A revolution in the way Democrats elect a president (2023)

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. Although it has been corrected by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the audio of the episode before citing this transcript, and email transcripts@nytimes.com if you have any questions.

From the New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is the "Diary".

[PLAYING MUSIC]

For the last 50 years, the way the Democratic Party chooses its presidential candidate has been profoundly shaped by the state where the process begins: Iowa. Today, why in the next few days, are the Democrats poised to abandon that tradition? My colleague, Adam Nagourney, explains.

[PLAYING MUSIC]

It's Thursday, February 2.

Adam, tell us about this meeting that's about to start in Philadelphia.

So the Democratic National Committee, which is essentially the governing body of the Democratic Party, is about to meet in Philadelphia for its annual meeting. And those meetings tend to be a bit boring, if I may say so...

- but there is something really controversial and, I would say, historically important on the agenda this time. And that's what the Democratic National Committee will debate and vote on on a proposal submitted by President Biden for a major overhaul of the 2024 presidential nomination schedule.

And while this can make your eyes glaze over, it is quite significant and important. Because what that means is that Iowa, which was the first state in that process since 1972, is about to be knocked out of that position.

Wow.

Yes, there is nothing more constant in American politics than Iowa going first. It's just what you do. For someone like me who has been covering this stuff for a long time, it's really impressive. It is a true moment of transition.

And it reflects the reality, which has become more and more true over the years, that Iowa simply doesn't represent the Democratic Party anymore. It just doesn't make sense anymore for the Democratic Party to start the entire nomination process that will eventually elect a candidate for president in a place like Iowa.

Well, Adam, how did we get to this system, this early Iowa system, which many in the party now feel is meaningless and in need of a major overhaul? What is the story behind?

You know, as with many things in politics, this was a solution to a previous problem.

To understand why we are where we are today, you have to go back to 1968.

So that was the year the Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago.

And the country was convulsed by malaise.

There was anger over the Vietnam War.

And many Democratic voters wanted the party to nominate a candidate who would end the war in Vietnam.

But back then, voters didn't have much say in the process. It was the party bosses who met behind the scenes to choose the nominee. So all those jokes about smoky back rooms where deals are struck and decisions made, well, that was true. It really happened, and so ended the party with Hubert Humphrey.

And Hubert Humphrey was not a candidate who was about to end the war.

Humphrey lost the election to Richard Nixon, and the backlash against the Democratic establishment was intense. People were very upset that the party chose someone who did not represent the sentiments of many voters, and the party responded by creating a commission to rewrite the nomination process. And that's what resulted in a series of state-by-state contests in which voters, not party bosses, would have a say in who would be nominated.

[PLAYING MUSIC]

And why was Iowa chosen to go first?

It was never a decision that we, the Democratic Party, should start in Iowa. It wasn't like the committee looked at the whole country and said, heh, Iowa is the most representative state for the Democratic Party and so we should do this first. No, it was just a matter of logistics. And that's because Iowa has a very long and, dare I say, complicated process in choosing its presidential candidate.

Mm-hmm.

Most states have a primary. On any given day, the voter goes to the polling place, votes for whoever he wants and goes to her house. Is that. But not Iowa. Iowa has something called a caucus.

Okay, and remind us how this works: a caucus.

On Monday nights, voters who want to weigh in on their party's candidate must go to venues, churches, schools, and sometimes even people's living rooms. And you go in there and you're gathered in groups of people who support the various candidates, right? And you make a case for why you're voting for who you're voting for.

And each candidate has to reach a certain threshold of support. And if he or she doesn't, the candidate walks out and the voters shuffle the room and, after a bit of debate and discussion, end up with one of the other candidates. So it's a long process.

GOOD.

So to make the schedule, to get on schedule, Iowa had to start early. And starting early meant being the first to make sure everything got done on time. It just happened. And then once it happened, it was hard not to.

Understood. So this is really a matter of logistics and, in a way, Iowa's inefficiency.

