Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

Iowa Caucuses: Not the Battle of the Century

By Bill Boyarsky, Truthdig. Posted December 26, 2007.


With attendance in the single digits, the Iowa caucuses are hardly representative or democratic. Can grassroots efforts turn out more people in 2008?
20071226story
20071226story
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

DUBUQUE, Iowa -- In these final days before the Iowa caucuses, John Edwards' chance for the presidency comes down to people like Jim Clifford, trudging up an icy driveway to persuade Leo Oswald, a shipping clerk at the Georgia Pacific plant here, to turn out and support Edwards.

Clifford is among the many volunteers for the various presidential candidates who visit homes and make phone calls to get supporters to the caucuses. They are the unknown warriors of the campaign, but their work will make the difference between victory and defeat in Iowa.

I trudged alongside Clifford, a union member from California. Oswald was shoveling ice and snow from his driveway. He, like Clifford, was a strong Edwards and union man. But he explained that he will miss the caucus. Oswald works the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift and he'll be napping and getting ready for the job when caucuses are held at night. "Just won't have time," he said. As a matter of fact, he said, probably just 10 percent of the 125 union members at Georgia Pacific will attend the caucuses.

That is in line with a Des Moines Register poll estimate of 12 percent Republican and 10 percent Democrat attendance at caucuses around the state. That figure is substantially above the numbers for past caucuses reported by Pollster.com: Just 5.5 percent for Democrats in 2004 and 3.9 percent for Republicans in 2000. That is a tiny percentage of the 57,204 people living in Dubuque and the 2,944,062 residing in Iowa. Such a low level of involvement makes me wonder about news accounts that portray this as the battle of the century.

(At this point, I must digress. The caucuses are a travesty of the American political system. They are so undemocratic, unfair, unrepresentative and overly complicated that they deserve an entire column, which I will do soon. For this piece, all you have to know is that small groups of Democrats and Republicans get together in caucus meetings and select convention delegates pledged to various candidates.)

On television, the campaign appears to be as well plotted as an episode of "The West Wing." In real life, it's disorganized and random. When I return confused to my hotel room in Des Moines, I have to turn on CNN to get a sense of order, even if it's a false one. Correspondents, aided by producers and other support personnel in the CNN campaign bus and at headquarters, summarize the candidate's activities. Frequent recitation of polls, buttressed by interviews with voters and an occasional academic, give the reports an appearance of accuracy.

I encountered a much more uncertain story when I hooked up with Clifford and his co-worker, Donna Norton, a nurse at the Kaiser hospital in Vacaville, Calif. Norton is also a United Health Care Workers West leader and a mental health counselor at Kaiser in San Diego. I thought they were admirable -- true believers who left family and friends in California during the Christmas season to work for a presidential candidate.

We met in a coffee and sandwich shop in the nicely restored downtown section of Dubuque, a blue-collar city in northeast Iowa on the Mississippi River. It took more than three hours to get there, a trip slowed by fog.

Using lists given them by the Edwards campaign and the union, Clifford and Norton work 12 hours a day making phone calls to potential Edwards supporters and visiting them at home.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: grassroots, election08, john edwards, chris dodd, iowa caucuses

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I wouldn't even bother with Iowa
Posted by: PJAW on Dec 26, 2007 5:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Way too much importance is assigned to Iowa and their caucuses. It results in a tiny percentage of the people in a sparsely populated state with "conservative" values, strongly influencing which candidates will even still be available for more progressive states to vote on in their own primaries. A smart progressive candidate would focus his/her resources on larger more progressive states and speak of Iowa for what it truly is, a back 40 filter for cleaning as many non-conservatives out of the primaries as possible. The process there is archaic, flawed and stacked against anyone progressive, which is what most of the rest of the country prefers, but may never get a chance to vote for due to the damage that can be inflicted on a campaign in Iowa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I have to agree Posted by: supercrisp
» RE: I have to agree Posted by: Turiye
» RE: I have to disagree Posted by: sausage
Oh! Quit griping already!
Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian on Dec 26, 2007 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a so-called "Democratic Activist" (local caucus chair, Edwards precinct captain) I can tell you that I am SICK of this endless campaign, the idiot pundits telling me what I think or how I'm going to vote before I even open my mouth or step into the caucus room, the endless RELENTLESS phone-calling from various campaigns or media or academic outfits doing surveys and polls, the mind-numbing Babel of campaign ads on radio and TV for all candidates, Dem and GOP, the piles and piles of useless campaign literature and junk mail etc etc etc. This campaigning has been going on now for TWO YEARS! I finally had to put my foot down and tell the Edwards campaign that I would not make any more phone calls between now and Jan. 3; the holidays have already been spoiled for many people here and we were lucky to get one day of rest on the 25th!

