It’s the day after Christmas, and hundreds or perhaps thousands of Democrats from all over the country will soon travel to Iowa to volunteer for their favorite presidential candidate.

I know we are supposed to laugh at the “fish out of water” trying to persuade Iowa caucus-goers, but I appreciate the level of commitment these people show by coming here and walking the walk.

Gordon Fischer linked to this article from the New York Observer: Hillary Bundlers Canvass, Humbly, in Iowa. He titled his post, “Future Presidential Candidates Take Note: How NOT To Run An Iowa Campaign.”

I admit that I laughed a few times when I read the article, but mostly I give these rich New Yorkers a lot of credit. They’re wealthy enough to pay other people to do everything for them, but here they were on a cold day in December, walking the streets of Ames to encourage Iowans to caucus for their personal friend, Hillary Clinton.

I like reading diaries by out-of-state volunteers, no matter which candidate they are supporting. So if you are visiting Iowa to help out with a campaign, consider putting up a diary like this one by icebergslim or this one by clarkent to tell us about your experiences.

If you’re in the Des Moines area and need restaurant recommendations, e-mail me at desmoinesdem AT yahoo.com. We have a lot of good options!

I’ve always been skeptical that the deal between Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards was a big factor in 2004. A lot of Kucinich supporters did go to Edwards where Dennis was not viable, but a lot went to Howard Dean despite the deal.

The Dick Gephardt supporters who flowed to Edwards as a second choice were much more numerous, and they overwhelmingly chose Edwards in the absence of any formal deal between the candidates.

I see a lot of speculation on the blogs about Bill Richardson instructing his supporters to choose Hillary Clinton if he is not viable. I don’t expect him to make that kind of announcement, and even if he did, I don’t expect that most of his supporters would move that way.

The little deals that precinct captains all over the state will make could be important, especially if Clinton’s captains try to deprive Barack Obama of delegates and vice versa.

But I don’t expect any kind of public instruction from the Democratic candidates about whom their supporters should back as a second choice.

What do you think?

CBS reporter Chip Reid is “embedded” with John Edwards’ campaign and posted this on the CBS blog:

I’m a bit unhappy with John Edwards. I’ve been covering his campaign for 10 days and he hasn’t made a lot of news. Let’s face it – a lot of what political reporters report on is mistakes. The campaign trail is one long minefield, covered with Iowa cow pies, and when they step in one – we leap.

I’ve done very little leaping – and I blame Edwards. While other candidates misspeak, over-speak, and double-speak, Edwards (at least in these 10 days) has made so few mistakes that I end up being transported — newsless — from town to town like a sack of Iowa corn .

He has a remarkable ability to stay on message. Not just in “the speech,” but even in Q and A. Nothing throws him off. He turns nearly every question into another opportunity to repeat his central theme. Global warming? We need to fight big oil. Health care? Fight the big drug and insurance companies. Iowa farmers’ problems? Blame those monster farm conglomerates. And the Iowa populists eat it up. We’ll see how well it works in other states.

He’s even disciplined in his daily routine. While most reporters use the campaign trail as an excuse to over-eat and abandon their exercise routines, Edwards squeezes in a run EVERY DAY, rain, sleet, or shine.

Come on John – relax. Step in an Iowa cow pie and let me do my job.

Like my grandmother used to say, many a truth is told in a joke. Reid is half-joking, but the truth is that journalists would much prefer to cover a gaffe than report on a non-eventful day on the stump.

Here’s an idea: how about coming up with story ideas on your own, rather than waiting for the candidates to slip up?

Reid could tell us what the crowds are like at the Edwards events he covers. How many people are showing up? What’s the average age? More women or men? Are the people at these rallies mostly committed Edwards supporters, or are there significant numbers of undecided voters?

Alternatively, he could spend some time analyzing an issue Edwards brings up in his stump speech. How does that issue relate to the lives of Iowans in town X where Edwards is speaking? How does Edwards’ approach to that issue compare to what other candidates propose?

On any given day, Daily Kos users post numerous substantive diaries about the various presidential candidates. Some are about candidates’ stand on important issues, and some are about campaign strategy.

While Reid complains that Edwards isn’t giving him anything to write about, the Edwards Evening News Roundups are packed with information every day.

If these citizen journalists can come up with something interesting to write about, why is a CBS reporter sitting around waiting for a candidate to make a mistake?

“Gotcha” journalism does not serve voters well. Reporters following the campaigns need to figure out a better way to do their jobs.

I don’t read the Washington Times, but MyDD user Piuma noticed a piece there about El Latino, Iowa’s largest Spanish-language newspaper, endorsing Barack Obama. Here is a link to Piuma’s diary.

The El Latino editorial includes this line, which appears to be aimed at Hillary Clinton:

No other presidential candidate, particularly divisive candidates, can unite Congress and secure the votes to finally pass comprehensive immigration reform.

(I would add that it’s a fantasy to think that any presidential candidate will be able to unite Congress on any controversial issue, but that’s a matter for another post.)

In the comments below the diary, Piuma notes:

The Obama campaign has made an outreach to the Latino community and he is endorsed by Perla A., the Vice-President of Siouxland Unidad Latina, the area’s oldest and largest Latino organization, as well as City Councilmember Sara Monroy Huddleston, one of four Latino elected officials in Iowa.  This may be one of the many surprise groups Obama will turn out who have been ignored by polling.

Obama has several field offices in Iowa towns with significant Latino populations.

I have felt all year that Obama is the candidate who would benefit most from a primary rather than a caucus, because his support appears to be more concentrated in some parts of the state. However if his campaign can turn out large numbers of Latino supporters, then he could get a significant number of delegates in towns and neighborhoods where there are a lot of Latino residents.

