Washington Wednesday: What makes a caucus different from a primary?

NICK EICHER, HOST: It’s Wednesday the 10th of January, 2024.

Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Nick Eicher.

PAUL BUTLER, HOST: And I’m Paul Butler. First up, Washington Wednesday.

Or perhaps today Iowa Wednesday.

The first-in-the-nation caucuses are now just five days away. And the fifth presidential debate of the primary cycle takes place in just a few hours in Des Moines.

EICHER: As we await the only poll that matters, here’s what the others have said so far:

An average of recent national polls has former president Donald Trump up 50 points on Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley who are now essentially tied for second place barely in double digits at about 11 percent support.

As for polls of Iowa voters, well, the margins are smaller, but still not what pollsters would call close. Trump enjoys 51 percent support, and Governor DeSantis is second with 19 percent, despite winning the endorsement of Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds.

Joining us now to talk further is Mark Caleb Smith. He’s a political science professor at Cedarville University, a Christian school in Cedarville, Ohio.

BUTLER: Good morning, professor, welcome back

MARK CALEB SMITH: It's always a pleasure to be with you. Thank you.

BUTLER: Let’s start with this perennial question ahead of the Iowa caucuses: What is the difference between a caucus-based nominating process and a conventional primary election?

SMITH: It's different, no question about that. And certainly, if you talk to the people from Iowa, they will highlight those differences for you. A primary is just like any other election, you know, you show up, they check to see whether your name is on the right list, they may check for ID or whatever the state and local regulations are. And then you'll just simply go cast a vote and you'll be done with it and walk out the door. A caucus is a little bit more involved. There have been different stages of caucuses over the years, and so some are more elaborate than others. But at minimum, you need to show up and be prepared to hear speeches, be prepared to hear representatives from the campaign's talk at length about the virtues of their preferred candidate. And then you will be given an opportunity to sort of sort yourself into the group that you want to sort yourself into. So there is a public nature of a caucus, that makes it a little bit different than sort of your traditional secret ballot approach to a primary. 

There's also obviously some persuasion that can take place within that caucus setting, and maybe even some group effects where you, you know, sort of see friends and family go one direction, and maybe you decide to head that direction as well. Or maybe you're one of those obstinate Midwesterners who says, You know what, I'm gonna go my own way. And you just choose to do that. And so there are differences. Now, historically, there would be more, there'll be several meetings, potentially. But generally, for this Iowa caucus, we're looking at the one set of meetings, it will take longer, it'll be speeches, and just a little different format than what you're used to.

EICHER: So do you think that this process, the caucus process is one that should be more emulated? I mean, it seems like they're a bit more politically active or informed in the process, then, perhaps some of our more traditional primary voters?

SMITH: I kind of like the idea. I mean, I'm not going to pretend that my answer is politically correct, so let's be very clear about that. But I kind of like the idea of putting some barriers in the place of participation in these kinds of contests. So you know, I'm not a big fan of you being able to just show up on the day of a primary, for example, and register as a Republican or register as a Democrat, and then just walk in and choose a presidential nominee. And so a caucus-like setting in my mind, that requires a little bit of effort and intentionality, and some deliberation, I think that would be all for the good. Now, of course, you measure that against the other values that are at work, where we're looking for equal access, we want to lower the barriers as much as possible, provide as many votes as possible, well, that's where you see tension in how we approach the the nomination process. So I kind of liked the caucus format, personally. But I'm under no illusion that it's going to spread like wildfire, from Iowa to the rest of the country.

BUTLER: Some pros and cons there. So in a caucus in Iowa, is that a winner-take-all situation?

SMITH: No, it's not a winner take all. They distribute delegates based on a percentage of votes. And so it isn't just as if Donald Trump wins one more vote than DeSantis, he walks away with 100% of the outcome. They'd be proportionally divided up there. So there are benefits to coming in second, at least in terms of the overall delegate counts. Obviously, from a media perspective, coming in second, or coming in third, or coming in first, can carry a very different kind of weight. And so a large victory, for example, may actually be more important in the media environment than it is in terms of the number of delegates you do or don't get. And so yeah, not a not a winner take all system, and how those are distributed can have a pretty significant effect.

