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

[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".

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.

As muon demonstrated in a thread a few months ago, Iowa and Illinois are HARDLY protectionist states.  Free trade is vital to both state's economies.

[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".

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.

As muon demonstrated in a thread a few months ago, Iowa and Illinois are HARDLY protectionist states.  Free trade is vital to both state's economies.

Illinois: Free trade is vital not to downstate so much, but the Chicago area, which clearly dominates the state.
Iowa: Isn't the eastern part pretty populist and historically manufacturing.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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.

Iowa has always been a contrarian, counter-cyclical state.  Iowa was one of McGovern's better states, but went for Ford in 1976.

I am not convinced that other Republicans would have done as well as Trump in Iowa.  Iowa has an electorate that is educated and values education; it is not an anti-intellectual state and it understands that having a middle class requires investment and maintenance.  Donald Trump understands this; other Republicans seem to not get this.

[Arbitrage1980]

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.

Iowa has always been a contrarian, counter-cyclical state.  Iowa was one of McGovern's better states, but went for Ford in 1976.

I am not convinced that other Republicans would have done as well as Trump in Iowa.  Iowa has an electorate that is educated and values education; it is not an anti-intellectual state and it understands that having a middle class requires investment and maintenance.  Donald Trump understands this; other Republicans seem to not get this.

Iowa rewards economic populists who are also culturally and socially moderate. Dukakis won there in 1988, and Obama did extremely well there. It was close in 2000 and 2004 because Bush was a moderate Republican. Nonetheless, one of the biggest surprises of the 2016 election was Trump's stunning 9.4% margin in Iowa. Obama won by 9.5% in 2008. Trump's performance was stronger than even Reagan 1984.

[hopper]

I think someone like Klobuchar could reverse trends in Iowa.

With the right message and platform yes.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bernie Sanders could have done better than Clinton. Don't forget Kaine was friendly towards Terry McAuliffe, too, a corporatist wing of the Democratic party who favor trade as well in Ohio.

A brand new Democrat can bring new energy to the Democratic party in Iowa.  It depends on the Senate race and if Ernst has a credible challenge. If the Dems sweep all three branches, (winning House and Govs in 2018), then Iowa will come home in 2020.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Better question, why did Iowa vote Democratic in preceding years. Seems like a typical Republican state.

[Hydera]

Better question, why did Iowa vote Democratic in preceding years. Seems like a typical Republican state.

1988 - Farm crisis and Dukakis's swining a lot of WWC
1992 - Pool of voters from 1992 helped Bill Clinton
1996 - Growing economy = Democrats win
2000 - Small margin victory because people still liked the dems and the good economy
2004 - Bush's appeal to religious voters swings the state barely to him
2008 - Financial Crisis
2012 - Obama campaigning on Romney's economically conservative policies as being bad for WWC allowed him to win the state with a margin halved from 2008.
2016 - Trump's appeal to WWC heavily swings Iowa(stances on immigration and free trade).

[Fuzzy Bear]

One problem with Iowa is that its local Democratic pols are a weak bunch.  Braley was a terrible candidate against Ernst, and the Democrats can't beat Terry Branstad, a retread if there ever was one.  They can't mount a challenge to the 36 year incumbent Grassley, who seems as if he's a few bricks shy of a load at times. 

Iowa is lest interventionist, militarily, than much of the Red State Midwest.  It's folks are churchgoing, but there is not the militancy in religion in IA as there is in some redder states.  Iowa ought to be a prime target for the Democrats in 2020, but I think they're kind of baffled as to why they lost so big there. 

I do think that the large margin for Trump in Iowa was, very much, a personal repudiation of Hillary Clinton that will not be automatically repeated in 2020.

[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".

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.

As muon demonstrated in a thread a few months ago, Iowa and Illinois are HARDLY protectionist states.  Free trade is vital to both state's economies.

Illinois: Free trade is vital not to downstate so much, but the Chicago area, which clearly dominates the state.
Iowa: Isn't the eastern part pretty populist and historically manufacturing.

Yes, but both Downstate Illinois and most of Iowa have agriculture built into their DNAs.  It's like oil in Oklahoma.  Even if you don't work in Ag, you know that Ag is essential to Iowa continuing to be a thriving state with a relatively well-off population (in my other thread in the demographics forum, I posted that once you account for cost of living and look at true purchasing power, Iowa is the second wealthiest state in the union).  Additionally, on top of the strong Ag presence in Downstate, EVERYTHING in Illinois is impacted by Chicago no matter where you live.  Despite the narrative, it really isn't functionally two states, and Downstate and Chicago impact each other significantly.  People in Downstate Illinois know that, for better or for worse, Chicago and Downstate are joined at the hip.

[Coraxion]

Xenophobia.

[RINO Tom]

Xenophobia.

That's pretty baseless.

[MT Treasurer]

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.

This. Also, the state's Republican trend has been obvious since 2014 and it's not as if someone like Cruz or Kasich would have done much worse in the state either (remember, Trump wasn't really popular in Iowa). Clinton was an awful fit for the state.

[Young Conservative]

Democrats continue to isolate working class whites, once a pivotal part of their base. In addition, contrary to atlas cries, Trump won most of the Des Moines suburbs and reduced the Democratic margin there. Democrats ran on a message of elitism, something everyday Americans loathe. They chose a candidate with no connection to the middle class and ran a campaign that ignored the people that make states like Iowa and the country of America so great.

[Coraxion]

Democrats continue to isolate working class whites, once a pivotal part of their base. In addition, contrary to atlas cries, Trump won most of the Des Moines suburbs and reduced the Democratic margin there. Democrats ran on a message of elitism, something everyday Americans loathe. They chose a candidate with no connection to the middle class and ran a campaign that ignored the people that make states like Iowa and the country of America so great.

