The Iowa Homestretch
One week from today, the preliminary phase of the presidential campaign will finally be over and "primary season" will officially begin, as Iowans brave the cold weather to caucus for the candidates of their choice. For the remainder of February, the other three early-voting states will hold their contests, meaning next month will see the race sharpen for both Republicans and Democrats. As things stand, both parties have two clear frontrunners: Donald Trump and Ted Cruz for the GOP; Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side. At this point, both races are so close in Iowa that nobody really knows what will happen next Monday night. Will the polls turn out to be correct? Nobody knows. Will enthusiasm trump (pun intended) longtime voter turnout? It could happen on either side, and then again it might not.
In the Republican race, the Iowa state polling currently shows that Ted Cruz might have peaked just a bit too early. For the past few weeks, the storyline has been that Cruz might just beat Trump when the voters finally get to have their say, but since then the polling has shifted back in Trump's direction. This may be due to Trump pointing out that Cruz was born in Canada -- which, beyond the simplistic "birther" line the media gobbled up, is a much more subtle dig at Cruz. After all, both candidates have made being anti-immigrant a centerpiece of their campaigns, so Trump is essentially asking Iowa GOP voters if a Canadian-born Cruz is really the best man to make that argument. Before Trump brought the issue up, many Republican voters in Iowa were unaware of where Cruz was born. Now that they have been informed of the fact, Cruz has slipped in the polls and Trump has regained his lead. Perhaps other factors are at work (Sarah Palin's endorsement may also be helping Trump, to name just one), but Trump playing the birther card seems to have succeeded, for now.
In one of the oddest dynamics of any primary election, both Trump and Cruz are fighting to see who can get the most "anti-endorsements" (disendorsements? unendorsements?) from the bigwigs in their party. The Republican establishment seems torn between its fear and loathing of Trump and its white-hot hatred of Cruz. The well-respected governor of Iowa denounced Cruz (probably for his lack of support for the ethanol program -- which is a honking big deal in Iowa), while a prominent conservative magazine devoted an entire issue to being "Against Trump." Both men proudly wear such denouncements on their sleeves, as badges of honor -- which sounds bizarre, but might be exactly what the GOP voters are looking for this time around. Republican bigwigs are so distracted with making the agonizing choice which candidate to denounce that they've failed to get behind any of their preferred candidates, which has left a scramble among Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and John Kasich to see who is strongest. Because of this split effort, none of these candidates (with the possible exception of Rubio) has much chance of doing very well in Iowa (the big race for the establishment candidate slot will really come in New Hampshire, a week after Iowa votes).
The sharpest movements among voters always happen at the last minute, making them impossible for polls to accurately chart. If Cruz can't recover this week and regain some momentum, the last-minute surge will likely head towards Trump. The real question, though, is who will actually turn out. If the turnout is higher than expected, Trump likely has a big advantage. Many of Trump's supporters will be first-time caucusgoers -- if they turn up, that is. Because turnout might be such a crucial factor, the weather will play a big role. If it's sleeting and miserable next Monday night, Trump may lose his advantage as more Iowans decide caucusing just isn't worth the effort. Clear skies and mild temperatures (relatively mild, that is -- it's still going to be pretty cold) might result in a bigger than expected turnout for Trump.
This particular dynamic of the race is similar on the Democratic side. Bernie Sanders supporters have enthusiasm on their side (obviously), but Hillary Clinton has organization on hers. Enthusiasm counts a great deal in the Iowa caucuses, but then so does getting people out to vote. Again, a very high turnout on caucus night will likely favor Sanders, and a blizzard would likely increase Clinton's chances. Will Bernie's supporters actually turn out to vote, or do they just like going to rallies? The question is an open one (as it is for Trump supporters).
There's the demographic dynamic of first-time Democratic caucusgoers to consider as well. Polling shows a wide split in the respective ages of Clinton supporters versus Sanders supporters. Bernie is winning the youth vote by better than 2-to-1 margins, but Hillary has just as lopsided (and impressive) an advantage among older voters. A true generational split has developed -- one that inherently helps Clinton. Older people are much more likely to be regular caucus attendees, and much more likely to actually turn out to vote. Young voters seldom get excited enough to show up for the caucus process. Now, this isn't always true -- the youth vote certainly turned out for Barack Obama, for instance. The question is whether they'll do the same for Sanders or whether their participation rates will be as low as they normally are.
Beyond the demographic argument, though, the next week will be a turbulent one for the Democrats. Clinton has long almost conceded New Hampshire to Sanders (call it the "favorite son next door" advantage), but she knows that losing Iowa would be a much more major blow to her campaign. If she loses Iowa and New Hampshire to Sanders, the whole race changes, because the argument "Bernie can't actually get anyone to vote for him" will be obliterated. On the Democratic side, Nevada will follow New Hampshire, and Nevada is always somewhat of a tossup (for some reason, very little polling is ever done in Nevada, making predictions almost impossible). Even if Clinton holds on to South Carolina, if she loses the first three contests she's not going to look very inevitable anymore, meaning voters in other states will be giving Bernie Sanders a long and serious second look. While the Clinton camp openly calls South Carolina her "firewall" (which may indeed be true, heading into a mostly-Southern Super Tuesday), I'm sure Team Clinton would be much happier if Iowa turned out to be her first win.
Because so much is at stake for Clinton in Iowa, she's pulling out all the stops. Clinton surrogates are absolutely flocking into the state, to talk up Clinton in front of as many audiences as can be managed in one week's time. This includes her biggest surrogate, former President Bill Clinton. Last week, the Clinton campaign began fighting hard against Sanders, essentially reverting to the Clintonian "throw everything including the kitchen sink at your opponent" strategy (which they deployed throughout the 2008 primary campaign). But over the weekend, they seem to have realized that this tactic might not be as effective in famously-polite Iowa. Clinton has reportedly pulled back on the more vicious attacks against Bernie (this involved reining in an attack dog or two), and may spend the week concentrating on making more of a logical argument than an emotional one, in the hopes of avoiding voter blowback against the negativity. We'll see -- anything is possible, at this point. But no matter how positive or negative a tone they strike, Clinton surrogates will be thick on the ground all across Iowa, right up until the caucusing starts.
Clinton did learn her lesson in 2008, and has invested heavily in her Iowa ground game. She's not going to get out-organized again, to put this another way. Bernie has put together his own Iowa team and they feel confident they'll be up to the task, but Clinton began a lot earlier and probably has a slight advantage in this department. So far the polling is about as even as can be -- Hillary showed a bump a few weeks back, and now Bernie seems to be getting a bump. This means it's almost impossible to tell which direction the last-minute movement will take. Since Bernie's currently up, he currently has the advantage here -- but that could change very quickly. Bernie is now focusing on making the "electability" argument, which he can do because of the head-to-head polling showing him to be the stronger Democratic candidate against either Trump or Cruz. This could change too, but it likely won't in one week's time.
Whoever wins Iowa on the Democratic side, the margin of victory may be tiny. In fact, Martin O'Malley supporters could be the key, due to the strange process of the Democratic caucuses. If, in the first round, one candidate doesn't earn a certain threshold of support, they are essentially told to give up on the longshot and choose between the frontrunners. O'Malley is polling in the single digits, meaning there will likely be many individual caucuses where he doesn't get enough support for the second round. At that point, his supporters will either have to move into the Clinton or Sanders camps, or just not vote. But if Clinton and Sanders are very close, the O'Malley supporters may be the margin of victory. That's all pretty wonky, I admit, but it'll be something to watch for on caucus night.
As all the candidates enter the Iowa homestretch, we'll get to see how they act when the pressure's on. Any of the four frontrunners could walk away a winner, which means they're all going to campaign harder than anything we've seen yet. When the Iowa caucus results come in one week from tonight, there may be a major rewrite of the storyline of the campaign so far. Will Trump voters actually show up to vote? Will Bernie voters make the effort? Have the polls been wildly wrong all along? If either Trump or Cruz wins Iowa, how will the Republican Party react? Will we (hopefully) see multiple minor Republican candidates throwing in the towel on their unwinnable campaigns, or will they fight all the way to New Hampshire? Will Clinton begin a march to victory in Iowa, or will everyone start talking about 2016 being 2008 for her all over again?
