The Iowa Caucus is this Tuesday. I went to the 1988 Republican caucus, and thought I’d share my memories, and try to compare to the current state of affairs.
First off, it is important to know that the caucus is not a primary election, instead, it’s the first step in selecting the delegates for each parties’ national conventions. The caucus system rewards those candidates with the best organization, and since the caucus takes time (about three hours in my case), it also rewards those candidates who appeal to the party base. As a result, there is a tendency for candidates of the parties’ extremes to do well, which would explain why Ron Paul is doing well in the polls this year.
In 1988, the presidential seat was open, so the caucus for each party was worthy of coverage (unlike this year). The meeting places reflected the party base – the Democrats held theirs in a closed middle school (now Ames City Hall), and the Republicans held theirs in the basement of a bank. Obviously, nothing has changed.
Arriving at the bank, I had already decided that Bob Dole was the best bet for the Republicans (please don’t laugh – OK, go ahead and laugh), so I found the Dole boss for our precinct. He quickly surprised me by asking if I would agree to be a Dole delegate candidate, which for some reason I agreed to. There were more Dole people than for any of the others, but we were not very well organized, especially compared to the Robertson camp. These folk all goose-stepped into the room together in their brown shirts with flags flapping. OK, they didn’t, but they were determined to have an influence on things, even though they were destined to lose. My biggest issue was that of electability – I figured Dole had this, and knew Robertson did not.
After an opening Pledge of Allegiance, we then were told we had five delegates to elect. The delegate-candidates then introduced themselves (somehow, when I mentioned I was from California, they did not run me out of the place) with the idea of giving people a reason to vote for them. The organization of the Dole people sucked – we ended up with 6 people for 5 seats (had I known this beforehand, I would’ve dropped out). Then, nominations for President were taken from the floor. I should say that the sitting vice-president, George H.W. Bus was not nominated in my precinct. We were either convinced Dole was the man, or goose-stepping to the Robertson tune. The vote was taken for the delegate candidates (secret ballot). Somehow, despite the fact that nobody in the place knew me from a hole in the wall, I got 21 votes out of the 90 people in the room – I think I finished like 7th or 8th. We ended up electing three delegates for Dole and two for Robertson. Statewide, the tally was 37% Dole, 25% Robertson, 19% Bush.
After the delegate election, most of the people in the room left, but business continued with the debate on the party platform. Here’s where the Robertson people went to town – most of them stayed, resulting in an platform extremely right wing platform. Even then, when I was a more-strident righty, this made me uncomfortable. In one case, I sorely wish I could go back in time and tell the Robertson boss that they were full of it – as I remember it, this particular plank was something like “We are concerned with (a myriad of social issues), and want the private sector to fix them”. Ugh – better to say nothing than put out this kind of drivel.
What about the Democrats, you may ask. Well, of course I wasn’t there, but their delegate selection process is actually less democratic than in the Republican caucus. There, you have to publicly announce who you support and give reason why – no secret ballot. Also, after the initial vote, those people whose candidates who lack enough initial support to find someone else to caucus with, leading to deal making, etc. In 1988, after the initial vote, Dukakis was leading, so some east-coast media (especially from Massachusetts) concluded he was the winner, announced it as such, and went to bed. The actually results: Gephardt 31%, Simon 27%, Dukakis 22%.
How did this all end up? By the end of Super Tuesday, nobody even remembered Dole or Gephardt. Bush defeated Dukakis decisively in 1988, but it is noteworthy that Iowa went for Dukakis – Bush Senior was just not liked in Iowa.
Personally, I think Iowa should scrap the caucus and go to a primary like most other states – it would invite more participation and force the candidates to appeals to a broader voter base. Those Robertson people kinda frightened me, and today’s tea-baggers are even worse.
Thank you for sharing your experiences. I personally think that Iowans should change from a caucus to a Ninja Warrior-style obstacle course competition, but with pits filled with pig shit, rather than muddy water.
I’m thinking this will be tomorrow’s political gamethread…?…
I lovelovelove Ninja Warrior! I haven’t watched it in forever! I miss it.
Along came a dude who was even better than the fisherman dude.
The new dude works at a Ninja Warrior theme park and gets to practice there every day.
no. way. Better?
Any more information would get into blatant spoiler territory.
You can look it up on Wikipedia if you’re not ever going to have time to watch the last few competitions.
There’s youtube highlights as well.
Me! G4!
As I recall, both Bush and Dukakis didn’t put everything into Iowa that year, since they weren’t likely to beat neighboring favorite sons Dole and Gephardt. GHWB and Tank-boy both made New Hampshire more their priorities, since the early contests were more about managing expectations for them.
In Bush’s case, he was wise to not go all-out in Iowa – for some reason, he just was not popular there, despite being Reagan’s VP for the previous eight years (and Bush did win the 1980 caucus).
Also, Tank Boy
What’s the visual equivalent of tone deaf?
The collar and tie is just so wrong. The dorky helmet. It had to be an inside job.
tone blind?
Thanks for the story. It confirms my decision not to switch to GOP this year for the purpose of participating. Maybe I could have played a Bachmann supporter and stirred up some shit but I’m a lousy actor. Romney is supposedly the heavy favorite statewide (Mormon influence); locally it’s very easy to see the Ron Paul folks playing the role of the Robertson brownshirts. Apparently the Paul people were well-enough organized to cause a huge disruption at the state GOP convention back in 2008. I’ll save my caucus initiation for 2016.
2016= a post-weight watchers Chris Christie vs. Hillary Clinton?
Svelte Christie, sure. Hillary’s going to be like 80, no?
I don’t think Christie’s schtick would play nationally. He works as an occasional YouTube clip, not as a full-time candidate.
He don’t gotta lotta competition as far as I can see. I think he’d have a chance in the Northeast and Midwest, and of course he could dominate the South and non-coastal West. I think he’d do better in Missouri if he stayed fat though.
I’m looking forward to the Rebecca Black — Chelsea Clinton VP debate
In 1984 I did some get out the vote work for Jesse Jackson’s Virginia caucus campaign (VA has since switched to primaries, though they appear not to have it quite right yet). I wasn’t allowed to attend…I turned 18 a few months later, so in November Walter Mondale got my Presidential vote cherry…but I could drive a van around with a list of addresses to give people rides to caucus sites. In my case, Jackson’s folks were extremely well organized, and everyone I gave rides to had participated in caucuses for like 50 years. For them (nearly all African-American), the mission was to ID people they knew at the hall who were standing in some other candidate’s pack or in the undecided group, and say “look, fool, there is no way in hell you aren’t voting for Jesse today.” All the other Demo candidates knew they had no chance, and Jesse won easily.
Tank Boy got my cherry. In Indiana. Where HW won like 70-30. It was depressing.
Just about any voting in Indiana outside of pre-Fox News Evan Bayh is depressing. Fortunately, by the time November 2000 rolled around, I was safely away from there.
Welcome. You’ve been approved once, so future comments won’t be held for moderation.
Thanks. I think you said that in response to my post last week. What does it mean?
This last one generated a moderation email to me to approve (it seems to be doing it sometimes when people change user names, which is odd).
Got it – I’ll stop changing my username then.
No worries either way. I’ll keep approving you (and I’m motivating myself to figure out how to fix that issue).
Did it send you one when I changed last week?
Honestly I don’t remember. Did you have a comment get delayed?
Nope, so I guess it didn’t hold me up.
{snerk}
I wish it was that quick, sweetie.
I haven’t even started hormones yet.
I have no idea, I think I voted peace and freedom for my first one in 88 and 92. then I voted nader in 96.
in 2000 i was in seattle which was still in play, sort of. I called my mom in orange county, and told her sheepishly that I was voting for gore, and she raised her voice slightly and said “Well, your father and I are still voting for Nader.”
I think in the end I also decided for Gore so that the Nader votes didn’t move Washington into the Bush camp. I recall that the polls were pretty close right up to the end, but it comfortably went to Gore after all.
