If it's true...

...it's probably more predictive than any poll at this point. Via Political Wire...

Rick Perry has signed up 1,500 precinct leaders in Iowa, a source inside the campaign tells CNN. There are a total 1,774 Republican caucus precincts around the state, about 900 of which are combined.

Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul have put in similar efforts to build a ground operation for the caucuses on Tuesday.

From the "Since you asked…" file.

Pondering Iowa, the WaPo wonders...

How relevant are the preferences of 200,000 or so caucusgoers in a rural state that is overwhelmingly white and significantly older than average?

Since you asked, that seems like a pretty fair representation of the Republican base, so, for Republicans anyway, pretty relevant, I suppose.

Sad, really.

Take out the fallacious swipe at MoveOn, and it's even more pathetic on a very fundamental level. Just think about it...

"We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party."

A candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for President of the United States, an honor which carries the corollary position of titular head of the Democratic Party, thinks the key to her lack of success is the participation of the "activist base of the Democratic Party." No wonder down-ticket candidates across the country, who don't raise millions upon millions of dollars and count on an energized base, are nervous about a Hillary Clinton nomination. The last time a Clinton led the Party, we lost the Congress, a bunch of governor's mansions and who knows how many state legislative seats. Would the next time be deja vu all over again?

(Still wonder which way most of those purple state uncommitted Congressmembers are going to throw their convention vote? There's a hint here.)

Of course, just because Hillary says the caucuses were flooded with dirty hippies doesn't mean it's so. In fact, the attendees at precinct caucuses tend to resemble the neighborhoods they're held in. All that record attendance? That doesn't come from the "activist base" of anything. If the Party's activist base was present at my own caucus, it would have been the four of us, out of 32, that had previously attended a caucus or Party meeting. The other 28? All first timers, folks who had never come out of the house to take a stand for a candidate in their lives (and they'd had chances. Average age was probably 50. No beards or Birkenstocks seen.). Some "activist base," huh?

The 'base' broke 3-1 for Hillary (including yours truly at the time). All those first timers, those brand spanking new Democrats, those middle-aged, working class folks who inhabit the 50 year old cement block tract houses around here? Broke big for Obama.

She doesn’t know who the Obama folks are, just who Mark Penn tells her they are. Heck, she doesn't even know who her own folks are, which is why she's lost some and will lose others.

And you start to get the sense that she just doesn't care about that.

Or you.

So Hillary catches a caucus win...

...in a small state.

Don't suppose she'll throw it back while she angles for a another one. Funny how they look bigger out of the water, isn't it?

I guess the reason…

…the Clintons have such a piss-poor caucus record is they really don't know anything about them. The Big Dog...

"The caucuses aren't good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don't really need a president but feel like they need a change."

Actually, they favor the folks who live in the neighborhood. Upper-income voters are scarce in my precinct, and plentiful in others, I suppose, but the concentration of delegates is based on Democratic ballot performance, and that tends to proportionately disfavor upper-income neighborhoods most everywhere.

What I still don't get is why their entire campaign operation chooses to be willfully ignorant of the process and possibilities of the caucus system despite getting their butts whipped over and over again. Caucus organizing is different from primary organizing, and it's hard work, but it's not all that hard to figure out.

And we all need a president. And a change.

If she really believes…

…this, well, that's part of the problem.

She said she never expected to do well in any of those contests, even though she had been favored to win Maine. Clinton repeated her criticism that the caucus system is undemocratic and caters mostly to party activists.

If the Clinton camp is convinced that a cabal of party activists is out to get them in the caucuses, well, they'd be disheartened to learn that in my precinct, the only one who probably qualifies under that heading was me, and I ended up with her. In fact, only three out of the 32 attendees had ever been to a caucus before, and all three ended up on the Hillary roster. I don't think my precinct was atypical.

And what about the delegates she has won in the caucus states? Is she going to release them because their selection was "undemocratic."

It's a bit of a puzzle why the Clintons have never been able to crack the caucus code - it was a problem for Bill, too - but sour grapes won't provide a solution.

Crystal ball time again.

