Whereas the polls did not predict the outcome of Iowa’s Republican caucus, they were fairly accurate on the Democratic race. On the eve of the caucus, The De Moines Register’s survey found that Hillary Clinton led by 4%, well within the poll’s margin or error. The Quinnipiac University poll, on the other hand, had Bernie Sanders up 3%, also within the margin of error.
In the end, Clinton won by 0.3%! While the Clinton campaign is making sure that everybody knows that she was the victor of the caucus, I think it is fair to say that it was tie. This will not spoil Clinton’s presidential hopes, but there is little doubt that the results rocked the Clinton campaign and some of her supporters’ faith. According to the news coverage, the campaign’s internal numbers projected a Clinton win by 5% and I think that her demeanor during her “victory” speech showed that she was not happy with the results.
It is difficult to gauge the impact the results of the Iowa caucus will have on this race. Many post-caucus analyses have rightly complimented Sanders’ performance and noted his popularity among younger voters, but some pundits have exaggerated his long-term viability. As the dust settles, it is becoming clear that Sanders will win more caucuses and primaries, and not only in New England. The Clinton campaign needs to think through its game plan. Iowa may not be representative of the national Democratic electorate, but the results of the caucus do show that Clinton needs to adapt both her tactics and strategies if she wants to secure the nomination in the next weeks (and not months) and win the presidency in November.
To make my case, let’s look at the Iowa entrance poll for the Democratic caucus.
1. Turnout, at 177,000 caucus-goers, was higher than normal. The Sanders campaign had made it clear that to beat Clinton they needed a very high turnout. The Monmouth University poll on the Iowa race, published on 28 January 2016, confirmed this point. It expected turnout to be at 110,000. In this scenario, Clinton would win 47% of the vote to Sanders’ 42%. When the poll’s model was tweaked by increasing turnout to 150,000, Clinton’s lead decreased by 1%, while Sanders’ share increased by the same amount. The model suggested that Sanders needed more than 200,000 people to participate in the caucus if he hoped to win. The fact he tied Clinton with a lower turnout shows how competitive he was and the strength of his message.
2. Not surprising, 57% of all Democratic caucus-goers were women and 43% men. In terms of age, 18% were 17-29, 19% were 30-44, 36% were 45-64 and 28% were 65 and older. Clinton won 53% of the women vote and Sanders won 42%. He did better with men earning 50% support to Clinton’s 44%. There is nothing surprising about these results. The problem for both campaigns is that they need to better their numbers in different age groups. To put it differently, Sanders won the vote of people 44 years or younger and Hillary Clinton fared better with older voters. To be viable, Sanders has to really close the gap with seniors and Clinton has to attract more support among younger voters.
Given that Clinton is the likely Democratic nominee, she has an important problem in her hands. In Iowa, Sanders got 84% of the young vote. I wished the news organizations had disaggregated the entrance poll’s age groups by gender. But given that women represented a huge slice of the total numbers of caucus-goers, many younger women did not support Clinton’s candidacy. We can also say the same thing about unmarried women voters, which represented 25% of democratic caucus-goers. Sanders won 53% of those votes, while Clinton received 43%.
I am not saying that Iowa women should have caucused for Clinton because she is a woman. Women voters are a lot more sophisticated than that. But, the Clinton campaign needs to consider why young women are not supporting her candidacy at this stage of the race. There is no need for the Clinton campaign or its supporters to panic right now. But, Clinton’s hope of winning the presidency will in large part require Clinton to energize and turnout these voters.
3. When we breakdown Democratic caucus-goers by income, those people making $50,000 or less made up 41% of all caucus-goers, while those making $50,000 to $100,000 represented 38% and people making over $100,000 accounted for 20%. Sanders won the first group listed above, 53% to 44%, while Clinton won the other two groups – the first 50% to 44% and the second 55% to 37%.
At first sight, there is nothing surprising about these results. But, if we look at the top issues caucus-goers cared about, then the picture gets a bit confusing. The top issue, identified by 33% of caucus-goers, was the economy, followed by health care (30%), income inequality (27%) andterrorism (6%). Clinton won the first two issues. On the economy, she received 51% to Sanders’ 42% and on health care she won 59% to 38%. Sanders got two-thirds of caucus-goers who believed income inequality was their top issue. And Clinton won on terrorism by similar margins. Again, it would be nice if the entrance polls disaggregated the numbers a bit more by age, income, and gender. But, Sanders should have done better on both the economy and healthcare. Indeed, he was polling very strongly on the economy issue. His message on inequality has struck a nerve, but maybe Clinton’s attacks have convinced voters that he does not have the experience to manage the economy or expand health care coverage.
We can see this with the 28% of caucus-goers who believed that having the right experience was an important quality in their candidate. Clinton easily won on this measure with 88% of the vote to Sanders’ 9%! On this issue alone, Clinton should just ignore Sanders’ candidacy. But, elections are not solely about competence or electability. Candidates need to connect with their voters and inspire them to dream of a better future. Enthusiasm can help campaigns get out the vote and it is clear that while Clinton may be more electable down the road, Sanders’ message is energizing important groups in the Democratic base and they are coming in big numbers to support his candidacy.
4. The entrance polls show two other problems for the Clinton campaign. She is not connecting with voters. Twenty-six of caucus-goers wanted a candidate who cares about “people like me”. Sanders won these voters by huge margins, 74% to 22%. Honesty and trustworthiness was for 24% of caucus-goers another main quality and only 10% of these voters believed that these traits described Clinton! In contrast, 88% found Sanders to be honest and trustworthy.
This is a big problem for the Clinton campaign. The email controversy and Republican attacks are forcing many voters to question her integrity. Sanders’ point that she is beholden to Wall Street and big pharma, and that she relies on Super Pacs to run her campaign have also taken their toll.
For better or worse, Clinton is a symbol of the Democratic establishment and while she may tout her progressiveness, her campaign also basks on the role she played in her husband’s administration, which moved the Democratic Party away from progressive politics to a more centrist path.
Looking to New Hampshire and the future contests to come, it is clear that Clinton will more than likely win the Democratic nomination. But, her performance in Iowa raise serious questions about her candidacy.
To assure her victory in November, she will need to turnout Barack Obama’s coalition. This means that she has to attract more votes from young people. In 2008, 18% of the electorate was 18-29, increasing to 19% by 2012. Clinton not only needs to win this vote, but she also must increase the turnout of young voters. Before 2008, these voters stayed at home. In a competitive election, higher voter turnout helps Democrats and young people tend to support Democratic candidates. Talking about her past accomplishments and her experience is not enough. She needs to provide a new vision. First-time voters want to vote for change and surveys show that those people who voted for Obama in 2012 are also looking for somebody that will take the United States down a more progressive path.
Clinton has to also address the fact that many people question her honesty and trustworthiness. While Sanders has questioned her progressive values, he has not attacked her character. After Iowa, the Clinton campaign is highlighting her accomplishments and labeling them as proof that she is a progressive, while challenging Sanders’ honesty. Clinton has to be careful in this respect. Voters trust Sanders and they feel his the agent of change. Trying to discredit him will tarnish Clinton’s image and reinforce the negative feelings many people have of her.
Finally, Clinton should avoid veering to far left. She is a centrist and that is an important quality for many voters in states that are a lot more important than Iowa or New Hampshire. Plus, once she secures the nomination she will have to compete for the independent vote and a more leftist platform could be problematic in a general election and a big advantage for her opponent(s).