Caucuses are weird things, you can definitely see how they’re relics of a much more monolithic strong-party era. In VA, at least, you actually had to stand in front of your fellow caucusees in the corner of the room assigned to your candidate, so if you were an Alan Cranston guy, for instance, you’d be all alone and everyone would know you as the Cranston wacko. At which point everyone would try to get you to join their guy’s team.
These days we’d all stand in spcw’s corner and everyone would know we were all Krazy Fkers.
You might think that’s a typo, but it’s really just another more underground organization.
Wiffleball’s just a public front. We really work for the Inuit mob.
Straight outta Iqualuit, biatches!
Snerk.
WHen I lived in Washington, I almost went to their 2000 caucus. but it was over by then and I just went to the bar.
Are you going tomorrow, or do you no longer live in Iowa….where tall corn grows?
Dr K’s Californian.
Pity. I was hoping for a man inside the smoked filled rooms perspective
I doubt I would’ve caucused tonight. First, I now have a life, and second, all of these candidates get, at best, a “meh” from me.
If Iowa switched to a caucus, it would have to contend with New Hampshire – which pretty has taken a blood oath to be the first primary in the nation. Iowa, if I recall, wasn’t really a big deal until Jimmy Carter made it one in 1976 by out-organizing and outworking everyone and getting a lot of attention before New Hampshire (by finishing the second behind an uncommitted slate). Carter then won New Hampshire, and the rest is history. Iowa winners don’t have a great track record of getting the nomination, and this year feels dull, simply because I still can’t imagine how Romney does not get it regardless of the Iowa results.
Nobody loves Romney though. Nobody actually wants to have to vote for him.
Oh, I know that. But a lot of Republican primary voters didn’t want to vote for George H.W. Bush, and they certaintly didn’t want to vote for McCain. But they did, and they’ll vote for Romney this time – albeit without a lot of enthusiasm. Romney’s problem is that he is a terrible candidate, and the only reason people don’t know that is because his opponents are inept, underfunded, or both.
I just don’t think they will. Neither of those guys were as bad.
Problem for the GOP wrt Willard is that, while, yes, a lot of people will hold their noses and vote for him, a decent portion of the evangelicals/fundies will be undermotivated and reduce turnout.
‘Course, Obama has the same problem with DFHs, so …
So…like 2 people will decide the presidency?
Sal and drK
So Sal….what do I need to do to get your vote?
(he’s down there)
You only need one
Thanks for this. Very interesting.
I’m surprised we don’t have any sort of “politics” category …
why would you needs one of those on an A’s blog.
exactly. Politics DON’T BELONG HERE, MONKEY!
[shakes stick at mb menacingly]
Wait. This an A’s blog????!!!
Ummm “freekraut.com”?
Also: thanks for outing yourself as a starboarder. We need more of your (f)ilk around here.
concur.
True disclosure: I consider myself to be an old-school conservative. I tend to be conservative on economic issues, but think the government should stay out of matter of morality for the most part. I especially believe in separation of church and state, not only for keeping the church out of the state, but also for keeping the state out of the church. I don’t watch Fox “News”, and I despise the Tea Party movement. I guess in today’s environment, this would make me a moderate.
Well I hope you chime in some. I’m sure I’ll give you plenty to disagree with.
si. though I don’t really delve into politics too much, other than to curse the conservatives and their black, black hearts.
Think of them as modern day Al Swearengens.
Heh. “and their black, black” farts.
Have you picked a dog in this fight? I’m curious how old school conservatives of your ilk feel about Romney.
I hate ’em all. I’d back Romney if he would be so kind as to tell me why I should vote for him. The rest are a bunch of tea-baggers of various sorts, or flat-out nuts (like Ron Paul).
I registered Republican to back Paul in the primary, but I’m definitely voting Obama in the big one.
If it was up to me, Paul would be in Obama’s cabinet as the designated contrarian and military spending beancounter.
You’re dissatisfied with Obama on military spending as is? I think that’s where he’s been at his best.
