How will Iowa vote in the GE?

[Senator-elect Spark]

I think Hillary has a better chance to win it than Trump because of its proximity to Illinois and her performance in the primary. Explain your reasoning.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think she has a better chance to win it simply because it is a Lean or at least Tilt Democratic state.

Add into that the fact that it's not an amazing fit for Trump arguably...

[Xing]

I think she's a bit better than even money to win it, though it'll be competitive for sure. I could see Iowa being quite close to the PV. Her performance in the primary isn't a factor, though.

[Senator-elect Spark]

I think she has a better chance to win it simply because it is a Lean or at least Tilt Democratic state.

Add into that the fact that it's not an amazing fit for Trump arguably...

Plus it has many evangelicals which he will presumably perform poorly.

[RaphaelDLG]

I think she has a better chance to win it simply because it is a Lean or at least Tilt Democratic state.

Add into that the fact that it's not an amazing fit for Trump arguably...

Plus it has many evangelicals which he will presumably perform poorly.

He actually does pretty well among evangelicals - he won them in the Republican primary while it was still a competitive race, astoundingly - proving that most Christians have never actually cracked open their Bibles.

He does poor, however, among upper midwest voters/people with whatever that intangible midwestern sensibility is called.

[indietraveler]

Midwestern evangelicals are not the same as Southern evangelicals. I think many will come around on Trump, but some will be morally opposed. I also don't think the proximity to IL is a factor either. Sure, eastern IA and western IL are similar but Chicago and its suburbs are worlds away culturally despite just being a few short hours away.

It would be interesting to see the fav/unfav ratings for Clinton and Trump since people here, like the rest of the country, love to hate both. Neither is a good fit for the state, but I want to believe Clinton has the slight edge at this point.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Serious note: people should really consider changing these posts to compare how States will do in comparison with the popular vote. There is a lot more useful discussion to be mined that way, unlike these threads which jus boil down to "who will win".

[RINO Tom]

I think she has a better chance to win it simply because it is a Lean or at least Tilt Democratic state.

Add into that the fact that it's not an amazing fit for Trump arguably...

Plus it has many evangelicals which he will presumably perform poorly.

He actually does pretty well among evangelicals - he won them in the Republican primary while it was still a competitive race, astoundingly - proving that most Christians have never actually cracked open their Bibles.

He does poor, however, among upper midwest voters/people with whatever that intangible midwestern sensibility is called.

It's called being polite and respectable.

[john cage bubblegum]

Iowa has voted 2-2.5 points more D than the country the last 3 cycles, and I don't think Trump is a particularly good fit for the state, so I'd say Hillary is a pretty solid favorite to win the state.

[LLR]

Says something about Atlas that Libertarian has more votes than Republican (although, I voted that way as a troll)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Iowa is a bit contrarian.  It was a Dukakis state and one of Reagan's worst states in 1984, and it was a Ford state in 1976 despite being one of McGovern's best states in 1972.

I suspect that it will be close for Trump if he loses (but a Hillary nailbiter), and a win for Hillary by 2-3 points) if she loses.  It's contrarian; perhaps the most contrarian State in the Union.

[Pragmatic Conservative]

Hillary Clinton will win by something like 53-45

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Unless Romney or someone else gets in, then Clinton.  She will carry every Obama state from 2008 or 2012.

[Young Conservative]

Republican. it is already trending Republican and I believe it will eventually achieve a status similar to North Carolina or maybe even Missouri within the next 20 years.

[Devils30]

Iowa is a bad state for Trump, it has similar demographics to MN, WI. I thought Iowa would lose it's Democratic lean with another R but not so sure about Trump.

[psychprofessor]

Republican. it is already trending Republican and I believe it will eventually achieve a status similar to North Carolina or maybe even Missouri within the next 20 years.

In 20 years North Carolina will be lean DEM :-)

I think Trump is an awful fit for the upper midwest. The question may become: does Trump drag Grassley down with him? That would be a prime Senate pick up for the DEMS.

[Crumpets]

I'm tempted to boycott this poll simply for the temerity of including Libertarian as an option.


Prohibition Party, obviously.

[Vosem]

It's still a tilt-Democratic state and it's another one of those Upper Midwest states where Trump is a particularly poor fit and likely to underperform. That said, this is a state that has been moving towards the Republicans in recent years, what with distaste for Obama's farm policies and the general movement of whites towards the Republicans (along with the fact that I think Obama was only a couple of points below the absolute ceiling for a Democratic presidential candidate here), so I can imagine this being a state that trends GOP. But it's pretty difficult to imagine Hillary losing here so long as she's winning nationally.

Also, Iowa is a pretty undersold possibility for national tipping-point state, imo.

[RaphaelDLG]

Republican. it is already trending Republican and I believe it will eventually achieve a status similar to North Carolina or maybe even Missouri within the next 20 years.

In 20 years North Carolina will be lean DEM :-)

I think Trump is an awful fit for the upper midwest. The question may become: does Trump drag Grassley down with him? That would be a prime Senate pick up for the DEMS.

Clinton could win by ten and, unfortunately, Grassley would still murder whoever the other Democrat is.

[Virginiá]

Republican. it is already trending Republican and I believe it will eventually achieve a status similar to North Carolina or maybe even Missouri within the next 20 years.

It's actually not trending Republican, at least at the presidential level. It's closer than other fast-changing states, but basically all voters 18 - 64 have trended Democratic since 2004. 65+ is arguably the only one trending Republican and even that is not much lower than 50-50 D/R. The Iowan electorate is not as red you might think and the younger voters who will make up the state's future electorate are more Democratic than every other age group in Iowa and appear to be staying that way. That means the future is most definitely not more Republican, barring some major disaster that is pinned on Democrats.

Of course it would be nice to have more data (which we will after November), but right now the statistics are not favorable to the GOP. Same story in virtually all of the other blue + swing states. This is what happens when you alienate an entire generation of voters.

[Vosem]

Republican. it is already trending Republican and I believe it will eventually achieve a status similar to North Carolina or maybe even Missouri within the next 20 years.

It's actually not trending Republican, at least at the presidential level. It's closer than other fast-changing states, but basically all voters 18 - 64 have trended Democratic since 2004. 65+ is arguably the only one trending Republican and even that is not much lower than 50-50 D/R. The Iowan electorate is not as red you might think and the younger voters who will make up the state's future electorate are more Democratic than every other age group in Iowa and appear to be staying that way. That means the future is most definitely not more Republican, barring some major disaster that is pinned on Democrats.

Of course it would be nice to have more data (which we will after November), but right now the statistics are not favorable to the GOP. Same story in virtually all of the other blue + swing states. This is what happens when you alienate an entire generation of voters.

Setting aside the 2016 election and looking at the longer-term picture, this is a slightly silly attitude to take. Parties in America have always shifted in response to demographics so that the balance between them is roughly 50/50 -- over the past hundred years, no party has ever enjoyed more than a decade of unbroken control unless a war broke out at the end of the decade prolonging that timeframe, and parties that have had more than a presidential term of unbroken control have always seen factions align with the minority party on certain issues to presage the return of 50/50 (the way the conservative minority of Democrats aligned with the GOP after the 1938 midterms, to use the most obvious example).

So it seems doubtful that demographics will ever give Democrats a permanent majority, since the opposite party will always shift to ensure the 50/50 dynamic remains. Republicans now mildly embracing gay rights and moving slowly away from interventionism are just two very obvious examples of that sort of party shift. Parties in America stand for nothing beyond being half of society.

[Green Line]

Republican. it is already trending Republican and I believe it will eventually achieve a status similar to North Carolina or maybe even Missouri within the next 20 years.

It's actually not trending Republican, at least at the presidential level. It's closer than other fast-changing states, but basically all voters 18 - 64 have trended Democratic since 2004. 65+ is arguably the only one trending Republican and even that is not much lower than 50-50 D/R. The Iowan electorate is not as red you might think and the younger voters who will make up the state's future electorate are more Democratic than every other age group in Iowa and appear to be staying that way. That means the future is most definitely not more Republican, barring some major disaster that is pinned on Democrats.

Of course it would be nice to have more data (which we will after November), but right now the statistics are not favorable to the GOP. Same story in virtually all of the other blue + swing states. This is what happens when you alienate an entire generation of voters.

Yes you say the same thing about every state. So in 3-4 elections democrats will be winning 48/50 states guaranteed because of the "age wave".  That's not the way elections have ever worked in America. Republicans won the youth vote in the 80's.  Did that lead to every single state trending Republican? No.