This newspaper endorsement is a good get for Obama and has to be disappointing for Bill Richardson.

I have seen national polling suggesting that Hillary Clinton has much more support among Latinos than Obama does. Jerome Armstrong recently argued that Obama would fare poorly against John McCain among Latino voters. It will be interesting to see if Obama can win strong support among Latinos in Iowa. If so, that could help him in several of the states that will hold primaries on February 5.

It’s obvious from the recent polling in Iowa that the top three candidates are bunched closely together. The ground game will decide the outcome on January 3.

Jerome Armstrong, founder of MyDD and “blogfather” of Daily Kos, came up with this prediction about how turnout will influence the Democratic results:

Turnout numbers        Favors

<150,000               Edwards

150-170,000            Clinton

>170,000               Obama

Basically, if it’s all the tried and true 2004 caucus goers, plus another 25% or so, that Edwards has the advantage. If it winds up being a blown out caucus that has greater than 50,000 more attendees than 2004 (most of the polls are working off this assumption), then Obama wins. If it’s somewhere in the middle, bigger than what would be usual but less than what’s being projected in the polls, then it’s basically going to be something like this poll.

Although many speculate that a record turnout would favor Obama and Clinton, I am hoping for good weather and a strong turnout on January 3. I don’t want an Edwards victory to be spun away as the result of a snowstorm.

I highly doubt turnout will exceed 150,000, though. Many regular caucus-goers will miss the caucuses this year because they’d already made vacation plans and will be out of state on January 3.

What do you think about Jerome’s prediction? And how do you think an unusually high or low turnout would affect the Republican results? I have to believe that Huckabee’s ground troops will turn out for him no matter what the weather.

I’m tired of reading comments like this piece by Des Moines Register columnist John Carlson. Look how he mocks staffers for presidential candidates, who are just doing their jobs:

Campaign staffers, invariably Democrats, call my house every night. I haven’t a clue why they’re calling me. I’m registered independent. I’ve never caucused for a candidate in either party.

Typical conversation:

Do you have any questions about the caucuses?

Not really.

Am I going to caucus?

I dunno, I doubt it.

Do I have any questions about their candidate?

No.

If I did attend a caucus, would I consider their candidate?

I give them an audible shrug. Maybe.

They want to make the sale, but not push too hard. I say nothing more and they take the hint, thank me and hang up.

The truth is, newspaper policy prohibits me from caucusing. I just want to hear what they have to say, and for a while I egged them on.

Look, why doesn’t he just tell them he can’t caucus because of his job at the Register? Why is he making fun of people for calling him, even though he’s a registered independent who hasn’t caucused? Aren’t we supposed to want more participation in the caucuses, so the results have more legitimacy?

I’m also tired of letters to the editor like these ones recently published in the Register.

One letter complains about the frequent phone calls asking their opinions about the race. What’s wrong with polling firms trying to assess the state of the race here? What’s wrong with campaigns trying to identify their supporters?

Two letters complain about political ads on tv. At our house we usually keep the tv turned off, so this isn’t a problem for us. But are the political ads really more offensive than the ads for all kinds of other products viewers are bombarded with every day of the year?

One letter complains about a robocall for Obama by the lady who scuplts the butter cows at the Iowa State Fair. If his campaign thinks people will be influenced by her opinion, what’s wrong with them putting it out there?

One letter complains about the 80-page policy book the Edwards campaign has mailed to some Iowans. Why criticize him for trying to inform potential caucus-goers about more details on policy matters than newspapers have provided? Why blame him for giving Iowans more substance than can fit into a 30-second tv ad? A lot of people I know were glad to get that book in the mail or from a canvasser.

I’m tired of comments like this one that user JSN recently posted at the political blog MyDD:

Evidently 40% of those polled hang up (I am one of them) and we are getting called frequently. Under those circumstances all you can do is average as many polls as possible and hope for the best.

Early on I was called four times in one day. I have friends who have been called twice in a day. In the past week my wife and I have been called five times. In addition we get a giant post card a day from Edwards (after the third card he moved from second choice to 13th).

A long time ago in a galaxy far away it used to be fun to caucus in Iowa. It has not been fun for quite  awhile. We are all looking foreword to Jan 4th when all of the candidates, campaign staff and reporters leave Iowa.

Well, speak for yourself, JSN. Would you rather live in a state that had no influence on the process? Millions of Americans would love to be able to participate in selecting our president. My husband grew up in New Jersey, where the late primary meant they never got any candidate visits until the whole thing was wrapped up.

I don’t mind answering a few pollsters’ questions, and I don’t mind getting some knocks at the door from people trying to engage me in the process.

I also find it fun to meet my Democratic neighbors at the caucuses, even though I have criticized the caucus system in some of my diaries about the process.

As a precinct captain, one question I struggle with is how many times can I contact an undecided caucus-goer without making them angry and therefore less likely to support my candidate. I was struck by this part of a recent article by Roger Simon:

John Norris, who was Kerry’s Iowa director in 2004 and is now an Obama volunteer, thinks any campaigning that matters will end about Dec. 20, which is why the ground game is reaching a fever pitch right now.

Norris talks about a woman who supported Edwards in 2004 but who is now supporting Obama. Why?

“Because an Edwards volunteer only knocked on her door once and we knocked on her door several times,” Norris says.

I have huge respect for John Norris. As a precinct captain for Kerry, I remember how he held that campaign together during the fall of 2003, in the face of so many bad opinion polls.

But I would be afraid to knock on any particular voter’s door too many times, even if I had unlimited time for voter contacts in my precinct. It seems more likely than not that people would start griping about the Edwards precinct captain who kept bothering them.

