Upset in Iowa: chaos at the polls as Pete Buttigieg ekes out a lead
Meet Mayor Pete. After many delays the results from Iowa, where the first stage of the Democratic presidential primary took place on Monday, started to come in yesterday – and with 72% of the vote counted Pete Buttigieg has unexpectedly put himself in pole position, by the narrowest of margins. The achievement is in many ways a remarkable one given that prior to this election Buttigieg’s greatest claim to fame was being mayor of South Bend, Indiana’s fourth-largest city. The fact that an openly gay man, complete with a husband, has achieved this also speaks to a cultural sea change that would have seemed unthinkable ten years ago. If Buttigieg maintains his lead when all votes have been counted greater things may yet beckon, with the winner in Iowa traditionally going on to win the party’s presidential nomination.
Buttigieg’s claim to victory is far from secure though with 28% of votes yet to be counted. Bernie Sanders is only just behind him in the state delegate equivalent count that is traditionally used to determine the victor, and Sanders could also claim he is the real victor with a slim lead in the popular vote. Furthermore, the boost Iowa traditionally provides the winner may well be muted by the confusion that has swirled around the vote.
Democrats were already worried that Iowa might throw up some confusing results. Rather than a simple primary election Iowa uses the bizarrely antiquarian caucus system. The process involves voters showing their support for a candidate by literally standing in a designated place in their precinct’s caucus site, and then yelling at other voters to come join them before a headcount is held. This process also generates three sets of results – the initial alignment, the second alignment after candidates who fail to make 15% in the first round are eliminated, and finally the translation of these results into the state delegate equivalent which is then used to apportion pledged delegates. All clear I hope?
Futhermore, for the first time all three sets of results – not just the delegate results – were going to be published in the name of transparency. This of course could conceivably mean three different candidates claiming victory based on different metrics in an effort to gee up their base. Still, the last thing the Democrats wanted was a repeat of 2016 where perceived opacity in the primaries saw some Bernie Sanders supporters allege an establishment stitch-up.
In this light, it is almost impressive that the Democratic Party managed to muddy the proceedings so comprehensively, and reignite smouldering intra-party feuds in the process. The app that was supposed to be used to report results turned out to be almost unusable. Thankfully paper ballots were also used so everything could be double-checked, but inevitably the results were delayed.
As the wait set in so did a fever of speculation, abetted by the various candidates using the period as an opportunity to pre-emptively spin the results based on their own campaign’s estimates of how things went. Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg both made noises indicating they expected victory – and their campaigns began to publish their own data to back it up. Meanwhile, Joe Biden, widely seen as the national frontrunner who had been expected to perform strongly in Iowa, downplayed the state’s importance –while members of his campaign muttered darkly about the irregularities of the process.
These irresponsible aspersions were redoubled online, bizarrely, by some Sanders supporters. So obsessively distrustful of the Democratic establishment were they that they threw accusations of another stitch up even as every indication was that the count showed Sanders doing well. Buttigieg’s supposed nefarious ties to the company that made the app were touted far and wide, including by figures who should know better.
Finally, to add to the confusion the Iowa Democratic Party decided for some god-forsaken reason not to enforce some clarity by waiting until all the results were in and then declaring the final result. Instead, they released the first set of results when only 62% of precincts had been counted, and at time of writing 72% of results have been released. With Buttigieg and Sanders in a contentious first and second, Elizabeth Warren coming a respectable third, and Biden in a humiliating fourth place
So what does this mean going forward? The next states to vote are, in order, New Hampshire (11 February), Nevada (22 February), South Carolina (29 February), and finally the 14 Super Tuesday states (3 March) whose results usually sew up the primary. Now, off the back of Iowa, it seems Biden could lose his status as the Democratic primary frontrunner to Sanders – and his status as the moderate choice to Buttigieg.
Until now Biden’s solid lead in national polls, and strong support in Southern states, meant his backers were inclined to believe even if he faltered in Iowa and New Hampshire he could rally later. However, this no longer seems certain. Biden’s big argument was always electability – that he was the sure bet to beat Trump – but to look like a winner you need to win, not come an unexpected fourth.
If Biden rallies in the next few states doubters will probably become less vocal. But New Hampshire voted for Sanders in 2016 and is likely to do so again. Nevada, where Biden was also leading for a long time, now also seems to be leaning towards Sanders. There are even signs of Biden slipping in South Carolina, until now an apparent stronghold.
Sanders also looks to be overcoming what was his greatest weakness in 2016, a lack of support among non-white voters. National polls have shown Sanders a shade above Biden among black millennials (though Biden does much better with older black voters), and making substantial inroads with Latino voters. In Iowa the results so far show Sanders has higher levels of support among non-white voters than white voters, and with the highest level of non-white support overall (this is also bad news for Biden who was banking on black support nationally).
Sanders still faces substantial challenges. While his supporters are very committed to him, giving him a strong floor, at this stage it also seems he has a pretty sharp ceiling. Very few Iowa voters whose first-choice candidate didn’t make it to the second round transferred their votes to Sanders. The fact that for a long time Sanders was not even a member of the Democratic party, and the vocal contempt many of his supporters for much of the Democratic establishment, alienates many (even if Sanders himself is more gentlemanly than many admit, disliking personal attacks).
As such Sanders will do best if there is crowded field, with more mainstream Democrats eating into each other’s vote share. As he gains momentum it is possible that a moderate consensus candidate will emerge, with more centrist Democrats dropping out or seeing their supporters defect. This hypothetical candidate could be Biden who can still argue he polls well nationally. If he continues to fade Buttigieg might claim this status. Aged 38 he is almost 40 years Biden’s junior and he can say this will both appeal to voters hungry for change, and give him the energy to bring about unexpected wins. He also performs strongly with older voters who reliably turn up to the polls.
Biden is old and risks being dragged into scandal via Republican mud-slinging about his son Hunter. Meanwhile, Buttigieg has struggled to attract supporters among black voters and is also unpopular with the young (despite being the youngest leading candidate by some way).
There is also little sign so far that a moderate compromise will manifest itself. Biden will definitely not drop out despite coming fourth. Also looking set to continue is not just Elizabeth Warren with her solid third, but also the Senator for Minnesota Amy Klobuchar who may eke out a pledged delegate. In any case, Warren’s supporters could very conceivably defect to Sanders.
Further down the road billionaire Michael Bloomberg is making up for his late entry to the race by dropping huge amounts of his personal fortune into advertising in the Super Tuesday states. There are faint echoes of 2016 when a split Republican field let Trump rise – and of the unsuccessful attempts to consolidate around an anti-Trump choice.
Regardless of who comes out on top of the turmoil in Iowa the Democrat party is damaged. The primary process had been carefully redesigned with substantial input from the Sanders wing of the party to avoid the rancorous accusations of bias that dogged 2016. All that work has come to nought – and the simmering suspicious hostility of the previous primary has been reignited.
Sanders supporters are once again on high alert for any sign, real or imagined, that the establishment is trying to do their candidate down.
More establishment Democrats bridle at the conspiratorial suggestions and mutter darkly Sanders “Bernie Bro” fans are little better than Trump’s cultists, and have no party loyalty. These divisions, and the narrative that the Democratic Party is incapable of running its own elections, let alone the nation, is all grist to the Republican mill. If the Democrats truly want to unseat Trump they need to run a tighter ship.