Why did Iowa Vote so Far to the Right This Year?

[libertpaulian]

Iowa has always been viewed as the "liberal" Farm Belt state.  Pre-2016, it only went Republican once after Reagan's 1984 landslide.  Obama won it handily in 2008 and comfortably in 2012.  This time, however, Trump won there by 10%, even though Hillary Clinton's husband won there decisively both times in the 90s. 

What could cause it to go from such a decisive Obama state to such a Trump landslide state?  Did the politics really change that much?  Did Joni Ernst cast a Republican spell on the state's voters that lasted beyond 2014?

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

I never understood why it voted Democrat so often.

I've heard that the state has a lot of "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" types, so it makes sense that the voted Republican in 2004 when social issues were a major focus.  But this wasn't a social issues election (I consider immigration to be separate from religious/moral based social issues).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I never understood why it voted Democrat so often.

I've heard that the state has a lot of "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" types, so it makes sense that the voted Republican in 2004 when social issues were a major focus.  But this wasn't a social issues election (I consider immigration to be separate from religious/moral based social issues).

Some polling in 2014 showed IA was rather more conservative on immigration than most other "swing states".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Iowa has always been viewed as the "liberal" Farm Belt state.  Pre-2016, it only went Republican once after Reagan's 1984 landslide.  Obama won it handily in 2008 and comfortably in 2012.  This time, however, Trump won there by 10%, even though Hillary Clinton's husband won there decisively both times in the 90s. 

What could cause it to go from such a decisive Obama state to such a Trump landslide state?  Did the politics really change that much?  Did Joni Ernst cast a Republican spell on the state's voters that lasted beyond 2014?

Go back before 1988 it has quite a Republican history. 1856-1908, 1916-1928, 1940-1984 (save for 48 and 64).

Iowa used to be heavily Republican and heavily conservative (in a nationalistic sort of way). A large portion of its population relocated to SoCal and AZ during the mid 20th century. This population loss combined with the farm crisis helped to push it into the Democratic column in 1988.

Trump's campaign message was a very good fit for Iowa.

[Don Vito Corleone]

I never understood why it voted Democrat so often.

I've heard that the state has a lot of "fiscally liberal, socially conservative" types, so it makes sense that the voted Republican in 2004 when social issues were a major focus.  But this wasn't a social issues election (I consider immigration to be separate from religious/moral based social issues).

Well then Maybe Trumps pseudo-populism won them over?

[Hydera]

I looked in the exit polls and what happened was that obama was quite popular with independents in iowa in 2008 and 2012.  He won 56% of them in 2008 and 55% of them in 2012. However under Clinton it dropped to 38%.

Trump's anti-free trade stance and Hillary being unpopular with white voters without a college degree was amplified with Obama's declining approval in Iowa despite winning the state twice.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/something-funny-happened-in-iowa-and-it-may-hurt-democrats-in-2016/

His approval rating in October of 2016 also matched the percentages of both candidates. Iowans rated him low on immigration, healthcare and race relations.

[NOVA Green]

A collapse of Democratic support in the relatively unionized and anti-Free Trade factory towns and communities in Eastern Iowa, combined with a relatively isolationist historical attitude on foreign policy related elective overseas wars played to Trump's strengths and Clinton's weaknesses in this region of the country....

[Bismarck]

It voted how it should've been voting anyway. It was unusual before. It's a very rural state and very white.

[Figueira]

It's not just Trump--Iowa's rightward trend was clear in the 2014 Senate race. The question is why it voted Democratic in the first place.

[jaichind]

IA trended Dem in the early to mid 80s due to the farm crisis.  I guess since then it slowly reverted to the mean with 2016 a jump in a sequence of jumps where IA shifted more and more GOP.

[RINO Tom]

Iowa's populist nature is very overstated ... not like Trump didn't win the college-educate vote, too, and it's not like the suburbs and exurbs of Des Moines don't regularly vote to the right of rural Eastern Iowa.

[ApatheticAustrian]

I think Iowa is tacking hard to the right and soon it will be unwinnable for the Democrats come 2020. Rural friendly candidates do well here and Trump was no exception. The Democrats are moving towards an urbanized base and that turns people off in Iowa.

yeah, the south-western states are much fitting to the new Democratic trend than the midwest. every state in which urban territories are able to outvote the rurals is ground zero.

