NYT: Iowa’s Swing to Republicans Is a Matter of (Lacking a) Degree

[PragmaticPopulist]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/14/us/politics/iowa-democrats-republicans.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RINO Tom]

Nate Silver and everyone else at the NYT is LITERALLY obsessed with this narrative, but it's not like Iowa's college-educated voters are Democrats being outvoted by a bunch of rubes.  Trump won college-educated voters 48%-46%, and he won Whites with a college degree 49%-44%.  Trump won the most educated county in the state, Dallas, by 10 points.  Grassley won 59% of college-educate voters in the Senate race and 60% of White college graduates, and there was no statistically significant correlation between having a degree/not having a degree and voting for the Republican; he dominated both groups.  He won the state's wealthiest and most educated county (again, Dallas, a solid Trump county) with 65% of the vote.

Details and all.

[Santander]

Nate Silver and everyone else at the NYT is LITERALLY obsessed with this narrative, but it's not like Iowa's college-educated voters are Democrats being outvoted by a bunch of rubes.  Trump won college-educated voters 48%-46%, and he won Whites with a college degree 49%-44%.  Trump won the most educated county in the state, Dallas, by 10 points.  Grassley won 59% of college-educate voters in the Senate race and 60% of White college graduates, and there was no statistically significant correlation between having a degree/not having a degree and voting for the Republican; he dominated both groups.  He won the state's wealthiest and most educated county (again, Dallas, a solid Trump county) with 65% of the vote.

Details and all.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the article.

[RINO Tom]

Nate Silver and everyone else at the NYT is LITERALLY obsessed with this narrative, but it's not like Iowa's college-educated voters are Democrats being outvoted by a bunch of rubes.  Trump won college-educated voters 48%-46%, and he won Whites with a college degree 49%-44%.  Trump won the most educated county in the state, Dallas, by 10 points.  Grassley won 59% of college-educate voters in the Senate race and 60% of White college graduates, and there was no statistically significant correlation between having a degree/not having a degree and voting for the Republican; he dominated both groups.  He won the state's wealthiest and most educated county (again, Dallas, a solid Trump county) with 65% of the vote.

Details and all.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point of the article.

Sure it does.

[PragmaticPopulist]

Nate Silver and everyone else at the NYT is LITERALLY obsessed with this narrative, but it's not like Iowa's college-educated voters are Democrats being outvoted by a bunch of rubes.  Trump won college-educated voters 48%-46%, and he won Whites with a college degree 49%-44%.  Trump won the most educated county in the state, Dallas, by 10 points.  Grassley won 59% of college-educate voters in the Senate race and 60% of White college graduates, and there was no statistically significant correlation between having a degree/not having a degree and voting for the Republican; he dominated both groups.  He won the state's wealthiest and most educated county (again, Dallas, a solid Trump county) with 65% of the vote.

Details and all.

I had doubts about the whole "Iowa is becoming Titanium R" narrative. Obama won IA in 2008 by about the same margin as Trump won it in 2016. Trump also got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. It's still too early to say if Iowa is on track to becoming a Safe R state. It could turn around and elect a D governor and 3 D Representatives in 2018.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Nate Silver and everyone else at the NYT is LITERALLY obsessed with this narrative, but it's not like Iowa's college-educated voters are Democrats being outvoted by a bunch of rubes.  Trump won college-educated voters 48%-46%, and he won Whites with a college degree 49%-44%.  Trump won the most educated county in the state, Dallas, by 10 points.  Grassley won 59% of college-educate voters in the Senate race and 60% of White college graduates, and there was no statistically significant correlation between having a degree/not having a degree and voting for the Republican; he dominated both groups.  He won the state's wealthiest and most educated county (again, Dallas, a solid Trump county) with 65% of the vote.

Details and all.

I had doubts about the whole "Iowa is becoming Titanium R" narrative. Obama won IA in 2008 by about the same margin as Trump won it in 2016. Trump also got fewer votes than Obama did in 2012. It's still too early to say if Iowa is on track to becoming a Safe R state. It could turn around and elect a D governor and 3 D Representatives in 2018.

Uhh Obama won the popular vote by more than 7 points and Trump lost it by 2. D+2 and R+11 aren't comparable. 

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Nate Silver and everyone else at the NYT is LITERALLY obsessed with this narrative, but it's not like Iowa's college-educated voters are Democrats being outvoted by a bunch of rubes.  Trump won college-educated voters 48%-46%, and he won Whites with a college degree 49%-44%.  Trump won the most educated county in the state, Dallas, by 10 points.  Grassley won 59% of college-educate voters in the Senate race and 60% of White college graduates, and there was no statistically significant correlation between having a degree/not having a degree and voting for the Republican; he dominated both groups.  He won the state's wealthiest and most educated county (again, Dallas, a solid Trump county) with 65% of the vote.

Details and all.