Upon hearing that the Obama campaign is calling known supporters every three weeks to check on them, Nate Willems, who was a regional director for Howard Dean in Iowa, had this to say:

A late 2003 Dean focus group produced the comment from a participant, “I’d give anything for those Dean people to just quit calling me.”

I find it sad that Iowans, who are privileged to lead the nation in selecting a president, can be so quick to criticize people who are just trying to drum up support for a candidate they believe in.

I appreciate the efforts of all the candidates’ volunteers and staffers. So what if I get a few extra phone calls? It will be over soon enough on January 4.

As we’ve noted, Hillary Clinton received the endorsement of the Des Moines Register over the weekend, and Congressman Leonard Boswell backed her last week.

The Des Moines Register reported on Monday that Congressman Dave Loebsack will endorse Barack Obama:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

“We’re incredibly fortunate this year to have this field of candidates,” Loebsack said in a telephone interview. “There is one candidate who stands out and that’s why I’m backing Obama.

[…]

“I think we’ve got to have a leader who can bring all Americans together for a single purpose,” said Loebsack.

Congressman Bruce Braley recently endorsed John Edwards, and now he has been joined by Iowa’s first lady, Mari Culver:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

“I think John is a winner. He’s electable,” she said. “He’s been tested. He’s been on the national ticket before. The national polls show him beating all Republicans in the general elections. He inspires me. I think he inspires other Iowans, and I think he can really rally Americans in the fall.”

In that article, Mari Culver confirms that Governor Culver does not plan to endorse a candidate. Senator Tom Harkin has also said he doesn’t plan to endorse this time (his wife, Ruth Harkin, has campaigned for Hillary).

Anyone else know of any possible endorsements coming down the pike? How about the other major newspapers in Iowa?

They are revealing.

Looking at this piece by the editorial page editor, Carol Hunter, you can see that even they feel a little guilty that they didn’t endorse Biden:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Also, this piece on “rating the other candidates” has some fascinating passages:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

It’s clear that they almost went with Biden:

Even in our last major round of deliberations, we kept coming back to the question, “Why not Joe Biden?”

Many of the arguments we have made on behalf of the tested leadership of Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain apply to Biden as well. He knows how to get legislation passed. He, too, has deep foreign-policy expertise. We’re inspired by his fierce defense of civil liberties. His work on legislation to combat domestic violence has no doubt prevented injuries and saved lives. He might, indeed, make a good president.

But spending virtually his entire adult life in the Senate also makes his experience somewhat narrower than that of some other candidates. And in making sometimes slim distinctions in this talented bunch, we see his well-known loquaciousness as a weakness. It reflects a certain lack of discipline, and it’s gotten him into trouble on occasion with ill-considered remarks related to race. (We do, however, wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment expressed uniformly by his campaign rivals that his heart is in the right place.)

It’s also clear that they don’t disagree with Edwards on anything of substance:

We still believe he’s right about two Americas, the one for people who have everything they need and the one for people who struggle to get by. He’s right about the stagnation of middle-class wages. He’s right that the tax system and overall economic policy have become too tilted toward the affluent, making it virtually impossible for poor and middle-class families to get ahead.

He’s right that the baby-boomer generation risks breaking the “one moral commandment” of Americans: “To give our children a better future than we received.”

Edwards is most persuasive when he appeals to America’s goodness to do better by the vulnerable among us, as he did in last week’s Register Democratic debate:

“…Somewhere in America tonight, a child will go to bed hungry. Somewhere in America tonight, a family will have to go to the emergency room and beg for health care for a sick child. …Somewhere in America today, a father who’s worked for 30 or 40 years to support his family will lose his job. That’s what’s at stake in this election. What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine, no matter what happens in this election. What’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.”

Edwards has set the ambitious goal of eliminating poverty in a generation. He’s developed creative proposals to help families save and make college more affordable. (Other Democrats have outlined similar plans.) Edwards or whoever is the party’s standard-bearer should work to take those plans to the White House.

The question on Edwards is whether a self-described fighter for change, who wants to “cast aside the bankrupt ways of Washington,” can get results in Washington. For someone trying to reunite the two Americas, would he be too divisive a figure?

This part of their analysis on Barack Obama also tells you a lot about the people on the Register editorial board:

One board member described the case for Obama in the Clinton vs. Obama discussion as a bank shot versus a straight shot in pool. Success is less certain with a bank shot, but the gamble (in this case for a more cohesive, hopeful country) might be worth it.

Another veteran editorial writer described the choice as similar to picking Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a calculating but masterful politician at maneuvering needed legislation through Congress, versus John F. Kennedy, whose youthful vigor inspired the nation to take on new challenges. That’s not a bad choice.

This endorsement shows how risk-averse the Register editors are. They were worried about a few gaffes Biden has made (as if Clinton doesn’t have 10 times as much baggage). They didn’t want someone who would antagonize corporate interests like Edwards, even though they can’t point to anything he’s wrong about. And they think Obama would be too big of a gamble.

They also fondly remember FDR for his “calculating” skills at maneuvering legislation through Congress.

Although I don’t doubt FDR’s talents in this area, I think of him first and foremost as someone who had tremendous vision. He didn’t shy away from proposing huge changes to deal with the crises of the day, even if they were a gamble, and even if they risked upsetting the powerful corporate interests of his day.

Also, FDR was a very combative and partisan president. He did his best to pin every economic failure onto the Republican Party, and his presidency succeeded in realigning American voters for a generation.

That’s very different from the Register’s praise of Hillary’s legislative skills in reaching across the aisle.

Just wanted to bring this piece to your attention.

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

When I talk to friends or family from other parts of the country, they always want to know how I think the candidates are doing in Iowa.

This diary is about why that’s a tough question to answer.

