Iowa's Not Just About Iowa: It's about the Sanders Argument

[alcibiades_mystery]

First off, I have to say that I really like and admire Bernie Sanders and his campaign and his supporters. They've done terrific work and should be praised by anyone on the left/liberal/progressive side for really getting issues affecting middle and working class people out there. Democrats will benefit from all the organization of the Sanders campaign, regardless of the outcome of the primaries.

Now, on to the matter at hand. Iowa is deeply interesting because the vote there is not just about the results for Iowa. Rather, the vote will tell us whether the Sanders camp argument about generating a novel and engaged political movement holds water. This argument is at the crux of the campaign - it's what makes it *real* rather than merely aspirational: can a President Sanders actually effect the changes he and his supporters see as necessary.

I'm not willing to write this off prima facie. The argument by many Clinton supporters that the Sanders campaign makes unrealistic promises is not compelling; at the same time, the Sanders campaign argument that it will energize some as yet unexpected public, and thereby force through its agenda is more or less unfalsifiable.

Or almost. The Iowa caucus actually gives us a good window into the soundness of that argument. If Sanders brings some groundswell of unexpected voters to the table, the argument takes on more legs. If Sanders loses and the analysis says that he was unable to mobilize actual voters, then the whole Sanders argument of how he will pass an agenda becomes more dubious.

I'm willing to say this: should Sanders win and that win be a clear result of new and otherwise disenfranchised voters, Clinton supporters would be foolish to argue against Sanders claims going forward.

However, should Sanders lose by enough, and should that loss be a symptom of failure to bring in those new and enthusiastic constituencies, then Sanders' larger argument about how he will pass his agenda takes a big hit.

There is, of course, a third possibility: the vote is close enough to be a wash in both directions. That's possible, and in that case Iowa would be just about Iowa. But it's a very interesting vote nonetheless, precisely because it might stand as proof (or refutation) of a major argument on either side.

[Rebkeh]

1. I couldn't disagree more

1. Iowa is one state and
2. It's hardly representative of the nation as a whole.

The results tomorrow will matter, but they will not be definitive in either direction.

Bernie's argument is relevant because it's the truth.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. I'm referring to a very specific aspect of the argument

When Sanders is asked how he will actually create the changes he is proposing, the refrain is that a groundswell of political support from new voters, the disenfranchised, those outside the system, etc, will force those changes. In other words, Sanders is a movement with the power to shift the status quo. So, that's either accurate or not. Tomorrow, we get a snapshot of whether it's a plausible argument. The argument doesn't rely on whether Iowa is representative of the country. Iowa (and places like it) is where a Sanders movement will have to work for his promises to be more than just promises. If it doesn't work there, why should we believe it will work in Alabama, Texas, or Wyoming?

[Rebkeh]

3. Okay, but my point still stands

The snapshot would not be a reliably accurate for the reasons I listed, it will be suggestive but not definitive.

I disagree also that the argument relies on Iowa being representative of the country, it does not.
I counter your question with this: why wouldn't it work in other states?

Objectively speaking, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't. There are 49 more states and that's not counting the territories either.

So if Sanders wins Iowa, does that mean everyone else should pack up and go home? No.

[alcibiades_mystery]

6. "So if Sanders wins Iowa, does that mean everyone else should pack up and go home?"

No, of course not. Not at all what I am saying.

But a big win with unexpected voter populations will lend more credence to his argument that he can pass his agenda because of new voters, an argument that is currently just a castle in the clouds. And if he can't bring new voters in Iowa, it's still just a castle in the clouds that he can force a change of the GOP Congressional stranglehold in places like Indiana and South Carolina.

[Rebkeh]

16. I'm not repeating myself for the third time

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. Nor I

[emulatorloo]

4. Iowa dem caucus goers are in general pretty liberal/progressive

So they are naturally gonna be very receptive to Bernie. Which is one of the reasons I've predicted he'll win Iowa. That win is going to get him more attention which is great.