And all the rest of you do is gripe and b**** and moan about Iowa's undue influence, it's so-called "conservative" leanings (or it's "too liberal" leanings), it's lack of diversity (this may be true), it's small size, and the relatively low turnout percentage at the caucuses yada yada yada. . .Well, let me tell you this; if you think you can do better you can bloody well have this freakin' thankless job 'cause I don't want to do it any more.

I don't want to have to take time off from my work to attend boring organizational meetings or training sessions; I don't want to have to travel to listen to candidates give their standard stump speeches and repeat their sound-bite du jour, and I certainly don't want to have the whole process start over again the day after the general election when some long-shot bozo from whichever party loses comes out here to "test the waters" and tell us how "the other party is really going to screw things up" before they've even taken the oath of office!

So please, just lighten up a little bit! We're trying our best because we actually DO believe in representative democracy and a little discomfort and annoyance is a small price to pay for the greater good.

Peace

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh! Quit griping already! Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian
» YEAH, I WANT IT! Posted by: dbkchi
» RE: YEAH, I WANT IT! Posted by: left-leaning-libertarian
An elitist Democrat...or is he a Republican...speaks
Posted by: sausage on Dec 26, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is sour grapes whine from an elitist California Democrat. Notice how he selectively writes about failed campaign visits by Edwards' volunteers Donna Norton and Leo Oswald. Why no mention of vists by Oswald and Norton which had positive results? That's pertty simple, that would dilute Boyarsky's thesis that the Iowa Caucuses are, in his words, "...a travesty of the American political system. They are so undemocratic, unfair, unrepresentative and overly complicated that they deserve an entire column, which I will do soon."

Ever since 1976 when Jimmy Carter surprised the American political world by winning the Iowa Caucuses and then the White House elitist Democrats, who under the donkey suits are Rockefeller Republicans, have worked to diminish the importance of the Iowa Caucuses. I attended my first Iowa Caucus in 1976, by the way, and since then they have evolved from affairs of ten or twelve committed citizens gathered in a neighbor's livingroom into mass meetings of upwards of a couple of hundred held in the nearest public school or church gymnasium. Of course in the bigger settings the business-suited party hacks took over and the rank-and-file deferred to the elitists' "wisdom," like John Kerry, dropping opposition to Taft-Hartly from the party's platform and endorsing deregulation and the "free" market.

And it's really not that complicated but it is face to face. I was a Dean precinct captain in '04 who had to keep 13 people from defecting to Kerry while another Dean precinct captian, from AFSCME, got a couple of uncommitteds. Dean got his delecate from our precinct. Here's a link http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article? to The Des Moines Register's interactive explanation of how the Democratic and Republican Iowa Caucuses work. If Bill Boyarsky is too stupid to figure it out then maybe he better stay in California and not worry about us undemocratic hayseeds in Iowa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Strangely enough, it's good to hear
Posted by: rhbee on Dec 26, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how Boyarsky's commentary affects us. Not because it's necessarily correct, it's one person's opinion after all, but because it is contrary to what we have been hearing from the regular press coverage. It also may demonstrate by the responses it draws the very democratic voice that this writer loves to hear. Speak up, get emotional, care. If the Iowa caucases do anything, they focus our attention on the fact that the few are doing the job of the many in this country and that has got to change. That's how we ended up with Bush. That's how we ended up trillions of dollars in debt, without healthcare, with our liberty decimated by fear and our elections dominated by deceit at the polls. Come on America get involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not Democratic???
Posted by: mnolte on Dec 26, 2007 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have to argue with the writer.
There is nothing more democratic than the caucus. Yes, only a handful of people attend from each party, but that is because it is a commitment. The Caucus is not like a simple vote. It is a process that takes an hour or more. Therefore only the most committed and knowledgeable voters participate.

