Full Version: Meaning of the Iowa Caucus Turnout
The Democratic turnout in Iowa was over 239,000 while the Republican turnout was about 108,000. That means that Obama received about 90,000 raw votes, Edwards 71,222, and Clinton 70,505 while Huckabee, the Republican winner, received about 37,800 raw votes. In other words, Obama received more than twice the number of raw votes as the top Republican and both Edwards and Clinton nearly did as well. Iowa is generally considered a swing state.
Questions for Discussion:
What do you think this remarkable contrast in turnout is due to with highly contested caucuses in both parties?
Do you think this kind of contrast in enthusiasm will carry over to the general election?
QUOTE
A record number of Democrats turned out to caucus — more than 239,000, compared with fewer than 125,000 in 2004 — producing scenes of overcrowded firehouses and schools and long lines of people waiting to register their preferences.
The images stood as evidence of the success of Mr. Obama’s effort to reach out to thousands of first-time caucus goers, including many independent voters and younger voters. The huge turn-out — by contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday — demonstrated the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats, and served as another warning to Republicans about the problems they face this November in swing states like this.
(See New York Times Article).The images stood as evidence of the success of Mr. Obama’s effort to reach out to thousands of first-time caucus goers, including many independent voters and younger voters. The huge turn-out — by contrast, 108,000 Republicans caucused on Thursday — demonstrated the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats, and served as another warning to Republicans about the problems they face this November in swing states like this.
Questions for Discussion:
What do you think this remarkable contrast in turnout is due to with highly contested caucuses in both parties?
Do you think this kind of contrast in enthusiasm will carry over to the general election?
Questions for Discussion:
What do you think this remarkable contrast in turnout is due to with highly contested caucuses in both parties?
Hard to say. Hard to say. A few factors.
1) The democratic race was, in many ways, the main event in Iowa.
a. ) For one, it involves a referendum on a very controversial lady.
b. ) Secondly, he democrats in Iowa were much more nationally known... and exciting. Huckelberry ran kind of a sneak-up-on-you campaign typical of social conservative campaigns... his buzz spread through churches and church events where journalists don't go. Meanwhile Mitt "Perfect Hair" Romney is not what you would call an exciting or even national candidate... I bet I could go to a gas station right now and the guy behind the counter wouldn't know who he is, not so for Barack or Hillary. Aside: How Mitt can make fun of John Edwards for his 400 haircut boggles me.
c.) Democrats are happier about their candidates. They deliver galvanizing speeches, some of them.
d.) All of the democratic front-runners were in play in Iowa. Rudy, McCain, and Thompson were not.
e.) The democratic race was just more important, more intense, more apparently portentous and more competitive. Consequently, the candidates worked their staffs to death boosting turn-out. Barack Obama made personal calls... a lot of personal calls. Follow-up personal calls. Follow-up follow-up calls.
f.) The democrats 'seem' like they are going to take the White House, therefore people who wanted a say in the process but might not necessarily be democrats might have caucused.
2.) '08 is a democratic year, and lots of people are switching parties.
a.) See 2006 elections
b.) See Bush's approval rating (congresses doesn't count -- there are two closely competitive parties in there).
c.) See war fatigue.
3.) Democratic caucus system is more fun, more of a social event.
a.) Iowans live in Iowa, a place not known for it's exciting evening-out activities. I could be wrong.
b.) Maybe many people were bored and caucusing dem-style is more fun than the straw poll way that republicans do it.
4.) Barack Obama has a magic flute.
Do you think this kind of contrast in enthusiasm will carry over to the general election?
a.) Depends on the candidate. Obviously there is one democratic candidate who is red hot at the moment. My personal feeling is that Hillary or Edwards would galvanize the base more than the fringes. That approach can produce high turn-out, but not like Thursday night. If either of them have the nod, mark my word, the turn-out will be about where it was in 2004. Bush's first term did quite enough to boost the democratic base's turn-out, and he won't be on the ballot. What could possibly galvanize the democratic base more than a second term for George W. Bush? Not even Guiliani could so deeply peev so many democrat constituencies. If they don't go for independents -- which means people who are bored and fed-up with politics, particularly partisan politics -- they're going to leave a lot of people out of the process.
b.) On the republican side, I think McCain or maybe Rudy could attract high turn-out if they could hold the base (social conservatives and anti-illegal immigration voters). I think Romney would bore America purple. He's just not a goosebumps candidate. People don't register to vote for Mitt Romney.
