Rush to Judgement: What we Should or Should not Infer from Iowa and New Hampshire

There are 3,979 delegates to the Democratic National Convention.  To win the nomination one needs

1,990 delegate votes.  After Iowa and New Hampshire only 65 or 1.6% of all the delegates have been awarded.  The primary season has barely started.  Yet many pundits, political experts, and the media want to reach broad conclusions about what is happening.  On one level any inferences from Iowa and New Hampshire should be premature yet already we have declared winners and losers, with some candidates having already dropped out and others seen as frontrunners or not.

Bernie Sanders
On many counts Bernie Sanders is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination.  While he is only one delegate vote behind Peter Buttigieg (22 to 21 out of the 1,990 needed to win the nomination), he has won the popular vote in Iowa and New Hampshire and he is ahead in the fundraising battle. 
Moreover, with the other liberal Elizabeth Warren coming in third and fourth  in the first two states, her campaign seems to be floundering, seeming to suggest Sanders is on the cusp of consolidating the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.  At the same time, the moderate wing, represented by Joe Biden, Mayor Peter Buttigieg, Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, is more divided.
Moderates, worried at the prospects of a Sanders nomination, are touting Buttigieg and even Klobuchar post New Hampshire as winners, with the latter, despite a fifth a third place finish in Iowa and New Hampshire, now the latest alternative to a fallen Joe Biden.

Joe Biden
Based on two states, it looks like former Vice-president Joe Biden’s chances for the nomination are not good.  He has had two dismal showings (fourth and fifth in Iowa and New Hampshire respectively), and he appears to be behind two other candidates, Peter Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar for the moderate vote, and behind the frontrunner liberal Bernie Sanders and even Elizabeth Warren.
Why has Biden done so badly?  Several reasons,   One, the center of the Democratic party has moved left from where President Barack Obama and Biden were when they left office.  Two, Biden has run a lackluster campaign and his debate performances have been weak.  Three, like Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016, he is running like he deserves the nomination.  Yet to rule Biden out would be a mistake for several reasons.
Yes the results in Iowa and New Hampshire will create momentum, media attention, and money for its winners, Yet Iowa and New Hampshire are very different from the next two states, and even the rest of the country.  The US overall is 60% White Caucasian, with Iowa and New Hampshire respectively 86% and 90%.  They are racially not representative of the country, let alone of the Democratic Party where according to 2016 presidential exit polls 71% of the electorate was White, but 74% of the votes for Clinton were from people of color.
The next two states, Nevada and South Carolina, are 49% and 64% white, with high percentages of the Democratic voters people of color.  These next two states are very different from Iowa and New Hampshire.  Joe Biden enjoys significant support among people of color, especially African-Americans, whereas none of the other candidates do well with minorities.  This may change the race for the nomination in many ways because candidates such as Buttigieg and Klobuchar will be challenged to reach out to a different racial demographic.  So far their appeal has been to run as Midwesterners with Midwest values, failing to realize that such designations are code words for “White” among people of color.  White may work in Iowa and New Hampshire, but it is less clear it will work in Nevada and South Carolina.  And even if they get the nomination for president, there is a calculus here.  How many White Trump votes can they move (when the evidence suggests Trump has 90%+ support of his base) versus how many people of color do they turn off?  The argument for the moderate Democratic candidate relies upon a net positive sum for this tradeoff, especially in critical swing states.

Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg now will be an increasing factor as he will appear in debates and in the primaries.  He has already spent more than $400 million in advertising, giving him a fourth if not better place in some national polls.  He appears to poll as well as any candidate in a head-to-head with President  Donald Trump.  Bloomberg’s money will be a factor for all of the candidates going forward, not just for the moderates but also for Sanders who will have to basically run against him.  This divide will be a major problem for the Democrats going forward.

Conclusion
More than 98% of the Democratic delegates have yet to be awarded.  The size of Super Tuesday and especially the frontloading of the California primary change the value of Iowa and New Hampshire.   It is not clear that one can really extrapolate from less than 2% of the delegate count to inferring much of anything.

