I don't like to post negative diaries, and some I'm sure will flame me for "sour grapes." I don't mind. I'm not bitter, really, so without any further ado -
This post from a Michigan for Dean person evidences that there were other dirty tactics in play. I don't really see this as being awful, or illegal, or anything like that, but just evidence that the Iowa caucuses (or the caucus system itself) needs some serious reforming.
Read on...
"Hi Everyone,
I sent this report from Iowa to a few local organizers who asked that I pass it along to Michigan for Dean. If it makes it through the censors, my apologies for posting a non-action item, but I think this might help all of us understand what happend in Iowa, put it behind us, and get back to work.
Matt and I spent 4 days storming Iowa with Kerri and Andy and these are our observations:
1. The Iowa caucus is a complete and total fiasco and the Iowa Democratic Party should quite frankly be ashamed of themselves for this undemocratic display. It's results really tell you nothing. It's all about strategy, deal-making, and arm-twisting and is very slanted against seniors, first-time voters or those new to politics, and blue-collar and service industry workers with inflexible schedules or kids. The only measure that is even slightly interesting would be entrance polls and here's why. The establishment candidates, knowing that Dean is their most formidable opponent because of his poll numbers, ground forces, and money, teamed up to try and knock him out in Iowa. It's very easy to do this with their circus of a caucus.
Say for example 100 people show up at your caucus site and start milling in their respective corners waiting for 7:00 when the doors close. There are 37 for Dean 35 for Kerry, 14 for Edwards, 10 for Geppy, and 4 for Kucinich. They are vying for 3 delegates. If you don't have 15 votes, you're not viable and can't get a delegate. So if they just showed up and voted, Dean would get 2 delegates and Kerry would get 1. But they don't just show up and vote.
What happened at the caucuses we observed and both the caucuses attended by our friends in Iowa, and as it turns out at caucuses across the state, was that Kerry people got the direction from their campaign that if they had more than the number needed to get their delegates, they were to send supporters over to Edwards (or anyone else) to boost his numbers if it would keep Dean from getting delegates. Edwards and Kucinich teamed up to support eachother also. So in my imaginary caucus above, after the first count, Edwards, Kucinich and Geppy people would mostly go to Kerry and he would end up getting two delegates instead of one. Or they might move around before the first count. Kucinich could send their people to the Edwards corner making him viable and the Gephardt people could go to Kerry so that Kerry, Dean, and Edwards would each get one.
At our caucus site, there were 27 votes for Dean, 23 for Kerry, and the other candidates combined had 25 votes - but none of them were viable on their own. What they wanted to do was to form an "undecided" vote. But they didn't understand the rules of the caucus (no one there seemed to) and since there was no "Undecided" group in the first round, they couldn't create one in the second. If they had known that they would have formed the undecided group in the first round. As it was, nearly all of them went with Kerry who was the only anti-Dean candidate. So instead of Dean getting one delegate and undecided getting one delegate, Dean and Kerry each got one.
It is nearly impossible to win in Iowa if the goal of the other players is to team up and knock you out. Dean is the only guy with an anti-establishment message and he's the guy with all of the money (thanks to us!) so he's the one they wanted to get rid of to level the playing field. The most discouraging thing we saw was how the different camps moved en mass - like a bunch of sheep. Peopple were not individually deciding who their second favorite candidate would be.
2. With all of that said, the media DID have a devastating effect on Dean in Iowa. We talked to many voters who were tagged "leaning toward Dean" by the last storm who had decided not to support him by the time we got there. Many said "Dean's just too angry to get elected" or "he changes his mind on the issues too often". They could never site personal examples and sometimes even said "well I don't think he's too angry but other people do so I'm afraid he can't get elected."
There are a couple of things already happening to counter this. If you saw Dean's speech in New Hampshire yesterday you may have noticed the stump has changed and so has the delivery. Not in a substantive way that should concern supporters, but the PR approach is different in response to lessons learned in Iowa.
Kerry also doesn't have 14 million dollars more to spend in New Hampshire. Iowa was all about the media buy and if the Dean campaign made any mistakes they were in that arena. But now that Dean isn't the front-runner the other candidates are going to be forced to deal with eachother and Dean is going to be able to keep on message in a way that was nearly impossible in Iowa. And his message is what sells - look at all of us.
3. The easy story for the media was "Dean's bubble bursts proving he was never a viable candidate and that internet supporters won't get out and vote". So as is their way, that's what they reported on rather than the more interesting story. I think the real story in Iowa was how campaigns and voters strategized - like how on earth could Kucinich voters justify supporting Edwards to bump Dean out of the race. Edwards is, after all, the guy who voted for the war, co-authored the patriot act, voted for the tax cuts, voted for no child left behind and didn't bother to show up for the vote on the medicare bill! - not exactly Kucinich-like.
So with all of that said, it's gut-check time and we've frankly got more balls than all of the other campaigns put together. We need to work our tails out over the next couple of weeks and make sure we bring Michigan home for Dean.
Remember, in 1992 Clinton got his ass handed to him in Iowa coming in 4th with a dismal 4% of the vote."
Any comments? I don't necessarily agree with all of it (and remember this email was for Dean supporters, so ignore any 'campaign-specific' language) but I think it brings up a good case for caucus reform.
