David Yepsen, of the Des Moines Register, is the most respected political analyst in Iowa. Tucked into his analysis of the new Register poll, which shows Barack Obama breaking out to a legitimate lead, is a little nugget that succinctly explains why Iowa should not matter.
A lot of Democratic caucus-goers aren’t all that Democratic. Some 40 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they are independents, and another 5 percent say they are Republicans. (Technically, they’ll all have to re-register as Democrats to participate, but that can be done at the caucus site.) Put another way, 54 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they’re Democrats. In 2004, it was 80 percent.
In other words, the caucus that could launch or break campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination will be largely determined by people who do not represent the Democratic Party. This should be a stop-the-presses headline, and it should be the number one point emphasized by all who truly care about the Democratic Party. Iowa is officially a farce!
Yepsen also points out that the new polling should not be taken as seriously as it is, by some.
Last-minute developments won’t be reflected. In 2004, 21 percent of those who showed up at Democratic caucuses decided who they’d support in the last three days of the campaign. This poll won’t reflect those decisions because it came out of the field on Sunday night — four days before people vote.
In other words, Obama supporters might want to wait, before popping that champagne.
Some support is soft. Of those who have decided on a candidate, 34 percent of the Democrats say they could still be persuaded to change their minds.
Among Republicans, it’s 46 percent.
Did I mention that Obama supporters might want to wait, before popping that champagne?
And just to be fair, CNN has Hillary ahead, and InsiderAdvantage has Edwards cleaning up with the critical second choice votes of supporters of then second tier candidates. So, the polling still shows that it’s anyone’s race to win or lose, but Yepsen’s point is the one that matters. Let me post it again:
A lot of Democratic caucus-goers aren’t all that Democratic. Some 40 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they are independents, and another 5 percent say they are Republicans. (Technically, they’ll all have to re-register as Democrats to participate, but that can be done at the caucus site.) Put another way, 54 percent of the Democratic caucus-goers say they’re Democrats. In 2004, it was 80 percent.
This Democrat wants Democrats to decide our nominee. Some crossover may happen, in states with open primaries, but these numbers are huge and absurd. With the race this tight, it’s clear that Democrats won’t be deciding the Iowa Democratic Caucus results. And for all practical purposes, that should nullify the entire endeavor.
49 comments
Skip to comment form
In some ways, if the number of caucus goers is significantly larger, then this reflects a broadening of the party. If the number is the same, then the Democratic Party has lost ground in Iowa.
So, if independents and cross-over Republicans are just there to select the weakest, then yeah it causes a problem with the idea of Democrats selecting the Democrat of their choice.
However, if the independents are supporters of a candidate and the Republicans have no intention of voting for their party’s nominee in the general election, then welcome to the Democratic Party.
what this reflects is the growing unwillingness of many who have been democrats to declare themselves so…..
and yet at this moment they have no where else to go….
disquit in the ranks so to speak……….
it definitly narrows what can be said from any polling at this point…..
this is a polled prediction of who says they will go to the caususes. It might be best to wait and see what actually happens. As a former Deaniac, I can say with certainty that there’s no predicting what happens there until it happens.
Who elected Iowa voters to this anyway? I just think it’s just another ring in the circus of the Spectacle. I know this may be hard to understand but there are actually better ways to select candidates than make local radio and TV stations in Iowa and New Hampshire rich. Really, I mean it. We could have a reality TV show brought together 1000 people to hang out with the candidates for a month–the people could all be selected to represent the electorate much like focus groups and let them have-at-it for 30 days. They’d all get to know each other, have a lot of fun while saving one hell of a lot of money. The candidates couldn’t use their money while on the show–the only thing that would show their affluence would be their clothes and stuff.
Makes more sense to me.
Does Iowa have the proper perspective on America’s needs? Did their housing market crash? Do they have large city infrastructure problems? Do they have a sizable African American population? Have they lost a large percentage of jobs overseas? Are there schools in desperate shape?
If you had to choose which state is the opposite of a microcosm of the country, Iowa would be high on the list. As would New Hampshire, btw.
is talking to Edwards right now about the endorsement of his candidacy by Ralph Nader.
especially when it comes to who actually comes in first, second and third in the Democratic race. Can’t say I give a damn about the republican one at this stage, especilly since it means I don’t have to see as much of old Sharkteeth Rudy.
But, every day i become more interested in how the candidates and their ‘handlers’ (especially spouses) react to their positioning and external events. it is an invaluable window into how they will/would react to real life situations and judgement calls if actually doing the job.
I have no litmus tests yet, and in fact have fully decided to support whoever is the Democratic nominee unless some totally unforeseen events change the dynamic beyond choice, there are so many potential and even possible scenarios they don’t even bear thinking about.
The slow unfolding of all the twists, curves, bumps and road blocks in each candidates basic nature are incredibly illuminating and revelatory. Naked ambition shines like bone through torn flesh.
The same goes for the revelations of the basic character of the so-called progressive and democratic collective family. I fear so much emotion invested so heavily and so early means some serious withdrawal symptoms from addiction and a whole heap of burned out hulks that will make the political field look like the battlefield in a Mad Max movie.
The only thing i am heavily invested in is a kinder, gentler nation than we have witnessed over the slow burn of the past seven years. I also believe that any one of the present viable candidates is a better choice than any single person currently represneting either the Republican party or the Independant movement regardless of fancy unity names.
I say, may the best man or woman win. I rather enjoy watching the sausage making process except it is enough to make one give up eating meat for ever. The whole process is a farce and we would surely all benefit if we did what other nations do and restrict the election process freom start to finish to a three month period. Dream on. In the meantime it beats ‘Reality TV’, because it truly is reality television.
PBS link to an interview with the woman who took the Iowa poll (quarter way down the page).
a book called Political Fictions by Joan Didion. It’s a series of essays she did for Harpers? covering elections from Carter to Clinton. She makes the case that both parties have a vested interest in keeping both the voter pool down and in not implementing election reform.
It also debunks the myth of nonvoters being apathetic. The indie vote I believe is because so may voters are turned off by machine politics and feel their is no difference between the parties. Election reform is sorely needed, the system is so rife with corruption it’s laughable for people to get so tweeked about the candidates shenanigans.