Bust out your tiniest violin, and get ready to play it for Iowa Democrats upset that—gasp!—national Democrats should have a say in what the field is, not a bunch of non-representative Iowans in the most non-representative and undemocratic format possible: the caucus.
“It’s a national primary based on the worst foundation: Name identification and money,” said Dave Nagle, a former congressman and Iowa state Democratic Party chairman. “And we’re supposed to be the party of ideas.”
Hilarious. What does a candidate need to win an election? Name ID and money. How much of that did Pete Buttigieg have at the beginning of campaign season? None. Did he need Iowa to bust out? No. Where was Elizabeth Warren at the start of the campaign season? Dead last in fundraising among top-tier candidates. Her national numbers sucked. Now she’s near the top nationally. And oh, look at that, she’s at the top in Iowa now, too.
Iowa thinks it’s special and somehow better at anyone else at picking the best Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter). Yet there is another motive for their desperation to keep their first-in-the-nation status: cold, hard cash.
You can see that in this ridiculous passage: “In Iowa, Nagle said he has called a handful of candidates who he said are at risk of dropping out, lamenting that ‘they’re being excluded without even being given the benefit of a vote.’”
Since when has Iowa cared about candidates getting the benefit of a vote that wasn’t their vote? But Nagle needs those candidates to stay in because each one, with their entourage and campaign activities, is spending a great deal of money in the state.
And what’s more, those national Democrats are doing “favors” for Iowa Dems, desperate for their endorsements and access to their networks. Those favors take the form of campaign appearances, campaign contributions, fundraising emails, etc. It’s a system that dramatically benefits the Iowa Democratic Party and its candidates, to the exclusion of Democrats in the rest of the country.
That’s why you get quotes like this: “Two Democratic strategists working in Iowa and New Hampshire said they have had difficulty organizing small-dollar fundraising events with presidential contenders for their candidates, despite the political advantage presidential candidates often seek from such appearances. Because the presidential candidates need to inflate their small-dollar numbers, both strategists said, they have been less willing to share.”
This has nothing to do with sharing small dollar donors. Remember, it’s the number of donors that matter, not the amount. So no campaign has a problem with “sharing” a $5 donor, sheesh. If this was really about amassing small-dollar donors, then such events would make all the sense in the world for presidential candidates! What’s keeping the presidential candidates away is that they no longer need to bribe local politicos for endorsements and other assistance. It’s simply not worth their time.
“This election cycle, one of the strategists said, “I don’t think down-ballot candidates have been a huge priority.” Such bullshit, considering that ActBlue just recorded record donations last quarter. But that’s down-ballot candidates all over the country. Arm-twisting presidential campaigns into helping local Iowa candidates? Yeah, that’s definitely no longer a huge priority.
Furthermore, every campaign trudging through Iowa was followed by political reporters, all of them booking hotel rooms and buying meals and otherwise spending cash in the state. Then there are the out-of-state volunteers that spend money, and so on. It’s been quite the lucrative racket. (How much? The Washington Post did a deep analysis to try and figure out the number, and they came up with $180 million for Iowa, and $205 million for New Hampshire—and that’s just political spending, not including traveling press corps and out-of-state volunteers, etc.)
Until now, this system was so patently unfair that you have to marvel at Iowa’s (and New Hampshire’s) ability to get all other states, DC, and territories to go along with ceding “first in the nation” status to the others’ detriment. (And to pull this fast one on both parties!)
But the Iowa political establishment knows their system is on the ropes. So they are flailing. “Michael Fitzgerald, Iowa’s Democratic state treasurer, said long-shot presidential candidates could once plan — and save their money for — a potential late surge in Iowa. Now, he said, “I see these candidates, they have to sit down and decide, ‘Oh, my God, do we spend our money just to get into the debates so you can hear our voice?‘” Funny thing is, the debates are not about “hearing their voice.” The debates function just as Iowa used to function: as a mechanism to whittle down the main field.
