Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Welcome to the Iowa caucuses, aka the Big Show

Opinion

2020 Iowa Democratic caucus

Iowans gather for the 2020 Democratic caucus.

Ellen Macdonald/Flickr

Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."

There is nothing like the Iowa caucuses. “Grassroots” doesn’t even begin to describe the process; it’s the very foundation of democracy. Registered party members, divided by voting districts, gather in a school, a public facility or a church basement with their neighbors, friends, employers, teachers, etc., anyone in the same party, precinct and ward. Then, once the party roster has been checked, the real “partying” begins.

The Democrats break into camps, divided by the candidate they support, a newcomer welcomed into the fold like a long-lost relative. Recruiting undecided voters, supporters wander from camp to camp, advocating for their candidate. Hands are raised, votes are counted, the top vote-getters move ahead. After a wild dance and much shuffling, realignment takes place, the field is whittled, at last the final results are tallied.

The Republican caucus is more traditional, using a secret-ballot vote, with the winner taking the state. In both caucuses, the parties discuss the national platform, what to support, oppose, challenge. Strong opinions swirl, arguments ensue, everyone is invested, everyone cares.


Iowans have held tremendous influence in the past with their Big Show, the first-in-the-nation caucuses. The caucuses are politics at its best, as Iowan as the famous butter cow at the state fair. Every citizen of the state has the opportunity to meet and assess the presidential candidates. Ninety-nine counties, and the candidates are everywhere.

At least the Republican candidates are here this year, as their in-person caucus has survived.

The Democrats, not so much. This is largely because they bungled the results of the 2020 caucus while trying out a new app designed to glean additional information. It turned out the app didn’t give much information at all, including the identity of the winners. The world waited and watched and waited some more, but in the end Iowa had no timely or tangible caucus results to report.

So, the Big Show is not as big this year, as roughly half of prospective caucus-goers are not traditionally caucusing. The Democrats are conducting their first-ever mail-in caucus, with “preference” cards sent out starting Jan. 12. They will still hold a “traditional Caucus,” but to discuss party business only. The results of this mail-in caucus will be announced on March 5, aka Super Tuesday, basically treating the caucus as one of many primaries that day.

Lest Republicans think they are above such snafus, let us remember 2012 when they, too, muddled their reporting and also threatened the legitimacy of Iowa’s first-in-the-nation status. They could not declare a winner, waffling between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, who each garnered about 25 percent of the vote. In a preliminary report, they declared Romney the winner. Two weeks later they announced the contest was, in fact, a draw. After that, they reversed themselves, and declared Santorum the winner. What?!

Yet, they held on. And on Monday, Jan. 15,, all registered Republicans will have a chance to again caucus in person. This is great news, not only for Iowa but for the election process.

Because those caucus gaffes were simply aberrations, not indications of the system itself. They were not the result of fraud or attempts at disenfranchising the voting process. Ultimately, they were the result of Iowans trying to be utterly thorough and fair in their caucus reporting.

Of course, every person, in every state, has the privilege of becoming involved, not just Iowans with their caucuses or those in early primary states. And involved not just in this election, but in all which impact us as citizens and the issues and people we care about. Engaging in our own life and times and caring enough to affect positive change in the world changes it already.

Iowa’s status has been challenged. It should not be.

Iowans get out, often in “stay at home” weather, to meet the candidates, listen to them, evaluate them. They take their “work” seriously. On Nov. 5, when we vote to choose the best person for arguably the most important job on the planet, thanks Iowans, who will have laid the groundwork.

Read More

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us
Provided

Yes, They Are Trying To Kill Us

In the rush to “dismantle the administrative state,” some insist that freeing people from “burdensome bureaucracy” will unleash thriving. Will it? Let’s look together.

A century ago, bureaucracy was minimal. The 1920s followed a worldwide pandemic that killed an estimated 17.4–50 million people. While the virus spread, the Great War raged; we can still picture the dehumanizing use of mustard gas and trench warfare. When the war ended, the Roaring Twenties erupted as an antidote to grief. Despite Prohibition, life was a party—until the crash of 1929. The 1930s opened with a global depression, record joblessness, homelessness, and hunger. Despair spread faster than the pandemic had.

Keep ReadingShow less
Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Photo illustration by Alex Bandoni/ProPublica. Source images: Chicago History Museum and eobrazy

Getty Images

Millions Could Lose Housing Aid Under Trump Plan

Some 4 million people could lose federal housing assistance under new plans from the Trump administration, according to experts who reviewed drafts of two unpublished rules obtained by ProPublica. The rules would pave the way for a host of restrictions long sought by conservatives, including time limits on living in public housing, work requirements for many people receiving federal housing assistance and the stripping of aid from entire families if one member of the household is in the country illegally.

The first Trump administration tried and failed to implement similar policies, and renewed efforts have been in the works since early in the president’s second term. Now, the documents obtained by ProPublica lay out how the administration intends to overhaul major housing programs that serve some of the nation’s poorest residents, with sweeping reforms that experts and advocates warn will weaken the social safety net amid historically high rents, home prices and homelessness.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

Donald Trump

YouTube

Trump’s Ultimatums and the Erosion of Presidential Credibility

On Friday, October 3rd, President Donald Trump issued a dramatic ultimatum on Truth Social, stating this is the “LAST CHANCE” for Hamas to accept a 20-point peace proposal backed by Israel and several Arab nations. The deadline, set for Sunday at 6:00 p.m. EDT, was framed as a final opportunity to avoid catastrophic consequences. Trump warned that if Hamas rejected the deal, “all HELL, like no one has ever seen before, will break out against Hamas,” and that its fighters would be “hunted down and killed.”

Ordinarily, when a president sets a deadline, the world takes him seriously. In history, Presidential deadlines signal resolve, seriousness, and the weight of executive authority. But with Trump, the pattern is different. His history of issuing ultimatums and then quietly backing off has dulled the edge of his threats and raised questions about their strategic value.

Keep ReadingShow less
From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

fractured foundation and US flag

AI generated

From Fragility to Resilience: Fixing America’s Economic and Political Fault Lines

This series began with a simple but urgent question: What’s gone wrong with America’s economic policies, and how can we begin to fix them? The story so far has revealed not only financial instability but also deeper structural weaknesses that leave families, small businesses, and entire communities far more vulnerable than they should be.

In the first two articles, “Running on Empty” and “Crash Course,” we examined how middle-class families, small businesses, and retirees are increasingly caught in a web of debt and financial uncertainty. We also examined how Wall Street’s speculative excesses, deregulation, and shadow banking have pushed the financial system to the brink. Finally, we warned that Donald Trump’s economic agenda doesn’t address these problems—it magnifies them. Together, these earlier articles painted a picture of a system skating on thin ice, where even small shocks could trigger widespread crisis.

Keep ReadingShow less