Go Wisconsin! The Coming Presidential Primary Showdown

Unlike Minnesota, Wisconsin matters in presidential politics and we shall see that again this Tuesday

.  In so many ways the primary there is significant, portending the direction that four presidential campaigns will take and whether the Dump Trump movement or the momentum of the Sanders’ campaign will continue.

In presidential general elections since 1976 Minnesota has reliably voted Democratic in every presidential election and it probably will again do so in 2016.  Were this a seriously contested state that the Democrats had to defend then it is going to be a bad year for them and their presidential candidate.  Wisconsin though is a presidential swing-state, although a weak one. Democratic Presidential candidates have consistently one it since 1988 but the margins of victory are often close and Republicans have campaigned hard to flip it.  Come this fall the presidential nominees will be there but not in Minnesota.

But Wisconsin matters too in a different way.  This coming Tuesday the Wisconsin presidential primary will matter for both parties.  Consider first for the Republicans.

Dump Trump
Critical to the Dump Trump movement is beating Trump in Wisconsin.  The establishment Republicans have pulled out all the stops to support Cruz in the hope of preventing Trump from winning.  Why is Wisconsin so critical?  Right now if Trump continues on his current path of winning delegates he will either have enough to win the nomination on the first ballot at the Republican National Convention or be close.  If he has enough delegates in the first round to win the nomination then it is over–he is the GOP nominee.  If he falls short of a majority in the first round of voting then under most state laws or party rules, the delegates pledged to him can vote for whomever they want in the second and subsequent rounds.  At this point it is a brokered or contested convention and anyone can get the nomination.

The strategy behind the Dump Trump is to halt his delegate winning and Wisconsin looks like a good place to start.  Right now we know that mathematically only Trump can win enough delegates for a first round victory; it is impossible for Cruz or Kasich to do so.  Supporting Cruz in Wisconsin is something that establishment Republicans are doing not because they like him but because they dislike Trump more.    While the Dump Trump movement by establishment Republicans has so far failed they are hoping now they can succeed and eventually derail him from winning the nomination.

Whether this strategy will work is yet to be seen.  If it does, the convention will be a fight that parties normally do not want shown.  They want conventions to be four day infomercials for them.  They do not want to show off infighting.  But more importantly this year, a brokered convention will be ugly.  It will be the party establishment telling the voters in the primaries and caucuses that they got it wrong and that the candidate with the most delegates is not the one who should be the nominee.  In addition, if they stop Trump, who is the nominee?  I doubt Cruz, and Kasich is a long-shot.  Who will the party support and where will the Trump voters go?  Where will Trump go?  I doubt away quietly.

Sanders’ Surge
Clinton built up a huge lead with Super Tuesday and the Mini-Tuesday on March 15.  But since then Sanders has done very well, winning almost all of the states since then.  Some argue that Clinton’s best states were in the south and they are now behind her and that the path is there for Sanders to win the nomination.  Mathematically, he can.  If he can win approximately 58% of the remaining delegates he wins the nomination on the first round.  In the last six contests he has won by an average of about 58% and in northern states his winning margin is about 56%.  Right now Clinton has 1,266 pledged (non-super) delegates, Sanders has 1038. Yes Sanders is 228 delegates behind.  He has been closing for a couple of weeks while Clinton has been again assuming she is inevitable and turning her attention to Trump and not sealing the deal for her nomination first.

Polls at one time had Clinton with a 20%+ plus lead in Wisconsin.  Now polls suggest Sanders is leading.  This follows a pattern similar to other states that Sanders has won.  Wisconsin was supposed to be part of Clinton’s northern firewall.  It does not look that certain for her now and some rumors are that she is conceding the state to defend New York in a couple of weeks.

