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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less