The Republican Iowa caucus results will be the big news story of January 3, but away from the spotlight, some Democrats who are dissatisfied with President Barack Obama’s leadership are seeking to elect uncommitted delegates at their own precinct caucuses. Political junkies who are following that story will be pleased to know that the Iowa Democratic Party has promised to release precinct-level delegate counts on caucus night.
It’s the least the party can do, given how the deck will be stacked against Democrats planning to caucus uncommitted.
I sought comment on this matter because the domain the Iowa Democratic Party created to report the January 2008 results, IowaCaucusResults.com, is now an online casino website. That made me wonder whether the party will make this year’s results available to the public.
IDP Communications Director Sam Roecker told me today that the party “will be releasing delegate counts on caucus night. However, we have not finalized plans on how that will be done.” In 2008, it was easy to find out exactly how many delegates each Democratic presidential candidate received from each Iowa precinct. The results this year should be just as transparent, even though the overwhelming majority of delegates will obviously go for Obama.
Democrats trying to elect uncommitted delegates face long odds. The action is on the Republican side, and some Democrats prefer to send a message by caucusing for Ron Paul or Jon Huntsman. Also, the process can be time-consuming; Democrats have to drive further to their caucuses this year, because many precincts have been consolidated in large venues. Most important, people who are not thrilled with the Obama administration may be reluctant to stand up and criticize the president in a room full of Democrats.
For weeks, the president’s re-election campaign has been urging supporters to “commit to caucus.” That organizing may keep uncommitted caucus-goers below the 15 percent viability threshold in many precincts.
To entice the president’s biggest fans to show up on January 3, the Obama for America campaign announced this week that the president will deliver a spin job inspire volunteers via a live video feed at the precinct caucuses. From Iowa Democratic Party Chair Sue Dvorsky’s comment on that news:
“Four years ago Iowans launched President Obama on the path to the White House by standing by him at the Iowa Democratic caucuses. On January 3rd, 2012, Iowans will start the path to his reelection and Democratic victories at all levels. We could not be more excited to welcome his participation in our caucuses.
Speak for yourself, Ms. Dvorsky. I’m not thrilled to learn about a speech that will likely inhibit Democrats from voicing their concerns about the current administration.
The caucuses will be called to order at 7:00 pm on January 3. The president’s live video feed is scheduled to begin at 7:10. After Obama’s speech (which will inspire prolonged, stormy applause from loyalists), representatives of other preference groups will have a chance to speak.
I believe the president’s pep talk will intimidate some people who might otherwise speak up for (or at least be open to) caucusing uncommitted. Remember, Iowa Democrats don’t have secret ballots at their caucuses. People who want to send a message to the president will literally have to stand in another part of the room in front of their friends and neighbors.
Mitchell Schmidt reported for the Iowa City Press-Citizen,
Some Democrats argue the statewide broadcast gives Obama an unfair advantage over the party’s other delegates planning to run non-committed during the caucus.
Jeff Cox, University of Iowa history professor and member of the UI Faculty Senate, said he feels the broadcast diminishes the democratic process of the caucus.
“I think the steps that they’re taking now have made it more like a campaign rally than a decision making process,” Cox said, adding that the broadcast might even raise questions on the state’s caucus process, which already has come under fire in the past for not allowing absentee ballots or soldiers overseas to vote. […]
Cox, and the majority of more than 25 Johnson County residents who attended a caucus training meeting last week hosted by the Iowa Healthcare Not Warfare Caucus Campaign, said they find the pro-Obama broadcast to be concerning.
“This is supposed to be a Democratic Party caucus, not a President Obama caucus,” Cox said.
The same article quotes the IDP’s Roecker as saying the caucuses are “really more of an organizational opportunity for us,” and that “there’s an opportunity for everyone’s voice to be heard […].” But the party isn’t creating an atmosphere that validates all Democratic views about the president’s record.
I have no idea how many precincts will elect an uncommitted delegate, but I look forward to viewing the results and reporting them to Bleeding Heartland readers.
Share any relevant thoughts in this thread.
21 Comments
as noted
in the P-C article I was on hand for the Healthcare Not Warfare meeting to discuss rules. A couple more senior party leaders and elected folks had hoped to join me and extend an open invitation. Unfortunately our county party secretary Carl Fongheiser passed away and his funeral was at the same time.
But back to my point: of the two dozen people on hand, at least half were crossing over for Ron Paul. And my guess is that increases with Paul’s polls.
Carter got challenged. Johnson got challenged all the way out of office. Yet despite dissatisfaction on some issues – hey, I wanted single payer and the troops home sooner, too – the reality is that internal dissent within the Democratic Party was not at a strong enough level to sustain a primary challenge.
jdeeth Wed 21 Dec 11:43 PM
caucusing uncommitted
is not the same as trying to elect delegates for a primary challenger, with the goal of driving Obama out of the race. For me it’s a way of expressing that the president has failed to show commitment to fundamental values the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for.