Sanders’ supports have many reasons to feel confident about Wisconsin.  Yet a word of caution–under Scott Walker and the Republicans the state enacted a very tough voter ID law.  It will be curious to see what impact that law has on students and Millennial voters.  The irony here will  be that if Clinton’s holds on in Wisconsin it might be courtesy of restrictive Republican voting laws.  Some also speculate that in a close contest Clinton may have the edge with super delegates.  Thus, Clinton could win not necessarily by winning the most delegates, states, or voters (although more Democrats have voted for her than Sanders so far) but through super delegates and restricted voting laws (keep in mind that Clinton wins in states too with closed as opposed to open primaries).

Mainstream pundits still dismiss Sanders.  They should not.  He can still mathematically win and in the last two weeks he has out-polled Clinton and won more delegates.  He is forcing her to defend  New York and that is something that many thought unthinkable.  Yet NY could be won by Sanders.  Clinton will not do well upstate NY and NYC has lots of very liberal voters–both Millennial and not–who might go for him.  Polls are tightening there.  A Wisconsin victory on Tuesday creates more momentum for Sanders and narrows the delegate gap more.  Never assume inevitable.

Caucus v Primary

Finally Wisconsin matters because it is holding a primary as opposed to a caucus.  In 2008 the turnout in the Wisconsin primary was 36.5%; in 2012 it was 30.9%.  Compare to Minnesota where  caucus turnout was 7.2% in 2008 and approximately 2.5%   This year again about 7-8%  of the voters caucused on March 1. Which system matters more to more people?

Amid the 2016 presidential campaign, tension rises over an enduring political question: 'Who is the party?'

Note:  Today's blog in Minnpost on March 2, 2016.

Although neither prevailed in Minnesota, Super Tuesday was good for both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The overall winners nationally, they amassed a lot of delegates in their quests for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations. Yet their candidacies, in different ways, are demonstrating an important fact about contemporary American party politics: It remains elitist and anti-democratic.


Trump is the anti-establishment candidate, Clinton the pick of the party elites. Both the leadership of the Republican National Committee (RNC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) think they are serving as the guardians of orthodoxy against the insurgents, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders respectively. The committee leaders think they are the party and that they have the right to decide who gets the nomination through an invisible primary. Many political scientists, especially those who support strong parties, also agree. But should that be so?

Historically, “Who is the party?” has been a contested issue in American politics. Early on in the 19th century, before universal franchise, party elites picked candidates in the proverbial smoke-filled backrooms. There was no democracy — no primaries or caucuses, no people's choice. The party was the personal property or domain of its elites. But as franchise expanded and parties opened up, presidential candidate selection changed. It morphed from backrooms to conventions. But conventions still represented an elite — party regulars and insiders who made the choices. Enter the rise of primaries and caucuses in the 1960s.

A setback in '68, and another move forward
Primaries and caucuses were a major move forward, democratizing the party selection of presidential candidates. In theory open to the party faithful to vote, they were a huge step forward. But in 1968 when insurgent Sen. Eugene McCarthy challenged the presumed Democratic Party nominee President Lyndon Johnson and the Chicago Democratic National Convention virtually ignored him and those who supported McCarthy, that showed how closed the DNC remained. As a result, the McGovern-Fraser Commission proposed more reforms to open up that party. It was yet again another leap toward redefining the party to mean not just the elites but perhaps more average voters, but including women, the young, and people of color. Republicans, too, opened up their party more, and together the two parties expanded caucuses and primaries as a way to enrich and expanded participation. But now the 2016 elections demonstrate the limits of party democracy.


Consider first the Democrats. Prior to Super Tuesday, Clinton had only a modest lead over Sanders in pledged delegates. Yet she had an enormous advantage with superdelegates in the invisible primary. These are individuals who are not selected by the people in primaries and caucuses – they are party leaders and elected officials. In 2008 Clinton and Obama battled over them, and now in 2016 Clinton’s ultimate advantage may lie with them. Their existence may be enough to give her a lock on the nomination in simply a matter of a couple of weeks. These delegates serve effectively as anti-democratic checks upon the people attending caucuses and primaries, potentially thwarting majority rule or biasing the presidential selection process from the get-go. They are analogous to the electors and the Electoral College, serving as an outdated feature of a political system once elite-driven and hardly democratic.

