It is perverse. And before 1976, when Carter won Iowa then went on to take it all, no one paid fuck-all attention to them.

This is a pillar of my theory that the entire damned country went barking fucking mad about the time I turned 13. (And a big Bronx cheer to my parents generation for that, thank you very much.)

"And before 1976, when Carter won Iowa then went on to take it all, no one paid fuck-all attention to them."

Well, considering that the caucuses only began in 1972 when the open primary system began, there wasn't much to pay attention to before '76.

Also, they turned out to be a big deal even in '72 when McGovern's surprise second place finish gave him national attention and ended up sending him to the nomination.

-----

Waldman's piece is funny, but fundamentally ignorant about the process and its meaning and fundamentally wrong in its conclusions.

Boy, is my face red...

"Boy, is my face red..."

I thought you were blue...

We just need to change our primary process one and for all. The fairest system would be for all states to be the first states every 4 years. Why do we need pour money and resources into IA and NH every 2 year? It is sickening really and Wladman is so correct. Every state should have a chance to be the first primary state and we rotate every 4 years.

Just go to a national primary. The current system is a historical accident. No state would ever hold a primary one county at a time. Just do it.

"we're going to see what happens when the Democratic candidates flood the cornfields with a combined total of — what's your guess? $50 million? — in an effort to find out if it's possible to actually lose votes by spending too much money. My guess: yes it is. Yee haw!"

As stated, while his piece is funny, Waldman is fundamentally wrong precisely for the reason Kevin identifies: you can't buy a win at the caucuses.

This is the beauty of the current setup.

If the first contest were a California primary rather than an Iowa caucus, you could buy a win with $50 - $100 million of TV.

I wrote a bunch of comments on this topic today on the identical thread over at Ezra Klein's, so read there if you're curious.

I just got such an email from my son, (who lurks but doesn't comment...Hiya T...) for that faux pas. He reminded me that he always checks with me on matters of science, and I should 'respect his authorotah' on history, and check with him before I say something to embarrass myself...

Petey:

You are wrong. Teh current system is so f* up system. You could not buy a win in Kalifornia OK. Get the fact straight.

If you're going to make an early primary the first market testing of a candidate, if that's what creates momentum, make it a real test - CA, NY, TX.

well gee, IA is about 1% of the US population, IA ranks 30th for GSP (about 7% of CA), less than 10% of IA voters participate in the caucuses, agriculture employs less than 2% of the labor force, and agriculture is under 1% of the GDP...of course a few IA farmers should choose the president! what are you thinking?

oh, to clinch it: bush lost in IA in 2000 but won in 2004: really savvy voters, eh?

Please, please change the nomination process! The results for both parties suck, but for the Democrats it's a disaster. Think about it: McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. All of them awful campaigners (possibly excepting Carter, who was elected by Nixon, and turned out to be an awful President). The only real exception to this running disaster was Bill Clinton, but you can't expect a political genius of that type to come along every four years.
If the party can't nominate someone competent enough to defeat George W. Bush, there's something wrong with the process.

The Iowa absurdity extends to New Hampshire. Some years ago I suggested that NH's license plate message, "Live Free or Die", be changed to "Vote First or Die."

It is just so.... quaint, the way the bleacher bums think they could hit big league pitching.

Okay, smart guys: just HOW would you change the system? Don't gimme the "let's have a national primary" horseshit, or have time zone voting or some damned thing -- explain how you're going to roll the state legislatures in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina...

And then explain how you're gonna do the arm-twisting in the Republican and Democratic Parties, with special attention to the clout Senators and Governors have. Give us a whip count.

Devote particular attention the wisdom of: Always concede on principle. You're talking about guys with skin in the game.

Politics ain't beanbag -- there is real power, and a lot of money, involved in the current, utterly fucked up Presidential nominating system. It's not a disinterested debate.

Politics is about the manipulation of INTERESTS. That's why it is done by professionals -- although it oughta be included in the short list* of 'things often done better by amateurs.'