I agree that the number of Democrats planning to caucus for Ron Paul will make it more difficult to elect uncommitted delegates. But I’ve talked to a lot of disappointed/disillusioned Democrats, including some who caucused for Obama four years ago.
desmoinesdem Thu 22 Dec 8:16 AM
this riff
Yet despite dissatisfaction on some issues – hey, I wanted single payer and the troops home sooner, too – the reality is that internal dissent within the Democratic Party was not at a strong enough level to sustain a primary challenge.
is getting old. Fact is, the level of dissatisfaction is quite high, and it’s only in part due to the hackneyed “pet issue” accusation. Did you enjoy the 2010 election results? How about those rock solid seats that went red? You can be a loyal foot soldier for party leadership, but results like 2010 indicate a crisis in leadership to others who are not inclined to march in lockstep.
Leadership starts at the top. People are openly questioning a coalition that emphasizes demographics, or attributes, instead of coherent policy that unites the party. The white liberals/minorities that Obama is focusing on works only (maybe) for Obama. What is he going to leave behind? It’s so unstable that Ron Paul — the candidate who calls the Civil Rights Act and the ADA “government overreach” that has infringed on the rights of property owners — is able to coopt, well, chunks of the white Obama base — the students and the Democrats.
Needless to say, some have already commented that giving Paul a pass on these attitudes and buying into his “I didn’t know” excuse-making on the newsletters while “sending a message” to Obama is a classic double-standard. I agree. But the root of the problem is that the demographic groups Obama has cobbled together do not have aligned interests. And the fact of the matter is that the lack of a credible primary challenge is not about low levels of dissatisfaction, but the understanding that pulling the trigger means blowing up the Democratic party.
Democrats do not win statehouse races in the Deep South without relying on the black vote. 58% of GA’s Dem primary voters in 2010 were black voters. In the Mid-Atlantic, you don’t win statewide races without the black vote. MD’s Dem party is 40% black. Rust Belt. New York. Missouri. Ohio. Even in IA, if a handful of black voters had remained home in 2010, hello Congressman Lange.
Post-Obama, esp with his blowing off the white working-class, you’re looking at 2010 Iowa results. White liberals rushing to the polls — oooooh, the election is sooooo important — while minorities, students, foreign-born stay home with blue precincts going red. And they don’t give a crap about party whips like you. Why are you mocking people who don’t participate unquestioningly in farces? Perhaps it’s because you know that only one group controls the entire process while deciding what will be “heard.” I doubt that the uncommitted campaign will gain much steam, but that’s due to lack of transparency. If OFA truly believed as you do, then there’d be no piped-in Dear Leader campaigning and no need to hide the apportionment, right?
Why are Marion County Democrats warning that precinct caucus leaders need to be prepared to “handle” participants who support “uncommitted” as an option? What is there to “handle?” Seems to me that if intensity levels are so low, there’s nothing to handle.
Professional Democrats are coming across as minders, whips and bullies. Perhaps they’ll be happy if the people they alienate stay home in November. The walls don’t come crashing down if “uncommitted” earns delegates. It just means open-minded and waiting for a stronger commitment … from the Democratic party.
albert Thu 22 Dec 5:58 PM
well, have fun then
I don’t see how it accomplishes anything other than making the participants feel more Pure abut themselves, but I have more respect for that approach than either a) meddling in the other party’s contest b) opting out at a bogus “People’s Caucus” event or c) screaming at people.
jdeeth Thu 22 Dec 8:56 AM
you have developed
quite a flair for hippie-punching. It doesn’t suit you.
desmoinesdem Thu 22 Dec 4:47 PM
Hippies do suck
I don’t think I quite agree with Albert’s assessment that Obama’s lack of principle has triggered Ron Paul’s rise. The batshit crazy people actually decided to be batshit crazy for real this time, that’s all.
To that point, I don’t see how Paul wins South Carolina (military vote), Florida (Jewish vote), Michigan or Nevada (both Romney heavy states) I can see Gingrich and possibly one other competitor challenging Romney for votes in those states though.
moderateiadem Thu 22 Dec 7:16 PM
are you kidding me?
every progressive type supporting Ron Paul cites wars and interventionism. Do you not remember how Obama caught fire in Iowa?
Students were very much Obama’s base. Ron Paul is drawing huge crowds of students now, beyond his 2008 following.
The issue isn’t whether RP can win. It’s that relying on demographics while following contradictory or inconsistent policy isn’t a plan, and many Democrats are less than enthusiastic.
albert Thu 22 Dec 7:43 PM
You're right
I guess I was considering my own vote for Obama in the general. I would not have supported him in a general if I truly thought he was in the mold of Ron Paul in foreign policy I may have skipped that race on my ballot.
I guess I’m not much for idealism….sick of it really.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on hippies dmd, LOL.
moderateiadem Thu 22 Dec 10:03 PM
another example
Ron Paul favors drug law decriminalization. Obama pandered to voters for whom this is a top issue during primary ’08 — it’s one of the issues that made him popular w/ younger voters. This was the subject of his “raised my hand by accident” excuse when he came out against marijuana decriminalization during a debate but then claimed he only did so by mistake.