Clinton’s probable party nomination through superdelegates is increasingly seen by a new generation of voters – mostly the millennials – as illegitimate and anti-democratic. Clinton may win this way, but it does the Democratic Party no good. It appears to disenfranchise a new generation of party members and, moreover, it forestalls the ability of the Democratic Party to evolve to reflect the preferences of a new generation. It is effectively reactionary party politics freezing the party in the mind of its leaders.

A displeased Republican leadership
Trump’s challenge is fascinating as rumors circulate that the Republican orthodoxy is displeased with his probable nomination. Efforts to back Rubio as the alternative, or stories of how perhaps party leaders are signaling to GOP candidates that they can distance themself from Trump show that the party leaders think they know what is best for the party. Yes, his rhetoric is awful, but there is one thing good about Trump: He is possibly facilitating needed party change. The Republican Party needs to evolve; it faces a demographic time bomb ready to explode; and its policy positions are often out of sync with those found in public-opinion polls. Yet mainstream Republicans want to deny this need to evolve. And since the Republicans do not have superdelegates, it may be easier for that party to change than for the Democrats to do so. The stance of the RNC leadership thus is bad long-term politics, and also a sign of how noncommittal that party, too, is toward real democracy.

We can hope that 2016 will be the year the Republicans and Democrats take the next step toward democracy by making the people and not the leadership the definition of who is the party. Party leadership should not stand in the way of change; they need to let the people – the real party – decide what it means to be a Republican or a Democrat and not themselves. A party that is truly strong is one that is democratic and listens to its people and not just to its invisible leaders.

Postscript:  Reinforcing my point that there is less than majority rule in the two major parties, consider two facts.  First despite Sanders winning 61% of the caucus vote in Minnesota on Tuesday Clinton wins almost as many delegates as Sanders  because of the super delegates. And now consider the GOP efforts to denounce Trump despite what the Republican voters are saying.  It seems either we should have majority rule within parties and let the members decide or just abandon the charade of  having caucuses and primaries where the people decide and just have the leaders decide.  Why bother with the facade of  primaries except for the fact they are a way to give an illusion of choice.

The Right to Vote in a 21st Century Democracy: Thoughts From My New Book

Note:  I am pleased to announce the publication of my latest book, Election Law and Democratic Theory, published this month by Ashgate Publishing.  This blog draws upon some of the themes presented in chapter three of the book which examines voting rights in America.

