IOWA 2008 – County by County - Part I
by Mark Rosenthal
IOWA is the sixth in a state-by-state, county-by-county analysis series. The first nine states in the series are the nine Democratic pick-ups from the 2008 General Election. All analyses are published at Google Docs.
Mid-west:
OHIO - Part I, Part II, Part III , raw data / INDIANA - Part I, Part II and Part III, raw data
IOWA – Part I , Part II , Part III , raw data
South:
VIRGINIA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data / NORTH CAROLINA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data
FLORIDA – Part I, Part II, Part III, raw data
President Obama, who won the state of Iowa with a landslide +9.53% margin, brought the state back into the Democratic column after Kerry narrowly lost it in 2004. His win in Iowa was a bigger win than Reagan's in 1984, but slightly smaller than Clinton's from 1996 and Dukakis' from 1988.
Iowa is the first pick-up state in this analysis series where the Democratic candidate won a numerical majority of the state's counties. He won 53 of Iowa's 99 counties (32 DEM retentions, 21 pick-ups). Obviously, winning the numeric majority of counties is not a pre-requisite for winning a state, but winning the majority of counties does help to assert a psychological mandate within the state.
First, some important background information on Iowa:
Since the GOP first appeared on the national ballot in 1856, there have been 39 election cycles in Iowa, of which the democratic party has won 10 cycles (25.64%) and the GOP has won 29 cycles (74.36%).
Perceiving Iowa as a Democratic state is a very recent phenomenon.
From 1856 to 1912 (56 years), the Republican party had an absolute lock on Iowa. In 1912, with Woodrow Wilson in a three-way race against William H. Taft (R) and Theodore Roosevelt (I), the Democratic party scored it's first-ever win in Iowa. This was short lived, as Wilson lost the state again in 1916. FDR won the state in 1932 and 1936, was however unable to hold the state in 1940 or pick it up in 1944. Harry Truman, from neighboring Missouri, carried the state in a narrow race in 1948. With the Eisenhower (R) landslide of 1952, Iowa returned securely to the GOP column and also had a very allergic reaction to John F. Kennedy in 1960. Johnson carried the state in a massive landslide, but it returned to the GOP with a landslide in 1968 and stayed in the GOP column for the next 20 years. Jimmy Carter was unable to carry this state in 1976. It went for Ronald Reagan both times, but with reduced margins. Astoundingly, the state made a hard left turn in 1988 and was one of only three states in the middle of the Union to go for the Dukakis (D), alongside Minnesota and Wisconsin. Since then, Iowa has gone for the Democratic ticket in 5 of the last 6 cycles, a sign of a complete reversal over the state's political past. However, in both 2000 and 2004, the state was won by a razor-thin margins. In 2000, it was the 4th closest race of the night. In 2004, it was the 2nd closest race of the night and the closest GOP win. Therefore, Iowa was considered the most likely DEM pick-up candidate in 2008.
President Obama's caucus win in Iowa started his campaign for the White House, and it was his grassroots organization that kept the state in the Democratic fold and provided for a landslide win in the „Hawkeye state“.
The argument over demographics carries less weight in the state of Iowa, which is 96% white and still 40% rural. The state has 99 counties, which are mostly equal in geographic size and - excepting the top 10 counties - in population. There is no other state in the Union with so many uniformly shaped and sized counties as Iowa. The county map of this state looks somewhat like a huge chessboard. A win in Iowa is not possible without winning a good number of rural counties. The large population areas go mostly in a straight east-west line through the middle of the state, the so-called „I-80 corridor“.