First, I’ll discuss why opinion polls can’t necessarily tell us who would win the caucuses if they were held tonight.

Then I’ll explain why it can even be difficult for active volunteers to gauge who is ahead in their own neighborhoods.

Finally, I will go over the unscientific methods we foot-soldiers in Iowa use to figure out where our candidates stand.

Before you analyze another Iowa poll, read this post by Mark Blumenthal about his efforts to obtain more information from pollsters about their likely voter screens and the demographic makeup of their respondents in Iowa. (Hat tip to DemFromCT.) Blumenthal notes:

So why did we go to all this trouble? As should be obvious now, the differences in the way pollsters measure “likely caucus goers” in Iowa are huge, not just in how narrowly they define the electorate but in the kinds of voters pollsters select as “likely caucus goers.” But these issues are not unique to Iowa. In 2004, 21 states held Democratic primary elections with single digit turnouts (as a percentage of adults), and only New Hampshire had a turnout that topped 20%. Over the next year months, results from hundreds of polls will be released, polls that will set expectations and drive media coverage, and yet those of us that consume the data will know very little about how tightly the pollsters screen and the kinds of voters they select. If we want to be educated poll consumers, we are going to need to do something to change that. We need to push toward greater routine disclosure of methodological details.

Really, everyone, click the link and read the whole thing. Thanks to Blumenthal of pollster.com for embarking on his “Disclosure Project.”  

The Edwards campaign announced today that they have opened 10 new field offices in Iowa in recent weeks. I have updated my diary on Where the Iowa field offices are accordingly.

As of today, 42 Iowa counties have at least one field office for a Democratic presidential candidate. The current tally of Iowa field offices is:

Barack Obama 37 (includes two in Des Moines)

Hillary Clinton 34 (includes two in Dubuque and two in Cedar Rapids)

John Edwards 25

Bill Richardson 16

Chris Dodd 13

Joe Biden 9 (with possibly two more to be added)

Click the link if you want more detailed information.

Obama supporter “worldtrippers” put up this fun diary at Daily Kos yesterday comparing the top three candidates’ caucus-training videos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Click the link to read the diary and view all three videos, which are embedded there.

What do you think? Do you agree with worldtrippers’ analysis?

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

I decided to write this diary when I learned that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each have more than 30 field offices in Iowa.

After January 3, we will see whether campaigns with the most field offices did better in the counties where rivals had field organizers and volunteers working without the visibility of an office.

More information than you probably wanted to know is after the jump.

I have listed the counties in descending order, based on the number of state delegates they will assign on the Democratic side. I took the numbers from this post by Drew Miller, who calculated how many state delegates each Iowa county would contribute to the 2,500 total. [UPDATE: I corrected the delegate totals for a few counties after hearing from Drew Miller.]

I also give the 2004 caucus results for each county. Those numbers come from this table on the Des Moines Register’s website. The results reflect the percentage of county delegates assigned to the various presidential candidates (not the percentage of raw votes each one received in the county).  

John Deeth posted an update on legislative endorsements, along with a helpful chart showing which candidates Iowa Democratic legislators endorsed in 2004, and which counties the legislators represent.

The latest tally is Clinton 19, Obama 18, Biden 14, Edwards 10, Dodd 3 and Richardson 1. 

Deeth's chart also shows who has yet to endorse, and who those legislators backed (if anyone) four years ago. 

I listened to most of the NPR debate this afternoon. Although I am usually more interested in hearing the candidates debate domestic policy, I thought it was good for NPR to go in depth on a few foreign-policy issues. The questions were solid and substantive, and the candidates had to go beyond their usual sound-bite answers on Iran, China and immigration policy.

It’s too bad Richardson couldn’t make it because of a funeral he was attending, because the format probably would have suited him. I have heard him answer questions on immigration, and he makes a strong case on that issue.

I thought Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd all did pretty well.

If you listened to the debate, what did you think?

Mark Halperin’s post-debate scorecard is here:

http://thepage.time.com/excerp…

Almost every day there’s a new Iowa poll released, and I haven’t been able to keep up with them all. If you are a poll junkie, I recommend checking MyDD and Open Left frequently, because the front-pagers and diarists there never miss a chance to analyze a new Iowa poll.

Several polls released during the last week, including the latest from the Des Moines Register, show the top three candidates bunched closely together (typically within the margin of error), with Obama leading, Clinton in second and Edwards in third place.

Obama supporters are triumphant to see him taking the lead in the Real Clear Politics five-poll averages for Iowa. However, there is good news for all of the top-tier candidates in these polls.

Obviously, Obama has to be happy with his overall lead in Iowa, which is small but has been found in several polls. His favorability rating seems high, and he seems to be tied with Hillary, or even leading a bit, among women.

A cautionary note for Obama is that he has blowout leads among voters under 35 (in the Des Moines Register poll, a 48-19-17 lead in this age group). Not only are younger voters historically less likely to caucus, they are also virtually absent from many precincts. We have very few residents under age 40 in my precinct, for instance.

Depending on the survey, it also seems that Obama is trailing Clinton and Edwards among rural and small-town voters, who punch above their weight when the state delegates are tallied. Obama would clearly be better off if Iowa had a primary.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has to be concerned that her overall support has slipped slightly, and she may no longer be leading Obama among women voters.

Most worrying for Clinton, several surveys have shown that she trails Edwards and Obama among second choices, and the Des Moines Register poll indicates that her unfavorable rating among Iowa Democrats is about 30 percent.

On the other hand, Clinton still seems to have a slight lead among older voters, and her support may be more evenly spread across the state than Obama’s. If she can bring out large numbers of new women voters, Iowa is still winnable for her. Remember that Obama has not yet faced much scrutiny in the media, but that will change now that he is leading in Iowa.