This right. And the first time it happens is 1972. But the first time it really matters is 1976, because that's when something really remarkable happened in the Democratic Party.

There were 17 candidates seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. And one of them was a little-known former peanut farmer from Georgia, the governor...

Jimmy Carter called. And Carter realized that if he did well in Iowa, the first state in this relatively new nomination process, he could show the party and the world that he was a truly viable candidate.

And he also realized that Iowa was a place where you could win just by producing.

Just going door to door, meeting people...

He understood that by doing this, he would build the kind of personal connection and loyalty that he would need in order for his constituents to show up in the caucus system we talked about and participate in that coming and going.

So lo and behold, Carter beat out every other candidate, with a level of support that surprised many Democrats by how well he did. And people would look back and never forget the lesson of Iowa in 1976. It just goes to show that someone who isn't very well known can use the state nomination system to become a national political figure.

Good. Then all of a sudden Iowa, that kind of accidental naming contest for first place in the country, shows that it can be a decisive kingmaker, because, of course, that former peanut farmer Jimmy Carter becomes not just to become the Democratic nominee, but to win the presidency itself.

This right.

And so Iowa showed again how it could help catapult a candidate to the forefront of the Democratic nomination process.

In this case, it was a relatively new senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.

What's important to remember about Obama that year is that certainly at the end of 2007, going into 2008, very few people thought he could win the nomination.

He was very inexperienced.

let me get you some water, boys. [COUGH]

Frankly, at least initially, he wasn't a particularly good candidate, as I can attest by watching him in those early days.

He was a bit distant. It was a bit professorial. All those jabs at him that used to piss him off were a real thing.

But he took a page from Jimmy Carter.

And he spent months going to all these little events in Iowa, in living rooms and churches.

He took advantage of this period to learn what was important and learn to say what he believed.

GOOD.

And then -

- There was a very, very famous political dinner that's on the Iowa calendar. And he went there, and he blew the roof off the place.

And that totally and dramatically changed the dynamic of the race.

And he kept winning.

It was a candidate training school, right? This is an important thing to remember about small states like Iowa. That made him a better candidate.

Good. As I recall, Adam, during this period, there's not much doubt that Iowa's place as number one in the country is secured. But more and more questions are beginning to arise about whether Iowa is the first to be a good idea.

And I say this because, in the next presidential election, in 2012, I end up joining you in Iowa as a political reporter for The Times, and I remember these questions became a priority.

Yes. It was impressive, because Iowa, this predominantly white state, had just voted for a black man to be the Democratic presidential nominee. But it was hard to get around the fact that this state was not representative of the Democratic Party, so what was the point of a state like this being such a critical part of the Democratic nomination process?

The other thing that was going on was that Iowa was pulling away from the Democratic Party in the general election. There was a time when it was at least a purple state, a state that was up for grabs. But increasingly, it was becoming a red state.

GOOD.

The Democrats were still preparing to go there. Every once in a while, there's a Democratic candidate who says, I'm not going to campaign there, and then he loses.

So it became something you just did because you did it, right? And then comes 2020.

And we see an implosion in the Iowa caucus system.

Right, there was this total collapse. I was there. I watched. State election officials tried to streamline the process by using an app to report results, but they didn't test it ahead of time and it just didn't work.

And then things totally went wrong that night.

That same. And the state became a laughing stock, right?

It took, what, three weeks before they could finally decide on a winner? The person who ended up winning the Iowa caucuses was actually another rather unknown candidate: an Indiana mayor named Pete Buttigieg. No one really thought he had a chance to win the Democratic nomination, and this time they were right.

Good. In 2020, Iowa was the ultimate for a kingmaker after all the count was made. As you said, the person who won the nomination was Joe Biden, who, as I recall, came in fourth in Iowa. So the conclusion of almost all Democrats, except perhaps those who won the Iowa caucuses, is that Iowa not only he is incompetent when it comes to counting votes, but he is totally out of sync with the rest of the party.

That's right, Michael. And I think the other part was that they realized that, with a few exceptions (Barack Obama being one of them), it had been out of sync for a long time. I mean, for all the hype that the reporters gave it, speaking of how important it is, the fact is that it wasn't a barometer of where the party was.

From time to time, it lived up to their expectations, but more often than not, it didn't. And then in 2020, it was just this accumulation of all these reasons, that's enough. And so it comes to this moment in Philadelphia, where the Democratic National Committee is about to close its doors to the Iowa caucuses.

We'll be back.

So Adam, what exactly is the Democratic Party's proposal to replace Iowa as the nation's first nominating contest?

Well, first of all, this is President Biden's idea and his recommendation to the Democratic caucus. So the plan being considered now would be for South Carolina to be the first state in the country to vote for Democratic presidential candidates.

And what is the reason for choosing South Carolina, among all the possible options in the country?

Well, the main reason is because it's more representative of the Democratic Party and more representative, I would say, of the country. It has a much larger black population, and that makes a lot of sense for a party like the Democratic Party, where black voters are a large part of its base.

The second reason is that South Carolina has a primary. It is not a workbench, which means that the results will be more efficient and clear. You don't have the problem, or you probably won't have the problem, that we had in Iowa, where it takes weeks to find out who really won. And I think all of that was very attractive to President Biden and the Democratic National Committee.

Good. This all makes some sense. But it's worth saying, Adam, that President Biden may have another reason for choosing South Carolina, which has really resurrected his 2020 bid, which was doing pretty poorly in places like Iowa during the nomination process. In fact, many people would argue that without South Carolina, Joe Biden could never have become the candidate or president.

That same. I think part of it is rewarding South Carolina for what happened in 2020. But part of it is something that he always believed in: that the Democratic Party was much more diverse and that a state like South Carolina represented it more. .

So it's a combination of political pragmatism, rewarding a state that served him well, but noticing how the party and the country are changing, and that made a lot more sense, in his opinion, not just for him, but for the party. , for the nomination to start in a state as diverse as South Carolina.

Mm-hmm. Then, of course, I remember what happened in 1968 when the party was trying to solve a problem. That effort to solve one problem inevitably created a new problem, which was Iowa, this predominantly white state, having a lot of trouble counting the votes. Do Democrats fear that this new effort to solve one problem could create even more new problems?

Yes, I think you are referring here to the law of unintended consequences, which means that everything a party does has some consequence that you and I can never imagine. I'll tell you what I think is fair to think here.

There were problems with Iowa. No question about it. But there was something about it that allowed the unexpected to happen, and the obvious example is Jimmy Carter catapulting onto the national stage, or Barack Obama becoming the Barack Obama we know.

And obviously that doesn't happen with every candidate, but the possibility was always there, and I think that's what drew Democrats to go there. And I think we could lose that in a state like South Carolina.

Because? Why are we likely to lose this in South Carolina?

Well, a few reasons. One is that South Carolina is a larger state in terms of population. There are over two million people in South Carolina. So the idea of ​​the kind of intimate campaign, getting to know the voters, addressing the problems that we saw in Iowa, it just can't happen in South Carolina.

And here's another point I'd like to make here about Iowa: It's a caucus. It is not primary. And it requires a certain level of commitment from the voters, because they have to show up at a certain time at two o'clock on Monday afternoon, and they have to stand up and say why they are supporting who they are. secondary. - or at least stand up and say who they're rooting for.

It requires a certain level of connection and commitment. And many candidates will tell you that this will only happen if you meet the voter in person, not once, but multiple times, right? And that's a big part of Iowa culture.

And that will not be the case in South Carolina. Even if you want to do that, it's too big. And that's the downside of South Carolina.

Fascinating. And what exactly do we think losing all that might mean, in practice, for the candidates seeking the nomination? I mean, if they don't get that level of voter intimacy in a place like Iowa, what does that mean in practice?

