The Iowa Myth

Allow myself to introduce...myself.

I'm Tom Schaller, a political scientist who writes guest columns on American politics for the various national newspapers, online magazines, etc. (Markos has linked some of these, below.)

As I wander about Iowa the next four days, Markos has asked me to submit my thoughts, analyses and experiences.

Now, as a professor, I couldn't help but do a little homework before heading to the airport for my Friday noon flight to Des Moines. So I have taken the liberty of posting a pre-trip Iowa political backgrounder. With apologies for the length and a few indulgences, and many thanks again to Markos for the honor of blogging to the thoughtful dKos readership, here goes...

Let's begin by debunking the conventional wisdom about Iowa: The truth is, in terms of its caucus history, Iowa's importance is overstated.

On one hand, an Iowa loss (or no-show) is no disqualifier. The three previous presidents all lost Iowa -- Reagan in 1980 (to Bush41), Bush41 in 1988 (to Dole and Robertson), and Clinton in 1992 (to Harkin) -- on their way to capturing the White House. To be fair, 1992 was highly unusual, because neither Clinton nor the other Democratic contenders really made an effort, given that everyone knew Senator Harkin was a lock to win his home state.

On the other hand, neither is an Iowa win the first step on a clear path to the nomination. Ironically, what often erases Iowa's ability to either cancel or catapult candidates is the very next step: New Hampshire's first-in-the-nation primary the following week. And so Bush43 won IA in 2000, then got pummeled by McCain in NH the next week; Dole and Robertson beat Bush41 in 1988, only to watch Gov. John Sununu revive Pappy's political career in NH; Bush41 beat Reagan in Iowa in `80, but lost his "big mo" in NH only a week later.

In short, those who lose Iowa are hardly doomed, and those who win Iowa are hardly destined. At least in terms of the official winners and losers, Iowa simply isn't predictive. "Official" is the operative word, of course, because "winning" is really judged by broader standards, most notably the responses by the media, donors and citizens. Still, the most famous case of Iowan impact remains Carter's surprising rise to prominence in '76. That was 28 years ago.

The presidential nomination process should not be about providing economic impact to this state or that, or stoking the nostalgia of maudlin columnists who wax eloquently about a process and outcome that have an importance more imagined than real. I'm one vote for wresting the first-in-the-nation role away from Iowans, however dedicated and serious they may be about their role as America's screening process.

Because Iowa just ain't all that.

With that off my chest, I guess I'll be checking a little less personal baggage onto the flight. (And perhaps I'd better register at my hotel under a pseudonym.) You'll next hear from me when I'm on the ground...

•  thanks for posting.

  good insight!

  by Ballybunion on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:33:11 AM PDT

•  Welcome

  Welcome, Professor Schaller!

  Just out of curiosity, are you going to Iowa strictly to observe or will you be working there on behalf of one of the candidates?

  Not that it really matters.  I know that either way you're insight and your reports will be welcome.

  by Len on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:33:44 AM PDT

  •  You're & Your

    Can you perhaps tell I have not had any sleep in the past 36 hours?

    Preview is your friend!

    by Len on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:34:51 AM PDT

  •  fair question

    This is a fair question, and one I always answer honestly, when asked.

    Aside from going as a loyal Democrat and progressive, I suppose I'm wearing as many as 3 hats. First, I'm going as Traci Siegel's husband. My wife is one of the best Democratic organizers in America, and just left her job as DNC national political director to start her own shop. She and I both support Dean, and we are going just to see it, to do it. (I went to NH in 2000, supporting Gore.) Second, I'm going as a Dean volunteer, and will put aside my social scientist/reporter hat aside at times to do the rank-and-file campaign thing. But, third and finally -- and recognizing that I must take care to be as objective as possible, given hats #1 & #2 above -- I'm going as a political scientist observer and media commentator. In addition to posting to dKos, I will be filing reports to radio and TV stations back in Baltimore. And I was on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" earlier this afternoon (3:40, thurs, 1/15), and may do a call-in to the show during the weekend, as their interests permit.

    Oh, and I suppose there's this: Saturday the 17th is my 37th birthday, so I guess this is a bday gift trip, too.

    by Tom Schaller on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:45:49 AM PDT

    •  Iowa doesn't matter

      and i suppose you would be striking the exact same tone if the good doctor were up 15 points in Iowa.

      by Petey on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:08:38 AM PDT

      •  Personally..

        I've known Iowa isn't all that except first, and I live here. (in Iowa I mean) And no, Iowa is not all that diverse either. But one thing it does have going for it (well besides getting all the media attention and being the first caucus) is that it is usually labled as a swing state these days. Whom ever the nominie is can certainly benefit from Iowa getting to know them and learning how bad Bush is. Maybe that is why that one blip a while back about which states Republicans see as swing states didn't talk about Iowa.

        And I do like to have some voice in the nomination process, but I wouldn't mind a national primary or instant runnoff voting either for the same reasons. In fact, I would handily give up the Iowa caucuses if we could do away with the electoral college and get some instant runoff going. But then again, I'm a self described progressive who like the big picture when it comes to elections.

        by Izixs on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:16:49 AM PDT

      •  RE: Making me smile ...

        Petey, goddamanit, it is GOOD to have you back!!!  This comment made me smile.

        by jg on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:20:44 AM PDT

      •  Peanuts from the cheap seats

        Rather than an opinion piece devoid of facts and examples, it seems to me a careful consideration of how significant Iowa's been; how good an indicator.

        Which, rather than making you all pissy, ought to make you happy.  It means that the results are going to be dubious in the larger arena, and you can thus spin them any way you like, for any candidate you prefer.

        Including Clark, who didn't even come play (if Iowa's a crummy indicator, then...).

        Me?  I rather appreciate a commentary where there's honesty about the author's leanings and biases.  You can then adjust for them (thereby inserting your own leanings and biases).

        by ogre on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:57:27 AM PDT

        •  RE:

          Well, the author didn't state his opinion in his piece rather he stated it after being queried by a poster.  A tiny difference, but certainly different from "a commentary where there's honesty about the author's leanings and biases."

          by jg on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 12:45:56 AM PDT

      •  Y'know, Petey...