As an Edwards supporter, I am satisfied with the recent Iowa polls. He is within touch of the lead, and often leads among Iowans who have caucused before. The Des Moines Register poll assumes that one-third of caucus-goers on January 3 will have never caucused before, but I do not believe there will be that many newcomers.

Several polls indicate that Edwards leads among second choices as well, which could help him pick up as much as 5 to 10 percent on January 3.

I anticipate that on caucus night, the precinct captains for Clinton and Obama will be focused on keeping the main rival’s delegate count down, and will not be trying to undermine Edwards in the same way.

Richardson and Biden don’t seem to be surging or dropping considerably in Iowa. I still sense that both candidates have room to gain support as undecided voters make up their minds. Frankly, as an Edwards supporter I would like to see Richardson and Biden stay below the threshold in as many precincts as possible.

What do you think?

The Yepsenity of the day is causing a stir on the political blogs. Yepsen published this post about the so-called “Illinois caucus”:

Barack Obama’s campaign is telling Iowa college students they can caucus for him even if they aren’t from Iowa.

His campaign offers that advice in a brochure being distributed on college campuses in the state.  A spokesman said it’s legal and that 50,000 of the fliers are being distributed.

The brochure says: “If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood.”

Given that lots of students in Iowa’s colleges and universities are from Obama’s neighboring home state of Illinois, the effort could net him thousands of additional votes on caucus night.

[…]

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said “we have no intention of doing something here that is in any way illegal or that will raise questions about the credibility of the caucuses.”  He said election laws allow students to register and vote where they go to college and that means they can caucus in those precincts as well.

That’s fine but these are the Iowa caucuses.  Asking people who are “not from Iowa” to participate in them changes the nature of the event.

I think Yepsen is wrong and owes the Obama campaign an apology. Students from other states who attend colleges in Iowa can choose to vote either in their home states or in Iowa. That is well-established.

The Obama brochure is aimed at students attending schools in Iowa. It urges them to come “back” and caucus in their neighborhoods. Clearly they are not trying to bring in thousands of students who are neither from Iowa nor attending school in Iowa.

If the caucuses were on January 21 instead of January 3, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Many students from other states caucused in Iowa City, Ames, and other college towns in 2004. There is nothing unfair about that.

I would hope that all the campaigns are trying to identify college students supporting them and trying to encourage those students to come back to campus to caucus, if their home towns are outside Iowa.

Mike Allen picked up the story for Politico, quoting staffers for other campaigns who tried to imply that Obama is cheating:

A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign official said: “We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans.”

And a Clinton spokesman leveled a thinly-veiled accusation at Obama later in the day.

“We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state people,” Mo Elleithee said.

“We don’t have literature recruiting out-of-state college students. We didn’t bus in folks from out of state to the [Democratic party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner]. We didn’t bring in out-of-state activists to the Heartland Forum.”

In fact, Clinton is counting on the support of some out-of-state students attending Iowa universities. Sarah Sunderman of Iowa State University, who was announced in a news release as a leader of the “Hill Yea” Students Leaders for Hillary, told the Des Moines Register in October that “she will drive back early from her home in Minnesota to take part in the Jan. 3 caucuses.”

Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:

“I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign’s attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. … ‘New Politics’ shouldn’t be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa.”

I see no evidence Obama’s campaign is trying to get volunteers from other states to come here for a short time and then caucus on January 3.

Julie Andreeff Jensen worked on John Kerry’s campaign in Iowa before the last caucuses. She must be aware that there were college students from other states who caucused for Kerry.

Shame on the Clinton staffer who accused Obama of trying to “manipulate” the caucuses. It is totally legitimate to encourage your own supporters to come back to their college campuses for caucus night.

If Obama wins the caucuses, Hillary’s going to have to come up with a better excuse.

I'm going to have to catch the rerun later on C-SPAN. If you saw the candidates speak, let us know what you thought.

Noneed4thneed is posting his thoughts at Century of the Common Iowan:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.com/

UPDATE: If you’ve seen the Brown and Black forum, share your thoughts here as well.

cross-posted from MyDD and Daily Kos

I’ve noticed a meme developing in the blogosphere, that John Edwards supposedly is only attacking and not providing any positive message for his campaign. I encourage you not to confuse what you read on the blogs (reports by journalists obsessed with process stories or diaries based on a campaign press release) with what Iowans have been seeing and hearing from Edwards lately.

The weekend before Thanksgiving, volunteers hand-delivered the 80-page policy book containing details on Edwards’ proposals to thousands of Democratic households in Iowa.

Since late October, active Iowa Democrats have received direct-mail pieces from Edwards about once a week. I diaried the first two of these, about his biography and his most important policy proposals and about his plan for Iraq. Since then, he has sent out a mailer on health care, a Thanksgiving card, a piece on proposals to benefit American families and a piece on providing a better life for our children. At the bottom of this diary I will reproduce the text of one of these mailers, “Fighting for American Families.”

But before I do that, I want to talk about a theme underlying Edwards’ communications with Iowans, which I believe will resonate with caucus-goers.

More is after the jump.

Oprah will travel to Iowa to campaign for Barack Obama, and his campaign has come up with a counter-intuitive way of doling out tickets that is either brilliant or foolish:

In a news release announcing the events, Obama's campaign said tickets to the Iowa events will be given first to precinct captains, then campaign volunteers, then to supporters and undecided caucus-goers.

 

It said volunteers can be guaranteed a ticket by completing a four-hour volunteer shift or attending local caucus training before the event.

I would never have thought to do this. When a big event for John Edwards is planned, I try to get as many undecided voters from my precinct to attend as possible. I figure, it's more helpful to put undecided voters at an exciting event than it is to pack the room with supporters.

