The\nnational media received what it had requested, and now it wants to blame the\nIowa Democratic Party for not having the media\u2019s information quick enough. For years, national and local media have\nyearned for raw numbers from the Iowa Democratic Caucuses. There was a reason why previous caucuses did\nnot release raw numbers. They actually\nhave no relevance. This year, a delay in\nproviding information became news itself rather than the news the media is\nseeking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Before\nyou criticize the Iowa Caucuses, you should know a little about them. That\u2019s most of the problem; representatives\nof media know little about them. You can\nread the manual, you can sit through one and experience it, but unless you are\na precinct captain for a campaign, a caucus chair or secretary, or party\nleaders coordinating 1600 events, you can\u2019t imagine the heavy task at hand. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The\nNew York Times, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, CNN, the Des Moines Register, and\nevery news outlet around the world cannot talk or write about the Iowa Caucuses\nwithout using the word \u201cvote\u201d. Let\u2019s\nmake it clear that not one Democratic presidential candidate left Iowa with as\nmuch as one vote. Iowa\u2019s Democrats don\u2019t\nvote in caucuses except to elect a caucus chairperson, secretary, precinct\ncommittee people, and a slate of delegates. \nOh, yes, and there is a vote taken to adopt planks that will eventually\nbecome the party platform, the original purpose of neighborhood caucuses. Iowa Republicans do vote. However, as Kevin Cooney mentions in his Des Moines\nRegister op-ed<\/a>\nof February 4th<\/sup>, it doesn\u2019t mean very much because the real election\ncomes later in the caucus, after most people have left, and it\u2019s an election for\ndelegates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Democratic\ncaucuses are mini-conventions. Delegates\nare selected to advance to the next convention level, and delegates are chosen\nby those individuals who share the same slant on policies as the person they\nwant to represent them. Many delegates\nare chosen based upon the volunteer work they have donated to a particular\ncandidate. A candidate\u2019s precinct\ncaptain is most likely to become at least one of the delegates to move on to\nthe next convention, whether it\u2019s county, district, or state, and the captain\nis known to most of those in the preference group. A caucus-goer \u201caligns\u201d with a candidate. Those aligning with a particular candidate\nvote for the delegate to represent them at the next level in the process \u2013 not\nthe candidate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Another\nway to look at a caucus is to compare it to a ballot petition. You may sign a petition for a candidate to\nget on the ballot, but your signature is not a vote. Likewise, if a candidate\u2019s group must contain\n20 people to be viable, and the group can come with only 5 eligible participants,\nit\u2019s like not having enough signatures on a petition to get on a ballot. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Caucuses\ndiffer from primaries in several ways, but a caucus is actually more\ndemocratic. Listening to news media, you\nwould think that it\u2019s the other way around. \nHowever, there is no disenfranchisement in a Democratic caucus because\nthere is no vote (except as mentioned above). \nPrimaries, on the other hand, give citizens the opportunity to vote for\na presidential candidate, but not the people in their neighborhood who are going\nto be leaders in their local politics. \nAs former Speaker of the House Tip O\u2019Neal loved to state: \u201cAll politics\nis local.\u201d But not in primary states\nwhere you have no real discussion about who will represent you in party affairs\nthat have meaning for your county, city, and state. You can\u2019t connect the candidate with the\ndelegate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On\nthe day after the Iowa Caucuses, Meet the Press<\/a> Moderator Chuck Todd<\/a> said that there\nare too many numbers to digest. That is\npart of the media\u2019s problem. It wants\nresults, numerous results, and it wants them now. Wouldn\u2019t you rather settle for accurate\nresults instead of quick inaccurate results? \nIsn\u2019t that what the media wanted in 2016? And in 2012? \nAnd in 2008? And in . . . . It\nwanted the numbers of the first alignment, the second alignment, and the final\ndelegate count. Now that it has those\nnumbers, it\u2019s complaining about those numbers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n What\ngoes around comes around. Keep the\ncaucuses. Whether Iowa precincts select\nparticular delegates to its county, district, and state conventions, who just\nhappen to be supporting a particular candidate, should be irrelevant. It\u2019s politics at the grassroots level \u2013 not\nthe level desired by the media. At least\nthe Democratic neighbors will know that they have a long-term voice, not just a\nfleeting vote.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The national media received what it had requested, and now it wants to blame the Iowa Democratic Party for not having the media\u2019s information quick enough. For years, national and local media have yearned for raw numbers from the Iowa … Continue reading