Question Of Iowa Student Voting Flares Into Major Issue
It's been simmering at low heat for weeks, but now it's flaring up into a major issue: The campaigns of Hillary and Obama are exchanging heavy blows over the question of whether Iowa students who live outside the state should have the right to vote in the state's caucuses on Jan. 3.
Yesterday, Bill Clinton himself entered the fray, drawing a fresh round of attention to the issue.
For those of you who haven't followed this, the Obama campaign, which has heavily courted the youth vote, has been working very hard to persuade Iowa students who live out of state that they should register for the caucuses and support him. The Obama camp has distributed 50,000 copies of a flyer saying: "If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood."
The Clinton camp has responded to this gambit cautiously -- it has expressed support for the students' right to caucus, while also arguing that Obama's efforts to encourage out-of-staters to vote are heavy-handed, amount to busing in voters, and could skew the outcome. Reflecting this balancing act, Bill stumped yesterday in the state and said that for individual students, this was a matter of "conscience," adding that students should register if they consider themselves "Iowan."
Here's some video, posted by The Washington Times, of Bill discussing the issue with students:
The Clinton camp's careful criticism, however, has given the Obama campaign an opening to portray such public statements as blanket opposition to all student caucusing. "Barack Obama doesn't believe that we should disenfranchise Iowans who meet all the requirements for caucus participation simply because they're in college," Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki told the New York Post.
Beyond the campaigns, other parties have lined up on either side of the issue. Influential Iowa columnist David Yepsen has taken a surprisingly tough line against Obama on this, charging that his efforts could skew the caucus' outcome by attracting lots of youth voters from his home state of Illinois.
But lots of parties seem to be lining up with Obama on this. As the issue has gained traction, statements of support for maximizing the youth vote by encouraging out-of-staters to participate have been released by Rock the Vote and the Iowa PIRG, and some bloggers have jumped in, too.
Giving this sort of student voting yet another boost, the Iowa Democratic Party issued this statement today clarifying the voting rights of Iowa students:
“In running the First in the Nation Caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party follows the Iowa Code in determining the eligibility of potential caucus goers. According to the Iowa Code, all college students who are at least 18 years old are eligible to vote and, therefore, eligible to caucus.Any student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses provided they are 18 by November 4, 2008, and are a registered Democrat in the precinct in which they wish to caucus.
At any rate, it's hard to know just how many students will actually come back to Iowa from their winter breaks outside the state to actually vote. Nonetheless, while this issue has remained well below the national media's radar, it isn't going away, and with the debate in Iowa set for tomorrow, it's clear that it could in theory have a real impact on the outcome in Iowa next month.
Late Update: It's worth pointing out that the Clinton camp was much more aggressive a few weeks ago than they have been recently in their push-back against the Obama efforts. A Clinton spokesman told The Politico back at the start of December:
"We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state people."
This prompted some criticism of the Clinton camp from people who were irked by the notion that encouraging out-of-state students to exercise their legal right to caucus should be seen as "manipulating" the process. The Clinton camp's position has since been that it supports the right of students to caucus.
Comments (74)
Doesn't matter wrote on December 12, 2007 1:27 PM:It's as if the repuplican clowns instead of coming out from the big tent
to greet America are instead all trying to crowd back into the fundamentalist volkswagon.
even after haveing seen said volkswagon crash and burn repeatedly over the last
6 years with George and Dick driving it over the cliff with Larry Craig and
Ted Haggard and James Dobson in the back seat.
Well hell - if they all want to get in
who are we to stop them.
This is an interesting subplot, but I doubt it gets any traction outside the blogosphere. That is, unless someone spends a lot of time on it tomorrow, which I don't think Hillary wants to do.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 1:43 PM:The basic problem for Clinton is that it is hard to convince a political party that encouraging more people to participate in party events is a bad idea for the party.
And of course it isn't. If, for example, those college students then go ahead and vote for Democrats in the general election in Iowa, that would be good for the party too.