Using a formula that is by no means as difficult as it is to explain, Neighbors have the opportunity to share their thoughts with each other, Openly discussing candidates stances to help people make their choices. There is a dialogue, people are engaged.

I understand why some states like to discredit the caucus, but please don't let sour apples turn into shoddy opinionated articles like this. I would like to see a follow up story after this writer participates in a caucus. Only throughe experience do you understand the significance and true patriotism demonstrated at these events in school lunchrooms and fair grounds barns.

The Iowa Caucuses are democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iowa Caucuses are useful to Democracy
Posted by: robchapman on Dec 26, 2007 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There must be a million better ways to spend time than cavailing against the Iowa caucuses.

At this point in any election cycle, the public doesn't know who the various candidates for the party nominations are.

Without knowing who they are, any attempt to vote for them is bad.

The Iowa caucus goer is a very hardy, astute and well informed individual who has gotten up early, done the homework and followed through.

These are not well intentioned, but poorly informed individuals casting their votes based on the impressions made by sixty second television commercials.

It is precisely because that Iowa voters are unrepresentative- they are a well informed, thoughtful and particularly hard-working lot- that makes them qualified to take the first cut.

The rest of us should show some appreciation to the Iowans who have taken the trouble to study the issues, meet the candidates and then turn out in the cold and dark of winter to make an INFORMED selection.

Thank you Iowa.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why bother with Kucinich
Posted by: robchapman on Dec 26, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An earlier commenter is sick to death of Kucinich never getting a say.

BALONEY- Kucinich is a wimp. I met him at the NYS Rural Democratic Convention and he spent the entire weekend pandering to us on local issues.

Urban America is in crisis- Dennis Kucinich is a former big city mayor, State Senator from the same and represents Cleveland, one of our largest cities in Congress.

Has one single word about ameliorating the crisis in Urban America ever passed his lips on the campaign trail?

It is not because he is being gagged, it is because Kucinich is too cowardly to stand up for his constituents.

He would rather tell how a Kucinich Administration will end the war, lower our taxes, and shower government bennies on us all.

Typical politico cotton candy.

Get over Kucinich the panderer, take some responsibility and listen to the candidates who are struggling with the real world and its problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why bother with Kucinich Posted by: aonghus36
Citizen Z
Posted by: zeep on Dec 26, 2007 9:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Participation IS Democracy--so what is negative about indifference? We get what we don't want--- and indifference costs us our liberties! We need more informed individual participation--hooray for those who participate and vote in the Iowa caucuses!The way to go!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Keeley, teacher in Chicago
Posted by: bob keeley on Dec 26, 2007 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RE: the article on the Iowa Caucuses. I believe the writer is a poor observer; further his headline is way too harsh and off the mark.
I am in touch with friends who live in Iowa and I have friends who are going to work in the run up time to the Iowa caucuses. The latter have interests split between three candidates--McCain, Hillary and Obama.
For local citizes in the state to go door to door to talk with their neighbors and friends, precinct by precinct, about going to a caucus gathering; hey, this is what democracy is all about.
My classmate from Notre Dame (class of 1960), a fellow named Bruce Babbitt, ran for President of the US one time back in 92, I believe. A couple of years later, he talked with our classmates back on campus---at an alumni gathering.
His words were soemthing to this effect. "If someone would have told me years ago that I was to run for President of the United States, I would have told that person that he was dreaming. If someone would have told me a year before the Iowa caucuses that I would have to take my whole family and move to Iowa for almost a year and then ride my bicycle all over every gravel and paved road and street of the state speaking with citizens, I would have told that person that he was crazy. That is however what I did."
Of course we classmates (democrat, republican and independent alike) cheered him wildly. Bruce is a great story teller and he explained the hard work that he and the other candidates put in to get their candidacy across.
Bruce told us that he and his campaign aides and volunteers visited door upon door in the whole state to sell his candidacy.
Now, back to the current Iowa article. I find it hard to understand that this man who intends someday to be a writer does not understand how difficult democracy is. He followed these several workers around for one day or two at the most and is now casting stones.
Maybe he should follow them around for six to eight weeks or so and in several states and then re-decide as to whether or not he will cast more stones or whether he might just place his pen in his pocket and start to do some door knocking for democracy himself.
Someone once asked the first Mayor Daley of Chicago the day after an election why one of Daley's chosen candidates had lost the day before. Daley said something like, "The other fellow got more votes."
You get a person's vote by approaching him or her and asking for it. There is no guarantee you will be successful, but in that discussion is where democracy starts. The person will answer yes or no and hopefully give an explanation of his voting intention. The candidate will learn a lot at that point by listening and then responding in a truthful way.
Iowa has it right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This country deserves exactly what is going to happen
Posted by: Missing Piece on Dec 26, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A New World Order, more Resource Wars, the Amero and more false flags to get us to support it all.