What do you think this remarkable contrast in turnout is due to with highly contested caucuses in both parties?
Hard to say. Hard to say. A few factors.
1) The democratic race was, in many ways, the main event in Iowa.
a. ) For one, it involves a referendum on a very controversial lady.
b. ) Secondly, he democrats in Iowa were much more nationally known... and exciting. Huckelberry ran kind of a sneak-up-on-you campaign typical of social conservative campaigns... his buzz spread through churches and church events where journalists don't go. Meanwhile Mitt "Perfect Hair" Romney is not what you would call an exciting or even national candidate... I bet I could go to a gas station right now and the guy behind the counter wouldn't know who he is, not so for Barack or Hillary. Aside: How Mitt can make fun of John Edwards for his 400 haircut boggles me.
c.) Democrats are happier about their candidates. They deliver galvanizing speeches, some of them.
d.) All of the democratic front-runners were in play in Iowa. Rudy, McCain, and Thompson were not.
e.) The democratic race was just more important, more intense, more apparently portentous and more competitive. Consequently, the candidates worked their staffs to death boosting turn-out. Barack Obama made personal calls... a lot of personal calls. Follow-up personal calls. Follow-up follow-up calls.
f.) The democrats 'seem' like they are going to take the White House, therefore people who wanted a say in the process but might not necessarily be democrats might have caucused.
2.) '08 is a democratic year, and lots of people are switching parties.
a.) See 2006 elections
b.) See Bush's approval rating (congresses doesn't count -- there are two closely competitive parties in there).
c.) See war fatigue.
3.) Democratic caucus system is more fun, more of a social event.
a.) Iowans live in Iowa, a place not known for it's exciting evening-out activities. I could be wrong.
b.) Maybe many people were bored and caucusing dem-style is more fun than the straw poll way that republicans do it.
4.) Barack Obama has a magic flute.
Do you think this kind of contrast in enthusiasm will carry over to the general election?
a.) Depends on the candidate. Obviously there is one democratic candidate who is red hot at the moment. My personal feeling is that Hillary or Edwards would galvanize the base more than the fringes. That approach can produce high turn-out, but not like Thursday night. If either of them have the nod, mark my word, the turn-out will be about where it was in 2004. Bush's first term did quite enough to boost the democratic base's turn-out, and he won't be on the ballot. What could possibly galvanize the democratic base more than a second term for George W. Bush? Not even Guiliani could so deeply peev so many democrat constituencies. If they don't go for independents -- which means people who are bored and fed-up with politics, particularly partisan politics -- they're going to leave a lot of people out of the process.
b.) On the republican side, I think McCain or maybe Rudy could attract high turn-out if they could hold the base (social conservatives and anti-illegal immigration voters). I think Romney would bore America purple. He's just not a goosebumps candidate. People don't register to vote for Mitt Romney.
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jan 6 2008, 12:09 AM) 
Questions for Discussion:
What do you think this remarkable contrast in turnout is due to with highly contested caucuses in both parties?
Internet. Political events as "hook-up" joints. BDS. War fatigue. Hillary Love/Hatred.What do you think this remarkable contrast in turnout is due to with highly contested caucuses in both parties?
QUOTE(TedN5 @ Jan 6 2008, 12:09 AM)
Do you think this kind of contrast in enthusiasm will carry over to the general election?
Absolutely not. I think by November the average voter will sick to death of politicing, politicians, partisanship, conspiracy theories and the US Government in general.Unless there's a total meltdown of the US Economy (Democrats) or another US soil terrorist attack (Republicans) neither side has much to rally on.
Excellent topic TedN5!, I was thinking something along the lines of this myself. 
I wouldn't put much stock into that. As mentioned by drewyorktimes, the democrats are excited about their candidates and we have yet to see who will shake out from the republican pack. Once someone is nominated though, expect the GOP machine to kick into gear. The GOP megaphone(talk radio, FOX, and aggressive marketing) will take over and the number of GOP voters turning out will be truly something else. There is no party like the GOP when it comes to a knife-fight, just ask John Kerry.
