Cspan is light and i what where scholars are looking ahead to the democratic caucuses, which take place on february 3. Museumnt to thank the for this work and trying to develop a greater understanding of what our significant events in our states political history. I would like to thank cspan for being here today, making this accessible all over the world. Myself andan junkie i know many of you are. We appreciated them taking the time to make this a nationwide event where people from all over the country can participate and watch this discussion. Right, give them a hand. [applause] question, i will start with you. I would like to get a comment from each person on this stage. Significance of the caucuses in the nations political history and iowas political history . Have they been a good thing or bad thing for democracy . Increasingly, i thought, caucuses are great for us, they give us things to do. We meet people across the country, we need candidates, help moderate appearances. Whether there is something good for the process itself of nominating a president , i am becoming less confident of that. Iowa is notemember, first because we are important, iowa is important because we are first. In any nomination process, toever goes first is going have extraordinary importance in the process. Ishink that we know this historical accident, the way this rose. It is not the case that the Democratic National committee, Republican National committee had a set of criteria by which they decided which state could go first and on a rational basis it turns out iowa fulfills those criteria. It is serendipity. Until the rest of the country and the other states do not like iowas position, until everybody else can decide what should replace this process, iowa stays where we are by inertia. That sense, it is a game theory problem. Everybody else wants to go first. Nobody is willing to let somebody else go first. My take is different. Athink the caucuses remain valuable part of the nomination process, primarily because either wins take them seriously. The research i have done shows that iowans spend a lot of time thinking about what is going on, paying attention to candidates and events. Most importantly, because of this approach, iowa voters provide information to later states about their sincere preferences, who they really think should be the nominee, not a some kind of strategic effort, unlike most states. Iowans are more likely to vote sincerely. That picked the candidate they like, whether or not they think the candidate has a chance. Voters later can use that information within the party to think about, ok, where should we go with this . I think that is a valuable part of the process. If someone else went first, eventually they would develop the same cabability. Iowa has been doing it for so long, iowans have a good sense of what is going on. I would say i will take a different spin on this. One of the things a colleague and i have looked at this in terms of research, the role the caucuses play in strengthening parties within the state, iowa has strong, healthy Political Parties and that is good for democracy even though a lot of people tend to want to issue parties, parties are a thing that are important. I will give an example. A year ago, we had a state senator in iowa who decided to retire. Had a special election. This was in a march last year. This person, this race garnered attention. The democrat in the race, who ended up winning, it was held by a democrat, estimated he had 10 president ial candidates do various things for him, including recording videos, encouraging people to vote. Walking doortodoor in the neighborhoods. These are candidates themselves. About 10 of the candidates that were this person. That helps the Political Parties in the state. That also keep the Political Parties competitive in the state as well, which apps iowa in the general election. To i ami am going going to agree with dennis. I lived in iowa for 26 years from a 1996 through 2018. Now i live in nebraska. Years,think over the when i was here, i felt the same thing others have said that iowans are serious about their choices. But i see this year Something Different, particularly the democratic side. I worry about the participation in the caucuses and how hard it is for citizens to actually participate. They could be disabled, could have child care, could have child care, good have to work. That worries me and what really worries me, i look at the field of democrat and i see in iowa the top three contenders are all white guys and it worries me about our field, other states will have to that a deal with and not having a more diverse field. You would not put elizabeth more the top tier . I put her in the top four, but im saying the top 3 the polls are all over the place. Elizabeth warren is i think fourth in the polls. Thank you. I had been in iowa and iowa state for 50 years. To startre in 1970 being an academic at the university. I have seen all the caucuses that make a difference. Thee were caucuses before jimmy carter victory, but they were party events where you elect officers and do campaign plans and raise money. Sees interesting for me to pretty much the same questions raised every four years about the caucuses. Up,of the things that comes as you get closer to the date of the caucuses, isnt there somebody better than the people who are running right now . Somebody who cannot really win and is really president ial . The answer is, no. There is nobody better. Is,ly because the process people present themselves, there is a limitation of the ones who cannot seem to get