Report: Dem Candidates' Turnout Operations Most Sophisticated In Iowa History
The New York Times has a very good rundown on the extensive and sophisticated turnout operations the leading Democratic candidates are mounting in Iowa -- efforts that are more elaborate than any in the history of the Iowa caucuses. The piece is replete with details such as this:
Mrs. Clinton’s office here is filled with hundreds of new green snow shovels that were being strategically distributed on Saturday to precinct captains to clear the walks of older women who might be particularly wary of going out to the caucuses in bad weather. The campaign has printed doorknob hangers with caucus locations printed in extra-large type, also to accommodate these older first-time caucusers.
While the Hillary camp digs deep for every last woman over 65, Barack Obama is hunting for Iowans who have never participated in the caucuses -- students and independent voters under 50. And John Edwards, the only one of the three who ran for President in 2004, is more focused on previous caucus participants, particularly those who showed up four years ago.
The piece offers this sobering conclusion: "Aides to the candidates said this contest could be determined by a swing of as few as 1,000 voters."
Comments (14)
Joshua the Teacher wrote on December 30, 2007 9:44 AM:With such a small margin of voters determining the outcome, how can any candidate really claim victory coming out of Iowa?
To me it seems that NH and SC will play a bigger part in determining the nominee. All Iowa will do is keep Edwards alive. Or not.
cheflovesbeer wrote on December 30, 2007 9:58 AM:No one votes in the Iowa caucus, they caucus. Sorry but you know that. It is really the wrong way to elect a president.
Michael's Mom wrote on December 30, 2007 10:16 AM:Obama is not just hunting for caucus goers who haven't gone before; he's also firming up support among those who have. He has more offices open in more places to contact more people than anyone. But let's just let the story be "Obama on a mission to nowhere to find caucusers who have no shot at going." That's responsible "journalism," right?
Anonymous wrote on December 30, 2007 10:54 AM:Those aren't snow shovels! They're used to spread Hillary's b.s.
random wrote on December 30, 2007 10:56 AM:TPM/EC must be full of Hillary's new green shovels too.
DonnaG wrote on December 30, 2007 11:02 AM:Well, it is great to BE in Iowa and witness a standing room only crowd for Obama [the chairs all filled a long time before he appeared], the large parking lot was full, and another a block away then filled.....it was especially gratifying to see such a large percentage of older Americans present in the audience.....nodding, clapping, earnest expressions on their faces. Patrick Duval is here to lend his support, but you won't find that news at the EC site.
DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 11:48 AM:I agree with Joshua. A thousand extra supporters will likely translate to a percentage point difference or less, and indeed it is entirely possible the person with more supporters going in will end up with less delegates coming out if the margin is that small.
And if two or more people end up within 2-3 points of each other after the final count, then I don't think any of those people will be able to claim a definitive victory.
Anonymous wrote on December 30, 2007 12:02 PM:Unless Hillary comes out of Iowa with a strong first place win, he will lose the most in terms of reputation, expectation and monmentum . We have heard for almost 2 years from Hillary and the mainstream media (including TPM) that Hillary was inevitable and running a flawless campaign. Iowa voters will be the first to offer an opinion on that.
DemAC wrote on December 30, 2007 7:38 PM:Michael’s Mom wrote: Obama is not just hunting for caucus goers who haven’t gone before; he’s also firming up support among those who have. He has more offices open in more places to contact more people than anyone.Interesting. How many offices does he have; i. e. what numbers do you have and which are your sources? DTM wrote on December 30, 2007 9:18 PM:
DemAC,
I can't speak for Michael's Mom, but here is one recent roundup of Iowa field offices and their locations:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/27/203128/96
That roundup would appear to support Michael's Mom's claim (Obama has the most field offices and in the most total locations).
DemAC wrote on December 30, 2007 9:39 PM:Thanx DTM! Much appreciated.
Jan wrote on December 31, 2007 7:21 AM:Of course, only someone named "anonymous" would post crap like this:
"Unless Hillary comes out of Iowa with a strong first place win, [s]he will lose the most in terms of reputation, expectation and monmentum."
John Edwards MUST win Iowa or he is toast. He's been betting that he would, and if he doesn't, he clearly loses his bet. Hillary or Obama have NEVER bet on Iowa, and to imply otherwise is lying.
There's no other "toast" out of Iowa, because O & H are both going to be in the top three and both have scads of money.
Edwards is broke after this. He needs people to be willing to give to him who have already contributed to O or H.
Not going to happen.
Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will come out of Iowa without a scrap, no matter 1st, 2nd, or 3rd... unless one of them truly tanks in the next two days.
Which is NOT going to happen.
If Obama wins Iowa, Hillary still goes on.
If Hillary wins Iowa, Obama is going to struggle but he will definitely go on to SC.
Since I think Hillary is going to win NH (Ron Paul and John McCain are sucking up Obama's Indies) I think SC becomes VERY important.
It would be quite an interesting contest at that point, imo.
May the best woman win. :-)
DonnaG wrote on December 31, 2007 10:30 AM:What is it with Hillary's campaign and her surrogates?
Here is what her backer, OH governor Strickland, had to say four days before the Iowa caucus:
"Iowa is not an attractive place to be in the wintertime," Strickland said, adding that Iowa "is not a representative state and the caucus is not a fair way to register public opinion, in my judgment."
Increased turnout is always a good thing in a democratic process... I'm always freakin' amazed at the number of people who fail to excercise their franchise during an election. But focusing on increased turnout in the Iowa Democratic caucus might not help as much as it might in a regular 'one person- one vote' primary. And that is why Edwards is probably going to do pretty well here.
For an excellent breakdown see www.bleedingheartland.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=5576FAB86B948DCA1020020EA9A02DC0?diaryId=848 an excellent post series on the fine details.
Bottom line is that it usually takes a rrreally big increase in body count to increase your candidates delegate count under the byzantine caucus rules.