In fact, if anyone should be complaining, it should be the parties in the places from which these students would be coming. But with the possible exception of Illinois, that effect is probably too diffuse to worry about. And I kinda doubt Illinois Democrats would object to anything that might help Obama become the Democratic nominee.
HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 12, 2007 1:47 PM:I think it's a tough sell for any campaign to argue that people who are legally allowed to vote, shouldn't vote (or at least not vote where their vote will count for the most). Especially since (I think) Iowa could just change the law if it wished. (And it's not like Iowa isn't a big deal every 4 years).
This is an even harder sell when it's painfully obvious that if those votes benefited your campaign, you wouldn't be arguing against it.
Yepsen's "pure Iowan" orientation on the issue cracks me up a bit. Yes, fight preserve the subtle science which is the primary system, because obviously if students who pay taxes in Iowa, live in Iowa, and are legally entitled to vote in Iowa actually vote in Iowa, that is going to skew the outcome of the race. I'm sorry, but disenfranchising student voters isn't going to make our ridiculous primary system any more democratic or representative.
And shame on the Clintons for trying to ride both sides of the fence, again. Listen, you need to step up and decide whether you are going to support encouraging the future of our nation to exercise their legal right to vote, or if you are going to try to manipulate the situation in case it may hurt your political ambitions, meanwhile young Americans are getting their first taste in why they shouldn't have had the audacity to care about politics or voting. I'm tired of it.
Rock the vote!!
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 1:52 PM:Oh brother, if the clinton II position does not sound like wtf has been going on under the king's administration and trying to prevent people from voting I don't know what does. WTF. This is freaking ridiculous. I really wish they would have run in the republican primary. People call the clintons dems???????? I don't get it.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 1:54 PM:You'd think your crotch would be sore after straddling all those fences (not to mention sleeping with Bill).
Helter wrote on December 12, 2007 1:55 PM:That's just what Americans need- less eligible people voting in primaries. Kudos, Mrs. Clinton, for your efforts to rig the system in your favor.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 12, 2007 2:00 PM:I really don't like the Clintonistas doing this. In purple states (like NH and Iowa in 2004), we encouraged college students to register and vote in Ames, Hanover and Durham. Clintons' very good advisors in Iowa and NH should quickly tell the Pant Suits in national headquarters that this is a very, very bad argument to make. Another inexblicable dumb move.
LJ wrote on December 12, 2007 2:00 PM:Either the rules allow them to caucus or they don't. It appears that they do. So I don't see any controversy here.
What I do see is the Clinton campaign laying the groundwork for a rationalization in case she loses Iowa. She'll claim that the proximity to Chicago threw the election and that students should not have been allowed to caucus in the state where they live for 75% of the year - full time residents except perhaps for summer break.
She'll essentially claim she won even if she comes in 2nd. It'll be like Lieberman in 2004 celebrating his "three way tie for third place" in New Hampshire.
EH wrote on December 12, 2007 2:02 PM:LOVE THOSE ITALICS, GREG!
Jen wrote on December 12, 2007 2:07 PM:What everyone doesn't understand is that Hillary Clinton held a dinner meeting with Yepsen on Monday (the 10th). She got him to write that hit piece on out-of-state student voters and post it on the Des Moines Register site on the 11th. She's doing this because Obama has much more of the student vote than she does.
Both Yepsen and Clinton know they are wrong but they don't care. They fear an unprecedented student turn out will tip the scales.
Student groups should unite and hold a press conference about this ASAP.
We should also start spreading the word to our counterparts in other states so they know whay Clinton (and Dodd & Biden) are trying to do in Iowa.
The only reason why out of state students would have to come back to caucus is because they moved up the caucus date this year. They have always caucused before but the caucuses are typically held when students are at school
Jeff wrote on December 12, 2007 2:08 PM:This is ridiculous. Using Clinton's logic, all ADULT Iowans should have to have lived in Iowa for at least 4 years before they can vote. Students are adults, and they have chosen to live in Iowa for at least 4 years. They absolutely should be able to vote. I can't believe this is even an issue.
