Lucky for us, our inside man gdancik was able to participate in the first step of this
closely watched election. His experience in the Iowa caucus provides us invaluable insight into how the caucus operates and how it may have shaped the outcome of the election in Iowa, as well as how it may have shaped the outlook for the overall election. As he pointed out, the Democratic caucus took over 2 hours in a small, hot room with no option to sit for those participating.
If we keep this in mind with the statistics of Clinton supporters, the outcome of the Iowa caucuses needs to be questioned. In New Hampshire, Clinton received 57% of the votes for the 65+ age group and generally her supporters tend to be on average above 40 and female. The situation for the Iowa caucus (standing for two hours straight in a crowded, hot small room) could have caused some Hillary supporters to stay home. Obama, however, dominates in the college crowd.
One has to wonder if this played into account for the outcome. Perhaps Clinton could have taken Iowa, if only it was a standard primary and not a caucus?
UPDATE: Ok, I think I may have ran with the ball a little too fast with this one. But it does raise an interesting question. Some are saying that Barack lost in NH because the college kids were on break and therefore didn’t vote. But with such a big divide between the top two for the democratic candidacy, will this party stay divided? As Clinton’s supporters are generally older and Barack backers are generally younger, will either demographic be willing to support the other candidate?
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 11, 2008 at 7:03 pm
gdancik
That’s an interesting theory. At my caucus, though, I do not think that it holds because Hillary was way behind Obama after the first round (before realignment), and I doubt any supporters would have left by then. There is the possibility that the caucus kept older voters at home, although I think the crowded room this time was an exception resulting from the high turnout. I’m really interested in knowing more about caucus conditions if anybody else participated. I know that when I caucused in 2004, the room was huge, and that room would have had no problem holding the 240+ people that showed up this time around.
As much of a caucus fan I was a few days ago, I have decided that I think the process is utterly idiotic because it does not allow absentee votes (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/01/america/vote.php). Meaning people working on caucus night, serving in the military, etc. don’t have a voice. The other day Clinton gave a speech which touched on this (I can’t find the link now), and I give her a lot of credit for that. I’m a little surprised that more people don’t care about this (maybe because they don’t know). And I’m not sure that it’s true for other caucuses? And is it the state democratic party that’s responsible? Hopefully this makes sense..I gotta bounce!
January 15, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Romelle
This might go without saying, but just to clarify . . . one caucus experience was obviously held in a small, hot, over-populated room, but that doesn’t mean all caucus locations were similarly uncomfortable.
Totally agree about the unfairness of absentee voters.
January 21, 2008 at 9:45 am
gdancik
Thanks for the comment Romelle! Ruby, in response to your update, that’s a very good question. I think an argument could be made that the college vote that Barack has is less likely to vote for Clinton than Clinton supporters are likely to vote for Obama. (Although, I think Clinton has always led in National polls, so maybe this isn’t that good of an argument). But another factor to consider is that Obama attracts a fairly large number of independents, and I wouldn’t count on a lot of them to vote for Clinton in a general election.