makes Berkeley famous (any Democrat! I don't care who!) my favorite part was how you knocked off Maureen Dowd (referencing "Poppy"). How clever.
Laura, your critique is fair, yet the message of 4:41 has some appeal to it. I'm also not a fan of three decades split among two families, but it's a symptom of our voting system favoring "electable" people rather than those who may be the best match.
anyone for an alternative?
Politics always has and always will be "shouting and triangulating and self-indulgent, sanctimonious silliness." Nothing new there. I think that people make this dynasty crap argument because they think it makes them sound smart. Why is Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton per se a bad thing if Clinton happens to be the best candidate (which I think she definitely is).
And let's not forget the not-insubstantial benefit of having Bill back in the White House. He did preside over the great peacetime boom in American history. Back in 1992, the Clintons made the old "Buy 1 Get 1 Free" joke. It sounded kind of lame then, b/c no one knew much about history. And they don't dare say it now, for fear of undermining Hillary and raising precisely these issues. But if you ask me, the chance to have Bill fix our country against like he already did once is worth a whole helluva lot in this race.
So who do we think Clinton and Obama would tap for running mates?
I can't really see a Clinton/Edwards ticket, perhaps an Obama/Edwards. Though I think if Obama has the nomination he's going to have to go with someone with a strong foreign policy background like a Biden or maybe Clarke (where did he go?). Obama/Clinton would be weird. And I really have no idea who Clinton would pick considering a lot of conservatives can't stand her and yet a lot of liberals think she's too moderate.
My money is on Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama, depending on how the primaries end up going. I doubt either one would turn down a chance to be VP, and the two of them are different enough that each will think the other will help them appeal to a bigger set of voters.
There is a 0% chance Clinton or Edwards is the VP.
First, I doubt Clinton would even accept the position. That's a step down, not up. But why would it even be offered? It brings all of the baggage with none of the advantages. This isn't going to happen in any known universe.
Edwards had his VP chance and blew it with lackluster debate & campaign performances in the latter half of 2004. Plus, he's no longer taken seriously by most Washington elites (kind of the opposite of last time). The haircuts, the strident tone, the confused look in his eyes when he's talking about foreign policy -- no one in Washington respects him any more (which I for one think is too bad), and this means another Edwards VP candidacy is a non-starter.
Clinton/Obama might be terrific, but I think that's a little too much racial/gender progress for most voters, and the DC strategists will be telling that to Hil.
Nah, with an Obama or Hillary nomination, look for the VP slot to go to Bayh, Clark, Biden, Webb, Schweitzer, or Salazar.
Bill Richardson will be the Vice Presidential candidate on the 2008 Democratic ticket. Take it to the bank.
Nope, incorrect too. He's got serious zipper problems most of the Beltway knows about. Like, beyond Bill zipper problems. You think Hillary would go anywhere near that?
I think 9:35am is right - Richardson has the best foreign policy track record of the candidates. He would be the smartest choice, especially for Obama, who has zero foreign policy experience.
And I'm racking my brain to remember when vice-presidential zipper issues have ever been a problem. Personally, I don't much care who the president is diddling, but does anyone care if the v-p is having some extra-marital fun?
Yeah but if its a preacher vs. a man-whore VP . . . that would be bad. (Depending on who you're rooting for.)
Huckabee is now pulling even for the lead nationwide. Can you imagine Clinton v. Huckabee? What a joke!!! Anyway, it will be Clinton v. McCain. Put your money on it. Republicans will wake up pretty soon and realize McCain is the only qualified electable candidate.
Clinton v. Huckabee sounds like my favorite match-up. It would be like shooting fish in a barrel for her. Something tells me the reps will come to their senses about that guy soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home