Mickey Kaus is Making Sense

This seems quite true to me:

Do I detect a tacit media conspiracy to make the Iowa caucuses inconclusive, and even irrelevant? I'm for that! ... P.S.: It's like the moment in mafia stories when the cops just get tired of the mobsters they've been corruptly cooperating with for years and decide it's time to kill them. ... The Iowa caucuses--shot while trying to escape. ...

One sort of needs to abstract away from the contingencies of 2008 to grasp the evils of Iowa. As things happen, John Edwards is much stronger in Iowa than he is anywhere else and Edwards has had a very beneficial impact on this campaign (we'll all be indebted to him even if he loses in ways that I think haven't been widely appreciated) so that's all to the good. But in a broader sense, giving Iowa such outsized importance is harmful and bizarrely arbitrary -- the press created the caucuses and could easily enough destroy them in the future. Could and probably should. If in 2012 I don't need to read any more paens to how only people who live in all-white overwhelmingly rural states could as "real" Americans, I'll certainly be a happy customer.

Comments

and the alternative is? iowa and NH are small states used to retail politics. Where else can a relative unknown become known, raise money (in that virtuous/vicious cycle) and sharpen their message? If you go for a larger state (i.e., more urban and more identity-diverse), the initial cost of entry is much higher, potentially precluding interesting candidates.

Posted by mike c | January 2, 2008 9:09 AM

Kaus never "makes sense". He may stumble upon a useful idea, like this one, from time to time, and he may accidentally present it in a way that normal people can understand, but he never, ever "makes sense".

Posted by tgb1000 | January 2, 2008 9:11 AM

There is one aspect of the small state primary/caucus system that really does strike me as very positive; it's the ability to have national politics at a retail level. Initial primaries in large states would only promote money even more. Even if the lesser known candidates don't succeed, they can change the nature of the debate. If we started out in California we'd be looking at a pure TV ad campaign where the first person to two hundred million dollars was the winner.

Posted by Marc | January 2, 2008 9:12 AM

The way the Iowa caucuses are structured, they give a bigger megaphone to the progressive wing of the Party.

Kaus is opposed to the progressive wing of the Party being stronger.

Who knew Matthew felt the same way?

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 9:19 AM

Retail politics is a good thing anda democratizing force, but the coronation of Iowa and New Hampshire is absurd and limiting.

Furthermore, the schedule adjustments have only increased the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire. With so many states coming hot on the heels of Iowa and New Hampshire, a candidate who stumbles early is unlikely to be able to kick-start the candidacy in the short time and in the many states required. If we again had a race like '92 - in which Iowa and New Hampshire neighbor Massachusetts had favorite sons running, I don't how the current schedule could handle it.

I like the idea of a long, slow primary, as I think it gives stronger candidates a chance to emerge amid a developing narrative; but as we have seen, this is no longer possible as states move up to maintain or achieve relevance. I believe that we need to either finish the current trend of compression by creating a national primary/caucus date, or we need to institute a rotating or randomly-determined stretched-out schedule (with some limited priority given to smaller states, but not only to Iowa New Hamphire).

Posted by Warren Terra | January 2, 2008 9:21 AM

"John Edwards is much stronger in Iowa than he is anywhere else and Edwards has had a very beneficial impact on this campaign (we'll all be indebted to him even if he loses in ways that I think haven't been widely appreciated) so that's all to the good."

You act as though Edwards' strength in Iowa is coincidental to the caucus structure, when it's actually based in the caucus structure.

If Iowa held a primary instead of the caucus, the coming Edwards takeover of the Party wouldn't have been possible.

-----

Seriously. I understand why Kaus is anti-caucus. The caucus benefits a wing of the Party he despises. But why is Matthew anti-caucus?

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 9:22 AM

Similarly, who knew Petey liked all-white elections?

Seriously, casual invective does not suit you.

Posted by otto | January 2, 2008 9:23 AM

"Similarly, who knew Petey liked all-white elections?"

If Iowa held a primary instead of a caucus, the demographics would be the exact same.

Kaus objects to the caucus because they benefit the progressive wing of the Party. He's been extraordinarily clear about that.

And that's the exact same reason I like the caucuses.

"Seriously, casual invective does not suit you."

On this topic, as with almost every other political topic, Kaus blows goats. He wants a conservative Democratic Party. I don't.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 9:28 AM

This is one of those issues where I'm always persuaded by the reasoning of the anti-caucus caucus, yet left in mind somehow that the republic is still likely better off sticking with the Iowa caucus, over jumping to some highly urban-centric pure primary system.

