For over twenty years, there was this coworker on the railroad who told fantastic stories. Generally, he featured himself as the central character. The stories were "fantastic" in that they all were fantasies. Sometimes they would be just plausible enough that someone unfamiliar with him might believe, but often they exceeded the bounds of plausibility. He always told them as though they were quite literally true.
There were a few basic forms. One form involved an informal and familiar relationship with a rich or famous person. These were never the "A-list", but rather, involved someone with whom the listener would be expected to have heard of, but would not know much about. For instance, he was a good friend of the singer Ann Murray and he dropped in to visit "every time" he was "up there in Canada."
Another group of his stories would involve fantasies of his past, such as experiences in three branches of the armed forces, stock car racing, night club owner, eyeglass lens maker, horse trainer, etc.
A third major group of stories involved "how I saved the day." This would generally follow the form: (1) I was in a crowd at some event; (2) someone did not show up to do his job; (3) the person in charge had no way to accomplish whatever was to be done; (4) so the crowd was asked if anyone could step in; (5) "and I were the only one...." who could do whatever was needed. This included driving a water truck fighting forest fires, playing trombone in a jazz band, etc.
This fellow was an excellent though unintentional teacher of skepticism.
I write that preface to explain my general aversion to "how I saved the day" stories, even when they are true. Nonetheless, I have one from yesterday, so I will share it:
After spending a full day in the Chicago office, I got home from after midnight, and got to sleep sometime after 2. And so I was still drifting in and out of sleep when the phone rang at 9:20. It was Jeff Dralle from the Cedar Rapids Ice Arena - some referee scheduled for the Iowa Games was not going to make it so could I come in and do the 11:00 game? Having noted the 563 area code in my phone number, he wondered if it were even possible for me to make it in time. (Cedar Rapids is in the 319.)
But, yes, it takes 50-55 minutes to get there from here. Add a few minutes to pack, try to get a little food and caffeine in there somewhere, get dressed once at the arena - it would be close. And the car needed gas. At $25/game, it was not something to be done just for the money. In fact, I was not keen on hurrying in to do just one game. So he gave me a second game that he had planned to assign an arena employe.
Fortunately, the Anamosa BP station still had some warm (but stale) breakfast pizza and a good supply of Mountain Dew in the cooler
Gas - check; breakfast - check; caffeine! - check.
Fortunately the the 11AM game was the third of the day on that sheet of ice, and they were running more than 15 minutes late already by the time I got there, so I had plenty of time. Unfortunately, neither I nor my partner (who had also been called on short notice) had read the tournament rules, but we correctly guessed they were using the USA Hockey adult no-check rules (available through this link).
So it was about two hours from sleep to ice. The 2 PM game (which started at around 2:30) was a little easier after having already warmed up and woken up. For the record, there were no fights, but we assessed penalties for roughing, body checking, checking from behind, holding, hooking, slashing and tripping. And that was just the women's game. The men's game had all those but checking from behind, plus coincidental minors for unsportsmanlike conduct (two guys trying to pick a fight with each other).
And I got this nice T-Shirt.
You can check it out. Well, the schedule and placings, anyway.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Al Gore and Iowa Caucuses
The efforts of the grassroots movement supporting Al Gore for the presidential nomination will land him a ballot spot in New York (as diaried here).There may be a problem in other states, which may require the candidate to file an affidavit of candidacy. In addition, some caucus states may present a roadblock. The purpose of this diary is to discuss the process in Iowa and how to best approach the movement here.
For Iowa's caucuses, each precinct gets a preprinted sign-in sheet for use at the caucus. The sign-in sheet has a space to indicate preliminary support for a candidate. When registration is completed (at 7 PM), the indicated preferences are used to estimate viability of each presidential preference group (assuming the caucus decides to form preference groups). Typically, the candidates are listed as choices, in addition to "Other" and "Uncommitted."
There is an old question, though, of how to decide which candidates to list. For instance, I don't believe anyone thought that George McGovern was going to be nominated in 1984. Yet, he was listed as a candidate and came in third, with 10% of the delegates.
With this in mind, in my capacity as a Democratic Party County Chair, I wrote to the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) asking that Al Gore be included as a choice on the list for caucus sign-in materials. Here is what I wrote:
It did not take long for the IDP to respond:
Now, it is pretty obvious that the difference between being listed and not listed on the sign in sheet could have a large effect on the level of support for any candidate, much like the difference between being on the ballot vs. a write-in campaign. So I looked at some official Democratic Party documents to see if there was an actual policy requirement, or even a statement of policy that was guiding this decision. Of course, if the IDP By-Laws or policy, or Delegate Selection Plan or the DNC Delegate Selection Rules specified this policy, then it would just be something to live with. However, nothing I could find supports this or any other method of deciding who ends up on the sign-in sheet.
