Pondering Predictions
After thoroughly embarrassing myself four years ago by predicting a Dean-Clark footrace for the Democratic nomination, I have decided not to take up Andrew’s call for predictions.
But like all elections, what you predict is based on the classic choice – future vs. past. And the question any prognosticator must ask themself today is: Will turnout for the Iowa Caucuses conform to the trends we have seen for three decades or does this year’s contest represent a break from business-as-usual?
From the perspective of the past, the consensus from the political science literature is that those who attend caucuses are even more unrepresentative of their respective parties and the general electorate than primary voters. They are older, wealthier, more educated, and more partisan than the rest of the electorate. After all, this is the group most likely to take the time out of their evening to actually attend a caucus. The bar to participation is high (no wonder that only about 6 percent of all registered voters participated in the caucus in 2004). Thus, any reliance on first-time caucus-goers, independents, or young voters is not only highly risky, but foolish.
Through this lens, the lead that Barack Obama has is ephemeral. I have no doubt that there is a lot of excitement and momentum on the ground for Obama in Iowa – especially among the young and self-described independents. In the latest Des Moines Register poll, Obama garnered about 40 percent of independents who said they planned to caucus, a group that comprised 40 percent of all self-reported, likely caucus-goers. His support among young voters is equally impressive, and of course, just about every report from Obama events notes the presence of that incalculable element of momentum.
Of course, turnout is what matters, and looking at the history of caucuses, independents and young people do not turn out. They may tell a pollster that they do. They may have good intentions, but they never come through. Consider that in 2004, only 17 percent of caucus-goers were between the ages of 17 and 29, and the majority of that group was older than 22. By comparison, 65 percent of caucus-goers were older than 45. That same year, 81 percent of Democratic caucus-goers were self-identified Democrats.
Of course, past performance is not a predictor of future results. Historians and political scientists, by design, don’t see breaks in trends until they happen – and usually not until they happen a few times.
Looking to the future, then, this may be the election in which everything changes. Energized by a charismatic candidate representing a new generation, and plugged in through new online organizing tools, young voters and independents may swamp the caucuses today. Under this scenario, tomorrow, we’ll look back and see not the dominance of these contests by party regulars, but the beginnings of the weakening of their hold on the process. That 17 percent of caucus-goers were under 30 in 2004 will not be bemoaned, but seen as almost double the percentage of 2000 (9 percent); that is, viewed as a harbinger of a profound change in politics. That 19 percent of Democratic caucus-goers in 2004 called themselves independents will be viewed as the beginning of a revolution in who comprises the Democratic Party.
As I said, I won’t make a prediction. But if you believe in continuities, you should bet one way; if you believe we are at the cusp of a new era, you bet another.
One final note: I will be flying to New Hampshire early tomorrow morning to watch the candidates firsthand in their -- very cold -- element. I’ll be reporting in periodically here at TPMCafe.
Don't worry Ken. It's going to warm up here in New Hampshire over the weekend.
January 3, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is not going to be a revolution in who comprises the Democratic party -- at least not from Iowa. A small proportion of Iowa voters will caucus but even if every registered voter in Iowa showed up the numbers would be small compared to the party nationally. This urge to extrapolate from Iowa is weird.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 3, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's so "weird" about it?
Iowa and NH are a microcosm of American voters. Of course they have to be taken in context, and their relevance adjusted in various ways for different regions of the country, and I don't think anyone is claiming the Presidency is won already.
But they do most certainly have relevance to see how candidates do with various constituencies and whether they live up to potential/hype. It's been illuminating in many ways.
For Dems, Obama and Edwards have done very well. Hillary has shown herself to a rather disappointing campaigner and unappealing despite huge advantages, proxies, and machine.
For Reps, it's shown how awful they all are, and that voters know it. It's shown that a fraction of the public will always vote for the Southern White Evangelical, but that has limits in the post GW Bush era. That Reps are now trending for McCain is also very interesting, as either a return to moderation, or desperation for a viable candidate.
January 3, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
.> Iowa and NH are a microcosm of
> American voters.
.
Not since 1890, no. The US today is overwhelmingly suburban and has zero contact with agriculture and very little contact with rural occupations. Iowa and New Hampshire are the opposite of a microcosm of the US.
.
sPh
January 3, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense.
You make it sound like Iowa and NH are on a different planet, that Iowa is one big agrarian community, or that there is a firewall between suburban/rural America, and urban america.
One of the main reasons they're so important is becasue it's the first place voters really pay attention to campaigns, to meet and vet candidates. Much of the rest of the country is still in MSM buzz mode regarding the 2008 election. Which is why for example the Hillary campaign has been allowed to cling to the "inevitability" meme long past it's expiration date.
I'm not saying they're the exact same as a New Yorker, or a San Franciscan. Obviously. They have to be weighted appropriately for various regions, as I already said.
But for a little reality, a lot of voters in places like SF and NYC come from and have relatives in places like Iowa and NH. And many large states also have large blocs of moderate voters, including suburban and rural folks. They have many of the same economic issues and values, with divergences that are known and can be extrapolated. In states like CA there is a continuum of voters from the urban centers to the larger metropolitan areas and out to the suburban and rural areas. Same with Ohio, Florida, Texas, etc.
For example, Iowa has more Religious Conservatives, so we see Huckabee doing better. While NH has less, and we see him doing less well. That's certainly applicable nationwide.
That both Iowa and NH are turning out for a long shot black man with a funny name, also says a lot. That Edwards' populism is resonating is meaningful. That Hillary is doing poorly considering her inside track is also hugely important regarding her "inevitability" factor.
