I am spending too much time today reading articles about the caucuses, most of which come with their own special bias. I’ve been reading the Christian Science Monitor since I was a wee lad, since I was born in the church. The reputation of the paper is that it is rarely the first word on anything, rather priding itself on taking long enough to be truly interesting. Thus today.
First, the GOP race: I was expecting high turnout to be the key to a Trump victory. Quite the reverse. As outlined in the article, the final poll from the Des Moines Register predicted that 47% of GOP caucus-goers would be evangelicals. The actual evangelical proportion was 64%. If you do the math on the difference between expectations and actual results, and apply the 1/3 versus 1/5 proportion of that vote that Cruz and Trump received respectively, it amounts to roughly 5000 votes. Cruz had roughly 5200 more votes than Trump. Close enough to conclude that evangelicals did, indeed, make the difference. So the same pattern as 2008 and 2012, when evangelicals made noise in Iowa which ultimately signified nothing. The addition of the appelation President in front of the last name Cruz remains unlikely.
In the Democratic race, according to the CSM, a different number stands out: 84% of voters under 30 voted for Bernie Sanders. That’s a stunning number. But let’s put it in context. Again, according to the article, 18% of caucusees were under 30, as opposed to 22% in 2008. A 4% difference. Doesn’t sound like a lot, although enough for Clinton to eke out a nominal victory. But let’s use real numbers. According to the Iowas Democratic Party, the Democratic caucus turnout was 171,109. As the Des Moines Register reminded us in an article in October, 2015, Obama’s victory in Iowa, in 2008, happened with 240,000 Democratic caucus-goers voting. So what’s the difference? 18% of 171,109 is 30,800 votes. 22% of 240,000 is 52,800 votes. That’s a 22,000 vote difference. Or, put in context, a roughly 15,000 vote bump for Sanders, based on the 84% of under-30s he won.
So, either Sanders has generated less enthusiasm than Obama did in 2008, or his campaign is not as well run as the Obama campaign. I suspect that it is a combination of these factors. But, frankly, I find it hard to believe that Sanders could generate more enthusiasm that he has already, or that his campaign could approximate the utter perfection of the Obama campaign. Every bit of which was necessary to defeat the very formidable Hillary Clinton. Not impossible; Herculean, perhaps.
Now, let me be clear. I’m not saying we won’t end up running against Cruz, although I don’t think so. And I’m not telling anyone in Bernie’s camp not to spend every last drop of sweat pursuing the improbable. I saw Villanova beat Georgetown. We’re a long way from this all being done. All I’m saying is that you win by fighting the battle that you’re in, not the battle that you want to be in. And I’m reading a lot of Pollyanna Principal-driven diaries today. Time to get real, and move forward.