Obama's Iowa Victory Hidden in the Grassroots?

Why Second Choice Might Mean First Place on Caucus Night

Absolutely fascinating news from the Iowa Obama campaign ...

While Obama & Clinton & Edwards are close to tied in Iowa, Obama reportedly has a substantial lead in the "Who's your second choice?" category. In Iowa, where I've worked on the caucuses three times (1988, 2000, 2004), this is very, very important.

This second place lead is actually the most significant political intelligence that has come up in the last few months other than fundraising .

How does someone know this? Ask the Obama field campaign. Then ask the Clinton field campaign. You can ask Edwards' folks, too.

But why does it matter that Obama could have a big lead in this seemingly silly category?

The strange caucus vote-counting rules create this uniquely Iowan situation. A successful caucus night strategy requires knowing who has you as their #2 (more on that below). Also, the fact is that we're still sort of early in the process matters (Early? EARLY? I've been hearing about this damn caucus for a year already!) . There are lots of ups and downs to come.

If Clinton does not win Iowa, the door will be wide open for a real challenge in New Hampshire and South Carolina soon afterward. Only Obama has the cash to really take advantage of a second or third place showing by her. Even better for him, the Illinois senator is also reportedly running a dramatically better ground campaign in S.C. though she has at least as strong an operation in New Hampshire.

Now let's talk how the caucus process -- understood only by a political scientist or activist with too much time -- gives Obama a path from second choice to first place.

First, as other candidates (especially Edwards) weaken before the caucuses, Obama will pick up more voters than Clinton because more folks list him than her as Option B. Because his pond supposedly has more fish to catch than hers, the current tie in the polls might then turn into an Obama lead.

Second, on caucus night the Iowa caucus rules require each candidate to have a minimum number of supporters (15%) at each precinct meeting in order to get any supporters counted in the final statewide tally. So, if one candidate does not have 15% of the caucus goers who show up, they then must decide to throw their support behind a "viable" (15%+) candidate. If Obama is way ahead in the second choice support category, he will come out with extra support that Clinton does not get and that was not reflected in the pre-election polling.

Arcane? Byzantine? Confusing?

Sure!

That's why the Iowa caucuses can be so very exciting. There are lots of obscure twists and turns on the way to the finish line.

Donnie Fowler
Palo Alto
CherryTreeMobileMedia
Fowler & Crumley, Inc.

Comments

[ivan414]

Prople seem to not understand that the real power is in the Congress. We are in such a mess now-not because G.W. is the president- but that a real congress of the people is not seated. If they had the type of courage displayed by our men abnd women in uniform, the president would then only be overruled in his dictatorial powers.

[SensibleAmerican]

You are right! It's hidden support for Barack Hussein and will stay ... hidden! A majority of Americans have begun to see through his fluff. His numbers are going down as Hillary increases her commanding lead

Too much is made of Iowa caucuses but in this election, they are of little significance as all States have moved up their primaries. Edwards' campaign will be over once he loses Iowa and so will be BHOs

You can slice and dice it any which way you want, but the days of fluff and hot air are fizzling away ...

[nolalily]

There is nothing "fluffy" about most of the Dem candidates. The Republican candidates are another story. They come across as Fluffy, Muffy and Cottontail.

[SensibleAmerican]

You are right! It's hidden support for Barack Hussein and will stay ... hidden! A majority of Americans have begun to see through his fluff. His numbers are going down as Hillary increases her commanding lead

Too much is made of Iowa caucuses but in this election, they are of little significance as all States have moved up their primaries. Edwards' campaign will be over once he loses Iowa and so will be BHOs

You can slice and dice it any which way you want, but the days of fluff and hot air are fizzling away ...

[kickbass]

Hey Sean,
How about a 29% lead???
See here:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm
Just for fun, I'll write this:
The results from the Iowa caucuses will mean nothing. Nothing.
That felt good.

[Chocolate2008]

I'm so excited. I can't wait till Iowa !

Go O8AMA !

