The Inequalities Of The Iowa Caucus - Why Edwards has a major advantage with his rural organization

[Herman Munster]

http://iowaprogress.com/2007/02/27/the-inequalities-of-the-iowa-caucus/#more-289

In 2004, 122,193 people attended the Democratic Precinct Caucuses to elect 3000 delegates to the State Convention. This averages out to just under 41 caucusgoers per delegate elected. However, this average wildly differed in every county. In Johnson County, home of the University of Iowa and the most Democratic county in the state, it took nearly 80 caucusgoers to elect one delegate. However, in tiny Fremont County located in the heart of Republican Western Iowa, it only took 22 caucusgoers. When one looks at the number of caucusgoers that it takes to elect a delegate in each county, there is a clear pattern. Caucusgoers in small, rural, Republican counties wield disproportionate power compared to those in more urban Democratic counties. In fact, the people who are most disadvantaged by this are students. Of the four counties where it required the most caucusgoers to elect a delegate, three of them had significant student populations: Johnson, Poweshiek and Story. It is a system that favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa. It is a method that of selecting a candidate that has a clear bias and to be successful, presidential candidates have to spend a disproportionate amount of energy on less populous rural areas. The full breakdown is below the fold:

1 JOHNSON 79.21276596
2 POWESHIEK 69.8
3 JEFFERSON 68.46153846
4 STORY 65.97674419
5 DECATUR 54.625
6 WARREN 52.19148936
7 POLK 50.74651163
8 WINNESHIEK 49.6
9 DALLAS 49.09302326
10 MADISON 45.4
11 CEDAR 42.55555556
12 JASPER 42.45454545
13 MARSHALL 42.4
14 DAVIS 41.25
15 MAHASKA 40.5
16 WOODBURY 40.18518519
17 MUSCATINE 40.11428571
18 BOONE 40
19 MARION 40
20 BUCHANAN 39.47826087
21 IOWA 39.46666667
22 GREENE 39.41666667
23 WAPELLO 39.3902439
24 CLAY 39.33333333
25 ADAIR 39
26 BREMER 38.65217391
27 PALO ALTO 38.54545455
28 LINN 38.22807018
29 WAYNE 38
30 MONROE 37.875
31 HARDIN 37.63157895
32 WEBSTER 37.34146341
33 HAMILTON 37.29411765
34 LOUISA 37.1
35 WASHINGTON 36.89473684
36 DES MOINES 36.84313725
37 BUENA VISTA 36.8125
38 APPANOOSE 36.76923077
39 SIOUX 36.18181818
40 UNION 35.69230769
41 DUBUQUE 35.60952381
42 ADAMS 35.4
43 KOSSUTH 34.9
44 SCOTT 34.57142857
45 HARRISON 34.5
46 MONONA 34.5
47 KEOKUK 34.4
48 POTTAWATTAMIE 34.27941176
49 JACKSON 34.19047619
50 MILLS 33.3
51 TAMA 33.26315789
52 CLAYTON 33.15
53 RINGGOLD 32.83333333
54 BLACK HAWK 32.72058824
55 GUTHRIE 32.66666667
56 PLYMOUTH 32.47058824
57 VAN BUREN 32.33333333
58 FAYETTE 32.18181818
59 SHELBY 32.11111111
60 IDA 32
61 HENRY 31.84210526
62 CASS 31.75
63 BENTON 31.74074074
64 CHICKASAW 31.5
65 PAGE 30.6
66 CARROLL 30.23809524
67 AUDUBON 30.125
68 HOWARD 30
69 FRANKLIN 29.81818182
70 GRUNDY 29.8
71 WRIGHT 29.69230769
72 CRAWFORD 29.58333333
73 FLOYD 29.16666667
74 CERRO GORDO 28.83636364
75 LUCAS 28.44444444
76 O’BRIEN 28.1
77 JONES 28.04545455
78 CLARKE 28
79 ALLAMAKEE 27.69230769
80 BUTLER 27.23076923
81 DELAWARE 27.16666667
82 WINNEBAGO 26.91666667
83 SAC 26.8
84 LEE 26.51111111
85 DICKINSON 26.5
86 HUMBOLDT 26.5
87 POCAHONTAS 26.5
88 LYON 26.33333333
89 CALHOUN 26.09090909
90 OSCEOLA 25.75
91 MONTGOMERY 25.375
92 TAYLOR 24.83333333
93 WORTH 24.8
94 MITCHELL 23.16666667
95 HANCOCK 23.09090909
96 EMMET 23
97 CHEROKEE 22.69230769
98 CLINTON 22.47457627
99 FREMONT 22.28571429

