Bob Ray has participated in Iowa’s Republican caucuses in the past, but not this year. Ray is blind, and with snow clogging the roads and subzero temperatures gripping the state, showing up on Monday is a non-starter.
“I’m 75 years old, and I’m not going to want to get out that night,” he said.
To some here, the Iowa caucuses are an exemplar of democracy, binding communities together and allowing everyday voters to connect with candidates who, a year from now, may be running the country. To others, they are an antiquated system that excludes those who — due to a disability, a work shift, a flat tire, child care needs, extreme weather or any other factor — can’t turn up on the one night every four years when Iowa voters get a say in picking presidential nominees.
Voters must be at their precincts at 7 p.m. Central time on Monday, where they will hear speeches from representatives of the candidates, fill out ballots and, if they want, observe as the votes get tallied. No early or absentee voting is allowed, except for a tiny number of military service members.
States adopted caucuses in the early 19th century to choose delegates to send to national party conventions. As primaries became popularized nationally in the 1970s, Iowa stuck with its caucuses. Over the last half century the state has soaked up attention from candidates and the media by holding the first presidential nominating contest in the country.
The vast majority of states now conduct primaries, which allow more people to participate because voters can cast ballots whenever convenient on Election Day — or, often times, before then by voting by mail or at an early-voting site.
Democrats are increasingly critical of caucuses, and they are conducting a mail-in primary in Iowa this year that concludes in March. Iowa Republicans remain committed to the caucuses, saying that even in inclement weather, the process has been proven to work.
This is what the experts think is the “advantage” of caucuses:
Candidates need to connect with voters in a way that makes them willing to take the extra steps the caucuses require, she said. Because of the structure of the caucuses and Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status — at least among Republicans — candidates repeatedly visit the state and hold small events where voters can drill them about their stances. The arrangement makes Iowa a proving ground for candidates, and successful ones find that it strengthens their campaigns, she said.
“If you get rid of a process like this, I think it’s much easier for candidates with big money and a lot of name recognition to sail in, run a bunch of ads in an expensive media market and dominate the airwaves and thereby gain a lot of casual support,” she said. “And that can’t happen in Iowa. You’ve got to have a lot more than that.”
Really? Donald Trump has barely turned up in the state and he just holds rallies with the faithful.He’s [polling nearly 30 points higher than his rivals. And Iowa routinely turns out winners like Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz and Pat Robertson who are total duds beyond the state. It’s worthless.
These caucuses are dominated by the most aggressive, sometime belligerent, supporters who run roughshod over less assertive personalities.
There’s a reason for the secret ballot.
While Iowa’s system allows citizens to frequently meet candidates, it also results in lower voter participation. In 2016, the last time there were competitive primaries for both parties, just 15.7 percent of eligible voters attended either Republican or Democratic caucuses.
A week later, more than half the eligible voters in New Hampshire cast ballots in that state’s primary, according to data kept by University of Florida political science professor Michael McDonald. Many other states with primaries had turnout rates in the 30s that year, more than twice as high as Iowa.
They should do away with them.
For no particular reason.
The Prince William County Office of Elections in northern Virginia has confessed to an underreporting error in the 2020 presidential election results on Thursday, January 11.
The error resulted in a margin of victory for President Joe Biden over Donald Trump that was 4,000 votes lower than reported.
This admission comes after the discovery of discrepancies in vote counts as part of a criminal case in 2022.
Eric Olsen, the current registrar of the county, has clarified that the errors did not significantly impact the outcome of any race, according to WTOP News.
Although the counts were also off for the US Senate and US House of Representatives races, the discrepancies in these cases were less significant.
Mistakes do happen and that’s probably all this was. But imagine if the discrepancy had favored Biden. It would be screaming headlines on right wing media. Trump would never shut up about it.
Take this little tidbit for example from the new NBC-Des Moines Register poll:
In case you didn’t watch the whole thing, he reveals that a quarter of voters told the pollster that they would vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump in the general election. Wow.
Meanwhile, the new CBS poll shows this:
Republican voters continue to believe Trump is their best bet to beat Joe Biden in November, even as Nikki Haley leads Joe Biden by a wider margin in a general election match-up than either Trump or Ron DeSantis. We show why in this analysis.
They are wrong. Trump is less likely to beat Biden.
There are other ideas and statements from the frontrunner that have brought criticism from Trump’s political opponents.
On immigrants: One of those is his use of the phrase “poisoning the blood of the country” when describing immigrants who enter the U.S. illegally. While most voters overall disagree with this language, eight in 10 Republican primary voters say they agree with it — and that includes majorities of both MAGA voters (97%) and non-MAGA voters (65%) in the GOP electorate.
It says everything about the GOP electorate that so many of them agree with his Hitler quotes. It’s enough to make you sick.
But there are a few who disagree with some of his Nazi rhetoric:
Other ideas divide Republican primary voters — sometimes along MAGA/non-MAGA lines.
Perhaps just as importantly, several of these ideas and statements are not disqualifying: even if Republicans disagree with Trump on these items, most are still backing him for the nomination.
Here are some examples:
On revenge or payback: Most MAGA voters want him to prosecute his opponents if he’s elected, while few non-MAGA primary voters do. That said, six in 10 Republican voters who don’t want Trump to do this are still backing him.
On relations with allies: Half of MAGA voters would have him take the U.S. out of NATO, with most other GOP primary voters opposed. But Trump enjoys wide leads among both groups, regardless of their support for NATO.
On loyalty in government: There’s less support for ideas like removing federal workers who aren’t Trump supporters; almost no one wants government officials to show loyalty to Trump over the U.S. Constitution, and there’s little backing for the idea of punishing media organizations that criticize him. Most MAGA voters don’t sign onto these either. But again, Republican voters are overwhelmingly voting for Trump, regardless of their position on each of these items…
Trump voters who are at least considering someone else look pretty similar to Trump-and-only-Trump voters on a variety of attitudes. They want to hear candidates talking about similar issues: the economy and the border. They express similar preferences about what the candidate does: most importantly, promising tax cuts, challenging “woke” ideas, and banning surgeries that change a child’s gender. And even those considering another candidate tend to say their support for Trump is “very strong” and that he has the best chance of beating Mr. Biden.
I’m sorry, if you vote for Hitler even though you disagree with “some of his policies” you are objectively pro-fascist. That’s just the way it is. The Republican Party is fascist in 2024.
Trump is going to be the nominee so these primaries are irrelevant. But they do give us a snapshot of the GOP electorate and I think we can rest assured that the vast majority of whom will vote for Trump in the general election. But there are just enough of them who say they won’t that it could make a difference in a close election, particularly if Trump continues to decompensate. There is a small but important faction within the GOP and among GOP leaning Independents who simply don’t hate Biden as much as they hate Trump. Let’s hope they continue to see this world more clearly than their fellow Republican voters.
Following up on Tom’s post below about the Haley-Biden voters, check this out from Greg Sargent who is now at the New Republic:
Last month, Trump said of the hundreds of people charged or convicted in relation to January 6, “I don’t call them prisoners. I call them hostages.” Then on Meet the Press last Sunday, Stefanik brashly echoed his language: “I have concerns about the treatment of January 6 hostages.”
The way vulnerable Republicans ran from this is telling. “They’re criminal defendants, not hostages,” said Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. “I don’t defend people who hit cops, who vandalized our Capitol,” added Nebraska’s Don Bacon, pointedly adding of the “hostage” language: “The broad, broad electorate doesn’t like it.”
Given that Fitzpatrick and Bacon represent two of the 17 districts held by Republicans that Trump lost in 2020, that’s an indication of how politically outside the mainstream it is to deny the gravity of January 6 and smear the justice system’s response to it as illegitimate.
The details of this year’s political and legal calendar suggest this dynamic could intensify. In coming days, an appeals court will likely rule against Trump’s demand that the criminal charges against him for conspiring to overthrow U.S. democracy be dismissed on grounds that his misconduct constituted official presidential duties. The Supreme Court could soon follow. While Trump’s strategy of delaying his trial might work, it’s more likely to fail.
Now recall that last year, Trump expressly called on House Republicans to shut down the government to defund his prosecutions. They didn’t, but at the very least, the actuality of Trump’s trial unfolding before the nation will cause him to ramp up his entreaties into 2024. And it may well be harder for Republicans to resist them during a presidential election year.
“It’s about to get real for House Republicans that Trump is going to criminal trial before the election,” legal scholar Matthew Seligman, who tracks the timeline of Trump’s trials for Just Security, told me. “That will put them under intense pressure to try to derail the prosecution.”
What then? House Democratic aides see a range of possibilities, such as votes on resolutions declaring the prosecution of Trump corrupt, or possibly more hearings designed to harass and sabotage the case against him. Those aides point out that Trump could be locking up the GOP nomination (making it harder for vulnerable Republicans to resist closing ranks behind him) even as his trial gets underway (making support for Trump look more corrupt to swing voters).
The sweet spot for many Republicans is to say that of course they condemn anything related to January 6 that was actually criminal, while also insisting that the legal system’s targeting of Trump is obviously politically motivated because, duh, a Democrat is president. That’s an easier posture to hold when Republicans can redirect the question of Trump’s guilt back on to the unpopular President Biden by insisting he’s surreptitiously pulling law enforcement’s strings.
But a trial—or a conviction—will dramatically shrink the space for that straddle, pushing vulnerable Republicans to say with clarity whether all this should be disqualifying in a president.
Democrats predict Republicans won’t be able to resist Trump’s pressure. “They’re going to continue to defend him,” Representative Suzan DelBene, the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told me. “That will cost them at the ballot box.”
A recent Washington Post poll found that 57 percent of Americans say the Justice Department is holding Trump accountable under the law, as opposed to targeting him politically. Among independents that number is also 57 percent. Similar majorities believe Trump is probably or definitely guilty.
I believe we’re underestimating another factor here: Trump will soon be facing a jury of his peers. They can’t be smeared as stooges of the “deep state.” The spectacle of Trump facing the judgment of ordinary Americans—just like any American accused of crimes—is likely to mean something powerful to swing voters.
A trial could also intensify public attention on whether Trump would simply order his prosecution halted if elected, or, if he’s convicted, whether he’d try to pardon himself. Good luck defending his answer to those questions, vulnerable Republicans.
A certain strain in our punditry holds that many Americans question the legitimacy of the Trump prosecutions because they no longer trust our institutions or because of some other social malaise. It’s reasonable to lament the state of our institutions. But what if the prosaic reality is that many in the middle of the country are already prepared to accept a guilty verdict for Trump as correct and legitimate?
Imagine that.
I have to believe that there are some Republicans out there who see that Trump for another four years will be bad for them, their children and the country. Not all of them can still be brainwashed. Right? Right???
Donald Trump will take this personally.
DES MOINES, Iowa — Most likely Republican Iowa caucusgoers say they’ll vote for former President Donald Trump in the general election if he’s the GOP nominee, regardless of the candidate they’re supporting on caucus night.
That is, except supporters of former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, with nearly half of them — 43% — saying they’d vote for Democratic President Joe Biden over Trump.
These new findings from the latest NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of Iowa further illustrate the degree to which Haley is bringing in support from independents, Democrats and Republicans who have been uneasy with Trump’s takeover of the GOP. Fully half of her Iowa caucus supporters are independents or crossover Democrats, according to the survey results. Overall, Haley took 20% for second place in the survey, compared to 48% for Trump.
The poll also shows three-quarters of caucusgoers believing Trump can defeat Biden despite the former president’s legal challenges. But again, a majority of Haley’s supporters think it will be nearly impossible for Trump to win.
Chelsea Cheney, 37, of Linn County told pollsters she used to be a Republican but now wants to caucus “for the least of the worst.” That’s Nikki Haley, she says. “I don’t necessarily love her, but I don’t find her dangerous in ways that I find many of the other candidates dangerous.”
“Haley is consolidating the anti-Trump vote,” pollster J. Ann Selzer tells NBC. She has conducted polls in Iowa over three decades. The anti-Trumpers may not be enough to make Iowa close for Haley, but in New Hampshire where independents are a larger share of the mix, they might.
Oh, Donny, you’re not fine. You look like a staggering derelict in a found overcoat.
Mr. Low-Energy is ready for his close-up.
“The only thing we’re not doing is shooting people who come across the border, because of course the Biden Administration would charge us with murder,” Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told Dana Loesch last week. But Texas will let them drown. We’ll come back to that.
“The cruelty is the point,” Texas resident Adam Serwer famously wrote. Cruelty is also the policy. Don’t say you weren’t warned or missed the signals. There is already ash settling on your windowsills.
First, this reminder: “The leading GOP presidential contender is using an admitted hit man and lifelong criminal as a character reference. Take a second to reflect on that.” — Luis Moreno, former U.S. Ambassador, retired Foreign Service Officer.
In case you missed it on Saturday, Donald Trump jumped the loan shark.
Trump is not flying solo either (CBS):
A woman and two children drowned in the Rio Grande on Friday while trying to enter the U.S. near a section of the southern border where Texas National Guard soldiers have prevented federal Border Patrol agents from processing and rescuing migrants.
Federal officials and a Texas congressman said National Guard soldiers deployed by Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott did not allow Border Patrol agents to attempt to rescue the migrants.
Take a second to reflect on that.
America’s shame will not be on display on front pages across the world. The world will not view with horror these migrants’ sodden bodies as they did when three-year-old Alan Kurdi’s body washed up face down on a Turkish beach in 2015. Kurdi drowned along with his mother and brother as they tried to flee Islamic fundamentalists in Syria.
Democratic Congressman Henry Cuellar issued a statement Saturday (above) about the migrants who drowned.
A U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) official, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press, said Cuellar’s description of the events was accurate. In a statement Saturday, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Texas officials obstructed Border Patrol’s attempts to rescue the migrants on Friday.
“Tragically, a woman and two children drowned last night in the Shelby Park area of Eagle Pass, which was commandeered by the State of Texas earlier this week,” the department said. “In responding to a distress call from the Mexican government, Border Patrol agents were physically barred by Texas officials from entering the area.”
White House spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández said Texas soldiers “blocked U.S. Border Patrol from attempting to provide emergency assistance” to the migrants.
“While we continue to gather facts about the circumstances of these tragic deaths, one thing is clear: Governor Abbott’s political stunts are cruel, inhumane, and dangerous,” Fernández Hernández added.
Texas Public radio adds:
Earlier Friday, the Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene to allow the Border Patrol to regain access to the 47-acre Shelby Park, stating that Texas is using armed Texas National Guard soldiers to stop the Border Patrol from accessing two-and-a-half miles of border.
“We remain gravely concerned by actions that prevent the U.S. Border Patrol from performing their essential missions of arresting individuals who enter the United States unlawfully and providing humanitarian response to individuals in need,” a CBP spokesperson said.
Actor Ronald Reagan made great show of warning America in 1964 that the upcoming election was a time for choosing. The newish Republican defined freedom largely in terms of economics, of course, and peace in terms of government leaving them alone. He shared anecdotes reminiscent of Trump’s “many people say” stories and facts not to be accepted without fact-checking.
But Reagan the cold warrior praised America as a haven for refugees from communism, “the last best hope of man on earth.” Refugees from Castro’s Cuba were fortunate then to have a place to escape to, as Reagan told it.
Reagan “borrowed” without citation FDR’s “rendezvous with destiny” line and warned of “a thousand years of darkness” if Americans chose poorly. He was just 60 years early.
I came into this world on April 4, 1956. 12 years later, to the day, the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. left it. My intention is not to attach any particular significance to that kismet, apart from the fact that I have since felt somewhat ambiguous about “celebrating” my birthdays (I could push the weird cosmic coincidence factor further by adding Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated 2 months later on June 5th, 1968 – my parents’ wedding anniversary…cue the Twilight Zone theme). But this holiday weekend is about celebrating Dr. King’s birthday; so I have curated 10 songs to honor his legacy:
“Abraham, Martin, & John” – Late 50s-early 60s teen idol Dion DiMucci reinvented himself as a socially-conscious folk singer in 1968 with this heartfelt performance of Dick Holler’s beautifully written tribute to JFK, RFK, and MLK. Seems they all die young…
“Blues for Martin Luther King” – In 1968, music was our social media. The great Otis Spann gives us the news and preaches the blues. Feel his pain, for it is ours as well.
“400 Years” – The struggle began long before Dr. King joined it; sadly, it continues to this day. A people’s history…written and sung by the late great Peter Tosh (with the Wailers).
“Happy Birthday” – A no-brainer for the list. Good to remember that Stevie Wonder was also a key advocate in the lobby to make Dr. King’s birthday a national holiday.
“Is it Because I’m Black?” – Syl Johnson’s question may sound rhetorical, but he pulls no punches.
“Pieces of a Man” – Gil Scott-Heron’s heartbreaking vocal, Brian Jackson’s transcendent piano, the great Ron Carter’s sublime stand-up bass work, and the pure poetry of the lyrics…it’s all so “right”.
“Pride (In the Name of Love)” – The inclusion of U2’s most stirring anthem feels mandatory.
“Shed a Little Light” – James Taylor’s uplifting, gospel-flavored paean to MLK is featured on his 1991 album New Moon Shine.
“Strange Fruit” – “Black bodies swinging in the Southern breeze.” Billie Holiday’s performance of this song (written by Abel Meeropol) was powerful then, powerful now, and will remain powerful forever.
“Why (The King of Love is Dead)” – Like the Otis Spann song on this list, Nina Simone’s musical eulogy (written and performed here just days after Dr. King’s death) is all the more remarkable for conveying a message at once so timely, and so timeless.
Previous posts with related themes:
More reviews at Den of Cinema
— Dennis Hartley
That ad above was from 2020 and the same group is doing ads like this again on a larger scale for 2024. This is a great idea, in my opinion. Everyone says that the only way most people can be persuaded is if the message comes from people with whom they identify or trust. Yes, a lot of them will say this is AI or fake news but the ones who haven’t completely gone down the wingnut rabbit hole might feel the truth in it and respond:
Democrats began the search last summer, fanning out through the northern swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to find the nurses, electricians, farmers and floor installers who could best testify to the danger of Donald Trump returning to power.
The previously unreported project by the outside group American Bridge 21st Century developed 732 leads, conducted 472 interviews and then filmed about 50 voters who will anchor a $140 million ad campaign starting this spring, aimed at reminding women and working-class voters why they voted against Trump in 2020, according to the group’s leaders.
“The hardest part about using the most powerful messengers in politics, which are real people from these communities, is finding them,” said Bradley Beychok, co-founder of American Bridge.
The planned ad campaign will expand upon a smaller effort American Bridge launched in 2020 to turn working-class voters in the same states against Trump. This time, with the tacit support of the White House and President Biden’s team, the focus will narrow somewhat to working-class female voters in those states, with the possibility of expanding into North Carolina later, Beychok said.
The ads will focus Trump’s role in curtailing abortion access, his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, Republican plans for entitlement reform and Biden’s plans for the economy. Early spots include testimonials from a female union electrician in Wisconsin and a Pennsylvania woman who talks emotionally about what it meant to hang her U.S. flag outside her home on the day after the Jan. 6 attack.
Historian Rick Perlstein always quotes a 1930’s era Texas congressman named Maury Maverick (great name) who defined liberalism as “freedom plus groceries.” It sounds like this strategy is going with that and I think it’s never been more powerful. Coming from people in their own states makes it even more powerful. I’ll be looking forward to seeing the ads.