MJ wrote on December 12, 2007 2:11 PM:The law reads: Any student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses provided they are 18 by November 4, 2008, AND ARE A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT IN THE PRECINCT IN WHICH THEY WISH TO CAUCUS. How many out-of-state Iowa students have registered in an Iowa precinct? If they registered under Motor-Voter they are registered in their own home State and precinct and CANNOT participate in the Iowa Caucuses.
Jeremy wrote on December 12, 2007 2:12 PM:All of our candidates should be encouraging all eligible voters to participate in the political process. For Hillary to attack Obama over his efforts to engage young voters is disgusting and anti-democratic. Here is the Iowa voting law:
http://www.sos.state.ia.us/elections/VoterInformation/CollegeStudents.html
Turns out that the co-president of Students for Hillary at UI is from Illinois.
http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=344
MJ:
That's why this is all nonsense. If Obama gets students to register in Iowa, in effect, become Iowa citizens, then this is a moot point.
along wrote on December 12, 2007 2:18 PM:LJ says it quite well.
The only other thing to add: the need for Obama to encourage students to come back to Iowa to caucus exists ONLY because Iowa moved up its date to Jan. 3. If it had been closer to the 2004 date of Jan. 19, and thus closer to the beginning of Spring Semester for many schools (around Jan. 22), then most students who wanted to caucus would have already returned. They would be caucusing normally, just like their fellow students did in years past. Would the Clinton campaign or Yepsen have anything to complain about then? No.
Coltergeist wrote on December 12, 2007 2:18 PM:Follow the Democratic Party's statement that:
1)Any student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses 2)provided they are 18 3)by November 4, 2008, 4)and are a registered Democrat 5)in the precinct in which they wish to caucus.
So can out of state students caucus? It depends on number 5.
1) They are students at an Iowa College or Univ. Check
2) They are 18. Check (in most cases, but in any case it is academic).
3) By November 8, 2008. Also academic. They are or are not.
4) Are a registered Democrat. Also academic. They are or are not.
5) In the in the precinct in which they wish to caucus. That is the key. Registering as a Democrat is one thing, but when you register to vote, you must register as having a permanent home address. If those students register as having a permanent home address in Iowa, that is up to them and there is no problem. But you cannot vote in a precinct in which you do not live. So Chicagoans that are registered to vote in Chicago cannot come and vote in the Caucuses. Could someone change their registered location. Sure I suppose, but different states have differing residency requirements and you might not be able to re-register in your true home precinct in time for the 2008 election.
RUShur wrote on December 12, 2007 2:18 PM:How many out-of-state Iowa students have registered in an Iowa precinct? If they registered under Motor-Voter they are registered in their own home State and precinct and CANNOT participate in the Iowa Caucuses.
I guess it's a good thing you can register on the spot then, huh?
Jeremy wrote on December 12, 2007 2:18 PM:MJ. You should leave the efforts to tamper with elections by confusing voters to the Rethuglicans. This is disgusting to see from Democrats. Students living in Iowa have the right to register in Iowa. They can register right now, whether or not they are currently registered in another state. Registering in Iowa will nullify their previous registration.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 2:20 PM:MJ,
Given the unprecedented level or political activity, organization, and courtship, I'd say just about every college student in Iowa has been approached by some petition circulator, activist, or campaign staffer registering students to vote. So to answer your question of how many out-of-state Iowa students have registered in an Iowa precinct, I'd say given that it's a presidential election year, probably half or more. Of course, that's just speculation, but it's definitely a significant percentage.
NCSteve wrote on December 12, 2007 2:20 PM:Are the Clinton people trying to provoke college students into mobilizing for Obama? Are boomers finally utterly removed from their college days that can't concieve of how most college students will react to this?
EGinNY wrote on December 12, 2007 2:21 PM:Mo Elleithee made a strong statement after Yepsen's first blog entry on Dec 01..
http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/index.cfm/CurrentPage/5/category/HillaryClinton
"""A Clinton spokesman, Mo Elleithee, this afternoon drew a distinction between her campaign's approach to college campuses and Obama's, amplifying Yepsen's criticism of the Obama campaign.
