The official start of the US presidential election cycle in Iowa does not bode well for observers who worry about the decreasing trust in American electoral democracy. Critics have for years pointed to the disproportionate influence that this small, rural, and mainly white state has in either breaking a presidential campaign, or propelling it to the forefront of national attention. The stakes are high. Since the 1970’s only Bill Clinton managed to secure the Democratic Party nomination whilst loosing both Iowa and New Hampshire – the next state to head to the polls. In Iowa candidates thus needed to show that they have what it takes to win; and never has this been more important than in a race where Democratic voters express that the ability to beat Donald Trump is the most important quality they look for in a presidential candidate.
The Iowa caucus is primarily important because it allows the winner to broadcast a narrative of electability – with all the increased media attention and fundraising opportunities that this momentum of winning entails. The role of the Iowa caucus as a thermometer for electability explains the significance of what various media outlets dubbed the “shitshow in Iowa.” The widespread chaos following the crash of an app, designed to communicate the caucus results back to the state capital Des Moines, did not only call into question the organizational competence of the Democratic Party – a point Donald Trump did not hesitate to make on Twitter – but it could also have diminished the overall importance of the Iowa results.
The fact that it took more than three days for the results to be released probably both delayed the momentum for the winners – Buttigieg and Sanders – and shielded the biggest losers – most notably Biden – since media coverage in the first few days focused on the shortcomings of the caucus process rather than the results. This outcome was only counteracted by Pete Buttigieg’s risky move to go ahead regardless, and declare victory on the night of the caucus – a bet that paid off when it turned out that he had in fact won the state, and national media had been reporting on his claimed victory for days in the absence of an official result.
Nevertheless, when the results from Iowa were finally made public, some new trends emerged into sight. Whereas Bernie Sanders has fastened his grip on the left wing of the party at the expense of Elizabeth Warren – previously touted to be a strong contender for securing both center-left and progressive voters’ support – Pete Buttigieg is challenging Joe Biden’s position as the frontrunner amongst the moderate Democrats. Thus in a race that previously looked poised to be a run-off between Sanders and Biden, it is now not unthinkable that Buttigieg might replace Biden as the moderate contender taking on Sanders.
The most important question is whether Pete Buttigieg manages to use the momentum from Iowa to expand his base – which is still primarily drawn from moderate white voters – to include more minority voters. Biden has historically secured greater support and is perceived to have more wide-reaching appeal to voters from ethnic minority backgrounds. Buttgieg’s strength is that he quite successfully unites a coalition of college-educated whites, blue-collar whites and rural white voters. This is a powerful coalition, as it gives him a good shot at winning important swing-states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin that voted for Trump in the 2016 election. Nevertheless, his abysmal polling amongst African-American voters is a considerable challenge for him in the primaries, which could also persist if he were to win the nomination and become the Democratic candidate in the presidential elections. This is particularly relevant in key Southern swing-states like North Carolina and Virginia, where African-American voters are arguably the most important demographic in the Democratic Party coalition. The worry here is compounded by the fact that it may well be Iowa’s distinct demographics, as opposed to Buttgieg’s genuine ability to build a cross-sectoral and inter-group platform, that is performing the legwork for Buttgieg.
For now, Biden seems to be holding on to his lead in South Carolina whilst continuing to poll strongly in Nevada, where the minority vote is more important than in the predominantly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire. It is however not unthinkable that Biden’s support in these states might fade in the case of another disappointing result in the New Hampshire primaries – voters are not static, and adjust to whom they think are likely to score the Democrats a victory against Trump. Recent polls do suggest that Buttigieg’s victory in Iowa did cause a significant increase in support for him in New Hampshire, whilst Biden’s popularity is dropping. Much can happen in a nomination process where the question of electability – and thus how other people think and vote – is at the forefront of many voters’ minds.
There is less ambiguity about who is likely to be the preferred candidate of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Although coming in second by a tiny margin behind Buttigieg in the count of State Delegate Equivalents in Iowa – the traditional and official way of determining who won the state – Sanders is reported to have won the total vote count. This has led many commentators to see Iowa as a tie between Sanders and Buttigieg. Regardless of how one evaluates this claim, it is safe to say that the Iowa caucuses constitute a great success for the Sanders campaign. The question remains however – could Sanders have done better, and is there an invisible ceiling that is restrictively capping the Senator’s momentum.
The caucuses highlight some worrying trends for Sanders, despite his impressive performance in Iowa. He does have a sizable and exceptionally loyal base of voters and supporters. When one looks more closely at the voting patters, however, he does not seem too popular as a second choice. This comes to the fore due to the two-round structure of the Iowa caucuses. In the first round every caucus-goer aligns with their preferred candidate. After a count only the candidates with more than fifteen per cent of the vote proceed to the next round. The supporters of candidates that did not make it to the second round are asked to realign with their preferred remaining candidate. It seems to be the case that Sanders did not improve much between the first and the second rounds. In other words: voters seem to be either enthusiastic about him, or not considering to vote for him at all. This does not bode well for his ability to unify the party and to expand his coalition outside of his fiercely loyal base, although it does not need to be too critical in the primaries where his current base might be sufficient to carry him across the finish line. Nevertheless, Sander’s low popularity as a second choice remains a real risk that should not be ignored when trying to predict the primaries. Nominations are often won by candidates who manage to attract the voters of contenders who end their presidential bid. Thus as the Democratic primaries progress it becomes more important to be a popular second choice.
Although we can spot some trends from the results in Iowa there is still no candidate that has emerged as the clear frontrunner to be the Democratic presidential nominee. The upcoming primaries and caucuses in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina will be important test cases for whether the trends seen in Iowa will continue, and thus become defining for the remainder of the race. Probably though we will have to wait until after Super Tuesday on the 3rd of March – when large important states like California, Texas and North Carolina go to the polls – before we have a clearer idea of which Democrat will challenge Donald Trump for the presidency of the United States this November.