Today, Explained - Whyowa?

Episode Date: February 3, 2020

Iowa gets to take the first swing at nominating the Democratic presidential candidate today. But why? (Transcript here.) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Get groceries delivered across the GTA from Real Canadian Superstore with PC Express. Shop online for super prices and super savings. Try it today and get up to $75 in PC Optimum Points. Visit superstore.ca to get started. Lizzo, politics, Vox, what's a caucus? At a basic level, it's a meeting that a political party has. And in the specific context of this election, it's a meeting that the Democrats are having to decide which nominee they'd like to ultimately represent them. All right. That sounds fair. What's in Iowa? So Iowa is one of the few remaining states to still use a caucus in the way that they pick the nominee. And the mechanics of how that works

is very interesting and actually quite fun to observe. So a group of people will get into a room. This is going to happen in places like school cafeterias, people's living rooms, community centers. And they'll actually physically cluster into different places in that room based on which candidate they support. So if you're trying to get a visual of what that could look like, you might have a group of people who like Biden on one side of the room. And then a group of Bernie Sanders supporters in a corner of the room. After people cluster, the person who is in charge of each of these locations will ultimately count how many people are in each of these groups. And in order for a candidate to be considered viable, they need to reach at least

15 percent of the vote at that point in the evening. Edwards, 159, viable. Gravel, one. Kucinich, 46, not viable. Obama, 302. And Iowa's in the Midwest, right? Right, right. And they say something about people in the Midwest being really nice.

Do these caucuses ever get, like, really contentious? They do. Obama won't even say the best of the leaves of the flag. He won't even raise his hand to America. I got a picture of him. I got a picture of him not raising his hand to the United States of America's flag. And he wants to be the president of the United States. That is very true, ma'am. I'm sorry.

They get very contentious and they can get really sad because if your candidate doesn't hit that 15 percent threshold, what that means is you can either decide to move to your second choice candidate who is still in the game, or you can try to recruit other people to help you make that number that you need to hit. And so a lot of people end up being very sad because their candidates that they're really passionate about get eliminated and they have to move elsewhere. I think it would be a lot of fun to participate in because it's this very active engagement with other people and a very passionate showcase of who you actually like and who you're willing to really duke it out for. Okay, so when did Iowa start caucusing? The caucus actually began a long time ago in the 1800s, but it has only taken on the level of importance it has now in more recent years in the 1970s after the Democratic Party decided to make some reforms to the way that they chose the nominee.

What were the reforms? The main reform was that they wanted more people at the local level to be able to participate and decide which candidate they wanted. In the past, a lot of these decisions had been made predominantly by party leadership, and this was intended to ensure that a larger proportion of voters had a voice. So when the Democrats make this rule change, why does Iowa get picked to be first? That all happened sort of by happenstance. A big part of it was just that Iowa figured out it needed a long time to process the actual votes that it was using for the caucus. So in order to do that, it decided to move its race

as early as it could in order to make it in time for the Democratic convention. And that ended up pushing it super early in the calendar. And after it picked up the influence it has, the state has really fought to keep it that early in the calendar. And the DNC has ended up backing up that timing. So Iowa's first because like 50 years ago, they're like, we're really bad at counting? Effectively, that's what happened. At the time,

I think the history of it is that their printing machine was taking a really long time to process some of the ballots and some of the paperwork that was needed. And that's what led to where we are now. Wow. So that change was made in the late 1960s, and it really began to take effect in 1970s. And 1972 is the first election where we see the Iowa caucus starting to become the phenomenon that we know it as today. Tell me more about that one. So in that particular race, there was a long shot candidate named George McGovern, who wasn't quite as well known as his opponents. He did well in Iowa and then ended up winning the nomination. My nomination is all the more precious in that is the gift of the most open political process in all of our political history.

Which led people to basically try to re-evaluate his trajectory and understand how he got there. And one of those people who was doing that was Jimmy Carter, who similarly not very well known when he got into the election in 1976. Jimmy who? Jimmy Carter. Jimmy who? I Carter. Jimmy who? I don't know who he is. Focused a ton of energy and time on Iowa.

Won Iowa. It shows a good acceptance of a broad base of constituent interest. And you can't tell until we go through the other 49 states, but it's encouraging, of course. Ended up picking up all the momentum from that victory and ended up, as we know, eventually becoming president. So Jimmy Carter sort of helped establish Iowa as this as this important place where the election kind of begins. Yes. Yeah. Jimmy Carter's election was pivotal in doing that. And I think on the other side of the aisle, you see George H.W. Bush's run subsequently doing the same for Republicans. He didn't end up winning the nomination that year, but also did very well in Iowa,

gained a huge national profile from that particular performance. We will have forward Big Mo on our side, as they say in athletics. Big mo? Yeah, mo momentum. So like subsequent candidates couldn't have just been like, oh, that Iowa thing that Carter did was kind of weird. Let's go back to business as usual. Because of the rule changes, they needed to keep doing this thing? In part because of the rule changes and also in part because of how the media ended up treating Iowa after some of these surprise victories. I think you... So we should blame it on the media. Yeah, once again, I think

the media is a central culprit here, putting a lot of energy and attention on tracking who's doing well. When you think about the frontrunners that we talk about now, those are the top four in Iowa. And they're not necessarily doing as well in other parts of the country. And that kind of just goes to show how much importance we place on the state at this point. So it starts with Carter and then George H.W. Bush uses it to his advantage. Is this a thing that works for both parties heading over to Iowa and appealing to the caucuses? Or is this mostly a Democratic thing or what? Over time, I think we've seen it have a bigger influence on the Democratic Party. When you look

at the pattern of candidates who have ended up getting the nomination, I think there's only one example in recent history of somebody who did not win Iowa, who did not win New Hampshire, that actually ended up becoming the nominee. And that's Bill Clinton in 1992. Otherwise, you see basically every Democratic nominee securing at least one of those two early states. Lee, I mean, we were joking about blaming this on the media, but blaming this on the media suggests that this is a bad thing. Is the Iowa caucus and the amount of influence Iowa has a good thing or a bad thing? That remains an open question depending on who you talk to. But I think something that people broadly agree on is that this influence is quantifiable and that it gives the voters in Iowa a little more weight than you see in subsequent states.

There's a study from 2011 that shows that voters in Iowa and New Hampshire have five times the influence than a voter from Super Tuesday would have on the results of the election and the way that people perceive different candidates. Five times? Yeah, five times the influence. And I think in other studies that's actually shown to be higher. But that was one of the first to really try to pin down this number. Well, I got nothing against the slow state of Iowa, Lee, but that sounds undemocratic. That question has emerged many times in the years since Iowa has taken the spot it has now. And most recently, this cycle,

I think you've seen Julian Castro really call it out because he argues that it's discounting the votes of people of color. Does anyone have plans to change this system? There are definitely plans that have been floated. I think the issue is that there are a lot of structures in place that allow the system to continue. So both Iowa and New Hampshire have state laws that guarantee them the position that they have now. And on top of that, you've seen the Democratic National Committee, as well as the Republican National Committee, continue to endorse this current primary schedule.

So if neither of them ends up wanting to change it, it's probably going to continue the way that it is now. I think we should talk about this more after the break, Leigh. Sounds good. Thank you. for today explained comes from ramp ramp is the corporate card and spend management software designed to help you save time and put money back in your pocket ramp says they give finance teams unprecedented control and insight into company spend with ramp you're able to issue cards to every employee with limits and restrictions and automate expense reporting so you can stop wasting time at the end of every month. And now you can get $250 when you join Ramp. You can go to ramp.com slash explained, ramp.com slash explained, R-A-M-P.com slash explained r-a-m-p.com slash explained

cards issued by Sutton Bank member FDIC terms and conditions apply. Bet MGM, authorized gaming partner of the NBA, has your back all season long. From tip-off to the final buzzer, you're always taken care of with a sportsbook born in Vegas. That's a feeling you can only get with Bet MGM. And no matter your team, your favorite player, or your style,

there's something every NBA fan will love about Bet MGM. Download the app today and discover why BetMGM is your basketball home for the season. Raise your game to the next level this year with BetMGM. A sportsbook worth a slam dunk. An authorized gaming partner of the NBA. BetMGM.com for terms and conditions.

Must be 19 years of age or older to wager. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. 2020, 2020. 2020.

Okay, Leigh, we're back in the show, and I want to know how Iowa has been able to remain first. You mentioned in the top half something about laws that keep it there. Right. Iowa has a state law, actually, that says that its caucus needs to happen eight days before any other caucus takes place. New Hampshire similarly has a state law that guarantees that it will be the first primary in the nation, which kind of allows Iowa and New Hampshire to coexist peacefully and both claim that they're one of the first to happen in the country. But what if South Dakota passed a law saying, you know what, we're going to be first? I mean, it's not like every state honors every other state's laws, right? Right. And I think the reason that we've seen both of these states continue to maintain the dominance they have is that they have the backing of the national parties

to do so. And part of that is a logistical reason. Part of that is expectation and tradition and everything that's been built up to today. In the past, there was actually an instance where Louisiana tried to edge in and become one of the earlier races that people went to. And Iowa politicians actually effectively campaigned candidates to not go there. Did it work? It did. Several candidates actually boycotted the Louisiana race that year because of the request of Iowa politicians at the time. Sorry, Louisiana. Are there other reasons people don't like Iowa being first, or is it just the outsized influence it has and not really representing the entire country, though? Those are perfectly good reasons, of course. I think the second one you raised,

especially, has been brought back in a huge way this cycle, particularly as we've seen the field become increasingly whiter. I think there's been a focus on why do we have these two states that are roughly 90 percent white effectively deciding the Democratic nomination potentially. And I think the question there becomes, are we giving white voters more of a say in the process than we are voters of color? We can't, as a Democratic Party, continually and justifiably complain about Republicans who suppress the votes of people of color and then turn around and start our nominating contests in two states that, even though they take their roles seriously, hardly have any people of color. That's just the truth. If you look at the polling right now, for example, between Iowa and South Carolina, which is a much more diverse state where 60 percent of the

Democratic electorate is African-American, certain candidates are not doing as well in South Carolina as they are in Iowa. But because they're doing well in Iowa, they've gotten a huge boost in coverage. They've been touted as frontrunners, when that might not be the case across the entire Democratic voter base. Despite recent surges in Iowa and New Hampshire polling, Buttigieg is struggling to gain support among Black voters in South Carolina.

And that is according to the latest Quinnipiac poll. But if they changed it, let's say they did make South Carolina the first state. Would someone in California still say South Carolina doesn't represent people in California? California's got more cities than South Carolina. And could anyone make the argument that any other state isn't representative of their state or the country, really? For sure. I think anyone at any time could make that argument. And I think that's what makes this whole debate a really dicey debate. I do think the push to find a state that is at least somewhat closer to what the country looks like and somewhat closer

to what the Democratic electorate looks like is an entirely fair and legitimate one. When you look at analysis that people have done, 538 has a piece on this where they looked at every state in the country across demographics, like race, ethnicity, and education, and they found that Illinois was the one that most closely matched up with the actual breakdown of the United States. And so you could make the argument that a place like Illinois would at least on those demographic factors be more representative and offer people a clear point of view that indicates different voices in the electorate, not just particular narrow band of voices. Plus, Illinois is pretty close to Iowa, right? Right. Illinois also very, very close to Iowa. I think Iowa, New Hampshire have

also said, you know, we're states where people can go and do retail politics. They can go and talk to people, hold events. Our media markets aren't as expensive as like a place like California or New York. So people can buy ads, reach people, and it doesn't disadvantage candidates that don't have as much money. So there are benefits that they've touted. And I think when you talk about states that could potentially replace them in the schedule, you're trying to look at places that maybe offer some of those similar advantages. So has the DNC talked about changing the rules? I mean, certainly it has the power to do that, right?

Right. And the DNC at this point, I don't think, is confronting the question head on just yet. At the end of every election cycle, there is a process where they look back at everything that happened and try to figure out if it worked, if it didn't work. I think in cases when the Democratic nominee does not win the election, of course, that process is going to get more scrutiny. So when you talk to experts, the expectation is that we're not likely going to see them to adapt their process or they could try to impose penalties on candidates. So let's say a candidate isn't able to participate in a debate or something of that nature.

If they try to campaign in New Hampshire, you could see that pressure potentially, you know, making it so that those states aren't focused on. And then the media doesn't go there. And then the primary kind of loses the weight that it's had. And when you look nationally, I think it's roughly 58 percent of voters are interested in a national primary. So that would mean that kind of all the states end up voting at the same time instead of having the sequential races we see today. So there are a lot of reforms that have been proposed. The likelihood of any of them getting implemented in the short term is probably not super high, just given all of these structural barriers that are currently in place. Is this kind of like the conversation around the Electoral College where we only have it every four years and then the thing happens and it goes away and no one really cares anymore? It feels a lot like that. It feels a lot like, you know, if it functions, we're just going to keep doing the same thing that we have been doing now. But I do think

the question about representation especially has gotten a lot louder as the Democratic Party itself has become more diverse. So just as a point of comparison, I think it's 40 percent of Democratic voters are people of color. So it's pretty wild to be saying that a state where, you know, just over 10 percent of voters are people of color is making a decisive, influential play on the nomination. Didn't Barack Obama do well in Iowa? He's not white, right? Right, right. That's true. And I think people who argue that Iowa is not the reason we have such a white field

are saying that there were weaknesses that many of these candidates who've dropped out had before and that they weren't performing well in other states that are dominated by voters of color either. All right, Fairleigh, those are all the questions I have for you, but for one, and that one question is who's going to win Iowa tonight? That is something that we won't know until the fighting starts at the caucuses. Right now, when you look at polling, everybody is pretty much within the margin of error of each other across the top five candidates.

So it's anybody's game. So it's going to be Biden or Bernie or Elizabeth or Pete or Amy? Pretty much. Well, at least they're diverse. They're all wearing different colored jackets. Lizo, we'll be reporting on Iowa tonight over at Vox.com. Follow along. I'm Sean Ramos for him. This is Today Explained.

We'll have results for you first thing tomorrow.