Numbers have meaning.
As I sit here, 97% of precincts have reported in on the Iowa Democratic Caucus, and Buttigieg and Sanders won a statistical tie for State Delegate Equivalents or SDEs (Buttigieg 26.2%, Sanders 26.1%). Sanders edged Buttigieg out in second alignment vote totals (Sanders 26.5%, Buttigieg 25.0%). Following the frontrunners in SDEs were Warren (18.2%), Biden (15.8%), and Klobuchar (12.2%). Although many have criticized the Iowa Caucus as 1) not representative of US demographics, and 2) a bizarre non-Democratic system that does not reflect true voter preferences, there is still much to unpack from the results.
- The Media doesn’t know how to treat either Sanders or Buttigieg fairly. Although Sanders’ war with the media goes back at least to the 2016 election, Buttigieg is not getting a fair shake either. He is constantly labeled a “moderate” by the media, even though his platform and his constituents belie a much more complex ideology. Bill Mahr, in a recent interview with Mayor Pete, said, “let’s be clear, you’re a progressive. There isn’t a Democrat in this race that isn’t an honest progressive.”
However, the media can’t bear a political upstart. While both Sanders and Buttigieg claimed some semblance of victory before the official Iowa Caucus tallies were released, Buttigieg, received the lion’s share of criticism for jumping the gun. Buttigieg said, “Because tonight, an improbable hope became an undeniable reality. So we don’t know all the results, but we know by the time, it’s all said and done, Iowa you have shocked the nation. Because by all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious.” Exuberant? Definitely. Presumptuous? Maybe. Disingenuous? A resounding NO. And yet, in consistent tones, the headlines decried his eagerness as braggadocio at best and cheating at worst.
- More voters in Iowa see Buttigieg as a viable second choice, bolstering his argument for electability. Although Sanders started out with a higher total vote count, Buttigieg’s numbers went up 3.9% after alignment compared to Sanders’ realignment of 1.8% and Warren’s realignment of 1.7%.
- In a representational democracy (such as ours), Buttigieg has an advantage over Sanders of being able to reach a greater swath of Americans. Buttigieg won 58 counties in Iowa, Sanders won 22 counties. Yes, Sanders won a greater share of the popular vote, but in the general election, the question is can he also win the rural areas.
- The “gender advantage” of the American electorate favors Buttigieg. In 2016, women made up a greater share of the electorate than men (55% to 45%). Buttigieg did better among women than men (24% vs 21%). Sanders did better among men than women (26% vs 20%). Not surprisingly, Warren also did better among women (18% vs 14%), which will only help her if she can get her overall numbers up. Biden did equally well among men and women (16% vs 16%).
- Buttigieg reaches a greater variety of age groups. As expected, Sanders’s voters skewed very young (48% of age 17-29 year olds, 33% of age 30-44, 11% of age 45-64, 4% of age 65+). Biden voters skewed much older (3% of age 17-29, 5% of 30-44, 18% of 45-64, 33% of 65+). Buttigieg and Warren had a much more even spread among age groups. For Buttigieg, the numbers were 19% for 17-29, 23% for 30-44, 26% for 45-64, and 21% for 65+. In the 2016 election, voters age 30-49 made up 30% of the electorate vs. voters age 50-64 who made up 29% of the electorate. We can go round and round on the numbers here, but the key message is that Buttigieg (and Warren) doesn’t only reach a single age group.
Of course, all this number crunching and interpretation is really nothing more than early conjecture As of now, Buttigieg only has 0.46% of the 2,376 delegates needed to win a majority, and the polls have not been terribly kind to him. Much ink has been spilled on Mayor Pete’s difficulty attracting African American voters. Furthermore, the momentum he had hoped to gain with an Iowa win was killed by the horrible screw-up in caucus vote reporting.
Nonetheless, there is deep meaning hidden in the Iowa numbers. With a creative visual arts team, brainy informatics wizards, and some solid campaign messaging, perhaps he can use this to argue a strong case for electability.
