The New York Times Book Review is a weekly paper-magazine supplement to The New York Times in which current non-fiction and fiction books are reviewed. It is one of the most influential and widely read book review publications in the industry. The offices are located near Times Square in New York City.
• The New York Times Book Review (The New York Times Book Review is a weekly paper-magazine supplement to The New York Times in whi...)
• The New York Times Book Review (The New York Times Book Review is a weekly paper-magazine supplement to The New York Times in whi...)
• Mindy Finn (Mindy Finn is an American conservative entrepreneur and digital media strategist, who is a candid...)
» All Literary Magazine InterviewsMy short bio: I've been based in Iowa for the past 12 months to cover the state's caucuses, the first-in-the-nation presidential nominating contests. I've been at The Times for 21 years, covering politics, National news and education. Earlier, I was the paper's Style editor. Today we're talking about the caucuses, which take place tonight, and anything else about the presidential race that's on your minds.
It's 12:40 ET and I've gotta do my day job covering the caucuses. Thank you for all your great questions. Follow nytimes.com all day and evening for political news!
My Proof: https://twitter.com/tripgabriel/status/694187197096800258
What's something you think you learned from being in Iowa for a year that the drop-in/drop-out reporters might have missed?
Thanks for that question, which was the whole point of The Times sending me here as a kind of embed. Anyone can report what a candidate says, or what his or her strategists in Brooklyn or Houston will tell you on background to spin a narrative. Being in Iowa full-time has given me the chance to talk to hundreds of voters, including folks I've contacted repeatedly, to get a sense of how they feel. It's also given me a front-row seat on candidates' organizing here in a state where organization is super-crucial to turning out caucus-goers. That's how I ended up reporting that the Trump field operation wasn't living up to its own expectations, at least as of late last year: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/us/politics/donald-trump-campaign-lags-in-mobilizing-iowa-caucus-voters.html
An interesting anecdote to your 2008 example...
That year my candidate was declared not viable and I had to choose another to support. Myself and many others were going between Obama and Clinton, and the swing factor ended up being not how large and passionate Obama's group was, but how respectful they were.
Clinton's reps in our precinct were best described as rabid, and they turned a lot of undecideds off of her. I'm curious to see if that repeats itself this year.
Interesting. I hadn't heard that before.
Who do you think is most likely to win the Iowa Caucuses on either side? Will you be in a Caucus room while it is happening. If so, what will it be like?
As of this moment (and this really does change moment to moment), I'm expecting good nights for Trump and Clinton. Take it with a grain of salt, or maybe a whole shaker -- we "experts" have been wrong over and over about the races this year.
What will be the first indicator as to who is going to win tonight on both sides? What I mean is, what signs should we be watching for as the first results start to trickle in?
It will be hard to know who is winning until a significant number of results are in from the major counties, which include Polk, Linn, Scott and Blackhawk. The Democratic and Republican parties of Iowa are promising returns in almost-real time on their respective websites:
Thanks for answering our questions! Who in the GOP side has the most extensive field operation in Iowa? I went to a couple of rallies this past weekend and didn't see much volunteer recruitment from Trump or Rubio rallies.
Ted Cruz has the biggest field operation on the GOP side. He has a college dorm in Des Moines that has housed waves of volunteers from out of state. Jeb Bush, Trump and Rubio have lighter footprints, but they are still playing. I met a Rubio volunteer from Chicago at one of his events over the weekend, asking people to sign "commit to caucus" cards. You wouldn't see much fresh recruitment of volunteers at this point. It's all about GOTV -- getting out the voters who you know support you.
Something I haven't seen anywhere: What is your plan after Iowa?
Heading to South Carolina, the first-in-the-South primary.
As someone from the UK with zero experience of public caucuses, I'm fascinated by how the public nature of voting in these things changes the dynamic.
I mean, you're surrounded by people who live near you and possibly know you, and you have to make a very visible commitment to your choice. Do you think this has a significant effect on the outcome - is it likely to today, and has there been any situation in the past you can point to as an example of being or not being the case?
Good question. The two parties caucus differently. The Republicans vote by secret ballot, so peer pressure is not really a factor. The Democrats, on the other hand, stand together in "preference groups" for each candidate, sometimes arguing and cajoling with members of other groups. The best example of how this influenced the results was in 2008. Obama had very large and passionate groups, and they no doubt pulled in undecideds on caucus night. The Obama folks also used a complex strategy to send some of their supporters over to John Edwards' groups -- which pushed Hillary Clinton into third place, a deeply disappointing finish for her.
What are the most significant factors that you take into consideration when predicting the winners of the Caucuses (cauci)?
The old Iowa adage is "organize, organize, organize, then get hot at the end." So I look to the recent high-quality polls of the past week, plus the strength of the candidates' field operations, which play a larger role in turning out voters in a caucus state than in a traditional primary race. Attending a caucus is a bit of a pain in the neck: you can't just drop by a poll at your convenience. So campaigns work hard to identify supporters (door-knocking, phone-calling), and then to turn them out (even more door-knocking and phone-calling).
How much do you think Hillary and Bernie's positions on climate change and fossil fuels will play into the Democratic winner?
I was interested to see in the new Q-Pac poll that 11 percent of Dems ranked climate change as their top issue, a pretty strong showing (only health care and the economy ranked higher). Sanders was earlier and stronger on climate change, opposing the Keystone XL pipeline for example, but Clinton has since rolled out strong proposals, going beyond even the Obama administration. If climate change is your top issue, you'd probably be happy with either candidate at this point and might be also asking about who would be most effective in getting something done.
