Iowa Caucus 2016: Does It Really Matter?

After months and months of hype, ceaseless media coverage, political party debates, blatant false statements, personal slurs and accusations, the 2016 Iowa Caucus will be held today. IA voters from 1681 precincts will get together in schools, churches, and public buildings to talk to their neighbors, discuss what their party stands for, choose local party leaders, and vote on their choice for the next presidential nominee for their party.  Personally, I’ve never understood why IA is the first site in the process and as one voter, I resent the idea that the results in IA will have any impact on anything, significant and otherwise.

Some say Iowa is the “touchstone of Democracy” where voters have the first opportunity to express their preference in the presidential nominating process for the major parties. They relish the fact that IA voters are courted by widely known candidates as well as lesser known individuals. Those who are less well funded compete with candidates that have huge financial support. I’m told that IA is a small state where it’s less expensive to run a campaign, easier for average voters to meet with candidates, and find out what they think about the issues. I’m told that Iowa voters are passionate and fully engaged. They take honor in being first and take the process seriously. They attend events, listen to candidates, ask questions, and carefully evaluate each candidate’s prospect of being the party’s nominee and hopefully the next President of the United States.

The first four sites in the presidential nominating process are Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. I’m told not to worry about the “representativeness” of any one state, even though IA voter are older activist, not the rank and file of party voters.In 2008, 93% of participants in the IA Caucaus were caucasian.  Data indicates that turnout is usually low, running about 43% of the voting population. Jeff Kaufmann, chairman of the Republican Party of Iowa says “a primary is a vote, while a caucus is a conversation and a vote. The results of the process in Iowa leaves the voters nothing to be proud of. IA’s record for selecting the Republican Party’s national presidential nominee is atrocious. The Democrats were much more successful.

In 2008, Rick Santorum won the Republican vote with 24%, barely besting Mitt Romney, the ultimate Republican party nominee for president, In 2008, Mike Huckabee won the vote with 34% to Mitt Romney’s best at second place at 25%. In 1996. Bob Dole won with 26% followed by Pat Buchanan’s 23%. For the Democrats, the last 3 Caucus winners (Barack Obama-37.6% in 2008, John Kerry-37.6% in 2004, and Al Gore-63% in 2000) won the party nomination. Of course, Obama won the presidency in 2008, Kerry lost in 2004, and Al Gore had his victory stolen from him in 2000.

As this day ends, IA voters are quickly replaced by the focus on New Hampshire. Of course the media will spend days analyzing the results in IA and predicting the outcomes in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Eventually the emphasis will move to the states that carry the weight of the votes that will make a difference in which candidates will compete in the general election in November. 

They tell me that IA really matters, but I’m not convinced. If I had my way, we’d start with California, New York, Illinois, and Ohio. But who am I to decide. Guess it’ll all come out in the wash when the final votes are counted.

Read More

Eye on Republican 2016 Politics

The Republican Party continues to use the “Southern Strategy” it’s embraced for more than 40 years.  This strategy has been somewhat successful for them, but convinces some voters to support their policies. Over the years, the party has reinvented racism, using a series of coded appeals which are inaudible at one level, but clearly heard and understood at another. President Ronald Reagan, called the Great Communicator by his loyal supporters, often remarked about “Cadillac driving welfare queens” and “strapping young bucks” buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. Similar rhetoric is found in the language used by former President Richard Nixon and former presidential candidate George Wallace. You’ll see this strategy repeated by many in the current field of GOP presidential candidates

Racial polarization among Republican voters appears to generate enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration, and wage war against Gays, Lesbians, and Muslims.  Short sighted politicians disregard the interest of minorities and the disadvantaged and embrace regressive policies that promised “trickle-down” benefits for whites. Current presidential candidates offer pie-in-the-sky optimism and misplaced certitude. It’s interesting that their primary appeal to the Republican base is that they have no past experience with most of the issues facing the country today. This coupled with the bitterness of the base against the failure of elected officials to deliver on past campaign promises makes interesting reality television, but offers America and the entire world little hope for the future.

The appeal of some Republican candidates seems contrary to our stated national values which support equality and oppose racism. The inaudible call for racial solidarity to combat “welfare cheats”, “illegal aliens”, and perceived racial victimization presents an enormous problem for the country and particularly for the struggling middle class. The liberal media seems to believe that the GOP appeals to a small shrinking “silver” population. In an increasingly diverse society, if you’re not careful, you might feel that racial polarization will be solved when this group literally dies out. However, among whites, race appears to be more important than gender, age, or geographical location. Race may well drive how individuals vote, resulting in white support for the Republican Party. A quick look at the data tells the story. In the 2012 election, 88% of voters for the GOP were white. State level GOP elected officials nationwide received 98% of the white vote. White men favored Romney by 62%, white women by 56% and white youth by 56%. Race is a central feature in American Democracy today.

 

The policies of the Republican Party favor the extremely wealthy and for decades governmental policies have created an unequal economy that has wrecked the middle class. They blame the 2008 financial crisis on homeowners who bought homes they could not afford.  They fail to support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, casting it as an “over reach” of government power. They focus on the “undeserving poor” who abuse government help, thereby robbing hard-working tax payers. They cast whites as victims of an activist government that passes out gifts to grasping minorities.  You’ve heard it said that African Americans, Hispanics and young people “want to get free stuff” from the government. Accordingly, the GOP offers plans to control voting among these groups as a way to counteract their support for democratic positions.

The second Republican presidential candidates’ debate tonight will spotlight their strategies.   See if there’s a lack of emphasis on support for upward mobility through good schooling and affordable higher education. Take note if there appears to be a lack of interest in rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure or controlling abuse in the market place through regulation. Watch for discussions on jobs, healthcare and the economy, marked by a lack of specificity. It may help you decide where your vote will do the most good in serving those issues that you care about.

Read More