There are lots of different scenarios and several candidates who have enough support . The state that its showing up. One of the things i would want to caution people and say some of the other people here on the panel can talk about this is that survey work is very ifficult these days. I think it is interesting that diane was exactly right, the three top polling are white men, and two qualified women running. Im curious how it will shake out. Im curious heavy second choice picks will come, because there is support for booker, for yang, for klobuchar. Where they go can have a big impact. If they all go to warren, this is a fourway tie. If they all go to biden, it is a runaway victory for biden, so the second place will have a big impact on the final results. Explain why the second place showing in a poll is important to what will happen on caucus night . When i say secondplace, i mean their second choice at the precinct. So, for those of you on the democratic side who havent done this before, what will be different this year is that whenever you make your first pick, if you dont have 15 of the people supporting that candidate, the candidate is considered nonviable, so either you need to get more people to each that threshold and become viable, or you need to go to your second choice. It used to be that there could be multiple alignments and people could do more business. This time, it is one realignment, so that will really limit things. Maybe i really feel good about yang, and he is in viable, now i have to vote biden. That might cause a lot of shifting. What do you say to reporters calling you up saying, how do you see this race . I think the highly contested Republican Donald Trump will win that. Unless something happens between now and caucus night in iran that really shocks people. You have to look at National Polls as well as iowa. Iowa is influential, but a very famous political analyst and journalist once said there were three tickets out of iowa. I think that was you. First class, second class, and the back of the cabin next to the toilets. But if you are seated next to the toilet, and the year is not the right year for the first and second class iowa caucus lacers, you might end up getting the nomination. You might even end up winning he election. So in iowa, you dont have to win. You can come in first, second or third and still do very well politically. I wrote an article for the newspaper you formerly and sadly dont work for anymore, the Des Moines Register which ic has gone into tremendous decline since you left. I blame it all on you. Social media has nothing to do with it. You left, and the thing just collapsed. But i argue this may be one of those wonderful years where we have a brokered convention this summer where nobody has enough delegates and you come in there and have biden, sanders, buttigieg and maybe warren as well coming in with a chunk of delegates and fighting it out on the floor. That would be the greatest thing n my life, to see that happen, not literally fighting . May be literally. The things i hear every four years, it will be the last time iowa will have caucuses and maybe they will be a brokered convention. Well, you heard it again. I did predict earlier without hearing from cbs news that the three top vote getters in iowa at this point in time where the three white guys. Back to what i said earlier, one thing i worry about with the Iowa Caucuses is that it diminishes choices for other states. So, i think kelly made a good point. When i talked about caucus math earlier, and how candidates have been able to use it, thats not as possible this year. When you going, you have to put down your second choice and stick with it. I did see recent data on sanders supporters and their donation giving. Earlier in the campaign you might give to biden, but also to warren and buttigieg. Sanders supporters typically dont have a second choice. So what could happen, as kelly said, with the second choice on these not viable, who do they go to . I think we will see some flocking basically to biden, buttigieg and warren. So, i think there is a couple things to keep in mind here. One, the race is incredibly fluid. Thats a good way to characterize it. It is fluid. Theres a lot of people, a wealth of candidates for the democrats. A a lot of people have a first hoice, but also a second choice, and polling shows they are relatively open to changing their mind. The dynamics of caucus night could do that. Id like to push back about brokered conventions. I think thats a thing to talk about, but probably is rarely going to happen because it is not in a partys interest to get to that point. Even in 2008, Hillary Clinton and barack obama going into june, really late, it didnt go into the convention. Running against an incumbent, it is not in the partys interest to do that, so the party will do the things they need to do. Now, talking about the rule changes and the earlier part of the session here, one of the other things the democrats have done is changed how superdelegates factor in. That could be an issue later on as well. The third thing, to not forget the gop has caucuses also. You could learn really interesting things by looking at he gop caucus. The diehard gop people are the ones who in years when they have incumbents tend to go, but there might also be people who want to show dissatisfaction. Its noticeable the iowa gop hasnt canceled caucuses. Many others stay gops have canceled primaries and caucuses because they dont want to publicize any kind of opposition within the party. These are party events. The gop in order to help them maintain first and the nation status didnt want to do that, didnt want to see the process as being rigged for the incumbent, so there will be gop aucuses. Also, for the democrats and the gop, at a caucus