Iowa

[El Betico]

On paper, it seems the typical State tailor-made for Republicans...overwhelmingly white( without being in New England), very rural, significant evangelical population, not so high % of college-educated folks, no big urban areas...so, why is it such a consistent swing State, even leaning Dem at least before 2016?( maybe swinging back to its recent tradition now, looking at the midterm results). It is also the State that made possible Barack Obama path to presidency, which was very unlikely before Iowa caucus, and would have quite certainly remained so without that victory there...for me it is all so fascinating. Maybe the caucus itself, being the State that kicks-off Presidential Voting Season, is at least partially the reason for the existence of this apparent "oddity"?( for an external viewer like me)

Sorry if this is the wrong section, I wasn't sure about where a thread like this fits better.

[jamestroll]

in before someone states that its house delegation is 75% democratic

[El Betico]

It was the opposite before 2018, but yes, another -for me- fascinating thing which I forgot to mention is also the competitiveness of all its Congressional Districts, potentially...even a Republican win in the Second one -the most Democratic with Johnson County and Davenport- can't be completely ruled out, Trump did win there...I generally do really like follow elections in Iowa.

Also, the local HoR is 53-47 R...the Senate is much more Republican though.

[lfromnj]

Iowa 2nd is actually the 2nd most Trump district in Iowa. The reason for this is because it's much more polarized compared to the similar partisanship iowa 1st. The counties on the southern border are basically an extension of Missouri counties.

[TML]

In modern political history, Iowa first swung into the Democratic column as a result of the farm crisis in the 1980s. Thus, from 1988-2012, a number of rural counties in the eastern part of the state consistently voted Democratic. However, Trump's populist appeal flipped these counties back into the Republican column in 2016. Based on the 2018 gubernatorial result, I would guess that only about 15 or so counties in the state would vote Democratic if the statewide result were about even.

[Alben Barkley]

I honestly think the caucus has been a major factor consistently keeping it relatively competitive. It ensures both parties invest a lot into the state and spend a lot of time there going into election season. And for a time, it's pretty much the only state in the country candidates are focusing on. That means Iowa voters, more than voters in most states, have the chance to see or even meet a presidential candidate during an election. They are bombarded by ads early on. There are political activists constantly out and about, knocking on doors. Everyone is trying to get their vote. Hell, even the voting process itself is more active and involves more persuasion than voting in a simple primary. In states that vote later on, candidates are generally more hands-off. New Hampshire is the only comparable state really, and it also is an especially competitive state for its region.

After that, the field has usually winnowed and the campaigns become wider and more impersonal, going after delegates in large Super Tuesday states. And after THAT, the winner is usually starting to become clear and subsequent states matter less and less, so not much attention is paid to them. And it won't be for the rest of the election unless they're considered swing states in the general. But Iowa always gets attention no matter what.

I've often wondered that if a similar white rural state, say Kansas, was the first in the nation caucus, if it would be more competitive and "elastic" as well.

And I also wonder that if the Iowa caucus is dead now -- as it honestly probably deserves to be after the debacle this year -- if it will start to become less competitive and resemble other states in its region with similar demographics more closely. If so, that will give some support to this theory.

[SInNYC]

Its somewhat misleading to say that IA is a low-education state. If you look at literacy rate and high school graduation rate over the last few decades, IA and MN are often 1-2. IA might have a lower college rate but thats more because many Iowans leave the state for jobs after getting a degree. IA is also an older population, so that weights down its higher education rate.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

I honestly think the caucus has been a major factor consistently keeping it relatively competitive. It ensures both parties invest a lot into the state and spend a lot of time there going into election season. And for a time, it's pretty much the only state in the country candidates are focusing on. That means Iowa voters, more than voters in most states, have the chance to see or even meet a presidential candidate during an election. They are bombarded by ads early on. There are political activists constantly out and about, knocking on doors. Everyone is trying to get their vote. Hell, even the voting process itself is more active and involves more persuasion than voting in a simple primary. In states that vote later on, candidates are generally more hands-off. New Hampshire is the only comparable state really, and it also is an especially competitive state for its region.

After that, the field has usually winnowed and the campaigns become wider and more impersonal, going after delegates in large Super Tuesday states. And after THAT, the winner is usually starting to become clear and subsequent states matter less and less, so not much attention is paid to them. And it won't be for the rest of the election unless they're considered swing states in the general. But Iowa always gets attention no matter what.

I've often wondered that if a similar white rural state, say Kansas, was the first in the nation caucus, if it would be more competitive and "elastic" as well.

And I also wonder that if the Iowa caucus is dead now -- as it honestly probably deserves to be after the debacle this year -- if it will start to become less competitive and resemble other states in its region with similar demographics more closely. If so, that will give some support to this theory.

True. It didn't voted remarkably different from the plains states on the presidential level until 1976.

[Sol]

Iowa has a lot of small cities which are Democratic because they are cities, which gives a sizable D floor. Eastern Iowa is part of the Driftless Area which was a pretty D area before Trump. And pretty much of all of Iowa has a lot of swing voters, like most of the rural upper Midwest (see northern Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, the Western Dakotas).