So it is obvious that no matter how reasonable the requirements quoted by the IDP staff are, they are based on some policy which is not enshrined within the DNC Rules, IDP By-Laws, nor in the Delegate Selection Plan. Here is the closest I could find to any stated policy, from Page 9 of the Iowa 2008 Delegate Selection Plan (The Rules cited within the plan refer to DNC Delegate Selection Rules):
While Subsection 2 might seem to limit access by requiring a candidate to certify one or more authorized representatives, such an interpretation would be incorrect. First, it would directly contradict Subsection 1, which clearly provides that there are no specific filing requirements. Second, the deadline of ten days prior to the event sets up an impossible situation because the county parties will already be in possession of the caucus materials more than ten days prior to the caucus date. Hence, the IDP has not shown that there is any established rule that would keep them from including Al Gore as a candidate.
With that in mind, I will start to address the issue of getting a good result for Al Gore from the Iowa Caucuses.
Caucus for Gore (Part I)
It seems to me that getting Mr. Gore's name on the caucus sign-in sheets is a key to getting a good showing. Of course, a significant showing without being listed would be great. But it seems obvious that having his name on the list would provide a much better opportunity to do well. Therefore, to support Al Gore for the nomination, the first action must be to mount a campaign to get him on the list.
It is especially important to notice that there is no requirement that the candidate declare his candidacy to anyone in order to be included. While it would seem to be reasonable to exclude someone who declared that they would not be a candidate, it also seems reasonable to include someone with widespread support. So I would propose that a showing of widespread support in Iowa might land him a spot on the list - especially if that support comes from party activists.
How do we show sufficient support for inclusion of Al Gore to effect a change in their current plans? Well, I would imagine it would be most persuasive if it comes from (1) Democratic Party officials, such as DNC Members, State Central Committee Members, County Chairs, County Central Committee Members, District Committee Members and regular caucus-goers. It would probably be least persuasive coming from outside Iowa (except if it came from Al Gore, himself).
I propose, then, that all of us from Iowa should send emails to the IDP asking for Gore's inclusion. Here is a link to the contact information for IDP Staff: IDP Staff The Caucus to Convention Manager might be a good focal point to convey your views.
In addition, you might want to contact your State Central Committee members and ask them to prevail on the Party to include Mr. Gore. I would concentrate on those in my Congressional District.
I am going to end this for now. Next week, I will try to take time to write something about how to get a showing for Gore in case he is not on the list. In the meantime, all you Iowans, let's give Al a chance!
Cross-Posted at DailyKos
For Iowa's caucuses, each precinct gets a preprinted sign-in sheet for use at the caucus. The sign-in sheet has a space to indicate preliminary support for a candidate. When registration is completed (at 7 PM), the indicated preferences are used to estimate viability of each presidential preference group (assuming the caucus decides to form preference groups). Typically, the candidates are listed as choices, in addition to "Other" and "Uncommitted."
There is an old question, though, of how to decide which candidates to list. For instance, I don't believe anyone thought that George McGovern was going to be nominated in 1984. Yet, he was listed as a candidate and came in third, with 10% of the delegates.
With this in mind, in my capacity as a Democratic Party County Chair, I wrote to the Iowa Democratic Party (IDP) asking that Al Gore be included as a choice on the list for caucus sign-in materials. Here is what I wrote:
Inasmuch as there is broad-based support within the Democratic Party for the nomination of Al Gore, I am writing today to request that when you print the sign-up sheets for the precincts, you include a column to indicate initial support for Al Gore, as well as for "uncommitted" and for the other 8 recognized candidates.
It did not take long for the IDP to respond:
We will only be including candidates who have officially announced they are running for President and have spent time campaigning in Iowa on our registration forms. I am sure Mr. Gore has a broad base of support but unless he announces he is running for President we at the Iowa Democratic Party will not be including him. Although, caucus attendees can support any candidate they choose, even Mr. Gore. However the results will be coded as other and tallied later.
Now, it is pretty obvious that the difference between being listed and not listed on the sign in sheet could have a large effect on the level of support for any candidate, much like the difference between being on the ballot vs. a write-in campaign. So I looked at some official Democratic Party documents to see if there was an actual policy requirement, or even a statement of policy that was guiding this decision. Of course, if the IDP By-Laws or policy, or Delegate Selection Plan or the DNC Delegate Selection Rules specified this policy, then it would just be something to live with. However, nothing I could find supports this or any other method of deciding who ends up on the sign-in sheet.
So it is obvious that no matter how reasonable the requirements quoted by the IDP staff are, they are based on some policy which is not enshrined within the DNC Rules, IDP By-Laws, nor in the Delegate Selection Plan. Here is the closest I could find to any stated policy, from Page 9 of the Iowa 2008 Delegate Selection Plan (The Rules cited within the plan refer to DNC Delegate Selection Rules):
Section III
Presidential Candidates
A. Ballot Access
1. There are no specific filing requirements whereby a presidential candidate gains access to the Iowa delegate selection process. (Rules 11.B., 14.A., 14.B., 14.D., 14E., & 14.H.)
