Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gamesmistress who wrote (23726)	1/10/2004 11:18:43 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793755

Russian companies Shows you that personal relationships do make a huge difference in FA. Bush likes Putin, doesn't like Chirac. The French get s**t on, and the Russians get a pass.

To: gamesmistress who wrote (23726)	1/10/2004 11:38:37 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793755

If Gephardt doesn't win Iowa, he is lunchmeat. THOMAS F. SCHALLER Gephardt's plan to 'win' Iowa By Thomas F. Schaller, Boston Globe AS RECENT POLLS indicate, Dick Gephardt is not the favored candidate of most Iowans heading into their state's first-in-the-nation caucus. Howard Dean is. But what might matter more to Gephardt is whether he is the second favorite candidate of enough caucus-goers on Jan. 19. In his effort to derail Dean's bid for the Democratic nomination, Gephardt is relying on the fact that caucuses operate differently from primaries -- and in ways that could work in his favor. "They have to know how the [caucus] rules work," Gephardt recently told The Washington Post, perhaps referring not only to Iowa voters but the other campaigns as well. "They have to reorganize if they don't have what we call `viability.' They don't have 15 percent, then they have to either move to another corner of the room or go home. So you need to really educate people." What does Gephardt mean when he talks about viability and the 15 percent threshold? And how might his "educating" of caucus-goers save his candidacy? Unlike primaries, in which voters go into a private booth to fill out a confidential ballot, caucuses epitomize deliberative democracy. In Iowa this month, caucus-goers will interact face-to-face, making the case for their chosen candidates at school cafeterias and church basements. Results from these precinct-level meetings determine how candidates fare later at county-level caucuses in March, congressional district-level caucuses in April, and in the final statewide assignment of delegates in June. As mandated by national party rules, to be "viable" at the precinct caucuses -- thereby qualifying to send delegates to the succeeding caucus stages -- candidates must have at least 15 percent support. For example, supporters of Senator Joseph Lieberman or General Wesley Clark (neither of whom is still campaigning in Iowa) will realize soon after arriving at most precinct caucuses that they cannot reach the viability threshold. If Iowa were a primary state, votes for Lieberman, Clark, and others would be lost because citizens cannot go back the next day, when results are reported, and recast their votes. But as Gephardt says, Iowa caucus-goers who stick around even though their preferred candidate is nonviable can opt to support another candidate by moving to "another corner of the room." The Missouri congressman is hoping these Iowans stay around and, better yet, move to his corner. Indeed, as indicated by his campaign rhetoric -- which, increasingly, is less pro-Gephardt than it is anti-Dean -- Gephardt is desperately trying to position himself as the candidate for Democrats seeking to nominate somebody besides Dean. Iowans who otherwise prefer Clark or Lieberman are the most obvious targets. But supporters of Senators John Edwards or John Kerry may be important in many precincts. If Gephardt is even half as politically shrewd as he has demonstrated throughout his career, surely his campaign operatives are "educating" his loyalists on how to shepherd these people into Gephardt's pen on caucus night. Gephardt has warned repeatedly that, because Iowa is a caucus state, poll numbers can be misleading. But polls can be misleading in contrasting ways. On one hand, pollsters rarely ask for voters' secondary preferences. To the extent Gephardt resonates as the next-best option for Iowans otherwise enamored with nonviable candidates, Gephardt will do better than expected because his support is wider than polls indicate. On the other, a significant portion of Dean's support will undoubtedly come from sporadic or first-time caucus-goers that "likely voter" samples often overlook. (David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register expects caucus turnout in 2004 to be at least double what it was in 2000.) To the extent these newly mobilized voters back Dean, the former Vermont governor will do better than expected because his support is deeper than polls indicate. Thus the outcome in Iowa for 2004 may very well turn on the answer to a single question: Is Dean's political support deeper than Gephardt's is wide? Gephardt won Iowa in 1988, and he understands the state's caucus well. Because his 2004 campaign depends on him winning Iowa again, Gephardt will use every strategic and tactical angle available. Of course, Dean's campaign and his supporters will be guarding vigilantly against any attempt by Gephardt to exploit caucus procedures to their advantage. Many are predicting the battle between Gephardt and Dean to be close. If so, the irony is that caucus-goers who initially favor neither of them could decide the winner -- and it will be their second choices, not their first, that prove decisive. Thomas F. Schaller is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Maryland-Baltimore County. © Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.