Today:
albert Fri 23 Dec 8:28 AM
Dodd
Chris Dodd, the candidate who I supported in the 2008 caucuses actually came out in favor of decriminalizing weed. I supported him because of the basic framework of the FMLA and Dodd was also underrated when it came to foreign policy.
You mentioned the pot thing before correctly. I guess I just don’t get it. I don’t put pot or cutting military spending at the top of my list. I am a Democrat mostly because of my protectionist views on trade.
moderateiadem Fri 23 Dec 12:34 PM
hippies don't suck
but more to the point, hippies are far from the only Democratic-leaning group that’s dissatisfied with Obama.
desmoinesdem Thu 22 Dec 7:51 PM
if I'm a Democrat
considering caucusing for Ron Paul, this message could be very persuasive:
Note: this web video was produced by Paul supporters, not the campaign itself, but it skillfully presents his message.
Supposedly 300 people showed up for Paul’s event in Cedar Rapids today.
desmoinesdem Thu 22 Dec 8:35 PM
Creativity
It looks like we should concede that the creative advantage has moved to Ron Paul from Obama. I don’t want to caucus for a candidate who would abolish the EPA, but . . .
iowavoter Thu 22 Dec 9:07 PM
Hippies are just fine
You shoulda seen my shoulder length hair from my grad school days. No, my objection is to screaming as a political tactic, whether it’s tea partiers or occupiers.
Uncommitted caucusing? Fine by me, though I don’t see it as being effective.
Crossover caucusing? People have the right but IMHO if you’re not prepared to support the outcome you shouldn’t participate in the process. (My pet peeve with that is more local than national)
jdeeth Wed 28 Dec 12:55 PM
this post is missing information
How many county convention delegates will you be electing at your precinct? In your county?
The precinct-level apportionment was released months in advance in 2008. Where is it now? Why is it so difficult to find?
I have to assume it’s a lack of transparency to make it difficult for preference groups not named Obama to assess precincts where conditions may be favorable to electing their slate.
In the absence of a link to a doc w/ the precinct breakdown, the total number of county convention delegates across the state (one number) and the nr of precincts (same as last election?) will suffice to allow calculation based on the ’08-’10 election cycles.
albert Thu 22 Dec 12:09 PM
Caucuses are hard
I don’t think there is any funny business going on here – it’s just a lot of work to put on a caucus. Unless there is a lot riding on the results, it would be foolish for the party to spend tons of money on it.
drew-miller Fri 23 Dec 8:54 PM
how expensive could it be
to post the number of county delegates to be elected from each precinct and the number of state convention delegates to be elected from each county?
I think they are preparing to discredit people like me as “infiltrators” or Occupy demonstrators bent on “disrupting” the process.
desmoinesdem Fri 23 Dec 9:16 PM
Its not
Its not hard to run a Caucus. Was 18 when I chaired my first one. I have chaired 7 presidential caucuses and 6 off year ones. This year I won’t be as in 2008 someone volunteered to be a committeman. I didn’t ask for a second. I just said nominations cease and handed the gavel.
keith-nichols Fri 23 Dec 9:26 PM
it would be fun
if you were still precinct chair and caucused uncommitted. Actually, I know a precinct chair (not my precinct) who is seriously thinking about doing that, but my guess is she will end up staying with Obama.
desmoinesdem Sat 24 Dec 10:15 AM
It would be alot of fun
If I was still a precenct chair I would raise alot of hell and caucus Uncomitted. I love to stand and rock the boat. I am not happy with Obama and would love to send a message to the white house/dnc. Obama has turned his back on the democratic wing of the democratic party.
keith-nichols Sun 25 Dec 12:19 AM
No
Caucuses are hard
Dancing is hard. Caucusing is easy.
Seriously, why the spin? So, no delegate apportionment? Precincts will just decide on their own how many county convention delegates to send? Of course not. This is the first thing that gets done.
I have visited at least 40 county-level Dem party sites, and not a one offers number of delegates elected/precinct — just the rounding up of bodies and herding them to the correct location. The impression this conveys is that caucusers don’t need to know since the slates are already chosen and de facto elected.
For the 2008 caucus, the pdf “2008 Delegate Apportionment” was available well in advance of the caucus. It’s a 111-pg dump of a spreadsheet that assigns 13,485 county delegates in pdf format. Producing this pdf is not a difficult, time-consuming or expensive action.
I will post best estimate of the apportionment. There isn’t much leeway in bumping up 1-del precincts without spewing delegates in Polk. The % of state delegates/county is fixed by ’08-’10 turnout. Perhaps the IDP will confirm or deny.
Unless there is a lot riding on the results
Apparently there is — if you’re OFA/IDP.
albert Sat 24 Dec 2:42 AM