When We Shock the World
Yang Gang Wisdom #21
Hey Yang Gang,
Arthur the Editor here, let’s talk about what could happen today. Ki Chong floated the idea of releasing this week’s newsletter after the caucus, but I wrote him a very long email explaining my thoughts on releasing it today. I guess he thought it was worth considering because you’re now all reading a heavily modified version of that exact email:
Today is the Iowa Caucus. Today the Andrew Yang Campaign may shock the world with a stunning performance in the United States’ first step at electing its next president.
Or maybe not.
Expert data-focused pundits say “almost anything can happen” in Iowa. There have been half as many polls in Iowa this year than previous election cycles, two very different candidates reportedly had “surges” in the past week, and — to top it all off — the final poll of Iowa has been cancelled after the Buttigieg campaign submitted a complaint their candidate was incorrectly left out of some surveys. Meanwhile, Andrew has polled at 8 percent in early states and won the Iowa Youth Straw Poll in this past week.
There’s a lot of excitement in Yang Gang, but I wanted to lay out the three potential results we could see in Iowa and what it means for the campaign.
1) Overperform
Andrew Yang wins 15 percent of the vote and acquires at least one delegate, ensuring he stays in the presidential race until the end. FiveThirtyEight rates the probability of this outcome at 0.1 percent — granted, that’s based on a model with less data and hasn’t been updated for the most recent polling as mentioned above.
This is the dream scenario everyone is hoping for. If Andrew Yang were to win 15 percent of the vote, elbowing past four other juggernaut candidates who have consistently polled at 20 percent in the state for months, that would be a historic performance. Not only because it is so unlikely, but because it would be a meteoric rise from Andrew’s current polling. He would have effectively doubled his support in a week. Has anything like this ever happened?
Actually, yes. In the 2012 Republican Iowa Caucuses, the race was close between Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Each candidate was hovering around 15 to 25 percent a week prior to the caucus, while other candidates like Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, Texas Governor Rick Perry, and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann polled in the mid-single digits. Well, to everyone’s surprise: Rick Santorum won the caucus — tripling his 8 percent polling from the week before. If there’s any blueprint for “peaking at the right time,” it’s this.
For anyone who remembers 2012, this story might not be very encouraging because obviously Rick Santorum did not become the Republican nominee. His performance was seen as a fluke — and more of a living-criticism for why caucuses are a crazy way to kick off presidential elections — but there are key differences between 2012 and 2020. The most obvious being the 2012 Republican Party had a clear grip of its own members. Without going too much into “the party decides” theory, there were many institutional forces in 2012 that prevented a dark horse candidate from coalescing majority support. This is not true for the 2020 Democratic Party, which — for the most part — is not trying to cast favor for or against one specific candidate. In fact, the deadlock between four candidates speaks to a general concern that another candidate is needed to bridge the differences. This is what’s accelerating Bloomberg’s popularity. If Yang were to achieve 15 percent, he would assert himself as a potential unifier of the party.
Frankly, I don’t think this scenario is very likely and I am concerned Yang Gang will become discouraged if this scenario does not play out. To people expecting 15 percent or bust, I would say to you: did you think it’d be this easy? A couple podcasts, 45 minutes of debate speaking time, and you transform American politics forever? No. There are many candidates in this race, and the stakes for the American public have never been higher. It’s going to take long-term dedication to win people over, but I believe we have a path.
2) At-expectations
Andrew wins anywhere from five to 15 percent of the vote. This is higher than his average polling in Iowa so far, but there is some expectation the campaign will do better given the bus tour and television advertising blanketing the state.
This would be a big win for a campaign that was once considered a longshot in an overcrowded field of candidates. It would prove Andrew Yang’s message can win over voters if it’s given the resources to mobilize. This would be an impressive feat for a field with so many candidates, relatively high satisfaction of those candidates, and when other campaigns have dumped millions without breaking five percent. This performance would prove Humanity First is a winning strategy for the Democratic Party and our county’s future.
While performing well in Iowa is good, it’s important to note how arcane the Iowa caucus is compared to how voters consider presidential elections today. In the elections before 2012, the majority of news was consumed through television. The television news media loved big events like Iowa because it condensed all the drama and nuance of a broader story into a 24-hour window they could cover with minimal resources. Average voters liked this method of coverage too — because they didn’t have the time or energy to keep pace with the day-to-day developments of a multi-year campaign. Previous election cycles have tried to condense the race into a single narrative. In 2008, it was Hillary Clinton’s election to lose — as she led the polls by 20 points for nearly six months. The Iowa Caucus was an opportunity to dramatically change the narrative of the race in a single day. We now know the story of electing the president’s first black president became too powerful to overcome, and Barack Obama got the nomination and later ascended to the presidency. The story of Obama’s performance in Iowa is a historical footnote, but it’s how the game used to be played and the rules are different now.
Today, the majority of news is consumed through mobile devices. Voters are constantly engaged with politics, and there are hundreds of websites and blogs dedicated to tracking tiny developments in the campaign (the fact Politico exists at all is proof of this change in trend). What does this mean for Yang Gang? It means Iowa does not matter as much as you think it does. Yes, there are still thousands of voters who tune in for Iowa and that’s it, and to those voters a strong performance is important. But it is not the beginning and end for a presidential campaign. Voters are open to newly emerging narratives for much longer beyond marquee moments like the first handful of states. We have to play the long game.
A decent performance in Iowa would be a good start to a long-term goal. Yang Gang should know by now we’re in this for a marathon, not a sprint. There’s a reason the campaign is establishing operation bases in Super Tuesday states even before we know our Iowa result. A key part of the campaign’s strategy is outlasting the other big-name candidates who are not committed to winning. Andrew Yang began his presidential campaign to implement ideas that will put humanity first and rewrite the rules of our society to benefit everyday Americans. We’re all in it to win, one way or another.
3) Underperform
Andrew wins four percent or less of the vote. This would undoubtedly be a disappointing result, but I would caution against doom-and-gloom cynicism because of the disproportionate standings in early states like Iowa.
In Iowa, this campaign has been outspent and outmanned by several magnitudes for months. On top of that, Iowans have seen literally dozens of candidates come and go and that builds inherent skepticism for lesser known names. It’s not fair to the supporters of this campaign, or to the humans who have hope for its success, to judge it so harshly given the specific circumstances in Iowa.
In the event of a poor Iowa performance, there would still be questions to answer. If there was a level playing-field of financial support, would this campaign do better? If voting was done in more demographically diverse states, would this campaign do better? If fewer candidates were in the race, would this campaign do better? These seem like important questions to answer before dismissing the potential of this campaign.
I also want to echo a sentiment shared by a lot of Yang Gang in the past few months. We’re thankful for Andrew’s role in boosting the signal of these ideas, but ultimately this platform exists beyond Andrew Yang. The Freedom Dividend, Medicare-for-All, Human-Centered Capitalism, Democracy Dollars, data rights, reducing student loan debt, ranked choice voting, minimizing the harm of tech on society, and all the other hundreds of policies on Yang’s website continue to exist after this campaign. We became involved in this campaign because we believed it was the antidote to all the poisons plaguing American society today. That’s not something you give up on because of a media narrative about the importance of the Iowa Caucus.
There’s data that says a majority of Yang’s early supporters were people who supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 (yours truly included). With that in mind, I think people should remember the age-old political wisdom that “successful campaigns are built off of failed campaigns.” Look at where American politics were before Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid and look at how that campaign transformed our politics forever. The supporters of that failed campaign found other ways to pursue the ideas they knew were important and they’re in the process of changing our world.
The fact this newsletter exists is proof the Yang Gang has a similar level of passion for a different set of ideas. And if you’re like me, you think these ideas are more likely to solve our problems than anything else. This is a nascent community that can accomplish incredible things if we maintain the optimism that comes from putting humanity first. These accomplishments might include running for office, or starting a news site focused on these issues, or founding a nonprofit movement. Thanks to this campaign, we all know there are a great number of people who want to pursue these accomplishments with us.
This campaign showed us the potential of humanity. We might not meet that potential today, but it’s always easier to become a cynic and say it will never happen. It is more difficult to stick to your values, admit you believe in something, and do everything you can to bring that belief into the world. Who knows, that may be enough to shock the world.
We’ll see you next week.
Who is the Yang Gang?
Please help share our “Who Is the Yang Gang?” survey on Facebook. We are close to 1000 (995!) respondents now, but they’ve been mostly from Twitter.
We know a huge number of Yang Gang are on Facebook, but the problem is our Facebook presence is absolutely abysmal. Please help us by sharing the survey on Facebook so as many people are counted as possible. Thank you!