A base which is shrinking, older, and more extreme

Much of the reporting out of the Iowa Caucuses has focused on the catastrophically bad management of them. Failures in technology development, vote tabulation, vote reporting and vote communication. All true enough, but all that smoke masks a different set of facts that are as interesting. Not why the process of caucusing failed so badly. Not who the winners might be and with how much of the vote.

Rather, the actual signals from the actual results.

While the numbers are still being counted and disputed, the overall picture is clear. The three hard-left candidates came in at the top (Sanders, Buttigieg, and Warren), each trouncing the numbers for the centrist candidates (Biden and Klobuchar). I do note that the press seems to conducting a campaign to reclassify Buttigieg as a centrist but that is not consistent with the nature of the policies I have seen him championing. Likewise, I note that Biden the centrist, has been staking out increasingly hard-left policy positions inconsistent with his past patterns of voting and behavior.

Ignoring who won the horse race, what about the nature of the race itself.

Caught some reporting from NPR which I had not seen elsewhere.

For context, I was commenting on the Kemp-Abrams gubernatorial election in Georgia in 2018. One of the first big elections after the shock of 2016. Everyone went all in on both the Republican side (Kemp) and the Democratic side (Abrams). It was a close run race for a red state with Kemp taking the popular vote (1,978,408 to 1,923,685, an indisputable 55,000 vote advantage) as well as by the percentages, 50.2% versus 48.8%, a 1.4% win.

One of the two things notable about the election was the persistent accusation that voter groups were being suppressed. An accusation made a mockery of by the voting population leaping nearly 60% from 2.5m in the 2014 gubernatorial contest and 3.9 million in the 2018 gubernatorial campaign.

The other notable thing, beyond the narrowness of the vote, was that the loser refused to concede the objectively clear defeat.

The electorate of participating citizens was hugely expanded.

What about the Iowa caucuses. There was a lot of noise and passion and a lot of reporting on the energized hard left base. Regardless of who won, how did the number of votes compare to 2016?

Not well. From NPR, NPR.

Democrats were hoping for — and expecting — a high turnout for Monday’s Iowa caucuses. The delayed results and app reporting failure have overshadowed the fact that turnout appears to be on pace with 2016 rather than 2008’s record, according to the state party.

Late Monday night, the party’s communications director, Mandy McClure, said, “Early data indicates turnout is on pace for 2016."

With 71% of precincts reporting at this point, that estimate looks like it is still on track. Some 239,000 caucused in 2008’s record-setting year. In 2016, it was the second-highest, but just 171,000.

That’s disappointing for Democrats. They were hoping, with their first contest of the nominating season, to show they had a high level of enthusiasm and that they are, to borrow a phrase, fired up and ready to go defeat President Trump.

The mediocre turnout numbers would be surprising, considering every event for each candidate in the days before the caucuses was packed. It may very well be that many undecided voters, who came out to events, decided not to caucus.

Entrance poll data from NBC News show that first-time caucusgoers were way down this year. Just 35% were caucusing for the first time. Not only was that lower than the 57% in 2008, it’s lower than the 44% in 2016.

Despite the heralded energy, turnout was unchanged from 2016 and down 40% from the highpoint of 2008.

Not only was turnout down, but it was older. The party isn't attracting young participants as it did in the past.

Most of the pieces I have read have posited that there is panic within the DNC over fear of Sander displacing the establishment. (See If You Think It’s Bad for Mainstream Democrats Now, Just Wait by Jonathan Chait, and The Center Cannot Hold by Elizabeth Bruenig; both solid members of the establishment Democratic party.)

I wonder if that is quite right. Or maybe it is right but not the complete story. I wonder whether the panic is due to a first glimpse of a base which is shrinking, older, lacks cross-over appeal and is a more extreme/deviant from the mainstream norm. It is Iowa. It is a single data point under unusual conditions.

There is panic because the hard left looks like it is outflanking the marginally more centrist Establishment. There is panic because a hard left victory would mean the loss of perks and privileges enjoyed by the establishment insiders.

But perhaps there is also panic because the intra-mural contest is beginning to reveal numbers which herald an incapacity to expand the base, appeal to the young, appeal to the mainstream voter?

We'll see, but there is food for thought beyond who won how many voters and what the definition of "win" might be.