[BlueLogic]

This "caucus" procedure sounds so...20th century.

[Donnie Fowler - Huffpost Blogger]

Truth is, the caucus procedure is so ... 18th century. Town hall type democracy as envisioned by the founders is not a bad thing, and the Iowa caucuses are exactly that type of hyper-local citizen participation meetings. I guess you might even call is so ... 6th century BC. This is when the Athenians invented direct democracy.

[GhostofGeraldFord]

Look, think of Iowa and New Hampshire as off off Broadway. In both states you can have viable candidates with little cash test the waters. That can't happen in a larger state. candidates until the "year of the scream" could make mistakes and it would not get national attention.

Media saturation has turned the process from a living room style political discussion where you spoke to your neighbors about your candidate to two year on the ground slug fest where the candidates only respond with canned answers for fear that a minor slip up will be seen as a major set back. We need less cameras, less coverage so that the process can work.
We also need less commercials as they started broadcasting in May. You should see Mitt Romney's commercial telling Republicans that "they have to stop acting like democrats" Very Smarmy trying to shift responsibility.

In Iowa we don't see it as picking a candidate for coronation but as culling the herd. Obama and Edwards have local precinct workers who hold parties and canvas neihborhoods while Hillary doesn't meet with the 'Little Democrats" she prefers to tell us "how great she has been to all of us" She has the high profiled, deep pocket politicos in the state but we will wait to see how many real supporters show up.

[OHDemocrat]

"Off-Broadway" and cheaper only because of the established networks. All the more reason for relocation, geography is nothing anymore. Pair an Indiana with a Montana. Or a Maryland with a Nevada. In addition, how about we try relocating in states sure to see major demographic changes, thinking here of a New Mexico say, to help court Latinos and win their support forevermore, a la California. If everyone is so scared with the ealier, Nationalized campaigns, then shake up the status quo and grow more roots.
That candidates are afraid of slipping up, and therefore are not emboldened enough for you, is simply a lack of cajones. We have had leaders, some great, some not, who would not shirk to the stage. (Agreed to someone who mentioned Obama beginning an attack campaign on Rudy, tout suite!) Until the public requisitions TV commercial time for political purposes, the early ads are here to stay. This *is* the age of the Internet. In a way, all campaigns will be forever nationalized.

[Simone]

Your explanation of the Iowa caucuses didn't seem byzantine to me - you managed to explain it in a few sentences. I agree with the premise that if Obama is the second choice he'll pick up most the non-viable candidates support. In my precinct non-viable people almost always go with the person who is not in the lead 1) to send a message that they aren't mainstream or followers and 2) to keep things interesting.

[esl]

Oh, you white men. You will grasp at anything to keep hope alive that the man will always rule over the woman. Sorry, but you are going to see Republican women vote in great numbers for Hillary. We are so tired of the messes you men make.

[metamorphosis]

So letting a woman make the messes is more preferable? Pelosi is making quite a mess of things. Seriously, I am all for the first woman president, but not one that will cause many more problems than she will solve.

[EspressoAtNoon]

Who ever said Hillary was a woman?

[jsarets]

Who ever said Obama was a white man?

[JimR]

Yes, she did SUCH a great job with health care reform during her husband's administration. And I'm sure Bush was very appreciative of her vote to authorize war in Iraq.

[nolalily]

Some women are just as bad as some men. I'd put Hillary in that category. She condescends to black audiences all the time.

[Robin08]

Hmmm. If that's the best argument out there for Republican women to vote for Hillary that ain't saying much for Hillary, Republican women or apparently your analysis for why women or anyone else should vote for Hillary. Voting for a candidate soley because she is a woman isn't a persuasive reason to give someone my vote.

[LeftLeanWing]

Many advise that Obama needs to start attacking Hillary; I believe that is not the right strategy. He needs to become an attack dog on Rudy instead. This way he will get more TV face time ( His face has been missing on the tube lately ).