Here the results from the 9 Democratic national winning cycles, where the democratic candidate also carried Iowa:
Note: In 2000, Al Gore won the national PV but lost the election itself (electoral back-fire), but the margin and partisan-shift still can be counted, since 2000 was still a Democratic popular vote win nationally and in Iowa. Also included in the chart is the only other year where a Democratic candidate won IA, but lost the election: Dukakis in 1988 (only for comparative purposes, not for statistical purposes):
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
37.64% |
24.33% |
32.87% |
+4.77% |
+19.82% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
57.69% |
39.98% |
2.34% |
+17.71% |
+41.91% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
54.41% |
42.70% |
2.89% |
+11.71% |
-6.00% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
50.31% |
47.58% |
2.11% |
+2.73% |
+7.23% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
61.88% |
37.92% |
0.20% |
+23.97% |
+37.46% |
|
1988 |
Dukakis |
54.71% |
44.50% |
0.79% |
+10.22% |
+17.61% |
|
1992 |
Clinton |
43.29% |
37.27% |
19.44% |
+6.01% |
-4.21% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
50.26% |
39.92% |
9.92% |
+10.34% |
+4.33% |
|
2000 |
Gore* |
48.54% |
48.22% |
3.24% |
+0.31% |
-10.03% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
53.93% |
44.39% |
1.68% |
+9.53% |
+10.10% |
Here the same table, arranged by winning percent, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
61.88% |
37.92% |
0.20% |
+23.97% |
+37.46% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
57.69% |
39.98% |
2.34% |
+17.71% |
+41.91% |
|
1988 |
Dukakis |
54.71% |
44.50% |
0.79% |
+10.22% |
+17.61% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
54.41% |
42.70% |
2.89% |
+11.71% |
-6.00% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
53.93% |
44.39% |
1.68% |
+9.53% |
+10.10% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
50.31% |
47.58% |
2.11% |
+2.73% |
+7.23% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
50.26% |
39.92% |
9.92% |
+10.34% |
+4.33% |
|
2000 |
Gore* |
48.54% |
48.22% |
3.24% |
+0.31% |
-10.03% |
|
1992 |
Clinton |
43.29% |
37.27% |
19.44% |
+6.01% |
-4.21% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
37.64% |
24.33% |
32.87% |
+4.77% |
+19.82% |
And the same table, arranged by winning margin, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
61.88% |
37.92% |
0.20% |
+23.97% |
+37.46% |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
57.69% |
39.98% |
2.34% |
+17.71% |
+41.91% |
|
1988 |
Dukakis |
54.71% |
44.50% |
0.79% |
+10.22% |
+17.61% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
54.41% |
42.70% |
2.89% |
+11.71% |
-6.00% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
53.93% |
44.39% |
1.68% |
+9.53% |
+10.10% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
50.26% |
39.92% |
9.92% |
+10.34% |
+4.33% |
|
1992 |
Clinton |
43.29% |
37.27% |
19.44% |
+6.01% |
-4.21% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
37.64% |
24.33% |
32.87% |
+4.77% |
+19.82% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
50.31% |
47.58% |
2.11% |
+2.73% |
+7.23% |
|
2000 |
Gore* |
48.54% |
48.22% |
3.24% |
+0.31% |
-10.03% |
Again, the same table, this time arranged by partisan shift, descending:
|
Year |
Candidate |
D % |
R % |
I/O % |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
57.69% |
39.98% |
2.34% |
+17.71% |
+41.91% |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
61.88% |
37.92% |
0.20% |
+23.97% |
+37.46% |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
37.64% |
24.33% |
32.87% |
+4.77% |
+19.82% |
|
1988 |
Dukakis |
54.71% |
44.50% |
0.79% |
+10.22% |
+17.61% |
|
2008 |
Obama |
53.93% |
44.39% |
1.68% |
+9.53% |
+10.10% |
|
1948 |
Truman |
50.31% |
47.58% |
2.11% |
+2.73% |
+7.23% |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
50.26% |
39.92% |
9.92% |
+10.34% |
+4.33% |
|
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
|
1992 |
Clinton |
43.29% |
37.27% |
19.44% |
+6.01% |
-4.21% |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
54.41% |
42.70% |
2.89% |
+11.71% |
-6.00% |
|
2000 |
Gore* |
48.54% |
48.22% |
3.24% |
+0.31% |
-10.03% |
And finally, the table to measure the partisan shift for the state over the national partisan shift for that year (this is often called „PARTISAN VALUE“):
|
Year |
Candidate |
Margin |
Part. Shift. |
Natl. Part. Shift |
Part. Value |
|
1988 |
Dukakis |
+10.22% |
+17.61% |
-10.49% |
+28.10 |
|
1964 |
Johnson |
+23.97% |
+37.46% |
+22.42% |
+15.04 |
|
1948 |
Truman |
+2.73% |
+7.23% |
-3.01% |
+10.24 |
|
1932 |
Roosevelt, F |
+17.71% |
+41.91% |
+35.18% |
+6.73 |
|
1996 |
Clinton |
+10.34% |
+4.33% |
+2.96% |
+1.37 |
|
2008 |
Obama |
+9.53% |
+10.20% |
+9.73% |
+0.47 |
|
2000 |
Gore* |
+0.31% |
-10.03% |
-8.00% |
-2.03 |
|
1912 |
Wilson |
+4.77% |
+19.82% |
+22.97% |
-3.15 |
|
1936 |
Roosevelt, F |
+11.71% |
-6.00% |
+6.49% |
-12.49 |
|
1992 |
Clinton |
+6.01% |
-4.21% |
+13.29% |
-17.50 |
So, based on these tables, here are the cold, hard facts about Obama's win in Iowa in 2008:
|
Year |
DEM |
GOP |
IND |
DEM % |
GOP % |
IND % |
Margin |
Margin % |
|
2008 |
828,940 |
682,379 |
25,804 |
53.93% |
44.39% |
1.68% |
+146,561 |
+9.53% |
|
2004 |
741,898 |
751,197 |
13,053 |
49.23% |
49.90% |
0.87% |
+10,059 |
+0.67% |
|
Diff: |
+87,042 |
-69,578 |
+12,751 |
+4.69% |
-5.51% |
+0.81% |
+156,620 |
+10.20% |
1.) Obama set a new Iowa raw vote record for a candidate of any party: 828,940 votes, 76,983 votes more than Bush's record-breaking raw vote from 2004. However, the state's growth rate over 2004 was only 2.01%, well under the national 7.48% growth rate.
2.) Obama won with the 4th largest winning margin, percent and largest partisan shift and the 5th largest partisan value in Iowa's democratic electoral history. This places him in the middle of the rankings. However,of the nine pick-up states, the partisan shift in Iowa comes closest to the national partisan shift and is the second closest overall (following WA).
And now, county for county...
I took the county-wide data for the entire state for both 2008 and 2004 and plugged it into an excel document, which you can link to here. Subsidiary data for all 99 counties can be found here.
Of those 99, Obama won 53, or 53.53% (32 DEM retentions, 21 pick-ups), McCain won the other 46 (46 GOP retentions, 0 GOP pick-ups.).
|
Party – IA 08 |
retentions |
% of |
pickups |
% of 67 |
Total no. |
% of 67 |
|
Democratic |
32 |
32.32% |
21 |
21.21% |
53 |
53.53% |
|
Republican |
46 |
46.47% |
0 |
0.00% |
46 |
46.47% |
|
Total |
78 |
78.79% |
21 |
21.21% |
99 |
100.00% |
Comparison to the first five states in the analysis:
|
State |
DEM counties |
DEM % |
GOP counties |
GOP % |
|
Iowa |
53 of 99 |
53.53% |
46 of 99 |
46.47% |
|
Florida |
15 of 67 |
22.39% |
52 of 67 |
77.61% |
|
North Carolina |
33 of 100 |
33.00% |
67 of 100 |
67.00% |
|
Virginia |
49 of 134 |
36.57% |
85 of 134 |
63.43% |
|
Ohio |
22 of 88 |
25.00% |
66 of 88 |
75.00% |
|
Indiana |
15 of 92 |
16.30% |
77 of 92 |
83.70% |
|
Total: |
187 of 580 |
32.24% |
393 of 580 |
67.76% |
And now, the table, in descending order to DEM %:
|
State |
DEM counties |
DEM % |
GOP counties |
GOP % |
|
Iowa |
53 of 99 |
53.53% |
46 of 99 |
46.47% |
|
Virginia |
49 of 134 |
36.57% |
85 of 134 |
63.43% |
|
North Carolina |
33 of 100 |
33.00% |
67 of 100 |
67.00% |
|
Florida |
15 of 67 |
22.39% |
52 of 67 |
77.61% |
|
Ohio |
22 of 88 |
25.00% |
66 of 88 |
75.00% |
|
Indiana |
15 of 92 |
16.30% |
77 of 92 |
83.70% |
|
Total: |
187 of 580 |
32.24% |
393 of 580 |
67.76% |
In the excel document, everything is color-coded: red= GOP, blue = DEM, green= OTH. In the case of DEM pick-ups, those counties are also shaded in light-blue. The 2 GOP pick-ups are shaded in light red.
Here is a table of the number of counties, by party, where there was a percentage loss or gain, a numeric (raw vote) loss or gain and a margin loss or gain (not applicable to the „other“ vote“):
|
Party |
% loss |
% gain |
Num. loss |
Num. Gain |
Margin loss |
Margin gain |
|
GOP |
99 |
0 |
98 |
1 |
98 |
1 |
|
DEM |
2 |
97 |
11 |
88 |
1 |
98 |
|
OTHER |
1 |
98 |
2 |
88 |
-- |
-- |
The margin loss or gain is also known as TREND. In, the case of Iowa, this means that 1 county trended more Republican than in 2004, while 98 counties trended more Democratic.
This lone county, Clarke county,trended Republican by just +0.44%, or away from the Democratic party by -0.44%, but not because the GOP improved here. It did not. It lost -0.53% over 2004. But the Democratic party lost -0.98% over 2004, while the 3rd party vote spiked by +1.51%. Clarke county was one of the 4 tipping-point counties in 2004 to remain a tipping-point county in 2008. This means that the county barely budged and did not respond to the national Democratic trend. That being said, a trend is a trend is a trend, and statistically, this county trended Republican, just as Monroe county trended only +0.14% Democratic.
So, the GOP lost ground in 99, 98 or 98 counties. Since the margin (TREND) is most used for comparative purposes, the number 98 is the most appropriate statistic for the GOP for this state. This alone is statistical proof that the Democratic trend was practically all-encompassing and state-wide.
All of the counties listed by number above are listed by name in the appendix to this analysis.