January 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why it even needs to be pointed out, but statistical analysis is meaningless without context. I'm rather tired of people who memorize statistics as a substitute for knowledge. Even an elementary school student can see a trend in a small set of data. So what? Is it the right data? Will it be meaningful? Why are some always drawn to statistics while failing to understand their limits?
Statistics without context are often just a crutch, a way for pundits to essentially say something while saying nothing. If you have nothing to say, try harder, or just keep quiet.
***
Comparing Obama with Dean? Let's all remember for a moment that Bush still had OK approval numbers in 2004, and won. Many still thought the Iraq war could be "won" and were still in a post 90's prosperity mindset, waiting to wake up from the nightmare of 9/11 and other problems hoped to be just temporary. The political landscape has changed just a wee bit regarding voter sentiment. And not just with the "younger voters" as the MSM keeps harping on, but with everyone.
In just the last four years so many things have changed. Global Climate Change, while not necessarily a front issue in the campaigns, has finally been generally accepted and seeped into the zeitgeist; subtlety altering people's long term outlook and creating strange alliances and reconciliations between elements of the far left and right. the general acceptance of the need for medical insurance reform is another. Abu Graib and ongoing issues of torture have shocked the conscience. The housing bubble and ongoing predatory practices have brought the issues of corporate malfeasance and government collusion sharply into focus. The ongoing scandals have shown the public the extent to which politics have become corrupted. The blowback against Reagonomics, deregulation, and trade deals like NAFTA have woken the public up to the need for serious citizen/worker/consumer protections.
Issues like those, which there are so many of, aren't good campaign issues becasue they're difficult to sound bite. They're hard for pundits to understand becasue they're out of touch. They do however change the overall mood of the country, to be a bit more sober and look harder at candidates.
Dean couldn't even run this year, because he's not serious enough with his talk about reaching out to guys in pickups with confederate flags, which was insulting all around.
***
Yes the brain is associative and often sloppy or just misinformed, but for people who make a living supposedly for thinking, it always surprises me how intellectually lazy or cowardly many are that they can't drill down past these superficial comparisons.
btw, anyone who predicted Dean - Clark in 2004, perhaps ought to be pushing a broom. Dean was always a goof ball, and talked too fast. He was a disaster waiting to happen. Clark was always a desperation candidate, hoping his military credentials would allow him to campaign on ending the Iraq war. But the essential problem there was that if the public was ready to end it, it wouldn't take a General or Vietnam vet becoming president to do it. That's not how people think.
January 3, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The presumption is that Iowa is important because it gives the winners momentum in terms of media attention and fundraising. Perhaps the winners of the Iowa caucus have been successful because they actually used the drawn out process in Iowa to listen and respond to the real concerns of actual voters. In Iowa and New Hampshire it is possible for candidates to receive the kind of feedback they need to be responsive to we, the people. The candidates who take advantage of that opportunity learn what works in the rest of the primaries when one-on-one campaigning is no longer possible. Candidates who think we are a bunch of yokels and don’t really listen to our concerns and think we will be impressed with slick advertising and cool music and celebrity endorsements don’t seem to do too well on down the line. It is really not that hard to figure out why.
I do think we may be on the cusp of a new era in terms of increased levels of involvement but I am not sure that will be expressed in a way that candidates like Obama are hoping for.
January 3, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"In Iowa and New Hampshire it is possible for candidates to receive the kind of feedback they need to be responsive to we, the people. The candidates who take advantage of that opportunity learn what works in the rest of the primaries when one-on-one campaigning is no longer possible"
Exactly!
Maybe that's why "we, the people" chose that friendly, not-too-intellectual guy we'd like to have a beer with, George W Bush.
Can you say President Hucklebee?
January 3, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was trying to explain why winners in Iowa often become their party's nominee. It is always up to the electorate to decide if they are just pandering to gain the office for other purposes or are actually responding to the will of the people. They don't get the chance to be the nominee if they don't listen in the first place. Huckabee will drive more people to drink than to the polls, see what percentage he gets of the overall results, democratic and republican. Democratic turnout may approach double that of the republican caucuses.
January 3, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think it is good idea that the candidates be vetted by one-on-one campaigning in a few small states. To me it's kind of like a congressional committee examining a bill or a nominee and reporting its findings to the whole body. Their most useful function is to weed out the pretenders that do not stand up under close scrutiny and leaving us a slate of strong potential nominees.
I must say I'm glad to see South Carolina join the committee. For too long the Democratic establishment has simply abandoned all hope of appealing to any southerner outside of Florida despite being competetive in state and local races. (If Al Gore had made any attempt to carry his home state the world might be a very different place right now.)
What is driving me nuts though are the states that are determined to front-load the process. I fully understand the frustration of having no voice in the choice of candidate. I am in North Carolina and by the time our May primary rolls around the die is cast. I have no imput at all.
The states that have moved their primaries to January and February, though, are only exacerbating the problem by making those first few contests even more important. The candidates will not have time to get their message out to the voters in Michagan. Those voters will be poorly informed and even more reliant on the opinions of New Hampshire and Iowa and the tender mercies of the corporate media.
I am a firm believer that every state is unique and deserves an individual voice, but I have come to the conclusion that the primary schedule should be set by federal statute. I would propose a schedule of;
Just a thought.
January 3, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree the states that have rushed to Feb 5th have certainly not gained any voice; instead they've only increased the importance of IA and NH. I'm very disappointed by this turn of events.
I like your proposed schedule (Fed mandate, no, but...) perhaps add a southwestern and northwestern state in there between SC and "everyone else."
January 3, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink