Chris Bowers has some statistics on the Iowa Caucuses.
Moderates: Democratic 88%–12% Republican
Independents: Democratic 75%–25% Republican
Suburban: Democratic 73%–27% Republican
Urban: Democratic 87%–13% Republican
Rural: Republican 53%–47% Democratic
Age 17-29: Democratic 80%–20% Republican
Age 30-44: Democratic 70%–30% Republican
Age 45-64: Democratic 62%–38% Republican
Age 65+: Democratic 61%–39% Republican
Men: Democratic 60%–40% Republican
Women: Democratic 72%–28% Republican
Consider, in addition, the total turnout at the respective caucuses: Democratic: 239,000 Republican 122,500.
If these numbers are even remotely indicative of what is going to happen in November, there are hardly any safe seats left in the country. Only the most rural of seats can be considered as beyond the reach of a reasonable and well financed Democrat. That’s the kind of upside potential Barack Obama might be able to provide. It’s also indicative of just how badly the Republican brand has fallen.
And then there are those numbers among the under 29 crowd: an 80%-20% advantage (52,580-12,650), and a turnout rate that ‘rose to 13% in 2008 compared to 4% in 2004 and 3% in 2000’.
Jill has an excellent critique of Obama, but I’d like to ask her: “If Obama brings coattails like this, why worry?”
After all, we’ll get much more progressive legislation (and stability) out of huge congressional majorities than we will out of whatever paltry advantages in style and proposed policies Edwards might have over Obama. Right?
When you are right, you are REALLY right!
nalbar
Isn’t this kind of a circular argument? If Edwards were to win, there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t have the same coattails. More important, I don’t share your faith is what a congressional Dem majority would do: it will depend on presidential leadership. If the president does not set the tone to strongly favor progressive initiative, we could be in for disappointment much like we are experiencing with Congress right now. In that respect, style and proposed policies trump large Congressional majorities. Even a 60-something Dem majority does not, on its own, necessarily translate to an activist progressive majority.
If Obama turned out to be Bill Clinton, more interested in having the center-right power brokers like him than in working for fundamental change, Congressional power might not matter. There’s no reason to think Obama will turn out that way — I think there’s a real chance that, with a strong Congressional majority, he could prove to be this century’s version of FDR or at least what JFK might have been. I’d still be more comfortable with Edwards on the grounds of outlook and priorities, but either one — plus a big Congressional majority — just might have what it takes to dig us out of the present nightmare.
I’m not sure if it is really circular. If you look at the youth vote, for example, it went heavily for Obama. I don’t think there is much doubt that Obama was the main driver of this huge turnout, although the novelty of Hillary helped and having three good candidates helped. Obama can’t take all the credit, but he can take the lion’s share.
On the other hand, the numbers are devastating to the Republicans regardless of the eventual nominee. So you can make an argument that a landslide is coming no matter what. Let’s see what happens in New Hampshire. It will be a good test because the independents can vote in either contest. If they come over to the Dems at a 60-40 clip (as predicted) that’s pretty good. But if there is a repeat of Iowa’s 75-25 split and if Obama repeats his 24 point advantage with independents over Clinton…?
It will speak for itself.
Long live the denialists’ cry – ‘Iowa caucus results were a cry from the people that they wanted a change in Congress, not the White House’ (yes, Mitt, I jumbled your words of this morning, but I got the gist of it)
Seen much daylight in that cave you been living in Mitt?
Yes we’d get more progressive legislation out of huge Democratic congressional majorities. But “more” is a vague term. Would we get enough? I’ve predicted that the biggest problem the next Democratic President is going to have is with the majority Democratic Congress. It depends on how beholden that Democratic majority feels toward the new President.
If Obama can recreate that Iowa turnout nationwide he will have huge coattails. But the real test will be if he can recreate it (or come close) in 2010. And that depends on how pleased the voters are with what he accomplishes in his first 2 years (which practically speaking means his first 12-15 months.)
I’m less concerned with the differences in proposed policies than actual accomplishments during that key period. The question is whether his style, which proved excellent for campaigning in Iowa, will prove equally as effective at getting things done in Washington or whether it will hamper him.
We all know the conservative movement can be effective in the minority. We all know getting anything through a Democratic Congress is like herding cats.
.
A good start is to pick the right running-mate as JFK did with LBJ.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."in the mold of LBJ anymore. They made it illegal 🙂
I worry about anyone being up to the ENORMOUS task of straightening out what the Bush administration has done in every level and facet of government over the last 8 years. We are talking a Herculean task just in terms of triage. What do you fix first? And what else is set to come crashing down only after Bush leaves office?
I actually think they’re (the current crew) not going to be able to prop up the economy long enough for Bush to make a clean getaway and leave the mess in the next president’s lap Overall, I think people have wised up considerably since 2000.
as bloomberg.com says: the markets have spoken, and it’s not pretty…worst start to year since 2000.
but fear not, tax cuts are the answer to all your woes.
gimme an lTMF’sA!
I was a bit relieved the other day when Paul Krugman said that we may not slide as far into recession as he once expected. I’m too lazy to find the link but it was in the NYTimes.
But I think you’re right about the Herculean task of triage. The next administration may be able to accomplish nothing more than stabilization.
Is there any relevant historical data to compare this to? Is it unprecedented for one party to dominate across demographics like this? What did it look like in the run-up to previous incumbentless elections?
I ask mostly because, due to the small turnout as a fraction of registered voters, these numbers are probably a lot more volatile. They’re still a good sign, I just don’t know how good and I don’t want to jump to conclusions. At this point in 2004 I thought there was no way Bush could win reelection given his record, so now I am skeptical.
Those numbers are super drastic, so can we assume the 2004 numbers were a little more equal? The 2000 numbers a mirror image?
I guess the assumption would be that the turnout levels are generally similar in incumbentless elections; I’d like to know how it looked in 1976, when the republicans were still weak after watergate.
… effective candidates on the Democratic side turning out the vote, with the Democrats more eager to see the end of the Bush administration than the Republicans.
Projecting from caucus results to GE results is a dangerous game … those numbers are out of a universe of less than 25% of the Iowan citizenry, so something less than half the electorate.
Chickens and eggs can tell us a lot about elections:
Don’t put all your eggs in one basket: Maybe we’ll still have to reserve a corner for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, just in case.
Don’t count your chickens before they hatch: We’re still a long way off from the end of all this, if not in time, definitely regarding primaries and events.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?: In this case the true Iowa results, their true meaning, or the wishful interpretation?
And let’s not forget that people can literally get buried under landslides, including you and me. Landslides tend to blur geographical detail and relief.
which came first, the chicken or the egg
well obviously the egg came first as lizards have eggs and chickens came from lizards….but personally i think the rooster came first.
can someone tell me why all the chickens in key west seem to be roosters?
valid. I had heard about Obama having huge audiences where ever he went but I didn’t connect it to bringing in more people to the roster of dems.
Dean, I think, did bring in a few as well. We would have seen more dems elected except for the fraud committed by those damn touch screen voting machines and the sliming by Rovian operatives.
But Obama may be truly that pied piper that we need.
I had like Edwards because of the fighting words. But I like the thought of more people becoming dems!