But if you're talking about replacing the Iowa Caucuses and the first in the nation New Hampshire primary, it matters less WHAT you think oughta replace 'em, as HOW you naively think you can do it.

C'mon, cowboy up: tell us.

*One of Napoleon's better putdowns came when he was gabbing about the high-priced mistresses some of his generals had, when news arrived that one of his proxy armies commanded by a trained and experienced soldier had been defeated by a guy who had never led troops before: 'In fucking and in fighting,' the Little Corporal said, 'amateurs are often the best.')

Every state should have a chance to be the first primary state and we rotate every 4 years.

A two-century rotation?

theAmericanist--You make a policy stating that in order to be seated, delegates have to be chosen in a vote held on the first Tuesday in April. The DNC rolls the state legislatures by having a vote among its board making that the new policy.

Good post by Kevin. By the time people in big states vote, the election has already been decided. If we want to encourage people to vote, why not let them vote before the election is over?

While having a handful of people in a couple of racially homogeneous states heavily influence who may be our next President may seem foolish it will never change. Nor will having the swing states decide the election ever change. The two (Count 'em) political parties are used to gaming the system the way it is. Expecting them to endorse anything new is therefore foolish.

I'm sad to see a piece like Waldman's running in the American Prospect, because it's the sort of thing that would be more at home in the National Review. Long on sneering and jeering, but short on substance. As if primary contests draw very many voters who have given hours of thought about their choice!

Frankly, any state that goes first is going to get grief from all the rest. Now maybe a regional primary would be a better idea, but the truth is that there is no silver bullet to be had when it comes to a process that will divine who the very best candidate is.

Is this heaven? No, it's Iowa.

I'm sure that President Dean would agree 100% that the candidate is completely decided by the Iowa caucuses. Once the people of Iowa have spoken, there is no change in who goes on the national ballot.

The entire system of raising huge sums of money to present an image of the candidate on TV is flawed.

I would propose that candidates' positions on issues and agendas be posted on websites and in public libraries so that voters can judge them accurately.

The media and the candidates may all know the Iowa caucuses are absurd, but they don't dare say the Iowa caucuses are absurd.

Actually, it seems to me the caucuses are more the problem here than is Iowa. The media covers Iowa as if it had a primary. So let it have a primary.

I would propose that candidates' positions ... on websites and in public libraries ...

So we'd have to like read them? Dude, you are like so elitist! How will I know who I want to have a beer with?

So we'd have to like read them? Dude, you are like so elitist! How will I know who I want to have a beer with?

Well, the candidates could address this matter by including a "Why you should want to have a beer with me" link at their sites. It'll be the spoonful of sugar that makes the medicine of policy proposals go down.

I've mixed feelings about this, as an Iowan who would support some other system -- a rotating first-in-the-nation primary based on either region or political participation in the last Presidential election. (FWIW, I think a national primary is a horrible idea: it would effectively shut the door forever on "come from behind" candidates who weren't well-funded from the get-go.) Iowan perpetualfirst-in-the-nation status doesn't make much sense to me.

That said, Waldman's piece is little more than the usual whining about "why do *they* get to ask boring questions rather than me." He bases his rant on two pieces of information. First, one study done in 2000 which evaluated Iowan voters (nb: not necessarily caucus-goers). That's problematic both in its assumption that nothing has changed since 2000 (most caucuses reported a dramatic increase in participation in 2004 and I suspect we'll see the same thing in 2008), and in looking at a different group than caucus-goers. (One question did try to sort out definite caucus-goers, and found that they weren't much different from the better-informed NH voters.) Second, the statistic that only 6 to 10 percent of Iowans caucus. However, if your objective is educated participants, why should it matter that it's a 6 or 10 percent turn-out? In an ideal world, we'd have broad participation by a well-informed citizenry, but in the real world, demanding both is self-contradictory.