Let's face it Rudy is the junkyard doberman right now. We need to see Obama mix it up a little bit to prove that he can scrap with the best of them. And if Rudy snaps back with that kryptonite statement of "What happened to the politics of hope" Obama would snap back with "The hope still exists, I just don't see it in you"

I want to see a fight, this is presidential politics, not a intellectual seminar ... There are lots of articulate, good looking, clean cut wusses out there. It's time to descend your balls to a low hanging position and let 'em swing for the world to see.

[OHDemocrat]

So "grassroots" is the answer to spreading the word, eh? What does modern, "grassroots" even look like in Iowa? What about Philadelphia? Wouldn't it make sense to move the first primaries around, give a few different states a go for a few years? Rustl'em roots right on up in Nevada? Keep Iowa early! Of Course! We'll need states with solid decision-making apparatus to choose the *right* candidates. Fifteen percent sounds like a fair cut-off point too, as far as choosing national candidates.
But with these crises in leadership, ever growing longer in the most dire of times, it is right that our candidates pander to more of the crowd. More of the same is the recipe for the rules of politics in this country. The internet debates are a great way to start. There should be more shake-ups. It makes for a more robust party--and cheapens the cost of construction.

[Shortyfuse]

I said that I would never vote for another Harvard skull and bones and I never will.
President Obama, nope.

[meese]

Not to be picky, but Skull and Bones is from Yale, where Kerry and Bush went. (Both were members.) Obama went to Harvard for law school only and was not part of any such organization.

[MPeter]

Obama is is the man with momentum. Finally the HRC so-called inevitability train is beginning to get off the rails.

[Shortyfuse]

I am truly embarrassed. I apologize the Senator Obama and his supporters. Still will not vote for him.
I mean really. I want the most important man in the world ( the President of the United States) to have more political connections.
However, I will admitt that turning the office of president back into a figure head status, is very appealing. That however, at this time leaves us in the hands of repuplican governers.

[nolalily]

Obama went to Harvard where he became President of the Harvard Law Review; a far cry from YALE's Skull and Bones.

[CLMMIT]

This race is far from being over. It's not over until the 'Fat Lady Sings'; she is just clearing her throat.
Obama 08!

[Robin08]

Far from being over? It hasn't even begun. I know the media is hyping Hillary like she has already won but let's remember, not one single vote has been cast yet. The media may be trying to select our candidate for us, but in point of fact the choice is still ours.

[altohone]

I'd like to think Obama won't need to rely on second choices.

I don't see the two family dynasty or Hillary's DLC agenda being good for Iowa.

Like you say, months to go.

[MPeter]

This is what we know is happening. Plus, it has now emerged that HRC is a Walmart, according to the media:

Hillary Clinton, D-NY, received nearly $13,000 in campaign donations during the third quarter from Wal-Mart, the largest retailer in the world and a frequent target of Democratic ire.

Among the party's presidential frontrunners, Clinton was the sole recipient of donations from Wal-Mart executives. The $12,900 she received came from senior offices, such as Thomas Hyde, public relations officials, like George Shelton, as well as other directors for the retail giant.

[OHDemocrat]

Should be no surprise. Bill was governor of Arkansas. Would like to see him address the sweat shop situation, even carrying the WalMart flag--good political move too?--if it will get something done about it.

[SeanGardner]

THis is why the NATIONAL POLLS that show Hillary in these 15, 20 and even 25 point leads mean absolutely nothing. Nothing.

Those polls aren't the exclusively IOWA polls that show a very, very, very close race unfolding right now.

And when you add in the youth vote that Obama has been vigorously and successfully courting in Iowa, well, he could very well pull this one out.

Obama did have 10,000 people come out to see him at a political rally this summer. Edwards and Clinton have not have had the success in mobilizing large crowds, or in tapping into young people who will turn out in large numbers because of the war.

Obama is going to shock the Democratic establishment with a Iowa win. This race is far from over.

www.myspace.com/barackobama

[vicissitude]

ITA!!!!!!!!!!!1