2. Each presidential candidate shall certify in writing to the State Democratic Chair, the name(s) of his or her authorized representative(s) by ten (10) days prior to the precinct caucuses and respective conventions. (Rule 12.D.(1))
3. Each presidential candidate (including uncommitted status) shall use his or her best efforts to ensure that his or her respectivew delegation within the state delegation achieves the affirmative action goals established by this Plan and is equally divided between men and women. (Rule 6.1)
While Subsection 2 might seem to limit access by requiring a candidate to certify one or more authorized representatives, such an interpretation would be incorrect. First, it would directly contradict Subsection 1, which clearly provides that there are no specific filing requirements. Second, the deadline of ten days prior to the event sets up an impossible situation because the county parties will already be in possession of the caucus materials more than ten days prior to the caucus date. Hence, the IDP has not shown that there is any established rule that would keep them from including Al Gore as a candidate.
With that in mind, I will start to address the issue of getting a good result for Al Gore from the Iowa Caucuses.
Caucus for Gore (Part I)
It seems to me that getting Mr. Gore's name on the caucus sign-in sheets is a key to getting a good showing. Of course, a significant showing without being listed would be great. But it seems obvious that having his name on the list would provide a much better opportunity to do well. Therefore, to support Al Gore for the nomination, the first action must be to mount a campaign to get him on the list.
It is especially important to notice that there is no requirement that the candidate declare his candidacy to anyone in order to be included. While it would seem to be reasonable to exclude someone who declared that they would not be a candidate, it also seems reasonable to include someone with widespread support. So I would propose that a showing of widespread support in Iowa might land him a spot on the list - especially if that support comes from party activists.
How do we show sufficient support for inclusion of Al Gore to effect a change in their current plans? Well, I would imagine it would be most persuasive if it comes from (1) Democratic Party officials, such as DNC Members, State Central Committee Members, County Chairs, County Central Committee Members, District Committee Members and regular caucus-goers. It would probably be least persuasive coming from outside Iowa (except if it came from Al Gore, himself).
I propose, then, that all of us from Iowa should send emails to the IDP asking for Gore's inclusion. Here is a link to the contact information for IDP Staff: IDP Staff The Caucus to Convention Manager might be a good focal point to convey your views.
In addition, you might want to contact your State Central Committee members and ask them to prevail on the Party to include Mr. Gore. I would concentrate on those in my Congressional District.
I am going to end this for now. Next week, I will try to take time to write something about how to get a showing for Gore in case he is not on the list. In the meantime, all you Iowans, let's give Al a chance!
Cross-Posted at DailyKos
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
How My Iowa Precinct Caucus Works
With all the talk about Presidential Campaigns, debates, etc. these days, I thought the world could stand yet another story about how the caucus process works in Iowa.
Other folks can fill you in on how the larger precincts work. What I am going to write about here is how my little precinct works - in a town too small to have a retail business (unless you count the post office).
I usually arrive about 15 minutes before registration is to start. I can turn on the lights, get the posters hung on the walls, get my lists and literature together, etc.
One thing to remember is that the precinct caucuses are held in all even numbered years and the caucus rules are the same regardless of whether it is a presidential year or not. We have yet to see the official agenda and rules, but they haven't changed for many years, and a change risks alienating the presidential campaigns, who would naturally charge that any changes were an attempt to influence the outcome.
At the advertised time, folks start trickling in and we sign them up. Generally, we have 6 to 8 in attendance. In 1988, I think we had 12 and that was the biggest I have attended in Center Junction. Now back when I lived in Ames, that was another story. We had some big crowds there, sometimes over a hundred.
After registration, we convene. The temporary chair (me), asks if anyone wants to be caucus chair. Usually no one wants it, so I end upbeing drafted volunteering. We draft someone else to be secretary.
After the election of the permanent chair and secretary, the next order of business is to decide whether to split into preference groups. You see, our caucus will elect 3 delegates to the county convention, and we can elect them at large, or we can decide to divide into preference groups, do the arcane math and rounding, realignment if necessary, and then have each preference group elect delegates and alternates.
The funny thing about preference groups is this: in the non-presidential years, hardly anyone ever wants to divide. We just elect our delegates at large. But in Presidential years, most folks want to divide. Just remember that the rules are the same whether or not there is a presidential nominating contest going on that year.
You might ask, what preference groups would you form in non-presidential years? Well, in 2006, some precincts formed gubernatorial preference groups because one of the candidates for governor was pursuing a strategy of trying to stack the state convention in case the nomination in the three way race went to the convention. It didn't, and he did not have enough delegates at the convention anyway. But that is one type of preference group that could be formed.
Also keep in mind that no rule limits the formation of a group based on any particular preference. The groups do not have to divide based on presidential preference, or in opposition to each other. In 1976, even though it is commonly said that Jimmy Carter won the Caucuses, in actuality, "Uncommitted" preference groups elected more delegates than Carter preference groups. If 15% of a precinct caucus wanted to form a "nuke the whales" preference group, or a "we like rhubarb pie" preference group, that is allowed under the rules. If enough members of an extended family wanted to be sure some of their family were delegates, they could form a family preference group. The caveat is, they could not keep others from joining their group and voting on which caucus attendees would be delegates to the county convention. This would also apply, say, if someone wanted to organize the caucuses to elect delegates in favor of ending Dubya's ill fated occupation in Iraq. They would just need to form the preference groups and elect their delegates.