Nevada Democrats will be gathering in a few hours to apportion 22 pledged delegats (16 by Congressional district and 6 at large). Lotta hoopla for 22 delegates, huh? Yeah, I know, there will be 33 Nevadans on the National Convention floor, but a third of their delegation will be 'Party Leaders and Elected Officials' and unpledged delegates. Today they pick 22.

Since it's a caucus, percentages don't mean much and are hardly reported. It's delegates that count, and my prediction is based on the final apportionment. For no particularly good reason except "I figure," here 'tis...

Clinton 9
Obama 8
Edwards 5

You got a guess?

Umm, wrong.

Hillary, via David Postman, abridged by yours truly...

"You know in a situation of a caucus...they're disenfranchised. People who can't be in the state or who are in the military, like the son of the woman who was here who is serving in the Air Force, they cannot be present."

Or, at least, not necessarily, at least not here, thanks to the Washington State Democrats...

Caucus Surrogate Affidavit Form for Religious Observance, Military Service or Disability.

The deadline is February 1. Pass it on to friends and relations.

Worth repeating.

Scott at the NPI blog…

The Iowa caucuses are regarded by many as a crucial harbinger of the campaign leading up to the party conventions. However since 1972, when Iowa started its "first in the nation" tradition, its track record has been mixed.

George McGovern came in third in 1972.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter came in second. In first place was an uncommitted slate. George H. W. Bush won in 1980. In 1988, he came in third.

Recently Iowa has done better as a predictor. John Kerry won the 2004 Democratic caucus by 6%. In 2000, George W. Bush won solidly over a crowed field and Al Gore defeated Bill Bradley by 26%.

In 1996 Bob Dole beat Pat Buchanan by 3%.

So enjoy the political theater that is Iowa, but remember that while a victory does give momentum going into New Hampshire and beyond, it does not guarantee victory or defeat. Just ask Bill Clinton. In 1992, he only received 3%!

Yep. We've only just begun.

Precincts Reporting:

1781 of 1781:

Senator Barack Obama : 37.58%
Senator John Edwards : 29.75%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.47%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.11%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.93%
Uncommitted : 0.14%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.02%

So I was wrong. I thought Obama's strategy of dependence on young voters and non-Democrats was risky, and that his open attacks on key Democratic constituencies in recent days would cost him. Turns out the kids turned out, and a whole bunch of brand new Democrats, too. Caucus attendance nearly doubled, and young voters turned out in numbers to rival the over-65 crowd, a tremendous credit to the Obama campaign's ability to translate inspiration into action. As a Democrat, I've got to feel good about that even if the results offer some disappointment.

Little of that disappointment is felt on behalf of John Edwards. It's better to win than to place, of course, but it's also better to place than to show, particularly in this case. One of the tougher struggles for the Edwards campaign has been fighting the impression that this is a two-way race between Clinton and Obama. If Edwards has been covered at all, he's usually been depicted as some kind of angry crank, scaring off voters with wild-eyed rants bordering on anarchy. A lot of people are going to be taking a second look at the second place finisher, since it's hard to argue that he can't compete with someone he just beat.

At the same time, a lot of people who've been holding their cards close to their vests, waiting to see if there really was a possibility that a populist message might resonate this year. Clearly, it does. Not just because of Edward's finish tonight, but because of the way his example has framed so much of the debate. Hillary? She's all about change and fighting for the middle class now. Senator Obama? He's putting corporate lobbyists on notice that while they're welcome to his bargaining table, if they forget their manners and hog the gravy he'll push right by 'em and get some. Health care as a centerpiece of everyone's campaign, with the debate revolving around what universal means? Thank John Edwards and the SEIU.

It's not the finish I hoped for, of course, but it's a finish Edwards can build on. No sense of elation here, perhaps, but not too much disappointment, really.

None, naturally, for Obama. Some elation, in fact. I was born in the Jim Crow era. The deed to the house I was raised in included a covenant forbidding it's sale to non-white buyers (It was still in the text long after changing laws had rendered it moot). Tonight I watched a black American win an election in Iowa. Win it decisively, with support that crossed racial, generational and ideological lines. I've got to admit that I still don't get it, but I'm starting to believe that may be my own fault. Nope, no share of disappointment for Obama. Just congratulations.

