This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/upshot/2020-election-fewer-caucuses-bernie.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Fewer States Will Have Caucuses in 2020. Will It Matter? Fewer States Will Have Caucuses in 2020. Will It Matter?
(3 days later)
Caucuses have long been the bane of the political establishment and a boost to activist-backed presidential candidates, whether it’s Ted Cruz on the right or Bernie Sanders on the left.Caucuses have long been the bane of the political establishment and a boost to activist-backed presidential candidates, whether it’s Ted Cruz on the right or Bernie Sanders on the left.
But the establishment is getting a bit of a break for 2020. In this cycle, caucuses are dwindling.But the establishment is getting a bit of a break for 2020. In this cycle, caucuses are dwindling.
Democratic National Committee rules now encourage states to use a government-run primary, where more people participate, and to increase participation in the caucuses that remain. The package of rules reforms from the committee was approved by Sanders allies last year, including a big reduction in the power of superdelegates.Democratic National Committee rules now encourage states to use a government-run primary, where more people participate, and to increase participation in the caucuses that remain. The package of rules reforms from the committee was approved by Sanders allies last year, including a big reduction in the power of superdelegates.
Caucuses tend to be dominated by the most motivated, engaged and informed voters, who also tend to be more ideologically consistent. The opportunity to participate is limited; voting usually occurs at a single time, rather than at any point during a day. The format also can burden voters in ways that deter participation: Caucuses can last for hours, and can require voters to publicly disclose their vote.Caucuses tend to be dominated by the most motivated, engaged and informed voters, who also tend to be more ideologically consistent. The opportunity to participate is limited; voting usually occurs at a single time, rather than at any point during a day. The format also can burden voters in ways that deter participation: Caucuses can last for hours, and can require voters to publicly disclose their vote.
Turning out requires extra knowledge, because caucuses are usually held in a different location than a voter’s regular precinct. (As we noted this week, Twitter does not reflect the wider Democratic electorate, which is more moderate. But the overrepresented progressives on Twitter align pretty well with low-turnout Democratic caucuses.)Turning out requires extra knowledge, because caucuses are usually held in a different location than a voter’s regular precinct. (As we noted this week, Twitter does not reflect the wider Democratic electorate, which is more moderate. But the overrepresented progressives on Twitter align pretty well with low-turnout Democratic caucuses.)
Already, the three largest caucus states — Washington, Minnesota and Colorado — have flipped to primaries. So have Utah, Idaho and Nebraska.Already, the three largest caucus states — Washington, Minnesota and Colorado — have flipped to primaries. So have Utah, Idaho and Nebraska.
Two more caucus states — Alaska and Hawaii — are using party-run, rather than government-run, primaries. This switch can increase participation and turnout to levels somewhat more like in a traditional primary, depending on how they are administered.Two more caucus states — Alaska and Hawaii — are using party-run, rather than government-run, primaries. This switch can increase participation and turnout to levels somewhat more like in a traditional primary, depending on how they are administered.
That leaves just six caucus states: Iowa and Nevada — the two highest-turnout caucuses, with Nevada being the only caucus the establishment favorite Hillary Clinton won in 2008 — and Kansas, North Dakota, Wyoming and Maine.That leaves just six caucus states: Iowa and Nevada — the two highest-turnout caucuses, with Nevada being the only caucus the establishment favorite Hillary Clinton won in 2008 — and Kansas, North Dakota, Wyoming and Maine.
Maine is considering the switch, and North Dakota has switched to a so-called firehouse caucus, which is not obviously different from a government-run primary except that it has limited sites.Maine is considering the switch, and North Dakota has switched to a so-called firehouse caucus, which is not obviously different from a government-run primary except that it has limited sites.
Nothing is yet final, but over all less than 5 percent of pledged delegates are set to be awarded by caucuses in the Democratic primary, down from 14 percent in 2016. About a third of those delegates will be decided by minor overseas contests in U.S. territories, like Guam and the Virgin Islands.Nothing is yet final, but over all less than 5 percent of pledged delegates are set to be awarded by caucuses in the Democratic primary, down from 14 percent in 2016. About a third of those delegates will be decided by minor overseas contests in U.S. territories, like Guam and the Virgin Islands.
The remaining caucus states are also adopting rule changes that tend to increase turnout, like absentee or even online voting. It is hard to know how much these will dent the traditional advantages of candidates further to the left, but Mrs. Clinton was also stronger in higher-turnout caucus elections in 2016, winning key early races in Iowa (narrowly) and Nevada.The remaining caucus states are also adopting rule changes that tend to increase turnout, like absentee or even online voting. It is hard to know how much these will dent the traditional advantages of candidates further to the left, but Mrs. Clinton was also stronger in higher-turnout caucus elections in 2016, winning key early races in Iowa (narrowly) and Nevada.
How much will it matter in 2020? Could it help an establishment-backed politician like Joe Biden if he joins the race?How much will it matter in 2020? Could it help an establishment-backed politician like Joe Biden if he joins the race?
The overall effect seems as if it will be pretty modest.The overall effect seems as if it will be pretty modest.
That might be something of a surprise. After all, the effect of having a caucus is substantial. In the last two Democratic primaries, Mrs. Clinton fared about a net 20 points worse in caucuses than primaries, even after controlling for their demographic characteristics.That might be something of a surprise. After all, the effect of having a caucus is substantial. In the last two Democratic primaries, Mrs. Clinton fared about a net 20 points worse in caucuses than primaries, even after controlling for their demographic characteristics.
In 2008, Texas had both a Democratic caucus and a primary, with the caucus awarding one-third of the state’s delegates and the primary awarding the rest. Mrs. Clinton won the Texas primary by 3.5 points, keeping her in the race, but she lost the Texas caucus by 12.5 points on the same day. As a result, Barack Obama, the insurgent candidate, won the most delegates from the state.In 2008, Texas had both a Democratic caucus and a primary, with the caucus awarding one-third of the state’s delegates and the primary awarding the rest. Mrs. Clinton won the Texas primary by 3.5 points, keeping her in the race, but she lost the Texas caucus by 12.5 points on the same day. As a result, Barack Obama, the insurgent candidate, won the most delegates from the state.
Despite the seemingly small overall effect, you could imagine that a victory in a state in 2020 caused by the switch could lift a campaign for a period, affecting public perceptions and the tenor of news coverage. Despite the seemingly small overall effect, you could imagine that a state victory in 2020 caused by the switch could lift a campaign for a period, affecting public perceptions and the tenor of news coverage.
Still, caucuses were worth only a net three percentage points over all to Mr. Sanders (in 2016) and to Mr. Obama (2008) in the pledged delegate count (around a 20-point margin on 14 percent of delegates in each case).Still, caucuses were worth only a net three percentage points over all to Mr. Sanders (in 2016) and to Mr. Obama (2008) in the pledged delegate count (around a 20-point margin on 14 percent of delegates in each case).
If we imagine the 2008 election season being run by the 2020 rules, it is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton could have become the Democratic nominee, even though it was one of the closest nominating contests in history. It would have basically been a tie. If the 2008 election season had been run by the 2020 rules, it is not clear whether Mrs. Clinton could have become the Democratic nominee, even though it was one of the closest nominating contests in history. It would have basically been a tie.
Mrs. Clinton won the primary contests by 50 pledged delegates in 2008. That’s the same margin by which Mr. Obama won the caucuses that are remaining in 2020 (including Alaska, Hawaii and North Dakota, where party-run contests might still exhibit caucus-like features). Mr. Obama most likely still would have won the new primary states as well, albeit by a reduced margin.Mrs. Clinton won the primary contests by 50 pledged delegates in 2008. That’s the same margin by which Mr. Obama won the caucuses that are remaining in 2020 (including Alaska, Hawaii and North Dakota, where party-run contests might still exhibit caucus-like features). Mr. Obama most likely still would have won the new primary states as well, albeit by a reduced margin.
Of course, other strategic factors could have come into play if the 2008 nominating contest had been held with fewer caucuses. But if it is unclear that the new rules would have decided a nail-biter primary in 2008, it seems unlikely that they’ll play a significant role this time.Of course, other strategic factors could have come into play if the 2008 nominating contest had been held with fewer caucuses. But if it is unclear that the new rules would have decided a nail-biter primary in 2008, it seems unlikely that they’ll play a significant role this time.