it is more than saying here are the candidates i like, its also about elevating platform planks, governance within the party, electing people to central committees and those types of things. These are important factors, that the National Media never really reports on. These are important in the Party Building aspect of what caucuses are, and the democratic nature of them as well. I wanted to share with our audience, you have spent time since august going from event to event watching the candidates at work, so what is your sense of who is ahead and who is ehind . I have been here since the state fair, and have been tweeting as i go, mainly to keep notes for myself. So, ive probably been to 85 or 90 candidate events at this point. And im no more certain about the outcome than anybody else, as we are looking at this. The poll just reported makes sense to me, kind of tracks with what i think were seeing. Weve been doing some survey Research Work as well, and just did a second wave on that, and its very similar. But whats really, really important here, mentioning the second choice piece, there are key changes to the democratic rules that are going to change the nature of the caucus and what can actually happen on caucus night. In the first half, there was a comment about how barack obama n 2008 sent voters to john edwards groups when they had more than they needed to be viable in a precinct, at least 15 to get a delegate. That can no longer be done. When people come into the Democratic Caucus and express their first preference, they will be locked into that first preference if their candidate is viable. There will be no more moving around for those people. The only people who will be allowed to move are those whose candidates dont get at least 15 in the precinct. That really changes the dynamics of what happens on caucus night, which has a lot to do again with how the delegate counts are reported. The democrats are going to tell us the actual vote counts for the first time, both the initial vote count and what they call the realigned vote count after every candidate who doesnt reach 15 is dropped. So, the media is going to have three different numbers to work with. Im not quite sure where they are going to go with it. I was looking at the cbs poll, where they were emphasizing the number of delegates each candidate would win if poll numbers hold. I would suspect on caucus night the fallback will be what the vote looks like, but the question will be is it the initial vote or the final vote. That means a candidate like Amy Klobuchar, who is unlikely at the moment, although everything can change in the next few weeks, to be viable in many precincts, meaning she will get zero in those precincts on the realigned vote, but she will have had votes in the initial alignment. By saying all this, a, it will be a lot more complicated to even know who the winner is, and b, even after 85plus events, its just not clear to me where iowans are going. One more point about that. In our most recent data, 62 of sanders voters say they are unlikely to change their minds. 56 of bidens. 39 of buttigieg, 33 of warring, and 33 of klobuchar voters say they are certain about who they are voting for. A lot of Movement Still possible here. As the reporter on the stage, i can tell you what number is going to be reported, the one we have first. I think the intention is to release it all. At the same time. Whether they will be able to were not, i dont know. This gets into the discussion about not turning it into a primary. Will the Iowa Democratic party have this information, but sit on it until they have the delegate equivalent number, and release it all at the same time . The problem with that is that the caucuses are open events. Reporters can go to caucuses and watch the count themselves and have anecdotally some idea of what that initial body count is. But reporters will be standing on deadlines, editors, directors, news producers will be screaming at them, whats going on. You go with the first nformation you get, and that shapes the narrative the rest of the evening. That has happened with every caucus i have covered. The republican story in 2012 is a great example. They went with romney, but that is not actually what happened. In 2016, i sat in the media center as midnight came and the democrats had not reported results yet. The party does intend to report all of the numbers at the same time. But we will see if that actually happens. The whole issue of the count is one of the biggest criticisms that has been made of these caucuses, from the very beginning. The counts are spotty, sporadic, not like a primary that is run by government, they are run by party. It is one of the big criticisms. I didnt mean to leave you out of the conversation. Quite fine. This past fall, a reporter asked me, what surprises do you expect . I said, listen to what you just asked me. If it is a surprise, you cant expect it. If we expect it, it is not a surprise. I love what journalists do. I wish we still had newspapers. But i am not interested in the journalistic production of who will come in where. I dont want to hijack your question, but i am more interested in the water than the fish swimming in it. I think what we see right now with the democrats is a continuation of the problem, they still have not figured out who they are in a postreagan era. In the 1990s, i went back and looked at National Party platforms. I looked at the 1992 democratic platform, clinton, republican platform for george h. W. I didnt look at ross perot. I always thought of him a sort of a historical speedbump. But then i looked back at the 1968 platforms, humphrey, nixon and george wallace, whom some see President Trump as the latest iteration of, pat buchanan in between. If you exclude Foreign Affairs, vietnam, and look