Posted by Bill | January 2, 2008 9:28 AM

Of course if this was a caucus in say Ohio instead of Iowa, Obama would be dead meat. Matt and Mickey are just two more coasties who have yet to notice Iowa shares a border with Illinois.

Posted by Rob | January 2, 2008 9:32 AM

"The way the Iowa caucuses are structured, they give a bigger megaphone to the progressive wing of the Party.

Kaus is opposed to the progressive wing of the Party being stronger.

Who knew Matthew felt the same way?

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 9:19 AM"

Because when I think liberal Democrat, I think of John Kerry. /end snark

There may be some benefit to having the early primaries outside of NY/CA/TX/FL/NJ, but would this have to mean Iowa and New Hampshire in particular? Somewhere that was less like an Osmond Family concert, such as South Carolina, would make some sense. I'm not really sure if the barriers to entry in CA would be so insurmountable in the smaller big states like PA, MD, OH, MA and it would probably give a better view of what the country as a whole would want.

Posted by Reality Man | January 2, 2008 9:39 AM

Please don't agree with Mickey, even when he's right.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | January 2, 2008 9:41 AM

Because when I think liberal Democrat, I think of John Kerry. /end snark

He said "give a bigger megaphone to." Iowa was all about Howard Dean until he got media-fucked.

Posted by Bill | January 2, 2008 9:41 AM

Given that Philly is in the New York media market, yes the costs are high in PA.

Posted by Rob | January 2, 2008 9:41 AM

I mean, seriously, is Matthew too fucking lazy to just scroll down Kaus's bleatings:

Letting the presidential nominee be picked by the Iowa caucusers is like letting your antiwar tactics be picked by the last people left at the end of a 4-hour SDS meeting in 1970. The result: the leftist radicals win!

Ever since he got a blog, Kaus has been slamming the caucuses precisely because they strengthen the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. He's said variations of this over and over and over again.

Mickey prefers a conservative Democratic Party. He doesn't like progressives. (Remember how he didn't want to deal with Ezra when he first came on the scene.)

Kaus has a very concrete ideological reason to hate the caucuses. It's the same ideological reason why I like the caucuses.

I'm guessing that Matthew is just being clueless here, and doesn't really agree with Kaus, but who knows?

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 9:43 AM

"There may be some benefit to having the early primaries outside of NY/CA/TX/FL/NJ, but would this have to mean Iowa and New Hampshire in particular?"

Kaus's problem is not with Iowa, it's with caucuses.

And he's explicitly repeated ad infinitum that his problem with caucuses is that it creates a leftier Democratic Party than the one Mickey wants.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 9:46 AM

Small states have a disproportionate influence in congress and in electing the president because of the constitution. So to balance that, we make Iowa and then New Hampshire wildly disproportionate in choosing the party nominees. This results in great policy decisions like the farm bill and subsidies for corn ethanol.

Posted by Jeff S. | January 2, 2008 9:50 AM

What does retail politics have to do with running for President or for that matter being President? I'd much rather have a system that tested candidates' strengths at modern communication techniques (television and the Internet) than how politicians used to campaign in the 18th century.

Some form of regional or randomly assigned super primaries held over 4 or so weeks would be far superior to letting tiny, unrepresentative states like Iowa and New Hampshire have such a disproportionate impact on who gets nominated.

If truly progressive politicians can't win the Democratic nomination without relying on the Iowa caucus, then they simply don't deserve to win.

Posted by Ron | January 2, 2008 9:51 AM

Whereas Matt's problem is not with caucuses, it's with Iowa.

Posted by otto | January 2, 2008 9:51 AM

Mickey Kaus is Making Sense

Is this the start of some horribly misguided New Year's resolution? Are you going to be nice to twits in 2008?

Really, Matt, put that energy into giving up smoking. Better for you. Better for us.

Posted by KC45s | January 2, 2008 9:53 AM

Mickey Kaus is Making Sense

Is this the start of some horribly misguided New Year's resolution? Are you going to be nice to twits in 2008?

Really, Matt, put that energy into staying off the smokes. Better for you. Better for us.

Posted by KC45s | January 2, 2008 9:54 AM

Leaving aside the caucus/primary argument, to everyone who thinks diverse urban states have to be large and unwieldy: Rhode Island.

Posted by Matt Weiner | January 2, 2008 9:57 AM

"Whereas Matt's problem is not with caucuses, it's with Iowa."

Then dude ought to not endorse Mickey Kaus's progressive bashing viewpoint on the issue to make his point.

I'm not a fan of Senator Clinton, but I wouldn't try to slap her down by writing, "Ann Coulter is Making Sense".

If Matt doesn't agree with Mickey's logic, he shouldn't endorse it.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 9:57 AM

Right, what I'd like to see is for the first four states - IA, NH, SC, NV - to decide the candidate. You have a mix of caucuses and primaries, you have small(ish) states that don't require truly massive media spending, and you have an electorate that looks a lot more like the Democratic party.

Kaus' complaint, as Petey points out, is not that the IA caucuses prolong the racist narrative that "only people who live in all-white overwhelmingly rural states could as "real" Americans". Kaus actually thinks that! He just complains that that caucuses give activists a voice.

However, Matthew's complaint is separate, which is that the current structure of nomination make rural whites disproportionately powerful. There's a case to be made that the trade off for activist power is worth it, I guess, but it's not one that I'd make in general. I think it's a fair trade off this year, because we get Edwards, but we shouldn't structure the nomination process based on a peculiarly great candidate. Edwards is an exceptional case, and exceptional cases make bad law.

Thus, the structure that Dean has attempted to put in place, where IA and NH must share their power in NV and SC, and we see both primaries and caucuses involved in the choice, is a good one. It keeps the caucuses around, like Petey wants, and it produces an electorate that doesn't reinscibe a racist idea of a "real America", like Matthew wants. Everybody wins!

(And I should note that Edwards' path to the nomination would help to bring about the empowering of SC and NV. Win Iowa, finish strong in NH, get Unite Here and the Culinary Workers in NV and take that caucus, head into SC with momentum and take 3 of 4, if not all 4. Edwards' nomination would even help work toward Matthew's meta-goal of empowering minority voters in the nomination process.)

Posted by DivGuy | January 2, 2008 9:59 AM

Actually, isn't the Iowa caucus a little like American Idol? Even if a candidate loses, the American people, or those among them who care, will know what he or she sounds like. That there's a tilt to the left in the Iowa caucus on the Democratic side doesn't seem to have created aberrantly liberal Democratic presidential candidates. The primary may cull candidates who put too much emphasis on it. And, of course, the whole of the midwest, that grossly, grossly overrepresented area, exaggerates the white influence on America - we are talking about places like North and South Dakota, both of which bizarely elect two senators each even though all together they have a population below, say, Orange County, California. And that means, unfortunately, that the white effect on the presidential elections will also be exaggerated.

I'm not sure why we have set the primaries up so they are all about states, anyway. Why not cut the primaries up into regional strips - A New England Primary, a Northeaster, a Southern Primary, etc.? But I don't think that's ever going to happen. The stature accorded states in the U.S. as the atomic units of politics is an apparently ineradicable American eccentricity. Given that, nothing is wrong with Iowa as a starting point. Plus - I doubt the press could kill it by this point.

Posted by roger | January 2, 2008 9:59 AM

"Thus, the structure that Dean has attempted to put in place, where IA and NH must share their power in NV and SC, and we see both primaries and caucuses involved in the choice, is a good one."

Yup.

-----

"And I should note that Edwards' path to the nomination would help to bring about the empowering of SC and NV. Win Iowa, finish strong in NH, get Unite Here and the Culinary Workers in NV and take that caucus, head into SC with momentum and take 3 of 4, if not all 4. Edwards' nomination would even help work toward Matthew's meta-goal of empowering minority voters in the nomination process."

Yup, again.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 10:07 AM

Sounds rather like the ESPN commentators. During the whole season, there was nothing they wanted to talk about so much as the Patriots' historic season. Now that the Pats have gone 16-0, they're all asking, in unision, "But does it really mean anything?".

God I hate "journalists".

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 2, 2008 10:17 AM

Although there have been attempts to extricate them, there are really two issues here: (1) whether a caucus is a good or a bad thing and (2) whether states like IA and NH really should serve as gatekeapers -- e.g. if a candidate would have been liked in all other states but the early ones but is forced out of the race because they lack "momentum" (how does a candidacy have momentum? what is its mass? what is its velocity?), is that good? especially considering the demographics of the early states?

These two issues are not unrelated, of course, how would it be feasible to have a caucus in a large, more urban state? There are also class issues: as much as I like how caucuses (caucci?) tend support the kinds of candidates supported by dedicated people who, presumably, know their stuff (and hence they tend to tilt progressive), they also support candidates supported by people who have the time to support them.