Any system that picks one state as the perpetual first -- be it based on racial diversity, mixed economy, socio-economic diversity or however the choice is made -- will see the same sort of outrageous levels of attention paid to that one state. Just throwing up your hands and saying that Iowa is too white, or too rural, or too corny, while cathartic, dodges the question of systematic change. Iowa qua Iowa isn't the problem.

The Americanist asks how we would change the current primary system. The answer is simple. With a federal law. Though they may have outsized control of our presidential elections, NH and IA don't quite have the votes to control Congress. And as this year makes clear, plenty of states are ready to see their reign of absurdity end.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, the current system has not been around forever. It's been in place for just over 30 years. It can be changed. The establishment of the current primary system happened because of reforms to stop the party bosses from railroading their choices through at conventions.

The only system that makes any sense is a single national primary. And this should not happen in January, for God's sake. It should be in summer, at the earliest. June, perhaps, or even later. Our presidential campaigns are just so ridiculously long. I'd also be in favor of legislation preventing campaigning from starting till May at the earliest. The nation should not be talking about the next president so much two years before the election. This is just miserably unhealthy for our democracy.

And, yes, I believe we have plenty of precedent to show that a series of laws to enact the above would be constitutional.

Another point: Waldman complains that Iowa cuts off choices for the rest of America. Frankly, I'd argue the opposite -- the uncertainty of the Iowa caucus keeps MORE candidates in the race, and keeps the media from being able to annoint a victor before the primaries.

Waldman's piece is funny, but fundamentally ignorant about the process and its meaning and fundamentally wrong in its conclusions. Posted by: Petey

I don't have time to read the whole thing, but regardless of Waldman's conclusion, Iowa and NH are but political pimples on the bottoms of mosquitoes. I would love to see all political candidates give each state the attention it deserves, which is damn close to none. Their populations are small and not in the least representative of American demographics, which has been true even in 1972.

>"C'mon, cowboy up: tell us."

Same answer I usually post... the system is structurally corrupt and cannot be changed from within. History has taught us this lesson time and time again.

The only fundemental changes to political system occur when the citizenry is at the barricades with torches... or a military coup takes place.

This is as close to a 'sure bet' as anything gets.

I remember reading a Science fiction short story years ago in which the science of statistical polling had become so perfected that on election night, the pollsters would descend on one perfectly representative person and ask her which candidate she would choose. And that one person's choice would determine the election, heh.

When we complain that it is no fair that Iowa, or New Hampshire, or whichever state or region essentially picks the next president of the US, we are actually just complaining because WE don't get to be the ones that pick! Our energy would be better spent figuring out and agitating for a system that 1) would allow everyone to feel like they have a voice in the selection process and 2) takes into account the reality that a significant proportion of voters are irrational, blithering, clueless idiots.

That leads to some kind of national primary (I agree with Rob Mac's comments above) and some improved vetting and grooming process. Party-bosses have been grooming Hillary since 1998 for her presidential run in the same way that Texas oil tycoons groomed GWB and Jeb Bush from 1992 on. Wouldn't it be preferable if this process was public, transparent and inclusive?

This is a seriously hilarious assertion...or has nobody noticed that the only person to win the Iowa caucuses in a competitive primary and then become President was Bush42 in 2000.

Here is the list of Iowa caucus winners:

1976: Uncommitted & Ford
1980: Kennedy & Bush
1984: Mondale & Reagan (unopposed)
1988: Gephardt & Dole
1992: Harkin & Bush (unopposed)
1996: Clinton (unopposed) & Dole
2000: Gore & Bush
2004: Dean & Bush (unopposed)

PTate -- how does a national primary with a more public vetting process differ from turning the selection over to party bosses and donors? I understand the fairness concern (not favoring one state over others) behind a national primary -- but I don't see how it can be done without grossly enhancing the role of money in politics. You need to preserve some face-to-face campaigning or else we might as well have the quarterly fundraising numbers pick the nominee and be done with it. Maybe divide the country up into regions and have several staggered "super primary days" -- each with one state from the plains, rust belt, mountains or however you want to divide up the regions, and rotate the "first" each election among states in a given region. But I think if you have more than 5 or 6 states go first, then it simply degenerates into (more of) a money race.

mfw -- news flash: Dean lost in 2004. Came in third. Kerry won.