any traction, raise money, do well in polls. Then someone emerges as the candidate. That is the way it works. Maybe there are better ways to do it. We will talk about that later, maybe towards the end. There is no Cocktail Party . Im sorry. That is another event later in the month. Think it is an interesting process, it gives the news media something to do in times when there is no news because they can send reporters to iowa and report about hay bales and cattle and pancakes being flipped and deepfried things. I think the caucuses have a great historical place in american politics. At some point, maybe we move to Something Else. I think it is an effective way to get out messages. I moved here six years ago. This is my second cycle in iowa. I have heard about it before i got here. I studied political campaigns. It is something that is unique. First, it is good for me. It is good for me professionally and my personal interests. I think there are some advantages to a system like this. It does allow and its with low name recognition to stand out when they would not be able to in a national primary. If we went to the people who were pulling at the top before the caucus process started, joe biden be our candidate, Rudy Giuliani would be a candidate in 2008. Iowa has an important part. I also worry about how representative it is in terms of how white our state is and also the candidates we select. There is many ways we can address that and keep an iowa caucus or Something Else comes along that better suits our current needs given the need for diversity and the number of candidates we have competing. Oflet me sum up what a lot my colleagues have said. One thing i want to remind iowans is how special this process is. Having driven up this morning from ms. Iraq, much of the rest of the country is from missouri, the rest of the country is unaware there is an election coming. This is an unusual process. It is unusual iowa gas be at the beginning. Be at the beginning. It is not the way it has always been. Our nomination symptoms have evolved over history. This process is configured, it probably will not last well into the future. One, enjoy it while it is here. Two, make sure you take advantage of it. It is a rare opportunity. In mers are, in missouri, we have no president ial candidates running ads. We would like to find out who we are supporting. Your world will return to normal a month from now. Now, you getright to be in the spotlight, so enjoy it. Lookingof us are forward to the resumption of form chemical advertisements. Lets go back to the beginning. Tell us about 1968. What was happening in america . How this led to the caucuses . 1968, many people remember or know from history books, was a tough year. We had the troops sent to vietnam, goldwater used to say during the convention, everyone is afraid that if they vote for me, we will have troops in vietnam, he said after johnson was reelected, people voted for me have troops in vietnam. We have about a half million troops in vietnam and that sparked an antiwar movement. He had the civil rights movement, the assassination of dr. King, the assassination of bobby kennedy. It was a tough time. We had a disastrous Democratic Convention in august of 1968, later called a police riot. Noteto be quick, i will that prior to or through 1968, to 1972, onlyior delegates were chosen most of the time, party officials, governors, senators, party chairs and so forth, they went to the National Convention with these votes in their pockets for the delegates for their state and spend them as wisely as they thought they could. When john kennedy ran in the 1960 West Virginia primary, he did not do it to get a pose or delegates, he dared to show that a catholic candidate could get votes in a protestant state. Through 1968, only 25 of delegates were chosen through primaries. With the 1968 convention, the reaction was that the three most activated groups new to the process, single women, young people, and minorities had been locked out. That occurredter in chicago, there was impetus to change the process to open the nomination more to groups that had not been old white males. That resulted in the commission, the party decided they would have earlier evidence to allow more people to participate. 1972, george mcgovern, the first rounds of these caucuses. When we trace the history of caucuses, 1972 stands out. It is seen as having been the milestone where the iowa caucus attained the status that they enjoy today. That is a little bit misguided. Not many people paid attention to the Iowa Caucuses in 1972. They were on the calendar by accident, it had to do with the rules by which the Iowa Democratic party operated and when they counted back in various states, they had to meet for the stages and caucuses they arrived at the beginning of a calendar and nobody paid attention and nobody made a fuss. The candidates did not make a fuss about it. We look at it now in retrospect and see that mcgovern did better than people anticipated and that was the first inkling that maybe he was going to go onto the nomination. He only spent a day and a half and the state before the caucuses. The media did not spend much time discussing them. After they occurred. It is not until 1976 that you see the modern caucus with all the attention that we begin to see starting with jimmy carter and his efforts. There was something significant in 1972. There were few political reporters who were here. Johnny appeleing of the new york times, who wrote in his piece about the contest had ant, that mcgovern unexpectedly strong secondplace showing. We start