Iowa- What the Heck is Going On?

[BL53931]

I think I know, but am seeking validation.

I came of age growing up in Iowa. The 60's and 70's were a good time to be a Democrat/Progressive there with solid people like Tom Harkin dominating.

Then the rot sat in. Starting with Reagan in the 80's the state just slid off the road into the ditch on the Right. Today politically and even culturally, it resembles West Virginia.

For all the time I was growing up it was suffering a brain drain. Young folks would leave to go to college then settle someplace else. Today it seems dominated by voters with little to no college education.  A perfect situation to produce Trump voters. Trump has led in poll there pretty much all through the campaign. I noted it was getting tight a week or so ago. Today he is back up. Any ideas?

[Maxwell]

Iowa loves negging - it's the only state where Trump has called the people stupid. Maybe he should do that more often?

[Catholics vs. Convicts]

Iowa has always been a great state to have in the D column, so I will really be sad to see it go. I will gladly trade Iowa for NC and Arizona, but just for this election, I would really like to see Iowa vote against trump.

[Chaddyr23]

It's hard to see the place that backed Obama so heavily since Winter of 2007 will go for Trump who didnt even win the caucus here.

[Mehmentum]

Iowa loves negging - it's the only state where Trump has called the people stupid. Maybe he should do that more often?

That quote was taken out of context if I remember correctly.  Trump was talking about how Carson probably thought the people of Iowa were stupid.

[Koharu]

The college cities in Iowa are growing, though still not as fast as MSP or Chicago. College educated millennials who couldn't afford to move to other places are starting to care about politics. Cedar Rapids, for example, seems to be growing with younger folks.

I also think some of the older farmers are ones like my dad (I'm from MN, but southern; went to college in Iowa) who were Republican most of their lives, but now as senior citizens are realizing that Republicans are not helping them, and are actually changing their affiliations. Or they are really put off by Trump, because his attitude doesn't fit what they expect of politicians. Also, many much older people are reminded of what they heard about Hitler and other fascist leaders in the years after WWII and won't vote for Trump on that front. I am actually really intrigued to see the breakdown of the older voters in this election, because I've heard anecdotally of a lot more voting Democratic than normally.

Though as someone who has also lived in West Virginia... no. There are some cultural similarities, but there are also some huge differences. Though that may also be differences in location in Iowa, as I suspect southern Iowa is different than northern Iowa, which is what I'm familiar with.

[Devout Centrist]

OP gets a 0/10 because this thread isn't about Nevada.

[Maxwell]

Iowa loves negging - it's the only state where Trump has called the people stupid. Maybe he should do that more often?

That quote was taken out of context if I remember correctly.  Trump was talking about how Carson probably thought the people of Iowa were stupid.

I thought the context was how stupid are the people of Iowa for believing Ben Carson. Either way - a hilarious quote.

[ursulahx]

Recently I was talking to an American friend, and I expressed horror that Iowa could vote for Trump. It's one of the few US states I've visited, and no one I saw looked remotely like a Trump voter (oh, there was one woman, but she was from Oklahoma). He asked me where I'd been in Iowa. "Just Des Moines," I said. He shrugged, as if to say, well, there you go.

[White Trash]

Iowa went for Obama both times and started to to lean towards Trump for a month or two, so now it's West Virginia? O-kay guys.

[Blue3]

Honestly, I'll be quite disappointed in Iowa if it goes for Trump. It made the Obama presidency possible. It would be a shameful betrayal to now vote for the racist.

[ProudModerate2]

Iowa is going to be close.
But I would not be surprised if trump were to win it.
Polling for this state does not look good for Clinton.

[hopper]

Iowa is going to be close.
But I would not be surprised if trump were to win it.
Polling for this state does not look good for Clinton.

Well its the closest "Battleground State" along with Ohio in this Presidential Cycle.

[morgieb]

The people of Iowa are just stupid. Hillary needs to diss them ASAP.

[indietraveler]

Don't look at me, I voted for Clinton last week.

The WV comparison is off base, I'm not sure what makes you think that? Honestly curious.

I think Iowa just really doesn't like Hillary Clinton, even several Iowa democrats. Third in the 2008 caucus. Barely pulling out a win in a two way race against someone who was still seen as a fringe candidate for most of the time leading up to the caucus this year.