But in my little precinct, I imagine we will form presidential preference groups as we have every Presidential year except 1996.
So after we vote to break into preference groups, we will take a count, do the preliminary math, and start the clock on the realignment period. During that time, we move on to considering any platform resolutions anyone wants to bring up. Usually there are two or three the Farm Bureau is trying to get passed and maybe a couple of others. An envelope will be circulated to collect donations to help pay for all the party's expenses putting on these caucuses. Letters from candidates and elected officials will be available (we never read them out loud, though I hear that some precincts do that). There will be nomination petitions to sign, too.
We usually have time to elect our two precinct committee people to serve on the Jones County Democratic Central Committee, draft our members of the County Convention committees, and generally talk about the weather, too.
Then the clock runs out on the realignment period.
By this time, the math has been figured out and nothing has changed. Once in awhile, we have a non-viable group who all go to another group to help out on their totals. Sometimes the non-viable group just doesn't realign, and that throws the math way off. (Actually, there are processes in the rules to deal with that.)
Then we will argue over who will be elected to be delegates to the convention because none of their group wants to go to the county convention and listen to a bunch of speeches all day when they could be home doing something on a Saturday. Alternates are even harder to find.
The groups' delegate(s) selected, we reconvene as a caucus and ratify the slate, ratify the business of the caucus, and adjourn.
It’s not a bad way to spend a winter evening, and sometimes you get to meet some of the new neighbors.
Hmmm...
"Ending Dubya's ill-fated occupation in Iraq" preference group has a nice ring to it, but I hate to be a single-issue caucus chair.
Other folks can fill you in on how the larger precincts work. What I am going to write about here is how my little precinct works - in a town too small to have a retail business (unless you count the post office).
I usually arrive about 15 minutes before registration is to start. I can turn on the lights, get the posters hung on the walls, get my lists and literature together, etc.
One thing to remember is that the precinct caucuses are held in all even numbered years and the caucus rules are the same regardless of whether it is a presidential year or not. We have yet to see the official agenda and rules, but they haven't changed for many years, and a change risks alienating the presidential campaigns, who would naturally charge that any changes were an attempt to influence the outcome.
At the advertised time, folks start trickling in and we sign them up. Generally, we have 6 to 8 in attendance. In 1988, I think we had 12 and that was the biggest I have attended in Center Junction. Now back when I lived in Ames, that was another story. We had some big crowds there, sometimes over a hundred.
After registration, we convene. The temporary chair (me), asks if anyone wants to be caucus chair. Usually no one wants it, so I end up
After the election of the permanent chair and secretary, the next order of business is to decide whether to split into preference groups. You see, our caucus will elect 3 delegates to the county convention, and we can elect them at large, or we can decide to divide into preference groups, do the arcane math and rounding, realignment if necessary, and then have each preference group elect delegates and alternates.
The funny thing about preference groups is this: in the non-presidential years, hardly anyone ever wants to divide. We just elect our delegates at large. But in Presidential years, most folks want to divide. Just remember that the rules are the same whether or not there is a presidential nominating contest going on that year.
You might ask, what preference groups would you form in non-presidential years? Well, in 2006, some precincts formed gubernatorial preference groups because one of the candidates for governor was pursuing a strategy of trying to stack the state convention in case the nomination in the three way race went to the convention. It didn't, and he did not have enough delegates at the convention anyway. But that is one type of preference group that could be formed.
Also keep in mind that no rule limits the formation of a group based on any particular preference. The groups do not have to divide based on presidential preference, or in opposition to each other. In 1976, even though it is commonly said that Jimmy Carter won the Caucuses, in actuality, "Uncommitted" preference groups elected more delegates than Carter preference groups. If 15% of a precinct caucus wanted to form a "nuke the whales" preference group, or a "we like rhubarb pie" preference group, that is allowed under the rules. If enough members of an extended family wanted to be sure some of their family were delegates, they could form a family preference group. The caveat is, they could not keep others from joining their group and voting on which caucus attendees would be delegates to the county convention. This would also apply, say, if someone wanted to organize the caucuses to elect delegates in favor of ending Dubya's ill fated occupation in Iraq. They would just need to form the preference groups and elect their delegates.
But in my little precinct, I imagine we will form presidential preference groups as we have every Presidential year except 1996.
So after we vote to break into preference groups, we will take a count, do the preliminary math, and start the clock on the realignment period. During that time, we move on to considering any platform resolutions anyone wants to bring up. Usually there are two or three the Farm Bureau is trying to get passed and maybe a couple of others. An envelope will be circulated to collect donations to help pay for all the party's expenses putting on these caucuses. Letters from candidates and elected officials will be available (we never read them out loud, though I hear that some precincts do that). There will be nomination petitions to sign, too.
We usually have time to elect our two precinct committee people to serve on the Jones County Democratic Central Committee, draft our members of the County Convention committees, and generally talk about the weather, too.
Then the clock runs out on the realignment period.