There’s a big difference here. We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out of state people. We don’t have literature recruiting out of state college students. We didn’t bus in folks from out of state to the JJ. We didn’t bring in out of state activists to the Heartland Forum."""
I'm undecided and this hurts Hillary's/Dodd's case. Democrats don't disenfranchise youth..
The first election I ever voted in was in 2000 as a freshman at New York University, where I registered to vote in New York to vote for Hillary Clinton to the Senate. If I believed it applied there it applies in Iowa too.
Keith: So for the sake of a caucus you're encouraging an Iowa college student who may be a resident of Illinois or Wisconsin or Virginia or California to change their residency? If it's that easy, then can they get in-state tuition too?
Colleges are often liberal enclaves in Republican territory, and students often have to fight like hell to be able to exercise their right to vote. For example, the local election board might decide not to put a voting booth on campus, hoping to discourage students from voting. For a Democrat to now offer cover to these Republican gambits is disturbing - her words will now be quoted all over the country as students are disenfranchised in the general election.
along wrote on December 12, 2007 2:27 PM:MJ: Students who want to vote in their college town always have to register there (unless the vote via absentee ballot from their home state). Because you usually live there for 9 months of the year, registering to vote in your college town is a commonplace occurrence among politically active students. It is entirely legal. Even if you are registered in your home state, you can still register in your college state, but of course you can only legally vote in one location.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 2:29 PM:MJ,
I can't speak for everyone, but I think all we're suggesting is that a person should be able to vote in the state in which they live and pay taxes 75% of the year.
Jeremy wrote on December 12, 2007 2:30 PM:MJ. Just stop it. You are uninformed or are lying about Iowa voting laws. The law says that students attending college in Iowa can register and participate in Iowa. It has nothing to do with establishing residency for in-state tuition. All of our candidates should be encouraging all eligible voters to participate in the caucus.
DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 2:31 PM:And to follow up MJ, yes. At most any school, if you move permanently to that state after your first year you no longer have to pay out of state tuition after the first year.
NCSteve wrote on December 12, 2007 2:34 PM:MJ. I think you need to look up "residency" in a dictionary. I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means. You might want to consult a legal dictionary while your at it.
And as to the registration part, my understanding was that you were allowed to register at your precient on the night of the caucus.
BobFred wrote on December 12, 2007 2:36 PM:Notice that Yepson has nothing to say about students going to Republican caucuses. Up to now he has been wallowing in the attention from the national press while posing as a saavy non-partisan political reporter from Iowa and getting away with it. Iowans know that he is a right wing hack whose favorite tactic is to gin up fights between Democrats. Like most republican operatives he knows there will be wagonloads of wingnut welfare to spread around if Hilary wins the nomination.
Students were supposed to be a big factor in the '04 caucuses and they were in a way. Lots of kids from all over the country came here over break to campaign for Dean and I think he would tell you they were a major factor in his fade. They pissed alot of Iowans off becuase they assumed we knew nothing about politics, refused to listen and wanted to be the center of attention as the vanguard of the net revolution. Didn't work out that way. BTW I caucused for Dean. I hope Obama learned from Dean's experience but I am not sure that he has.
Both Clinton and Obama are counting on newbies to the caucuses and the Jan 3 date is working against them. Edwards has the most experience here, has good organization that extends into the rural counties and after nearly six years of visits with regular caucus goers he understands the dynamics. Students won't make much of a dent against that except in a few college districts. Women caucusing for the first woman President may have a broader effect. The best that Iowa could do is a victory for Edwards, 2nd for Obama, 3rd for Clinton so that the rest of the country has more of a say this time around.
BlueDog wrote on December 12, 2007 2:38 PM:You Obama supports have to read Lanny Davis' post in Huff Post. There's so little we know about him and what his positions really are. As he himself says, he's a symbol for what people want to see. Davis uses the word sanctimonious, and that's the best description I've heard of his campaign and many of his supporters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/its-time-for-sen-obama-_b_76361.html
"Mr. Davis, a Washington attorney and former Special Counsel to President Clinton, is a supporter and fundraiser for the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)."
