Katy Tur on caucuses: "Remember, this is all about peer pressure."

[pnwmom]

YES -- peer pressure.

And that's part of why so many voters avoid them (even if they do have the time to invest in attendance) and why they're so unrepresentative of the broader electorate.

Another reason Iowa is so unrepresentative -- and does NOTdeserve a "first in the nation" status -- is because the state is 90% white, and only 3.5% African American.

[spooky3]

1. I agree, but I do think that this year, the pattern of switching will be

interesting to see (when a candidate doesn't meet the 15% minimum threshold, where will his/her voters go?). I don't think they will behave in the ways some people have predicted. For example, if Warren doesn't reach the threshold (though she may) I do NOT think most of her voters will go to Sanders.

[Bettie]

2. It really isn't

at least not in our town.

First alignment is just everyone sorting themselves into preference groups, following someone who is going to caucus for each candidate to make a short statement about why their candidate is the best.

Second alignment, those whose groups are viable don't switch. Those groups that aren't, well, yes, they either go to their second choice. If they don't seem to have a second choice, someone will talk to them, but it is generally more about "I like X because of this issue".

Do I like caucuses? Nope.

Do I have even a tiny bit of control over whether we have a primary or a caucus? Nope.

Do I enjoy being told that I'm a piece of garbage because I happen to live in Iowa? Nope. Not even a little bit. But, I suppose I should feel lucky that we're even still allowed to vote at all, since we're all such backward rubes who have never seen a city or even one o'them horseless carriages folk talk about.

[pnwmom]

5. Peer pressure is a real factor. I know because my state used to have them, and voters hated them

so much we voted, in a referendum, to end them. But they continued for years beyond that because the party leaders didn't want to give up their control.

Why did you make the leap from my point that caucuses involve peer pressure and Iowa is not representative demographically to Iowans are "a piece of garbage"?

[Bettie]

11. Because for MONTHS everyone here has been talking about

how people in Iowa aren't "real Americans" because we're mostly rural and yes, many of us are white. Oh, and also, we're apparently ALL Republicans too.

And by this time of the eternal election season I get tired of it.

I have to go to my stupid caucus tomorrow and deal with three hours of bullshit, only to be told that we're doing it wrong by people around here and the fact is, I HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER HOW THEY DO IT...and yet some how all of us who live here are the bad guys who screw it all up no matter what happens.

I'm so tired of the whole thing.

I've spent the last four weekends managing canvassing.

I will end up spending tomorrow from about 5 until 11 at the caucus location setting up and helping it all run smoothly.

But, of course, I'm supposed to apologize for something I neither chose nor particularly like. I'd love to have my entire responsibility be to show up and cast a ballot.

I'm tired and ready to give up on this whole fucking process.

[pnwmom]

13. You are confirming what I was saying.

"I have to go to my stupid caucus tomorrow and deal with three hours of bullshit." They shouldn't make it that hard to vote.

When you go there and they make their public request for money, you raise your hand and tell them you're not giving money till they switch from a caucus to a primary. I did that. You can, too.

[Polly Hennessey]

16. Joni Ernst

[Bettie]

18. What does she have to do with the DEMOCRATIC Caucus?

Nothing. Zip.

Or is she why all Iowa Democrats are terrible?

[2naSalit]

3. Spent much of my teens in NH

And I thought it was a mistake for Iowa to go first.

I also think that none of this will matter as much as prior years and that SC will be more indicative this year.

[Uncle Joe]

4. To have public deliberations demeaned to just being "peer pressure"

Thanks for the thread pnwmom.

[pnwmom]

6. There's a good reason our other ballots are secret. n/t

[Uncle Joe]

8. I believe the nation is best served by a combination of the two,

having pubic deliberations gives the people those states greater power and enfranchisement, so having that exist on a smaller scale as in a few states serves the national public interest in that the rest of the nation; too vast for such an undertaking can benefit from the former's more intimate interactions and experience.