[RINO Tom]

I think Iowa is tacking hard to the right and soon it will be unwinnable for the Democrats come 2020. Rural friendly candidates do well here and Trump was no exception. The Democrats are moving towards an urbanized base and that turns people off in Iowa.

yeah, the south-western states are much fitting to the new Democratic trend than the midwest. every state in which urban territories are able to outvote the rurals is ground zero.

Pretty sure the suburban areas of Arizona - the quintissential Southwestern state Democrats salivate over - are more Republican than the rural ones...

[Sumner 1868]

Probably because the farms aren't doing so well right now.

https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2016/12/iowa-farmland-values-decline-cash-rent-issues/

[JohnCA246]

Didn't Democrats doing here have something to do with the "un-glaciated region" along the Missippi River where Dems generally do well along in WI, IA, and MN.

I'm not sure why they do well there, but I'm sure it ensures a different type of agriculture and settlement that that flat plains of NE and KS. IA, WI, and MN have rather complicated voting patterns. I think Trump just did really well with traditionally Democratic rural areas. Looks like the same thing happened in WA logging communities, ME, etc.

The Iron Range seems to have held out for Clinton though.

[Mister Mets]

Could Obama have had a regional advantage as a Senator from Illinois?

[henster]

I think someone like Klobuchar could reverse trends in Iowa.

[NOVA Green]

Didn't Democrats doing here have something to do with the "un-glaciated region" along the Missippi River where Dems generally do well along in WI, IA, and MN.

I'm not sure why they do well there, but I'm sure it ensures a different type of agriculture and settlement that that flat plains of NE and KS. IA, WI, and MN have rather complicated voting patterns. I think Trump just did really well with traditionally Democratic rural areas. Looks like the same thing happened in WA logging communities, ME, etc.

The Iron Range seems to have held out for Clinton though.

It depends on where we start in history... really it wasn't until 1988 in "Modern" American political history that these Rural parts of IA/MN/WI swung hard D....

Most Americans, including myself aren't closely connected to the particular problems that this sector faces, let alone the overwhelming majority of Atlasians (Myself included).

As others have noted, right now is a tough time to be a Farmer, especially with the collapse of Global Commodity prices for many items in recent years....

With many major farming commodities dropping to record lows over the past few years, you saw a major increase in US Exports of Agricultural Commodities, although basically getting paid 50 Cents on the Dollar, in an attempt to maintain minimal profit margins.

One of the most perplexing issues that I have been thinking about regarding the major swings towards Trump in many commodity producing (Farming areas) is why they would swing towards an economic Nationalist vs Clinton "Pro-TPP" angle, when most of their margins are now coming from international exports???

My exploration of various precinct results in Oregon, as well as looking at numbers in Wisconsin separately seems to indicate that Rural Dairy Country in Wisconsin, as well as pulp and paper Mill producing areas is where the real swings towards Trump happened.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=259187.0

I'm not sure why "Farm Country" swung so hard towards Trump in '16, since obviously every agricultural sector has different concern and issues.

Although I do not totally subscribe to the Marxist Social Anthropological Theory the economics is the key determinant factor in social identification, and cultural identification is on the far outer ring of the circle, I'm still pretty damn sure that Farm Country didn't just swing heavily towards Trump because he: " supported owning guns, wanted to build a wall, wanted to rebuild the military, wanted to nuke the hell out ISIS, etc...."

Although I in no way shape or form am an expert in the intricate political-economy of these areas, where quite frankly unfortunately there are very few small family farmers remaining in many States and regions of the country, it's pretty darn clear that there is a major economic issue for these family farmers producing a wide range a products, and again it sure as hell doesn't seem like Democratic and Republican Presidents  alike have been addressing farming related items for decades.

I suspect, and could well be mistaken, that Trump simply talking about the issues (In a round-about way) likely gave him a major bump in '16, while Clinton was mostly AWOL on rural and farming related items....

I'm actually kind of curious how the whole "Dairy War" issue with Canada is going to go...