By this time, the math has been figured out and nothing has changed. Once in awhile, we have a non-viable group who all go to another group to help out on their totals. Sometimes the non-viable group just doesn't realign, and that throws the math way off. (Actually, there are processes in the rules to deal with that.)
Then we will argue over who will be elected to be delegates to the convention because none of their group wants to go to the county convention and listen to a bunch of speeches all day when they could be home doing something on a Saturday. Alternates are even harder to find.
The groups' delegate(s) selected, we reconvene as a caucus and ratify the slate, ratify the business of the caucus, and adjourn.
It’s not a bad way to spend a winter evening, and sometimes you get to meet some of the new neighbors.
Hmmm...
"Ending Dubya's ill-fated occupation in Iraq" preference group has a nice ring to it, but I hate to be a single-issue caucus chair.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
How is that going to help?
As more states move their primary dates up, presumably to attract more attention from the candidates and to have more of a say in the nomination, the effect of such leapfrogging on individual candidacies is unknown. There is a lot of discussion about the jockeying going on among the states for calendar position and no apparent consensus about what the result might be for any particular candidate for the presidential nomination.
But a discussion we seem not to be having is just what result we want to achieve by any change in the calendar or the process. That is, while the objections to the calendar seem to be defined, any changes ought to be evaluated in terms of achieving the goals of the Democratic Party at the national level.
Of course there is always a discussion of the relative power of the individual states in the nominating process, and whether Iowa should retain its traditional first in the nation status (if you mean by "tradition" since 1972 when the Democratic Party adopted the McGovern-Fraser Commission’s recommendations for the delegate selection process), whether Iowa and New Hampshire are representative enough of the nation, etc. Then there is the discussion surrounding the influence of money and the problem of nominating a candidate who is beholden to this or that (or many) corporate interests.
In order to achieve goals, the goals must be set. That seems self-evident. So let’s see what the goals of the Democratic Party, and the party’s nominating process are. I would propose that the goals are stated within the following: "To nominate a presidential ticket that will win the general election, serve the following four-year term, and govern in a manner that reflects as nearly as possible the views and in accordance with the values held by the party."
There are a bunch of caveats that could be thrown in, and, of course, a laundry list of special statements about empowerment, civil rights, etc. But what I am looking for here is consideration of the process itself.
Let’s look at the history of the process as it has been, more or less, since 1972.
1972 – McGovern ran as the anti-war candidate. Nixon won a landlside for various reasons including the "southern strategy" and by painting McGovern as just this side of a communist.
I’m not so sure there was a candidate who could have beat Nixon, but that is open to discussion. Edmund Muskie won the Iowa Caucuses while McGovern came in second. It was also a trial run for the new process. Perhaps Muskie could have run a better campaign, had he held his campaign for the nomination together
1976 – Carter ran as a fiscally conservative southern Christian who was at least tolerant of liberal social views. He used the Iowa Caucuses (where he finished second to ("uncommitted") to get the momentum for a national run. He won the presidency, but he was not an extremely strong candidate and the vote was very close. but the Watergate scandal had lowered public respect for government and politicians. The Republicans right took advantage of that to gain strength for the next election.
1980 – Carter (after a challenge from the left, led by Ted Kennedy) was tagged with the "malaise" speech and was attacked as ineffectual. The Iranian hostage crisis did nothing to help him, either, especially when the military botched a rescue mission.
Would Kennedy have been a better nominee? If so, how would the process have had to change to deny the nomination to the incumbent President?
1984 – Mondale led another electoral disaster against an incumbent Republican. Who could have beat Reagan? I don’t think any one could.
1988 – Dukakis blows a chance at the open seat. George H. W. Bush was not that popular with the right wing, but he held their interest in the face of Dukakis, who was framed as an effete east-coast liberal.
Dukakis was a horrible candidate. Standing up for Iowa, he came in third in the caucuses behind Gephardt and Simon. 1988 was Gephardt’s chance win, but the rest of the country decided to nominate Dukakis. Whatever change in the process would prevent that sort of thing from happening again deserves a look. But Iowa certainly did not dictate thae nomination – and that was a bad thing in that instance.
1992 – Clinton is nominated as a "centrist" with help from Harkin (whose candidacy made Iowa irrelevant), and the "Super Tuesday" primaries across the old south. Clinton, with help in the general election from H. Ross Perot as a spoiler, won the presidency. It would seem, then that the process worked to nominate another southern governor to go on to win the general election. The argument could be made that it worked because of Harkin and in spite of Iowa’s position on the nominating calendar.
1996 – Clinton was renominated without opposition. Again the process worked.
2000 – Vice President Gore staves off a challenge from Bill Bradley to gain the nomination. Gore won the popular vote and there is little doubt that had the votes been counted honestly in each state, he would have won in the Electoral College as well. Instead, five right-wingers on the Supreme Court effectively nullified the election and appointed George W. Bush. But, again, the process seems to have worked in nominating a popular candidate who actually won the election.