I mean, it could mean the world is just changing and people like me who have covered politics in the past should get over it. But -

— a candidate in Iowa can spend months building traction, coming in as an unknown and methodically working across the state, so they have name recognition in the end, right? And they're a strong contender, at least in terms of people knowing who they are.

That will not be the case in South Carolina. I think there will be a real prize for candidates who have name recognition, who are already well known. And that also means candidates who have money, who can buy name recognition, who can put their ads on TV and let people know who they are. That's the price of being in South Carolina.

So the risk here is that this time change could limit the type of candidate who has a high chance of winning the Democratic nomination. He's saying that if that candidate doesn't have a lot of name recognition and a lot of money, his chances now, in this new system, are just less.

That same. Politics is very random. You never know what will happen. I wouldn't rule it out completely. But it's going to be a lot harder for an unknown candidate to come from the back of the pack and suddenly win a primary. Because if you are not known, you will need money to be known by the voters. And that is an obstacle. That is a real pitfall.

Good. But of course the type of candidate who is clearly benefited by this change is a candidate like Joe Biden, right? I mean, he's a sitting president who's up for re-election, we think, and he's got all these advantages of that timeline: great name recognition, nobody has more name recognition than the sitting president, and a huge war chest for Same reason: A lot of Democrats have given him a lot of money, so some people will no doubt see this new schedule as some sort of Biden incumbency protection program.

Yes, in a way. But I think you want to give Biden his due. I'm not sure if that's what brings you here. I mean, I think he really believes that the system is unfair and that he doesn't represent the Democratic Party.

But I think you talked about reevaluating it every four years. Considering how difficult this has been to happen, is this the first time in, what, 50 years? I wouldn't count on that happening. Let's say it. Once done, it's done, at least for a few cycles. That is sure.

Mm-hmm. It seems, Adam, that there is a certain kind of irony in the direction of all this. Because the party has been having this internal debate for decades about who chooses its candidate. And in '68, the decision was to take that power away from the party bosses, as you described it to us, and hand it over to the voters of the Democratic Party.

But then the voters who were given a lot of power, in places like Iowa, turned out to be mostly white and rural, leading to this latest overhaul, again, about who picks the candidate. And the answer this time is to open the door to a more diverse voter group that better reflects the party.

But by doing that, based on everything you just told us, we could end up with a system that leaves this more diverse set of voters with fewer options, and this is the ironic part, right? Potentially fewer applicants, or at least fewer types of applicants, right?

Yes. I mean, I think that's exactly right. And I think that's the trade-off that the Democratic Party, at this point, is willing to make: that it finds the idea of ​​Iowa as the beginning of the nomination process so problematic, that it's willing to make concessions like that. to get a nomination process that starts in a state like South Carolina. And we'll see what works. It may work, it may not. But it's a trade they're willing to make.

And if it doesn't work, they'll change and we'll get you back.

That same. I'll be back for the next one.

Well, Adam, thank you very much.

Thank you, Miguel. I appreciate your time today. That was a pleasure. [PLAYING MUSIC]

We'll be back.

This is what you need to know today.

In Memphis on Wednesday, Tire Nichols, the 29-year-old who died after being severely beaten by police, was eulogized by family members and Vice President Kamala Harris.

In emotional comments, Nichols' mother and stepfather recalled the trauma of learning their son had been killed by police, then watched a video that contradicted what officers said happened at the scene.

it was very, very difficult. He was surrounded by lies, deceit, trying to cover it up. But as they say, what is done in the dark will always come to light.

And daylight is justice for Tyre.

Today's episode was produced by Alex Stern, Stella Tan, and Nina Feldman. It was edited by Rachel Quester, contains original music by Marion Lozano, Dan Powell, Diane Wong, and Chris Wood, and was designed by Chris Wood.

Our theme song is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk from Wonderly.

That's it for "El Diario". I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.