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 2:49 PM:Dear Blue Dog,
Watch the epithets. Sanctimonious is a bad work to throw around. I do not pass on to the readers here the words I have heard to describe Senator Clinton and other candidates. Meanwhile, here is a link to a great article in TIME describing why the Clinton campaign in Iowa has its knickers in a twist. Obama has (up to this point) simply outworked them. All can change...
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1693771,00.html
Dear Blue Dog,
Watch the epithets. Sanctimonious is a bad work to throw around. I do not pass on to the readers here the words I have heard to describe Senator Clinton and other candidates. Meanwhile, here is a link to a great article in TIME describing why the Clinton campaign in Iowa has its knickers in a twist. Obama has (up to this point) simply outworked them. All can change... It's a long time until january
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1693771,00.html
There have been virtually no clinton II people on this site today. Gee I wonder why. Anyway, how could this issue possibly paint clinton II in a good light? She is trying to prevent students from voting? How can that possibly help her more than hurt her?
Seriously, I don't get it. What is going on with her campaign?
Bluedog. Sanctimonious? Are you kidding? Are you sure you didn't make a typo?
BlueDog wrote on December 12, 2007 2:57 PM:AlwaysTipThewaitress: "Sanctimonious is a bad work to throw around."
That's funny, being told to watch my language from someone called AlwaysTipThewaitress. I wasn't calling your candidate names, I was describing the tone his campaign and some of his supporters.
cms wrote on December 12, 2007 3:01 PM:Ben Smith at Politico mentioned this, but what if Hillary is asked tomorrow if she voted while going to school in New Haven? I think we can guess the answer, considering her Democratic activism while going to school.
I don't see a single candidate standing up there and calling the organization of college kids to vote "manipulation." The soundbite would kill them.
oh wrote on December 12, 2007 3:05 PM:Lanny Davis? You mean the White House Special Counsel during the second half of the Clinton Administration? That Lanny Davis.
Nah--no bias there...
bbln wrote on December 12, 2007 3:10 PM:I would say seeing images of Obama's campaign loading up busloads of students from Chicago on a Youtube or similar clip from network news would certainly affect what I think about his campaign -
Then, how do you prove at the caucus register that night that these are people enrolled in classes at Iowa state colleges...are the caucus volunteers supposed to go and get student registration lists from the schools...this could get really messy and of course prone to fraud.
BlueDog wrote on December 12, 2007 3:12 PM:Lanny Davis is totally biased. Read the article, though. I think it's important. The truth is no one really knows who Obama is. Davis is suggesting that he's not the liberal messiah as he's been portrayed, and is instead another skillful politician who will say what he needs to say at a given moment.
Kefa wrote on December 12, 2007 3:16 PM:I back the Iowa Code.
Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 3:21 PM:Blue Dog:
There's a reason one of the more prominent HRC surrogates didn't pen this--it's horsesh*t. Anyone with an internet connection and basic knowledge of Google, can provide links to answers for each of Davis "questions".
Blue Dog,
Sanctimonious. You really are throwing that word around today. Tipping the Waitress is just good manners and something your mother probably also told you to do. I am sorry it offends you, but I really like my name. Be nice.... We all have to kiss and make up in March.
Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 3:30 PM:RE: "I'm undecided and this hurts Hillary's/Dodd's case. Democrats don't disenfranchise youth.."
The flip side, of course, if you're inclined to see a flip side is:
Democrats don't gerrymander elections.
RE: "So Chicagoans that are registered to vote in Chicago cannot come and vote in the Caucuses. Could someone change their registered location. Sure I suppose, but different states have differing residency requirements and you might not be able to re-register in your true home precinct in time for the 2008 election."
LOL Wouldn't it really be ironically hysterical if this push by Obama actually resulted in real disenfranchisement of students because they aren't registered to vote in their homestate come November but for whatever reason are no longer attending school in IA?
oh wrote on December 12, 2007 3:30 PM:I don't want a "liberal messiah." I want somebody who can find pragmatic solutions to the big problems in peoples' lives--and yeah, even work with Republicans. I want someone who can restore America's standing in the increasingly interconnected world sooner rather than later, while responsibly disentangling us from the global mess that has been left to us these last seven years. Most importantly, I want to get out of this dynastic narrative that so many operatives from both parties seem so entranced with. Sorry Hillary ain't going to do that.