An Historic Epic Blog About the Iowa Caucuses that will Amaze You, Blow Your Mind, and Make You Drop Your Jaw

Actually no, this blog displays none of these characteristics or adjectives.  Yet looking at social and mainstream media postings since the Iowa caucuses one would think that every posting or idea drooled out by anyone to describe what happened on Monday was historic, epic, amazed you, blew your mind, and made your jaw drop.  Frankly, none of this is true and in many ways what happened in Iowa on Monday and afterwards is or was relatively mundane and predictable.  So how do we understand the Iowa caucuses–who won or lost–and what will happen now or next?

The Iowa Caucuses are about three things: the expectation game, raw numbers, and then the spin.  It almost does not matter how well you really did, it is about whether you met expectations or not.  Do better than expected you are winner, worse than expected a loser.  The real number counts or delegate counts seem unimportant.  Momentum or spin from Iowa is based on the expectations game.  Thus, Iowa is about also being a form of musical chairs or a variation of the television show the Bachelor–it is the start of an elimination game that thins the heard until there is a winner.  For Democrats, the Iowa winner goes on to win the party nomination 2/3s the time, for Republicans it is 60% of the time.  Iowa is important and predictive, but not necessarily determinative and certain  in terms of what its results say.

In terms of the expectations, based on the latest polls before the caucus Trump should have won with Cruz second and Rubio a distant third.  Trump did not meet expectations with his results and is declared the big loser.  Of course the real losers are all those other Republicans who finished near the bottom of the heap next to the asterisk zone–including Bush, Santorium, Paul, and Huckabee.  The latter three have no dropped out, Bush might need to do so soon.  He spent $80,000,000+ to get 4,000 votes–approximately $20,000 per vote.  I am sure his supporters would have preferred the cash instead.

Yet Trump’s second place performance could be seen all along.  Many of us said that his challenge was translating his media presence and name recognition  into real numbers when he had no ground game.  His second place performance and Cruz’s first place show the power of the ground game.  Yet Trump’s second place finish still demonstrates how well he did without spending much time working on getting out the vote.  In some ways he did better than he should have given his strategy.   Of course, Trump reacted badly to his loss, crying foul, and showing to a large extent that his main rationale for the presidency–he is leading in the polls–may be crumbling under him.  Yes he still leads in New Hampshire and nationally, yet now there is reason to think he is vulnerable.  Despite winning almost as many delegates as Cruz, he is seen as a loser and the media and spinners are treating him as such.

For the Democrats the two most recent polls before Monday had Clinton up by three and Sanders up by three, with margins of error approximately 3.5%.  The race was a statistical dead heat.  Clinton supporters spin it as a historic win for Clinton but given her 50 point lead six months ago, that she was challenged by someone who is not a Democrat and who declares himself a socialist, winning by three-tenths of one percent of the vote is not much of victory.  If this were a general election this margin would trigger an automatic recount before it would have been certified by a canvassing board.  As we know in Minnesota from the Franken Coleman 2008 race, election night counts are not final or accurate and are readjusted several times before declared final and valid. Additionally, as we saw with Romney and Santorium in 2012, the former was originally declared the winner only to have the latter prevail later on when the votes were finally adjusted.  Monday is  perhaps a win for Clinton, but it does reveal powerful weaknesses in her candidacy especially among younger voters.

For Sanders, it was a good showing. Again, don’t say historic.  Just because something  happens once does not make it historic.  For something to be historic it has to stand the test of history.  In six months Iowa may mean little or nothing or something completely different than what people think it means now.  For now Sanders either tied Clinton or came in a close second, winning almost the same number of delegates. He raised millions after the Iowa Caucuses and he heads into New Hampshire where he is favored. Yes, part of his advantage in that state is the close media market to Vermont, but no folks, NH is not a liberal state.  It is a political swing state that elects lots of Republicans.  It is not necessarily a natural home for Sanders.  Moreover, remember Clinton won it eight years ago after losing to Obama in Iowa.  Both Clinton and Sanders have lots to spin at this point, but in may ways Sanders comes out this week looking stronger for now

Certainly Clinton and her supporters point to polls regarding her firewalls in Nevada but more importantly South Carolina, but polls today cannot necessarily tell us what will happen in those two states in several weeks.  Those who say Clinton has a lock on voters of color need to understand that it is not an issue of her getting all their votes and Sanders none.  The same is true with Sanders and Clinton when it comes to young voters, or liberals, or women.  The issue is  how well each does in terms of holding and mobilizing their bases compared to one another.