Trump does appear to be a bit confused on Trade Policy.... so now we are "going to War wsized family farmersth Canada" on Trade policies and there is a whole "Tit-For-Tat" scene with one of our closest international allies, while meanwhile the Dude is practically inviting the North Korean dictator over for Lunch/Dinner (Not sure how they work these business meetings in extremely upper-income brackets), and then wants the "elected dictator" of the Philippines to come over for brunch!

Back to Agricultural Policy, if Trump doesn't deliver on his campaign pledge of "Rebuilding America", I would not be surprised to see Iowa/Wisconsin, as well as many rural precincts swing heavily towards a Populist/Progressive Democrat that * actually talks about rural smaller and medium-sized family farmers.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

My understanding is also that Iowa is a very socially conservative state.  It always struck me as odd, even in 2012, that Obama even had a chance in the state, as it seems like it should be a deep red state.  Actually, after Cruz and Rubio did so well in the caucus there, I heard someone say "fine, but that's a really conservative red state.  Let's see what happens elsewhere".

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

My understanding is also that Iowa is a very socially conservative state.  It always struck me as odd, even in 2012, that Obama even had a chance in the state, as it seems like it should be a deep red state.  Actually, after Cruz and Rubio did so well in the caucus there, I heard someone say "fine, but that's a really conservative red state.  Let's see what happens elsewhere".

I don't think that most people vote on social issues.  There are millions of socially conservative Democrats and socially liberal Republicans.

[RINO Tom]

My understanding is also that Iowa is a very socially conservative state.  It always struck me as odd, even in 2012, that Obama even had a chance in the state, as it seems like it should be a deep red state.  Actually, after Cruz and Rubio did so well in the caucus there, I heard someone say "fine, but that's a really conservative red state.  Let's see what happens elsewhere".

Eh, I'd say Iowa is pretty darn "middle of the road" when it comes to social conservatism.

[Heisenberg]

My understanding is also that Iowa is a very socially conservative state.  It always struck me as odd, even in 2012, that Obama even had a chance in the state, as it seems like it should be a deep red state.  Actually, after Cruz and Rubio did so well in the caucus there, I heard someone say "fine, but that's a really conservative red state.  Let's see what happens elsewhere".

I don't think that most people vote on social issues.  There are millions of socially conservative Democrats and socially liberal Republicans.

This.

My understanding is also that Iowa is a very socially conservative state.  It always struck me as odd, even in 2012, that Obama even had a chance in the state, as it seems like it should be a deep red state.  Actually, after Cruz and Rubio did so well in the caucus there, I heard someone say "fine, but that's a really conservative red state.  Let's see what happens elsewhere".

Eh, I'd say Iowa is pretty darn "middle of the road" when it comes to social conservatism.

I'd say it's 6.5 or so on social issues (1 being most liberal, 10 being most conservative). One thing of note: After the state supreme court legalized SSM, in 2010, three of those justices were thrown out by the voters (though in subsequent retention elections, others who favored it were kept).
I'd still say going forward, it'll usually be Likely R. Des Moines, Iowa City, and Davenport will however, give Democrats a pretty decent floor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

My understanding is also that Iowa is a very socially conservative state.  It always struck me as odd, even in 2012, that Obama even had a chance in the state, as it seems like it should be a deep red state.  Actually, after Cruz and Rubio did so well in the caucus there, I heard someone say "fine, but that's a really conservative red state.  Let's see what happens elsewhere".

That is true, but more so in the low turnout Republican caucuses.

There is a large number of working class voters in Eastern Iowa that are secular and voted based on economic issues primarily. This is likewise the case in SW WI and NW ILL. All three of these regions trended hard towards the Republicans in 2016.

The missing element that Romney lacked in 2012 was trade. This is not a coal region, so the war on coal rhetoric didn't help Romney here. They are secular and lapsed Catholics so social issues and opposition to gay marriage didn't help him any either. And on defense issues they are more paleoconservative and thus Romney's foreign policy didn't appeal to them much. These areas were heavily Republican until the 1980's.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Iowa is perfectly willing to vote for populists like Tom Harkin, but they've had quite enough of the Wall Street friendly neoliberal Democrats.

[Adam Griffin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiyLtMPuWRA