I posted the latest installment on “How the Iowa caucuses work” at Daily Kos and MyDD today. I’m not cross-posting here because you people all know how the caucuses work.
My main reason for writing that diary was to debunk Mark Kleiman’s idea that Obama could win Iowa by hiring 2,000 field organizers to work here during the final two weeks of the campaign.
If you feel like joining the discussion about GOTV and how hard it is to turn out new voters for the caucuses, head on over to MyDD, where the diary is on the rec list.
16 Comments
Haven't we seen this play before?
Begging the Deaniacs’ pardons, but wasn’t a similar strategy employed by the Dean campaign in the last 4-6 weeks of 2004? And isn’t it one of the things that fell apart, and caused a number of little credibility-destroying flaps from rude and disorganized volunteers?
DD – nice to see you posting here!
idiosynchronic Tue 24 Apr 8:31 AM
yes, I think everyone concurs with that
I doubt any campaign will have as poor a GOTV strategy as Dean’s last time.
I am curious to see whether Obama’s people will keep calling me. I’ve been called twice, and both times I identified myself as an Edwards supporter. A commenter on Daily Kos mentioned the same thing yesterday.
If Obama’s people stop calling my house, it will be a sign that they are much better organized than Dean’s, who kept calling me, and the Daily Kos commenter, right up until the night before the caucuses.
desmoinesdem Tue 24 Apr 2:48 PM
on your diary, Edwards
Desmoinesdem,
I agree with your post on the Obama organizing. In 2004, in the end it seemed like there were more Dean field organizers in the state than actual supporters. As an Obama supporter, I’m pretty nervous how things will turn out for him in Iowa.
As a 2004 Edwards supporter, I have to express my disappointment in him. The sunny, positive candidate – the kind that wins general elections – is gone, replaced by the angry, pandering lefty candidate. (Not that there is anything wrong being lefty. I’m a former Fallon & Denise O’Brien supporter. I just feel Edwards’ MoveOn-like leftism has been borne more out of political calculation than personal conviction.)
There is a pattern developing that makes me question Edwards’ judgment. How does he have the balls to have his supporters measuring their carbon footprint when you just moved into a 28,000 square foot house? The hypocrisy is astounding, especially for the “two Americas” candidate. I can already see the (largely justified) R attack ads on this. As insignificant as it may be, the haircut thing fits into this tone-deaf/out-of-touch image.
To be fair, I still like Edwards. My words may be unfairly harsh. I also realize no candidate is perfect. I hate it when my guy Obama blatantly panders. But as long as I have other, more attractive options, I have a hard time going back to Edwards.
rf Wed 25 Apr 9:01 AM
where you see pandering
I see a candidate who used to be too cautious and is now speaking out for true progressive values. Edwards did not spend a dime on polling during the first quarter of 2007, and he only spent $750 on political consultants during that period. I believe that he is speaking from his heart.
I don’t see Edwards as a particularly “angry” candidate, but there are some angry parts of his new stump speech. But it kind of reminds me of that bumper sticker: if you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention.
Speaking of which, I still haven’t taken the Denise O’Brien bumper sticker off my car. I was for Fallon as well.
Regarding the Edwards home: truth be told, I wish he had built himself a 5,000 sq ft home so this issue was not even on the table. But the 28,000 figure you cite is wrong. The house the family lives in is about 10,000 sq ft (about the same as Gore’s house). To get that larger figure, the Republican slime machine is adding footage of other buildings like the barn, gazebo, etc.
Also, it’s important to note that all of the water used by the home is solar-heated, and there is also passive solar heating, lots of energy efficiency measures, compact fluorescent bulbs, and so on. It’s an energy star rated home. Edwards is making his campaign carbon-neutral as well.
The haircut story is ridiculous. The so-called $400 haircuts included paying for the time the guy spent coming out to Edwards’ hotel to do the cut and going back to his salon. Hillary has a stylist travel with her to do hair and makeup every day. I’m sure that doesn’t come cheap for the campaign, but in this world, it is a legitimate campaign expense.
If you think that the other candidates do not have absurd expenses that are going to come out sooner or later, I disagree. I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before we hear how much Obama spends on his suits or shoes or whatever they dig up to make him seem elitist. Meanwhile, the media is silent about how Giuliani demands to stay in five-star hotels, the cost of Romney’s hair and wardrobe, and so on.
Obama’s campaign rhetoric bothers me–he seems to try not to identify himself as a Democrat. I feel that by focusing on the nasty, small, partisan politics in Washington, he draws a false equivalency between the two parties in terms of who is responsible for the nastiness. Was he hiding under a rock during the 1990s? No Democratic Congress ever pulled stuff like that on Reagan or Poppy.
I also feel that Obama makes a habit of promoting himself by contrasting himself with false stereotypes about Democrats (e.g. when he says that all too often Democrats have been intolerant of public expressions of faith). He uses right-wing frames that I don’t like.