How would urban, working poor, who don't have a day to caucus, have their voices heard? And what about day care even for those who can get time off from work? Then the care-givers can't caucus? Isn't there, even in IA, a risk that caucuses, while promoting progressive candidates, also promote candidates who aren't quite in touch with the actual "real Americans" (who unlike IA caucus goers, simply can't afford to take the time away from work to go to caucuses?)?

I think this was an issue in 2004, in fact. Effete, latte swillers who had the time to think about elections, figured Kerry was electable. OTOH, based on the views of the more "working-class oriented" (e.g. kids of the working classes, etc.) people I knew in NJ, pace the media portrayal of him, Howard Dean (as well as Dick Gephardt) would have done a lot better but for the time commitment involved in the caucus system -- so it might not be true, in fact, that caucuses benefit progressives!

And of course the issue of having a small set of non-representative states, whether they be caucus-having or primary-having, decide the nominee is horrible (the alternative choices we see are Southern states ... speaking as a resident of the South, I gotta ask, is that what we want?). We might as well go back to choosing candidates in a smoke filled room.

Speaking as a CAer by birth, when was the last time anyone in the most populous state in the union actually had any say in who gets to be president beyond choosing between Tweedle-Dee (D) and Tweedle-Dum (R)? 1968? And that year the guy CA actually chose was bumped off! (Actually, CA rarely gets even that much of a choice ... by the time most people can vote -- after work -- the networks have already declared who's President, so why should people bother?).

So I say, caucuses actually are a mixed back, but the order of the primary/caucuses is teh suck. I do think there is something to having candidates be vetted in person. But there again, the cases where good candidates have managed to win only because they could reach people personally (and wouldn't have won in a media campaign), e.g. Lincoln, or would have won, e.g. Dukakis, the big difference would have been in the general, not the primary election. So what should we do? Have IA be the first to vote in the general so that a candidate like Dukakis that impresses even die-hard reactionaries in person but comes off as a dweeb on the TeeVee could win?

Posted by DAS | January 2, 2008 10:28 AM

Interestingly -- Dukakis did not do well in the IA caucus, although every person I know who's met the guy personally (including people ranging from moonbat dirty hippies to die-hard reactionaries) has said that they want him to be president.

So how much "retail politics" really does occur in IA?

Posted by DAS | January 2, 2008 10:31 AM

The press didn't create the Iowa caucuses; Hamilton Jordan (and Jimmy Carter) did. Read Jim Wooten's book Dasher. Jordan recognized that the only way a little known former one-term governor could win the nomination was to win a contest and get some attention. So they seized on Iowa, which Jordan realized was before New Hampshire but had received little attention from the other candidates. And Iowa had the advantage of not requiring much money for advertising.

Since politicians, and political consultants, like generals, fight the last war, Iowa became important after 1976. Even though, as President Gephardt could tell you, it is not always decisive.

Posted by Bob | January 2, 2008 10:52 AM

Only 10% of eligible Iowans and 45% of New Hampshirites will bother to actually vote.

You'd think if they were so fucking wondrous they could muster more voters than a typical presidential election.

Posted by MikeKC | January 2, 2008 11:05 AM

I tend to agree with Petey about the pragmatic benefits of a caucus system, in that it combines the better aspects of a nominating convention and a primary system (winning requires both institutional support and mass appeal).

But I tend to think the benefits of this process are far outweighed by the anti-democratic nature of allowing the same small, rural states to pick the Presidential candidates every four years, especially given the large number of anti-democratic features in the rest of our political system (Electoral College, everything about the US Senate, etc.)

I'd be willing to accept a rotating system that places a small-state caucus first, followed by a few small-state primaries, and then a de facto national primary. But it's way, way past the time for Iowa and New Hampshire to pass the torch.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | January 2, 2008 11:56 AM

"I'd be willing to accept a rotating system that places a small-state caucus first, followed by a few small-state primaries, and then a de facto national primary."

DivGuy above makes a reasonably compelling defense of the Dean modifications to the IA/NH system.

NV and SC are going to be crucial this year, which is a sensible modification to the system.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 12:02 PM

I wonder how people lose "in ways that I think haven't been widely appreciated". Is MY comparing Edwards to Dukakis?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | January 2, 2008 12:18 PM

The media didn't create the Iowa and New Hampshire prerogative

So I wouldn't expect them to be able to make it go away by downplaying it. The media started paying a lot of attention to Iowa and New Hampshire because the voters in nomination campaigns started showing this tendency to follow "momentum", whereby they would rush to jump on the bandwagon of whichever candidate did well in the early contests. The voters exhibit this rush to judgement quite aside from Iowa and New Hampshire, since, in years when those two contests are split decisions, or otherwise muddy, the voters still sort out a clear decision within the next cycle or two of primaries.

Predicting when and if these nomination contests will ever stop being decided so early depends on figuring out this "momentum" thing. Perhaps it's just the natural tendency of primary voters, that was masked until a generation or two ago by the existence of so many powerful party machines in many states and big cities, that controlled big chunks of the delegates. The bosses and string-pullers took a more "professional" attitude towards picking a nominee, in both good and bad senses of the word "professional", and so put off the decision, often until the convention, where they could cut deals for the votes they controlled. If this momentum phenomenon is inherent in choosing delegates mainly in primaries, then it probably won't go away until and unless the parties go back to delegate-broker bosses and smoke-filled back rooms.

But the rush to judgment seems to me to be driven by fear, in that voters seem much more concerned to quickly get behind whichever of their party's candidates seems electable, in order to enhance their chances in the general. They fear losing to the other party more than they hope to get a better candidate within their own party by sticking with their ideological first choices. The fear part, and the concentration of all political hopes and fears on the Presidency that makes the fear so acute, is not likely to change anytime soon, and certainly this year the differences between the parties should inspire even enhanced fear of the other side winning. But, especially on the Republican side, this year the intraparty differences are looming large. The fundies may insist on a fundie nominee, and that would make the fear factor among the non-fundies perhaps even more afraid of a fundie Republican candidate than they fear the Democratic candidate.

Add to that the growing importance of two technical factors that have arisen in response to the rush to judgement. For one thing, the reaction to fear of losing the general with the idea that winning your own party's early contests assures that a candidate is electable in the general, therefore jump on the early winner's bandwagon, was never very rational. The party's voters and the general electorate are two increasingly different universes. And this year, with ever-more timely and accurate polling on just that question, how different candidates do in head-to-head match ups with candidates from the other party, this part of the dynamic that impels momentum may fail. Add that to the reaction of other states that have grown tired of seeing it all decided by the early contests, and have therefore front-loaded the primary calendar, and the combination just might prevent an early decision. If New Hampshire and Iowa don't point a very clear direction, and if voters pay attention to what the head-to-head polls tell them about many candidates still being electable in the general no matter how they have done in the two first contests, we may go into Mega Tuesday with no clear signal to the voters about whose bandwagon they absolutely have to get on for their side to win the general. This could cause Mega Tuesday itself to leave a very split decision. And if Mega Tuesday doesn't decide, there may not be enough delegates outstanding to give anyone a pre-convention lock.

The parties' professionals understand how disastrous a contested convention would be now that we no longer have delegate brokers, and thus their zeal to protect Iowa and New Hampshire's prerogative, to prevent too many delegates being awarded too up-front. But they may have miscalculated in allowing so many delegates to be awarded on Mega Tuesday, and then compounding that by delegitimizing the few primaries in states that chose to break their rules against crowding Iowa and NH. Don't be surprised if the parties backtrack on their sanctions against these illicit primaries, especially if the two early contests don't produce a clear winner. They may find themselves sorely in need of full-participation, fully sanctioned contests before Mega Tuesday, so that the thing will be over by Mega Tuesday.

But if the media didn't create this momentum phenomenon, but in the past have merely followed their audience in being so obsessively concerned about the early contests, it is possible that their current down-playing of the early contests also merely reflects audience demand. Maybe this is the year that momentum will fail, because the full ramifications of the new open system of choosing candidates has finally sunk in. Perhaps people this year will not be stampeded into a rush to judgement. If that happens, we'll be in for an interesting year, because the Republicans especially will not be able to choose a candidate at a contested convention.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | January 2, 2008 12:20 PM

Is there any state that elects its governor by having people in two small rural counties vote first, so the candidates have to engage in retail politics among an "informed" small electorate, then the other counties vote and ratify the decision? Is any state considering moving to such a system.

For matter, in the last French presidential election, did Sarkozy and his opponent have to impress voters in a rural department first, then having been vetted, the voters in Marseilles and Lille got their say? The US did once have a few states vote early in the general presidential election, but switched to everyone voting on the same day some time ago. Why didn't we keep the earlier system if making presidential candidates do "retail politics" was so wonderful.

If an important part of your political system is an anomaly, it helps to think about just why its an anomaly. Usually its because it doesn't make sense, and then you keep it only if its a long standing tradition, or its fairly harmless, neither of which I think applies to the concept of Iowa and New Hampshire as gatekeepers.

Posted by Ed | January 2, 2008 12:26 PM

I'm sure the sudden appearance of the "Iowa doesn't matter" narrative in the media has nothing to do with the MSM's dislike of Edwards and the quite real possibility that he might win Iowa.

