In Iowa's Crowded Field, Winner Could Be In Low 20s
Democrats are taking note of an extraordinary dynamic in Iowa as the Presidential race begins: A Dem might be able to grab a victory of sorts in the caucuses with a very low percentage of the vote, perhaps even one in the low 20s. CBS News reports that such an outcome is made possible by the wide open field of big personalities (Obama, Clinton) who will grab big chunks of the vote that could leave the victor with something well short of a majority.
Perhaps most important, the presence of Iowan Tom Vilsack in the race could allow someone coming in a strong second behind Vilsack to be viewed as the real winner. "A candidate who comes in second could well be considered the 'relative winner' against a native son," one Dem tells CBS.
It's also worth noting that Vilsack's presence isn't exactly deterring any of the other Democrats for hunting up support and money in his home state. Nobody appears to be deferring to Vilsack in the same way Democratic candidates did for Tom Harkin's Presidential bid in 1992.
I think Vilsack will underwhelm here (I'm in IA). I don't think he will win. He's liked well enough by the local dems, but there's zero passion for him (unlike the case of Harkin - who is hugely popular here amongst the dems).
He is not a very charismatic guy, he has been a decent enough guv, but, honestly, he is quite mediocre as a candidate. He is a DLCer (I don't want to start a fight on this) and let's just say that most of the Iowan democrats that make it to the caucus will not be overly impressed by that. There isn't much more to his message than standard DLC boilerplate, and he doesn't have either the name, the charisma, or the political ability to overcome that.
Edwards, Hillary, and Obama are strong here. I expect them to do better than Vilsack. Word of caution, of course, is that Vilsack has a strong local team, and that will help. But not enough.
November 29, 2006 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how this is possible. From what I understand if a candidate doesn't get 15% of the vote in a precinct on the first tally that candidate is declared not viable and they goto a second vote and on and on until no candidates are below 15%. The precincts then report the totals to the county chairs and delegates are awarded accordingly within each candidate or 'uncommitted'.
A multi-candidate primary like the one cited in the CBS News article will produce a much different result than a caucus. Even is a large field with 4+ semi-serious candidates the winner almost always gets in the 30s.
Here's a list of IA Caucus results via the DesMoines Register.
I don't think Vilsack is a serious candidate, I think he's a shell organization for Hillary Clinton. My guess is he is NOT the front runner within Iowa, Edwards is the front runner. Candidate also cut deals based on calculations to get the most delegates, not ideology. Dennis Kucinich flipped his delegates to Edwards, not Dean - a fact that anti-war Dean voters were not happy about based on Edwards vote for the Iraq war. I think Edwards can beat Vilsack straight up in Iowa which will make for a very powerful story coming out of Iowa. I think Vilsack will drop out if it looks like Edwards will beat him (which it does to me) and deny Edwards the coup of beating the Iowa Governor in Iowa. The result of all these manuevers is the Iowa winner almost always ends up with 30+ percent of the delegates.
I look at Vilsack as a blocking pawn in Hilary Clinton's chess game. There's nothing wrong with that but it isn't exactly an honest way of translating the voters intentions into a candidate.
November 29, 2006 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vilsack has been planning a run for years now. He was jockeying for position as possible VP last time. I don't see how everything he's done in the past and his intentions jibe with him being a Clinton stooge. That seems bizarre to me.
November 29, 2006 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is mostly me lamenting the fact that, as a resident of the most populous state, my primary vote doesn't mean much by the time I get to vote. Iowa has only a handful of electoral votes, has little racial diversity and no real urban areas. Why should the winner of the Iowa caucus be declared to have "momentum"? I guess the same could be said of New Hampshire. No disrespect, but why does the media give such a small, unrepresentative state so much power to dictate national politics? Why do people let them?
I think this is a pretty serious question. Or at least a very interesting one.
November 29, 2006 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Vilsack chairs the DLC. He selected Hillary Clinton to run the American Dream Initiative, a DLC project which looks a lot like a candidate platform. Vilsack has no defining issue to leverage against any other candidate to catch fire like Howard Dean and the Iraq War. DLC types are notoriously pragmatic and have never embraced primary fights.
Show me a path for Vilsack to raise money and win in a crowded field and I'll believe he's running for the top job. Until then I think he's running to collect chips to be VP or get a top job in a Dem cabinet.
I have nothing against Gov. Vilsack. I think he's done a good job as Governor in IA and a good job building the Democratic Party in IA. But not everybody gets to be President. I just don't see how he catchs fire to win.
Iraq will still be a mess in '08 and Vilsack has been clueless on that issue. He's says he's tired of making calls to the families of Iowa National Guard members killed in Iraq but he's never offered anything of value in the Iraq War debate. He can run as a Heartland Governor but on Iraq he's pure Beltway Wisdom.
Since I believe his candidacy is not viable I'm looking for other motives for his run. One motive is enabling a political ally - Hillary Clinton.
November 29, 2006 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
IIRC Vilsack ran in 2000? or was it 2004, and he finished 4th or 5th in Iowa. I don't think anyone takes him seriously. Vilsack isn't going to stop anyone from entering the race. I don't know that Vilsack is setting anything up for Hillary. Bill skipped IA in '92. Hillary hasn't even visited IA yet. I think she'll skip IA and maybe even NH. There are only two people that Hillary fears at this point, Gore and Obama. Edwards could make a run, but I don't think she fears him.
November 30, 2006 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not right. Vilsack never ran before.
November 30, 2006 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the motive you point out of raising his political profile to score VP or a good job in a future Dem admin (or something along those lines) is more likely, although I suppose he could do both at once, but it's a lot of work to do if it all comes down to hoping Hillary gives you a job.
November 30, 2006 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink