Daemen PSC & HST Students Visit Iowa - Days 2 & 3

After learning about Iowan politics during our private tour of the state capitol with an Iowa Representative on day 1, our second and third days in Iowa were spent attending several Democratic presidential candidate rallies and a forum on democracy.  By attending the various town halls, community events, and the forum, we were able to get a glimpse of what it is like for Iowa voters preparing to caucus on February 3 for their favorite candidate.  Because Iowa is a smaller state (population roughly 3 million people) and they vote first in the nomination season, Iowa voters understand their importance in the nomination process and expect that candidates will spend a lot of time introducing themselves, shaking hands, and taking selfies with them.  As you will see, candidates in return, are happy to oblige. 

Senator Amy Klobuchar's "Amy for America" Campaign Bus

Waiting for Mayor Pete Buttigieg to take the stage

Caucuses are vastly different from primaries--and Iowa is even a bit different among the various caucus states.  In a primary, a voter simply shows up to their polling location, fills out their ballot, and turns it in.  In a caucus, a voter shows up at a specified time (say 7:00 pm) and settles in for a few hours of speeches (from campaign surrogates, grassroots volunteers, and activists) and then votes.  And in Iowa, the way voting happens is even different.  Instead of filling out a paper ballot, voters literally vote with their feet.  Voters gather in their predetermined precinct location and listen to various surrogates, volunteers, and activists talk about why their candidate is the best.  Then, after the speeches, the voting begins.  There are signs posted throughout the room in which voters are gathered and in order to vote for a candidate, voters stand in their candidate's location.  After everyone is in place, the voters are counted.  If a candidate fails to attract 15% of the vote, they do not reach "viability."  Any voters supporting a candidate that does not reach viability can either vote for their second choice or they can go home.  This process continues until all candidates left have achieved viability.  Once all candidates have achieved viability, the votes are officially tallied across all the precincts in the state (currently there are 1, 681 caucus precincts) and a winner ultimately emerges.  Complicating this even further is the fact that between the various rounds of voting, all of the voters are working at convincing the supporters of candidates who have failed to achieve viability to support their candidate.  So, for example, should Amy Klobuchar fail to reach viability, all of the supporters of all the other candidates will be working on convincing the Klobuchar supporters to vote for Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, or Biden instead. 

Listening to Vice President Joe Biden at his community event in Indianola, Iowa on 1/18/2020

Mayor Pete Buttigieg at his town hall in Council Bluffs, IA on 1/18/2020

Due to the nature of how voting actually happens in the Iowa caucuses, candidates try to ensure that their supporters are fully informed about their positions, their plans, and have a good idea of their character.  The candidates know that on caucus night, voters are expected to appeal to supporters of candidates that fail to achieve viability.  This is why candidates make several trips to Iowa and why they spend as much time as they do shaking hands and taking selfies.  These personal touches may make a huge difference on caucus night.  With a strong showing in Iowa (preferably a first place showing!) a candidate can then expect an increase in media attention as well as campaign donations. 

Tysai Washington and Sam Williams (R-L) with Joe Biden after his event in Indianola.  

Our whole group with Pete Buttigieg after his town hall in Council Bluffs.  

Our group with Elizabeth Warren after her town hall in Des Moines.  

After attending a few individual rallies (so far we have seen Biden, Buttigieg, and Warren) we were able to attend a forum entitled, We the People: Protecting Our Democracy a Decade After Citizens United.  (For anyone interested in the forum, it was recorded and can be found here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?468160-1/democratic-presidential-candidates-speak-we-people-2020-forum-iowa). At this forum, candidates were asked to address issues surrounding democracy, specifically focusing on the problems associated with money in politics.  Citizens United refers to the 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that independent expenditures related to political campaigns by corporations could not be restricted, as this would be a violation of their First Amendment Rights.  A total of six candidates appeared at the forum.  Andrew Yang, John Delaney, Elizabeth Warren, and Amy Klobuchar attended in person, while Pete Buttigieg and Deval Patrick appeared via Skype.  

Candidates at the We the People Forum (From Top to Bottom:
Elizabeth Warren, Deval Patrick, Andrew Yang,
Amy Klobuchar,Pete Buttigieg, and John Delaney).

 At each of these events, students have not only learned about the candidates running for office, but they have also learned a great deal about how unique Iowa is in our presidential nomination process.  They have been observing the power of retail politics--something we do not get to see much of in New York.  They have also been learning about how seriously Iowa residents take the nomination process and how closely they are actually paying attention.  We have spoken with some of the voters in the crowds at these events and everyone we have spoken with has been to multiple events from a variety of candidates.  Iowans take their first-in-the-nation role seriously and genuinely try to learn about the candidates through traditional retail politics. 