Nah. That would be totally paranoid thinking. The MSM are objective journalists with rigorous standards, and would never do anything like that.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 2, 2008 12:32 PM

"I'm sure the sudden appearance of the "Iowa doesn't matter" narrative in the media has nothing to do with the MSM's dislike of Edwards and the quite real possibility that he might win Iowa."

In Kaus's case, he's made this explicit, which is why I found Matthew's post so mystifying.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 12:41 PM

Kaus never "makes sense". He may stumble upon a useful idea, like this one, from time to time, and he may accidentally present it in a way that normal people can understand, but he never, ever "makes sense".

That's about right. Here's what I don't get: why do the prominent proto-bloggers -- I'm thinking especially of Kaus and Halperin -- have to express themselves in such a strange, mannered fashion, with the inside jokes and the imaginary editors and so on?

Why would anyone read Kaus when they know that, even on those rare occasions when he has a point, it will be made more comprehensibly by Matt or Josh Marshall? Ditto for Halperin -- why read him when Marc Ambinder and Ben Smith contain him as a subset and write in complete, easy-to-read sentences?

This is a bit of a mystery to me. Though I think it may be rooted in some idea that by being Drudge-like stylistically, they will increase their influence.

Posted by Exile on Ericsson St. | January 2, 2008 12:57 PM

I admit to a personal dislike of caucuses because my disability makes it very hard to impossible for me to participate. That's true of a lot of sick and disabled people who'd like to be participating in Democratic primaries.

Posted by Bruce Baugh | January 2, 2008 1:10 PM

"Here's what I don't get: why do the prominent proto-bloggers -- I'm thinking especially of Kaus and Halperin -- have to express themselves in such a strange, mannered fashion, with the inside jokes and the imaginary editors and so on?"

I actually love Kaus' writing style. It's his repellent ideology and lack of intellectual honesty that get me down.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 1:10 PM

What Bob said. Carter was an extreme outside shot to win the 1976 nomination, but his year-long campaign in Iowa gave him the momentum that won the nomination and then the White House. Before then, the Iowa caucuses had been more or less a minor event on the calendar. But Yglesias has to meet his daily media-baiting quota, so I'm not surprised he blames its importance on the evil, evil MSM.

Posted by Brian | January 2, 2008 1:13 PM

"I admit to a personal dislike of caucuses because my disability makes it very hard to impossible for me to participate. That's true of a lot of sick and disabled people who'd like to be participating in Democratic primaries."

Caucuses have lots of drawbacks. Not only do they hit folks like you, but they also hit folks who can't get off work, folks who can't find child care, etc, etc.

But they also have lots of upside in winnowing a big field and empowering the party activists.

If I were the God of the Democrats, I'd say IA and NV should be caucuses early, to help with the winnowing. But after the early contests, everything should be primaries.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 1:14 PM

This claim that Iowa allows people to win without spending money and favors retail politics is silly. Where do you guys think Mitt Romney spent all his money? Do you guys know how many ads are placed on Iowa television and radio, and how much direct mail and how many phone calls are made?

It costs just as much to campaign in Iowa as it does in California. This "retail politics" / "underfunded candidate can pull an upset" narrative is BS. The only impacts of the Iowa caucuses are (1) to increase party elites' control of who gets the nomination and (2) to ensure that some small states have a hammerlock on the government.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 2, 2008 1:30 PM

"It costs just as much to campaign in Iowa as it does in California."

You're a moron, Dilan Esper.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 1:33 PM

Petey, this isn't the argument you want to be having. Why don't you just say, "Yes, having the Iowa caucus is a bad, undemocratic thing and should be unchanged. but it sill does sometimes yield good results, like this year." You'd have a lot more credibility.

And remember, the Edwards campaign is counting on you to make the best arguments you can!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 1:39 PM

Petey, this isn't the argument you want to be having. Why don't you just say, "Yes, having the Iowa caucus is a bad, undemocratic thing and should be changed. But it sill does sometimes yield good results, like this year."

Remember, Edwards is counting on you to maintain your credibility here!

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 1:40 PM

Opps. Well, maybe someone wanted a snapshot of comment-editing in process.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 1:43 PM

"Petey, this isn't the argument you want to be having."

Maybe not, but it's what I believe. No matter who wins Iowa, I think the caucus rules are fucking brilliant, and good for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

No matter who wins Iowa, I think the caucus rules as currently exist are a good thing.

(And I think Kaus is smart to be arguing against the caucus rules. They're bad for the Democratic Party he wants.)