The presidential race has been going on for an exhausting amount of time already (since last summer, really). During this period, we've seen several improbable things happen. The political pundit class has been wrong about most of them so far. When Iowa votes, we'll finally have some real ballot-box information to digest -- and the pundits will (if history is any guide) likely proudly state the wrong conclusions from the results. The time when political junkies (and I do include myself in that category) have lots of fun obsessing over a race that few are paying attention to is almost over, and the time for the voters to actually have their say is almost upon us. The only prediction that can now be made with any hope of being accurate is that February is going to be a fascinating month to watch, as it could define the rest of the primary season. Whether you're praying for a foot of snow or clear skies in Iowa next Monday night, we're all finally about to find out what the voters truly think of this year's slate of candidates. One week to go, and counting....
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Hey CW
Since you brought up the anti-Trump National Review article again, it may be worth discussing that they reported they were "surprised" by an "openly racist and anti-Semitic" response to it from Trump supporters.
I wonder why they were surprised by the response, as if Trumps behavior couldn't possibly be enabling his supporters to cross that line.
As for the Dems, I'm going to predict Sanders takes it by ten points, and just like in 2008, the pollsters discover their likely voters weighting was to blame.
It seems Obama attempted to put his thumb on the scale for Hillary today, but I don't think it will have the desired effect, at least in Iowa.
A
Pffft!
Looks like your filter has is out for me these days.
I'd appreciate a rescue attempt whenever you have the time.
Thanks
A
I'm looking forward to the initial results phase because I hate suspense and I'm really struggling between Hillary and Bernie. I want this over asap so we can get behind one or the other and focus on winning in November. I do believe both candidates will be classy losers and will do their part to unite the party behind the winner.
After all, both candidates have made being anti-immigrant a centerpiece of their campaigns,
Both candidates have made being anti-ILLEGAL immigrant a centerpiece of their campaigns...
There.. fixed it for ya... :D
I gotta agree with Paula.. It's going to be great when it's over.. :D
Michale
One question I have that got lost in the shuffle of the last http://FTP..
How can Bernie run as a Democrat if he is a registered Independent??
Michale
Michale [4]
How can Bernie run as a Democrat if he is a registered Independent??
On all the primary ballots, Bernie is registered as a Democrat.
CHOKE: HILLARY SUFFERS MASSIVE COUGHING FIT
http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/choke-hillary-suffers-massive-coughing-fit/
The real question is this..
Is Hillary going to SURVIVE til the Iowa polls open??
Michale
How can Bernie run as a Democrat if he is a registered Independent??
On all the primary ballots, Bernie is registered as a Democrat.
But his Party of affiliation is still INDEPENDENT...
I am not arguing with you on this.. I'll save that for the previous commentary.. :D
I am just trying to understand...
I mean, wouldn't it be the same as a candidate being a registered Democrat but running on the ballots as a Republican???
How does that work exactly?? And the law really allows that???
Here in Florida, I can't vote in Primaries because I am a registered NPA..
Or are you saying that voting laws and the election laws are different in that regard??
Michale
Bernie has stated that he will do what he has to do to ensure that he's on the ballot in all states, including registering (D) if necessary. It's not all that complicated.
Bernie has stated that he will do what he has to do to ensure that he's on the ballot in all states, including registering (D) if necessary. It's not all that complicated.
Oh I get that.... If it looks like he is going to win as a Democrat then he will register as a Democrat... Kinda like Rubio saying he will give up his Senate seat if it looks like he will win the GOP nod...
Keeping their options open.. I get that...
But it just seems to me that if he is RUNNING as a Democrat, he should BE a Democrat...
I know, I know... I am expecting too much of our laws when I say they should make sense...
To be fair, I would be JUST as confused if Trump was a registered Independent and he was running as a Republican...
Michale
Primaries are not elections. They're nominating contests. Parties should be able to nominate whoever they please and they write the rules (like the purity pledge that the GOP tried to use against Trump in SC). Bernie has registered (D) so that he can be on all ballots.
Bernie has registered (D) so that he can be on all ballots.
I don't find any evidence of this..
The only thing definitive was a DailyKOS commentary that claims Sanders "will register as a Democrat soon"...
That was back in Sep of 2015...
Nothing on whether or not Sanders is actually a Democrat...
Michale
Hey CW
Just another friendly reminder that your filter ate my first comment... and I am certain there's nothing in there that merits censorship.
Hey Mopshell, Micha, anyone interested
Just left you a response on the previous Friday Talking Points thread regarding the headline suggestions.
A
@michale[7],
political parties follow mostly the same rules as private clubs - they can pretty much write whatever rules they want about choosing nominees. state laws that govern primary voting don't say anything about what party the candidate must belong to.
prior to choosing palin as his running mate, mccain wanted lieberman. his choice was nixed by the party brass, but there was nothing illegal about it.
JL
further information from david hawkings at roll call:
vermont does not register voters by party, so thus far that's never been an issue for sanders. he has checked the democratic box for party affiliation on his FEC paperwork for the presidential nomination, so at least in that sense he is "registered" as a democratic candidate.
JL
JL,
So if a state requires that a registered Democrat can only run for the DEMOCRAT candidacy, then Sanders will have to switch Party affiliation or he is scrooed in that state.. But ONLY in that state...
Right??
What a frak'ed up system... :D
Michale
@michale[15],
yes, you can be registered as a voter for one party (or no party), but be registered as a candidate for another, as would have been the case for lieberman had he been mccain's running mate. it's a very chaotic system, but that's federalism for ya.
JL
JL,
"in that sense he is "registered" as a democratic candidate"
That's the only sense that matters since Vermont doesn't have party registration. He filled out the FEC forms, checked the (D) box, the Democrats accepted him, and he has pledged to support the Democratic nominee if he loses. Of course, as we both pointed out, it doesn't even matter. Parties are free to nominate whoever they please. They can even nominate someone who isn't eligible (like Terd Cruz). They just have to live with the consequences.
@JFC [17],
ted cruz (whose name i assume you misspelled intentionally, although it's also a misspelling of turd) is perfectly eligible to be president. that is, unless one were to interpret the constitution according to the "original intent" of the founders, which is the least prevalent of the three major schools of constitutional law. that cruz himself claims to subscribe to the original intent doctrine is incredibly ironic, but it is not legally binding.
JL
OK, now here's a comment thread I can sink my teeth into!
Oh, but first, all comments have been freed from filter hell, so go back to last Friday through this column to see them. My apologies, usually the filter sticks comments into "questionable" folder, but this time moved a bunch straight into "spam" which I wasn't checking as often. Anyway, they're all posted now. If this gets annoying, PLEASE post a comment like altohone's first one here, as this always gets my attention!
OK, on to ballot availability. Michale's right, so far as Bernie -- before he started running. There technically is no capital-I, capital-P "Independent Party" in the country, so nobody's a "registered Independent." Bernie (I believe) always called himself a "Democratic Socialist" while running in Vermont. I assume that meant he ran the general election as a third-party candidate, but again, have not checked this (what I would expect to find is that after a while, the Dems just gave up and stopped running a candidate against Bernie, but that's sheer speculation on my part).
In Congress, Bernie has always "caucused" with the Democratic Party. This was because the Dems let him into their private club -- "caucusing" has whatever rules whoever runs the caucus wants, so there's nothing stopping either party from welcoming indpendents in. So Bernie got to vote for Dem leadership postions and likely got his seniority respected on committee appointments, all while not technically being a Democrat.
The primaries and the general election are another matter. Yes, we have a state-run election system. This is why we have 50 sets of rules for getting on the ballot, and why the national popular vote doesn't count, while the Electoral College does. The states don't agree on much -- the only thing really under Federal control is rules around the margins (such as dictating all states vote on the same day in the general).
So there are 50 sets of rules for who gets to appear on a ballot. Now, Michale, here's the mind-warping thing: anyone who calls himself or herself a "Democrat" or "Republican" on any state's ballot is pretty much free to do so, often just by checking a box. That's it. The parties theoretically could limit who appears on the primary ballots (since the primaries are private affairs between private organizations), but in reality they don't have this control. It's too susceptible to abuses of power.
Think about it. A candidate whom the party absolutely loathes gets banished from the ballot just because they don't like him and don't want to be associated with him. How is that not a travesty of Democracy? This is why people like Lyndon LaRouche (look him up) get to appear on state ballots as a Democrat, even though no sane Democrat wants to have anything to do with him or his followers.
This is also why the Republicans can't decide to just ban Trump from all of their ballots, too.
So the easy answer is anyone can run as any party. Bloomberg was a Democrat, then he decided to run for mayor as a Republican. Hey presto! He's a Republican.
Same holds true for Bernie. As long as he says he's a Democrat when registering to be on the ballot, that's pretty much the end of the story. That's the system, for better or worse. Party affiliation isn't like being born in Canada (sorry, couldn't resist), you can change it at any time. Bernie officially has, and is officially a Democrat in the states that require it. End of story.
