It’s all about turnout

Putting aside, at least for now, genuine concerns about the structural flaws in the Iowa caucus process, and sidestepping analysis of specific candidates, yesterday was clearly a big win for Democrats in general.

For example, consider this take from Fred Barnes, an unapologetic water-carrier for Republicans in the always-conservative Weekly Standard:

Democrats nearly doubled their turnout–to 220,000–in the Iowa caucuses from 2004. This is a legitimate measure of their enthusiasm and zeal. Republicans drew 114,000 voters to their caucuses. This is a measure of their relative lack of enthusiasm and determination to hold the presidency. So Iowa reinforces the odds favoring a Democratic victory in 2008.

It sure does. In fact, Dems and Republicans entered the caucuses in similar positions — wide-open, competitive contests, with large fields of credible candidates, no incumbent, and no-frontrunner. For that matter, Iowa backed Bush three years ago, one of only two states in the country the Republicans turned from “blue” to “red” between 2000 and 2004.

Given this, there’s no obvious reason Democratic turnout should have been higher than Republican turnout. And yet, it wasn’t even close: “Projections showed a turnout of 220,588 for Democrats, compared to 124,000 who participated in 2004. Most projections had estimated turnout would be about 150,000. Turnout was also up on the Republican side, where projections showed about 114,000 people taking part.”

Actually, the 220,000 figure was a little low, and came early. The NYT reported this morning that “more than 239,000” Iowa Dems turned out to caucus, nearly double 2004 totals — and 2004 wasn’t bad.

How one-sided were the results? Mike Huckabee cruised to an easy victory on the Republican side, but his vote totals would have given him a fourth-place finish against the Dems.

The LAT, reporting from Urbandale, Iowa, described a common scene.

The Republicans gathered upstairs, the Democrats downstairs, and for more than an hour Thursday night, the enthusiasm gap between the two major parties could be measured by both numbers and sound volume inside the Central Community Church here.

In all, 303 Democrats were jammed into an overheated basement meeting room that crackled with excitement, while the 198 Republicans who filled the first floor church were more subdued — as if they were there for services, not for politics.

And that turnout happened here, in this Des Moines suburb’s Precinct 7, where registered Republican voters outnumber Democrats 747 to 660.

The disparity was repeated across Iowa, where more than 239,000 Democrats — a record — turned out to caucus from the Mississippi River to the Missouri River, far eclipsing the 124,000 who turned out four years ago. Among Republicans, turnout also was up but not as dramatically, reaching an estimated record 120,000, up from 88,000 eight years ago, the last time the caucuses were contested here.

As Iowans became the first voters in the nation to pick favorites for the major parties’ presidential nominations, the contrasting moods between these two caucuses underscored what could be a significant challenge for the eventual Republican nominee: generating enough excitement to compete with Democrats hungry to win the White House after eight years.

Not bad for a “red” state.

aarrggghh! as I explained in last night’s caucus thread:

how is Iowa a red state? It went Clinton twice and then Gore. Kerry narrowly lost, but now we have a Dem governor (for the third straight term), both chambers of the state legis are now Dem, and as of the 2006 elections, the majority of our congressional delegation is Dem. all of those are narrow margin elections – we are really a very purple state that is presently a little blue.

  • Just a quick question, Zeit, what percentage of registered voters are Dems and what percentage are Repubs? And, numbers of each? In other words, was the Republican turnout a relatively high percentage of registered voters as the Democratic turn out seemed to be?

  • Psst, zeitgeist, I see your point, but the media narrative, wrong as it may be this time, is finally working for us. Go with it, ‘K?

    “Red state goes gaga for Dems” “Red state Republicans dour about 2008”

    This kind of narrative can help, even if it might be technically flawed.

  • A fired-up and interested electorate, combined with solid candidates to choose from, mixed with a 50-state strategy courtesy, primarily, of Howard Dean. This does ecite me a bit and actually gives me a bit of hope.

  • phoebes, i dont know the exact current numbers, but over the last 10 yrs or so Iowa has run about 1/3 D, 1/3 R, 1/3 NP-Ind.

  • In fact, Dems and Republicans entered the caucuses in similar positions — wide-open, competitive contests, with large fields of credible candidates, no incumbent, and no-frontrunner.

    Steve! “large fields of credible candidates”? Both parties? If none of the Republican candidates-from-hell looks like he can actually win (their nomination, not the White House), none of them are credible, right?

  • as i left in another comment — the very large number of people who were at my caucus registering as D left me with a huge grin on my face…..unbelievable and has me totally excited for Democrat’s in November. over 500 at my caucus – in a high republican area (z — WDSM Dallas County.)

    (I too hate it when IA is referred to as a red state….definitely more purple.)

  • There are 382 days, 19 hours left of the worst presidency this nation has ever had. Iowa was the first glimpse at how loud the volume has been turned up to in the cries of demand for change. It’s sinking in that this nightmare is going to end. Thanks Iowa!

  • I think it’s a little unfair to compare the Republican’t straw poll secret ballot process to the Democratic talk and caucus process.

    Dems just have more fun. So there is more reason to come out.

    That said, one thing it does (I hope) is make the country think the Democrats are more juiced. Which I suppose is all to the good.

  • I’m with Zeitgeist and Beth as well regarding the “red” state designation. Though Shrub was given IA in 2004, his margin was only a couple thousand (IIRC). I too consider us more of a “purple” state trending blue. But personally, I’d like to see the whole red/blue divide banished entirely.

    At my precinct we had 212 attending in 2004. Last night 480 attended, about 20-30 were Ind and/or Reps. (There are 750 registered voters in my precinct.) We had 9 delegates, 4 of whom went to Obama, 2 to Edwards, 2 to Clinton and 1 to Richardson. Phenomenal turnout that surpassed the room (legal) capacity by quite a bit, and like Zeitgeist, I too was somewhat disappointed that we were so packed in that the usual interaction was just impossible. Still, an energizing and exciting night that certainly did inspire hope and great expectations for November.

    One surprising observation I made last night was, that of all the viable candidates in the second count, Clinton was the only one who did not pick up any votes after the realignment period. Edwards picked up 18, Obama 16, and Richardson managed to pick up 22 to become a viable group. No one left a non-viable group or the uncommitted group for Hillary. Purely anecdotal, but I do think it says something.

  • Of course, I still expect mostly minority urban areas to be plagued with inoperative or non-existent voting booths come November.

    After all, what evidence could ever lead them to expect a record turnout?

  • Iowa Victory Gardener — same exact situation for my caucus…..no one moved from Dodd, Biden nor Richardson to Clinton…they split to Obama and Edwards. interesting.

  • out here just north of Beth (near as I can tell), the Biden/Richardon/Dodd folks split – Obama, Clinton and Edwards all gained votes. Edwards gained the most – the non-viables played the game well and went where they could add a delegate and bargain to have that extra delegate come from their camp. unlike in prior years, there were virtually no “uncommitted” before realignment. i met people in each of the three main camps who were 1st time caucusers. hopefully, those whose candidate does not end up the nominee will stay engaged in the process on the Democratic side going forward. that would be a great sign.

  • Steve, this is EXACTLY what I wanted to see and my initial gut feeling played out just as I expected it to. Yes, percentages for whom each person “voted” for is (for some reason) hugely important (sorry, still don’t have a huge appreciation for the IA straw polls) but the numbers of people turning out for each party, to me, was vastly more telling. I was able to discern the appx. number of dems that turned out but I couldn’t find any GOP numbers last night.

    This is HUGE and, I certainly hope, telling, inspiring, and bodes well for our country in the upcoming years.

    Assuming, of course, that BushCo does not create some reason to call martial law after the elections when they find a candidate that won’t tow an acceptable neocon (new world order – nee American empire) line wasn’t officially elected (I fear using officially here – caging, butterflys, chads, et al not withstanding).

  • how is Iowa a red state? — Zeitgeist

    It is in the sense that Obama won it decisively, and Obama is supposed to be losing among democrats and winning among republicans and independents.

    In other words, it isn’t, unless you’re someone like Taylor Marsh trying to spin off Obama as someone who’s not really a democrat.

  • IVG wrote: “At my precinct we had 212 attending in 2004. Last night 480 attended, about 20-30 were Ind and/or Reps. (There are 750 registered voters in my precinct.)”

    Okay, now I’m impressed.

  • […] 303 Democrats were jammed into an overheated basement meeting room that crackled with excitement, while the 198 Republicans who filled the first floor church […]

    Oh, how funny! Very appropriate in the case of Repubs but, surely, it was a mistake to put Dems in the basement? From there, they could only go up…

  • Comments are closed.