[StatesPoll]

I think Hillary has a better chance to win it than Trump because of its proximity to Illinois and her performance in the primary. Explain your reasoning.

TRUMP will win Iowa

1) White Evangelical might for him more than 80% (Mormon Romney got only 64% )
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/state/IA/president/

2) Considering, Hillary's high unfavorable rating %. Jill Stein might steal some voters from Hillary.
Liberal voters % it isn't that high, but because of White voter sharing is 93% in IA.
Almost 20% White Liberal Voters in IA. I guess Jill stein would get at least 2%. perhaps 3%ish in IA

Nader got 2.23% in IA. With Hillary's unfavorable rating %, Jill might doing better than Nader.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2000

1)+2) = TRUMP wins

[RaphaelDLG]

Republican. it is already trending Republican and I believe it will eventually achieve a status similar to North Carolina or maybe even Missouri within the next 20 years.

It's actually not trending Republican, at least at the presidential level. It's closer than other fast-changing states, but basically all voters 18 - 64 have trended Democratic since 2004. 65+ is arguably the only one trending Republican and even that is not much lower than 50-50 D/R. The Iowan electorate is not as red you might think and the younger voters who will make up the state's future electorate are more Democratic than every other age group in Iowa and appear to be staying that way. That means the future is most definitely not more Republican, barring some major disaster that is pinned on Democrats.

Of course it would be nice to have more data (which we will after November), but right now the statistics are not favorable to the GOP. Same story in virtually all of the other blue + swing states. This is what happens when you alienate an entire generation of voters.

Setting aside the 2016 election and looking at the longer-term picture, this is a slightly silly attitude to take. Parties in America have always shifted in response to demographics so that the balance between them is roughly 50/50 -- over the past hundred years, no party has ever enjoyed more than a decade of unbroken control unless a war broke out at the end of the decade prolonging that timeframe, and parties that have had more than a presidential term of unbroken control have always seen factions align with the minority party on certain issues to presage the return of 50/50 (the way the conservative minority of Democrats aligned with the GOP after the 1938 midterms, to use the most obvious example).

So it seems doubtful that demographics will ever give Democrats a permanent majority, since the opposite party will always shift to ensure the 50/50 dynamic remains. Republicans now mildly embracing gay rights and moving slowly away from interventionism are just two very obvious examples of that sort of party shift. Parties in America stand for nothing beyond being half of society.

Great post!  Iowa tilts blue right now, though.

[Virginiá]

Yes you say the same thing about every state. So in 3-4 elections democrats will be winning 48/50 states guaranteed because of the "age wave".  That's not the way elections have ever worked in America. Republicans won the youth vote in the 80's.  Did that lead to every single state trending Republican? No.

Ok, first, what is with this insulting post?

Second, I do not say this about every state. I say this about every state that has shown pro-Democratic trends at critical age levels. These include the vast majority of blue wall states and almost all the critical swing states. Before 2008, Colorado wasn't even a swing state, nor Virginia, nor North Carolina, and New Mexico was still on the map for some. The reason they are now is because of these trends. Do all states have this trend? No. For instance, West Virginia and Indiana's youth are majority Republican, and in WV's case, pretty heavily Republican. This is similar for a lot of red states. I mostly talk about states with interesting trends, which is why you see me mentioning this all the time. I'm not talking about "every state", I am talking about blue + swing states.

And yes, Republicans won the youth vote by large margins in the 80s - Part of this, in addition to the Truman/Eisenhower generation is exactly why Republicans began dominating the presidency from 1968 - 1992, then Congress from 1994 - though mostly just the House, then finally state legislatures. "Generational imprinting", or the political leanings developed in young adulthood are real and they are measurable. There are clear voting patterns and there are studies to back up these theories. Unless you've read some of that data and those studies, don't go off on me about this. I'm using legitimate theories and solid data when I put forth these ideas. I'm always glad to have a good discussion on this, but don't put words in my mouth and don't tell me "YOU'RE WRONG!" unless you want to back that up.

I actually look at the data Green Line, and I do a lot of research in my own time on this. You just threw in my face some random assertion I never made. Frankly, I have no record on this forum of going around making wild unfounded prognostications about states or regions without backing it up with a valid argument and data, if requested.