2004 – Kerry gains the nomination after perhaps surprisingly coming in first in Iowa. Kerry could have run a better campaign against W. But, in all honesty, who would have been a better candidate in 2004? Gephardt was past his prime and the media set about to destroy Howard Dean. Perhaps Edwards would have connected more with those average voters had he been on the top of the ticket. If so, how could the process have been different to achieve the result that we may see as having been preferable?
Of course, in all instances, I can see that there could be other candidates who did not even attempt to negotiate the nomination process. And perhaps that other candidate could have been nominated and could have turned out to be the best president ever. Fill me in in the comments section if you think that might be the case.
If a different calendar or process would not have given us a better ticket, then there would not seem to be a reason to change.
Now, all of this is getting a bit long, but the nut of it is this: any change in the process and the calendar should be made for the purpose of ensuring the selection of a presidential ticket that will win the general election, serve the following four-year term, and govern in a manner that reflects as nearly as possible the views and in accordance with the values held by the party.
So as for me, when I see proposals to leapfrog primaries and caucuses, front-load the nomination process, increase or decrease the influence of certain states in that process, etc., I will be asking myself this:
How is that going to help?
But a discussion we seem not to be having is just what result we want to achieve by any change in the calendar or the process. That is, while the objections to the calendar seem to be defined, any changes ought to be evaluated in terms of achieving the goals of the Democratic Party at the national level.
Of course there is always a discussion of the relative power of the individual states in the nominating process, and whether Iowa should retain its traditional first in the nation status (if you mean by "tradition" since 1972 when the Democratic Party adopted the McGovern-Fraser Commission’s recommendations for the delegate selection process), whether Iowa and New Hampshire are representative enough of the nation, etc. Then there is the discussion surrounding the influence of money and the problem of nominating a candidate who is beholden to this or that (or many) corporate interests.
In order to achieve goals, the goals must be set. That seems self-evident. So let’s see what the goals of the Democratic Party, and the party’s nominating process are. I would propose that the goals are stated within the following: "To nominate a presidential ticket that will win the general election, serve the following four-year term, and govern in a manner that reflects as nearly as possible the views and in accordance with the values held by the party."
There are a bunch of caveats that could be thrown in, and, of course, a laundry list of special statements about empowerment, civil rights, etc. But what I am looking for here is consideration of the process itself.
Let’s look at the history of the process as it has been, more or less, since 1972.
1972 – McGovern ran as the anti-war candidate. Nixon won a landlside for various reasons including the "southern strategy" and by painting McGovern as just this side of a communist.
I’m not so sure there was a candidate who could have beat Nixon, but that is open to discussion. Edmund Muskie won the Iowa Caucuses while McGovern came in second. It was also a trial run for the new process. Perhaps Muskie could have run a better campaign, had he held his campaign for the nomination together
1976 – Carter ran as a fiscally conservative southern Christian who was at least tolerant of liberal social views. He used the Iowa Caucuses (where he finished second to ("uncommitted") to get the momentum for a national run. He won the presidency, but he was not an extremely strong candidate and the vote was very close. but the Watergate scandal had lowered public respect for government and politicians. The Republicans right took advantage of that to gain strength for the next election.
1980 – Carter (after a challenge from the left, led by Ted Kennedy) was tagged with the "malaise" speech and was attacked as ineffectual. The Iranian hostage crisis did nothing to help him, either, especially when the military botched a rescue mission.
Would Kennedy have been a better nominee? If so, how would the process have had to change to deny the nomination to the incumbent President?
1984 – Mondale led another electoral disaster against an incumbent Republican. Who could have beat Reagan? I don’t think any one could.
1988 – Dukakis blows a chance at the open seat. George H. W. Bush was not that popular with the right wing, but he held their interest in the face of Dukakis, who was framed as an effete east-coast liberal.
Dukakis was a horrible candidate. Standing up for Iowa, he came in third in the caucuses behind Gephardt and Simon. 1988 was Gephardt’s chance win, but the rest of the country decided to nominate Dukakis. Whatever change in the process would prevent that sort of thing from happening again deserves a look. But Iowa certainly did not dictate thae nomination – and that was a bad thing in that instance.
1992 – Clinton is nominated as a "centrist" with help from Harkin (whose candidacy made Iowa irrelevant), and the "Super Tuesday" primaries across the old south. Clinton, with help in the general election from H. Ross Perot as a spoiler, won the presidency. It would seem, then that the process worked to nominate another southern governor to go on to win the general election. The argument could be made that it worked because of Harkin and in spite of Iowa’s position on the nominating calendar.
1996 – Clinton was renominated without opposition. Again the process worked.
2000 – Vice President Gore staves off a challenge from Bill Bradley to gain the nomination. Gore won the popular vote and there is little doubt that had the votes been counted honestly in each state, he would have won in the Electoral College as well. Instead, five right-wingers on the Supreme Court effectively nullified the election and appointed George W. Bush. But, again, the process seems to have worked in nominating a popular candidate who actually won the election.
