Jul.23

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

Iowa Wants to Go Back to the Front of the Line

Back in 2020, Iowa famously botched its caucuses. The state tried to mix 21st-century technology (iPads and Zoom sessions) with a 19th-century form of democratic participation, and it just did not work out. Put it this way: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) got the most votes, with 45,652. However, he only got the second-most delegates, with 12. That is because while Pete Buttigieg may have gotten the second-most votes, with 43,209, he got the most State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs), with 563. Sanders' total was a mere 562. So, Mayor Pete got 14 delegates, and even that took 3 days to figure out, in part because virtually nobody even understands what SDEs are, or how to convert votes into SDEs.

There are a couple of other potential problems with the Iowa caucuses. The first is that they favor extremely devoted partisans over casual voters. So, someone with a base of hardcore fans (like, for example, Sanders) can do very well. Some might see this as a feature, not a bug, but others would observe that the vast majority of American voters are casual, and tend to be put off by the types of candidates who attract a hardcore fanbase. Put another way, there are enough people who really, really love Mike Huckabee or Rick Santorum or Tom Harkin to power those men to victory in a primary. But there aren't enough people who like those men to power them to victory in a national election.

The other problem with Iowa, of course, is that its population does not match the demographics of the country, in general, or of the Democratic Party, in particular. It is very white, and has a pretty high median age (39.5 years old). Also, Iowans care about issues, like corn subsidies, that do not have a lot of national resonance. So, the type of candidate that receives the blessing of Iowa caucus voters might not be a great match for voters in populous states like New York and California, or more diverse states like South Carolina and Nevada, or states with more young voters, like Colorado and Georgia.

For these reasons, while he was president, Joe Biden applied some muscle to try to move South Carolina up the list, and therefore to move Iowa down. Biden did not have quite enough muscle to make that a fait accompli, mind you. Most primaries, including the one in South Carolina, are staged by the state government. And the very Republican state government of South Carolina is not interested in taking orders from a Democratic president. Further, New Hampshire cares a lot about its first-primary-in-the-nation status, which is enshrined in its state constitution. And so, officials there will do whatever they have to do to hold their place at the front of the primary line. If they have to get out the DeLorean and move their 2028 primary to November 5, 1955, they will do it, thank you very much.

Meanwhile, despite the screw-ups in 2020, and despite the general problems with the Iowa caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party wants to bat lead-off again, and is making moves to try to make that a reality. They have four basic arguments as to why they should get another shot:

1. Joe Biden is not in charge anymore, is not in favor right now, and besides, was not actually able to reshape the calendar the way he wanted.
   
   
2. Iowa may not be perfectly representative, but because it is small(ish), a candidate without a lot of name recognition or money can establish themselves as a legitimate contender if they are willing to put in the work, and if they are good at retail campaigning. (This is true; the textbook case is Jimmy Carter, who used Iowa to go from "Jimmy who?" to "serious candidate.")
   
   
3. No matter what the Democrats do, the Republicans are going to hold a caucus in Iowa in January 2028. If there's no Democratic event, then the GOP will gobble up all the headlines.
   
   
4. The Democrats are doing pretty well with the Starbucks-drinking, liberal, urban, educated, elite vote, and maybe should be looking for candidates that also have a shot at the salt-of-the-earth, corn-fed, heartland, hotdish-eating vote.

It is not possible, incidentally, to balance the desire of South Carolina to go first and that of New Hampshire to go first. It's gotta be one or the other. On the other hand, it is certainly possible to balance Iowa and New Hampshire, because Iowa is a caucus. New Hampshire's constitution doesn't say anything about caucuses, only that they WILL host the first primary on the calendar. Also, caucuses are staged by the party, so the fact that Iowa's state government is run by Republicans doesn't matter.

In the end, there is no such thing as a level playing field here. Whatever state goes first, it is going to favor a particular type of candidate, in terms of their skills, their demographics, their bank account, their home state/region, etc. The most important thing for the Democrats is to make a firm and fast decision, as quickly as is possible, so that 2028 candidates can plan accordingly. The problem is that this is not exactly a party known for its ability to make firm and fast decisions, as quickly as is possible. (Z)