[brooklynite]

7. Here's my take...

Iowa will have a caucus in 2024 and we'll be hearing the same complaints.

Let's be honest: Iowa doesn't decide who the nominee is; but it does start to weed out the weak candidates. What low tier campaign would benefit from a more "representative" State?

[pnwmom]

9. Washington got rid of its caucuses, and so did 7 other states.

Iowa could, too.

And I think the focus on white voters in the first couple states has already helped to end the campaigns of Harris, Castro, and Booker.

[brooklynite]

10. Don't think of the Iowa Caucus as an alternative to Primaries...

Think of it as an alternative to the pre-68 days when most States picked their Delegates in smoke-filled rooms with Party bosses only.

[empedocles]

12. Agree the Iowa Cauus is not an alternative to Primaries. No question.

[Would note that in the pre-68 days, there were fewer, ah, seemingly not well 'qualified' candidates, who make it into 'the running'.
Not only trump, but some Dems in 2019. Dumya and reagan also come to mind].

[pnwmom]

14. Caucuses aren't much of an improvement on that, except for the smoke.

When most states switched to primaries, the holdouts who wanted to retain insider power went to caucuses. They just have a somewhat larger number of fervent attenders than before.

[pnwmom]

22. Hillary won the primaries by 54%. Bernie won the much smaller caucuses by 73%.

We walked into our last caucus and my husband said, "Wow. It's all young men."

It wasn't, except on first impression. But it was definitely dominated by young, fervent men. And the pressure started even before we got to the actual caucus. You arrive at a caucus site on time, you think you should be able to go in, right? No, they kept us standing outside for 40 minutes before they let us all go in. And some of the people waiting outside thought this was a good opportunity to start pushing for their guy.

[Blue_true]

15. I think that Iowa is first because it had the very first contest where

voters voiced their candidate preference. Before that first contest, party leaders basically chose the party nominees, not voters like now. So Iowa being first holds special significance in regards to how nominees are chosen in the modern era.

[pnwmom]

17. The reason they're first is because they start so early because they have such a complicated process

But they don't have to do it this way. And just because they do doesn't mean we should be placing a lot of importance on their unrepresentative results.

https://www.npr.org/2016/01/29/464804185/why-does-iowa-vote-first-anyway

"The really important thing to remember about Iowa is not that it's first because it's important. Iowa is important because it's first," said Kathy O'Bradovich, political columnist for the Des Moines Register. She acknowledges that Iowa didn't really happen on purpose.

"It happened after the 1968 Democratic National Convention," she said, which was marred by violence over the Vietnam War and racial tension. "The Democratic Party nationally and in Iowa decided they wanted to change their process to make it more inclusive."


Part of that meant spreading the presidential nominating schedule out in each state. Because Iowa has one of the more complex processes — precinct caucuses, county conventions, district conventions, followed by a state convention — it had to start really early. (The Democratic Party held Iowa caucuses first in the nation in 1972; the GOP followed suit in 1976.)

And once a peanut farmer named Jimmy Carter rode an Iowa caucus win all the way to the White House, Iowa suddenly became a thing.

[Blue_true]

19. Iowa and about two other states allowed voters to chose in 1960.

The Iowa Caucus was the first of that small group of state contests, and was won by John F. Kennedy. Eventhough Kennedy won the most delegates in the primaries and caucuses that were held that year, party leaders wanted to nominate Lyndon B. Johnson, the Kennedy side argued party leaders chosing Johnson would ignore the will of voters, so a compromise was reached where Kennedy and Johnson ran on the same ticket.

[NYMinute]

20. I won't call it "peer pressure"

I'd call it organized bullying and browbeating.

I have heard the BS campaign actually holds training sessions on how to exert extreme pressure in a caucus setting for its most ardent supporters.

In the old days, it used to be a civilized discourse and gentleman/lady-like persuasion. Now, it is a like a wrestling competition where the civilized and decent people flee.