Wampum

This morning, I wrote this diary over at the Orange site (my first diary in almost a year six months):

Some thoughts from a former Caucus Convenor
Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:26:01 AM PST

In 2004, I was co-convenor for the largest caucus in the Northeast: Portland, Maine. A convenor, for the non-caucus-goers among us, is the person who, prior to and during the event, runs the caucus. Each precinct also has a convenor, and those convenors all were trained by, and reported to me. I held this position solely because I was a member of the Democratic City Committee's four-person executive board (de facto three-person at the time,) and the other two members were organizing the rally/candidate forum which preceded the caucus. Frankly, I had never attended a caucus before.

I'd like to share some of that experience, and some thoughts on Thursday's Iowa caucuses.

The Maine caucus in 2004 fell rather early in the cycle (February 8th), and while Kerry appeared headed for the nomination, Dean, Edwards, and Clark were still putting up a stiff resistance. Gov. Dean was known to have a very strong presence in the city, and Dennis Kucinich, the only candidate to appear in person, also had a large and loyal following.

We were expecting heavy turnout for the caucus; the 2000 caucus drew only 200 of the city's 20,000 registered Dems, and, given the attention, expected at least a five-fold increase. We chose the city's largest high school for the event, as we felt it could comfortably accommodate the 18 Portland precincts. We were wrong on both accounts: Turnout was double our prediction, and many of the classrooms could not hold the crowds of attendees. Many precincts left half their attendees in the hallways, and new accommodations (library, gym, etc.) had to be secured. The large attendance also significantly slowed down the process, as everyone had to be checked in, and extra ballots procured. As the rally had also run late, many attendees were now in their third or fourth hour of "caucusing", and had not yet cast a vote. I spoke with many friends who gave up and left, as it was just too long and they had other commitments. Most were first-time caucus-goers, and never expected it would take so long.

Despite that, we did end up with over 1,800 ballots (I know - I counted them - twice.) My spouse was a precinct convenor, and I was lucky enough to be able to sneak into my own precinct in time for voting. It was there I saw first hand the importance of being an experienced, or at least knowledgeable, attendee.

The first round went smoothly, with everyone breaking into their candidate groupings. It was the second round which shook things up, and in my opinion, cinched a third-place victory (in excess of the 15% threshold) for Kucinich. His supporters were generally more experienced attendees, and knew how to broker the deals which pulled the remnants from those candidates which had not obtained 15% in the first round, into their camp. They were smart, aggressive and willing to barter convention delegates for caucus support. Kerry supporters tended to be older and while not as aggressive, resilient, remaining throughout the caucus. As one of two Edwards supporters in my precinct, I was lucky that I too knew the process, and quickly scooped up the remnant Clark supporters, securing one pitiful delegate (me) from our precinct to the state convention for Edwards.

All evening long, I heard similar stories, and by the end of the evening, Kerry had eked out a victory, based solely, in my estimation, on the experience and staying-power of his supporters. Kucinich was the surprise, pulling, if I recall correctly, 18% of the vote, when pre-caucus polls had put him in single digits. (Note: Kucinich supporters then launched a four-month campaign to woo state convention delegates to their candidate and were very successful.)

Caucusing is a whole 'nother animal from ballot-box voting in primaries. The daily polls cannot predict the dynamics, as we also saw in 2004 in Iowa, where Kucinich supporters overwhelming threw their votes to Edwards on the second ballot. With so many candidates, I believe it is not the person with the most first-choice votes going into the caucuses, but second-, and even third-place supports, who will win in the end. To whom will Dodd supporters migrate? Richardson, Gravel, Biden, Kucinich? Together, they make upwards of 20% of the decided vote, and will have to go somewhere when their candidates do not make the 15% threshold in the first round. Will they move, en masse, not to support, to defeat, a candidate? Which of the top three candidates has done the best job of preparing first-time caucus-goers for the reality of caucus night?

Over there, I didn't come right out and voice a prediction as to how I think it'll all pan out on Thursday. But I will here, at my own place.

One thing I forgot to mention above is that every one of the 1997 precincts is an entity unto its own, meaning, the candidates need to prove viability (15%) in each and every one of them to retain their voters, i.e., have those votes count and not be forced to support another candidate. Which candidate has the most widespread support, that is, not concentrated in urban, rural or suburban areas. There are truly two, perhaps three, "Iowas" in reality. Is there a candidate who has the organization, with disciplined supporters, to make sure that they reach the threshold in all 1997 precincts.

In addition, higher turnout for one candidate does not necessarily equate to substantially more delegates, particularly if turnout is clustered, and not across the board. If Clinton's strategy of "bring a friend" is more successful in cities than in rural areas, it won't make all that much of a difference. Why? Because delegate allotments are determined from turnout at previous caucuses. So the candidate who has done the best job of growing support across the board, or even better, in areas where others have seen support bleed, stands to win from increased turnout.

I've more to say on all this, so I might add to this post as the day goes along. At this point, I'm predicting a decent Edwards win, with Clinton and Obama closely tied for second.
This is why I ignore statewide polls in Iowa - none of them are large enough to actually get to the heart of this matter.