2004 – Kerry gains the nomination after perhaps surprisingly coming in first in Iowa. Kerry could have run a better campaign against W. But, in all honesty, who would have been a better candidate in 2004? Gephardt was past his prime and the media set about to destroy Howard Dean. Perhaps Edwards would have connected more with those average voters had he been on the top of the ticket. If so, how could the process have been different to achieve the result that we may see as having been preferable?
Of course, in all instances, I can see that there could be other candidates who did not even attempt to negotiate the nomination process. And perhaps that other candidate could have been nominated and could have turned out to be the best president ever. Fill me in in the comments section if you think that might be the case.
If a different calendar or process would not have given us a better ticket, then there would not seem to be a reason to change.
Now, all of this is getting a bit long, but the nut of it is this: any change in the process and the calendar should be made for the purpose of ensuring the selection of a presidential ticket that will win the general election, serve the following four-year term, and govern in a manner that reflects as nearly as possible the views and in accordance with the values held by the party.
So as for me, when I see proposals to leapfrog primaries and caucuses, front-load the nomination process, increase or decrease the influence of certain states in that process, etc., I will be asking myself this:
How is that going to help?
Monday, May 14, 2007
Senator Biden to Pay a Visit
I will update this soon. Senator Biden's staff informs us that the Senator is committed to a stopover in Jones County on Friday, May 18 next month. The preferred venue is a house party, but nothing is set as of now.
The campaign says some business of the Senate is scheduled for Friday, so the Senator will have to be there. Now they are looking to schedule the visit in June.
Stay tuned.
The campaign says some business of the Senate is scheduled for Friday, so the Senator will have to be there. Now they are looking to schedule the visit in June.
Stay tuned.
"Small World" Moments
Maybe it comes with age, or because of having moved a few times. Anyway, this year there seem to be more of those "small world" moments. You know, those times when you realize that someone you see, or are talking with, has a connection to you than you were suspecting.
Here is an example: There was a person I had known at least thirty years ago. We weren't close, but we might have said we were friends. We hadn't seen or communicated with each other for at least twenty-five years. It was just a chance meeting. I had seen the flyers on-line and happened to have the chance to go. Never did it before and I may not do it again. But there we were on a bus to DC for the peace rally in January. We really did not have much in common, but it was just a nice moment to reconnect with the 70's.
Stranger still, this week at Star's Guitars in Cedar Rapids, going to get an electronic tuner for the neighbor, there was a woman buying a guitar as a present for her husband. I walked in in the middle of the transaction. The salesman was registering the guitar (for warranty) and asked for the first name. Now, it is a name that I have only heard once, and it belonged to a boy I rode the school bus with long ago and far away (around 35 years and 180 miles), and he was 5 or 6 years younger, so we didn't really know each other.
I asked, it was.
There have been a couple more, but the details are less important than the realization that there are occasional some small but pleasant surprises in the flow of life. If you let it flow.
Here is an example: There was a person I had known at least thirty years ago. We weren't close, but we might have said we were friends. We hadn't seen or communicated with each other for at least twenty-five years. It was just a chance meeting. I had seen the flyers on-line and happened to have the chance to go. Never did it before and I may not do it again. But there we were on a bus to DC for the peace rally in January. We really did not have much in common, but it was just a nice moment to reconnect with the 70's.
Stranger still, this week at Star's Guitars in Cedar Rapids, going to get an electronic tuner for the neighbor, there was a woman buying a guitar as a present for her husband. I walked in in the middle of the transaction. The salesman was registering the guitar (for warranty) and asked for the first name. Now, it is a name that I have only heard once, and it belonged to a boy I rode the school bus with long ago and far away (around 35 years and 180 miles), and he was 5 or 6 years younger, so we didn't really know each other.
I asked, it was.
There have been a couple more, but the details are less important than the realization that there are occasional some small but pleasant surprises in the flow of life. If you let it flow.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Editor asks: Where Are the Democrats?
In the editor's personal column in the weekly Anamosa Journal Eureka, she lamented that although two of the Republican also rans had put in appearances in Jones County (Iowa), none of the Democrats had yet showed up. Moreover, as noted in a diary from May 3rd, Rudy Giuliani first scheduled a visit, then cancelled when it was found that the hosts were not rich enough to help him campaign against the inheritance tax. That decision is regrettable not because of the potential loss of support for Giuliani, but because the visits the candidates make to Iowa help them to grow and learn as well about a broader segment of the country. In addition, listening to a candidate in person, allowing issues to be discussed without the constraints of the radio and TV sound bites, and outside of the slickly produced advertising, gives people a chance to evaluate that candidate in good faith, both on issues of substance and of style.
In the editor's personal column in the weekly Anamosa Journal Eureka, she lamented that although two of the Republican also rans had put in appearances in Jones County (Iowa), none of the Democrats had yet showed up. Moreover, as noted in my diary at DailyKos from May 3rd, Rudy Giuliani first scheduled a visit, then canceled when it was found that the hosts were not rich enough to help him campaign against the inheritance tax. That decision is regrettable not because of the potential loss of support for Giuliani, but because the visits the candidates make to Iowa help them to grow and learn as well about a broader segment of the country. In addition, listening to a candidate in person, allowing issues to be discussed without the constraints of the radio and TV sound bites, and outside of the slickly produced advertising, gives people a chance to evaluate that candidate in good faith, both on issues of substance and of style.