I never heard anyone in Iowa lament the inability of candidates to “get their voice heard” after dropping out post-caucuses. Yet we had a system in which no one got to hear a candidate’s voice unless they survived the Iowa filter and then the New Hampshire one. Nowadays, everyone gets to hear everyone’s voice. The internet is wonderful! Mr. Fitzgerald above should check it out, though odds are he knows and is flailing for any justification to keep that sweet cash flowing into the accounts he controls.
And it’s exactly that technology that makes name ID so easy, if a candidate is compelling enough to earn it. Even Tulsi Gabbard, as awful as she is, has garnered decent name ID. Similarly, the internet has also made it easy for candidates to raise money and do so in a way that minimizes, or even bypasses, traditional wealthy campaigns funders. But a candidate has to be compelling. You don’t see Warren or Bernie Sanders or Buttigieg or Beto O’Rourke reverting to gimmicky “give me $1 so I can be heard” nonsense. If that’s what a candidate is doing to get in a debate, that candidate should reassess his or her chances. Because really, that candidate has zero future.
In short, technology and social media now allow candidates to build national movements, and it is exactly a national movement that is needed to win national elections. Iowa’s role in this? They won’t be deciding anything. If they granted victory to Steve Bullock, we would all point and laugh. Their job now is just to deliver the bad news to all the also-rans who aren’t getting the hint today. Because they sure aren’t setting themselves apart from the national consensus.
What does that mean? Well, consider that the top national candidates are Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Kamala Harris.
In Iowa?
Selzer (polling gold standard in Iowa, and really, anywhere):
Warren: 22
Biden: 20
Sanders: 11
Buttigieg: 9
Harris: 6
Civiqs
Warren: 24
Biden: 16
Sanders: 16
Buttigieg: 13
Harris: 5
So who are these magical no-name also-rans that Iowa is helping surface in this race? They don’t exist. They're just ratifying what we already know. And if that’s what’s left of their vaunted first-in-the-nation status, their politicians no longer need to be bribed, local leaders and influentials don’t need their rings kissed, and the political press and others don’t need to shower the state with hundreds of millions in cash.
So what other nonsense are the locals complaining about? “Daniel Squadron, a former New York state senator who directs the Future Now Fund, a national group working to elect Democrats in state races, said the debate fundraising rules at the presidential level ‘encourages candidates to soak up all of the resources and the attention — and does nothing to encourage candidates to help build something beyond themselves.’”
There was a time when presidential candidates didn’t try to raise all the money?
Meanwhile, back on Earth, consider this headline: “Elizabeth Warren Just Made Donations To Dems In All 50 States.” Or savor this: “over 12,000 Democrats gathered for the Polk County Steak Fry on Saturday. Seventeen presidential hopefuls spoke at the event, per the Des Moines Register’s Brianne Pfannenstiel, and many of them organized big rallies before marching into the event as a show of force. But two candidates took a different approach. Sanders and Warren sent their supporters elsewhere, to knock on doors.”
The good campaigns, the ones building national movements, will necessarily invest in local organizing, in Iowa and everywhere else. In fact, one of my longstanding complaints (back to my days writing Crashing the Gates) was that the national party didn’t invest in local campaigns and organizers! Heck, even Biden spent much of last cycle stumping for down-ballot candidates around the country. So no, I’m not going to let Iowa grifters pretend that the national primary spells the death of local organizing.
The DNC’s debate-inclusion rules changed the game, and not in a way that they likely anticipated. But the end result is a process that has allowed all of us to be engaged. It’s fueled political engagement and excitement around the country. The only reason that would upset anyone in Iowa is if they’ve lost something in the process.
And they have lost something, of course: an ill-deserved control of the presidential field and a monopoly on a decision that belongs to all of us.
And we are far better for it.
Next: end the Iowa caucuses once and for all, and rotate “first in the nation” states. But for now, let’s celebrate this unexpected progress.