EICHER: Iowa has long been known as the kick-off state for both Republicans and Democrats for the presidential nomination process with its caucus, followed by the New Hampshire primary the following week, but that is no longer the case within the Democratic party.

Last year, they restructured their calendar so its first primary is now South Carolina on February 3rd, although Democrats in New Hampshire contest that decision and are sticking to their January 23rd primary date. Now Mark, how did these two small states become so important in presidential elections?

SMITH: You know, for those of us of a certain age, we can't think of a world where Iowa and New Hampshire weren't this kind of dominant role in our nomination season, but that really started in 1972, and it cemented in 1976. The 1968 Democratic Convention was tumultuous, there was a police riot that took place in Chicago. The convention itself was violent inside and outside. And so the Democrats decided to revise their entire system, and they created a brand new approach, the McGovern Frasier framework, which the Democrats embraced, and it created a primary/caucus kind of system. And Iowa, New Hampshire just were sort of there, and they were the first ones that were scheduled. And they've been first since then. The Republicans adopted the same format. And I, you know, for a while it didn't really cement to people how much influence this really gave Iowa and New Hampshire because on its face, you're just like, well, it's just a few delegates, and we're looking at a lots of contests that unfold. But what we find out is those first couple of ones are really important for momentum, and really critical for setting the stage for the rest of the contests. And so this is a matter of historical almost accident. And as you can imagine, New Hampshire and Iowa jealously hang on to, or at least are trying to jealously hang on to their accidental role.

BUTLER: Turning our attention now to this year's election. As we mentioned, Trump has a huge lead in the polls. It would seem that for any of his challengers to have a chance of beating him, this has to become a two-person choice. One candidate has to consolidate the non-Trump vote, if you will. So is that what this race is about for the challengers?

SMITH: Yeah, I think that it is. I mean, I think that everyone's kind of known that this is how this is going to unfold for quite a few months, now. There was a moment earlier in 2023, where the president, former president, I should say, was vulnerable. And it looked like DeSantis may actually be eclipsing him in the polls. But that has long since passed. And so now we really are looking for a consolidation of some sort. And we're really early in the process to be talking about consolidation. 

But I think the fear is for those who are challenging former President Trump that if they don't consolidate quickly, there just won't be enough time to really take him on and win enough delegates to have a significant effect. And so I think Iowa, in particular, is a race for second. My guess is if Ron DeSantis finishes third, he's out of the contest, probably altogether at that point. If Nikki Haley doesn't at least finish a strong second in New Hampshire, she's probably out of the contest, at least effectively out of the contest, I think at that point, as well. And so you can kind of see a lane for each of them to win this thing. But it's a really narrow lane, and things have to break the exact right way, and has to start in Iowa, New Hampshire.

EICHER: So looking ahead to tonight’s debate, Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley are the only challengers who qualified to be on the stage, and Trump is once again sitting out. What do DeSantis and Haley need to accomplish tonight as they make their pitch to Iowans and Republicans across the country?

SMITH: I think when you look at how they've conducted their campaign so far, both of them started with the understanding that they could take out the other people, and then turn their targets on Trump. And so I think for the most part, you've seen them do that for most of these debates up until now. Within the last week or two, you get a real sense, I think, from DeSantis and Haley, that they do recognize if they're ever going to make any progress, they're gonna have to peel away some Trump supporters. And so they've been more aggressive in their approach to Donald Trump, while they're still being aggressive toward one another. And so I expect that to continue to be the case in the upcoming debate. It'll be combative. It'll be feisty. They're going to argue they're in the best position to beat Joe Biden. But I think when we look back on this, and let's if we assume that President Trump goes forward to win the nomination, we're going to all question that strategy up front, you know, really, should they have been so cautious in their approach to Trump while really targeting one another? I would argue that was not the right approach, but we'll see.

BUTLER: Mark Caleb Smith from Cedarville University. Professor, thanks so much!

SMITH: It is always my pleasure. Thanks to you and thanks to your listeners.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.