Non-white middle class folks voted for Clinton. This theory doesn't hold up.

[Intell]

Democrats continue to isolate working class whites, once a pivotal part of their base. In addition, contrary to atlas cries, Trump won most of the Des Moines suburbs and reduced the Democratic margin there. Democrats ran on a message of elitism, something everyday Americans loathe. They chose a candidate with no connection to the middle class and ran a campaign that ignored the people that make states like Iowa and the country of America so great.

Non-white middle class folks voted for Clinton. This theory doesn't hold up.

and your point being...

[Coraxion]

Democrats continue to isolate working class whites, once a pivotal part of their base. In addition, contrary to atlas cries, Trump won most of the Des Moines suburbs and reduced the Democratic margin there. Democrats ran on a message of elitism, something everyday Americans loathe. They chose a candidate with no connection to the middle class and ran a campaign that ignored the people that make states like Iowa and the country of America so great.

Non-white middle class folks voted for Clinton. This theory doesn't hold up.

and your point being...

Jobs and the economy weren't of any concern to most rural whites in Iowa. But Mexicans and Muslims were.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Democrats continue to isolate working class whites, once a pivotal part of their base. In addition, contrary to atlas cries, Trump won most of the Des Moines suburbs and reduced the Democratic margin there. Democrats ran on a message of elitism, something everyday Americans loathe. They chose a candidate with no connection to the middle class and ran a campaign that ignored the people that make states like Iowa and the country of America so great.

Non-white middle class folks voted for Clinton. This theory doesn't hold up.

and your point being...

Jobs and the economy weren't of any concern to most rural whites in Iowa. But Mexicans and Muslims were.

Iowa voted twice for a black man who had a school registration form that said he was Muslim.

[Intell]

Democrats continue to isolate working class whites, once a pivotal part of their base. In addition, contrary to atlas cries, Trump won most of the Des Moines suburbs and reduced the Democratic margin there. Democrats ran on a message of elitism, something everyday Americans loathe. They chose a candidate with no connection to the middle class and ran a campaign that ignored the people that make states like Iowa and the country of America so great.

Non-white middle class folks voted for Clinton. This theory doesn't hold up.

and your point being...

Jobs and the economy weren't of any concern to most rural whites in Iowa. But Mexicans and Muslims were.

#great analysis. It's not like the xenophobia and racism of the republican party, makes sure that minorities don't vote for Trump, but white people who don't face these problems, only face problems such as the jobs and the economy can vote for a person like Trump for a better life.

[hopper]

Democrats continue to isolate working class whites, once a pivotal part of their base. In addition, contrary to atlas cries, Trump won most of the Des Moines suburbs and reduced the Democratic margin there. Democrats ran on a message of elitism, something everyday Americans loathe. They chose a candidate with no connection to the middle class and ran a campaign that ignored the people that make states like Iowa and the country of America so great.

Non-white middle class folks voted for Clinton. This theory doesn't hold up.

and your point being...

Jobs and the economy weren't of any concern to most rural whites in Iowa. But Mexicans and Muslims were.

No come on guys. No.

[Technocracy Timmy]

Democrats continue to isolate working class whites, once a pivotal part of their base. In addition, contrary to atlas cries, Trump won most of the Des Moines suburbs and reduced the Democratic margin there. Democrats ran on a message of elitism, something everyday Americans loathe. They chose a candidate with no connection to the middle class and ran a campaign that ignored the people that make states like Iowa and the country of America so great.

Non-white middle class folks voted for Clinton. This theory doesn't hold up.

and your point being...

Jobs and the economy weren't of any concern to most rural whites in Iowa. But Mexicans and Muslims were.

Trump received a higher percentage of Asian, Hispanic, and Black voters than Mitt Romney did (remember a larger portion of voters this time around voted third party when compared to 2012, so this is actually a significant feat) all the while he campaigned on a platform of banning Muslims, deporting all illegal immigrants, and being endorsed by the Klan. He accomplished this because the flip side of his two part message with immigration was trade. And he used economic populism along with a tough anti establishment persona to make enough inroads among nonwhite voters to offset any of those voters who refused to vote for him because of his incendiary rhetoric and nativist platform.

I don't see why you can't then replicate this line of reasoning to many white working class voters particularly to the 6.7-9.2 million Obama 2012 voters who broke for him.

[RINO Tom]

I posted this in the Demographics Forum, but once you account for purchasing power, Iowa is the second wealthiest state in the US ... let's stop acting like it's this "WWC wasteland" that got suckered by Trump.  It voted against a third Democratic term after moving steadily Republican downballot before that ... simple as that.  It's not protectionist, it's not racist, it's not xenophobic.  Stop looking for shlt that isn't there, it doesn't have to fit West Virginia's and California's trends!

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

I have no idea as to why Iowa backed Trump by such a strong margin. It could very well be a fluke, like IN in 2008, which promptly snapped backed to its 'usual' pattern of 10-15 point Republican wins in 2012. Or it could be a reverse Colorado or Virginia. Hillary was a terrible fit for Iowa, but Trump was just as bad if not worse. Why Iowa would embrace a Yankee east coast authoritarian from New York City is beyond me. Iowa is not part of the rust belt either, so it would not have a special affinity for Trump's protectionism like OH,PA, and MI.

[TJ in Oregon]

It's a heavily rural state without a major city. Almost the entire Midwest outside of major metropolitan areas swing toward Trump, so it would be more surprising if Iowa didn't. Small-to-mid sized cities in the Midwest without a university are one of Trump's best areas relative to the usual R/D votes.

[Young Conservative]

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

Read this book for a more concise answer:

The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker

Books like that are the reason the heartland is being lost by the left forever.