        ...I can't decide what I like best about you. Is it your charm? Your grace? Your utterly delightful way of making strangers feel welcome?

        Maybe it's your flimsy grasp of the facts: I was just watching a piece on CNN that rattled off all the nominees, Dem and Repub alike, who did not triumph in Iowa.

        by hamletta on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:21:17 AM PDT

        •  Re: Y'know, Petey...

          "I can't decide what I like best about you. Is it your charm? Your grace? Your utterly delightful way of making strangers feel welcome?"

          and i always thought it was the way i pogo to the Buzzcocks.

          by Petey on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:19:18 AM PDT

          •  I've missed you

            But not too much. Welcome back but your shadow has become more well known here than you. Try to stay more analitical than pissy. That was always your strong suit.

            by Mike S on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:54:24 PM PDT

        •  the un-pogo answer

          "I was just watching a piece on CNN that rattled off all the nominees, Dem and Repub alike, who did not triumph in Iowa."

          my guy is also not going to win IA.  so i shouldn't i agree with the piece as well?

          but my issue is always with politically expedient spinning when it masquerades as analysis.

          IA is not determinative, but it does matter.  and it's going to matter a lot this year.  

          a 4th place finish for Dean would end his viability.  a second place finish for Edwards would leave him sitting pretty.  and a thousand other permutations exist, as well.

          i take issue with:  my candidate has just collapsed in IA, so IA doesn't matter.

          by Petey on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:28:18 AM PDT

          •  I agree

            I have to agree with Petey.  Developments in Iowa have been astonishing over the last week -- with Dean in apparent free-fall and Kerry and Edwards surging.

            You haven't seen too many headlines here on Kos saying "Kerry Takes Lead!" ... or "Dean in Free-fall".

            Then we have a guest columnist featured on the front page who doesn't, in his initial piece, identify himself as a Dean supporter, and who says Iowa is none too significant.

            Kinda makes you go hmmmmm... ...

            by Centrist on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:05:03 AM PDT

            •  Although

              
              At the same time another guest blogger is known to be a Gep supporter and has made several splashy main page posts calling attention to Kerry's rise.

              So I don't think your conspiracy theory holds water. Although I do agree that the good Professor might have mentioned he was going to Iowa as a Dean volunteer in his introduction.

              Still, I don't think wearing the orange hat means he can't be interesting.
              

              by Ottoe on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:14:50 PM PDT

          •  Petey's right

            Dean steps out of the public financing system to load up on the early states (earliest of all: Iowa) and duck the spending caps.  He pours millions into the state.  The Perfect Storm, the cozy media tour bus, etc., aren't free, and the TV buy in just the last two weeks is $500,000.  

            Then, when things get bumpy, supporters dis the Iowa "process" (give the doc credit: he's been consistent on this point for years) and the candidate books a trip to Sunday School in Georgia.

            Maybe Gore has been advising Dean on this point.  Gore famously skipped Iowa altogether in 1988.  He tried to say he did this same thing in New Hampshire in 1988, after finishing fifth (behind Jesse Jackson! in New Hampshire!) with 6.8%, and immediately claimed he hadn't competed in New Hampshire.  Except that he'd had a campaign staff of more than 50 on the ground and had spent weeks and weeks campaigning there.

            Conceding the point for the sake of argument, then, just who is it that's acting irrationally?

            p.s.  If it turns out to be helpful, there are those who say New Hampshire isn't relevant, either.

            by tlee61 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:34:24 AM PDT

          •  OK, then let's get serious.

            Look, the guy didn't say "Iowa doesn't matter." He just said "Iowa ain't all that," and facts would seem to bear that out.

            But because he is also a Dean supporter, you jumped to conclusions and insulted his integrity by insinuating that his statement was a mere defense mechanism.

            The man is a political science professor, and obviously someone Kos has a great deal of respect for. Your statement and its snide tone were an insult, and if it didn't offend him, it sure as hell offended me.

            by hamletta on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:08:23 PM PDT

            •  RE:

              Petey's query was valid and funny, and it is good that Schaller gets introduced early to the often rough and tumble world of the dailykos ... Petey provided such introduction in perfect Petey style ... I am still laughing.  

              by jg on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 12:52:43 AM PDT

      •  Exactly - Edwards Anyone?

        People are so worried about Edwards at this point that they won't even mention him by name.  CNN Headline News talked about a 4-way tie yesterday, but only showed three photos.  Krugman spends an entire editorial criticizing Edwards style and advocating for Dean/Clark, without even once (!) mentioning Edwards name.

        Such "reporting" is creating the Immaculate Candidate.  Readers/viewers/listeners are going to wonder which stork delivered a full-grown Edwards into the winner's circle, since a gatekeeping media has been so successful at keeping Edwards invisible.

        It was enough to read the title of this post to know what would follow - a Dean apologist.

        My rebuttal to the Krugman editorial.

        by dotpeople on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:38:20 AM PDT

        •  Edwards' chances

          I saw Susan Page of USA Today on CNN last night and the most interesting thing she said was that more than 80% of Iowa DEMOCRATS wouldn't go to the caucuses.  People don't just "go" to caucuses like they go out and vote in an actual election, stopping by the local elementary school when its convenient and taking 5 or 10 minutes.  The people who go to the caucuses have been identified by the campaigns during months leading up to caucus night and they'll be picked up by bus and taken to the caucus site. They don't just show up on their own.  

          The structure of the the caucus enterprise would work against a candidate "catching fire" during the last 2 weeks.  The Edwards campaign has no way to find these statistical "17 percent" of voters who are telling the Zogby polltakers that they suddenly like John Edwards.   If you can't find them, you can't pick them up and take them to the caucus.  

          The national polls show about 25% of Democrats for Dean and that is millions of people.  If 40% of the electorate considers themselves "Democrats," thats 40 million people and 25% is 10 million but there are only about 600,000 official Dean supporters according to the Dean website.  Its a lot easier to sign up as a supporter - sign up on the website or write a letter or make a phone call - than to go to a caucus but only 1 in 15 actual self-identified will do THAT.  

          by Lois on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:48:46 AM PDT

          •  Interesting point

            I would disagree, though, that becoming a Dean supporter at DFA is easier than becoming an Iowa caucusgoer. Well, "easier," yes, but proportionally fewer will do it.

            As you say, the 600,000 claimed at DFA are about 6 percent of Dean's national support, but the presumption is that about 20 percent of Dean's Iowa supporters will show up for caucus. So, other things equal (which they probably aren't), a Dean supporter in Iowa is about 3x as likely to caucus for him as to be listed at DFA as an active supporter.

            Caucus goers probably fall somewhere midway in between ordinary likely voters in primary states and activists who volunteer or contribute.

            -- Rick Robinson

            by al Fubar on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:51:06 AM PDT

            •  how do they do it?

              Yes, thats the whole point of working those caucuses:  making it easy for supporters to come out.

              I've been hearing about the Iowa caucuses for years but never really thought about the mechanics until this year when I learned about the Dean buses that brought people to the Jefferson Jackson Dinner.  

              That was the proverbial light switch and the bulb going on in my head.  Of course, thats how they do it:  they have the supporters identified and the main thrust of all these months of "campaigning" has been to identify supporters.  Then, you have to go and pick the supporters up and bring them to the caucus.  People don't get in their own cars and go to the caucus.  The campaigns identify their supporters, put them on lists, line up bus routes, call them to reconfirm, send someone the supporter has already met up to the door to pick them up, etc.  Once that supporter is on your bus, he/she is not going to go over to another campaign.  

              So, its not quite a needle in a haystack but for a campaign to come on strong in the last week to 10 days would require making HOW MANY calls to find these people who tell Zogby's polltakers that they support Edwards or Kerry?  And then you've got to have that bus operation ready to go out and get them.  

              by Lois on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 02:44:03 PM PDT

              •  This is why ...

                Clark took a bye there. If he'd gone in, he'd be right up there in the multi-car pileup with the others - but would he have the vans lined up for Monday evening?

                Whether it works in the end or not, the NH focus is much better strategy for him.

                -- Rick Robinson

                by al Fubar on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:58:07 PM PDT

                •  Edwards

                  Maybe Edwards would have been smart to skip Iowa?

                  I went back and forth on Edwards being a VP choice until this on Crossfire the other day:

                  TUCKER CARLSON, CO-HOST: And, of course, Howard Dean is still out front, but Congressman Dick Gephardt is within the margin of error in the latest poll. We'll talk with representatives of both campaigns, right after the best political briefing in television, our CROSSFIRE "Political Alert."

                  Well, there's some -- there's some good news and some bad news for the struggling John Edwards campaign. In the first column, Edwards won the endorsement of "The Des Moines Register," Iowa's biggest newspaper yesterday. As for bad news, "The New York Times" profiled Edwards this morning and revealed this: Despite making at least $38 million during his career as a trial lawyer, John Edwards did a total of no pro bono work or public interest work, none, nor did he take on any civil rights cases. They don't pay enough money.

                  John Edwards cares about the poor and oppressed, but, apparently, it's a fairly abstract concern. BEGALA: Well, you know, Tucker, I don't think that's really fair. I read that profile. And what Edwards told "The Post" -- told "The Times," that he didn't take those cases, he was illustrating a point, a time in his life where he was more self-centered. And he had a life-changing experience. He -- it propelled him into politics."

                  Thats really shocking, that he didn't do any pro bono work in his career.  If he became the nominee, every one of those cases that got him the $38 million would be fodder for months and months.  It makes the "son of a millworker" stuff look creepy.  

                  by Lois on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:40:18 PM PDT

        •  Rebuttal?

          I don't see any argument you made or could make with Krugman. His points were that a) Dean and Clark get it; and b) the Democrats need to nominate someone who gets it. If you want to add c) Edwards gets it, well, Krugman might well agree. From what I've been reading about the line Edwards is taking (and I've seen a lot of reporting on his campaign), it seems to me he does. And that's great. He's always been one of my top choices.

          by Ottoe on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:20:01 PM PDT

      •  honestly...

        Meh. Probably true enough. I'll grant you that.

        Couple things about that, though -

        Given as Kos is mostly a pro-Dean site... well, what do you expect? "Well, that's it, Dean's losing Iowa. Pack it in everybody, just go on home! Don't know what I was thinking... better just quit now and go vote Lieberman while there's still time for him to Legitimize the Democratic Party and Govern from the Sensible Center!"

        And, while the tone'd be different, honestly, the message is about the same. Honestly, the way I see it is...

        Earth-1 post: "Well fellas... yeah, it's iffy, but really everybody, Iowa isn't that big a deal, so don't worry too much about it."

        Alternate-Earth post: "All RIGHT everybody, woo-HOO! Screw you, Clark, and Kerry? Right here, buddy, yeah, you see which finger I'm pointing with, don't you? ... but really everybody, Iowa isn't that big a deal, so don't get too excited about it."

        by agrajag on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:28:51 AM PDT

    •  Thanks!

      Thank you, Professor!

      As one Dean supporter to another, thanks again!

      I'll be looking forward to your reports.

      Oh... and Happy Birthday, young man!

      (Hey, if Ann Richards can call John Edwards a young man, I guess I can call you a young man.  I have almost as many years on you as Governor Richards does on Senator Edwards!)

      by Len on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:16:51 AM PDT

    •  "When asked"

      I love it! Some of your wife's sharps have obviously rubbed off on you.

      -- Rick Robinson

      by al Fubar on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:55:49 AM PDT

•  Another Welcome

  Welcome to dKos, Prof. Tom!

  by Kaushansky on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:34:55 AM PDT

•  Well said

  In addition to the importance of Iowa being overstated by the press, the importance of "momentum" itself is vastly overstated. While candidates gain some strength from early victories, the strength obtained through nationwide organization in the invisible primary has been the real determining factor in every presidential nomination contest since 1988.

  What people often forget, or willfully ignore, is that the states following IA and NH are not blank slates that will be left with the indelible mark of IA and NH. "Momentum" from early results collides with exisitng support in later states to jointly determine the shape of the primary season. The further we move from 1976, the more pre-exisiting support in later states blunts Big Mo.
   

  The Empirical Left is coming!

  by Chris Bowers on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:43:48 AM PDT

  •  Pre-existing support pre-supposes

    that most people give a damn about the primary until it comes time to vote. People get their info from the news, and the news likes to stick with their established story line of who is gonna win. Unless its a compelling upset, b/c thats even better for ratings.

    Mo = media, media = a frighteningly large segmet of voters. Even ones interested enough to actually go vote in the primary.

    by Windowdog on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:54:44 AM PDT

    •  media predicted a bush win

      gore won instead.

      we did it before and we can do it again.

      by niner on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:48:08 AM PDT

  •  Iowa trumps gatekeeper media

    If a candidate is being painted with invisible ink by the press, an Iowa upset provides that candidate with a breakout opportunity onto the national stage.

    If that candidate has broad appeal and a mile-deep policy platform, not to mention being telegenic and high energy, their breakout opportunity can be converted into national momentum.

    This is why the Des Moines Register endorsement mattered so much, not because they are nationally important, but because they were willing to say what no other media outlet was willing to say. That Edwards has the goods.  Since peer competition mandates that media will cover media, the DMR endorsement was widely reported.

    The result? History will show the most significant media exposure of the 2004 election as the Des Moines Register and C-SPAN.  Not Iowa or anything to follow.  

    In that respect, the parent post is right.  The Iowa bounce is a myth if you're an overexposed Dean or someone with national name recognition.  But it's a resource discovery beacon for an Immaculate Candidate to step onto the national stage.

    by dotpeople on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:49:33 AM PDT

    •  Des Moines Register endorsement

      I see that as more of a punt.  Its like the papers that endorsed John Anderson in 1980.  

      by Lois on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:32:19 AM PDT

  •  As always ...

    Good analysis!

    (Embarrassing that the first I ever really noticed you here was to diss you for the JJJ-as-VP suggestion.)

    This is why national polls are underrated. They show the overall terrain in the downstream states, and the support candidates have to build on.

    -- Rick Robinson

    by al Fubar on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:56:17 AM PDT

•  Welcome

  Welcome Tom.

  Looking forward to your posts.

  Have a safe trip.  And for God's sake (and yours), keep all of your favorite parts covered.  It's crazy cold up there!

  by Cory on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:44:10 AM PDT

  •  Funny line

    Did you happen to catch Jon Stewart's line the other night?

    You know, the one where he talked about the jingling noise a man's keys will make in his pocket when he walks outside, only now when you walk outside that jingling noise you hear in your pocket ain't your keys?

    Must be wicked cold up there.

    by Len on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:24:14 AM PDT

•  Welcome. Now about Carter...

  He won Iowa and the White House.
  He was an unknown Governor from a rural state.
  The previous Republican administration was blatantly corrupt, with both the VP (Agnew) and the Potus himself resigning in disgrace.

  Well, we don't have the resignations yet, but it sure looks to me like the same supper is on the table.

  I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker

  by xysrl on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:44:35 AM PDT

  •  vote bush/cheney '04: we're not crooks!

    by niner on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 08:51:33 AM PDT

  •  I agree xysrl

    and boy doesn't desert look scrumptious!!!!!

    mwjeepster - nyc
    Damn, where'd I put the down socks?

    by mwjeepster on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:00:31 AM PDT

•  Absolutely!

  That is absolutely correct.  I posted this on Tuesday night when arguing a case for why Wesley Clark will win New Hampshire.

  Link

  Four, unlike most people, I actually think Dean will lose more than he will gain from his focus on winning the Iowa primary.  I think the Iowa results will be a narrow dogfight with Dean perhaps taking a slight lead.  With all the pundits having crowned Dean months ago (Rothenberg, by example, said his nomination was foregone back in October) I think the close call in Iowa will actually detract from his momentum.  Even more important, I think that he's passing up invaluable campaign time to Wes Clark while he's mired in Iowa.  Keep in mind that almost the entirety of McCain's 49 to 31 percent win over Bush was built in the last two weeks.

  Yes, Dean will jump back into New Hampshire right after Iowa, but so will everyone else since I doubt anyone will give up after Iowa (even Gephardt, even if he loses Iowa, has no reason to formally withdraw until Feb 3).  I don't see why it can't be true that no one gets any momentum out of Iowa if the leaders are really close to one another.  Also, in recent elections New Hampshire voters have tended to ignore Iowa completely so far as anyone can tell.  The last election someone could say Iowa impacted New Hampshire much was 1988 on the Dem side, and that wasn't anything to write home about.

  ************

  I would only add to that a couple more points.  Once upon a time (1976) the Iowa caucus had a bigger impact because it was the first a lot of voters really got to find out about the state of the campaign.  The winner of Iowa (Jimmy Carter) suddenly had Big Mo just because he won Iowa, so he was a winner.  Now, with the 24 hour news cycle and the world wide web and so on I don't think any attentive voters are clueless about what's going on in Iowa and where the race stands.  Just because Dean or Gephardt inch to a slight plurality probably won't mean jack to anyone's opinion in my view.

  Besides that, I don't think it makes any difference to New Hampshire.  The New Hampshire voters have not abandoned John Kerry because they think he's a loser.  They have abandoned him because of his position on the war.  An Iowa win won't introduce or reintroduce Kerry to anyone in New Hampshire.  They already know all they need to know about him, and they obviously don't like it.  As for Howard Dean, the problem a lot of voters have with Dean again has nothing to do with unfamiliarity.  The problem as stated in polls is uncertainty about his electability in November.  A win in Iowa changes nothing as far as that goes.

  That leaves Gephardt and Edwards who may make a splash with a really good showing in Iowa, but neither of which is likely to benefit much in New Hampshire in my view.  Again, just like Forbes winning Iowa didn't make a difference in 2000, I don't see why a candidate with no real presence or support in New Hampshire is suddenly going to get a big boost out of narrowly winning a caucus or placing well.  Even if they do, it's most likely any few added points of support will come from undecideds, which granted might detract from Clark since undecideds are said to lean slightly in his favor.  

  That being said, they are just as likely in my view to pull votes from Kerry and/or Dean as they are from Clark(if they receive any benefit from Iowa) which would all balance out.  That's especially the case, I think, because if either or both Gephardt or Edwards come out the Iowa winners, that means Kerry and Dean are coming out the Iowa losers.  So, that's what I think about Iowa versus New Hampshire.

  PS.  I think local organization trumps everything else in the caucuses.  I think Gephardt will win the caucus so long as he's withing 5 points of the lead in the polls.  That's just my prediction.  Thanks for reading if you did.

  by gimmeaD on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:52:22 AM PDT

  •  Sorry, minor correction about Forbes

    Sorry, a minor correction on Steve Forbes.  I typoed about his placement in Iowa.  Forbes didn't win Iowa but he won the media coverage out of Iowa (along with Bush) because of his strong showing.  Neither Bush nor Forbes got any help in New Hampshire out of their Iowa coverage.  Bush's poll numbers actually went down.

    by gimmeaD on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:07:02 AM PDT

  •  Iowa May Have More Impact Now

    There's an excellent point here about the impact of Iowa relating to familiarity. But, I think that the real impact may be changing from that sudden burst of "who won" to something subtler. The widespread coverage now available is changing how IA impacts the race.

    In watching the coverage of the campaign, I've seen a lot about what's going on in IA, including the debates and dinner speeches on CSPAN, and not so much about NH. Now that there is wall-to-wall news coverage, campaigning in IA has a wider impact because everything said and done there is readily available. People are getting more insight into the early process of selecting a candidate and that multiplies the effect of the campaign.

    If the Democrats are lucky, this will also turn into a boost for their party. People will get a lot more coverage of the Democrats and their issues. It's like a form of free publicity that is magnified by the news networks and the Internet. The Democratic race is exciting and interesting this year; the Republican race is one step below dull.

    Maybe one of the reasons Dean has kept in front of the pack despite repeated attacks (be they half-hearted) from the rest is because he continues to have a perceived lead in IA. People in other states are seeing this coverage (to the extent they are paying attention) and it is influencing their perceptions. Even attacks on Dean may bring a sympathy factor from people who are observing from a distance.

    So, maybe Iowa is getting more bang for the buck now that campaign information is easier to come by. The importance of winning there might not be so much coming in first or second, having momentum or perceived momentum, but rather that winning there means a winning message is going out over the airwaves every day for an extended period of time when the main decision makers (especially the ones with money) are making their decisions on who to support.

    Think, liberally.

    by Liberal Thinking on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:26:49 AM PDT

  •  It's simple

    I don't see why it can't be true that no one gets any momentum out of Iowa if the leaders are really close to one another.

    Simple - because then the media would have nothing and no one to write about.

    There will be a Big Mo story to be found, somewhere, even if the writers have to invent it out of whole cloth.

    by Senor Biggles on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:19:50 AM PDT

    •  Not doubting media Mo

      No doubting that the media will devise a Big Mo story around whatever happens in Iowa, I'm just questioning whether anyone will get Big Mo in New Hampshire from what happens in Iowa.  More exactly, I'm questioning whether the Big Mo will detract from the potential of a Clark win or very close second in NH.

      By example, if Edwards somehow wins Iowa, then he will get Big Mo.  But, will that make much difference to the final outcome in New Hampshire?  It's more likely to impact South Carolina than anything.  Also, if Edwards comes out the winner, then Dean & Gephardt (and now also Kerry) will come out losers.  

      If that happens, it's just as likely Dean supporters in New Hampshire will defect to other candidates and thus give up the lead to Clark.  No matter what happens in Iowa, Clark can't lose.  That's my basic speculation.  I don't know if I'm right.  That's just what I suspect.

      by gimmeaD on Sat Jan 17, 2004 at 04:40:33 AM PDT

  •  great points

    You hit it right on the head - Iowa can make an impact only for candidates whose broader perception might change depending on how they finish. Anything short of a landslide win for Dean, Gep, or Kerry wouldn't accomplish anything for them - doubts will remain about Dean, and Gep and Kerry will still be old news. Edwards does have upside in establishing some national viability, gaining support from his native South, and getting another round of cash from the trial lawyer circuit. And this would impact Clark as you said.

    by daunte on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:01:57 AM PDT

•  "Because Iowa just ain't all that"

  Demographically speaking, no, it isnt. Its hardly a representative slice of Americana. For instance, the only state whiter then Vermont, is Iowa.

  Im a native of Washingtonian. Yes, the big, bad, evil, Washington DC. Its the non-state thats blacker and browner then just about anywhere else. Our first in the nation non-binding primary may have seemed just a bilp on the radar to most of you...a move in the game of electoral brinkmanship. To us, it is a grave matter. This was a move not just to create dialouge about DC's lack of congressional representation. It was also to draw attention to the fact that the stage for the nomination is set, until we reach South Carolina, in a collection of states lacking the diversity required to bring the issues of people of color to center stage.

  (Incidently, did you know that it is informal policy to keep control of the Washington DC Congressional Oversight Board to a southern republican. Is it just me or is that like giving the fox budget approval for the henhouse?)

  Solidarity, brothers. Its the only way we can ever hope to win.

  by AnarchistFag on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:59:26 AM PDT

  •  Whoops

    Sorry, I think I miss-typed. Vermont is whiter then Iowa, not the other way around.

    by AnarchistFag on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:00:47 AM PDT

  •  DC primary

    I'd be interested in a diary entry about that DC primary.  On another thread, someone noted that more people voted in the DC primary than will attend the Iowa caucus, which brings up questions that the media isn't addressing but are very interesting:

    1.  Why did so many people get out and vote in a primary that was being dismissed by the media and most of the candidates?
    2.  Dean got 43% -- who are those folks?  DC being heavily African American, does it say something about the appeal of Dean to African Americans?  The media is claiming he doesn't appeal to African Americans.
    3.  Who voted for Sharpton and why?  Are they influenced by his (pretty atrocious) history or by his appealing TV persona in the debates or what?

    by Lois on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 03:02:02 PM PDT

•  Good things

  This is a little off topic, but as the Iowa caucus nears and the field tightens, the tone on the blog changes to include frank talk about all the candidates, not a constant war of words.  This is a good thing.  I am particularly struck, however, by just how little influence we on the blogoshpere seem to have in the real world.  It looks like the voters will have the last word, and that's a good thing, too.

  by citizen53 on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:22:35 AM PDT

  •  Yes

    Yes, the voters will have the final say on what happens, but then again, some (likely all) of us at the daily kos are voters. Don't think dk has not influence little old me. In fact, I'm suggesting dk to all my friends who like to be informed about what's going on in the world, even the one's I don't necissarily agree with. Yes voters have the final say, but that doesn't me we can't influence things.

    by Izixs on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:32:55 AM PDT

  •  RE:

    I too have noted a change in tone on the Kos site.  I think support for favorite candidates is taking a back-seat to just enjoying the excitement of tightening race, then again maybe some of the fiestier Deaniacs have gone to Iowa (its a joke, lighten up up...).

    I am particularly struck, however, by just how little influence we on the blogoshpere seem to have in the real world.

    That is because we basically just talk to ourselves (i.e., other political junkies). If there wasn't political blogs like this one, we would find outher outlets for own obsession with politics (I use to pepper my friends with political article via email hoping to get a dialogue, but because of Kos they are spared this :) ). Blogs contribute and make worse such obsession, but certainly don't create it, nor do I believe they bring more a significant number of people into the process.  IMHO, I mean you have to really like politics to bother reading most of the stuff on this site and others.  

    It loooks like the voters will have the last word, and that's a good thing, too.

    I have commented before that the vast majority of the population has spent very little time thinking about this primary. Hell, look at the race in Iowa, where the candidates have been living for months and there the race is still very fluid.  So if many Iowans are just now waking up and making their decision, can you imagine how fluid support must be in say Wisconsin, Georgia or California?

    by jg on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:19:29 AM PDT

  •  I disagree

    
    I think that the boards on this blog have tremendous influence, actually. Not directly on the Iowa caucus-goers, say, but indirectly via media folk more of whom than you might think are reading.

    by Ottoe on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 01:25:06 PM PDT

•  Official Dog Catcher

  Allow me to introduce myself. I'm theoria, official Dog Catcher and Keeping it Real guy. It was a pleasure to read your insightful post, and I look forward to learning from you.

  Keep it Real

  by theoria on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 04:59:42 AM PDT

•  boston globe NH poll, 1/16

  "32 percent favor Dean, 23 percent prefer Clark, and 12 percent support Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry" in NH according to the latest poll by boston globe, for what it's worth.
   http://www.boston.com/news/politics/primaries/new_hampshire/articles/2004/01/16/dean_slips_clark_gai ns_in_nh/

  by Matter of fact on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 06:11:45 AM PDT

•  Being first has its responsibilities

  Prof. Schaller's "research" observations are well known by all candidates, pollsters, professional news reporters, and the endless gaggles of wannabe journalists who make up the nation's Greek press chorus. Nothing new there, I'm sorry to say. But simply toting up the victors and the vanquished in the corn fields of Iowa won't come close to helping Schaller or anyone else understand the real importance of the caucuses. Nor will flying out to Iowa in the final few days help much.  

  To really appreciate what's going on now, Schaller would have to have been in Iowa for many months -- well before everyone else began to take notice; when Howard Dean was known only to Vermonters, border-dwelling Canadians, and a handful of political junkies.

  The Iowa caucuses in fact are a wonderful, graduated training ground for the candidates themselves.  Especially is this so for those without a national following. By custom, perceived necessity, and for want of much else to do once a politician has made up his mind to run for national office, proto-candidates for president spend a great deal of time in Iowa, starting as soon as two and a half or three years ahead of election year.

  At first, the candidate typically seeks out a few inside politicos in a search for the organizers he will need and the local contacts he cannot do without. Then, gradually, he begins to meet with groups as small as one or two families in a living room or at the courthouse square cafe. In such settings, he can begin to fashion his message, experiment with sound bites, and (not incidentally, for those who are good listeners) pick up early indications of what's on the voters' minds.

  Say whatever you like, the average Iowan is better educated, friendlier, more open and candid, politically more aware, and closer to the average in income and social preferences -- and just about everything else -- than citizens of any other state you can name. (That's why Grinnell, Newton, Ottumwa, Mason City, and Council Bluffs, among others, are so often used for new product testing by consumer product companies.)

  As time goes on -- usually by Spring of the year before election year -- the neighborhood get togethers start becoming larger and the settings slowly grow more formal. The candidate graduates from a sit-down in Mrs. Iowan's living room to a brief introduction and speech to the PTA at Mrs. Iowan's rural middle school, to a round of small town parades and town barbeques throughout the summer, and meeting hall appearances in the early Fall.

  Half the challenge for a candidate is to sustain his persona and his platform without stumbling over this very long haul. The good candidates have a chance to 'grow' into each of these new settings, all the while adjusting the message, discarding lines that don't work, trotting out new ones, and experimenting with innovative campaign organization techniques -- be it John Kennedy's "coffee klatches" (1959-60) or Howard Dean's "meet-ups" (2004) or John Kerry's revolving campaign managers.

  By mid Fall of the year before the caucus, dumb or insincere or incompetent candidates have been exposed for the phonies they are, and either they high-tail it out of Iowa for safer climes (Reagan 1980, Bush 2000) or drop out altogether (Biden 1988, Braun 2004).

  Just about the time the lemmings in the national press corps finally bestir themselves to take a peek, the candidates who remain are beginning to speak to real crowds complete with (small scale) hoopla at numerous debates, statewide union conventions, regional teacher conferences, and other large-hall venues.

  As the bite of early winter chill sets in, the nation slowly begins to awaken to something going on 'way out there in Iowa. In normal conversations with friends and relatives elsewhere in the nation, Iowans less frequently hear "Howard who?" and more often "Tell me about this Howard Dean fellow."

  To be sure, on some occasions Iowa caucus night will yield a surprise or two, a Jimmy Carter, say, or a Eugene McCarthy. More often, they fix the wagons of those hopeless pretenders who prove, up-close and personal, to be absolutely empty suits like Joseph Biden.

  By the time the caucuses themselves roll around -- in other words, Prof. Schaller, just about the time you were deplaning -- Iowa has done its chore for the nation.  It has winnowed out the hypocrites, the phonies, and the stumblebums, and done its best to prep the rest for the big time.  

  The actual results of the caucuses rarely have significance.  What little importance the press may ascribe to them is largely hooey; little more than a narcissistic reflection of the national press corps' own uninformed expectations and its neurotic need to make everything look like the final two minutes of an NFL play-off game.

  Iowans know this. They don't much care. They know their real responsibilities to the nation's electoral process were discharged over the many, many months that preceded caucus night. They also know that any importance others may ascribe to the caucuses arises only from the serendipitous fact that theirs is the first campaign test in the nation.

  The responsibility just as easily might be handed over to Wisconsin or New Hampshire or Oregon or any other state or territory. But until that happens, Iowans will continue doggedly discharging their assigned civic duty of providing an early training ground for presidential aspirants, culling the herd, and sending the rest on their way better prepared as candidates and, so Iowans hope, as public servants for the experience.

  by larrycoates on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 07:48:36 AM PDT

  •  Re: Being first has its responsibilities

    larrycoates makes some excellent points.  I've lived in Iowa now about 10 years.  I had never really understood the caucus system or why Iowa got to be first, but now that I've been here, I'm really glad that someone does what Iowa does.

    Perhaps the two most important things you have to establish in Iowa that are essential to long-term success are: 1) Organization: It's not enough to convince people to vote for you, you have to convince them to spend an evening with people in their community and then to literally stand up in public and support you as their candidate.  (No secret ballot stuff here.) That takes a lot of work, and is one of the reason that some pundits are suspicious of the Kerry and Edwards numbers.  Will those who support you turn out?  No one knows until the caucus itself.  

    This leads to: 2) refining your message and your self.  As indicated above, candidates have been here a long time and have sat in many living rooms and cafes talking to real people.  In doing so they get the chance to find out what works and what doesn't.  Even more important (to me) is that they get to hear what the average person thinks and what they care about.  If we had a national primary there would be an even greater separation between candidates and people than there is now.  The whole thing would come down to who makes the most effective use of their media dollars.  

    It's true that it doesn't have to be Iowa (it could be Wisconsin or Oregon, etc.), but it's good that it's someone. I feel fortunate to be in Iowa and will take my responsibility seriously.

    As for the original post from the professor, I'm sure that he knows that his brief history underplays the significance that Iowa has played in some of those races (including this one).  Bill Clinton's 2nd place in 1992 was of no little significance, and Howard Dean wouldn't be the candidate he is today had he not built a strong base in Iowa.  He is taken more seriously as a candidate nationally because he has done what no one would have guessed was possible: gone from nothing as a total outsider to the front-runner.  Had someone suggested 6 months ago that Dean had a chance of beating Gephardt, no one would have thought it possible.
    

    by PacMan on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:40:45 AM PDT

  •  Good post

    Good post--I agree that one of the strengths of Iowa is that a candidate without the money or the national stage can come in and compete mano a mano with other candidates if he/she is compelling and has a compelling message.

    Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart were able to rise to prominence because they got their start in a market that was low-cost and retail.  If the process started in say California or New York or Texas the biggest money and the biggest name would have an automatic and perhaps insurmountable advantage.

    I also think that Iowan's are well-informed and able to spot BS from quite a distance.  The type of slime campaign that GW Bush ran against John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 would never work here, in fact would probably boomerang and harm the candidate doing the sliming.  

    by patm on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:49:04 AM PDT

  •  Mixed bag

    larrycoats:

    Your comments strike both a positive and a negative chord in me.  On the one hand I agree wholeheartedly that "impact" can't be measured simply in terms of immediate or even long term vote outcomes.  Your observation that Iowa is a training ground for candidates and the small scale dimensions are invaluable for getting a "feel" is a welcomed addition to the rather narrow understanding of politics or even elections that is prompted primarily by media frames but travels as conventional wisdom.

    What troubles me a bit, however, is the implication that Iowa is most/best representative of the nation because of its proximity to averages.  Aside from the distortion of relying on averages to represent a diversity of experience and situation as deep and broad as the US nation, I am always wary when any group stakes a claim (directly or indirectly) to "be" the nation.  That's why the "we are the heartland" stuff that folks in the midwest (or folks in the more mythical "middle america") like to throw around strikes me as ideologically dangerous.  I appreciate the call to populism that they emulate, but in so doing they also (inadvertently I believe) construct a potentially powerful mechanism of exclusion (the old "special interests/identity politics" kind of smear).

    That said, I appreciate enormously your analysis about the role and responsibility that the people of Iowa have for the electoral system and happily acknowledge the service that is to the rest of us.    

    by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:00:08 AM PDT

    •  Iowa is...

      Where God sends candidates to learn how to flip pancakes. ;)

      Okay, joking aside, I think Larry's hit a chord, but you're also right Gilas. One thing I though of while reading Larry's post was "Where elses in the US could you do this crazy political mambo?" Wisconsin maybe. Iowa kind of sits at the crossroads of the US. We're (Yes I'm a native Iowan) semi-cosmopolitan in Des Moines, Cedar Rapids and the Quad Cities, Semi-Southern in South Iowa, Semi-Western in Sioux City and Council Bluffs, and pretty midwestern here in Northeast Iowa. I once made the joke that everying west of I35 was Nebraska, everything south of I80 was Missouri, and everything East and North of I80/I35 was Minnesota. I think there's a little bit of truth in this (just listen to us here in NE Iowa ufdah).

      In trying to think of another state that has such a wide swath of political leanings is a little difficult. Not impossible, I'll grant that Iowa is very much a Farm State and we like people that vote for the farm bills (Like Gep) So we're probably skewing things twords Ag.

      Someone did mention the education level here in Iowa which we hold true (elitist as it is). Personally I think this cuts both ways. I tend to think that people are dumb, but after subjecting Iowans to the candidates for months they're a little too eductaed to represent the national norm when it comes to what they know about a candidate. Charisma maybe has a little less effect here after months of dealing with all the press and the candidates dancing with everyone.

      I'm reminded of 'The Music Man' (which you may never have heard of outside of Iowa). If you can sell it in Iowa you can sell it anywhere. We 'Neckbowed Hawkeyes' can spot a Prof. Harrold Hill a mile away, some times we even fall in love with him.
      

      by Gary on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:35:52 AM PDT

      •  The music man

        I understand it (and marketers fascination with it).  Embedded in that confidence is a level of "middle brow" arrogance that disturbs me.  While the myth might have been comforting in Wilson's 1957 USA,(it wasn't even true in 1912 USA that it proports to capture) its insulting in the USA of 2004. [Also kind of dangerous, but I don't want to go over the top ;)].  

        by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:06:19 PM PDT

  •  Empty Suits

    Rick Santorum is quoted in yesterday's News and Observer:

    [begin excerpt]

    Edwards even seemed upbeat about a newspaper interview published Thursday in New Hampshire in which a Republican Senate colleague called him an "empty suit."

    In an interview with the Manchester Union Leader, Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania said Edwards was the least impressive of the three senators running for president and called him "remarkably uninformed ... on ... basic issues. ... The basic perception in the Republican caucus was that this guy is just an empty suit, that he just simply doesn't understand."

    The attack, Edwards argued, was evidence that he is being taken more seriously by both his Democratic rivals and Republican leaders.

    [end excerpt]

    by dotpeople on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:07:29 AM PDT

    •  That's Funny!

      Rick Santorum calling anyone an empty suit!

      -- Rick Robinson

      by al Fubar on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:08:04 PM PDT

    •  maybe I'm an empty suit too

      The basic perception in the Republican caucus was that this guy is just an empty suit, that he just simply doesn't understand.

      I don't understand the Republican caucus either.

      by Pericles on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:26:05 PM PDT

•  Long?

  By dKos standards your post was not very long. Welcome. Thanks for the insight.

  by wegerje on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:19:06 AM PDT

•  Significance of Iowa--winnowing

  As a native and current Iowan, I feel compelled to defend my beloved Caucus. :)

  While Iowa is not predictive generally of who will be the eventual nominee, it has performed a winnowing function.  In 1984, the race was Mondale-Hart after Iowa, in 88 only Gephardt/Simon/Dukakis were really viable following the Caucus.  The twin losses of Iowa and New Hampshire in 00 ended Bradley's campaign.

  On the Republican side, Iowa made the 80 race Bush v Reagan, in 88 Bush v Dole, and in 96 Dole v Buchanan.  Steve Forbes dreams died in Iowa in 96 and 00.

  Gephardt will almost certainly be finished if he does not win Iowa this year.  The twin wins of Iowa and New Hampshire will almost certainly result in Dean winning the nomination this year.
  Kerry and Edwards are completely reborn if they can finish strong.

  Iowa.  We winnow.  And please don't take our winnowing away!

  by patm on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 09:41:16 AM PDT

  •  Winnowing

    Very clear that Iowa and NH do serve this function.  Less clear to me that this function is as desirable as we make it out to be.

    by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:02:03 AM PDT

•  Excellent post Mr. Smith

  by No One No Where on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:02:41 AM PDT

•  to state the brutally obvious

  If Wesley Clark goes on to win the nomination then the strategy of punting on Iowa will be viable and many more candidates in the future won't bother at all with it.  If only half of the candidates are competing in Iowa in any given election then the importance will be diminished even further.  This really could be the last year we all pay close attention to Iowa.

  by Damon on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:26:05 AM PDT

  •  Not only that...

    The assumption that starting a campaign earlier rather than later is better will be revisited. You may see more candidates waiting in the wings, triangulating how they can differentiate from the pack.

    by daunte on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:04:38 AM PDT

    •  Can't think of a clever subject line ri

      The assumption that starting a campaign earlier rather than later is better will be revisited. You may see more candidates waiting in the wings, triangulating how they can differentiate from the pack.

      That's almost a reason to vote for him right there, just to put to rest all that conventional wisdom and do something to fix the screwed up system.

      [/sigh]

      by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 11:33:09 AM PDT

•  If you ever run for President ...

  Remember to have your come-to-Jesus moment about the virtues of the Iowa caucuses early. Don't get caught just 10 days out with having once committed truth about them.

  Oh, yes, and welcome to DKos!

  -- Rick Robinson

  by al Fubar on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 10:52:54 AM PDT

•  Iowa is all that

  Iowa is about having the fairest congressional re-districting plan in the nation.  Texas it ain't.

  Iowa is about having one of the most conservative and one of the most liberal senators in the Senate at the same time and re-electing both by healthy margins.

  Iowa is not a bell wether.  Iowa does not predict where the country will go.  Iowa suggests where the country should be going.

  Carter was the right choice in 1976.  If we couldn't have Carter in '80, then Bush was better than Reagan.  And wouldn't we have been a lot better off today after a Simon or Harkin presidency?

  by BCF on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 12:12:41 PM PDT

•  small state first

  Since moving to NH, I've come to appreciate the small-state-first primary system. I don't see why it has to be Iowa and NH year after year, but I think it's important to have the first couple contests in states where the candidates have to meet real people and answer real questions.

  Bush ran a scripted photo-op campaign here in 2000, and that's why McCain cleaned his clock. The rest of the country should have listened to us!

  by Pericles on Fri Jan 16, 2004 at 05:19:55 PM PDT