Behind Hillary’s Iowa Scare The state’s Democrats are significantly more liberal than they were when she ran in 2008.By William A. Galston
http://www.wsj.com/articles/behind-hillarys-iowa-scare-1454460063
Let’s begin with what didn’t change. Mrs. Clinton did better among women than men in both contests. She did 24 points better among Democrats than independents in 2008 against Barack Obama, and 30 points better among Democrats this year. She lost to Mr. Obama by 16 points among caucusgoers who regarded themselves as “very liberal”—and to Bernie Sanders by 19 points. She trailed Mr. Obama by 12 points among first-time caucus attendees, a group she lost to Sen. Sanders by 18 points.
And in both races she did much better among middle-aged and elderly voters. In 2008 she lost voters 17-29 years of age by 46 points, and those in the 30-44 bracket by 19 points. She ran even with Mr. Obama among voters 45 to 64 years old and trounced him by 27 points among voters 65 years and older. This time around she trailed Mr. Sanders among young adults by 70 points and by 21 points among voters 30-44. She did better among voters 45-64 than she did eight years ago, racking up a 23-point edge. And she garnered 69% of the elderly vote compared with just 26% for Mr. Sanders.
Here’s what did change. Mirroring national trends, Iowa Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are significantly more liberal than they were eight years ago. In 2008, 18% of caucus-attendees reported that they were very liberal, 36% somewhat liberal, and 40% moderate. This time around, 28% were very liberal, a 10-point jump; 40% were somewhat liberal, up 4 points; the moderates’ share fell by 12 points to only 28%. So Mrs. Clinton edged out Mr. Sanders in a more left-leaning environment than she faced with then-Sen. Obama.
Compared with 2008, on the other hand, the balance of caucus veterans to first-time attendees worked in her favor. On Monday night, 56% of those who attended had gone at least once before, while 44% had not. Eight years ago, only 43% had attended previously; a stunning 57% were first-timers. Mr. Sanders mobilized lots of new participants, but not nearly as many as Mr. Obama did. If he had matched Mr. Obama’s appeal, he would have scored a handsome victory over Mrs. Clinton.
The largest shift came along what has emerged as a major fault line for both parties: education and class. Eight years ago, Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama by 13 points among voters earning more than $50,000 annually. (Mr. Obama did even better among voters earning in excess of $100,000, trouncing Mrs. Clinton by 22 points.) This time, researchers asked about education rather than income, but the two are closely related. Mrs. Clinton fought Mr. Sanders to a tie among college graduates and topped him by 53% to 39% among caucusgoers with postgraduate education.
Looking ahead, the strengths and weaknesses of the two Democratic candidates are sharply etched. Mrs. Clinton prevailed among caucusgoers who cared most about the economy, health care and terrorism, while Mr. Sanders won 60% support among those (27% of the total) who identified income inequality as their top concern.
As for the candidates’ personal qualities, Mr. Sanders led Mrs. Clinton by 3 to 1 among voters who wanted someone who “cares about people like me” and by 8 to 1 among those most interested in a candidate who is honest and trustworthy. But Mrs. Clinton led by an even larger margin among the 28% of caucusgoers who were looking for a candidate with the right experience to be president. And among the one-fifth of attendees who identified winning in November as their top concern, Mrs. Clinton beat Mr. Sanders 77% to 17%. As the nominating contest continues, the focus on general-election victory is likely to intensify.
In addition to her strong ties with minority voters, which will matter once the nominating contest moves past the second straight mostly white state, New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton enjoys another advantage that is likely to be significant in the long run. She beat Mr. Sanders by 42 points among caucusgoers (55% of the total) who want the next president to continue President Obama’s policies.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Sanders led by 55 points among those who prefer a shift to more-liberal policies. Unfortunately for him, however, that support amounted to only one-third of those who caucused. And nationwide, according to the Pew Research Center, the share of Democrats preferring a candidate who continues Mr. Obama’s plans and policies rises to 61%.
Unless Mr. Sanders can change their minds, Mrs. Clinton appears well-positioned to prevail in the end. She will then face the task of persuading general-election voters that continuing President Obama’s policies will produce the change they say they want.
Comments are closed.