He won college educated voters by 2 when he won the state by 9. White high school voters are significantly more likely to vote trump then white college educated voters. The exodus of (mostly young, and thus likely at least somewhat more liberal) college voters for economy's with better jobs definitely hurt Clinton. It's not the only factor, but it helped.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Nate Silver and everyone else at the NYT is LITERALLY obsessed with this narrative, but it's not like Iowa's college-educated voters are Democrats being outvoted by a bunch of rubes.  Trump won college-educated voters 48%-46%, and he won Whites with a college degree 49%-44%.  Trump won the most educated county in the state, Dallas, by 10 points.  Grassley won 59% of college-educate voters in the Senate race and 60% of White college graduates, and there was no statistically significant correlation between having a degree/not having a degree and voting for the Republican; he dominated both groups.  He won the state's wealthiest and most educated county (again, Dallas, a solid Trump county) with 65% of the vote.

Details and all.

He won college educated voters by 2 when he won the state by 9. White high school voters are significantly more likely to vote trump then white college educated voters. The exodus of (mostly young, and thus likely at least somewhat more liberal) college voters for economy's with better jobs definitely hurt Clinton. It's not the only factor, but it helped.

Young=More Liberal might be a flawed assumption in Iowa
18-29: Trump +6, Grassley +30
65+: Trump +4, Grassley +19
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/iowa/president

Although, there is a strong difference within the 18-29 cohort in Iowa, with 18-24s being more liberal (giving 7% to Stein and going for Clinton), while 25-29s gave Clinton her lowest percentage of any age group and only 1% to Stein, which kind of supports this theory.  Still, though, Iowa 18-24s were significantly to the right of national 18-24s and voted 62-36 Grassley.  We also don't know how accurate smaller subsamples are.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Nate Silver and everyone else at the NYT is LITERALLY obsessed with this narrative, but it's not like Iowa's college-educated voters are Democrats being outvoted by a bunch of rubes.  Trump won college-educated voters 48%-46%, and he won Whites with a college degree 49%-44%.  Trump won the most educated county in the state, Dallas, by 10 points.  Grassley won 59% of college-educate voters in the Senate race and 60% of White college graduates, and there was no statistically significant correlation between having a degree/not having a degree and voting for the Republican; he dominated both groups.  He won the state's wealthiest and most educated county (again, Dallas, a solid Trump county) with 65% of the vote.

Details and all.

He won college educated voters by 2 when he won the state by 9. White high school voters are significantly more likely to vote trump then white college educated voters. The exodus of (mostly young, and thus likely at least somewhat more liberal) college voters for economy's with better jobs definitely hurt Clinton. It's not the only factor, but it helped.

Young=More Liberal might be a flawed assumption in Iowa
18-29: Trump +6, Grassley +30
65+: Trump +4, Grassley +19
http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/iowa/president

Although, there is a strong difference within the 18-29 cohort in Iowa, with 18-24s being more liberal (giving 7% to Stein and going for Clinton), while 25-29s gave Clinton her lowest percentage of any age group and only 1% to Stein, which kind of supports this theory.  Still, though, Iowa 18-24s were significantly to the right of national 18-24s and voted 62-36 Grassley.  We also don't know how accurate smaller subsamples are.

I'm thinking that's partially because the young Iowans who left were the college kids who were most likely to be liberal.

[pbrower2a]

Let us look at the context of the states from Minnesota to Pennsylvania. Minnesota swung decidedly R in the Presidential vote from its usual patterns, as did Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Illinois remained D because of Greater Chicago. Maybe Trump found some dark undercurrents in these states with older populations.

Face it -- 2016 was also a disaster for Democrats in the Senate, masked only by the reality of the 2010 Republican wave election that began the transformation of the USA into an absolute plutocracy.

[Virginiá]

Face it -- 2016 was also a disaster for Democrats in the Senate, masked only by the reality of the 2010 Republican wave election that began the transformation of the USA into an absolute plutocracy.

2016 was really the best chance for Democrats to win a majority, depending on how you view the future. The path right now is to break even or make a small net gain in 2018, and oust Trump in 2020, of which will probably brag in a handful of new Dem Senators from 2020 states. Depending on if Collins and Tillis retires/moves on, Democrats could actually make a hearty number of gains in 2020. A wave might net them 5 - 6 seats. If they don't win a majority in 2020 but get the White House, 2022 will probably be a wash or worse due to unfavorable midterm patterns, and if the Dem is a 2-termer, Democrats won't have another real chance until maybe 2028. The only difference is if 2020 was a realignment, which isn't worth factoring into predictions.

If Trump wins again in 2020, there is a still a chance Republicans could lose a seat or two. 2022 would probably result in a Democratic Senate takeover.

2024 is probably a wash for Democrats, but very much depends on how 2018 goes. Manchin is getting old, and if he retires, it'll probably be a net loss for Democrats (altho maybe so either way).

[Sumner 1868]

Let's see.

Iowa 2012

High school graduate: Obama 52--46
Some College: Obama 51-47
College Graduate: Obama 50-48
Postgraduate: Obama 57-43

Iowa 2016
High school or less: Trump 50-44
Some college: Trump 56-38
College Graduate: Trump 53-40
Postgraduate: Clinton 57-36

Think the New York Times need better political analysts.