Could some of the other Dem candidates? Maybe Edwards, but frankly I was turned off by his 2004 non-performance, and his glibness would (I think) actually be a hinderance in a general election. The other guys, who as a group I admire GREATLY, are just a generation too late.
Nope--Obama's rhetoric definitely speaks to me on that level. To some extent, he is sort of like a political Rorschach Test, but I think much of his success in this regard is due to the fact that so many voters want CHANGE, and his message speaks to them in this way more effectively than any other candidate.
anon wrote on December 12, 2007 3:34 PM:I am going to be working hard for whoever the Democratic nominee is going to be ..... ever since Obama started making snide comments about Bush Lite which I view as a Bush Strong campaign tactics I have realized that if Obama gets nominated this may be more difficult than I had expected.
As to the nice polite name Always is your other name Michelle? It's her style.
AlwaysTipTHeWaitress wrote on December 12, 2007 3:40 PM:Who is Michelle? I am not kidding. Who is she/he. Just curious. Afte that last question enough said for now. The drug use thing by Billy Shaheen has really turned me off against Clintonistas for a while. I am a good democrat amd a grown up so I'll get over it. Right now, however, I'm cranky and out of sorts. Who needs this garbage?
CornBred wrote on December 12, 2007 3:44 PM:This was a definite tactical error on the Clinton's part for even bringing it up and giving it more life. Bill loves to ramble, but talked WAY to long on this video. Even said "it's a matter of conscience". C'mon. I've always liked Bill, but NEVER want HIM to lecture ME about "conscience".
They should just say "We think everyone who's legally allowed to caucus should caucus", and than quickly switch the subject to why they think people should caucus for Hillary.
ColoDem wrote on December 12, 2007 3:57 PM:This will not have a significant impact on the caucuses. For one thing, only a tiny percentage of college aged voters will actually show up, despite what they might be telling Obama or pollsters. And second, if they do they'll all be in the same few precincts in the college towns, precincts Obama would probably win anyway given the profile of his other supporters. That has a negligible impact on the overall statewide caucus.
elisabeth wrote on December 12, 2007 4:15 PM:ColoDem is right--the number/percentage of voters who caucus is really small in any case, so arguing over the small number of students/outsiders who might decided to spend a long weekend in Iowa in order to caucus seems really silly.
votenic wrote on December 12, 2007 4:22 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Clinton's campaign's concern is a youth vote. The young people who want to turn the page are not limited to Obama.
I keep hearing about how women want a woman President. I don't doubt that. Can anyone point to a poll demonstrating women in Iowa between 18-30 and their preference?
If not, why not?
It just may be sexist for the Clinton campaign to assert young women support her because of her gender.
Young women of the 21st century are beyond that of their mothers when they were that age.
Most Stats show there are more women attending college than men..
Any attempt to limit Iowa college students their legal right to vote in the Primary..is an attempt to limit the political voice of woman...
Maybe...
ColoDem,
You're right that the number of out-of-state students will have a negligible effect on the voting. Thus, the reaction of the Clinton campaign looks not only cynical but politically stupid.
IN what way is this a "major issue"? ITs a process story, created to distract attention from substantive discussion of how to end the war, how to restore a modicum of decency to our broken democracy, how to address the yawning inequalities and limited opportunities, how to address the crisis of how we use and abuse our natural resources.
Its not that this site is biased that bothers me; its not in my opinion. Its that it falls for the standard MSM circus and refuses to actually write anything of substance - and thereby insults our intelligence as readers.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 4:56 PM:DTM, any idea what is going on with the clinton II campaign. They have made one screw-up after another ever since the philadelphia debate. They keep shooting themselves in the foot. I really don't get it.