What do you think this remarkable contrast in turnout is due to with highly contested caucuses in both parties?
the reason why is that it is such an open field this year. The demorats don't really have a clear cut leader. Typically, the vice presidential candidate from the previous ticket is your presumed nominee, or at least, a strong consideration and that is the case, but not really so. He isn't as irrelevant as Dan Quayle when he ran, but the feeling of inevitability with Edwards just isn't there. Hillary is a strong possibility with her husband, but the Hill-Billies didn't expect Barack Obama.
On the republican side, the current VP doesn't hold that role either. Being the closest relative to Darth Maul and being widely unpopular, he couldn't win a race for dog-catcher. Besides that, every major GOP candidate has some serious flaws. Huckabee is a social conservative, but people doubt whether or not he can win and he scares the money-bag republicans with his tax schemes. Mitt Romney is accused of flip-flopping, and then there's the whole ten wives thing. 
Giuliani isn't exactly a social conservative's dream, and Fred Thompson just wants to play president on t.v. 
Do you think this kind of contrast in enthusiasm will carry over to the general election?
I really believe that we'll see that. It's still very early and things won't heat up until after the nominating conventions. However, I would say a lot of press has been generated by the race and with a few unexpected results like we've seen in Iowa, I think that will help make the mood more frenetic as we approach summer time. The race has been quickened by the early calendar and plus, we are seeing that candidates who don't do so hot early in Iowa, will have a very difficult time covering ground and recovering. That will definitely lead a few candidates to ratchet up the rhetoric and to try and get their message out, and people will respond to that. We are already seeing that with Hillary personally taking control of campaign strategy amidst falling poll numbers in New Hampshire. If she loses New Hampshire, I would hate to see her in a debate-we wouldn't want to make Hillary angry, Bill can testify to that.
QUOTE
The Democratic turnout in Iowa was over 239,000 while the Republican turnout was about 108,000. That means that Obama received about 90,000 raw votes, Edwards 71,222, and Clinton 70,505 while Huckabee, the Republican winner, received about 37,800 raw votes. In other words, Obama received more than twice the number of raw votes as the top Republican and both Edwards and Clinton nearly did as well. Iowa is generally considered a swing state.
I wouldn't put much stock into that. As mentioned by drewyorktimes, the democrats are excited about their candidates and we have yet to see who will shake out from the republican pack. Once someone is nominated though, expect the GOP machine to kick into gear. The GOP megaphone(talk radio, FOX, and aggressive marketing) will take over and the number of GOP voters turning out will be truly something else. There is no party like the GOP when it comes to a knife-fight, just ask John Kerry.
What do you think this remarkable contrast in turnout is due to with highly contested caucuses in both parties?
the reason why is that it is such an open field this year. The demorats don't really have a clear cut leader. Typically, the vice presidential candidate from the previous ticket is your presumed nominee, or at least, a strong consideration and that is the case, but not really so. He isn't as irrelevant as Dan Quayle when he ran, but the feeling of inevitability with Edwards just isn't there. Hillary is a strong possibility with her husband, but the Hill-Billies didn't expect Barack Obama.
On the republican side, the current VP doesn't hold that role either. Being the closest relative to Darth Maul and being widely unpopular, he couldn't win a race for dog-catcher. Besides that, every major GOP candidate has some serious flaws. Huckabee is a social conservative, but people doubt whether or not he can win and he scares the money-bag republicans with his tax schemes. Mitt Romney is accused of flip-flopping, and then there's the whole ten wives thing. Giuliani isn't exactly a social conservative's dream, and Fred Thompson just wants to play president on t.v. Do you think this kind of contrast in enthusiasm will carry over to the general election?
I really believe that we'll see that. It's still very early and things won't heat up until after the nominating conventions. However, I would say a lot of press has been generated by the race and with a few unexpected results like we've seen in Iowa, I think that will help make the mood more frenetic as we approach summer time. The race has been quickened by the early calendar and plus, we are seeing that candidates who don't do so hot early in Iowa, will have a very difficult time covering ground and recovering. That will definitely lead a few candidates to ratchet up the rhetoric and to try and get their message out, and people will respond to that. We are already seeing that with Hillary personally taking control of campaign strategy amidst falling poll numbers in New Hampshire. If she loses New Hampshire, I would hate to see her in a debate-we wouldn't want to make Hillary angry, Bill can testify to that.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.