Obama's campaign seems to have calculated that if they can get hundreds of supporters to step up their involvement by becoming precinct captains or volunteering for at least four hours, that will eventually bring in more caucus-goers than they would win over by putting several hundred undecided voters in front of Oprah.

On the other hand, isn't the whole point of Oprah's visit to excite and win over women who may not ordinarily be engaged in politics? Maybe having her address a roomful of fired-up Obama volunteers is not the best use of her star power.

What do you think–brilliant or foolish? 

UDPATE: Tom in the comments says volunteers will get preferred seating, but that others will be able to attend Oprah's events in Iowa too. 

I think Barack Obama made a mistake earlier this year by proposing a health care plan that was less than universal. First Edwards and later Clinton outflanked him on that issue with proposals that would cover every American.

So speaking to voters in Council Bluffs, Obama made the case against mandatory health care insurance:

Health care insurance should not become a government mandate, Barack Obama said here today, referencing plans posed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Obama said such mandates for health care coverage is a wrong step. He told a crowd of about 350 people at Thomas Jefferson High School that his plan would lower costs on average by about $2,500 per family, making health care affordable for all without placing demands.

He compared Clinton and Edwards’ proposed mandates to car insurance, noting that some states with required auto insurance still have a pocket of 15 or more percent that still go without coverage even though it’s illegal.

“Their essential argument is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don’t buy it, then you’ll be penalized in some way,” Obama said. “What I have said repeatedly is that the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it.”

Of course many of the uninsured cannot afford coverage now, but many are currently uninsurable, which would change with better regulation of insurance companies and more options for the public (such as letting people buy into a public plan).

Also, the Edwards and Clinton plans include many things that would lower premium costs, making it easier for more people to afford coverage.

The experts on health care policy say you need mandates to get everyone covered. But even leaving that aside, Obama ignores the fact that the president has to set the bar very high in terms of what he asks Congress to pass.

Maybe a comprehensive universal health care plan would not pass during the first year of the next administration. But you don't take the compromise that you might need to settle for and make that your starting offer to Congress.

I have written about this before. My biggest concern about Obama as potential president is that in his desire to appear post-partisan and conciliatory, he would give half the game away before negotiations with the other side begin.

If Obama won't even submit a universal plan to Congress, then what he would get out of Congress would be even less than what he is advocating.

Now, the conservative New Hampshire Union Leader newspaper has praised Obama's health care plan as “a smaller pill to swallow” (hat tip to MyDD user “silver spring,” a Clinton supporter). Of course, conservatives would prefer not to do anything to expand health care coverage. If I'm running for president in the Democratic primary, I don't think I want Republicans praising my health care plan because it does less than other Democrats' plans.

UPDATE: Ezra Klein, one of the blogosphere's leading wonks on health care policy, weighs in on “Obama's excuse”.

I have to hand it to Hillary Clinton's campaign. This is a good video:

Exercising is hard. Dancing is hard. Singing is hard. Caucusing is easy.

It's important to let people know that they can show up at the precinct caucus. Just last night I ran into two people I know who are fairly politically informed. I asked them if they caucused in 2004. They didn't because they are registered independents, and they never got around to changing their registration. I told them they could change their registration right there at the caucus–they had no idea. If they had known, they might have come out in January 2004.

With the caucus set for January 3, I am not expecting a big turnout, but I give all the campaigns credit for trying to get new caucus-goers involved. That will strengthen the Iowa Democratic Party.

UPDATE: At Iowa Independent, John Deeth noticed something I missed in the video:

http://www.iowaindependent.com…

1:23 in: “Bring a friend, a family member or a neighbor.”  Sure, the more the merrier — as long as they live in your precinct.  Your across-the-street neighbor might caucus somewhere else, and your friend who lives across town almost certainly will.

He is right–Clinton’s campaign should not be encouraging people to possibly bring friends and family to the wrong precinct location.

Thanks again to Katerina for sending me the cached page with the 2004 Iowa caucus results by county. I contacted someone at the Des Moines Register, and they fixed the page so that those results can be seen again:

http://www.desmoines…

In case anyone wants to check how the candidates did in this or that county.

Keep in mind that in 2004 there were 3,000 state delegates up for grabs; this cycle there will only be 2,500. So the counties are assigning different numbers of state delegates than what appears on this page.

cross-posted at Daily Kos and MyDD

Field organizers for the presidential campaigns in Iowa have many jobs, and one of the most important is lining up precinct captains. Mike Lux laid out why Precinct Captains are the Key at Open Left this summer, emphasizing what these volunteers can do for their candidates on caucus night.

In this diary I will focus on how precinct captains can help their candidates during the weeks and months before the Iowa caucuses.

I covered some of this ground in a recent diary on my house party for John Edwards. I think it's worth going over a few points again for readers who don't click on diaries with “John Edwards” in the title.

Political junkies and hacks, join me after the jump.

Richard Doak, a retired editor and columnist for the Des Moines Register, wrote an interesting piece on presidential endorsements in the Sunday paper. I encourage you to click the link and read it. He wrote the endorsement editorials for 20 years.

My only quibble is that I think Doak exaggerates the importance of the Register's endorsement of John Edwards four years ago. The Register published the endorsement eight days before the caucuses. I was working my precinct hard for John Kerry and started noticing a surge in support for Edwards more than a month before then. I distinctly remember calling my field organizer in mid-December to tell him that Edwards was gaining a lot of strength and would probably be viable. He said, “I know.” The field organizers were hearing the same thing from all of their captains.

The endorsement certainly gave Edwards good publicity, and probably convinced some leaners that he was a viable candidate, but it was by no means the spark that helped him finish a close second to Kerry. 

