Three additional points on the still (after 36 hours) incomplete results of the Iowa Democratic caucuses.
1. Turnout was low, with total turnout of approximately 170,000, about the same as in 2016 and well below the 220,000 level of 2008. In 2008, high turnout was a good omen for Democrats, as Barack Obama won 53% of the vote nationwide and 54% in Iowa, which had been an exceedingly close state in both 2000 and 2004. In 2016, in contrast, Hillary Clinton won only 48% of the popular vote nationally and a disastrous 42% in Iowa in November.
Strong Democratic enthusiasm, optimism about the party’s chances in November, and a large field of candidates were all factors drawing the large turnout in 2008. In 2016, Democratic enthusiasm was less, and at least some Democratic voters had reservations about the only two competitive candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. This year, Democrats had a large field of candidates, larger than in 2008, and a close contest as indicated by precaucus polling (which showed four candidates with between 16% and 23%). And anti-Trump feeling had boosted Democratic turnout in the 2018 off-year elections.
The relatively low Democratic turnout this year in Iowa suggests a lack of enthusiasm for the party’s candidates, a pessimism about the chances of defeating President Trump, a lack of urgency at a time of economic prosperity — or some combination thereof. None of it is good news for Democratic turnout in November.
2. There are multiple ways of scoring the Iowa caucuses — by the preferences of those entering the caucuses, by the second-vote preferences after each caucus declared unviable candidates with less than 15% of the votes and allowed their supporters to vote for others, or state convention delegate equivalents. By the way, I’m using the currently available numbers, provided by the Iowa Democratic Party and described as representing results in 71% of caucus precincts.
I notice that most media outlets are featuring the SDE numbers, showing Pete Buttigieg leading Bernie Sanders 26% to 25%. The SDE numbers will translate, at Iowa’s county and state Democratic conventions, to the numbers of the state’s 44 delegates allocated to each candidate. It’s a race for delegates, the argument goes, and so concentrate on SDEs, which reflect the ultimate delegate count.
But notice that not that many delegates are at stake. Buttigieg may end up with four to six more delegates than he would have if the delegate count was based on first preferences, in which Sanders beat him by a 24% to 21% margin. But the nomination is unlikely to be decided by a roll call on which a difference of four to six delegates determines the outcome. The number of first preferences is a measure that will be commensurate with the results of subsequent primaries (and the few other Democratic caucuses). The second-round results show Buttigieg gaining 3,943 votes over the first round, more than Sanders (up 1,344) and Warren (up 1,641) put together. That suggests Sanders has a lower ceiling than his 43% of total primary votes in 2016 (when he was the only real alternative to Hillary Clinton) and would indicate and that Buttigieg has a greater potential to increase his vote totals as other candidates drop out or fade from contention.
Iowa Democrats never before counted or provided caucusgoers’ first-round preferences. I think they should get more prominence (at least as much as SDEs) than the media are giving them.
3. As my Washington Examiner colleague Tim Carney notes, this was a disastrous performance for Joe Biden. Leading for months in national polls, he finished a poor fourth in Iowa, and his second-round total fell 2,357 from his initial preferences, indicating that he couldn’t reach the 15% viability threshold in very many precincts. It suggests that many of his supporters, while willing to answer pollsters’ phone calls, couldn’t be bothered to show up for the caucuses. It’s analogous, I think, to his poor fundraising totals, which have lagged well behind those of Sanders, Buttigieg, and Warren. Traditional Democratic big-money contributors active since the Bill Clinton era seem to have formed the core of his financial support, but they seem to be a vanishing species and don’t dominate Democratic giving as they once did.
The Biden campaign insists that its candidate is just getting started. Maybe. But his prospects in New Hampshire look dismal, Nevada looks iffy, and the most recent poll in South Carolina suggests he’s lost his lock on the black voters who have cast a majority of the state’s votes in previous primaries. I remember interviewing the 29-year-old Biden on the phone in May 1972, when he sketched out exactly how he would beat a longtime popular Republican senator. That was the start of a long career in electoral politics. It looks like that career might be over this year, just short of half a century later.
