Reflections on Iowa.
January 16, 2024
On a day when the Iowa Republican caucuses are absorbing far more attention than they deserve, I will attempt to put the results in perspective. In doing so, I don’t mean to minimize Trump's victory or denigrate the importance of votes by Iowa citizens. Voting is important, especially on a bitterly cold night in Iowa. But if Iowans voted on Super Tuesday, the relative size and weight of the Iowa caucuses would be apparent in a way it is not on Monday evening.
Some basic facts about Iowa’s caucuses.
Size, scale, and turnout.
Candidates in the Republican primary compete for 2,249 delegates nationwide. The winners of the Iowa GOP caucuses will split 40 delegates. It appears that Trump will win 51% of the vote—or 21 delegates (2% of the delegates needed to win the GOP nomination). See CBS News, How many delegates does Iowa have, and how will today's caucus impact the 2024 presidential nominations?
By comparison, the GOP primary in California will award 169 delegates—all to a single candidate (if a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote.)
The projected turnout in Iowa’s GOP caucus will be low—about 110,000 per the NYTimes. By comparison, turnout in 2016 was 187,000 (a historic high).
Iowa’s Republican caucusgoers don’t reflect the American electorate.
Per ABC News,
White voters account for 97% of Iowa caucusgoers.
Evangelical white Christians account for 51% of caucusgoers.
66% said they don't think President Joe Biden legitimately won in 2020.
58% of GOP caucusgoers say they'd favor a federal law banning all or most abortion.
63% of caucusgoers say they consider Trump fit for office even if he is convicted.
The American electorate does not look like Iowa caucusgoers. For example, per NPR (in 2021), white evangelicals represent 14% of the US population (compared to 50% of caucusgoers in Iowa).
Similarly, 61% of Americans are white, compared to 97% of Iowa caucusgoers.
And 36% of Americans believe Joe Biden’s election in 2020 was not legitimate, compared to 66% of Iowa caucusgoers.
The point is obvious: Exercise caution when attempting to extrapolate Trump's victory based on a skewed sample of Iowans who attended the low-turnout caucus on Monday.
Why does this matter?
Although Trump is not technically an incumbent president, his dominance in the Republican party grants him quasi-incumbent status. So, the fact that he garnered only 51% of the vote in a state overrepresented by white evangelical MAGA voters is a troubling sign for Trump—and a hopeful sign for Biden.
Indeed, the signal in the noise is this: Nikki Haley beat Trump in one county—Johnson County. What’s in Johnson County? Answer: The University of Iowa. So, too, with Story County, home to Iowa State University, where Trump won by only 4 percentage points (34% for Trump vs. 30% for Haley).
What’s the lesson? In Iowa counties with younger, more educated voters, Trump loses or barely wins among die-hard Republicans. As I said, the Iowa victory contains troubling signs for Trump.
So, keep the Iowa results in perspective. While important, the caucuses didn’t warrant the wall-wall coverage they received on Monday evening—and do not suggest a general election victory by Trump.
Another NYTimes editorial condemning Trump.
For the second time in three weeks, the NYTimes Editorial Board has published a full-throated condemnation of Trump and a call to action to Republican voters. See NYTimes Editorial Board, The Responsibility of Republican Voters.
The Times Editorial Board didn’t pull punches. Excerpts below:
Donald Trump, who has proved himself unwilling to [uphold the Constitution], is manifestly unworthy.
Electing Mr. Trump to four more years in the White House is a unique danger.
Mr. Trump’s construction of a cult of personality in which loyalty is the only real requirement has badly damaged the Republican Party and the health of American democracy.
Mr. Trump’s record of contempt for the Constitution — and his willingness to corrupt people, systems and processes to his advantage — puts all of it at risk.
Mr. Trump is now distinguished from the rest of the Republican candidates primarily by his contempt for the rule of law. The sooner he is rejected, the sooner the Republican Party can return to the difficult but necessary task of working within the system to achieve its goals.