at social and domestic policy from 1968 and the 1992, when Foreign Affairs at that point were not a big issue, didnt have 9 11 yet, the soviet union was going. The 1992 democratic platform looked very much like the 1968 republican platform, in terms of social and domestic policy. The 1992 platform looked very much like the 1968 wallace platform. And democrats are still trying to figure out who they are, and how to talk about politics beyond just laundry lists of policies. I think we see that right now. There is a mere image going on in the democratic side as we sell with ted cruz and republicans in 2016. You have the warren, sanders arguing for a kind of base election, that we need to win the election by turning out progressives. I hate the terms left and right, but the more progressive kind of liberal. Whereas you have biden, buttigieg, klobuchar saying that there is still a kind of centrist liberalism that will in the election. Thats the big argument right now that we see between those two sets of candidates, playing out to some extent in iowa. How that will play out on election night, i dont know more than anyone else. One other thing i think could impact the race, what is going on in the middle east. It impacted the 2004 race with john kerry. If there is an International Crisis still looming above us, that could help joe biden because hes typically perceived as the person with the most international experience. I see nodding. Venezuela now has finally admitted that maduro is a dictator, because they just shut down the legislature. No more opposition elections. Mr. Guaido, the president of venezuela of the democratic constituency of venezuela, is now finished. I work with a lot of my former venezuelan students on the venezuela democracy project, and this is the end of that. Especially since the Trump Administration will concentrate on the middle east now. Venezuela is too much struggle. All the Foreign Policy challenges. Is their agreement here that the Foreign Policy crisis what do you think works to bidens benefit . To bidens benefit and perhaps buttigiegs as well. Y buttigieg . Because of his military experience, and a fair amount of his stump speech is related to being a leader in the world and kind of that moral american authority. But i think americans have an Attention Span for things that arent in the united states. Some of the economic arguments that are appealing from sanders and warrens side of the party will continue to be important. It really depends. If the situation with iran escalates to the point of we are in a war, that is an advantage for biden, but short of now we are in a war, i dont think it will matter all that much. What do you think . I think that what the democrats may be forced into thinking by all the activity that we see around the world is that their desire to get rid of trump, remove him from office, will lead them to support whichever candidate appears through the information that is available as most likely to be able to do that. At this point, biden. So electability . And beyond electability, there is an existential sort of notion that trump has to be removed, and Many Democrats will determine biden, even if he is not a preferred candidate, may e the only option. In regard that, of course, typically there is a rally around the flag effect with president s if we get into some sort of war. Whether that would occur in this particular case, i dont know. But in terms of the idea of removing President Trump from ffice, there has been an assumption in republican politics for quite a number of years now that no democrat can win an honest and legitimate election, and the corollary to that is that if the democrat appears to have won, it must not have been an honest and legitimate election. So if any of these people beat President Trump, there will be tremendous blowback arguing, his concern even in 2016, i think the process is rigged anyway. So democrats have to face that as well. No matter who wins the election, they will be blowback from the losing side. So the democrats should pick someone who will lose the election so there is no blowback . Not saying that. I want to go back to something you said earlier about the republicans, having caucuses, too. Why . Party building . Well, yes. Every party, when they have an incumbent president and even in the midterm elections the parties have caucuses. These are twoyear events. Typically when you have an election like this, compared to the democrats in 2012, the party diehards will come, but you know obama will get the nomination. Lets assume trump will get the nomination, but the party, the democrats in 2012 for instance, didnt squash opposition if there was any at a caucus to obama. The republicans are running up to that line in some ways. So we have both walsh and weld. Both have experience, legitimate candidates in that sense challenging trump, that will be present in those rooms. What kind of percentage they will get if any in some of these precincts . They will get some in some places, and it will be interesting to see where the support comes from, and how strong it is. I think those are things, data points that will get lost because the attention will be on the democratic side. But i think theres a lot of interesting things that could happen on the republican side, related to that, potentially some platform issues, but those are secondary. I am glad you mentioned that. The caucuses have effects beyond just the president ial race. All politics is local. First of all, they are an important organizing tool. 1984. Senator harkin once told me one of the reasons he won in 1984 was that the democrats had a spirited president ial caucus that year, and he had a wonderful list of names of activists in every precinct and corner of the state, and the republicans didnt have a similar caucus battle. Reagan was getting reelected. So senator harkin said that was a pivotal thing. The proof of that, on caucus night in 1984, that day, president reagan came to iowa and flew into eastern iowa, waterloo i think, did an event, and then flew into the des moines market. Air force one left iowa 30 minutes before the republican caucuses started, which was really brilliant, it sucked all the oxygen of the day out of the democrats and gave it to the republicans. I would not be surprised if we saw air force one in iowa on february 3. If it happens, it is a page out of reagans book. Thats an important point. This time around, the democrats re organizing, knocking on everybodys door in the state apparently, and there are a lot of them, so there are a lot of staff and volunteers. The republicans, even though they will hold a caucus, none of that is happening on the republican side. This may have real repercussions for the senate race in iowa in 2020, for the congressional races, all of which are likely to be competitive races. The democrats will be betterorganized, at least at the front end. And there is a real battle for the control of the iowa house. The legislature. All politics is local. I appreciate the audience member who called that organizing issue o our attention. So, what happens now . What tickets . We talk about who gets tickets out of iowa. I wonder, in this age of money in politics, in the age of social media, if that old rule still works . It is not three tickets out of iowa. Everybody has their own airplane to leave iowa. And, say sanders, biden, buttigieg finish in the top three, Elizabeth Warren gets a fourth ticket out of iowa, the fact is these candidates have so much money now that the original premise in iowa was that you came here, ran to help you raise money to go on to New Hampshire. Now these candidates have my to sustain these campaigns long after iowa. What is the big deal with iowa now if they have plenty of money . This is what the media has to cover, in addition to Everything Else in the middle east on the world. This is the first thing they are covering. If that is attention on i will because when you cover politics, where first . Not because we earned it, but because we are there. The media will cover it. Because things are so divided, there is not a clearcut leader. We have the top three people tied. If that comes out of iowa, this year there will be at least four tickets out iowa. It will be the top four right now. Sanders raised 30 more Million Dollars 34 million, that is enough to finance his campaign hrough june. As we know from 2018, 2016 he will do that. Blue bug bloomberg is buying his weight into it. There will be a bigger impact this year. In the first four states, we could see different results. After we get past those first four states and go into super tuesday, the democratic race will still be modeled. Do things have changed since the Iowa Caucuses started. One, social media as a campaign o a. Second, citizens united, which lifted the cork on money. If there is so much more money around politics. You take that plus the ability to raise money over the internet and small dollars, it changes a lot of the premises for why you wanted to come to iowa. I resent the idea that the more money you have, the better chance you have of winning. That is not necessarily the case. If that is the equation, there are two billionaires running, they should win in iowa and New Hampshire, South Carolina. It is personality, it is connection, it is tradition, it is history. In a New Hampshire, i have a property in New Hampshire, the equation is not very different from iowa. I was going to say, New Hampshire expects every contender to come to their town and their house and their veteran of the foreign wars plays. I go nuts because they come banging on my door on my cabin when i am trying to look at the sunset or something. I am not sure that money is necessarily what is going to get somebody denomination. Is not money, you need to delegates. If you do not get at least 15 support in primaries as well as the caucus, you win no delegates. His is across every democratic event. It is not unique to iowa. If four people come out of iowa at 20 each, maybe a little more, there is nothing left for anybody else in terms of winning delegates. They may continue a Zombie Campaign with their money for a wild, but they will have no realistic shot at winning the omination. As we talked about earlier, if people are not counting delegates, but are counting initial preferences the media does not decide the nominee. If you need a majority of delegates at the convention. No matter what the media is telling us, the issue is how many delegates have you won, and if you do not get at least 15 of the vote at the congressional istrict or state level vote, you will have zero delegates from that state. There is a third fact that a hird factor. I would pose it. Have the dncs debate criteria and these a series of debates had an impact on the caucuses . Have they diminish the importance of the caucuses or amplify them or not bothered them at all . It seems there is something important to look at. What is your answer . I do not have one. It is like a parallel track that in terms of coverage, my initial thought is it dampened attention to the caucuses. I think it has diminish the rule of iowa. It is the dncs debate rules on the field, not people in smalltown iowa expressing references during preferences. I agree. I think it diminish the effect of a caucuses and made it difficult for candidates who maybe could get a foothold in iowa without a lot of money are having to focus on getting these one dollar donations to get on a debate stage to maintain viability for a National Campaign have pushed them out on the field. Cory booker has hung on, he is an example of one that is on the bubble. Julian castro, kirsten gillibrand, some of these candidates that could have done better in iowa have been forced to spend time doing other stuff the party decided to do. Im skeptical that the debates have had much of an impact. I suspect that as we run up to the caucus date, the focus on iowa will be so overwhelming that any memory of the debates will have dissipated. If you recall from the debates, it was Kamala Harris who had the big moment and in the second or third debate, Julian Castro had a moment, and hey are both gone. I think your characterization is a parallel track, it may be more correct. I also think the fact that the democrats have lined up in equence for different events around the country has diminished the singular importance of iowa. One thing is, in an effort to diminish the significance of sidewalk, other states have moved their contests closer to iowa. This has been a pattern. The unintended consequence of that has been to make iowa that much more important because the only way i candidate is going to compete in california is through media. Where do you get media if you do not have a big budget . You win iu up. There is free media. The bounce that comes out of these early states does have an impact. We have candidates that seem to be wellfunded, even Amy Klobuchar, who is running the risk of finishing fourth or below in the first contests, has money to hang on to super tuesday and we have this contribution of bloomberg being able to wait until super tuesday to make his entrance. What i think that does i what will be important, we will talk about it until the day after i well, that we will talk about New Hampshire up until the day after New Hampshire, then we will turn to South Carolina. At that point, the wedding by high what will be done by the first three or four with evada. One factor that enters into this question about should i you are be first and the role it plays is, some candidate is going to win the white house and some partys is going to lose. The winning candidate is likely to be someone who has come through this path. They are sitting in the white house and exciting, why do we want to mess around with changing peoples of a game we just want . In fact, we are sitting in the white house, we will make sure we do well and attend our fences and i was sure we do not get ambushed by a challenge of the primary. As kennedy found with carter, ill clinton found when he shut down and talked of Jesse Jackson in a 1996 over welfare up warm. They do not want to change the rules, they want the party out of power that just lost, two things happen. There is a debate, are we better off with a moderate message or an extreme message . Liberal and the Democratic Party, conservative and the Republican Party there is that argument over why they lost. The second reason they lost is owa. Who gave us this turkey . They blame iowa. There is where you have the argument and the churning begins warmaking reforms. If they go to the rules to the next convention. He next thing that happens is, the two nominees go to the people who want to change the process and say, we got our job to worry about the november election. It is not to worry about the process in four years. We have to keep our eye on the ball. Owa is a test New Hampshire is a battleground state, i want may be. Do not want to alienate those people. At inertia. You never reach a consensus in america on how this process ought to be changed. There are two criticisms. I know you agree with this. Iowa is not diverse enough, how did obama win . The democrats have a liberal perspective in this state. That is the only thing that counts. It does not matter of the state. There are a lot of latinos and fricanamericans here. If obama had not one the caucuses is in iowa, i doubt he would have won the omination. It credentialed him that a state with a lot of nonhispanic voters trusted him. The argument that iowa makes the caucuses so complicated i got an email from a famous political onsultant. People cannot afford to go for two hours at night and participate in caucuses because they are busy and so on. That is why the Iowa Caucuses turn out only about 10 of eligible voters. The pm center has great statistics. Primaries do not turn out many more voters. 12 , maybe 50 . That we have this academic argument, how you do statistics on turnout. Academics are crazy that way. The truth is, stopping at a polling place wherever it is and voting in a primary and not having to spend two hours in a caucus and only taking 10 or 15 minutes to vote in a primary is also too difficult for most people or they are not nterested. I does not really suppress the percentage of people who participate. It doesnt suppress the people who participate. The people who cannot get off work to spend two hours doing a caucus or cannot get childcare to do that and to be people of lower socioeconomic groups, more likely to be women, more likely to be people of color. When you are in a state that is already very white and you are suppressing the number of people of color that can vote, that is disenfranchising that group of people. Ust because i was selected obama does not mean people in this country are well represented by iowa. We have different life experiences. Is iowa a good place for omen candidates . I would say no. Until this last cycle, finally iowa this year has gone up to one third of the women that one third of a legislature is women. For those of us doing work in iowa, getting from and to run in iowa and successfully we had a lot of success in 2018, but there was a around the country. We raised hi what was over 25 of its legislature in my first time here, we got to 33 . That is hard work by organizations for recruiting and supporting women. In 2018, we were able to elect ity a