   
    In just a few weeks Minnesotans will attend their party caucuses as part of the process of selecting the candidates who will run for governor and other constitutional offices,  U.S. Senator and House of Representatives, and the Minnesota House of Representatives, among other positions.  Yet if the past is any indication of what will happen, very few individuals will attend these caucuses–some by choice–but others will be excluded by economic or practical necessity, without the option of participating by absentee voting or through technologies that would make it possible to engage, even halfway around the world.
    The exclusionary nature of Minnesota’s caucus system questions what the right to vote really means.  Who gets to participate in our political system and how is among the topics I address in my new book, Election Law and Democratic Theory, published this month by Ashgate  Publishing.  It is if not the first at least one of the first books that makes a simple argument–election law are the rules that make democracy possible.  Election law define the rules of the game.  They define who gets to participate and how, and how the game of politics is played.    Election law rules should be premised upon the values and premises of American democracy, but more often than not they are not.  Instead, incumbency, partisanship, or simply the interests of those already in power right the rules to their benefit.  The aim of Election Law and Democratic Theory is to fashion a theory of democracy for election law and apply it to issues such as voting rights, money and politics, representation, and the role of political parties, corporations, and other entities.
    One of the central questions of the book is asking about the right to vote and what does it entail.  The Supreme Court has ruled that the right extends beyond the initial allocation of franchise.  It would make no sense to say one has a right to vote but then gerrymander legislative districts in a way to violate the “one person, one vote” principle.  Voting would hardly be a fundamental right (as the Supreme Court describes it) if the right could be taken away easily, or if obstacles were throw up that made it difficult to exercise that right.  Yet that has been the case throughout American history.  We have a tradition of extending the right to vote, broadening the constitutional notion of “We the people” to include more and more people, yet there is also an ugly tradition in America characterized by repeated efforts to suppress voting rights. After the Civil War Jim Crow lead to the disenfranchisement of African-American males, and now there is a battle to disenfranchise many new and potential voters just as the demographics are changing. 
    For voting to really be fundamental, it needs to be something that really guarantees voting rights at all stages of political process.  Voting in general elections is supposed to be fundamental  but many states including Minnesota disenfranchise felons.  The Supreme Court has also declared that the right to vote extends to primaries, but again, many have been excluded in the past because  the rule of absentee voting have made it difficult to vote.  Perhaps now with “no excuse” absentee voting more people will participate, but there is no right to vote early or by absentee, and conditions can be attached to it.
    But what about caucuses?  Does the right to vote extend to participating in caucuses?  Yes and no.  Parties have broad authority to decide who can attend their caucuses, but there are limits here.  But the real issue is not for people who want to attend caucuses but opt not to do so, but it is for those who wish to attend them but cannot because they are working, sick, or out of town.  Simply put, there is no absentee voting with the caucuses.  Consider some numbers.
    In 2012, approximately 66,000 individuals constituting less than 2% of the Minnesota voting age population attended its caucuses and cast a ballot in the presidential preference poll.  Conversely, in Wisconsin, a state often held in comparison to Minnesota in terms of its political culture, size, and demographics, its 2012 primary turnout was 25%.
    The point here is that in caucus states this event is an important political activity that excludes many individuals.    Franchise rights should include a right to vote absentee in this activity. Few would endorse the idea that illness, service to country, or work should be discounted as reasons for why individuals cannot show up in person to vote in a general or primary election.  That is why there is absentee voting for these events.  There is a recognition that the right to vote should be permitted for these events.  Yet as noted, absentee voting is a privilege.  The right to vote, if it means anything, should also entail a constitutional right to cast a ballot even if one cannot attend on election day, or caucus evening..  This is especially the case in a country were employers are not required to give paid time off to vote, let alone time off to vote at all.  Voters should not have to choose between making a living or voting.  The marketplace should not undermine the polity, or make voters choose between a civic duty (as some describe voting) or a constitutional right and the imperative to make a living.
    Additionally, and this is another point I make in my book, American democracy needs to catch up with the 21st century.  There is no reason that the right to vote should be stuck in a 19th century model of participation.  New technologies make new forms and avenues of participation possible, and the right to vote, including participation in the Minnesota caucuses, should reflect that.

Elitism of Caucuses?

This blog appeared on the commentary page for Minnesota 2020 on March 7:


Democracy’s strength resides in an active and engaged citizenry. Creating institutions that will sustain and grow this engagement is a challenge. While many might contend that the Minnesota political caucuses excel in promoting participation, the reality is just the opposite. Instead, the Minnesota caucuses are exclusionary.

America is historically famous for its sense of civic engagement. Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1835 Democracy in America located the success of politics in the United States as residing in part in the propensity of its people to join and engage through voluntary associations. Whether it was barn-raisings, clubs, or community associations, engagement in them fosters important virtues. It tempers self-interest, fosters respect for working with others, and produces community building.

Tocqueville identified the concept of social capital. Urbanologist Jane Jacobs in the Death and Life of Great American Cities and political scientist Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone define social capital as the glue of democracy. It represents the building of trust with others that facilitates engagement and commerce. Social capital is of two types: bonding which reinforces ties to one another, and bridging which builds linkages across society. Social capital helps equip people to engage politically and make democracy work.