Whenever I quote a Times editorial, a reader posts a Comment that says, “Most people do not read NYTimes Editorials.” That is true. But the NYTimes is (like it or not) the nation’s “newspaper of record.” Its editorial policy has a gravitational effect on the thought processes of editors and opinion pages across America.
Having the NYTimes Editorial Board consistently hammer Donald Trump as “manifestly unworthy” to hold the presidency because he has a “record of contempt” for the Constitution is a good thing that will create ripples in the news ecosystem.
Speaker Mike Johnson admits that GOP wants an issue, not a solution, on immigration.
In public statements today, various GOP leaders in the House made clear that they will not support any immigration bill until Donald Trump is re-elected. Given that the Senate has agreed on a bi-partisan bill, the only logical conclusion is that Republicans are interested in keeping immigration as a campaign issue and have no interest in a short-term solution. See Talking Points Memo, Nota Bene.
Per Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo,
Johnson isn’t saying they [Republicans] won’t consider this bill. He’s saying they won’t consider any bill until Trump is elected.
Johnson is saying openly that they won’t pass any bill until Trump is elected. In other words, however out of control they claim the border is they want to keep it that way through November to use it as a political issue.
There’s a bipartisan deal [in the Senate] but House Republicans are rejecting it out of hand. That’s not terribly surprising. But your political opponents seldom state it so openly.
It’s an opening for the White House. Let’s see if they take it.
Opportunity for reader engagement.
I frequently receive requests from readers for information on what candidates they should support in their area. Bluevoterguide.org provides answers to those questions by allowing you to create an online voter guide specific to your home districts. Check out the link at Blue Voter Guide.
And if you are in the Los Angeles area, you are invited to an in-person info session and fundraiser on Saturday, January 20. See the note below from the good folks at Blue Voter Guide:
Blue Voter Guide Fundraiser, this Saturday, 1/20, 2-4pm, Los Feliz, CA
You’re warmly invited to join a fundraiser (either in person or with a donation) for Blue Voter Guide. Blue Voter Guide is a turnout-boosting secret weapon for November. It tackles ballot confusion--a critically underestimated problem that keeps young, inexperienced, and low propensity voters from completing their ballots. With Blue Voter Guide driving up turnout nationwide, we can win elections at all levels. The site is all-volunteer, but ballot data costs money, hence . . . a fundraiser!
To see the site in action, enter your address at bluevoterguide.org; you’ll get your whole ballot—candidates, measures, judges—accompanied by a list of trusted, progressive endorsers for each. This allows quick, informed, pro-democracy choices up and down the ballot, in minutes instead of hours. The results can be printed, saved, and shared. Easy and impactful.
Concluding Thoughts.
Health update: Four members of our immediate family (out of nine) have Covid. Everyone is doing okay. Thanks to all for your good wishes. The newsletter may be shorter than usual for the next few days.
Democrats should be feeling okay after the Iowa GOP caucuses. Looking behind the numbers—even the teensiest bit—belies the headlines that “Trump trounces rivals.” Trump won convincingly but exposed weaknesses on turf that should have yielded an even more commanding victory. And the results in urban areas and college towns are encouraging—areas that are more representative of the electorate that will decide the general election in November.
Tonight is a good time for a reminder that we have every reason to be hopeful, but no reason to be complacent!
Talk to you tomorrow!
Personally I was annoyed with all the coverage this caucus got--not just in the evening but all day any time I tried to turn on a bit of news. There were other things happening that were newsworthy. This just didn’t deserve the oxygen it got. We all knew who would win. We all could take a pretty educated guess at who number 2 would be and what the gap would be between 1 and 2. And so what? The GOP ecosystem is just what it was before the caucus. Why all the election theater trying to persuade us something was at stake in the outcome? It reminds me of the big in-person meetings that have you wondering why this wasn’t an email.
Sending healthy vibes to you and your family, Robert; particularly, that Jill is on the mend.
Regarding the horrifically dangerous weather Iowans are experiencing, I'm sure many caucus goers were thrilled to hear that the frontrunner acknowledged their pain as he declared that it was ok to die...after they voted for him.