I would have no problem volunteering for and voting for Obama if he’s the nominee. I just don’t get the enthusiasm for him. I think with Obama, you either get it and absolutely love the guy, or you don’t.
desmoinesdem Wed 25 Apr 1:07 PM
we need self-examination
Where you see someone who is trying not to be a Democrat, I see someone who is willing to speak the truth. In the last six years of political wilderness and no power, the most amazing thing to me was that there was no self-examination among D’s. We were so focused on our (mostly justified) outrage about W and his administration that we never turned to ourselves and did any self-examination. As being somewhat of a maverick and independent thinker, I hate the fact that our party forces our candidates to run like they are going for a union office or seat on the Planned Parenthood board. I cannot be intellectually honest and think that the R half of our population consists of complete idiots and that they are always wrong. On many issues R’s make good points. Thus, you should not be surprised that my disappointments with Obama have come with issues like his pandering to the MoveOn crowd on the Fox News debates or his pretty uncompromising comments after the latest Supreme Court ruling on partial birth abortion. Those run counter to his “let’s find common ground” message that has attracted so many people to him. On the other hand, with Obama one could argue that you get a real progressive in moderate’s clothing.
You are absolutely right about the campaign expenses and any other stupid things R’s will surely bring up. It’s also impossible to know who has the worst skeletons in his/her closet or who will end up blurting out the worst gaffe (“I voted for it before I voted against it”).
Speaking of skeletons, I would really be interested to know why Mark Warner decided to drop out of the race. It was so sudden and unexpected. Did he really not think about the strains of a presidential campaign on his family before raising tons of $ and traveling all over the country for months? – I was probably the first person in Iowa with a Warner sticker on my car. In other words, 2006 was not a good year for me, as I had to scrape off my Fallon, O’Brien and Warner stickers all in disappointment…
Anyways, no matter who wins the D nomination, I will likely work hard for the nominee. Only Hillary leaves me lukewarm.
rf Wed 25 Apr 2:09 PM
I think Warner saw long odds
and the prospect of being away from young kids a lot for two years. In contrast, he can hang out in Virginia, not be away from his family, and possibly be picked as a VP candidate, or run for a Senate seat, or even run for governor again in 2009.
I hadn’t heard anything about skeletons in Warner’s closet.
My husband was also interested in Warner–he likes supporting governors rather than senators.
I totally disagree with you on the so-called partial birth abortion issue. Women do not “choose” these kinds of abortions for convenience–Planned Parenthood of Greater Iowa won’t perform abortions beyond 17 weeks gestation, and the Emma Goldman clinic in Iowa City won’t perform abortions beyond 20 weeks.
The dilation and extraction procedure abortion opponents are trying to ban is used only for compelling medical reasons late in pregnancy. It simply is not possible to walk into a doctor’s office at 24 weeks pregnant and say, hey, I decided I don’t want to have this baby, please give me one of those partial birth abortions. These are cases in which the fetus has no chance for life, or continuing the pregnancy poses health risks for the mother.
If the public were better informed about how and when this procedure is used, you would not see large majorities in favor of banning “partial birth abortion.” Women are going to die from this procedure being banned. Women are going to be forced to continue carrying fetuses that have absolutely no chance for life outside the womb. Something like this happened to a friend of mine. It was devastating for her.
desmoinesdem Wed 25 Apr 2:23 PM
Obama-Warner - Yeah, baby!!
With Warner out, has your husband committed to a candidate yet? – I’m just curious where people who liked him ended up going. For someone like me who thinks of our mindless partisan polarization as the biggest problem we face, Obama-Warner ticket would be dynamite.
My main beef with D’s on the abortion issue is that so many of us have become completely inflexible on the topic and intolerant of differing opinions. We certainly don’t have a big tent on this issue, and our candidates pander accordingly.
From the purely political perspective, I think D’s inflexible 100% pro-choice litmus test is stupid. As long as people are having kids and the ultrasound technology keeps getting better (they now have 3-D ultrasound), I fear we are on the losing end of this debate. (Just like R’s are on the losing end of the gay rights issue.) People’s apprehension about this moral issue will not go away.
To be clear, I am not at a place where I feel I can tell others they should not have an abortion. To me, it is a deeply personal, moral decision. From that perspective, I’m classically pro-choice. But, I also realize that many people feel differently about it. I suspect neither the “let’s ban all abortions” nor “100% pro-choice” crowd is a majority in this country. Most people fall somewhere in between. Maybe our law should also be somewhere in between.
Above all, I just want us to have a bigger tent on the issue.
rf Wed 25 Apr 3:21 PM
my husband is undecided
but not leaning toward Obama. He falls into that category that doesn’t “get” the Obamamania (other than obviously recognizing that Obama is a talented speaker). He would have no trouble voting for Obama in the general, but doesn’t plan to caucus for him.
He wants to hear more from Richardson. Although Richardson is not liberal enough for him, he is the only governor in the race, and unless Gore jumps in, he’s the only guy with the really heavyweight resume. Also, my husband thinks Richardson has the potential to win in a massive landslide.
