Mark Mellman: Similarities, differences in Iowa, NH

The first two nominating events of this election cycle, Iowa and New Hampshire, produced different winners in both parties. Why?

It wasn’t an intervening event or an issue that played importantly in one locale but not the other. Some claim the differences derive from the varying demographics of the two states. 

{mosads}So let’s turn to the exit polls to uncover some essential differences and similarities.

On the Republican side, Iowa caucus attendees are much more conservative and vastly more evangelical than their fellow partisans in New Hampshire.

Forty percent of Iowa GOP caucus attendees labeled themselves “very conservative,” compared to 26 percent of Republican primary voters in New Hampshire.

Those very conservative Republicans were the only ideological grouping Ted Cruz won in Iowa, but they had numerous enough to give him an overall victory. 

In New Hampshire, Cruz came in second with this segment, behind Donald Trump; had the group been as large as it was in Iowa, the Texas senator would probably have been able to claim second place.

Even more important for Cruz is the difference in religious temperament between the two states. 

Sixty-two percent of GOP Iowa caucus attendees were evangelicals; Cruz won them by a dozen points. Only 23 percent of New Hampshire Republicans fit that description; Cruz lost them by just 4 points. Again, had New Hampshire been like Iowa in this respect, he would have claimed the silver there, but a more Iowa-like demography would probably not have given him the gold. 

Perhaps the most consequential difference was in the broader public temperament. 

New Hampshire Republicans seemed to want a candidate who could make change and tell it like it is. Fifty-two percent identified one of those two as the most important quality they were looking for, and those who did voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

Iowa Republicans who valued those qualities also gave the billionaire first place, but far fewer — only 36 percent — were seeking out those attributes.

Iowans, it appears, weren’t looking for a Trump-style candidate, and New Hampshire Republicans were — or so the exit polls suggest.

On the Democratic side, demography was even less of destiny. 

Hillary Clinton won women by 9 points in Iowa, but lost them by 11 in New Hampshire. She lost men in both states, but by just 6 in Iowa compared to a much larger 25 in New Hampshire.

Bernie Sanders cleaned up with Iowans under the age of 30, posting a 70-point margin, but he garnered a nearly identical 67-point victory with young voters in New Hampshire. The number of under-30 voters was within 1 point in the two states, according to the entrance/exit polls.

The real difference from an age perspective was that Clinton won those in the 45-64 range by 23 points in Iowa but lost them by 9 in New Hampshire.

In contrast to the GOP, the ideological complexion of Democratic voters in the two states was extraordinary similar; the difference was the candidates’ performance in each segment. 

Clinton won the “somewhat liberal” by 6 points in Iowa but lost them by 14 in New Hampshire. She lost the very liberal in both locales, but by 19 in Iowa and a whopping 34 in New Hampshire.

Electability was more important to more Iowa Democrats than to their co-partisans in New Hampshire, and the former first lady won that segment by about 60 points in both early-voting states. Honesty and trustworthiness were salient to more voters in New Hampshire than in Iowa, but Clinton lost those who prioritized these qualities in both contests.

So while these states differ demographically, that only goes so far in explaining the different outcomes they produced. 

Whether the particular attributes in the poll really tap voters’ underlying attitudes or are merely post-facto rationalizations, differing views of the candidates seemed to do more to create the different outcomes than variations in demography. 

We’ll see if that changes as we move to more ethnically diverse states. 

Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982. Current clients include the minority leader of the Senate and the Democratic whip in the House.