But the battle won't be done for Bernie once he wins Iowa, some of these states have Dem voters who aren't as liberal as those who go to Iowa caucus.

I do believe Bernie can do it.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. I'm not talking about winnin g the primaries

I'm talking about whether he can actually do anything as President.

The consistent claim there is that he will actually create the changes he's promising by mobilizing a massive groundswell of voters, essentially forcing the GOP Congress to pass his agenda or be shitcanned. That's a theory, and we can get a picture of its accuracy by seeing if he can bring a groundswell to the table in Iowa. if he can't, then that theory suffers.

[uponit7771]

5. +1, "If Sanders brings some groundswell of unexpected voters to the table, the argument takes on ...

... more legs"

[Armstead]

8. In think it'll be a wash........But here's a wrinkle in a larger sense of your point

The conventional wisdom (and even expressed by sanders himself) is that his campaign depends solely on getting new people to the polls. Expanding the electorate, as he would say.

However, beyond the H v B race I think there is a basic fallacy in terms of the positions and messages of those candidates.

How many Clinton supporters have I seen here on DU, in real life and read about who say "I really like Bernie and agree with him on almost every issue...But.." And the "but" falls into one of two categories 1) Hillary is a woman and it's time or 2) "Hillary has the experience and can win, where I don't think Bernie can."

Well let's take the personalities out of the equation. That would mean you can add the "new" voters to those who are "regular voters and Democrats" who support what Bernie stands for and you have the makings of a pretty good concensus on his agenda. Which if you seperate the personalities from the positions, that's quite a concensus.

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. I agree with you that traditional voters deciding to vote for more radical change is in the mix

It's part of the same argument, however. A big win by Sanders with even traditional voters would speak to the same potential were he in office. A big loss would severely damage the case that a new public (of new or traditional but reoriented voters) will crack the GOP stranglehold and force through radical change. Failure is actually worse in that case, since it would be a double failure to bring in new blood AND turn the traditional voters - it would not auger well for shifting the composition of the Congress, at least as we've been told it might be shifted.

(I also suspect a wash, but it's potentially interesting for the reasons laid out).

[Armstead]

11. I'm looking at the semi long term

Although the personalities are important, I also think what they represent is more important.

Separating out the Sanders die-hard "left" and the Clinton die-hard "conservaDems" I think there's a hunger among "average" Democrats for the kind of politics, message and policies that Bernie represents. When you remove the safe brand name of Clinton and the "socialist" eccentricities of Bernie, that IMO can be the basis looking forward.

If Clinton prevails, IOW, it is not necessarily an endorsement of more of the status quo. I think the door is open for a change in the progressive path being blazed by Bernie and his supporters.

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. No question

And good point.

[stevenleser]

10. Here is a big hint about what to expect along those lines...

Forgive the NR Review link and cite but it is what it is:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430546/iowa-caucuses-donald-trump-vs-ted-cruz-turnout-key

Democratic caucus turnout jumped from roughly 124,000 in 2004 to nearly 240,000 in 2008, thanks to Barack Obama’s ability to new participants to the process. But in that case, the massive spike was predicted by an enormous increase in voter registration, from roughly 533,000 registered Democrats in 2004 to more than 606,000 four years later.

------------------------------------
However...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/upshot/surge-for-sanders-or-trump-in-iowa-voter-registration-doesnt-suggest-it.html?_r=0

Voter Registration Doesn’t Point to Huge Iowa Surge

Most striking is the relatively slow increase in the number of voters registered as Democrats, far slower than it was ahead of the 2008 caucus. The increase for Democrats this year looks much more like the increase for Republicans ahead of the 2012 contest.

The increase in registration among Republicans in recent months looks much healthier in comparison, and could be consistent with a higher turnout than in recent cycles.

Over all, new voter registration is not only falling short of the big registration surge of the 2008 cycle, but is also running just slightly ahead of the increase before the 2012 caucuses, which was competitive only on the Republican side.

A lower turnout could spell trouble for candidates like Mr. Sanders and Mr. Trump.