-CW
altohone [1] -
OK, that was an interesting comment, and one well worth rescuing!
10 points? Wow. Food for thought about the weighting.
I'm mulling it all over, and will either post my first 2016 primary predictions in Friday's column, or get a Monday column out early (before results are in). For those who missed it last time around, my primary picks series is the precursor to the even more cool Electoral Math column series. Here's the first few from the 2008 race for example:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/01/02/my-picks-for-iowa/
I got three out of six of these right:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2008/01/07/my-primary-picks-for-new-hampshire/
-CW
Since you brought up the anti-Trump National Review article again, it may be worth discussing that they reported they were "surprised" by an "openly racist and anti-Semitic" response to it from Trump supporters.
And, of course, you can point to these "openly racist" responses, right??
No??
Didn't think so... :D
As for the Dems, I'm going to predict Sanders takes it by ten points, and just like in 2008, the pollsters discover their likely voters weighting was to blame.
I truly hope you are right..
Hillary doesn't DESERVE any votes at all... She is a liar, a cheat and a crook...
But, I guess, no more so than any other politician.. :D
Michale
"openly racist and anti-Semitic" response to it from Trump supporters.
And, of course, you can point to these "openly racist" responses, right??
No??
Didn't think so... :D
As for the Dems, I'm going to predict Sanders takes it by ten points, and just like in 2008, the pollsters discover their likely voters weighting was to blame.
I truly hope you are right..
Hillary doesn't DESERVE any votes at all... She is a liar, a cheat and a crook...
But, I guess, no more so than any other politician.. :D
Michale
Micha
Your reading comprehension blows chunks.
The conservative National Review reported that the responses they received from Trump supporters were "openly racist and anti-Semitic".
Go challenge them if you doubt it.
Demanding proof from the messenger you can't seem to shoot is pathetic on top of pathetic.
I'm perfectly content to see you attacking your fellow wingnuts, the way the National Review attacked Trump... well, maybe thrilled would be more accurate.
But hey, if you get them to disclose the content of those racist and anti-Semitic rants, please do share.
Heck, if it turns out they were lying about it to hurt Trump, I'd laugh even harder.
Hey CW
Thanks for the response.
The polling suggests I'm going out on a limb with that prediction, but it's within the margin of error the polls had in 2008 compared to the reality of the actual results I mean... and the pollsters have given no indication that they've learned their lesson or changed their ways.
Assuming this comment posts, could you rescue the comment I tried to post right before this one?
Thanks,
A
ted cruz (whose name i assume you misspelled intentionally, although it's also a misspelling of turd)
Yes, it's intentional..
It's the same low-information/low-intelligence games that the Right Wingery plays with their "Odumbo" and "DemoCRAP" stuff...
I have been known to wallow in it once or twice in the past decade..
But there are those on the Right and the Left who live there...
Kay Sara Sara...
Michale
BTW CW
I'm a little surprised you didn't write about Obama's attack on Bernie... or at least offer a brief response to my comment.
Obama's U-turn from 2008 Yes We Can to Hillary's 2016 No We Can't on progressive goals like universal healthcare was a rather hypocritical, dramatic and politically timed statement.
The unexpected strength of Bernie against Clinton is all about the disgust and division within the Democratic Party between the traditional liberal/progressive wing and the neoliberal wing, so the topic would seem to be right up your alley.
And Obama openly swinging over to the other side after campaigning in 2008 as a progressive should have been an eye-opening event for many of his supporters.
I'm not the least bit surprised the establishment punditocracy aren't eager to emphasize this reality, but I thought you might wade into it.
Thanks as always.
A
Party affiliation isn't like being born in Canada
@CW,
my question is what happens if cruz becomes the nominee and it goes to the supreme court? i have no doubt that the court would uphold the nomination because they're mostly subscribers to textualist (alito, roberts, kennedy) or living document (kagan, sotomayor, ginsberg, breyer) legal philosophy. but would scalia and/or thomas dissent? based on their professed adherence to original intent, they ought to, but they've also been very partisan in their decisions, so i'm curious what their opinions would be.
JL
Sorry Micha
Looks like my response to you is still stuck in the belly of the filter.
I'm sure you will enjoy it when it eventually appears.
I always do... :D
Michale