Why do you think Rubio has failed to consolidate support? I think a lot of people expected he would emerge as the alternative to the anti-establishment trump and Cruz, but his performance has been pretty lackluster. What is he doing wrong, and do you expect to see an "establishment" candidate emerge eventually?
I think Rubio sent confusing messages about who he was running against. For a long time he contrasted himself with Cruz, trying to look equally conservative on immigration, promoting a "dark days for America's future" message. Lately he has returned to his message of optimism. I do expect the anti-Trump, anti-Cruz voters to rally around one candidate eventually. The question is whether it will be too late, ie after Super Tuesday.
What size caucus is too big?
I ask because I'll be participating in my first caucus this year, in Boise. I know Iowa's caucus meetings can be very small, and voters there can have a good deal of influence on one another. Idaho's Democrats are moving to a caucus system this year, and it appears I'll be caucusing with all the Democrats in my county--the most populous in the state. In 2012, the Idaho Republican caucus in my county attracted 9,050 people. That seems a bit unwieldy for a caucus. Do you see a point at which caucuses become too large to be effective as caucuses?
I think a caucus that is more like a football game in an arena defeats the purpose. In Iowa, sometimes many precincts in the same county gather in a gym or auditorium to hear speeches about the candidates (in the Republican caucuses), then disperse to school classrooms by precinct for the actual voting.
What do you think about the idea perpetuated by republicans that so many reporters have a liberal bias? I'm curious because it would seem to me that anyone who is interested in finding the truth in politics and is close enough to it to understand the difference between the facts and the rhetoric, WOULD in fact end up with a liberal bias. Have you experienced this, and how do you keep those personal feelings in check?
I tell myself that I am only effective at my job in proportion to how well I set aside my personal views. I am not a commentator. I have no interest in shaping the outcome. I want to be judged by how well I discern the facts on the ground.
Hey Trip, thanks for the AMA.
As an Iowan, I've long been skeptical of our First in the Nation status when it comes to narrowing the field of presidential candidates, largely because of the small (tiny) non-representative population. Of course, that's a risky opinion to have here, so I was wondering, do you feel Iowa perhaps has too much influence on the process? Or has your time in Iowa helped justify it's position as FITN in your mind?
I change my mind about Iowa's role weekly. On the plus side, it's a state where a candidate without money can spend a lot of time doing retail campaigning. If I was reporting from Florida today, the race would be much more about who has the millions for TV ads. But yes, Iowa is unrepresentative of America, not just demographically (very white) but also ideologically. Republicans are very conservative here, and Democrats are very liberal -- 43 percent called themselves "socialists" in a Des Moines Register poll this month.
What, exactly, is stopping a big state like NY, Texas, California or Florida from just moving up their primaries to before Iowa and simply beating back party leaders through their sheer importance in population/delegates?
The national parties, which control the nominating convention, write the rules, and they can -- and have -- discounted the delegates from states that try to jump ahead of the traditional early-voting states. That said, the GOP chairman Reince Priebus is not a fan of the four early "carve-out states" and wants to see a regional primary system that would spread the responsibility for choosing the nominee more broadly.
Thanks for being here on a busy day, Trip. Do we know what the campaigns' plans are for caucus-night events tonight -- their victory/consolation parties? Are the candidates planning low-key gatherings or large-scale rallies, and what do you read into those plans?
After running around the state today for last-minute get-out-the-vote rallies, most of the candidates will be back in Des Moines for caucus night parties. Here's a list of them all: http://data.desmoinesregister.com/iowa-caucus/candidate-tracker/index.php
Two candidates who will not be in Iowa when the results are posted, Jeb Bush and John Kasich, will be in New Hampshire. That speaks for itself, right?
How does Pizza Ranch compare to NYC pizza?
My recommendation for any Pizza Ranch diner: try the fried chicken.
Do the polls released overnight that suggest a last minute Rubio surge cohere with what you are seeing on the ground?
Thanks for taking the time to answer our questions!
The recent polls are sending mixed signals about a Rubio surge (sorry to be wishy-washy!). The best regarded poll of Iowa, for The Des Moines Register, which came out over the weekend, showed Rubio losing support over each of the four days the survey was taken. That said, there are still many voters who say they could change their minds, and Rubio's crowds have been enthusiastic. Here's the Register poll with lots of interesting insights: http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/01/30/donald-trump-reclaims-lead-latest-iowa-poll/79562322/
I suppose that they're not allowed to be televised but are members of the press allowed to sit in on the Caucuses? I'm infinitely curious about the process.
Edit: Also, it seems to me that the polls which are so close don't take into account the enthusiasm gap. Just look at the size of the rallies Bernie is putting together vs Clinton. Wouldn't it be logical to assume that the same enthusiasm would be brought out to the caucuses? I respect what you said about suspecting Clinton will have a good night but hope that you're wrong.
Yes, press -- and anyone else -- is allowed to observe a caucus. Here is a FAQ I posted this morning if you're curious about the nitty-gritty process of the caucuses: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/iowa-caucuses-faq-our-man.html?ref=politics
Predicting turnout is very, very difficult. But I've discounted the size of a candidate's rallies as a clear signal since the 2012 general election, when Mitt Romney drew huge crowds in Ohio, Florida and other swing states late in the race, much bigger than John McCain's from 2008. We know those were a false positive.