The kindergarten thing was plain stupid. Mr. Bill's I was always against the war rehashed old clinton issues. Preventing students from voting. The non-drug issue. I don't get it. What on earth is going on?
votenic wrote on December 12, 2007 4:59 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Look, we aren't choosing a mayor here. We're choosing the president of the whole United States. So where does non-Iowan Bill Clinton get off telling eligible student voters that they are morally obliged to give up their legal right to vote if they don't consider themselves Iowan?
I say this even though I prefer Edwards to Obama and the students are more likely to vote Obama.
Dan wrote on December 12, 2007 5:38 PM:"A matter of conscience" depending on whether they consider themselves "Iowan"? What?
Why is Bill Clinton trying to dissuade young adults from legally participating in the caucuses? Are the Clintons THAT afraid of a few hundred kids coming down to caucus for Barack? Surely it has nothing to do with the ethics, since Hillary's paid Iowa staff, whether "Iowan" or not, will be caucusing that night if they meet the legal requirements.
We should all be thankful that the younger set are actually fired up about a political candidate... those are votes we need on election night to tip the scales towards the Dems. Besides, youth political participation is good for the future of this country and the Dem party in particular. Once they pull that first lever, chances are they'll vote Dem for the rest of your life.
In short, this is a really unclassy move from a campaign that looks more scared by the day.
Blue in IA wrote on December 12, 2007 5:48 PM:What Bob Fred said.
Every four years, the nation spends far too much time singing the praises of Yepsen's "brilliant and important" analyses. He's DLC/Vilsack to the core, though he'll go through the motions of contemplating other candidates. Clinton will REALLY be in trouble if even Yepsen can't bring himself to endorse her.
That said, I still can't get my mind around how even Yepsen managed to spin the student-returnees into a controversy. Obviously they're allowed to vote. The only way I can see a bussing program being controversial is if it's abused. To participate in the caucuses, all you have to do is say you'll be a resident. I guess potentially some of the people bussed into Iowa could be complete non-Iowan residents, but if that's what Yepsen is hinting at, that's pretty amazingly disrespectful of the Obama campaign.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 6:15 PM:Michael A,
I have no special insight into their thinking.
But taking a step back, I think it is worth remembering a couple things:
First, long before Clinton decided to go negative, Obama was picking up support in the early states. As far as I can tell, that happened around the time he started advertising in those states.
Second, also before Clinton decided to go negative, Clinton started to lose support in the early states (and in fact everywhere). That wasn't directly connected to Obama picking up support, at least as far as I can tell, since for a while they were both going up in the early states.
Anyway, it doesn't take a math wizard to figure out that Obama steadily going up and Clinton steadily going down is a bad combination for Clinton. So, it was probably pretty clear to them that if they didn't do something, they were in trouble.
But what has happened since then is that nothing they have tried appears to have worked to change that dynamic, and if anything has just accelerated it. Does that mean they are stupid?
Not necessarily, and for a simple reason: they cannot control everything that is happening, and the things they cannot control may end up determining the outcome. Indeed, this is purely hypothetical, but I could imagine someone suggesting that they need Obama to screw up in some splashy way. They can't count on him doing that by himself, so the best they can do is generate opportunities for him to screw up by attacking him, and hope for the best. That is an extremely high risk strategy and might well fail, but they may simply have no better option.
Again, though, I have no real insight. But something like that would make sense of how seemingly competent people could be repeatedly doing things which are backfiring.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 6:31 PM:The problem is DTM, their "negative attacks" are just plain silly and counter productive. It's the old adage, "If you don't have anything good [in this case bad] to say, don't say anything at all." Every single "attack" has blown up in their face. Common sense said that some were just plain stupid, like the kindergarten thing.
I don't know it just seems really strange to me with all these "professionals" on her juggernaut of a campaign that they can screw up this badly. Don't get me wrong, I don't want her as the nominee and prefer obama, but her campaign is really looking pathetic and desperate.