I just like shaking up the snow globe.
A Paul victory for the nomination would ensure Obama’s winter victory AND make for a very entertaining summer and fall.
I like Paul though. I think he’s got integrity and he’s not for sale. I think a lot of his positions are dumb and contradictory, but he’s pretty stubborn about them, and I kind of admire that.
If we could elect him “Grandpa,” or slot him in to Andy Rooney’s old slot at the end of 60 Minutes, that would be perfect!
“got integrity”
?!?
Are you referring to the newsletter scandal? It’s a non-issue to me, and to him.
If you’re referring to inherent contradictions between his preferences on social policy and professed libertarianism, I don’t perceive those as an integrity gap. There are irreconcilable contradictions between being a social conservative and being a libertarian. I don’t see that necessarily as a bad thing. I like that he kinda serves both masters in a high-tension way.
I’m referring to all of the kooky-old-man behaviors / theories / speeches he has given both in the past and in this campaign. My FrumForum link is a pretty good starting place.
I think people give him a lot more credibility/credit than he deserves because they desperately want him to be a credible libertarian. Dude’s a sleazy con artist/race-baiter, not a person with integrity.
I don’t think he’s a con artist. I think he’s a bull-headed naive fool who’s too stupid to realize that if he was allowed to enact his policies, they would be tangled up in their own contradictions and ultimately fail.
He’s an obstetrician who can’t reconcile his anti-abortion and libertarian views, yet he’s sort of almost able to hold the two concepts in his mind at the same time. He fears liberals and queers and non-whites but doesn’t necessarily want to oppress them, although he doesn’t necessarily want to step in to prevent their oppression, either.
I don’t actually want him to win the general election, but every win he gets up to that point is like watching the Broncos use luck and great defense and Tebow hype to defeat conventional football wisdom week in and week out during their streak. It’s a great underdog story.
I mean… he profited by selling truly disgusting stuff to people, which means either he is truly disgusting or he’s a con artist.
He could just be a used car salesman.
I was raised in an environment in which we believed that the collapse of society was inevitable and would surely happen within our lifetimes.
Paul made money off of those peoples’ paranoia. Yet, it was/is his paranoia too.
He sure wasn’t vigilant enough about vetting everything with his name on it. That much is true.
In today’s environment, that actually puts you to the left of a significant portion of the Democratic power elite.
Who’s an example of an “old school conservative”? And don’t say Reagan. Would it be someone like Nixon? Perot? HW? Ford? Dole? Edmund Burke?
Ike
Before my time. Must go study him.
Aww. I like Ike.
I kinda wish he had called the Russians’ bluff and told the world how awesome the US spying complex was at the time and how comparatively weakly armed the Russians were. Maybe it would have ended badly, but maybe not…
That world was a lot more dangerous and backward than the one we have now. I love this world.
Our technology will make us completely obsolete by the end of the century.
Hopefully, we’ll go the path of enhancing humans rather than valuing AI/machine higher than the flesh.
The Singularity is upon us.
what drK said, and HW. Dole sorta-kinda (IIRC). DiFi.
You and I should get together sometime.
Here’s where I am:
1) The president should inspire the country to aspire to great things — like Kennedy did with the space program, and Lincoln did with emancipation
2) We should be a good citizen of the world, seeking to make friends and allies, not incite divisions nor act out of fear. We should support democratic causes in other countries, but not dogmatically assist one type of democracy over another, nor should we assist pro-American dictators over neutral to America democrats.
3) Free markets are the best way to serve consumers and should not be fettered
4) The government should provide all kinds of support for the people — the best education (including vocational), health care, physical and technological infrastructure — but then these things should be offered in a way that gives the users the maximum number of options (choice of school, choice of doctor, etc)
5) The government should maximize bang for the taxpayer buck, so it should do everything in 3) to the extent that the taxpayer benefits the most
6) The government should take the position that anyone can do anything unless it hurts someone else materially, and by that I don’t mean hurts their feelings. Basically this means all marriage is recognized, and everyone has civil rights but no one has the right not to be called names or to ever be made uncomfortable. Drugs are a health care issue not a morality issue.