Doak describes the editorial board's endorsement process and notes that there are two endorsements he regrets: choosing Bill Bradley over Al Gore and George W. Bush over John McCain in 2000. I'm cutting the Register some slack on the first one, because I too made the mistake of supporting Bradley over Gore. I even sent him money.

But endorsing Bush over McCain? That was gutless. Doak admits that the editorial board almost endorsed McCain, but balked because they were charmed by Bush and anyway, McCain had written off Iowa.

The composition of the Register editorial board is different from four years ago. I wouldn't be too surprised to see them go with the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, like they went for Bush as the establishment candidate in 2000.

Then again, maybe they will try to mix things up by picking a longshot, like they did in 2004. In that case my money would be on the Register backing Joe Biden, although Bill Richardson might also be a possibility.

What do you think? 

This article from the New York Times has made a splash in the liberal blogosphere:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has nearly doubled the size of her staff in Iowa and has substantially increased her advertising here as her campaign reinforces its effort to prevent Democrats from coalescing around a single alternative to her candidacy.

In the four weeks between Thanksgiving and Christmas, Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign has been on the defensive lately because of her own missteps and increasingly aggressive attacks from her rivals, is moving to double or triple the amount of time she has spent here in recent months. Seldom will a day go by, aides said, when either she or former President Bill Clinton will not be on some patch of Iowa soil trying to solidify her support and win over an unusually high number of uncommitted voters.

“We’re going to begin using all the assets we have,” said Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa who serves as co-chairman of the Clinton campaign. “We haven’t been bashful about asking for the moon here.”

If I were running Hillary's campaign, I would also use Bill as much as possible. His favorables have been higher than Hillary's for the last 15 years, and he generates a lot of excitement and free media coverage everywhere he goes.

That said, to my mind this is the key passage in the article:

More than 60 percent of those who have identified themselves as Clinton supporters, senior strategists say, have never participated in the Iowa caucuses. It is a far higher share than the campaign had been anticipating, which suggests that many of the reliable rank-and-file Democrats have chosen another candidate. So the Clinton campaign is working to expand its universe of supporters to women who have never participated.

The New York Times article goes on to say that Hillary now has 34 field offices in Iowa,

arriving in many cities more than two months behind the local operatives for Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards. Last week, the Clinton campaign’s national headquarters sent a top communications operative to Iowa and hired eight deputies charged solely with drumming up media coverage in smaller cities across the state.

The big question is, will Clinton's staff be able to get those first-time caucus-goers to show up on January 3?

I know Hillary has been doing lots of robocalls. I've received several myself. Presumably those are aimed at all Iowa Democrats, not just the universe of past caucus-goers. Hillary is talking about whatever issue, and then at the end she says, press 1 if you are ready to support me, press 2 if you want more information about my campaign.

It would take very little effort for a non-regular voter to listen to this call and press 1. I imagine that is how they are compiling a large list of supporters who have never caucused before.

If she can turn those people out, she deserves to win, and the Iowa Democratic Party will benefit from having more people engaged in the process.

A diary on the New York Times article generated a heated discussion last night on Daily Kos.

Jerome Armstrong posted an interesting commentary on the article at MyDD. He inferred that

The Clinton campaign must have polled and segmented and projected that, with the given caucus universe, they just can't win in Iowa– recall their internal memo earlier this spring that considered ditching the state. So instead, the focus moves to the technique of expanding the caucus universe.

This post by Nate Willems seems to support this analysis as well, especially his observation that

In making calls through a list of rural Democrats who are consistent primary voters, but who lack a history of attending a caucus, my anecdotal notes show that Clinton is significantly stronger than any other candidate.  Accordingly, it does seem that she would benefit from a larger turnout.  

Amongst rural Democrats with a record of attending their caucus, my notes show a very competitive race between Edwards and Clinton with Obama distinctly behind.

What do you think? Is the Clinton campaign truly concerned that recent Iowa polls showing her in the lead include too many people who are unlikely to caucus? Or are they mainly trying to lower expectations for their candidate in Iowa?

The Des Moines Register revamped their website recently, and now this page, which used to show the 2004 caucus results by county, no longer has any information:

http://desmoinesregi…

Does anybody else know an online reference for detailed county-level results? I am working on the next installment in my Iowa caucus diary series.

I am kicking myself for never printing out that chart. I figured, why waste the paper? I've got it bookmarked. 

As usual, I'll be taping the Democratic debate and watching it later (with very low expectations for the level of discussion, given Wolf Blitzer's role as moderator).

If you saw it, what did you think?

UPDATE: Added the Dodd clock. Wolf Blitzer is truly a horrendous moderator. Judy Woodruff should do all these.

SECOND UPDATE: CNN's post-debate coverage is atrocious. They've got Carville, who has been close to the Clintons for 15 years, talking about how well Hillary did, with no one mentioning that he is involved with Hillary's campaign.

They've got Gergen, who also worked for Bill Clinton, plus a Republican, JC Watts, who probably wants his party to be able to run against Hillary.

The professional journalists' questions were poor, and the inequitable allocation of time given to the candidates was inexcusable. 

I got so busy this week that I forgot to cross-post my front-page piece from MyDD. This ran on Tuesday and was written primarily for non-Iowans who are less familiar with the caucus system.
In my diary series on how the Iowa caucuses work, I've written a little about how precinct captains can help their candidates on caucus night and about how precinct captains can (modestly) increase turnout in their neighborhoods. But I haven't written yet about one of the most enjoyable tasks of a precinct captain: hosting a house party.

Last Thursday I held my first house party for undecided voters who are considering John Edwards. (In late 2003 I hosted several of these for John Kerry.) The experience was well worth the time I spent on the event.

Much more after the jump. 

Over at Iowa Independent, Lynda Waddington has been keeping track of the presidential candidate endorsements by Democrats in the Iowa legislature.

So far Hillary Clinton has 16 endorsements from legislators, Barack Obama has 15, Joe Biden has 13, John Edwards has 10 (Lynda published his total as nine, but State Representative Bob Kressig of Cedar Falls endorsed Edwards today), and Chris Dodd has three.

More than two dozen Democrats in the legislature have yet to endorse, and it's unclear how many of them will publicly support a presidential candidate.

When you think about it, it's surprising that Hillary Clinton hasn't got a bigger lead in the endorsement race, with a former two-term president and a former two-term governor trying to win people over to her side. Her big lead in national polling would seem to make endorsing her the “safe” play as well. 

Why aren't more legislators supporting her presidential bid? 

I am also surprised that no one in the legislature has backed Bill Richardson. He's too conservative for me on economic issues, and I'm mad that he is going around telling people that Edwards would leave 100,000 troops in Iraq, which is demonstrably false.

But truly, he's a successful governor with legislative and diplomatic experience and good ideas in many areas (I am partial to his environmental and transportation policy plans). I am surprised that he's not getting more support from Democratic elected officials. Maybe most of the pro-gun Democrats lost their seats during the 1990s?

I got a fake “survey” phone call Tuesday morning testing various negative messages about Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. I diaried the call at MyDD:

http://www.mydd.com/…

Another Edwards supporter got the same call and put up a diary at the Edwards campaign blog blaming Barack Obama's campaign. I doubt Obama's campaign is behind the calls, though. My first thought was that an independent group supporting Obama might have ordered this survey, but the more I think about it, the more I think that it's a Republican hit job. 

For more info on the “Central Research” firm that placed the call, read the comments under my diary at MyDD or click on this story by Ben Smith at Politico:

http://www.politico….

One of the commenters at MyDD suggested that the survey may be targeting Hillary (the front-runner) and whomever the respondent names as a first choice. So perhaps if I had answered that I was planning to caucus for Obama, I would have then heard negative message-testing against Hillary and Obama, instead of against Hillary and Edwards.

Has anyone else gotten calls like these lately? Please share your experience in the comments. 

If you get one of these calls, try to make a note of the phone number where it originated. We don't have caller ID, so I was unable to do that. I did press the woman about who paid for the call, but she wouldn't say anything other than that Central Research is an independent firm.

UPDATE: Ben Smith has published follow-up posts at Politico:

http://www.politico….

http://www.politico….

Also, Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com says this is definitely push-polling, not message-testing. He finds it inconceivable that the Edwards campaign would be involved in this kind of poll:

http://www.pollster….

Chase Martyn was on the Taylor Marsh radio show today discussing the issue. I didn't hear the show, but from what I read at MyDD, Chase thinks that the Edwards campaign paid for these calls to test the loyalty of their supporters.

Sorry, Chase, that makes no sense. Campaigns may test negative messages about themselves (usually in a real poll that also tests positive messages about themselves and negative messages about opponents). But this was not a real poll. Furthermore, the Edwards campaign has spent very little on polling of any kind. Are you telling me that they would decide to spend money reminding supporters that Elizabeth Edwards has cancer?

Not likely. The purpose of a poll like this is to decrease support for the target candidate. And the only people who would pay for such a call are people who do not want John Edwards to win the Iowa caucuses.

Click the link above to read Mark Blumenthal's expert commentary on the issue.  

As I said above, I do not believe the Obama campaign is behind the call. The perpetrators may have deliberately left Obama out of the call to point the finger at him, however.

I've got to agree with David Sirota here: Hillary Clinton Thinks Iowans Are Stupid.

Four days after voting for a trade agreement with Peru, Hillary tells a United Auto Workers conference that “she'll call a 'time out' on trade agreements if she wins the White House to see if the deals are draining jobs from the U.S.”

She also campaigned today in Waterloo, a city that has lost a lot of good manufacturing jobs.

Will people fall for this? 

Sorry for the short notice. This looks like a fun event. I unfortunately have another commitment tomorrow, but if someone out there attends, please put up a diary afterwards!

Young Professional Groups Across Iowa Present

Mock Caucus

Tuesday, November 13

Iowa State Historical Building

When: Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Where: The State Historical Building at 600 East Locust Downtown

What time: 5:30-7:30pm

Why: To participate in a live (mock!) caucus and learn why caucusing is  important

 

On November 13^th young professionals across the metro will get a front row seat to a “mock caucus” at the State Historical Building. This Young Professionals Connection (YPC) event allows young professionals to tour through Iowa’s life-sized caucus display, network, and participate in a live caucus of media celebrities.
“Currently the main caucus-goers are over 50 years old,” says YPC Civic Member Nicole Hinton, “This event connects young people to the caucus process in a fun way.”
The Caucus & Coronas gatherings leading up to this pinnacle event have drawn more than 400 attendees. “Young people are interested in politics,” says YPC Board Member Seth Hall. “It is just a matter of finding ways to get them comfortable with participating.”
Secretary of State Michael Mauro will help MC the event and local media celebrities including Erin Kiernan of WHO TV 13 and Kevin Conney of KCCI Channel 8 will be the “candidates” for the mock caucus.
To RSVP, call Jessica Walters at 515.286.4950 or email her at jwalters@desmoinesmetro.com.

Young professional groups hosting the event include the Young Professionals Connection of the Greater Des Moines Partnership, the Bull Moose Club, Drinking Liberally, YP Iowa, the 21^st Century Forum, the 20/30 Society and Ankeny Young  Professionals.