I had an initial desire if not a need to write a post that attempted to give my impression from the campaign, what it was (the issue to substitute for "?" in the title) that brought about and explains the election results from the Iowa Caucuses. For anyone who got onto this blog before I pulled it, I had a post that suggested, as James Carville of the '92 Clinton campaign had in the race against George Bush senior, that "it's the economy, stupid," that those who finished one and two, namely, Obama and Edwards, had had more of a domestic focus to their campaign message than Senator Biden, whose message focused more often on foreign policy. The initial and concluding hypothesis was that Afghanistan is off of page 1, that Iraq has now gone on longer than World War II, and that quietly but in large numbers the American people have returned their focus from matters overseas to matters here at home.
Now, Senator Biden has a great domestic agenda and set of proposals. He can go toe to toe on domestic policy with the other candidates and win. So if the vote was what it was because Iowa voters presumed that Obama and Edwards were more focused than Joe Biden on matters here at home, then I suppose I'm even more disappointed than before.
The frustrating thing was that we could not even get Iowa voters to tell us why they preferred some of the other candidates. They'd say, "I'm supporting Hillary, but I like Joe" or "I'm supporting Obama, but Joe is my #2" or "I'm supporting Richardson, and Hillary is second, but I really like Joe". It was remarkable. And they meant it. You could tell. Iowans are very straightforward. They liked Joe, sometimes, I got the sense, as much as I did. And I think the reason they did not support him is because they felt he could not finish first in Iowa. In Iowa. I'd ask, "Do you mean you don't think he can finish first in Iowa, or in November against the Republican nominee?" and they would say, "in Iowa." And that astounded me, really. Because Iowa does not choose the nominee. Iowa simply narrows the field. If they believed, as they clearly did, that Joe deserved to be in that narrowed field, then why wouldn't they go and vote for him in the Caucus, and, oh, by the way, be true to themselves in the process?
I never figured this out. I did change the minds of a few Iowans by simply pointing out that Iowa does not choose the nominee; it narrows the field. I said, "If you think Joe should be in that narrowed field, then caucus for him, and he will be." Several people said, "Well, you have a point there. I hadn't really thought about it like that. I do like Joe. And you've given me something to think about there. I may just caucus for him." They will say "may" because Iowans always reserve the right to change their minds at the last minute, which is partly why Iowa polls can be so unreliable, though were pretty accurate this time.
There is a chicken and egg thing here that gnaws at me. The network and cable news channels started running Iowa presidential polls incredibly early, even before anyone had announced. Those early results, not surprisingly, were large numbers for those candidates with the greatest name recognition. No real surprise, there. One would have needed to be somewhat of a news junkie to know much of Senator Biden prior to the start of the caucus campaign. So did a deluge of polls very early showing Joe Biden in low, low numbers bias Iowa voters from the start against him, and in favor of those who looked like "winners" when in fact no contest had even begun?
The percentages never really moved that much. And that's the shocking part, especially if you were in Iowa, and at his events. I mean, Senator Biden early on was at 1%; polls closer to election day had him closer to 8%. Had Iowa been a primary and not a caucus (with its 15% minimum precinct support figure for being "viable"), Biden would have gotten about 8% of the vote, because nearly all precinct captains I talked to after the vote said Biden was at about 1/2 what he needed to be viable (1/2 of 15% being close to 8%). So the polling proved pretty good close to election day. But the lack of a rise in the polls to some point where Biden's viability would have been assured on the first ballot in most precincts in a state like Iowa which prides itself in doing its homework and taking the measure of each candidate leaves me confused given how good a candidate he is and how well he campaigned and others campaigned on his behalf.
The only thing I can think of is that perhaps America has truly moved on, in big numbers, from concerns abroad to concerns at home - affording health care and education, immigration, the security of pensions - and that in taking their measure of the candidates, Iowans concluded that Barack, Edwards and Hillary emphasized those domestic things in their talks more than Joe Biden did. And I think that's true, meaning that perhaps once again James Carville gets to be right - it was the economy, stupid.
But we lost this one. Everyone liked Joe. His crowds were great. "I like Joe, I really do. All the candidates are so good this time." That was the refrain. But Joe Biden is pleased with the campaign he ran. So I can be. I'm pleased with the effort we all made. It was incredible, and so were all the people I worked with at the Biden campaign office in Waterloo, and so was the Senator, and his entire family, out in force on the campaign trail. The experience was far more exhilarating than tiring. All I know is, I'd do it again, in an instant, and would do it again for Joe Biden in a fraction of that.
Comments