[JDPriestly]

1. Democrats have relied on urban voters for the past 40 years

We have handed the rural vote over to the Republicans. If Bush won (I don't think he did), it is because of his advantage with rural voters. The Republicans take the rural voters for granted. They are not offering them much. Edwards knows how to appeal to rural voters. He really cares about rural America. His message to rural America could change the color of the map of America. With a 50-state strategy, I believe Edwards can win big.

In a different post posted this evening there is a video of Elizabeth Edwards in Boone, Iowa in which she points out that in 2004, the Kerry campaign did not run one TV ad in North Carolina, Edwards' home state. This was true of a number of states categorized by the McAuliffe DNC as "red states" and therefore not worth the campaign funds. Yet, as Elizabeth Edwards points out, a number of these red-listed states have Democratic governors. The governors win in state-wide elections because they understand the problems of the people in their states and speak to those problems.

Edwards agrees with Dean's 50-state strategy. The success of that strategy requires an appealing message to rural voters. The "inequalities" or "unfairness" of the Iowa caucus system helps ensure that, at least to a minimal extent, we have one place where our ability to appeal to rural voters is tested.

To win in 2008, we will need to draw more rural votes than we have. The Iowa caucus will help us identify who might do best in 2008.

[Herman Munster]

4. I think the key point as far as the polls are concerned is this:

Obama's support is oversampled because his supporters are younger and more concentrated in just a few urban counties. The caucus system penalizes this. In other words, his younger urban supporters are worth less than Edwards rural supporters.

But when the polls do their thing and telephone people they are not adjusting the weights on a per county delegate proportinate basis. This means that Edwards polling is probably undersampled by a few points. I've heard of campaign strategists making these adjustments themselves whenever they see a poll. They add 3 or so points to Edwards and subtract 3 or so points from Obama to make up for this urban/rural advantage

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/polling_in_iowa_why_a_lead_mig.php

As a totally unscientific rule of thumb, some analysts tend to subtract three points from Barack Obama's percentage in a good poll -- he does better in urban and suburban areas than he does in rural precincts ... and tend to add a few points to John Edwards's tally. He has many second-tier counties locked up.

Do not put much stalk in Democratic polls.

[frogcycle]

2. trying to lower expectations, are we?

[Stop Cornyn]

3. I agree! It's completely unfair that Edwards has the best strategy and most wide spread support!

[snowbear]

5. CNN said today that HRC has snowblowers, plows, you name it on call..

One of the mediaheads laughed and said "next we're going to hear that they're carrying them to the caucus on their backs"

I think that HRC has ensured she has all the strategy in place that MONEY can buy.

Sheesh..

[Stop Cornyn]

6. I understand that Hillary and Obama are spending about $350 per supporter in Iowa. WOW!

[journalist3072]

9. What she's doing isn't about money.

The shovels are to give to her supporters to ensure they can get out of their drive-ways and get to their specific caucus site.

And the Clinton campaign is procuring sandwhiches so their supporters can eat as they caucus.

Nothing wrong with that at all.

[JohnLocke]

7. You do know that's how the next President will actually be elected?

The Electoral College itself is biased in favor of leas-populated areas.

[Divine Discontent]

8. I can see John getting upwards of 35% when all is said and done

because of the 3rd tier candidate support going away from Hillary into the totals of John and Barack. MSM will just say John won because of a 'rigged' rural system that Edwards took advantage of using his re-hashed message from 04 and going to every county over and over because he's not in Congress... we know the wording they love to use, heaven forbid if he wins they say he won on the message of change.

I haven't made a prediction yet, but why not, I'm going to go with Edwards beating #2 by 4 points. That'd make me very happy.

[calteacherguy]

10. Yes the Iowa caucus is undemocratic, and yes Edwards will likely win.

This will be followed in short order by independents in NH delivering victory to Obama.