AS SEEN FROM THIS SIDE, NOW REOPENED WITH NEW MISSION: When Don Quixote retired from knight-errantry, he did so in the spirit of knight-errantry, holding to his vows and accepting his retirement as part of the terms of his defeat at the hands of the Knight of the White Moon. Despite his delusions, however, Don Quixote was fiercely intelligent and, at times, seemingly sane. He cogently and concisely talked about literature, soldiering, and government, among other topics. As do I.
Wednesday, February 10, 2016
Essays about caucuses don't touch on "party identity"
Three nice essays in today's Des Moines Register - about improving Iowa Democratic caucuses. However, as someone said in recent LTE, party identity and platform were no-shows. This may explain why midterm voters are disaffected or can't tell the difference between a Braley and an Ernst. As orchestrated, fight between prez candidates becomes the party’s identifying struggle, mainly a battle over narrow strategic advantage that divides rather than unites. Candidates should explain why each is a better fit to challenge the GOP, not so much each other. Party could have an on-going issue education program, like National Issues Forums as one example.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Iowa Democratic Caucus
In Ankeny our caucus site exceeded expected turnout by 100%, which required a firm grip by well schooled, agile Party Chairwoman who followed all rules, but was hounded by hotel manager worried about exceeding fire code. Standing room only, packed like sardines, plenty of opportunity for anger or impatience. None. Everyone was great, many with small children. Like rest of state, Ankeny #1 split its 10 Delegates 50/50. About a third of attendees needed to register (first time) or re-register to change address or party. Ran out of forms. Not smooth, but people made it work and helped open a second, then third line. Democracy may not be pretty, but it works. I met many new friends, a bunch in other camp.
On a side note: My daughter reports that grandson (18) lost the “Bern” and realigned to join her in H camp winning the delegate margin in her small-town caucus. No coin flip.
Room size. The statewide participation, although bin-busting, was 25% below the 2008. The party should have been prepared. With crowd twice size of room capacity, a panic of any sort could have been tragic.
Strong Temp/Permanent Chr. In Ankeny 1, the chairwoman was drill-sergeant strong. Initially annoying, but essential as room filled. She was trained, organized and firm and nonpartisan. Without her competencies, the caucus would have been unruly at best. Fortunately, volunteers also pitched in to help and no evident hard feelings. Count was accurate. Heard some precincts had poor leadership.
The term “registration” is confusing. It had two meanings. 1) To “sign in” as an attending, already “registered,” Democrat. AND, 2) To “”register” as a new voter or change address/party. About a third of room was re-register/or new-register voters. We ran out of registration forms, so an unfortunate hold up until new forms arrived.
The sign in form asked (required) people to mark preference, leading many to believe they’d already “voted” - which isn't the case, of course. Realignment resulted in few switches (hard to know with standing room only), but O’M had a dozen or so who were vigorously (appropriately) pursued by both H and B.
Party business takes back seat, or no seat. If the group would have been ½ the size, I think the chair would have been able to get people to sign nomination forms, fill out absentee forms, etc. As was the case elsewhere (reportedly), the necessity to count and apportion delegates became the only business. Even the identification of actual delegates was not a whole preference group decision. Fortunately, good people had already decided they wanted to be delegates.
As someone said in LTE, party identity and platform were no-shows. This may explain why midterm voters can't tell the difference between a Braley and an Ernst. The fight between prez candidate becomes the party ID struggle, mainly a battle over strategic advantage, that seems to divide rather than unite. People should be more concerned about difference between parties, not candidates. Have many Bernie people tell me they’ll write in B’s name if not nominated. Party became a referee, not promoter.
Party should have an on-going issue education program. The National Issues Forums is one example: See: EXAMPLE.
Finally, my wife and I were very active (Jodie passionate, which is contagious). But active for candidate, nor Party. We housed a campaign worker, donated, Jodie was co-precinct leader for candidate and hosted many meets at our house, made phone calls and door knocked. All related to candidate support, not party education. Willingly do it, but I'd like to think candidate-support builds party unity,s not vis versa. I worry that attendance was down from 2008, even with 1000s of workers/volunteers involved.
Gerald Ott
Ankeny
On a side note: My daughter reports that grandson (18) lost the “Bern” and realigned to join her in H camp winning the delegate margin in her small-town caucus. No coin flip.
Room size. The statewide participation, although bin-busting, was 25% below the 2008. The party should have been prepared. With crowd twice size of room capacity, a panic of any sort could have been tragic.
Strong Temp/Permanent Chr. In Ankeny 1, the chairwoman was drill-sergeant strong. Initially annoying, but essential as room filled. She was trained, organized and firm and nonpartisan. Without her competencies, the caucus would have been unruly at best. Fortunately, volunteers also pitched in to help and no evident hard feelings. Count was accurate. Heard some precincts had poor leadership.
The term “registration” is confusing. It had two meanings. 1) To “sign in” as an attending, already “registered,” Democrat. AND, 2) To “”register” as a new voter or change address/party. About a third of room was re-register/or new-register voters. We ran out of registration forms, so an unfortunate hold up until new forms arrived.
The sign in form asked (required) people to mark preference, leading many to believe they’d already “voted” - which isn't the case, of course. Realignment resulted in few switches (hard to know with standing room only), but O’M had a dozen or so who were vigorously (appropriately) pursued by both H and B.
Party business takes back seat, or no seat. If the group would have been ½ the size, I think the chair would have been able to get people to sign nomination forms, fill out absentee forms, etc. As was the case elsewhere (reportedly), the necessity to count and apportion delegates became the only business. Even the identification of actual delegates was not a whole preference group decision. Fortunately, good people had already decided they wanted to be delegates.
As someone said in LTE, party identity and platform were no-shows. This may explain why midterm voters can't tell the difference between a Braley and an Ernst. The fight between prez candidate becomes the party ID struggle, mainly a battle over strategic advantage, that seems to divide rather than unite. People should be more concerned about difference between parties, not candidates. Have many Bernie people tell me they’ll write in B’s name if not nominated. Party became a referee, not promoter.
Party should have an on-going issue education program. The National Issues Forums is one example: See: EXAMPLE.
Finally, my wife and I were very active (Jodie passionate, which is contagious). But active for candidate, nor Party. We housed a campaign worker, donated, Jodie was co-precinct leader for candidate and hosted many meets at our house, made phone calls and door knocked. All related to candidate support, not party education. Willingly do it, but I'd like to think candidate-support builds party unity,s not vis versa. I worry that attendance was down from 2008, even with 1000s of workers/volunteers involved.
Gerald Ott
Ankeny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)