7) Government should seek to make the economy the most competitive in the world but not to drive it in a particular direction…e.g. we should not eliminate public transport because lots of people work in the auto industry. Government should recognize that entrepreneurs are the lifeblood of a free economy and not over burden them.
8) The poor should be assisted in trying to get out of poverty, but should not be enabled in poverty nor made dependents of the state. Charity is best left to charitable organizations and not the government.
9) Government service should be recognized as a noble calling and government servants should be held accountable for their performance through giving users choices over which service is used. Civil service is not a way to inflate employment rolls nor enable patronage.
What am I and who best serves my objectives?
Depends on what you mean by some of these. 3/7/8 could either be noncontroversial statements, or forceful ones that would make you unlikely to be a democrat.
In today’s climate, 1/4/8/9 clearly identify you as a socialist/fascist. Welcome.
Hence my identity confusion
Just vote Obama. You’ll be fine.
I did that last time. I love the guy’s foreign policy. Not so much the economy. The Republicans aren’t really making this hard for me.
I do wish he would be more aggressive about our demand shortfall, but I get the sense from your list that the things I would want would turn you off.
I would have loved it if he took the opportunity in the first “stimulus” to make a grand plan to improve the physical infrastructure — mag lev, iPads everywhere, massive education reform, etc….sort of like Kennedy did with the “moon by end of decade” thing. It would have been a lot more inspirational than what he did, would have met your desire for meeting the demand shortfall and had a better chance of passing politically. Plus we’d all be zipping around on bullet trains and poor kids would have iPads.
I would have been an avid supporter.
I still think the stimulus should have consisted of just giving people cash. (But then I also think that in-kind social welfare programs are mostly dumb and fantasize about replacing them with direct cash transfers.)
It is true that direct cash tends to be more efficient. But do that and conservatives would yell about paying people not to work.
Call it a tax break and we’ll be good.
But then you’re restricting yourself to taxpayers.
Back to the salt mines, you. Pay your taxes and continue not voting.
Nah, they blocked Obama’s last tax cut too.
I’m more of a fan of using stimulus to create full employment for everyone, even if many of the jobs are makework filler.
That, too, would be better than what we are doing.
I don’t like that. It’s just lazy planning and cynical about peoples’ worth. If we think a little bit, we can find something productive that people can take pride in accomplishing. Everyone is capable of contributing to something useful.
C’mon, we A’s fans have got to know better than that…
No. I just know Eric Sogard is a valuable human being. He just hasn’t found his niche yet. We must think harder.
Sabermetric Orthodoxy: Glasses Are Really Dorky
Yes he should switch to Jabbar goggles
That, too, would be better than what we are doing
Come on! I’m posting and eating granola bars. What could be better than that?
Good sir, I am one of the most cynical people in regards to peoples’ worth on this planet.
We’ve been working on making ourselves obsolete with our technology, and this is the century in which we’ll finish the job.
Wall E was right!
B-n-L lied, they never tried!
I was silly not to realize how awesome this is. I will be too useless to work.
As will we all, good sir.
As will we all…
In one unintentionally funny graphic, the difference between Democrats and Republicans:
Shirt colors of the republicans are unrealistically diverse.
heh
No green and gold though
Is it wrong that I kind of want him to win tonight, just for the pleasure of watching the subsequent GOP establishment freakout that would ensue?
It’s always seemed to me that Iowa is more about weeding out the stragglers than about who finishes first (thanks for playing, Mrs. Bachmann and Mr. Perry).
That sounds right. Hard to believe we have reached a point as a nation where Rick Santorum is a non-straggler, but here we are.
Santorum seems very nicely positioned to play Dan Quayle to Romney’s George H.W. Bush.
Oh god, you’re right. That’s terrible.
Except that Romney is dumber than GHWB. And Quayle is smarter than Santorum.
And I don’t think the GOP voters will actually pick Romney.