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 1:49 PM

This infatuation with the Iowa caucus and "retail politics" is simply silly. We're a nation of 300 million people and we're voting for a national leader, here not county commissioner.

I'm all for candidates answering questions from voters, but despite rumors to the contrary, only a tiny percentage of Iowans ever get to see or question these candidates. This can be done as easily in any other state of the Union. Why should I care about the choices of voters from a small, rural, farm state any more than those from a large, urban, industrial one?

Just have everyone vote on the same day - then candidates would need to campaign on national issues instead of ethanol subsidies.

Posted by Jinchi | January 2, 2008 1:52 PM

"Just have everyone vote on the same day - then candidates would need to..."

...raise $300 million and already have excellent name recognition.

Check out how primaries for open Senate seats in California play out. It becomes nothing more than a fundraising and name I.D. contest. A national primary with no off-broadway contests before would be California on steroids.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 1:56 PM

If Iowa held a primary instead of a caucus, the demographics would be the exact same.

If Iowa held a primary instead of a caucus they'd have considerably higher turnout and the voters who show up now aren't exactly a random cross section of the population. The current system isn't even representative of Iowa, never mind the United States.

Posted by Jinchi | January 2, 2008 2:06 PM

No matter who wins Iowa, I think the caucus rules are fucking brilliant, and good for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

So where's the historical evidence for this? What actual Democratic presidential nominee was more progressive than the likely alternative under a national primary system?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 2:08 PM

A national primary with no off-broadway contests before would be California on steroids.

So I suppose you're lobbying for the same nonsensical state by state system for the general election?

I come from an urban area in a large state and we've had Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich, Thompson, Giuliani, McCain and Romney visit. I know for a fact that all the Democrats spoke to and took questions from their audiences, which sometimes numbered in the thousands. That may not be a "retail" as visiting the local diner or riding in a fire truck in Littleville Iowa, but it's more valuable to me as a voter.

Posted by Jinchi | January 2, 2008 2:16 PM

"So where's the historical evidence for this? What actual Democratic presidential nominee was more progressive than the likely alternative under a national primary system?"

Edwards is the first electable progressive since the caucuses started in '72.

We're in uncharted territory, historically.

And I'd actually recommend going through Kaus' archives to see his arguments against the caucuses, if you want to understand how they advantage the progressive wing of the Party. He gets it pretty well.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 2:19 PM

Thanks for spelling out, Petey: When you say "the Iowa caucuses are good for progressives" you mean "The Iowa caucuses are good for John Edwards."

You don't actually have to be a hack, you know. You have plenty of real arguments for your man.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 2:34 PM

"Thanks for spelling out, Petey: When you say "the Iowa caucuses are good for progressives" you mean "The Iowa caucuses are good for John Edwards"

I do try to be honest, and I can honestly tell you that if Edwards weren't running, I'd still be a fan of the caucus rules.

I was a fan of the caucus rules well before this election cycle.

The GOP doesn't have the same rules, and I don't think Iowa serves them nearly as well as it does the Democrats.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 2:42 PM

Then give us an example. You say Edwards is the first viable progressive since 1972. (So he wasn't viable last time? Or wasn't progressive?) But both progressive and viable describe ranges, not binaries. So if the relationship you're talking about existed, there ought to be a case where the eventual nominee was at least more progressive than the Iowa-less counterfactual. or where success in Iowa elevated a relatively progressive candidate, even if they didn't get the nomination. So where are they?

Was Carter more progressive than Kennedy?

Jesse Jackson wasn't viable as such, but his 1984 campaign was one of the great progressive moments in electoral politics in recent years. Did the Iowa caucuses help him?

Was Kerry the best progressive option last time around?

Look, if the Iowa caucuses have never once in their history been good for progressives, then it Just Is Not True that the Iowa caucuses are, as a general thing, good for progressives. Even if JE rocks out with his cock out this time.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 2:58 PM

lemuel,

I'm not particularly interested in a system that advantages unelectable progressives. I don't think JJ would've been a good nominee in '84, for example.

I'm interested in a system that advantages electable progressives.

Due to some quirks in the post-'68 Democratic Party, I don't think we've had an electable progressive until this cycle.

But the caucuses are set up to benefit that kind of candidate.

I'm not joking when I advise you to check out Kaus' rationale for disliking the caucus over the years. The very things that make it a good system for me make it a bad system for him.

And again, I may be wrong on the merits, but my admiration for the caucus rules pre-dates the JRE '08 campaign.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 3:08 PM

Shorter Petey: I got nothin'.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 3:11 PM

"Shorter Petey: I got nothin'."