with this expectations game. Mcgovern did better than expected. Lets go to 1976. Jimmy carter picks up the playbook that mcgovern and his Campaign Manager wrote. What happened . Becomesexpectation game built into the process with 1976. Jimmy carter was a virtually unknown governor of a Southern State that nobody paid attention to. When he said he was going to run for president , no one was excited about that. There were other democrats who were possible candidates. What the Jimmy Carter Campaign did was actually campaign. From the time jimmy carter announced he would run, he began running a grassroots campaign. He was out there. He was knocking on doors. They were Building Campaign committees around the state. They were doing the kinds of things that we now take for granted in an iowa caucus campaign. But nobody had ever done before. The jimmyer Carter Campaign creates this sense that something is going on in iowa and manages, partly on the followup to the story about 1972, to convince the media that what happens in iowa is going to iowa as a uses springboard, a way to say, this guy from georgia you never heard of is a viable candidate because a bunch of people in iowa who had never heard of him either voted for him. So jimmy carter the story goes won the caucuses and use off point toumping win the nomination and when the presidency and in winning the presidency, sets up the underlying myth that you have to to win the presidency. That turns out to be very untrue for democrats for pretty much of the caucuses until we get to barack obama. Nonetheless, the myth is there, it is built on, and things start happening with respect to iowa. Side, therelican was nothing going on from a caucus perspective yet. That does not come until later. It is worth noting, jerry ford was under pressure from Ronald Reagan, and i remember as a teenager watching that convention and the uncertainty about whether or not jerry ford had the delegates to win the nomination, to one in 1976, part of why jimmy carter won the presidency was jerry fords we can stay. The idea that iowa meant something start with that. Jimmy carter did not win the caucuses, he lost to uncommitted. One of the seven that can things about the 1976 campaign on the republican side, they did a straw poll at caucuses. It was the first time the two parties caucused together. Jerry 41, but Ronald Reagan was strong. Reporters and people after the election said, Ronald Reagan illustrated jerry fords weaknesses as a candidate. Underscoring that these people and iowa are telling us things that happened later. The government power to the antiwar movement. Jimmy carter goes the distance. Bowl80, one of the super campaigns in caucuses, talk about terry Carter Jimmy Carter and kennedy. There is a parallel between what is going on today and what happened in 1980. There were two candidates who were strong, visible, good name recognition. Bloodededy, blue massachusetts senator, and jimmy , who came out of all of this and was president. It became a battle between should we elect someone who is safe and who is president and his name to jimmy carter, or should we move the party to the becomed have ted kennedy the standard bearer . Was a difficult fight inside the party and what it did was essentially, it leapt to the party into two factions. We see some of that happening today. A lot of the discussion today is about moving left or staying safe in the barack obama, joe biden middle. At the Democratic Convention in Madison Square garden, where the fight became visible, the fight was covered, ted kennedy was struggling to get enough delegates and jimmy carter to hang on. It is not often you have an incumbent president successfully challenged. We know that eventually jimmy was on aevailed and course to reelection until another historical moment that has parallels today. The iranian hostage crisis broke out, the iranian radicals who had overthrown the shaw took over the american embassy, took american diplomats hostage, they were on television blindfolded, marched out of the embassy. Some of my students do not revamp that. It was dramatic. If youas dramatic as watch cnn today, what is going on with iran today. Jimmy carter was unable to successfully respond to that crisis and therefore must be election. It was a moment you should study this a little bit, that history, kennedy moved to the left, maybe that would have worked better. Sometimes there are parallels. Often there are no parallels. Sometimes there are. The other thing in 1980 was the rise of George Herbert walker bush, who beat Ronald Reagan in the caucuses, a surprising finisher who goes on and winds up being Vice President through it he coined the phrase, i have momentum. That is one of the things candidates today look for. One of the other significant things, jimmy carter as president worked i will hard. Worked iowa hard. Started tonedy challenge jimmy carter, he lost ontoe in florida, he is iowa and jimmy carter laid a trap for him here and beat him 221. Farm, a at a friends hot summer afternoon before jimmy carters first nomination, it on job people came down this farm lane and got off their bikes and he came over to us and said, my name is jimmy carter. Who is jimmy carter . That is how he played iowa. He bicycled through counties and aher places, even went to farm where there were a few people to introduce himself. Good interpersonal relations. We her 1984. We moved to 1984. It was a small democratic field, compared to this cycle. Had mondale, who was the favorite. Nationally and in iowa. Then you had a host of other candidates, most of whom were betterknown and regarded as more serious candidates. What happened was the media set up expectations that mondale should win. When he got 49 , that did not seem convincing enough to a lot of the media. Surprisingly, gary hart finished with 17 , which put him into a position to then use that as a springboard to knock off mondale in a surprise in New Hampshire. Idea that wethe have certain expectations built into how we think the caucuses are going to go and when someone fails to meet those expectations, they fall by the 1984,e and in the case of that was john glenn. He was not to be a serious contender, he had the right stuff. Thatis was coming out and was going to catapult him. He had a 4 of the vote in iowa. That was the end of his campaign. One of the things we have to anticipate, putting this into current context, what is it we expect and who is going to surprise is and who is going to disappoint us . I want to ask about media momentum. How does that work . Spinning it work and momentum . A big part has to do with polling. ,f you can gain traction especially when you are a candidate that is not wellknown, that gets our attention. Pete buttigieg is our current example. Was of the country does not know who he is. Once he started bubbling to the the field, thats like to get media attention. We expectctations, joe biden to be at the top, that is not big news. But those candidates we do not expect will get more coverage. It is news. What wet news if thought is going to happen. It is only news if it is not what we thought. That underperforming or over performing becomes the center of media coverage. Before we leave 1984, there is one other significant thing. Just before theperforming becoma and New Hampshire cut a deal that iowa would have the first caucus and New Hampshire would have the first primary and caucuses could not become like a primary. Chairman inmocratic iowa and the chairman in new deal and the that two states, instead of fighting over who would go first, would agree to fight together. This is important today in this debate that is going on inside the Democratic Party about opening up and having access because whatever the democrats caucuses, absentees, even doing a roth account, runs the risk of alienating New Hampshire. While it is an old deal that got cut, it is having an impact on the current race today. Conservativess and the gop. Talk about the rise of religious conservatives. In a 1988, this is a surprising caucus in some ways. In 1980, George Herbert walker bush getting momentum, winning over Ronald Reagan who would get the nomination. In a 1988, reagans term limited, bush will run for a term. He comes in a third in the caucuses. Dole from kansas will win the caucuses. Sandwiched in between bob dole and bush is Pat Robertson. Another parallel because here is someone who kind of came out of nowhere, was a televangelist, never held elected office, and is able to bring attention to himself because he beat expectations, gets media attention, not just in the state, but after he comes in, a surprising second to parlay that into making a campaign of it across the country. Wounding bush somewhat in the process. Bush will go on to win the nomination. Another thing we see and 1988, iowans like candidates from neighboring states. Bob dole from kansas does win. Sometimes that gets a candidate of credibility. We are seeing that potentially with amy klobuchar. Races we areew going to skip. 19 92, no republican count. President bush was running for reelection. Running forin was the democratic nomination, so democrats bypass the state. Came in6, buchanan second behind bob dole, bob dole one. 2000, the bush and gore both win their respective caucuses and go on to win in november. Those three caucuses do not seem to have had the historic impact that some of these other things we are talking about. Lets move in to 2004. I am watching this clock. Bush talk about the howard dean. For most of us who were there and remember 2004, nothing we remember is the dena screaming. On caucus night, it turns out howard dean comes in third despite having been perceived as the frontrunner for months going into the final caucuses, he tries to parlay that into saying, we will continue, we will go with all the states, his voice gets louder, he kind of yells at the end, you can see it on youtube. It is funny because in retrospect, looking at it, it does not seem to be that big a deal. At the moment, it was. It became the focus of the stories and it points out the opposite side of the expectations game. The failure to meet expectations. Expected to win, he comes in third, john kerry wins, john edwards comes in second. Howard dean is a distant third. His chances are shot. It is manly because everyone thought he would win, he does not win, the media talks about it in that way, negatively. In the research we have done, we look at this media effect. It is clear that candidates who beat expectations on the Positive Side get a lot of attention and a bump. Candidates who fail to meet expectations on the negative side, like howard dean, get quick attention, but then the media turns away from them and moves on to other candidates. What is interesting about this point, if you look at the polling and the one up to the caucuses, howard dean hit his Leading Point several weeks ahead and began to shift. Ownwards in the last pupils john kerry became the leader in the last couple of polls, but that was not really enough for the media to shift its expectations, so he gains from beating howard dean, goes on to win the nomination but lose the presidency. Relevance is applicable to Elizabeth Warren, who is skyrocketed at the beginning and now has slipped because the media scrutiny that comes along with that rise. This person may become president , media people have to pay attention. It is applicable to joe biden , who cannot afford to do badly in iowa as the National Front runner and who a month ago started tamping down expectations for that reason. To 2000 eight. Obama and clinton and edwards. This is a significant caucus year. You have two leading candidates in the Democratic Party. The first woman who is competitive for a nomination of a major party, and barack obama, first africanamerican very competitive. It is about expectations. If you remember at that time, obama was behind clinton by double digits in the summer. It was not until the Des Moines Register came out with a pole around thanksgiving in 2007 showing that obama had taken the lead, a lot of people at the time doubted people because she put emphasis on independent voters that might show up in the caucuses, but her figures turned out to be on point and since that time, her pole is rated as an a plus by 538. Good polling the Des Moines Register. Say, wer thing i would did not mention this earlier, you probably all know this. The caucuses are different and i grew up. The republican caucuses is a stopple. They reported numbers. The say, we did democratic is a complicated province process. Was important for me to not be registered in either political party. I was no party and participated as an observer and the republican and democratic caucuses. I want to bring up the importance of caucus mass. That is one thing the Obama Campaign understood. They had a great team. One of our graduate students was in charge of it. They understood caucus mass. Obama was relying more on social media to get people out. One of the things that happened that year, barack obama was leading going into them. Of the caucus delegate about that night, but he was also playing math to where if he saturated how many delegates were together in a room, he could peel off people and they put them into edwards camp because the other thing they were trying to do is make Hillary Clinton finish third. She finished third by less than one third of 1 . 39. 8 . 29. 8 . It was widely reported that she finished third. In my view, that damaged her Campaign Going forward. Lets talk about Hillary Clinton, first woman candidate, how where and get treated. How women get treated. How was Hillary Clinton treated . Is it changing . What did you is observed . I did a study that year of her coverage and the des moines. Egister what i found out is she was especially for women president ial candidates they are covered more are on campaign strategy, not the issues. Obama was linked to issues twice as many times as clinton. That is something we saw in the research dating back to the early 1990s, late 1980s, women are treated different the by the media. It has improved for women running for statewide races like governor at a senate and congressional races. But we still see this difference in coverage is when a woman runs for Vice President or president. What are your thoughts . It is still a problem. One of the things that is interesting this cycle, Something Different than what we have seen in the past, women tend to not be covered on policy that much, but because Elizabeth Warren is a woman with a plan, she has been scrutinized for those policies in ways that are not similar to what you have in for example pete buttigieg. There is still inequality there. You also get the electability question in everything from local media to National Media when it comes to women candidates. He comes even harder this time because Hillary Clinton lost to donald trump. There is a concern, that must mean that women are not electable. Even though i like this woman, she is not electable. I have survey research that i completed, it indicates that while Elizabeth Warren is like, there is concern she might not be able to win a general election. I want to get into electability in the second panel. To 2012. Move what happened with the reporting of the republican results . Where, when we talk about horserace matters, you have to be careful. Before the caucuses in 2012, mitt romney was shown as the leader and everybody expected him to win. Rick santorum at that point was and the low single digits. On caucus night, santorum seemed to lose to romney by eight votes , a couple weeks later, a missing box came in from somewhere in iowa from one of the precincts that put santorum up by 34 votes. Of the iowahair Republican Party to deal with that and he was in a tough situation, but you have to are internalcuses party events one by the parties themselves, not by the state electoral machinery. These things can happen at times. Santorum complained that that cost him momentum, but my argument was it at qs what that echoes what people said because he exceeded expectations by finishing in a virtual tie with mitt romney, he already in effect one the caucuses. The republicans screwed up the count. Things,d been other counts that had been question, argued about. 2016, we had an argument between the Bernie Sanders people and Hillary Clinton people. There is always error and counting. When it is close, it can matter. 2016. That in 2012 and the other thing to recognize, we also need to put the caucuses in the proper perspective. Caucus convention method. All you are doing is selecting delegates to go to the next level of convention which is the county. People can change their minds and the 30 days. With clinton and sanders, you had an interesting race because clinton is going to come back from her 2008 loss, she will eventually get the nomination, but sanders gives her a surprising one for her money, especially in the state. It comes out as a tight, more or less. But he claims to have one. Democrats or republicans clinton claims to have one. State delegate equivalent was virtually a tie. 704 clinton and 690 84 six or for bernie. And some places, they flipped coins. That became part of the narrative. Hillary clinton related because she one more coin tosses. ,he important point to discuss sanders did extra ordinarily well, pete expectations, also having not been a democrat, and Hillary Clinton could say she had one. That was important for her going to the next day. 2016, races were decided by microscopic margins. Two weeks after they declared romney the winner, republicans said, it was really rick santorum. Which crushed his campaign. If you do not win the headline the day after the caucuses, you are done. Some controversy about that. Then 2016 d bernie people to demand that the initial preferences of people as they come into the caucus be tabulated, which is a first, which causes heartburn and New Hampshire, stay tuned. Have a lot of confusion on caucus night and the reporting and the results. When do reporters what do reporters get . What information do they get first . That will shape their story. Does the Iowa Democratic party release the raw body count and then the delicate equivalents or do the delicate desk delegate equivalents to the bar body count . Those caucuses are significant because of the stakes that are involved in a caucus victory or loss and the changing and the rules. Wasnt at the russians you boxes . Th the ballot [laughter] we do not know. I want to talk about 2016 on the republican side. The rise of conservative doingsm, donald trump well. What did you see there . When i attended and covered caucus advents on both sides in 2016, particularly the republican side, my sense not based on survey polling, data, it is just experience covering caucuses and getting the sense of a crowd. There was a lot of anger and events. Republican concern about where the country was going. They never saw barack obama as a legitimate president. You had an argument from someone like ted cruz there is a mirror image of this on the democratic side going on today you have some people in 20 on the Republican Party, the ted cruz argument was republican lose elections when candidate are not conservative enough. We have that reverse argument on the democratic side today. The argument is, there is a conservative majority in the country and if you nominate the right person who is consistently conservative, they will win the election and solving the countrys problems. That was the approach of ted cruz. You had scott walker, who tried to be a more pragmatic but still conservative candidate. In a lot of events, donald trump would show up. On one hand, there was an entertainment value. A tv celebrity. On the other hand, audiences connected in certain ways. My carefully cleansed phrase has been that mr. Trump always represented the middle finger segment of the american electorate. Fed up withho were politics and politicians as usual. There was a big audience for that kind of message, certainly on the republican side because they thought the standard republican candidates were not taking care of business. He capitalize on that and continues to. Does anyone on the panel betweenhe similarities the bernie voters and trump voters and after the nominations by the time we got a general election, what percentage of Bernie Sanders people bought up voting for donald trump . Does anyone it was a high percentage. I saw something recently, i believe it was 87 of Bernie Sanders supporters voted for Hillary Clinton, but that was a obama ain than large percentage of Hillary Clinton voters voted for obama. It was in the 90s. The Bernie Sanders people in a book in the 2016 election, there was a team that came here aboutey did Research People who attended sanders rallies, trump rallies, ted cruz, and Hillary Clinton. They found was some of the sanders and Trump Supporters shared characteristics as far as what was motivating them to support that candidate. Tear down the system. Bernie sanders is not a democrat, he is coming from a different place, so he will use the Democratic Party as a vehicle and donald trump is not a republican. He is a republican because he ran as a republican, got elected, but his policy positions, his criticism of george w. Bush and the war in iraq, he is attracting those people who do not like the actual candidates of the people and want Something Different. People have to run on a party because you cannot win elections as an independent or a democraticsocialist. Party ando hijack a use the Party Machinery and identity and hope you are attracting a lot of people. Which donald trump did and Bernie Sanders never got there. I think sanders is doing the same thing now. A lot of people do not think Bernie Sanders should be running as a democrat. He should be running as a democraticsocialist. We can talk about that in the next phase. Other side,t the that is what the candidates were saying. What i found was Bernie Sanders and trumps rhetoric was similar. It was about and affect blowing up the system, the big guys are screwing you over. They had different definitions of who the big guys wear. It was still similar rhetoric. Ive done and analyses of six or eight speeches from each of the candidates that i recorded in either were. Track together incredibly closely, compared to every other candidate. We have a few minutes left for we take our break. I raced through these races quickly. Any other thoughts left behind or observations you have . One of the things i wanted to ask about, to look at this process early on, what things do you see in the evolution of a caucuses today . How have they changed . Enjoy thiswe still myth that was created by jimmy carter, the candidate spending nights around the state, building up an organization from grassroots, that i think has come and gone. We now see the role of money playing a bigger role in the process that was the case in 20 or 30 years ago. Technologically, things have changed. We have social media as a way to organize and mobilize supporters in a way we did not before. The caucuses themselves have changed dramatically over 40 years. The process that was in place in different thans the process that has been in place for the last eight years. Where are we headed . Anecdotally, the republicans used to have a straw poll. In 2011, the last stopple. Visitor from britain who was interested in politics. For jimmy carter, he came out here and he is under the radar. Temple that he appearing in a coffee shop, a small town. We went out there and sure enough there was the governor from minnesota talking with three or four voters. There were 33 media people surrounding them. There is nothing under the radar anymore. The broader point maybe i am a contrarian the issue of the accounting for example, the caucuses are not built to bear the burden at the rest of the country puts on them for president ial politics. Talk about social media. Impact today of social media on campaigning . Is increasing in each cycle and it will be different in 2020 because of the pension for the president to tweet policy and people engage in him. It forced the Mainstream Media to use twitter to cover the president. One of the things that my colleague and i did is we use a panel survey from iowa that they have done for several cycles on likely caucusgoers and we were interested in their media diet. 2016, we foundom that likely caucusgoers, information on the internet was in fourth place. They got most information from cable news and local news, network, local, cable, and newspaper. Internet was fourth. It was 35 . Of that, we found the democrat and young people, if they actively follow a president ial candidate on twitter and light his or her posts, they were likely to caucus. We found the social media effect. David started doing research on that with a colleague. I think this whole research a thing i am getting into and kelly as well, the impact of social media on the political processes. I think we are finding more interaction in each election cycle. 2020 will be one. That is what i am finding with this cycle. Television news sources were still above social media and internet sources. Cable news, network news, local news. After that, social media. Above some be rising traditional sources like radio and newspaper. The other thing, social media allows candidates to communicate directly with voters about what their stance on issues are, allows them to respond. What thing that has been important in iowa, using your to organize, get people to show up to evidence, two happy hours, whatever to get them involved. In ways that were harder to do you have to call or doorknocker. Election with Pat Robertson going into the caucuses i think is more important than has been given credit. Legitimizedwas he politics for evangelicals. Away fromls stayed politics because they said it is a secular, it is dirty, it is not godly. When he ran, evangelicals slowly became active in politics and we now in active they are 2020. They decided politics is the way for them to basically bring godly and scripture to the american political system on issues like abortion and gay rights. In 1988uite important that he presented himself as a candidate. I think religion has always played an Important Role in iowa politics. Andgo back to the civil war the role of faith on both sides and prohibition, the civil rights movement. There is a religious left. I talked about evangelicals and evangelicals on the left who say, we are in a different camp. They are motivated the antiwar movements. This is continuing a tradition in which faith and religious values by a role in the outcome of elections on both sides. You started this off by asking what was different. Particularly the money. But there is a lot that is the same. This is still about organizing, at the precinct level. It is still about were knocking, still about person to person contact. Asking been in the field likely caucusgoers what is going on. At this point, we have 90 of our respondents say they have been contacted personally by at least one campaign. It is still about that person to person politics, even in a world of social media, in a world of money. But the money is buying in iowa is organizing. It is officers, staff, the ability to build a campaign from the nothing and show us that you can build and sustain something going forward. Important,g that is it is unique to argue. Islands expected to be called, to shake hands of candidates. No one else expects that. That is what makes it necessary, not because it is a necessary way to campaign, but it is because what islands demand. What either wins demand. Ns demand. Wa we will take a halfhour break and talk about the good stuff. With that, we will take a 30 minute break. Take a moment to see the caucus history exhibit. We will be back at the bottom of the hour to talk about the horse race. Thank you. [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] [indiscernible