You really think that? I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a good chance California is actually a meaningful primary state this year, because all of the GOP candidates are so awful, and I’m guessing CA’s less fundamentalist electorate is receptive to Romney. Also, the longer the primaries drag out without a clear-cut leader, the more the party will perceive a need to rally around a standard bearer and stop the internecine sniping.
Without checking what Nate Silver thinks, I’d say the odds still have to be 50% that Romney’s the nominee.
Everybody else has had their 3 or 4 weeks in the sun…holy crap, even Newt was up there. Romney has been the steady, never drop below #2. Boy, I think more like 90% chance for Mitt. They might have some other fresh face in mind but Santorum sure seems like the classic GOP attack-dog for the second spot on the ticket, appealing to the far right and those uncomfortable with Romney’s religion while Mitt himself zags back to the center for November.
Actually, the more I think about it the less plausible a Romney-Santorum ticket sounds. His positions on social issues are so far out that he would be a net negative in the general. I see Romney picking someone like Thune, or maybe Rubio if he’s desperate.
Yeah, he needs help with his base, but I don’t know that Santorum’s the guy. But then, I don’t think there can be a non-crazy person who helps with the base.
I really do. I just don’t see the current GOP primary voters picking someone who enacted Obamacare, has been pro-choice, etc.
Your problem is that you believe everything that you read about Republicans.
Maybe so. I’ll be quite surprised if it ends up being Romney.
it will. the enthusiasm gap tho is going to really hurt him.
But, at least in some of the won’t-vote-for-a-mormon circles, voting against the black man may offset some of that.
Yeah. I don’t buy the enthusiasm gap stuff because Obama is the antichrist.
It’s still hard to see Mitt rising above the level John Kerry attained.
Why? Is he big on spelling and speaking Latin?
Well, he does attend mass in Latin.
Best Dan Quayle ever:
No.
I heart GOP chaos…
It’s sad and telling that the specter of Bachman or Gingrich or even Herman effin Cain wouldn’t force the GOP electorate to reconcile itself to Romney, but Ron Paul might.
So, this is a big win for Romney, right?
Well he got 66 more votes than in 2008, so there’s that.
on a related note, does this mean I will stop reading those Ghandi quotes from weird ass ROn Paul supporters
Nope. Lowest percentage-to-victor in Iowa history, and barely squeaked by Santorum (alternate headline: SANTORUM IS #2!!!)
I wouldn’t be surprised if Perry, Bachmann, and perhaps even Newt drop out and endorse Santorum, and I expect Santorum wins in Carolina either way (after Romney wins in NH).
Newt’s in a bit of a pickle. Given all he’s said, there’s no way he can back ARE WE NOT MEN? I guess he has the putative Catholicism thing going with Santorum, but it seems so beneath him to endorse Santorum (to Newt, that is).
Maybe. But he’s a spiteful bastard, so he’ll either never drop out or drop out and hurt Mitt.
hmm… we’ll see.
Thanks for this. I am always fascinated and confused by the election system in the States. I can not really say the things are much clearer for me now. If anyone feels to give me a concise explanation of what a Caucus is actually good for, I’d be grateful.
And in your case, you say
So how many votes does each person have? Must be many,right? I mean if 21/90 only made you 7th or 8th. Or am I missing something? And who elects the 90 people who elct or not elect you?
We each had 5 votes, as I remember. The voters (the 90 people) are those who were registered Republicans who showed up at the caucus.
Thanks
Actually, it would be cleared up by correcting the typo: it’s the Iowa GOP Caucasus
So, harrowing 8-vote victory for M.R. over…
MR. O.T. ANUS
MITT ROMNEY feels like it ought to anagram to ARE WE NOT MEN?
Still needs some work, but using his full name, Willard Mitt Romney,
Dreamy, Trim, No Twill
i can’t believe we’ve been at it this long.
Yeah, I was sorta shocked to see it’s been 8 years since I posted this.
just 8? feels like an epoch ago.
Politics was so … normal back then.
The Trumpers of today make the Robertson people of 1988 look like a bunch of Sunday-school boys in comparison.