Daemen PSC & HST Students Visit Iowa - Day 1

On Thursday, January 16, I traveled to Des Moines, IA with 5 of our Political Science and History majors to experience the retail politics surrounding the fast-approaching Iowa Caucuses.  These caucuses are scheduled for February 3 and will set the tone for the rest of the presidential nominating contests.  We will be attending a variety of political events throughout the state, including campaign rallies/town halls/community events with Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren.

Waiting for our flight out of Buffalo

After a short delay in Detroit, we made it to Iowa in the evening of January 16 and settled in to our hotel.  Friday morning, we attended a presentation by the National Director of Project Vote Smart, Walker McKusick, which is headquartered at Drake University in Des Moines.  Our own political science professor, Dr. Lisa Parshall, is an advisor for Key Votes New York for Project Vote Smart.  Project Vote Smart is a nonpartisan group that aims to provide factual information to voters ahead of elections.

Project Vote Smart Bumper Sticker 

Daemen Students (to the right in this picture) at the Vote Smart presentation with students from Principia College in Illinois, who are also in Des Moines to witness the pre-caucus events.  

After our Vote Smart presentation, Iowa was hit by a winter storm--giving us a snow day, as the rest of our events for today were canceled.  Des Moines ended up getting about 6 inches of snow today, but we still ventured out to explore the city a bit.  

The students (Carlos McKnight, Sam Williams, Lindsey Hornung, Ricardo Marquez, and Tysai Washington, from L-R) enjoying the snow on Drake University's campus.

To help fill up some of our snow day, we visited the Iowa State Capitol Building and had an incredible, unique experience.  

Iowa State Capitol Building 

From L-R: Tysai Washington, Ricardo Marquez, Sam Williams, Lindsey Hornung, Carlos McKnight

Once we got inside, we met Iowa State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad, who has served Polk County (of which Des Moines is the county seat) since 2007.  Representative Abdul-Samad introduced us to Latino Leader Mary Campos and former Iowa State Representative Wayne Ford.  Ms. Campos and Mr. Ford are the founders and chairs of the Brown and Black Forum held in Des Moines every four years.  The Brown and Black Forum provides candidates with the opportunity to address concerns of the African American and Latino communities.  The Forum began in 1984 and is an important part of run-up to the Iowa Caucuses.

Group picture with Mary Campos, Wayne Ford (center) and Representative Ako Abdul-Samad (right)

Representative Abdul-Samad was then kind enough to give us a tour of the State House of Representatives and tell us several stories about what brought him into politics and some of the issues he is currently fighting for.  

Chamber of the Iowa State House of Representatives 

Representative Abdul-Samad talking with students about the Iowa House of Representatives

Group Picture at the Speaker of the State House's Desk.  The current Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives is Pat Grassley, the grandson of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley.  

Overall, we had a very exciting first day in Iowa, despite some inclement weather.  We were incredibly appreciative of Representative Abdul-Samad's time, as he gave us an incredible experience at the Iowa State Capitol.  

The Dynamics of the 2020 Invisible Primary

We are currently nearing the end of what political scientists refer to as the invisible primary, the approximately one-year period leading up to the Iowa Caucuses in which candidates compete against each other for fundraising dollars, name recognition, poll standing, and voters in the early states.  While the invisible primary has arguably become much more visible over the past few campaign cycles due to increased media coverage of the candidates’ campaign tactics, the nomination campaigns are about to become even more visible as states start to vote. 

In her post a couple of weeks ago, my colleague, Dr. Lisa Parshall, makes a compelling case that the U.S. is making its way toward a national primary rather than the sequential, state-by-state series of primaries and caucuses we have been using since 1972.  Should we adopt a national primary, the invisible primary period will likely fade away, as candidates will have to wage national campaigns from the minute they enter the contest rather than build support in a handful of early states and hope that momentum propels them forward. 

Additionally, Dr. Parshall rightly points to the vaulted status of Iowa and New Hampshire (and since 2008, Nevada and South Carolina) as being a major impediment to instituting a national primary.  As happens every four years, we see several people decry the importance of Iowa and New Hampshire—with this year Julian Castro, a former Democratic contender, joining the fight.  Most arguments center around the lack of diversity found in both of these states—an argument amplified in Democratic nominating contests, as Democratic candidates rely on a diverse coalition of voters to win elections.  In an effort to diversify the electorate early on in the primary process, Democrats added South Carolina and Nevada to the early carve-out states in 2008. 

Nonetheless, should candidates want to build momentum and be perceived as viable contenders throughout the nomination process, they need to develop strategies that align with the rules laid out by their Party.  And while not everyone may be happy that Iowa and New Hampshire set the tone for the remainder of the nomination calendar, candidates rarely ignore these two early contests because of the importance of being seen as a “winner” from the very beginning of the process.  Not only do these early wins allow candidates to be viewed more favorably, they also see a bump in fundraising and positive media coverage.  It is difficult for a candidate to be viewed as viable if they do not place in the top three in these early states.  Should Michael Bloomberg be successful in his bid for the Democratic nomination, he would be the first presidential contender to do so while skipping all four of the carve-out states since the McGovern-Fraser reforms. 

While Bloomberg is running with a largely unconventional campaign strategy (getting in the race late, ignoring the early carve-out states, and self-funding his campaign), the remaining candidates are competing in much more conventional ways: running advertisements, traveling to the states for rallies and town halls, and racking up endorsements from party leaders and elected officials [PLEOs].  To demonstrate, let’s look at the data.

Campaign Visits: Getting Candidates in Front of the Voters

In 2017 I published a book, Campaigns That Matter: The Importance of Campaign Visits in Presidential Nominating Contests, in which I argue that campaign visits are a crucial part of a candidate’s strategic tool kit to be used on the campaign trail.  These visits, which can come in the form of town hall meetings, large rallies, just popping into a local restaurant or pub, or intimate meet-and-greets with interested voters, provide candidates with the ability to connect with voters in a more personal way.  Voters are able to hear a more substantial discussion of a candidate’s policy proposals and vision for governing.  They are also able to better judge a candidate’s character and personality, as these events are mostly unscripted and more free-wheeling, especially when compared to traditional advertisements.  More importantly, visits are an important way to energize grassroots supporters who will campaign on behalf of the candidate in his or her absence and do a lot of the door-to-door canvassing, phone banking, and voter registration drives all in an effort to maximize their favorite candidate’s vote share. 

To that end, we can see the early states have received a lot of attention from the candidates this year. As of December 1, 2019, Iowa has received over 700 visits from the 28 candidates who have sought the Democratic nomination, New Hampshire received 431, Nevada received 185, and South Carolina received 226. 

One of the things we can see in these data is that visits are conducted by a variety of candidates.  Campaign visits are a way to level the playing field among candidates—they do not need to compete with other candidates for air time and the cost of conducting a visit are much less than running an ad.  So, when looking at which candidates are leading the visits race in Iowa, we see that both long-shot candidates and top tier candidates are visiting at high numbers.  Joe Sestak (who has now withdrawn from the race) led the field at the end of November with 50 visits to Iowa, while Deval Patrick (who recently got in the race) has made only one.  Further, the top tier candidates as of right now—Biden, Buttigieg, Warren, and Sanders have made 29, 30, 37, and 37 respectively.  In contrast, long-shot candidates like Tulsi Gabbard, John Delaney, Julian Castro (who has now suspended his campaign), and Andrew Yang have made 36, 46, 40, and 26 respectively.  This helps demonstrate that visits really are an equalizer among types of candidates—these visits are not as dependent on fundraising as advertising is. 

As the race continues on past the first four carve-out states, we should expect the attention of candidates to shift to the states holding contests on Super Tuesday.  As Super Tuesday is offering up about 1/3 of all the delegates available, the candidates still in the race after the four early carve-out states will have 15 states to compete in rather than just four.  Because of the increased volume in contests candidates will be conducting fewer visits to these states and likely spend more money on advertising. 

Campaign Fundraising and Spending: The Importance of Ads

Conventional wisdom tells us that generally the candidate with the most money wins the race.  This is usually due to the fact that this candidate is able to outspend their opponents in advertising.  Advertising is the quickest way to reach a large amount of people, but it often comes with a high price tag.  Additionally, today candidates need to advertise on a variety of platforms (e.g. radio, newspapers, television, the internet, social media) so the costs of advertising continue to rise.  Looking at the amount of money raised by the Democratic candidates, we can see that Bernie Sanders leads the fundraising race.  He’s fundraised about $10 million more than his closest competitors in Iowa (Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren) and about $25 million more than Joe Biden (the candidate leading in most national polls). 

With fundraising numbers for the 4th fiscal quarter starting to trickle in now, these standings in the fundraising race seem to be holding steady.  Sanders raised about $35 million, the most raised by any candidate in any quarter so far in this competition and Joe Biden had his most impressive fundraising quarter to date, roughly $23 million. 

Looking at fundraising data tells us a couple of things about the candidates and the type of campaign each is running.  Fundraising tells us which candidate is financially able to continue in the race: they can pay for ads, pay their staffers, and pay their bills.  Additionally, these data tell us how many donors each candidate has.  Sanders is closing in on 4 million donors, Warren is approaching 2 million donors, while Buttigieg has yet to reach 1 million donors.  These numbers signal grassroots support among voters and what kind of people are donating to the candidates.  Sanders and Warren have both sworn off big dollar fundraisers, while Buttigieg has held several, including the now-infamous wine cave fundraiser in California.  So, while Buttigieg has outraised Warren, Warren is able to claim a more robust group of supporters as she has received donations from a wider cross section of voters.

Elite Endorsements: The Party Decides?

One more aspect that candidates compete over is endorsements from party leaders and elected officials [PLEOs].  These endorsements are viewed as a way for the Party to still maintain some control over the nomination process.  With the McGovern-Fraser reforms in the 1970s, the Republican and Democratic Parties lost a lot of control over who the nominee would be.  The Democratic Party adopted a robust group of superdelegates to help balance the will of the Party with the will of the voters (though superdelegates have never decided who would be the Party’s nominee).  In addition to these superdelegates, elite endorsements help the Party signal who they would prefer voters support—and we see endorsements used by both Parties. 

Because nomination contests are waged between members of the same political party, voters cannot simply rely on party identification when deciding for which candidate to vote.  Instead, voters need to use some other information when making a decision.  This information may be the visits or ads discussed above, or they may simply rely on the endorsement of a politician they trust.  When looking at the current group of endorsements, Joe Biden leads in the number of endorsements having received 46—including those from 22 current members of the House of Representatives, 3 Governors, and 5 Senators, among many others.  Sanders has received a total of 24 endorsements, Warren 23, Booker 21, Klobuchar 13, Buttigieg 9, Bennet 3, Bloomberg 3, and Delaney 2.  The charts below demonstrate where these endorsements have come from. 

 1= Past President, Vice President, National Party Leader ; 2= Governor; 3= Senator ; 4= Former Presidential or Vice Presidential Candidates, Former Party Leader, 2020 Nomination Dropouts ; 5= U.S. Representatives or Large City Mayors; 6= Statewide Legislative or Elected Leaders ; 7= Democratic National Committee Leaders

What the endorsement data tell us is that Joe Biden currently has the most support from Democratic Party leaders than any of his competitors.  Because of Biden’s longevity with the Party it is unsurprising to see that he is currently leading in the endorsement race.  As the primary season continues, we will likely see more consolidation behind the eventual nominee—especially among superdelegates (and most of these endorsers also serve as superdelegates).  Whether or not that nominee is Biden remains unclear, but the Party is doing its best to signal their strong support for his candidacy. 

Overall Campaign Dynamics

Visits, spending, and endorsements are just some of the dynamics that are at work throughout the nomination season.  Starting with the Iowa caucuses on February 3, viability of the candidates will be added to the dynamics.  While viability is already discussed in terms of poll numbers, actual results from primaries and caucuses produce stronger evidence of viability.  Additionally, momentum will become a much stronger player as the nomination season continues on.  Voters are likely to jump on the bandwagon of the winning (i.e. more viable) candidate.  Momentum is more likely to have a stronger influence in a large field of candidates, as it can propel a candidate ahead of the pack in a much more significant way than when the field of candidates is smaller. 

The two-person 2016 Democratic nomination battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders is a good example.  Because Clinton and Sanders kept volleying wins back-and-forth, neither could muster significant momentum (the same can be said of the 2008 Obama-Clinton nomination battle).  In contrast, the 2016 Republican contest contained a large number of candidates, with the top tier quickly whittled down to Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich.  With four candidates remaining in the race, Trump was able to win contests with just 30% of the vote.  By racking up several wins—even with small pluralities—Trump was able to become “uncatchable” in terms of the delegate count.  Thus, in a crowded field, momentum helps quickly winnow the field after the first few contests, and then allows one candidate slowly, but surely, build an advantage in their delegate count that cannot be surpassed by any other candidate. 

If this conventional wisdom holds, we should expect momentum to play a big role in the 2020 Democratic contest.  We should expect several withdrawals after the carve out states vote.  The remaining candidates will try to piece together a coalition of voters they believe will allow them to capture the nomination.  However, only one will be successful.  This candidate will likely start to emerge after Super Tuesday, giving us a much clearer picture of who the Democratic nominee is likely to be.