Wake up people, WT7 fell at free fall rate and everyone was told to get out because it was going to be "pulled". They killed millions of people to ensure oil would flow from the middle east through our corporations.

It's going to get worse before it gets better but who cares as long as we don't have to think and all we have to do is believe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's Dump the Antiquated Caucusus/Primary System for a National Primary
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 26, 2007 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Caucus/Primary system in America is defective and represents nothing more than the flawed states rights approach that has already badly damaged American democracy. For example, Democracy failed America in 2000 when Al Gore won the popular vote but lost because of the "electoral college." A result so un-democratic that even President Putin stated he was "concerned about the collapse of democracy in America."

Farm subsidies, pork barrel projects, military bases, all are excessively given or placed in thinly populated states because of the unfair over representation these states have in the United States Senate.

Finally, why do we have to continue this type of a failed system in the process by which we nominate a candidate for President of the USA? It does not matter either how bright or sincere Iowans are. I am sure they are, but so what? So are tens of millions of Californians and New Yorkers.

What would make sense is for a National Primary to be conducted, and the winner of that vote, as measured by popular vote, would be the candidate of each party. The major contenders could do a couple debates on television/internet, and the entire process could be shrunk down by 75% of the length of time it takes as of now. The net result, a process that gives equal weight to everyone. It also would be a good way to do away with the ridiculour over-emphasis, under the current system, given to endless strategizing, polling and organizing at the "grass roots" level. None of which, by the way, is all that terribly democratic or good for the country. We want a candidate not because he or she can survive for a long time in some over-drawn primary system (because he or she is loaded with campagin cash), but because what they offer is ideas and a course of action that are good for the country. And, it all starts by doing away with the current system.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Birdma
Posted by: bird-ma on Dec 31, 2007 11:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a liberal-leaning independent. I am now a Ron Paul supporter. It isn't because I've given up my liberal ideas, at all. It is because I have seen a bigger enemy than a Ron-Paul type of conservatism--and that is conservatism led by people who serve the new world order idealogy--and some of those people are the democrats running for president right now--establishment-oriented and more of the same blah-de-blah. We need to END THIS WAR, stop occupying foreign countries. Redirect the funds we spend there to help our social programs. We need our liberties protected and a return to habeas corpus. The only man running for president who has an impeccable voting record, in terms of sticking to our beloved Constitution, is Dr. Ron Paul. We can work out the more liberal programs later on. But right now, it's IMPERATIVE we get our freedoms back, and repair our ailing economy before the foreign entities and banking cartels that "own" us call in the chips! Please consider voting for Ron Paul. Go to www.ronpaul2008.com to find out more about him. We don't need any more secret policy-making, we don't need any more mainstream media spin. We need leadership based on unvarnished honesty, speaking truth to power. Don't just dismiss Dr. Paul as a Republican. He is far bigger than that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War on drugs
Posted by: MrX on Jan 6, 2008 6:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm sad the grassroots movement for Ron Paul in Iowa didn't turn out more voters.

I think it's odd Alternet has worked to point out the war on drugs is a failure, but hasn't written more about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is for legalizing marijuana and supports states making their won laws on gay marriage
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UJz81lAwY0M

Also check out http://inflationtax.blogspot.com

This site gives a lot of information on the Inflation Tax and how it hurts the poor. John F. Kennedy tried to implement a silver standard. Google that. I thought the Gold Standard was kind of hokey before, but there are a lot of reasons behind it. The same reason John F. Kennedy tried to implement a silver standard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]