Harkin Poised for Big Caucus Victory in Iowa

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin took an early lead in his home state’s Democratic caucuses Monday night in the first presidential contest of the 1992 campaign.

With 1% of the caucus results tabulated, Harkin had the only precinct delegates so far; none of his rivals had any.

Harkin was widely expected to win; the only question was whether he would meet the high expectations he set when he said that he would do better than any presidential candidate has ever done in the state caucuses--including Jimmy Carter’s record 59% in 1980.

Since he announced his candidacy last September, Harkin has spent just 11 days in Iowa, focusing most of his attention on the New Hampshire primary to be held one week from today. His four major rivals for the nomination--Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, former Massachusetts Sen. Paul E. Tsongas and former California Gov. Edmund G. (Jerry) Brown Jr.--have virtually conceded the Iowa contest to him.

As a result, these are the first Iowa caucuses in 20 years that are expected to have little effect on the presidential race. Harkin is not likely to benefit from the “Iowa bump” that winning candidates often get as they head into New Hampshire.

The impact on the political process itself could be profound. New Hampshire voters tend to be less liberal and less devoted to traditional Democratic ideology than Iowa caucus-goers. This has affected the issues debate and boosted Clinton’s prospects in Iowa in the process. Because he did not have to mute his message to placate traditional Democrats, he acquired an aura of electability--at least until the recent controversy over his character.

Harkin spent the last weekend campaigning hard in Iowa’s big and small towns, reminding his supporters that it’s still important for them to attend their caucuses. “I think there’s a lot of people out there who say, ‘Ah, Harkin’s going to win, what the heck, why do we have to go there?’ ” he told a cheering Des Moines audience over the weekend. “But I need a strong showing Monday night. I need you at those caucuses--and bring your friends.”

State Democrats have predicted that only 30,000, or about 5% of the party’s registered voters, would turn out for the caucuses. That contrasts with 120,000, or 20%, four years ago.

The caucus process itself discourages turnout. Unlike a primary, in which a voter can cast a ballot secretly and quickly, caucus-goers must make their stand in front of friends and neighbors. Democrats gather at neighborhood firehouses, churches and schoolrooms for 2,116 precinct caucuses, the first in a four-step process to choose 49 delegates to the national convention. They “vote” by standing in the area of the room designated for their candidate. The public nature of the process can lead to debates, pressure and intimidation.

Caucus rules require that supporters of any candidate who is not chosen by at least 15% of those present must disband and join another group. So, Harkin’s opponents say, their supporters might be deterred from participating because their effort could be worthless.

“We don’t want to put them through that,” said Craig Smith, Clinton’s deputy campaign manager. “It’s very hard in a public forum such as a caucus to stand up and say, ‘I’m not for the hometown boy.’ ”

State Republicans also held their caucuses Monday night, but because neither of President Bush’s major challengers campaigned in Iowa, the party decided not to hold its traditional straw poll. Republicans chose delegates who did not have to state a presidential preference, but they are virtually certain to support Bush rather than Patrick J. Buchanan or David Duke.

Harkin’s campaign did some work to lower expectations last week, noting that several other candidates have bases of support in the state. Kerrey is well known in western Iowa because that part of the state watches Omaha television stations, they said. Polls have also shown that Clinton’s status as the apparent front-runner in New Hampshire has had an effect among Iowa Democrats.

Brown visited the state for a few days last month in an effort to slip into second place. And Tsongas has actually spent more time campaigning in Iowa than any other candidate--including Harkin--because he entered the race months before Harkin did.

Harkin campaign manager Tim Raftis argued that his candidate should get a boost from winning in Iowa because it is an affirmation from his home-state voters, whom he described as very independent and well aware of the other campaigns.

“You have to ask for their support for President,” he said. “This is not machine politics.”

The difference between the 1988 campaign and this year’s is stark. Four years ago, for example, a little known Midwesterner staked his presidential hopes on a toughly worded television commercial that bashed Korea for allegedly closing its markets to U.S. products.

The result? As the clock ticked down in the first showdown state for the Democratic contenders, Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt accelerated from the back of the pack to the head of the polls faster than one of the Hyundai cars he threatened with new tariffs.

Cut to 1992. Another little-known Midwesterner, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, is faltering in the first showdown state. With his new media advisers--the same ones who crafted Gephardt’s “Hyundai” ad--he designs a toughly worded television commercial in which he stands on an ominously empty ice hockey rink and bashes Japan for allegedly closing its markets to U.S. products.

The result? “Hyundai on Ice”--as the ad was instantly dubbed--sent Kerrey’s poll numbers skidding, not soaring, and eventually even the candidate dubbed it a “mistake.”

The difference? In 1988, the first showdown between the Democrats took place in Iowa, a state where a relatively strong union movement and a heartland tradition of insularity provide a sympathetic audience for protectionism. In 1992, the first meaningful contest is taking place in New Hampshire, a state where union members are almost as rare as an early thaw, and a Yankee trading tradition still dilutes the urge to close markets.

“If we had been running the ad in Iowa it might have had a different impact,” said Harrison Hickman, Kerrey’s pollster.

Kerrey’s experience illuminates a basic fact about the chase for the Democratic nomination: Precisely because the road to New Hampshire did not run through Iowa this year, the Democratic contest in 1992 differs significantly from any in the last 20 years.

But if Iowa’s presence is not being felt in the Democratic race, its absence is. For the Democratic contenders, Iowa’s devaluation has already changed the nature of their debate--and so heightened New Hampshire’s importance that the results in next Tuesday’s primary could cripple a majority of the field.

In some respects Iowa and New Hampshire are similar staging grounds. Demographically these two small states are equally unrepresentative in their homogeneity: Iowa is 97% white, New Hampshire 98%.

But, analysts say, the party activists who turn out for the Iowa caucuses tend to be more liberal than the New Hampshire primary electorate--which includes independents as well as registered Democrats. That ideological gap is reinforced by the inherent difference between campaigning in caucus and primary states.

Because a caucus state puts a premium on organization, the Democratic candidates in 1988 devoted enormous energy to wooing Iowa groups that claimed the muscle to turn out voters. That magnified the impact of unions, environmentalists and peace groups--organizations that have generally tried to hold the line against deviations in traditional Democratic approaches.

Because they have not had to woo those Iowa constituencies this time, analysts say, the Democratic candidates have had more freedom to deviate from party orthodoxy.

That has probably most helped Clinton. Many Democrats say Clinton, who has largely built his campaign on a re-examination of historic Democratic approaches, would likely have felt much more pressure to soften his heresies in the barns of Iowa than he has in the living rooms of New Hampshire.

The elimination of Iowa as a serious contest has changed the race in other respects. Not only is Iowa more protectionist and keener about agricultural issues than New Hampshire, but its strong network of peace activists has demanded the candidates debate the most abstruse dimensions of arms control and foreign policy.

That pressure to articulate a comprehensive vision of world affairs is almost nonexistent in New Hampshire. To the delight of many Democratic strategists, New Hampshire’s priorities have forced the candidates to address economic concerns to the exclusion of virtually everything else.

“Finally we’ve gotten the political process back to the issues that are important in people’s lives,” says Frank Greer, Clinton’s media adviser.

The effective removal of Iowa from the calendar could change the race’s strategic environment even more fundamentally. In the past, New Hampshire has provided a second chance for eventual nominees who stumbled out of the gate in Iowa, such as Ronald Reagan in 1980, and both George Bush and Michael S. Dukakis in 1988.

Now, with money tight for all the contenders, many Democratic analysts believe that several of the candidates face the grim prospect of being effectively eliminated from the race with a poor showing in New Hampshire.

Because the calendar quickly turns toward his native South, Clinton has at least the potential to bounce back from a disappointing finish, most observers believe. That’s not necessarily true for Kerrey, Harkin, Tsongas or Brown. If Clinton can surmount the controversies surrounding his personal life to win a convincing victory in New Hampshire next week, many analysts believe, the Democratic race could be virtually decided, unless a late entrant joins the field.

That creates a possibility disturbing to many party insiders: Although the Democrats have resolutely refused to create a national primary in their quadrennial tinkering with party rules, Harkin’s candidacy has created the circumstances in which New Hampshire could function as just that.

“The irony is that the senator from Iowa could basically give us a national primary in New Hampshire,” says Democratic strategist Bill Carrick.

Lesher reported from Des Moines and Brownstein from Manchester, N.H.