and abby finkenauer. Maybe have more influence because rule areas are onservative. There isnt an argument that the caucuses are undemocratic. Those are valid criticisms. There is another side of that coin which is the caucuses are democratic in the sense that states that hes primaries are doing the same things at the end of the day that we are doing in owa. They are electing delegates to the national conventions. They are electing Party Leadership and platform planks. It happens in a different way and it is probably Smaller Party activists who are doing that in primary states because most people think, i will go to the primary, boat for my candidate, and it is done. If that is not actually what you are doing. You are going to an event and electing delegates to go to the next level of conventions. It there is the indirect process of a National Election with the electoral college. If we think about democracy, when i teach a class and we talk about grassroots democracy, what do we hold up as the pivotal thing . New england town halls. This is like a new england town hall. It is regrettable that there are people who cannot come to those meetings. Those have real implications. At the same time, this is where deliberation takes place, where civic discussion takes place, where Party Governance takes place. That sometimes gets lost in talking about some of the antidemocratic nature of the caucuses. T the same time, there are other democratic aspects as well that we also need to factor in. Democracy in states where these things are taking place, those decisions are being made by a smaller pool of party activists. Let me add, i have done a real politics in new jersey, i was a local elected official, i did activists politics and owa. Even as an elected official, i had no involvement in the state platform or decisions made by the state party. It was a small group of people of insiders. I came to iowa in 1999, a couple of months after getting here i was chairing my first precinct caucus and we were having discussions about the platform and sending things forward. Just to reiterate. Also want to note, no one can argue that iowa voters are descriptively representative of american voters, democrats, even republicans. You cannot make that argument. It is true. No one can argument that the aucuses do not make it difficult for some people to participate. It is a shame at the Democratic National committee unnecessarily spike to the virtual caucus, which would have provided an opportunity for participating outside of the set time and physical location. But Iowa Democrats at least, and some degree republicans, in our research are highly represented, those who caucus, but it is a large turnout, as it was in 008, are highly representative of Iowa Democratic voters as a whole, including on gender, and are ideologically representative of the Democratic Party as a whole nationally. One of the pushbacks we have bunch of white guys left, the nonwhite candidates are also not doing well in South Carolina, where independent campaigns are going on not directly influenced by iowa, but by campaigning. 0 of democratic voters in South Carolina are africanamerican, but none of the nonwhite candidates in South Carolina are pulling more than a it is not a unique situation to iowa that nonwhite candidates have not been doing well. Do think it matters here. I do think in fact there is always some issues revolving around race and gender. But i do not think that is the reason to say iowa should not play the role it plays. I had a huge argument with david y i want to let Dennis Dennis i was going to say a version of what david said. In 2008, when we did the caucus book, i looked precisely at the issue. Yes, iowa is not demographically representative of the country as a whole. However, looking at 2008, Iowa Democrats, though somewhat more dovish than democrats nationwide, pretty well tracked democrats nationwide in terms of what they thought the most important issues were. Iowa republicans were moderately more prolife than republicans nationwide. But they too pretty much tracked where republicans were nationwide. Demography is not necessarily destiny. David y i want to switch gears here in the time we have remaining. One of the things i want to talk about, we sort of handicapped the race and how we see that playing out this is a big field of candidates. Some of them are young enough that they will be around for future campaigns. It is true, many president s get there on their second or third go. Nixon, reagan. Ho in this field of candidates impresses you as someone who may not win, but who is going to be in good shape to run again or becomes comes out of this campaign as an enhanced political figure in america who winds up in the cabinet of the next president or is an enhanced figure . Who is going to be some of the people, may lose on caucus night but will be longerterm winners . The obvious choice is of course buttigieg. His name had been bandied about by democrats, but clearly his ability to mount a National Campaign as the mayor of south end has been impressive. It would suggest he will have a future, although if he does not win and the democrats do not take the white house, exactly where he will be spending this time and what platform will be available to him is uncertain. Castro is another person who, although did not do particularly well this time around, may be able to reformulate his approach and do better next time. But again, there is just so much uncertainty even between now and aucus day, i hesitate to write anybody in or anybody off. David y we are forecasters. I have not gone to the 2020 for race, which has already started in this state. Any names of candidates who are not doing well but you impressed you as people who could be distance runners . Donna there were some who dropped out of that were impressive. Kamala harris made a decision to drop out when she did to not put more resources into the race, to focus on her senate job. Potentially beto orourke i think probably still has things to do. Whether he alienated people or not is maybe a question. With regard even with the people who are not in the race, you have a lot of people who could be chosen for cabinet positions, vice presidency for example. One thing to factor in with the senators in the race, if you have a sitting senator who will be tapped for a cabinet position or Vice President , what are the rules within that state for the appointment process . The senate is in contention. If the republicans have more seats to defend than the democrats do this time around. There will be factors in those alculations. David y any other names come up . The obvious ones are Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris will be you know back. My prediction will be, there will be a woman or a person of color or both on the democratic ticket in one place or another. I will put cory booker as someone we will see more of. I think he is a great vp pick as well. I have been impressed by him. I think he could be an energetic bottom half of the ticket. David y dianne, to your point about it is likely a woman or person of color, Amy Klobuchar comes to mind as someone whose name gest mentioned a lot as a good ticket balancer. Dianne kind of getting to that, i like cory booker, but if the nominee is going to be someone from the east coast, unless it is buttigieg, that is what it looks like right now, then i think the tendency to want to pick someone from the midwest or the southwest another person we havent talked about is stacey abrams. Her name has been bandied about as well and she is a very persuasive speaker. She did a great state of the Union Response in 2018. And so or was it 2019, yeah. She is another person. David y on the republican side, matter what the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses is in 2020, in 2024, republicans will have to come up with a candidate. Either President Trump is finishing his second term or the democrats have won and republicans will need a candidate. Dennis, what sort of republican candidates look like people who might be people who could do ell in iowa . Dennis we have seen nikki haley coming out here. Sure, holly from missouri, senator seems to have an interest, possibly mike lee from utah. Cotton, senator cotton from arkansas. You know, the big name there for the republicans, is it going to be trumpism without trump, or are they going to move in a different direction . They could face their own kind of political civil war after trump. David y we will have to have another panel in four years. There you go. Marco rubio. David y marco rubio . He has been in the news a lot. Explaining what is going on and not quite on trumps side. He is a good speaker and very charismatic. Obviously he is a latino. Just real quickly, democrats still have not finished the generational shift that republicans started some time ago. I mean, if you do the math roughly speaking, Pete Buttigieg could wait eight president ial cycles to run and still be younger than Bernie Sanders and biden and warren are now. Democrats still have to that generational shift. The republicans are ahead of them in it. David y steffen. Steffen, i thought you had i thought i saw your hand. Dianne i think nikki haley on the republican side. There have been predictions that a first woman president will be a republican rather than a democrat. I think she is positioning herself. There is big rumors in nebraska that ben sasse is trying to position himself for a run. Again, coming out of the more he was kind of a trump critic but has dampened that criticism and actually was endorsed by trump for a senate campaign. David y why do you say the first woman president may affect more likely to be republican . Dianne i am going to have to go back there has just been i think the way the process is in the Republican Party over the Democratic Party, winner take all type of thing, the way the democrats to it, it is this kind of confusing matter of splitting up delegates. Kelly i think has kelly i was going to add, the process tends to favor republicans, but also republican women tend to be viewed as more moderate than democratic women. Democratic women seem to are often viewed as the most liberal of the party by sex component. So if you are going to get a woman elected, you got to get a lot of people on board. Somebody more moderate is likely to that. Having said that, there are republican women that are extremely conservative these days that would have a hard time. Someone like nikki haley might be able to walk that line. David y donna. Nobody things mike pence might be thinking about running in 2024 . He did visit the same flood twice here. We have to include him. He would do well. He could be a midwestern favorite, just like in the past. A lot depends on obviously whether trump wins reelection or not this time in terms of whether pence is damaged or not going into 2024. But it is true the Republican Party is going to have a debate. It is going to start here over what it is, what it stands for the post trump era. Correct. David y donna, go back to diannes comment about the first woman president is likely to be a republican. Do you agree or disagree . Donna i think it is probably a tossup. There is a valid argument. We can look at joni ernst in the state of iowa being the first elected female senator in that sense. One i would not also discount on the republican side, will heard, the only africanamerican republican who is retiring actually because he is in a very tough district. He is scheduled to visit New Hampshire coming up. And obviously that is not for this cycle. But a similar kind of argument, we could see another africanamerican president , and it might actually be a republican, and he would be the one positioned at this point to go down that path and at least explore where we are going there. And so you know, those are things that we cannot discount in terms of thinking about the Republican Coalition of not being very diverse, yet you could have the capabilities of some candidates within that coalition to be diverse and still excel, because nikki haley, will hurd, they are people of color or female or both, they could try to unite that coalition what happens after donald trump . I think that is the key question here. As you go forward, is it going to be the party of trump continuing or Something Different . The republicans have not made that decision yet, i dont think. David y we are nearing the end of our time. I want to ask if anybody has closing thoughts or comments about this question of iowa and being first. Maybe what, what should iowa be doing to hold onto its place or what is the alternative . A National Primary . How about doing the caucuses on saturday evening . Any thoughts about those kinds f questions . A National Primary is not a viable alternative. There are a lot of issues involved in that that we cannot get into. The real question is, what happens in 2020 . If donald trump wins reelection, i think the Iowa Caucuses are in really serious trouble and that point, because the democrats will continue to be arguing about whether the system works. The new rules are meant to open it up more. There will be additional pressure, a political ideological thing to have accessibility for democrats. And i honestly am not sure the caucuses can survive that for 024. If trump loses and the democrat who wins runs again in 2024, whatever democrats want about the caucuses will be irrelevant and it will be the republicans who drive it. They do not have the political ideological position about opening up the caucuses, about making them more accessible. They dont have that battle. In that case republican caucuses continue on. David r it has been true as i mentioned earlier. The losing party always has a debate over the message and its process. If the democrats lose, there will be more arguments about iowas role in this process. Any other comments . Dianne i agree with david. But if democrats lose, there is going to be continuing pressure, i think, among Democratic Party members in this country to do Something Different. Because there seems to be a lot of unhappiness. You see it on the media all the time, you know, about iowa. No matter how we argue that our caucusgoers turn out to be more representative of the total Democratic Party, which i think they are, it is also about expanding the vote. You see that now with the rising electorate. No matter what you want to say i know we are running out of time, but the two states that had both a caucus and primary were washington and nebraska. In nebraska 34,000 people voted in the caucus. In the nonbinding primary, there were 80,000 people. In washington state, 800,000 people voted in the primary and about 300,000 showed up for the caucus. So you know, i think if we are about expanding the electorate, a caucus does not do that. David y i want to thank all of you for taking time to be here and participate in these discussions. I would like to thank the state of Iowa Historical Museum for sponsoring this. I would like to thank cspan for covering this event. I would like to thank all of you in this audience for spending time with us today. Thank you all for being here. We are adjourned. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] the house will vote next week on impeachment managers, sending articles of impeachment to the senate. A trial will begin soon after though theres no agreement between leader mcconnell and senator schumer on the rules. Once the trial begins, leader mcconnell has said to expect saturday sessions. Get all the latest impeachment ews at cspan. Org impeachment. Our campaign 2020 live coverage continues sunday at 3 00 p. M. Eastern with senator Michael Bennett in bedford, New Hampshire. Watch live on cspan. On demand at cspan. Org. Or listen on the go with the free cspan radio app. Campaign 2020. Watch our continuing coverage of the president ial candidates on the campaign trail and make up your own mind. As the voting begins next month watch our live coverage of the Iowa Caucuses. On monday, february 3, cspans campaign 2020. Your unfiltered view of olitics. We have the votes, once the impeachment trial has begun, to pass a resolution essentially the same, very similar, to the 1000 vote in the clinton trial. Under the rules for the clinton impeachment trial, house managers and the president s lawyers had 24 hours to present their cases. Senators were able to ask questions for up to 16 hours before debating and voting on whether to dismiss the case altogether or call witnesses. Once the evidence was presented, senators deliberated behind closed door, leading to a final vote on each article of impeachment. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer responded to senator mcconnell. Right now, the republican leader and i have very different visions about what it means to conduct a fair trial. Democrats believe that a fair trial means that all the relevant facts come out and witnesses and documents are part of that trial. Whoever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents . Unprecedented. But if youre afraid of the facts if youre afraid of what would come out, if you want to cover it up even in something as weighty and serious as impeachment, you say no witnesses and no documents. We say witnesses and documents, fair trial. No witnesses and no documents, coverup. The impeachment of President Trump. Continue to follow the