A little disappointment for Senator Clinton. Not so long ago, her star was so bright, her hopes were so high, the expectations were so strong. I mean, it was going to be Hillary, right? Clear shot. She's so contained, so confident, so, well, 'presidential.'

And so 90's, I'm afraid. Poor Hillary.

Most of my disappointment, though, is reserved for the second tier. Senators Dodd and Biden both rank above Clinton on my personal preference scale (Edwards, Dodd, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Richardson, in that order). Both of them committed all the resources they could muster and ran postive, honest campaigns, making their best cases on their respectively considerable merits. I thought they'd do better - not well enough to continue, perhaps (Dodd is reportedly ready to withdraw, Biden will likely follow him in short order), but at least 2 or 3, maybe even 5 percent.

On the bright side, for us if not them, the Senate will be strengthened by the full-time attention of the duo.

And, OK, just a spot of disappointment on behalf of Governor Richardson. Though he sat at the bottom of my acceptable list, primarily because of his foolish commitment to a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, and though desperation drove him to foolish and fruitless negativity, he too worked tirelessly to share his version of the Democratic vision. And he should drop out in the morning.

The Iowa Democrats...

...have up to the minute results.

Edwards is hanging in. The second tier has practically disappeared.

Three tickets out, they say.

Deal?

Report: Richardson Will Ask Supporters to Back Obama

No deal.

"...the rumor is false- there are no deals. These are typical last minute election shenanigans.

Richardson staffer Joaquin H. Guerra

No wonder.

As for second choices: ...Richardson supporters - 31% say Edwards, 19% Obama.

Nobody owns the caucus attendees. They're gonna do what they're gonna do, and nobody knows what that is, either.

Just buckle up folks. We're moving into the spin cycle...

So, maybe you can't poll Iowa…

…but you can still guess analyze possible outcomes. Here's my own caucus-eve hunch, based on absorbing an irrational amount of information, via the mailing lists of 6 campaigns, the feeds or front pages of about 100 blogs and the feeds of three wire services and four daily papers.

Not much TV coverage in the mix at all. Just a pinch of talk radio. Lots of barroom conversation.

I think John Edwards will win. Surprise, huh? As a veteran of a couple three decades of caucuses myself, every sign I've seen indicates that the Edwards campaign understands the caucus process and how to build a successful caucus operation. While others might boast of larger ranks of hired hands on the streets, the Edwards campaign has emphasizes having volunteer operatives inside the room. While Obama and Clinton both seem to be counting on waves of new attendees and non-Democrats, many Edwards supporters are repeaters, with insight into the rules, the math and the real world of caucus wheeling and dealing. I've sat through a lot of caucus trainings, and I've sat through a lot of caucuses. I learned a lot more at the caucuses.

It's because of that local, experienced base that Edwards has held his ground in Iowa even as others beat him to the airwaves, outspent him on the air and on the ground and the press tried to turn this into a two-way contest. It's because of that local, experienced base, and his tireless work in rural western Iowa and the breadth of his labor support that I expect 34% of the precinct delegates selected to be Edwards supporters.


The Clinton effort has suffered, I think, from something that became apparent as I watched their '92 efforts from the standpoint of the state caucus coordinator for a competing campaign. They don't like caucuses much, and they don't win them, either. They don't think they have to. They're probably right. But they can't lose. They need to come in second so that they can move to the primary states with the race defined as Hillary v. _______ , and they don't much care who _______ is. Nobody benefits more from a narrowed field than Clinton. They have the resources and savvy for a first class GOTV operation, and enough support to score second place with 28% of the delegates.

Obama seems to have great appeal to people previously outside the Democratic Party, and the rules allow them to declare themselves Democrats as they sign in to participate in the caucus (it's the same here in the upper left). Turning out independents and Republican crossovers can challenging, though, and the caucus environment can be intimidating enough for any first timer, let alone one who may not be completely comfortable assuming an unaccustomed partisan role. Some eleventh hour bashing of labor and trial lawyers, two Democratic constituencies that are likely to be overrepresented in caucus rooms, won't make those rooms any more hospitable to first time non-Democrats in attendance. When the deals are cut, despite Kucinich's promise to deliver his <1%, I think Obama will be mostly dealt out.

There's also the fact that much Obama's hope seems vested in student support, but that's blunted by their tendency to be geographically concentrated. Two hundred students crammed into a dormitory commons may end up picking the same number of delegates as a couple dozen folks in the hinterlands. It's the kind of thing that makes polling the caucuses so problematic (read "impossible"). Despite all the hype and Oprah, there are too many barriers to victory for the Obama campaign to overcome. Third place, 25%.

The remaining 13% will be split, probably more or less evenly, between Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson. Regardless of their individual shares, their net outcome will be identical - no national delegates. Since, like Washington, Iowa has a multi-tiered process of delegate selection, there will be more meetings, with more threshold requirements, before any national delegates are actually selected, and even if the campaigns survive (unlikely, really) to that point, their thresholds won't.

On the Republican side, well, since I can't imagine how any sentient being could vote for any of those guys, I have no idea.

Expect John McCain to do better than you expect him to, though.

Duh headline of the day.

Candidates urge voter turnout in Iowa

Duh.

Don't worry…

…the Des Moines Register can't poll Iowa, either. OK, maybe they, and their sundry competitors, can spot broad trends. I'll happily accept the revealed wisdom that the proverbial three tickets out of Iowa will go to Senator's Clinton, Edwards and Obama. But the order, or the spread? Nope. The best polls you can get are probably less reliable than a genuinely educated hunch.

I've mentioned the threshold issue and second choices, as well as the intra-personal complications inherent in the caucus system. It gets worse for the pollsters.

The polling we see is almost invariably of a statewide sample, but there's no statewide election in Iowa. It's a precinct by precinct affair and it's simply not practical to examine a sample large enough to reflect variation on the precinct level. Because the real choices are being made in 1,997 distinct constituencies, though, the distribution of support is every bit as, if not more, important as the percentage. That's why, for instance, Edwards' early and consistent attention to rural precincts is an advantage the polls may miss. Caucus attendees in those regions often find their influence outstrips their numbers.

The number of delegates a precinct selects, after all, isn't based on the number of caucus attendees, but is a set number, based on Democratic performance in previous contests, whether there are twenty attendees or two hundred. Again, distribution, which the polls can't measure, trumps percentages, which they, to a degree, can measure.

There's also the question of how the polling samples are shaped to reflect certain assumptions about who is likely to caucus. Some criticism of the Register poll has pointed to the inclusion of an unprecedented number of independents,Republicans and first time attendees in its sample. It's really nothing more than their best guess. Even people who identify themselves as certain to attend sometimes don't. Not everyone will admit that they don't plan to take part on the central stage of American political theater. Not everyone knows what crises or opportunities may present themselves between now and Thursday night.

Nobody knows for sure who'll attend a caucus. Nobody knows for sure what they'll do.

Nope, you can't poll Iowa, and neither can the Register.

All the spin and guesswork's fun to watch, though.

On impossibility.

You can't poll Iowa.

Polling is problematic everywhere, but it just can't be done for a caucus. The effect of human interaction in a precinct caucus where pleas are heard, offers are made and deals are cut face to face with real people from down the block defies prediction.

Everyone's heard about the 15% threshold required to earn a share of the delegates at a precinct, but most of the speculation has been around which of the big three candidates might benefit most from the supporters of candidates who don't make the cut. The range of speculation about that possibility alone is enough to cast doubt on the validity of pre-caucus polling.

It's even weirder than that, though. There's no reason the second tier candidate's supporters have to go to the big 3 at all. If they have the numbers, they can band together under the banner of any candidate, or of no candidate at all. And all those undecided voters in those polls? They can stay undecided. "Uncommitted" is an eligible delegate category, if you can assemble 15% of the attendees.

Not complicated enough to confound the pollsters, you say? Well, consider that if the candidates who have made threshold have an attendee or two to spare, they might shift them around for their own strategic advantage. For instance, suppose three candidates have made threshold, with one having a lead that allows them to select more delegates than the other. A savvy supporter of the second or third place candidate might watch the sign in sheet with an eye beyond the immediate outcome of their precinct and begin cutting the deal that brings a fourth candidate to threshold, which might deprive the top candidate of a delegate or two.

And there's that neighborhood thing. These are people you know, people who wave when you drive by, people who nod at the corner store, people you do business with, people whose kids play with your kids. People you’d usually like to help out, if you can. When that guy in the bright gold IAFF for Dodd shirt standing next to the sign in table says he just needs one or two more folks to get out of the room as a delegate, and that's real important to him and to his union, what do you suppose the odds are that one or two of that firefighter's neighbors, through friendship, respect for his role in the community or labor solidarity, will step up and help him out?

Then again, maybe not.

Nope, you can't poll Iowa.

Which is why it's so much fun.

Save the date.

Washington State caucus and convention schedule:

Precinct Caucuses - Saturday February 9, 2008
Legislative District Conventions - Saturday April 5, 2008
County Conventions - Saturday April 19, 2008
Congressional District Conventions - Saturday May 17, 2008
Washington State Convention - June 14 & 15, 2008 - Spokane, Washington

On 'getting it'…

…and not. Seattle activist/consultant Steve Zemke's peeved with the Party...

A bipartisan committee to set the date for the Washington State Presidential Primary picked Feb. 19th, 2008 as the date to allow Washington voters to cast ballots for a Democratic or Republican candidate for President. The Republicans will allocate 50% of their delegates based on this vote. Democratic leaders, who don't get it, will allocate none. Instead they will only choose delegates based on the selections coming out of the party caucuses on February 9, 2008.

Sorry, Steve, but if someone doesn't get it, well, I'm afraid it's you. The State Central Committee, which constitutes the "Democratic leaders" in question, has a responsibility to develop rules that insure the Washington delegation to the National Convention is eligible to be seated. That requires some significant hoops and spins in the area of affirmative action, some mathematical gymnastics to insure that delegates are properly apportioned and, perhaps most importantly, that the Democratic delegates to the Democratic Convention are selected by Democrats. All of those requirements are arguments for our caucus system and against a primary election cobbled together out of initiatives, court challenges and legislation.

But Steve argues that the caucuses are "the antithesis of what the party should stand for." The Party, he argues…

...should stand for a selection process that provides maximum access to the voting public to participate. The caucus does not do that.

There's certainly a time for Democrats to advocate for maximum access and to be vigilant in the defense of voting rights. The delegate selection process, though, isn't that time. Selecting delegates to a National Convention is a serious internal matter for Democrats, not an electoral cattle call for the voting public. Since the state doesn't offer voter registration by political party, and the primary system in place allows voters to choose a ballot from either party with the explicit understanding that such a selection does not constitute a declaration of partisanship, it's necessary to find another means of insuring that our process is secure from the influence and mischief of sundry Republican, Green, Reform Party, Libertarian and independent interlopers. That's the caucus.

It's true that not everyone can attend a precinct caucus. It's also true that not everyone can cast a ballot, even a vote by mail ballot, for any number of reasons. Caucus involvement is a good deal more accessible than critics typically admit, though. If you're in a time crunch, you can register your declaration of partisanship and you Presidential preference and quickly be on your way. You can even run for delegate without attending your precinct caucus. Conversely, for some it's a rare opportunity to meet with other Democrats to discuss issues and campaigns and to give public expression to and solicit Party support for issues important to the grassroots.

In many ways, it's all about the grassroots. Certainly a primary is a boon to the consulting class and the advertising sales profession, but the caucuses are the Party's principle tool for grassroots organization. Caucus attendees are an essential pool of recruits not just for campaigns, but for local Party organizations looking for Precinct Committee Officers and new members. It's an avenue for any voter to begin the journey to selection as a National Convention Delegate, bypassing the backroom process of getting on a campaign slate. It's the most open, transparent and accessible process possible. It's everything, in fact, that the Party should stand for - grassroots activism at the most local level driving the direction of the national Party.

Don't like that? Get to work on voter registration by Party and a closed primary and let's talk.

Meanwhile, Party leaders get the only thing worth getting - Party members expect them to protect the security of our process and the integrity of our selection. That's just what they've done.