My husband hasn’t ruled out Edwards either. He was even considering Vilsack until Vilsack quit.
Regarding abortion, I understand the people who oppose it in all circumstances. I don’t think our party is closed to these people. Harry Reid himself is against Roe. I take your point that it is very tough for anti-choice candidates to win Democratic primaries in many states. I don’t know about you, but I am old enough to remember Iowa’s 1990 gubernatorial race, in which we nominated the worst candidate (Avenson) because many Democrats didn’t want Tom Miller and were afraid that if they voted for John Chrystal that Miller would get the nomination.
I think the people who are pro-choice generally but against “partial birth abortion” are misguided–they truly do not understand the circumstances in which late abortions take place, nor do they understand that in some cases there are real health risks to the mother if she continues a pregnancy. My friend experienced excessive amniotic fluid and skyrocketing blood pressure, among other things. She is lucky that she did not have a stroke, which could easily have happened.
desmoinesdem Wed 25 Apr 5:29 PM
Should we go with resume again?
In my post-Warner search mode, I was seriously considering Richardson. But after Gore and Kerry, I am really hesitant to go with the best resume guy. Resumes clearly don’t win elections. So I decided to go with my gut and emotion. After reading Obama’s book, I was thinking how could I not be for him as I agree so much with his message.
Also, Richardson’s campaign po’d me a bit. I approached them a couple of times, soon after he announced that he was likely to be in and he had his operation running. Not a word back from his folks. How can you not respond to Iowa inquiries and interest when you are registering around 1% in the state?? Obama campaign was completely the opposite. They have been very responsive, open to ideas, criticism, etc. One day last week three different Obama staffers called me in one day. And they were not harassing me, just calling to inform me of something and asking for advice.
And talking of resumes, it is amazing to me that hardly anyone points out the fact that Obama has more experience in elected office than Edwards and Hillary. Or do we think that state legislators do nothing and their work is meaningless? To me, his path also shows that he got into politics for the right reasons.
rf Wed 25 Apr 9:23 PM
Richardson is my second choice
Because of my disappointment with Edwards, Richardson has become my # 2 choice in the field. Of the viable candidates, my current order of preference is: Obama, Richardson, Edwards, Hillary. If Gore got in, he would probably be between Richardson & Edwards.
rf Wed 25 Apr 9:43 PM
I think Richardson is a lot of people's second choice
Also, I think his campaign didn’t get a staff in place as early as the others, which probably explains why they didn’t get back to you right away.
As we know, being the second choice for a lot of people can really help on caucus night.
desmoinesdem Wed 25 Apr 10:12 PM
to get this out of my system
Ok, since I got going, I should finish piling things on Edwards. His 2002 vote on the war also makes me question his judgment. We all knew most of the “yes” votes by D’s in 2002 were politically calculating. I would rather go with the candidate who made the right call in 2002, not 2005. Obama’s 2002 prediction about the war was incredibly accurate.
rf Wed 25 Apr 9:03 AM
re: Edwards and the war
I am curious as to why you supported Edwards in 2004 over the two candidates who were against the war (Kucinich and Dean).
For the record, I also disagreed with that vote on the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. It wasn’t a deal-breaker for me before (I volunteered for Kerry) and it isn’t a deal-breaker for me now.
From what I have read, there was an alternative Senate resolution to the one authorizing force in Iraq. Daschle was one of the co-sponsors. The alternative bill would have been worse, because it authorized the use of force in “the region” rather than specifying Iraq. If that bill had passed, Bush would probably have already taken us into Syria, and perhaps Iran.
desmoinesdem Wed 25 Apr 12:53 PM
candidates & war
In 2004, I did not think Kucinich was viable and I didn’t find Dean likeable as a person. Dean was also the angry candidate. I strongly feel that this nation likes to elect positive, forward-looking candidates (Reagan, Clinton, even W). Iraq was not a deal-breaker for me in 2004, and it still isn’t. But I do think it is an important issue and the candidates’ history on the issue gives me some idea about the soundness of their judgment.
rf Wed 25 Apr 2:21 PM
there is something Reaganesque about Obama
I’ll grant you that. He talks, he makes people feel good. I think that’s a large part of his appeal.
desmoinesdem Wed 25 Apr 2:40 PM
I think this goes along with your Reaganesque comment
From Clive Crook’s column in the Financial Times:
“Mr Obama does not need detailed domestic policies to get elected. As president, he would need them even less. He must demonstrate good sense and calm judgment, a flair for leadership and moral purpose. Easy familiarity with the issues would be a bonus. Those are the makings of a president and he has them all. If he knows what he is doing, and he gives every sign that he does, he will leave the policy blueprints to Mrs Clinton and concentrate on what he does best: being liked. That way, his chances of not being elected will continue to shrink. He can decide what to do with the office when he has it.”
The whole interesting column at http://www.ft.com/cm… – As shallow as it may seem, I think the guy is right about U.S. presidency.
rf Thu 26 Apr 1:04 PM