Why did the Democrats abandon Iowa?
Iowa, once an extremely important battleground state with caucuses that initiated the presidential selection process, is now totally ignored by the Democrats and is one of the most reliably Republican states in the country.
How and why did this happen?
How does the demise of the Democrat party in Iowa affect its prospects in other Northern Middle states like Wisconsin and Minnesota?
How might this situation be fixed?
The Political Situation in Iowa:
Iowa was a robust political battleground until very recently. Between 1999 and 2011 Iowa had a Democrat as governor and between 1985 and 2015 Iowa had one Democrat in the U.S. citizen. Obama won the state’s electoral votes twice.
The political situation in Iowa is now very different.
· Both Senators, the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the Attorney General are republicans.
· All four seats in the House of Representatives are now held by Republicans. In 2018, 3 of 4 of Iowa’s House seats were held by Democrats.
· Donald Trump won Iowa both in 2016 and 2020.
Why did this happen? What can the Democrats do differently to recoup their losses in Iowa and similar states?
Reasons for the Demise of Iowa Democrats: Iowans did not leave the Democrat party. The party left and deemphasized Iowa.
For many years, Iowa had the first in the nation presidential contest. The Iowa caucuses was a source of pride for Iowans. Democrats wanted a more representative state to initiate the process of selecting a president and chose to move South Carolina up in the presidential nominating calendar ahead of both Iowa and New Hampshire.
The decision to move South Carolina up ahead of Iowa was fueled by the black caucus inside the Democrat party. Around 25 percent of South Carolina’s population is black compared to around 4 percent of Iowa’s population.
Democrats wanted a more racially diverse state to have a larger say in the selection of their nominee. The 2020 nominee was entirely determined by southern states, with a high percent of black voters. All of these states, with the exception of Georgia, go Republican in the general election.
It is hard to make the case that the use of Iowa to start the presidential selection process was flawed or biased against black candidates. Barack Obama launched his presidential bid at the 2008 Iowa caucuses with a victory over both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.
Ramifications and Strategy: Can Democrats effectively appeal to both black voters that are now the core group in the party and white rural working class voters?
Can Democrats stop the erosion in the northern Midwest?
Certainly, the choice of Tim Walz is an attempt to balance the ticket to deal with racial and economic issues simultaneously.
The short term problem is this presidential election will be determined by outcomes in 6 or at most 7 swing states. Walz may help with Wisconsin.
Iowa, while not in play, is still important.
The lack of Democrat campaigning in parts of Iowa that share media markets with counties in Wisconsin impacts the race in Wisconsin. (One of the reasons why I knew that Hillary Clinton was in trouble in Wisconsin in 2016 was Trump’s large poll margins in Iowa. Iowa and Wisconsin often go the same way in presidential elections.)
Interestingly, 3 of the 4 House races in Iowa are still competitive. Democrats who want to support strong moderate leaders and help win control of the House may want to reach out to the campaigns of Christina Bohannan Iowa 1, or Lanon Baccam Iowa 3.
Iowa, and other states, need an alternative to the Republican party. Perhaps, if the Democrats do not reenter a third party will form.