The latest voter registration statistics for Iowa, through early January, show that the number of registered voters increased by only about 10,000 voters over the last few months.

[NurseJackie]

12. Bernie. Will. Not. Be. The. Nominee.

It's just not going to happen.

[enigmatic]

13. I can't disagree w/ what you've said.

It's fair and Iowa will give those who support Bernie Sanders (I am one) the first real gauge outside of the crowds he's bee getting.

If Bernie loses by more then the MoE it's going to stall his momentum somewhat, but ultimately winning NH will offset that, especially if it's convincing.

If Bernie wins by more that the MoE, it's a game changer in this campaign and not only will his supporters will redouble their effort and work harder, the attacks on him w/ be tenfold, too.

It all depends on turnout. If Bernie gets it and wins w/ a wave of new caucus goers, the DNC has a choice to make: will they go w/ the candidate that brings in waves of new voters like Obama did in 2008, or not?

I live in Canada. In Alberta, the NDP party (which best fits Bernie's ideals IMO) which had never gotten more than a handful of seats in the most conservative Province in Canada soundly beat the Conservative Party (which had been the ruling government in Alberta for 40+ years) in an election that was called by the PM Stephen Harper's handpicked choice, Jim Prentice.

Prentice has ties to oil and finance corps that have economically held Alberta hostage for too long and literally bled the province dry for anyone that wasn't a corporation or had ties to them. They had an enormous money coffer and all the right wing newspapers in their pocket. The NDP had very little money at the beginning, but got many small donations through the election.

Prentice ran a fear based campaign, first ignoring Rachel Notley and the NDP, then attacking them through the arms of their media outlets in trying to smear Notley as a commie, among oither things. Even the "reasonable" conservative politicians joined in the smear.

When that didn't work, Alberta business leaders that all had ties to the CPC called a newconference in a penthouse boardroom in Edmonton and said that if the NDP were to be elected, they were essentially going to abandon Alberta for other provinces. It was pure scare tactic and was roundly criticized and literally cratered the CPC poll numbers.

Then the editors of both the Edmonton Journal and Calgary Herald were not allowed to write their own endorsements and instead had the Canwest editorial board in Toronto write the endorsements instead. They endorsed the CPC/Jim Prentice.

The NDP won an overwhelming majority government in the election. The CPC finished a distant third. On election night, Jim Prentice (who had won his riding in Calgary that night in a CPC riding stronghold that was selected for him) resigned and went back go Toronto, leaving his riding w/o a MP.

Bernie's campaign has the same kind of vibe that Rachel Notley had, and I think it bodes well for him if he gets the same kind of turnout that she/the NDP got in their election.

[amborin]

14. the Iowa outcomes have not been totally determinative of who wins the nomination, for either party;

it's if someone wins both Iowa and NH that history is on their side

and, it's not the case that one's outcome in Iowa is a valid indicator of the resonance of their message or the viability of their agenda nationwide

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. It's an indicator

It is not determinative or definitive, but it's certainly an indicator relative to the fairly consistent claims that Sanders can forge a new public to get things done. If he can't do it in Iowa, where he's had so much time and support, it's not clear that he can do it elsewhere at the level needed to move an agenda. The sticking point here is that there are claims of political revolution - the viability of political revolution, defined, at the very least, as the emergence of a new public that will reverse in fairly short order 40 years of neoliberal ideology and policy. That's uncharted waters, so relying on previous results to say whether Iowa is a "valid indicator" is somewhat beside the point. If your argument is that you can forge a public for that level of revolution, an untested claim, then any vote is a test of that claim. It is in this sense that Iowa is about more than Iowa: it is a test of the claim of a political revolution necessary to turn the neoliberal tide at the level claimed by the campaign promises.

You can either do it or you cannot. Incrementalism is spurned and spit upon, so, yes, by all means, show me, a skeptical onlooker, that you have a formula beyond incrementalism. Don't tell me that showing me in Iowa is impossible: your whole job is to show me that the impossible is possible given your political movement. So show me. Show us. Show people that you have the chops you yourself claim you will need.