You don't particularly interested in understanding my rationale.

I well understand that the anti-caucus argument is the easier one to make. But it's not the correct argument.

Posted by Petey | January 2, 2008 3:27 PM

You don't seem particularly interested in understanding my rationale.

Frankly, your rationale isn't all that relevant. As Montaigne said, before asking why something is true, we should first ask if it's true.

If, over 30-plus years, the Iowa caucuses have never once helped progressives, then it just isn't true that the Iowa caucuses generally help progressives. End of story.

Arguments for why they might hypothetically help progressives in the future, however plausible, don't change that. You can make plausible arguments for all sorts of things. Doesn't make them true.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | January 2, 2008 4:12 PM

Just to point out a correction, but it's inaccurate to lump Nevada in with "rural" states. Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are, indeed, more rural than the U.S. as a whole (79% according to the 2000 census), but Nevada is considerably more urban than that, 91.5% urban in Census 2000. That's more urban than New York.

Posted by Adam Villani | January 2, 2008 5:00 PM

Mike c - and the alternative is? iowa and NH are small states used to retail politics. Where else can a relative unknown become known, raise money (in that virtuous/vicious cycle) and sharpen their message?

The alternative is two dozen other small states rotating into the mix every 4 years if you believe that we should keep a few small states 1st so an unknown with little money (Clinton, Carter, Pastor Huckleberry) has a shot at getting voters attention rather than be swallowed up by a large State like Florida or California dominated by organization and money.

Why not Hawaii, Montana, Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Tennessee, New Mexico? New Jersey? Nevada?

Why not Mississippi or similar small state with a
hefty minority population once and a while? Or Arkansas?

Or make it a mix of small state, big state, small state in series so a new emerging candidate can point to success in Rhode Island and Oregon but losing Illinois simply because they haven't yet built a huge organization but have shown by small state victories they are viable, while Illinois, Cali, NY, Georgia, Florida at least can think that big state voters are finally in the mix and things are fairer.

I have a bigger problem with Iowa than New Hampshire. Iowa is dominated by activists running the caucuses and outside money where Candidates are expected to kowtow to Agribiz, KosKidz Lefty activists, Ethanol Lobby, Club for Growth, etc... - because everyone knows that with the Caucuses drawing only 100,000 of Iowa's 3 million (only 6% of registered voters, heavily partisan and elderly), that the vote will not be typical of a statewide straight vote, even in Iowa. Lobbies openly admit they pay Party lawyers and professional activists in those states to set up money and grassroots "support" for Candidates that will do their bidding. Right To Life groups have encouraged members to move to Iowa so they are in a state that "has a voice for the fetuses".

But New Hampshire should go, too. They have been favored so long that they openly say their vote is predicated on how much attention over a years span is given to them or their "All-Important" State by Candidates.

Both Iowa and NH having disenfranchized the other 48 states is bad, but it's made worse by the other states moving their primaries up. There is no time for a candidate to show voters that they can adapt, retool their campaigns. If they are not written off as "finished" based on the atypical vote of two mostly white states, they are pronounced "finished" by February now after Super Tuesday or even the S Carolina Primary before that. No more Reagans allowed to start badly then come on strong, or the Gephardts and Deans allowed recovery from a mistake so voters and party members can see them doing more than swearing their love of crop subsidies or some asshole in a New Hampshire cafe noting Biden spent far more time than the other 6 candidates he personally met in discussing his demand for more Federal money to support Candian tourism to his campsite, so Biden deserves his vote.

And how many regular Californians get to buttonhole 7 Presidential candidates about more Fed funds for traffic congestion, or Georgians about water issues? Zero, none! No voice at all in the South and the West.

*****************
My own preference is 5 early primaries in the same week. One from each region roughly balanced in region population - Midwest, the South, Atlantic/New England, Rockies&Texas, Pacific. That the primaries be refined to two small, two-midsized, 1 large state.
Announced by Commission 12 months in advance of the Primary date so activists cannot use decades -long strategy to beef up their going into the states to set up residency and their grassroots lobbying for companies or causes groups.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 2, 2008 5:15 PM

You're a moron, Dilan Esper.

Calling me a moron is not an argument, Petey.

Again, do you know the first thing about how much money Romney spent in Iowa? I'll give you a hint, it is more than ANY CAMPAIGN SPENT IN THE HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA POLITICS, even adjusting for inflation.

Just because the state and population are smaller doesn't mean they spend less. They spend just as much, just more per voter.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 2, 2008 6:11 PM