Putnam’s concern highlights gradual citizen disengagement from the 1960s onward in the United States. This disengagement was seen in declining voting and participation rates, increased distrust in government, and the growing polarization of political parties. The most recent symptom of this declining social capital appears both in Washington and St. Paul in the inability of the Republicans and Democrats to work together.

How does this relate to the Minnesota political caucuses? Some argue that the caucus system is actually a major producer of social capital. It asks of citizens to spend an evening together with neighbors, debate politics, and learn how to work together. It is participatory politics par excellence, New England town democracy at its best.

But the most powerful critique is how the caucuses are exclusionary. Look at who can participate. The first level of caucuses takes place one evening in February. Many simply cannot attend. Those in active military duties, those employed in second shifts or out of town working, those who are ill, and for many who are single parents and unable to address child care issues, they are excluded from participating because there are no absentee voting procedures. Proof of exclusion resides in the numbers. In 2008 approximately 2.5% of Minnesotans attended the caucuses to cast votes in presidential preference poll. In comparison, the Wisconsin presidential primary had a 36% turnout. Clearly far fewer attended the Minnesota caucuses than participated in a Wisconsin primary, speaking volumes to their exclusionary nature.

Think about who does attend the caucuses: The criticism is that caucuses favor party activists and those who are generally more liberal or conservative than the Democrat or Republican voters in a primary. Evidence of that is seen in comparing preferences of caucus and convention attendees to primary voters. The caucuses may encourage party building but not necessarily the construction of community building and trust that make it possible for the parties and diverse people to work together.

The caucuses have virtues but are not flawless. They increasingly seem insular and exclusionary, irrelevant to average citizens. At their worst they are being captured by special interests, thereby rendering them increasingly unable to forge the community building and social capital necessary to making Minnesota’s political system work. What we need is to rethink the caucuses, asking if they are the institution up to the governance challenges we face today.

Assessing the Minnesota Caucuses–Final Thoughts On Why It is Times to Scrap Them

Minnesota’s February 7, political caucuses meant something this year...sort of.

This year they were part of a trifecta of non-binding events that included the Colorado caucus and the Missouri primary that awarded no delegates but nonetheless had a significant media impact in rendering Rick Santorum a viable challenger to Mitt Romney. In winning these three states the political world heralded that the party activists had again repudiated Romney. Thus, Minnesota’s caucuses had a signal effect even if no delegates were awarded.

But there are real problems with the caucus process in Minnesota and across the country. Criticism of the Iowa caucus is growing as arguments are again mounted that it should not be first in the nation since no delegates are awarded and its demographics are not representative of the country.

Similarly, the recently concluded Maine caucuses will be read in two ways–evidence that Romney is again a frontrunner after his win there or that he is in trouble after eeking out a narrow victory in his backyard again a weak Ron Paul in a state where no one else really campaigned against him. Yet with fewer than 6,000 Republicans participating in the Maine caucuses, one probably should not read too much into the results.  Moreover, Ron Paul has a good argument in suggesting that there is a difference between winning caucus straw polls and collecting delegates and that despite his showing in the latter, he may be doing better with the former.

There are lots of problems with caucuses and straw polls. Beginning with the Iowa Straw Poll and up to the CPAC one over the weekend, one can make the argument that they are simply self-promotional media events that really mean nothing in the larger scheme of things. However, in a world of politianment where politics and media converge in a 24/7 cable news cycle and every state or group wants its 15 minutes of fame, they get reported on in a way disproportionate to their importance.

Some will defend these straw polls and caucus systems as important tools to judge political strength and organization (Santorum’s wins might argue against that) or that they are great ways to activate the political base. But let me offer six final criticisms of the Minnesota caucus system.