Also, these "attacks" help convince voters that obama may be a great general election candidate. If these attacks are the best that the vaunted clinton attack machine can do, the republicans won't be able to touch him. Seeing what happened to clinton II, I would be willing to bet that the republicans might not even attempt to smear obama because it will backfire on them big time.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 6:43 PM:Michael A,
Well, it certainly could just be some bad miscalculations. But the point I was trying to make is that if the status quo is bad enough, and your options are limited, it actually isn't stupid to do extremely risky things.
But I really don't know. Maybe someday someone will write a book.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 6:54 PM:Yep I get it. Just fishing out for some thoughts on what's going on. I am just kind of astounded. Can you actually imagine what would happen to her if she wound up being the nominee???? She has barely been "attacked" and she is flailing all over the place. It's a scary thought and the dems would get slaughtered.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 7:09 PM:Michael A,
Of course as we have discussed before, in fact Obama, and not Clinton, is more experienced in electoral politics--unless you count Bill's campaigns, which only makes sense if you think the candidate does not matter much in politics. And in fact, Bill in 1992 was much more like Obama in 2008 than Hillary in 2008. So even if you do count Bill's Presidential campaigns, this is still a first for Hillary.
So I can't help but think that somewhere Biden (who really is a veteran at Presidential campaigns) is enjoying a good chuckle.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 7:19 PM:You know DTM, you may have hit the nail on the head. Obama's campaign definitely seems much smoother, more efficient and better than clinton II's, which is interesting. He definitely has a theme that is resonating. It really is being well run.
Clinton II has no theme and seems to be floundering. It has always been vote for me because I am clinton II or I am a woman and nothing of substance. Maybe clinton II is exerting so much influence over the campaign and demanding these silly attacks that she is the one to blame. It would make sense, because they seem so amateurish.
I agree biden has to be laughing.
I think Obama having a chance in Iowa depends on getting an unprecedented amount of students to the caucuses, polls non-withstanding.
I sincerely doubt he wins Iowa.
DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 10:33 PM:Michael A,
The conventional wisdom is indeed that Clinton's plan was to run as a history-making candidate, the first woman to have a serious chance to be President.
And then along came Obama.
Anyway, I agree it probably is Clinton who is making the strategic decisions.
goldberry wrote on December 13, 2007 7:46 AM:Let's say, for the sake of argument, that NY and NJ hold primaries on different days and people who live in Manhattan and Staten Island are legally able to vote in NJ's primary. After all, NY and NJ share the same harbor. They have a joint Port Authority and share the WTC site. Many residents of NY work and go to school in the NJ. So, if you can show proof that you do one of those two things, you get to vote. (this is not currently the case. In fact, it should be NJ residents who pay NY commuter taxes that get to vote in NY, but I digress)
Now, that many millions of New Yorkers voting in NJ might very well tip the balance in Hillary's favor even though our emergency on-call governor, Richard Codey, has endorsed John Edwards. Or Obama might have a slight edge in NJ. How would I as a NJ resident see this influx of New Yorker's into my primary? I think I would resent it very strongly. It's one thing to allow it and say it's legal. It's quite another for one candidate to tip the balance against the general sentiment of the state because she has a geographical advantage.
Do you see what I'm saying? Of course it's legal. Of course it's fiendishly clever camapign tactics. But is it fair to the state of NJ that its primary is manipulated if it cheats the rest of the state from electing the delegates it truly prefers?
I'd love to hear Hillary explain why it's ok for her to move to NY to run for the Senate, but it's not ok for students to return to the state where they are spending four year in order to caucus.
Michael A wrote on December 13, 2007 10:10 AM:Excellent point Ligoliowomi. Typical clintonian triangulation. It's ok for them to do whatever they want, but not little people. I still can't believe they are trying to prevent students from participating in the political process. It is amazing. They call themselves dems???????
Iowan wrote on December 13, 2007 1:31 PM:Had to laugh at the adjective "influential" attached to Yepsen. He always manages to convince the "coastals" and, apparently, now the blogosphere that he's in the know. He's just been around so long that when press-types are looking for a source, he's easy to find. If one actually tracks his stories, he eventually comes down on every side of every issue, so whatever position or candidate eventually wins, he gets to tout his "influence".