Oh, you guys are so cute when you try to be players.

Reino says, why, changing the primary system is so easy, it's a wonder no one has fixed it yet: "You make a policy stating that in order to be seated, delegates have to be chosen in a vote held on the first Tuesday in April. The DNC rolls the state legislatures ..."

Riiight. "You" just do it. Cuz both political parties are famous for their political courage in offending the folks who win elections. Cuz neither party has anything to fear from splinter groups leaving. After all, the specific interest groups who make up the Democratic party, especially, are well known for their ability to set their narrow interests aside for the common good, and are famously patient. There's no way that the leverage the small early states give organizations like AFSCME would ever motivate 'em to derail restructuring the primaries when "you" just do it, like Reino said. After all, what clout do public employee unions, farmers, Greens, anti-war activists, and pro-choice folks have in the Democratic Party?

And Mac is even better: "With a federal law."

Just outa curiosity, where do you get the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to pre-empt states like this?

Our energy would be better spent figuring out and agitating for a system that 1) would allow everyone to feel like they have a voice in the selection process . . . Posted by: PTate in MN

We already have such a system. It's called voting. Since less than 100% of registered people vote and less than about 70% of eligible people able to vote have registered, people get the government they deserve.

That being said, Iowa and NH, and other small fry state, are still able to pervert our democracy, such as it is, because of the fucking electoral college.

Just outa curiosity, where do you get the Constitutional authority for the Federal government to pre-empt states like this?

From Congress' vote-counting authority; you just roll into into the safe-harbor law with the implicit threat that states that don't follow it run the risk of Congress rejecting their electoral votes as not properly given.

So why do you think no other state has an earlier caucus than Iowa?

It's too bad that as you go west the states get "too big" to campaign in, but with those big campaign buses, and plenty of air routes between medium sized cities, I'd think even big states could dream up an earlier caucus, or even a same day caucus, and get some candidate attention.

In fact, given how stupidly my own state's electorate votes on our famous propositions, I would prefer a caucus system in California to a primary.

I mean, the fact that only 6 to 10 percent of the voters show up is NOT necessarily a bad thing. I suspect that only 6 to 10 percent of the voters actually pay attention. The excess of voters in primaries are just those who think it is their civic duty to vote. You know, those who thought Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

If the first contest were a California primary rather than an Iowa caucus, you could buy a win with $50 - $100 million of TV.

You might want to talk to Michael Huffington about how easy it is to simply buy a California statewide election.

Yeah, there's a high cost to run one, but simply piling on the money beyond the amount needed to run credibly won't guarantee a win.

"But if you're talking about replacing the Iowa Caucuses and the first in the nation New Hampshire primary, it matters less WHAT you think oughta replace 'em, as HOW you naively think you can do it.

C'mon, cowboy up: tell us."

Posted by: theAmericanist on October 4, 2007 at 8:20 AM |

As I have told you people on many occasions, the best solution would be to abolish all primaries and have the nominee chosen by party delegates at the national convention. The same could be done for state, county and local offices. All of them should be decided at party conferences like in England where party members choose the slate of candidates who will represent the party before the electorate.

Wow -- a national conference of party delegates. I didn't think it was possible to come up with an idea that sounds worse than either the current system or a national primary. If there are any virtues to this plan, please, do tell, because at the moment they're escaping me. Will complementary cigars be provided to provide the appropriate atmo?

As I have told you people on many occasions,. . .

And yet still fail to understand that you don't know your ass from a hat.

the best solution would be to abolish all primaries and have the nominee chosen by party delegates at the national convention.

How do you think party delegates are apportioned?

All of them should be decided at party conferences . . . Posted by: Chicounsel

Just what we need, our political overlords further limiting our already limited choices.

Aww, it's so nice when the baby lawyers show up to dress infantile fantasy in pretty ribbons. Thus, Dice: "From Congress' vote-counting authority; you just roll [Federal control over state primaries] into the safe-harbor law..."

As it happens, the Supreme Court has been very clear that states get to set their own primary rules. But it's Dice's fascist notions of politics that are even more telling:

" with the implicit threat that states that don't follow it run the risk of Congress rejecting their electoral votes..."

Uh-huh. So let me get this straight -- some Congress that is not even remotely like any prior Congress will somehow get elected, along with a President willing to sign a bill that pre-empts 2 centuries of precedent supporting state control over party primary rules.

Before the Supreme Court knocks this back like Mets' pitching, perhaps the states who are screwed defy this unConstitutional power grab -- but Dice sez, not to worry, the Congress will simply tell 'em that if you don't vote the way we want, we just won't count your votes.

Wtf is WRONG with you people?

Wow -- a national conference of party delegates. I didn't think it was possible to come up with an idea that sounds worse than either the current system or a national primary. If there are any virtues to this plan, please, do tell, because at the moment they're escaping me. Will complementary cigars be provided to provide the appropriate atmo?

Yes. Yes, we're calling for the return to the smoke filled room.

Advantages: Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Carter, Dukkakis, Kerry.

Disadvantages: Clinton.

Really. Professionals choose candidates who are both more electable and more competent. They have a vested interest in the viability of their candidate both before *and* after the election.

This year should be an exception though, since the leading 4 Democrats are all fine candidates.

As it happens, the Supreme Court has been very clear that states get to set their own primary rules.

As it happens, my suggestion doesn't conflict with that at all, you apparently don't understand what a "safe harbor" laws or understand that Congress has a Constitutional, plenary power to decide the validity of electoral votes, and has used the fact that it has that power to influence electoral policy which remains in the purview of the states by sheltering states' electoral votes from challenge so long as the state meets the procedural rules established by Congress.

Because the rules are not mandatory, the fact that the area they cover is Constitutionally within the purview of the states doesn't render them void; but because no state wishes to risk its electoral votes potentially being challenged and discarded, states adhere to the rules as if they were mandatory in almost all cases.

So let me get this straight -- some Congress that is not even remotely like any prior Congress will somehow get elected

Yes, anyone proposing radical policy change necessarily intends (1) to shift public attitudes, and thence (2) to get elected candidates whose positions on the issue that is the subject of their advocacy that radically differs from that of previous incumbents in the same body.

Radical policy change does happen, and it happens because that kind of advocacy combined with public outrage over the undesirable effects of status quo policies do result in candidates with different views getting elected.

Before the Supreme Court knocks this back like Mets' pitching

Please cite any Supreme Court precedent, or heck any federal appellate court precedent, or indeed any precedent whatsoever from which it is reasonable to infer that this would be unconstitutional.

but Dice sez, not to worry, the Congress will simply tell 'em that if you don't vote the way we want, we just won't count your votes.

No, actually, I was pointing out that Congress already does that (except that "won't" should be replaced by "may not") at 3 U.S.C. § 5, and could simply amend what counts as "the way we want".

"I didn't think it was possible to come up with an idea that sounds worse than either the current system or a national primary. If there are any virtues to this plan, please, do tell, because at the moment they're escaping me."

Posted by: Blue on October 4, 2007 at 3:10 PM |

How about the advantage having a party's candidates being chosen by people who have taken enough of an interest in politics to become a member of the party. You guys constantly bitch and moan about DLC or other not "true" or "real" Democrats betraying the party once they get elected. Well, if the choice of determining candidates was limited to party members instead of the general public, you might be able to get more liberal candidates on the ballot who wouldn't be so eager to betray the base because they wouldn't be allowed to run for re-election without continuing support from party members.

Another advantage could be the saving of money and time that is currently wasted on the primaries. Why should the process of choosing a nominee have to take nearly a year before the general election and cost untold millions of dollars when instead the decision could be made in one night at the national convention? I thought it was liberal dogma that money in politics was bad. Well, money would not be important at all if the only people who get to vote on the nomination are party members who are in attendance at the convention.