1.  The Minnesota caucuses is exclusionary and non-participatory. The criticism here is that at best 2-2.5% of the population participate in a caucus. Compare us in 2008 to Wisconsin where its presidential primary had a 37% turnout. We have pitiful attendance. Excluded from participating are those in active duty in the military, those working second shift, ill, elderly afraid to go out at night in the cold, those with child care issues, or a host of other matters. Caucuses are great to deepen political commitments and participation, but as Garrison Keillor once stated: “Democracy is a form for government for people with too much time on their hands.” Given how few people can and do show up, effectively it is not a system that really encourages civic engagement on a scale that makes it a really net contributor to social capital building.

2.  The Minnesota caucuses are not representative of the party members. There is a real debate I election law over who is the party. Is it the party officers, candidates, caucuses or convention attendees, or primary voters? Good answers all. The problem here in Minnesota and perhaps elsewhere is that those who attend the caucuses do not seem representative of the broader voters in party primaries and instead are more conservative or liberal than the broader group of people who consider themselves Republicans or Democrats. Over the years in Minnesota we have seen successful candidates such as Arnie Carlson rejected by caucus and convention attendees only to win primaries and general elections. Democrats have a similar problem with Mike Freeman winning at conventions but losing in primaries. Thus, individuals selected via the caucuses process might not be the strongest party nominees, they might not enjoy the broadest support among the primary voters, and they ultimately might not be the strongest candidates for a general election.

3. The Minnesota caucuses conflict with our sense of privacy.  Minnesotans are a very private lot of people. We keep to ourselves on many topics, preferring discourse about family, weather, and the miserable Twins and Vikings to anything more personal.  Many Minnesotans do not attend caucuses because they do not want to openly identify their party affiliation or stand up and declare who they will vote for in an election. I know too many people because of professional work reasons (government workers ad journalists) who feel like they cannot attend caucuses because of how it identifies them politically. When we do have primaries it is a semi-open one that does not require you  to declare party preferences openly. Minnesotans are much more comfortable with this type of process.

4.  The Minnesota caucus process has a muted impact on national politics. Because we actually do not award any delegates at the caucuses, the impact that the state could have were it to have a primary is blunted. We are at best a beauty contest and generally their impact is more short-term and media-driven than real.

5.  The Minnesota caucuses deny choice and voice. Whatever the caucus results last week, they mean nothing.  In 2008 Romney won 41% in the presidential preference poll results in or caucuses. How many votes did he get from our GOP convention at the RNC in 2008? Zero! All the delegates voted for McCain. This is typical. By the time we select our convention delegates the contest for the party nominee is over and our delegation votes by acclamation and awards all delegates to whomever is perceived to be the party nominee (It does not help that at conventions Minnesota comes at the middle of the alphabet when called on to cast its votes). Think of how frustrated Ron Paul must be. He wins the Twin Cities and did well in the state but I doubt he gets any delegates who vote for him in the nomination is sewn up by convention time. Thus, caucus attendees really do not have their vote heard in terms of presidential preferences and it almost seems a waste of time for candidates to stump in a caucus state if they receive no delegates.

6.  The Minnesota caucuses insulate against orderly political evolution. Party leaders love caucuses because they can generally control them. But with caucuses mostly attended by party activists they insult against change and evolution. Conversely  many will say that the caucuses allow small numbers of people to alter the direction of the party rapidly. Both criticisms are correct.  Parties need to evolve to survive and remain relevant, especially if they are to grow their base and appeal to swing voters. Yet the Minnesota caucus system seems to discourage that, as evidenced by the growing numbers who consider themselves not to be members of the two major parties. The parties just do not seem to line up with the way many Minnesotans think about a range of political issues, instead producing polarizing alignments. Thus, the caucus system does not seem to yield a system a system that promotes healthy party evolution.

Last thought: There is a great Sesame Street routine that shows several objects and asks which does not belong. In Minnesota we have caucuses, primaries, and conventions. Which does not belong?