Clark & Lieberman to bypass Iowa caucuses

[pruner]

2 Top Democrats Will Not Contest Iowa's Caucuses

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
Published: October 20, 2003

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — Two prominent Democratic presidential candidates, Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, have decided to bypass Iowa's presidential caucuses, angering some party leaders there and signaling what could be a very different nomination battle next year.

Mr. Lieberman's advisers said on Sunday that they would pull out all but one of his 17 staff members in Iowa and send them to states considered more receptive to his appeal, like Arizona. General Clark's aides said he would maintain a minimal presence in the state, which has the nation's earliest presidential selection contest. Last week, the general hired the former Iowa coordinator for Senator Bob Graham of Florida, who quit the race two weeks ago, and dispatched her to other states.

General Clark's advisers said they concluded last week that his late-starting candidacy had left him unable to assemble the intricate organization needed to win the Iowa race, which puts a premium on drawing voters to some 2,000 precinct caucuses. Most of the state's experienced organizers have signed with other candidates.

"What we'll do is what I call the General MacArthur strategy," a senior Clark adviser said. "General MacArthur was very successful in World War II because he skipped over the Japanese strongholds, where they were more organized, and instead picked islands that were favorable or neutral terrain. Which means we would choose not to focus resources on Iowa and instead focus them on New Hampshire and on Feb. 3," when there are Democratic contests in seven states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/politics/campaigns/20IOWA.html?ex=1067227200&en=676aa42b713a12a2&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

[WillyBrandt]

1. National Primary Strategy?

I don't know enough about primary politics to have the best analysis of this, but I wonder if Clark isn't trying to "nationalize" the primary process in his favor. Clark has (in some polls) a nation lead, but hasn't yet translated that into leads in early primary states.

The danger for Clark is that others--Dean especially--will win in the early primary states, and use that momentum to coast to victory, even though if all the primaries were held on the same day, Clark would win.

Clark's challenge is, at minimum, to keep any other candidate from gaining large early momentum by either winning or at least placing well in two early states--NH and SC. Those are also strategically easier spots. SC is Southern, and has a HUGE number of black voters in the primary, both of which portend well for the General. NH, while near CT, MA, AND VT, is nontheless near NY where Clark is very strong and has a large pool of volunteers. And there's not all that caucus nonsense that makes getting each vote more difficult.

If he can get past the early bump, he has a very good chance of winning the nomination.

[jumptheshadow]

13. Black voters in SC

Don't they equate to about half of the Dem primary vote?

The SC reporter who was on The Capitol Gang believes that Rep. Jim Clyburn's upcoming endorsement will sway quite a few black voters into the Gephardt camp.

I don't know the SC political landscape at all. I do think, however, that Clark can win some of that vote himself.

What would be personally dismaying to me is if Gephardt takes Iowa and has momentum going into other primaries.

[sfecap]

2. Translation:

Lieberman:

"I don't have the money to mount a campaign in Iowa."

Clark:

"I don't have the money or the campaign to mount a campaign in Iowa."

[WillyBrandt]

3. Clark doesn't have the money?

Come again?

[pruner]

4. $3.5 million is a lot of money to raise in 2 weeks…

but it's really not that much in terms of cash in the bank at this stage in the game.

I'd have to imagine that financial considerations played at least some part in Clark's decision to skip Iowa.

[sfecap]

5. Clark doesn't have the money.

Again.

The money he has is not enough to mount an effective campaign in Iowa at this late date against candidates who have been there for a year.

His 3.5 million is less than a month's worth of advertising, and wouldn't support the staff he'd need there. His campaign is admitting he can't compete in Iowa.

Ironically I was at a party last night and the discussion around Clark was if he'd pass on Iowa. Guess this answers that question. Lot's of politically savvy people there thought that Clark wouldn't spend the time or money there.

[FrenchieCat]

7. After a month in the campaign, maybe Clark 's

campaign have opt with different strategy. Clark cannot be cloned in 62 days so that he can be all over Iowa to be with the so ever famous "getting to know you, all about you" folks there. It's not even a reasonable demand....in particular because of how the vote is held there.

Why should he try to compete with those that have been there.....22 years (Gephartd) or Dean who's been there at least 1/2 of a year if not longer?.....let's be fair now and keep perspective.

The money is probably the least of the problems.

Plus according to this:
Why Iowa Doesn’t Matter
Michael J. Ring

And so these games will continue until New Hampshire.

But how much should the rest of the nation draw from the Iowa caucuses? Not much.

Except for weeding out the weakest of the weak candidates the Iowa caucuses prove and predict little. They are an exercise in political curiosity and not much more.

The problem is the caucus system itself. The process used in Iowa is dominated by party ideologues and foot-soldiers, effectively disenfranchising a large percentage of the population.

To a political tyro or the faint-of-heart, the process is very intimidating. Iowa Democrats do not employ a secret ballot; a caucus attendee must publicly state a preference for a candidate. Iowa Republicans do have a secret ballot, but gathering with a small group of neighbors and listening to them talk about politics can still be disconcerting for the politically uncourageous.

The great utility of the primary system is its ability to attract Independents to the polls. Since Independents are the fastest-growing group bloc of voters nationally, and their numbers now top 40 percent of registered voters in many states, a truly reflective nominating process must include these voters.

In theory, Iowans registered as Independents could switch their registration to either of the parties to attend the caucus. But few actually do.

Many voters choose to register as Independent not because of centrist ideology but because of a distaste of political parties and gridlock politics. Do you think a lot of Independents who loathe “politics as usual” are going to enjoy a Democratic or Republican caucus fight between union bosses or evangelical Christians?

With the effective exclusion of Independents and political novices, it’s no wonder that the overwhelming majority of Iowans skip the caucuses altogether. Such poor turnout allows party bosses to control the caucuses;

Iowa’s track record of predicting future presidents is poor. In 1980, Iowa Republicans chose George Bush in their caucus; Ronald Reagan won the White House. In 1988 Dick Gephardt and Bob Dole won the Iowa caucuses; Michael Dukakis and George Bush were the party nominees.

In New Hampshire will also be overplayed, but not to the extent to which Iowa’s caucuses were overcovered. New Hampshire does matter more. The Granite State’s primary process allows Independents to vote and offers a secret ballot, thus allowing all voters to feel comfortable exercising their right. Turnout will assuredly be a lot higher than 11 percent. And since 1952, only one person -- Bill Clinton -- has been elected president without winning the New Hampshire primary, and Clinton’s close second-place finish after surviving the Gennifer Flowers scandal in 1992 was a moral victory. While we don’t need to have the candidates stalked by an army of media around the clock in New Hampshire, we should pay some attention to the final result.

Iowa’s track record of predicting future presidents is poor. In 1980, Iowa Republicans chose George Bush in their caucus; Ronald Reagan won the White House. In 1988 Dick Gephardt and Bob Dole won the Iowa caucuses; Michael Dukakis and George Bush were the party nominees.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N69/col69ring.69c.html

[Wickerman]

8. I'm from Iowa and I agree

It doesn't matter. I don't live there anymore, but its great to get to know the candidates as intimately as Iowans get to, but their caucus tend to be a tad more liberal than the eventual nominee.

[9119495]

18. I'm from Iowa too

And I agree. I have often wondered why we are automatically first everytime. We are smart and active, but this is true of democrats in other states as well. However, it benefits a candidate like Dean to have a place like Iowa to start. No national campaign is needed right away and you can get your message out. If it takes off, the media lets the rest of the nation know about it--through their filter of course.

I think Iowa is a measure of how candidates will be able to mobilize the grassroots nationally while New Hampshire is a predictor of how moderates, and swing voters will vote on election day.

[peaceandjustice]

15. correction

didn't John McCain wallop Dubya by 18% in New Hampshire?

[DemDogs]

6. We finally agree! (n/t)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. Clinton didn't win Iowa or New Hampshire in '92,

did he? I'm pretty sure he came in second in NH to Tsongas, but I can't remember who won Iowa...

[pruner]

10. Harkin won Iowa

his home state.

[ErasureAcer]

11. Lieberman's best bet is to switch parties and challenge Bush.

He isn't going to be the dem nominee.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. How long will he hang in there

sucking up energy is the question.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. The General MacArthur Strategy?

If I were the Clark team, I wouldn't mention Douglas MacArthur too often. I would stick to Eisenhower references. MacArthur looked unbeatable, but got his ass thoroughly handed to him.

[revcarol]

16. Bad on another front, too.

Remember MacArthur's defying Truman? CIVILIANS ARE IN CHARGE OF THE MILITARY. Shouldn't have mentioned MacArthur at all, at all.

[lastliberalintexas]

20. And another

Since MacArthur was also the one who literally slaughtered the veterans in the DC protests during Hoover's term. Nice guy, huh?

[revcarol]

17. Bad on another front, too.

Remember MacArthur's defying Truman? CIVILIANS ARE IN CHARGE OF THE MILITARY. Shouldn't have mentioned MacArthur at all, at all.

[FightinNewDem]

19. Iowa Caucus=Scam

The Iowa caucuses are an undemocratic scam, and Lieberman and Clark are wise to blow them off. Consider:

*In Iowa, there is no secret ballot. All voting is conducted by a standing vote, where caucus attendees are subject to pressure from local party leaders, union officials, elected officials and employers.

*There is no provision for absentee voting.

*If you work a second-shift job, you cannot participate.

*Independents who lean Democratic are barred from participating.

*Less than 10% of Democrats participate, making the whole affair grossly unrepresentative.

*The process is subject to hijacking by interest group activists (teacher's unions and peace activists on the Dem side, fundamentalist Christian groups on the GOP side).

In 2000, I went to Iowa to help Bradley's campaign out over the last few days of the campaign, and I was horrified at just how undemocratic this thing really is. Anyone who thinks there is any substantive similarity between the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary is sorely misinformed!

[ISUGRADIA]

21. I agree with all the criticisms of Iowa and will add a few

2000 turnout: NH @ 150,000 in the Dem primary, in Iowa @ 60,000 for the caucuses. Hello?! NH has not even half the population of Iowa.

The "winner" may have fewer actually supporters vote for him than the #2 or #3 candidate in a close race. Why? Because the vote is based on "delegate equivalents." Each precinct is aloted a certain amount of delegates based on previous Dem performance in the governor's race 2002 and for president(?).

So precinct one has 250 people in attendance with 10 delegates. Precinct two has 5 delegates and 300 people show up. It's not one person = one vote. There is no record of how many people vote for a candidate, just delegates. Plus this BS 15% rule discriminates against less popular candidates diluting their vote.

Talk about disenfranchisement, it's like the electoral college...only much more confusing.