Measure -- regarding professionals, I'm a bit puzzled as to what constitutes a political "professional." The standard definition of a professional is someone who has received specialized training and is a member of a field that regulates access (not anyone can practice). Who counts as a political professional? Even if we had an easy way to separate the pros from the amateurs, I'd have to say...

Disadvantages: Carter, Dukakis, Kerry

Chico -- what's with the fetishization of party membership. In Iowa, you get to participate in caucuses if you say you're a member of the Democratic party, it's not open to the "general public." Are you suggesting that we'd have a better decision if we restricted participation to those who paid party dues? That sounds an awful lot like poll taxes. I'm sure our ConLaw mavens would be happy to point out the pitfalls of taking that route.

But, I must say, I really do appreciate hearing another proposal for primary reform rather than just complaining about how white Iowa is, as improbable as your idea strikes me. Props to both of you.

Measure -- regarding professionals, I'm a bit puzzled as to what constitutes a political "professional." The standard definition of a professional is someone who has received specialized training and is a member of a field that regulates access (not anyone can practice). Who counts as a political professional? Even if we had an easy way to separate the pros from the amateurs, I'd have to say...

Professional: somebody who makes their living in a certain activity, as opposed to amateur or hobbyist.

I may as well attack my own point though. Professionals are apt to be careerist, so a strong candidate will be the one with the most formidable political machine. That would be someone like Mondale (1984) or Clinton (2008).

Still. Both of those candidates are/were qualified and competent. And I would submit that professionals would learn from their mistakes better than primary voters.

Here's another example: Kerry. Kerry is terrific face-to-face, so he did well in Iowa and New Hampshire. But that sort of retail politics has nothing to do winning in November... or governing in January.

There's a more subtle advantage. Smoke-filled rooms tend to result in a candidate with strong defenders, since they perceive the Prez's success to be tied to their own.

Furthermore:

AFAIK (not enough) the US is the only democracy with this bizarre primary system, whereby part of the electorate is suppose to balance electability, ideology, competence and experience in a preliminary voting exercise. This is really a rather difficult problem to hand to an amateur, or even a part-time political junkee.

OK, but even if we adopt the colloquial definition of professional as "person who gets paid to do this," that still begs the question of who's actually going to do the picking. Political pundits, full-time bloggers and state party staffers? No thank you very much! Even part-timers, county party officials and what-not still don't appeal. They may have a "stake" in the process, but no way do I want Yepsen, Vilsack, Ana Marie Cox or the Iowa Dem Party chairman exercising my choice for me.

I can't believe we're reduced to arguing that the smoke-filled room is a plausible alternative. Frankly, at that point, I'll take the 100,000+ random Iowans who care enough to turn up on a cold January evening.

If it was either-or, I'd rather have Iowa than New Hampshire.

Stupid hypotheticals are a baby lawyer's stock in trade, but what the hell, Dice writes: "Because the rules are not mandatory, the fact that the area they cover is Constitutionally within the purview of the states doesn't render them void; but because no state wishes to risk its electoral votes potentially being challenged and discarded, states adhere to the rules as if they were mandatory in almost all cases."

So, you'd argue to the Court that the rules aren't mandatory and are therefore Constitutional, because they will be written so that states will act as if they are mandatory, cuz if they don't, they lose their say in Presidential elections?

Do people actually PAY you for reasoning like this?

Blue, Dean won in Iowa in 2004, Kerry trailed badly; that is why Kerry's victory in NH was so unexpected (I still wonder who had charge of counting the votes). Remember the "scream" that the MSM pushed so hard?

BearCountry, my friend, you are existing in a parallel universe. Kerry came in first, Edwards a narrow second, and Dean a distant third. The "scream" was seen as bizarre at the time because Dean had just LOST so badly, and seemed to not realize it. Clearly, his supporters STILL don't realize that he lost.

Is this sort of contra-factual history common here? It's really quite unnerving and Orwellian.

Or is this some odd joke that I don't get?