Analyzing the Iowa Caucus Results

Michael Levy, Assistant Professor of Political Science

 

Predicting and analyzing the results of a political caucus and explaining why things happened and what they actually mean is either the easiest thing in the world to do or the most difficult.  It’s easy in the sense that it’s obvious that “numbers” are facts but it is the meaning behind the numbers and what implications they have which makes the Iowa caucus difficult to explain, interpret, and make predictions from.

 

Here’s the easy part.  Bush and Gore won while Bauer, Bradley, and Hatch lost.  George Bush captured about 41% of the caucus vote to 30% for Steve Forbes.  Conservative commentator and social conservative Alan Keyes picked up the support of 14%, conservative activist and head of the Family Research Council Gary Bauer garnered 9%. while John McCain, George W. Bush’s main contender in New Hampshire picked up 5% even though he didn’t campaign in the state. Orrin Hatch, who nobody can really explain why he ran for president, captured 1% and is duly dropped out of the race.  On the Democratic side, Al Gore beat his only challenger Bill Bradley 2:1.  But, those are the facts and those are easy.  Understanding what those facts mean for the primary process and for November is a more difficult task

 

For that, I focus in this outline on three things.  First, I discuss who participates in a caucus so that we can better understand why these events occurred.  Second, I will focus on the Republicans.  Third, I will look at the Democrats.

 

Turnout:

           

For those of you who may have tuned to C-Span or CNN and watched an actual caucus you may know a little bit about what exactly a caucus is.  It’s boring and few people attend.  Voter turnout overall for the caucus was 8.3% which is low, but still remarkable to say that 8% of Iowans came out for about 2 hours on a cold Monday evening in January to talk politics.  Of the people participating, roughly 42% participated in the Democratic caucuses while 58% Republican caucuses.  This is not that surprising given that the Republicans had more campaigns rounding up people to come to the caucuses.  If you watched, you will know that people spent a couple of hours discussing resolutions, selecting officers, signing petitions, supporting candidates, etc.  Given the fact that very few Americans have a real fond interest in politics, it’s not surprising that so few people show up.

 

So, because turnout is so low, crazy things can happen.  For example, televangelist Pat Robertson came in second in 1988 while former Republican turned Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan came close to Bob Dole in 1996.

 

So, exactly who comes to these events?  Those who attend are very committed individuals and party activists.  Even so, about 40% of Republican caucus goers and 46% of Democratic caucus goers had never attended a caucus.

 

Republican Caucus:

 

  1. Bush won but didn’t do as well as he would have hoped.
  2. There were two big winners as far as I am concerned. 
    1. Alan Keyes.  Keyes showed that a passionate, Conservative voice could draw well in a caucus and that the Republican Party must still pay attention to its social conservative base.
    2. John McCain.  I know that there are going to be people who disagree with my analysis but, Steve Forbes doesn’t have a chance of being elected president (and neither does any of the other Republican candidates other than Bush and McCain).  Forbes’ showing does one main thing: puts a chink in Bush’s invincibility:  money matters but there seem to be lingering doubts, even among Republicans, about Bush.  Couple Bradley’s poor showing in Iowa along with New Hampshire’s primary rules and it’s possible that some of Bradley’s centrist supporters could peel away and give McCain a boost in New Hampshire
  3. What do we learn about how people cast their vote.  Looking at the entrance polls, there were some interesting demographics in the Republican Caucus.
    1. Age Matters.  Among those under 45, Bush was only a few points ahead of Forbes and Keyes draws nearly 20%; among those over 65, Bush had a huge lead upwards of 30%
    2. The religious right is still strong.  Bush had a six point lead over Forbes and a 10% lead over Keyes with those identifying themselves as Christian Right.  However, the three social conservative Republicans (Bauer, Keyes, and Forbes) got 66% of the religious right vote. This is important because of the lingering doubts about Bush, his need to reassure this group that ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ is not just codeword for compromise on important social issues, and also maintain a moderate line for the general election.   If you are a Republican, you are rooting for Donald Trump to be on the Reform Party ticket because Buchanan could present a minor problem for the Republicans come the general election if there is a Conservative alternative to Bush.  Of course, this would only be important and potentially harmful to Bush if the race in November is close.
    3. There were two other interesting notes from the entrance polls.  First, for those who said the most important quality for a candidate was one who stands up for his beliefs, Forbes captured 60% to Bush’s 21%.  However, for those who thought that whether the candidate could win in November was most important, Bush was ahead by 30%.
  4. Bottom Line: Bush’s invincibility has been hurt a bit and this week.  A win in New Hampshire would be a welcome tonic and help consolidate his lead.  McCain is in a must win situation where he has to beat Bush and, honestly, I think he needs to do so by more than 5%-10% to stand any real chance.  However, if asked to handicap the race, Bush’s record setting fundraising means that the only thing he has to fear is that his opponents will damage him when he faces off with Al Gore in the general election in November.  Bush probably needs to mend fences with the Conservatives without looking like he’s pandering or swaying too much from the center.  All in all, it would be nearly impossible to imagine a scenario where Bush can be beaten.  If Bush could be beaten, it wouldn’t be John McCain who could do it.

 

Democratic Caucus:

 

  1. This was a miserable performance for Bill Bradley in Iowa.  Two months ago it looked like Bradley was coming on and probably would get 40%+ in Iowa.  However, Gore started launching attacks and Bradley refused to rebut the attacks.  Bradley eschewed negative campaigning and said that he wanted to wage a positive campaign.  That was probably the stupidest move of the campaign, no matter how noble that might be.  Negative campaigning is like Jerry Springer. Everybody says they’re stupid and they don’t pay attention to it, but when push comes to shove, people watch it and it’s an effective tool in instilling doubts in people.
  2. Bradley’s heart issue probably shouldn’t be a problem but it creates noise around the candidate, forcing him to answer on this question when he would like to be talking about something else.  So, while it probably wasn’t a driving force in Bradley’s stalling campaign, it certainly didn’t help his campaign and required the campaign to spend considerable time reassuring the voters he was healthy enough to be president.
  3. So, why did Gore do so well?
    1. Democratic party organization turned over to him their resources.  Gore had the support of the labor unions, the governor of Iowa, and the Democratic Senator of Iowa which helped facilitate voter turnout.
    2. Bradley doesn’t seem to be able to go above the mark of a protest candidate like Pat Buchanan in 1992 and 1996.

                                                               i.      entrance polls:  among those who don’t like Clinton personally, Bradley ran neck and neck with Gore; Gore had a 57% lead for those who personally liked Clinton, which encompasses 50% of caucus participants

                                                             ii.      among those who disapproved of Clinton’s job performance:  Bradley was ahead by 37% but this was only 13% of caucus-goers

    1. Issues

                                                               i.      Gore was ahead of Bradley by 20%-30% on every issue and every candidate quality characteristic except for new ideas.  Among the 7% who cited new ideas as the most important candidate quality, 78% voted Bradley.

  1. Conclusion
    1. Democrats like Clinton by and large and this is an asset to Gore in the Democratic primary
    2. There is a substantial percentage of those who have Clinton-fatigue in the Democratic party and that seems to be the core supporters of Bill Bradley
    3. Gore is in some trouble for the general election since there are going to be more Americans than Democrats who personally dislike Clinton, disapprove of his job performance, and who have a general Clinton-fatigue