Yes, Iowa is starting to trend R. A lot of educated young people leave the state; however, I don't think we would be having this discussion if the nominee was Sanders or any other generic democrat.

[Figueira]

Iowa has experienced very wild swings in the past; it's not a formerly solid Democratic state that has suddenly become Republican. If the current polling is accurate and it ends up being close while Clinton dominates nationwide, it could just be another one of those.

[pbrower2a]

Ethanol subsidies.

[136or142]

Iowa has been a swing state for a long time.  George W Bush won it both times.  The only exception was in 1988 when Michael Dukakis comfortably won the state (with around 55% of the vote I think) due to the family farm crisis that was a major issue at the time.  I think the Midwest was also experiencing a lot of droughts at that time that added to the financial problems of the small scale farmers.  Dukakis also only lost South Dakota in 1988 by something like 53-47% which is, I believe, the second best showing after Bill Clinton for a Democrat there in 1996 since 1988.

Walter Mondale, I believe, also did relatively well in Iowa in 1984 I believe due to the same crisis the small farmers were experiencing.

Since this is the Atlas Forum I should check the results before posting, but I'm listening to that idiot George Noory's Coast to Coast right now.  I'm pretty sure though the Forum election results will confirm what I wrote here.

Edit: the guest on Coast to Coast is extra loony.  What I wrote is correct except that Clinton lost South Dakota in both 1992 and 1996 by around 3%.

[andrew_c]

George W Bush won it both times.

No he didn't. He lost by 0.3% in 2000 but won by 0.7% in 2004.

[136or142]

George W Bush won it both times.

No he didn't. He lost by 0.3% in 2000 but won by 0.7% in 2004.

You are correct.  I misremembered.  The slight movement in the Republican direction in Iowa could be caused by the decline in the number of family farmers, but that's just a guess on my part.

[wolfsblood07]

Iowa loves negging - it's the only state where Trump has called the people stupid. Maybe he should do that more often?

No, it's a rhetorical question and Trump uses it occasionally.  He did it again in the 3rd debate.  He's basically saying it would be extremely stupid to do that or believe that, but he puts in question form to make it more emphatic.

[136or142]

Iowa loves negging - it's the only state where Trump has called the people stupid. Maybe he should do that more often?

No, it's a rhetorical question and Trump uses it occasionally.  He did it again in the 3rd debate.  He's basically saying it would be extremely stupid to do that or believe that, but he puts in question form to make it more emphatic.

With Trump, who can really tell what he means.  If he said "Are we stupid?" you'd be correct, but he asks "How stupid are we?" which implicitly implies 'we' are stupid, the question is only one of degree.

[Bismarck]

George W Bush won it both times.

No he didn't. He lost by 0.3% in 2000 but won by 0.7% in 2004.

You are correct.  I misremembered.  The slight movement in the Republican direction in Iowa could be caused by the decline in the number of family farmers, but that's just a guess on my part.

Farmers are a very republican group aside from the late eighties.

[Virginiá]

Iowa has experienced very wild swings in the past; it's not a formerly solid Democratic state that has suddenly become Republican. If the current polling is accurate and it ends up being close while Clinton dominates nationwide, it could just be another one of those.

This is what I am thinking. It could be that they just don't prefer Clinton this time, and maybe if she were to run again, they won't then either.

However, if in 2020 we field a different candidate and they win without Iowa, or lose the election but also lose Iowa by a large margin, then it is probably gone for us. Also, the state level trends certainly are not comforting.

Either way, when you look at all the states trending Democratic and coming into our column - North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado and eventually Arizona and Georgia, I mean, it really won't hurt us long-term in the electoral college if we lose Iowa.

[HAnnA MArin County]

I'd say Iowa is as equally important to both parties because of the first in the nation caucus. Both parties want to win Iowa in the general because it gives them momentum going into the next election. (I don't think they should be because they're not representative of the changing demographics of the country as a whole, but that's another issue.)

It could be just another example about how rural whites are leaving the Democratic Party. I couldn't tell you why, though. Perhaps the election of nut job Joni Ernst in 2014 was a sign of what's to come.