But the question remains, why we were able to attract early visits by Howard Dean, John Edwards and Richard Gephardt by this time in 2003,(as well as a visit in August from John Kerry to the National Motorcycle Museum) but no visits yet during this round from any of the large field.
One of the major differences in this election cycle as far as attracting candidates is that the nomination process has become even more front-loaded than before.
Here in Iowa, our perception of the process in the past has been that in Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates had the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to put together an effective campaign organization and attract sufficient support to be an effective candidate. The hope was that such a process would weed out those candidates who could not organize well and give the better campaigns a chance to grow and take their message to a wider audience. Then the later primaries and caucuses would choose from the viable candidates that survived Iowa, New Hampshire and a couple of other early states. In a tight race with two or three viable candidates left, a late primary state could play a huge role in deciding who the nominee would be.
Over the nine presidential election cycles since the current nominating system has been in effect, a candidate did not need to come in first in the Iowa caucuses to win the nomination - or the presidency. But it has been crucial for a candidate to place in the top three. In fact, since the current system was put in place in 1972 for the Democratic Party, no candidate that failed to finish in the top three in Iowa has gone on to win the nomination.
While we in Iowa like to think this part of the process helps the other states by allowing them to choose from field of viable candidates who have been tested in the early contests, many people in other states have grown to perceive Iowa and New Hampshire as having more of a say in the nominations than they do. Consequently, over the years, more states have moved up their primary or caucus dates to overcome that perceived inequity. This front-loading has forced the candidates to build a national campaign earlier in the process and, as a result, hurts everyone's chances of meeting a leading candidate in a coffee shop or other small venue looking for that last vote. No, with a front-loaded and compressed schedule such as we face in this cycle, the candidates must maximize their exposure with larger events.
Despite the clamoring in certain other states to be first, the Iowa caucuses are still the first contest that leads to the selection of delegates in the whole arcane nominating process. It will be interesting to see how large the turnout is as they have been forced back to another earlier date.
No matter how the process is compressed, the true test will be if that process can give us a nominee we can all work for in the General Election.
In the editor's personal column in the weekly Anamosa Journal Eureka, she lamented that although two of the Republican also rans had put in appearances in Jones County (Iowa), none of the Democrats had yet showed up. Moreover, as noted in my diary at DailyKos from May 3rd, Rudy Giuliani first scheduled a visit, then canceled when it was found that the hosts were not rich enough to help him campaign against the inheritance tax. That decision is regrettable not because of the potential loss of support for Giuliani, but because the visits the candidates make to Iowa help them to grow and learn as well about a broader segment of the country. In addition, listening to a candidate in person, allowing issues to be discussed without the constraints of the radio and TV sound bites, and outside of the slickly produced advertising, gives people a chance to evaluate that candidate in good faith, both on issues of substance and of style.
But the question remains, why we were able to attract early visits by Howard Dean, John Edwards and Richard Gephardt by this time in 2003,(as well as a visit in August from John Kerry to the National Motorcycle Museum) but no visits yet during this round from any of the large field.
One of the major differences in this election cycle as far as attracting candidates is that the nomination process has become even more front-loaded than before.
Here in Iowa, our perception of the process in the past has been that in Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates had the opportunity to demonstrate their ability to put together an effective campaign organization and attract sufficient support to be an effective candidate. The hope was that such a process would weed out those candidates who could not organize well and give the better campaigns a chance to grow and take their message to a wider audience. Then the later primaries and caucuses would choose from the viable candidates that survived Iowa, New Hampshire and a couple of other early states. In a tight race with two or three viable candidates left, a late primary state could play a huge role in deciding who the nominee would be.
Over the nine presidential election cycles since the current nominating system has been in effect, a candidate did not need to come in first in the Iowa caucuses to win the nomination - or the presidency. But it has been crucial for a candidate to place in the top three. In fact, since the current system was put in place in 1972 for the Democratic Party, no candidate that failed to finish in the top three in Iowa has gone on to win the nomination.
While we in Iowa like to think this part of the process helps the other states by allowing them to choose from field of viable candidates who have been tested in the early contests, many people in other states have grown to perceive Iowa and New Hampshire as having more of a say in the nominations than they do. Consequently, over the years, more states have moved up their primary or caucus dates to overcome that perceived inequity. This front-loading has forced the candidates to build a national campaign earlier in the process and, as a result, hurts everyone's chances of meeting a leading candidate in a coffee shop or other small venue looking for that last vote. No, with a front-loaded and compressed schedule such as we face in this cycle, the candidates must maximize their exposure with larger events.
Despite the clamoring in certain other states to be first, the Iowa caucuses are still the first contest that leads to the selection of delegates in the whole arcane nominating process. It will be interesting to see how large the turnout is as they have been forced back to another earlier date.
No matter how the process is compressed, the true test will be if that process can give us a nominee we can all work for in the General Election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