So what do we learn from Iowa? Perhaps far less than we think and which should shock.  Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, and Sanders can point to expectations, real numbers, and spin all to support their arguments about the significance of Monday. We are at the beginning of perhaps a very long process where many things can change, including polls, public opinion, and a score of other variables that may impact the 2016 elections. But none of what happened Monday necessarily has or  will rise to the level of something that is historic and epic, that will amaze you, blow your mind, and make you drop your jaw.  To assert any of this is just trivializing hype and  should be treated as such.

Trump, Sanders, and the Crises of Republican and Democratic Party Orthodoxy

Trump and Sanders test Republican and Democratic Party orthodoxy.  They do so in different ways and for contrasting reasons, but over the next few weeks first the Iowa caucuses and then the New Hampshire primary will tell us something about how real these candidates are and what it means for the future of the two major parties.

In my election law seminar one of the questions I ask is “Who is the Party?”  By that, I am asking a legal question regarding who in a political party gets to assert what rights on behalf of whom.  In asking that question possible answers are that the party is its elected officials, paid party officials, party leaders, convention attendees, primary voters, caucus attendees, general election voters, or even those who register or simply declare themselves to be members of that party.  This same legal question applies to thinking about Trump and Sanders in terms of what they mean to the Republicans and Democrats.

Consider Trump first.  Several months ago mainstream Republicans expressed with horror the prospect that he could be their party nominee.   Trump was the fringe candidate, Bush orthodoxy.  Trump’s polling numbers show his greatest support coming from white males without a college education, yet several recent polls now show that across the board Trump is consolidating support across broad portions of the Republican Party and that even its mainstream establishment  is coming to accept the fact that he may be their nominee.  Trump has a huge lead in NH and is second in Iowa to Cruz, yet the former is user the birther attack on the latter and it may succeed in weakening the latter.  Additionally Trump is turning up is attacks on Cruz, potentially suggesting a tightening of the race there over the next several weeks.

The big variable for Trump is twofold.  First, does he have a ground game to deliver his supports to the caucuses and polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.  So far there is little indication of this type of organization.  Second, assuming Trump does convert polls into votes, and as other candidates drop out, can he pick up their support and will he be able to consolidate the base around him?  These are good questions and especially important as the battle beyond NH moves south and one needs to see how well Trump does in winning the Bible belt vote which is critical to the Republican base.

But Trump’s challenge to the GOP is fascinating.  On the one hand he challenges party orthodoxy with his rhetoric, appealing to the fear, prejudice, and insecurities of white males who see a world no longer favoring them. Party leaders abhor his language.   Yet in other ways some point to the fact that Trump’s views simply represent the chickens coming home to roost.   The GOP for the last few years has appealed more to whites, males, working class, and those who espouse hostility to immigration and civil rights.  He is both mainstream and not mainstream Republicanism.

The problem for the Republicans is that much of their current base does support these positions yet this base is old and dying off or demographically represents a decreasing proportion of the population and the electorate with each election.  Unless Republicans reach out to new constituencies, perhaps necessitating a change in policy to do that, the GOP may simply see its base disappear in much of America.  Trump appeals to those who are both part of the base today but not of tomorrow.  He appeals to those who do not like the current Republican party but they are ones who often do not vote.  Trump is a candidate who both does and does not challenge the Republican Party in so many ways.

Democrats are giddy with the prospects of Trump and how he is dividing the Republican Party but they should not be so gleeful.  Clinton holds powerful advantages in 2016 within the Democratic Party as my friend Amy Fried points out.  But the Sanders challenge underscores a huge problem for her and orthodox Democratic Party politics.  First it is surprising that Sanders is doing so well in the polls given that he is not a Democrat.  He is an independent running as Democrat.  That alone should bring pause to the party that an outsider is doing as well as he is.  But with that polls in New Hampshire have him leading and Iowa polls have also narrowed and it is not impossible for him to win there also.  Both Sanders and Clinton have strong ground games in Iowa and lots of money to spend.  Clinton could lose the first two states but still win it all once  the primaries and caucuses head south.

Yet Clinton faces continuing challenges within her party.  She suffers from a significant enthusiasm gap with the Democratic Party, even among women. Moreover, among younger voters she has problems, yet this cuts two ways.  Short term Millennials do not vote in high percentages so perhaps this is not an issue.  But if we think of the future of the Democratic Party residing in capturing a new generation of voters–the demographics is destiny argument–Clinton is not helping the party.  Millennials are far more liberal than previous generations and more liberal than Clinton.

Millennials are more likely to identify as Democrats when they do identify.  But overall Millennials are turned off by both parties, including the Democrats.  Clinton does little to bring these new people into the party, Sanders potentially does.  Sanders is like Eugene McCarthy once was, or Ted Kennedy to Jimmy Carter, Bill Bradley to Al Gore, Howard Dean to John Kerry, or even Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton in 2008.  Sanders represents a power challenge to party, but this time the challenge has an age and generational aspect that overlays with ideology.  Clinton is the Democratic Party as it is now or was 20 years ago when Baby Boomers were in charge.  But Obama was the first Gen X president and soon power will pass to the Millennials.  Clinton is perhaps the last gasp of the old Democratic Party, not one to build toward the future.

Clinton’s other problem is one similar to Trump’s; neither are very appealing to the independent or swing voter–especially in the swing states–who will really decide the presidency.  Clinton is less unpopular than Trump but should the latter get the nomination it is not unthinkable that Trump could win if he uses the same tactics against her that he is using against his Republican opponents.  Already Trump is going after Clinton via her husband’s sex life, and one can anticipate even other low blows and shots in a general election.  Remember Willie Horton ans Swift Boats for Turth?

What we see in Trump and Sanders are rival challenges to party orthodoxy.  In the same way that Trump speaks to voters whom the Republican Party appeals to but whom they have not benefitted, Sanders also appeals to a group of voters to whom the Democratic Party has ignored.  If Bush and Clinton represent status quo orthodox in the parties, Trump and Sanders show a rejection of such orthodoxy. Trump is perhaps the logical extension of party policies and rhetoric that will appeal to a demographic that puts the Republican party out of business.  Sanders potentially speaks to the coming Millennial generation without whose support the Democratic Party cannot survive in the future.

Politics, Lies, and Videotape: Rumor and Journalism in Era of the Social Media

“Let me tell you one truth–I always lie.”

Truth seems to be one of the main casualties of the social media.  There appear to be Facebook facts and real facts.  Facebook facts are those circulating across the social media.  They are stories which are not true, partially true, or simply the spinning of some pseudo-facts taken out of time and context. Often this manufacturing of facts is innocuous.  But increasingly as politics and partisans have discovered the social media as a tool for campaigning, it has become  a major source of political rumor and propaganda.  One would hope that the mainstream media, especially as it covers the social media, would correct these distortions, but that no longer appears to be the case.
There are two interesting political  stories driving Facebook and the media this Christmas weekend.  The first are stories that the Clinton camp is worried that it could lose Iowa and New Hampshire in the next couple of months.  The second story is that NBC’s Chuck Todd claiming it is not the media’s job to correct GOP lies about Obamacare.

Clinton Losing Iowa and New Hampshire?
Consider the Clinton story first.  I first saw a Facebook post on December 26, 2015 describing how Clinton was worried about losing the first two states in the Democratic Party presidential contest.  Clicking on the link it was to an article in Politico form September when the polls were much closer and in fact in looked as if Sanders was closing in on Clinton.  Several other  other Facebook posts had similar links to similar older articles or polls showing close races.  That was then, now is now.   Stories from four months ago do not reflect the present which show Clinton still leading Iowa and a closer race in New Hampshire.  Granted there is some evidence of a new Sanders’ effort to close the gap, and granted that Sanders may prove to be better at the GOTV than Clinton (a real possibility), but recirculating old articles from four months ago and passing them off as reflecting current reality is simply a lie.
A second basis for this Facebook fact is an apparent Clinton e-mail to supporters right before  Christmas saying she could lose Iowa or New Hampshire.  Clinton could be prescient but keep in  mind the context of the letter.  It is a fundraising letter begging for money and encouraging her supporters to turnout.  Her letter is no different than any other fundraising letter from a non-profit claiming that the sky is falling.  Candidates all the time seek to get money out of people by claiming that it is an emergency, they are about to lose, or that time is running out.  They do this–as do many organizations–that if they are in the lead there is a sense of complacency that led to people not giving or showing up to vote.  Crying wolf is a great motivation tool.  One should read her letter as simply that–it is an effort to make sure her supporters continue to give and show up to vote.

Chuck Todd, Corporate Journalism, and Obamacare
A second story making the rounds is an interview by NBC’s Chuck Todd saying it is not the job of the media to correct the Republican lies about Obamacare.  Did Todd actually say that?  Here is what he said in an interview.

Ed Rendell: Chuck. I think you are dead right. I think the biggest problem with Obamacare. It’s not a perfect bill by any means was the messaging. If you took ten people from different parts of the country who say they’re against a bill and sat them down. I’d love to have ten minutes with them and say, tell me why you are against the bill. If they told you anything, it would be stuff that’s incorrect.
Chuck Todd: That’s right.
Rendell: Incorrect.
Todd: But more importantly, it would be stuff that Republicans have successfully messaged.
Rendell: Absolutely.
Todd: Against it. And they won’t have even heard. they don’t repeat the other stuff. because they haven’t heard the Democratic message. What I always love, people say it’s your folks’ fault in the media. it’s the President of the United States fault for not selling it.

First, it is not so clear that Todd said it is not the job of the media to correct GOP lies.  In the context here Todd acknowledged Republican lies but also said the Democrats have done a bad job messaging and selling the Affordable Care Act.  This is one plausible reading of what Todd said.  Second, this interview took place back on September 18, 2013–more than two years ago.  Why is the story rerunning today?
Second, assuming Todd did say what some claim then of course he is wrong.  The very job of traditional journalism is to seek and publish the truth.  The entire enterprise of democracy depends on a robust and active press publishing the truth.  They are to be the watchdogs for the people, publishing the truth, exposing corruption, reporting to hold the government accountable.  That is the purpose of the First Amendment.  The Jeffersonian ideal of the people ruling requires an educated public and that is where the press comes in–publish the truth.
Truth is not reporting what both or several sides say–being fair and balanced.  Truth may be something entirely different than what any partisan says.  This used to be the rule of what one learned in journalism schools, but it no longer seems to be the practice of real journalism which does simply report what everyone says and then leaves it up to the public to decide.  This is not journalism–this is simply operating as a communications organ for different sides (and not all the sides as is evidenced by how much Sanders is ignored).  Journalism is not public relations or corporation communications but that point seems to be lost in the era of for-profit journalism.
And now what makes all this worse is how journalism seems increasingly  to be echoing or amplifying the distortions found on the social media.  If anything, the ethics of real journalism should rise above the lack thereof of the social media.   Perhaps if real journalists stopped trying to imitate and repeat the social media facts and corrected them, confidence in them would be better than it is now, and the public would be better informed than it is now.

The Clock Ticks: History, Unemployment, and Presidential Elections

Less than one year to the 2012 elections. Less than 60 days to the New Hampshire primary. Barely 50 days to the Iowa caucuses. The official presidential race is upon us. But as the clock ticks, time is running out for Obama and history is against him.

The basic problem is the economy. Only 80,000 jobs were added in October, placing the unemployment rate at 9.0%. The Federal Reserve Board projects slow economic growth next year–2-2.5%–with the unemployment rate settling in at about 8.5% by election time. Of course these numbers are bad for all those looking for jobs or businesses hoping to grow, yet for Obama it is a real problem.

Since 1932 only two presidents have ever won re-election when the unemployment rate was above 6%. In 1936 and 1940 Franklin Roosevelt won reelection with unemployment rates of 17% and 14.6%, but both of these elections should be treated as outliers or oddities. In 1936 the unemployment rate had dropped from nearly 24% to 17% and the economy was growing at an annual rate of 14%. In 1940 World War II was upon America and with patriotism high, support for Roosevelt was strong. More importantly, the economy was growing at 10% but the perception was that the president had the country going in the right direction.

In 1984 Ronald Reagan won re-election with an unemployment rate of 7.5%. Yet his victory occurred when the economy was growing at more than 11% and gas prices were tumbling from then record highs. Reagan definitely benefited from the perception that it truly was morning in America, especially after the unemployment rate tumbled from around 10% in 1982 and 1983.

But FDR and Reagan aside, high unemployment–six percent or more–is the death knell for a presidential re-election bid. In 1976 Gerald Ford ran for re-election when the unemployment rate was 7.7%–he lost to Jimmy Carter. Four years later the unemployment rate was 7.1% when Carter ran for a second term against Reagan. He lost to the tune of Reagan asking Americans if they were better off now than they were four years ago. In 1992 George Bush sought a second term with an unemployment rate of 7.5%–he lost to a Bill Clinton reminding the voters that it was “the economy stupid.” Conversely, Nixon won with an unemployment rate of 5.6% in 1972, Clinton 5.4% in 1996, Bush in 2004 with 5.5%, Eisenhower 4.1% in 1956, and Truman in 1948 with 3.8%.

Key to a presidential re-election is the actual unemployment rate. But economic, and the reality or perception that it is moving in the right direction, is also important. If there are not significant declines in unemployment along with economic growth and a perception that the economy is moving in the right direction, presidents are not given a second term.

Obama faces an economy where the best projection is of high unemployment and low economic growth. But there is more. Home values remain about 25% or more below what they were in 2008, consumer and now student debt is high, and many people have already blown through their unemployment benefits and face an uncertain future. Consumer confidence remains near historic lows, suggesting little chance that retail sales and spending for the coming holidays and into next year will revive the economy. The public just does not believe the country is headed in the right direction and few think we are better off now than four years ago.

History suggests Obama will lose. This assumes the Republicans put up a viable candidate with a compelling narrative. Yet so far that task seems elusive. Bachmann has come and gone. Perry has gaffed himself to death. Cain’s numbers place him in the GOP lead, but his negatives are escalating as it becomes more apparent that he is a misogynist who treats every woman in a demeaning fashion. Romney is boring and the Republican base does not really know where “multiple choice Mitt” stands on the issues. Gingrich is too acerbic. Congressional approval is less than 10%, with the public placing more blame on the Republicans than Obama for the gridlock in Washington. In short, the Republicans have the Democrats' disease—they are poised to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Obama can still win—he has money, the bully pulpit, and demographics that place perhaps as many as 200 or more electoral votes in easily into his presidential win column without too much effort. Now all he needs is the narrative for his re-election.

Obama hopes for a rerun of the 1948 Truman surprise victory over Dewey, campaigning hard as an economist populist against a hapless elitist. Yet the 1948 campaign featured an economy far better than 2012 so the parallels here might not be good.

Obama is also running on the fear factor—Hope that the American public will be afraid of an extremist Republican president presiding over a Republican Congress. Fear came be a powerful too, but 1980 demonstrated with Carter was up for re-election, fear of a crazy Reagan who would blow up the world was pushed aside by the desire for change and disgust with the status quo. Obama knows the public wants change—as he promised in 2008—but it is hard to run on that narrative when you an incumbent seeking re-election. He needs to navigate a message that promises change while staying the course with him. It’s a hard task—made only more difficult by the unemployment numbers—but Reagan and FDR did it, and now Obama needs to figure out how to channel their magic to do the same.