Handicapping the Iowa Caucuses

By Julian Zelizer

Monday the voting finally begins. While the most pertinent question on everyone’s mind is who will win the biggest support within each party in the Iowa caucuses, that aspect of the competition likely won’t matter much. The delegate count is small, the history of Iowa is littered with victors who didn’t go much further, and the impact of “momentum” is not nearly as great as it used to be as a result of changes in the political process.

Though we vastly overstate the significance of the caucuses, there are six important questions that will be answered and that will give us clues to the current state of the race. As we shift from the pre-primary of debates and fundraising to the part of the contest that centers on actual decisions by voters, we will start to get a sense of the real strengths and vulnerabilities of candidates in the months ahead.

This is one of the big unknowns, and an important piece of evidence that will help us evaluate how strong Trump’s support is with the base of the Republican Party. Evangelicals are a big presence in Iowa and they are traditionally active participants in the caucuses.

If Trump demonstrates that he can draw out these voters despite his own checkered personal history and weak relations with religious organizations, it will provide support for his claim that he can defeat Ted Cruz and build the kind of broad coalition that will be necessary to win the White House.

Thus far it has been notable that neither of the two Republican front-runners has received many endorsements from major political figures. The closest a senator came to lining up behind Donald Trump was Charles Grassley of Iowa, who has little love for Cruz, when he introduced the real estate mogul during one speech.

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry endorsed Ted Cruz. But when the media reviews what happens in Iowa and politicians are invited to comment on the outcome, we should keep a close eye on whether more establishment figures finally start offering positive words of support or outright endorsements. This could be a harbinger for elite support coalescing behind one of the top candidates.

In many ways, what will be most interesting is not who wins the Iowa caucuses but who comes in third. Assuming, as polls last week suggested, that Trump and Cruz take the top two spots, the third spot might be the most relevant of this particular contest. At this point, nobody really knows who the “establishment” candidate will be who will make a play against the two front-runners as the contest enters into larger states in February and March.

What has been remarkable in recent weeks is how tight the contest between John Kasich, Chris Christie, Marco Rubio (and one poll has suggested Jeb Bush) in recent days. The victor for this third place spot will be able to claim that he is the strongest of the non-maverick lot.

If that candidate can use that perception to win in New Hampshire, this might help bolster their campaign in the coming weeks to gather enough support to take on Trump and Cruz. Of course, the polls could turn out to be incorrect and one of these candidates other than Trump or Cruz can upend the race by coming in a strong second or even first.

When she ran in the Democratic primaries against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton got clobbered in most of the caucus states. She underestimated her opponent and didn’t put together much of a ground game operation to make sure she could compete in these events.

While she was focused on the larger primaries, Obama started to rack up delegates in all the caucuses, where his campaign mobilized and organized supporters, making sure they showed up.

This time around Clinton promised that she would not make the same mistake. But her supporters aren’t so sure, especially as they have seen Bernie Sanders’ poll numbers surge. Iowa is a real test to see where her campaign stands. Is she able to defeat Sanders and do her supporters come out to the caucuses in a way that suggests her campaign has done better preparation this time around?

This is one of the biggest unknowns of the campaign, yet something that will be critical to the Democratic contest. The heart of Sanders’ campaign has been to attract younger voters who ordinarily are not turned on by politics.

Even after the disappointment and disillusionment of the Obama years for many of these Americans, Sanders has been able to tap into some of the same excitement that brought the last Democrat into the White House.

Yet the question, as it was in 2008 and 2012, is how many of these people will turn out to vote and to caucus. This is a part of the population that is notorious for its lack of interest in actually showing up when the political process takes place. Observers will be looking to see what kinds of numbers Sanders is able to draw, particularly in more urban and cosmopolitan areas like Des Moines.

This is a burning question on the minds of both parties. While Republicans and Democrats are focused on who will get the nomination, they want to get a better read of what kind of fervor exists in the electorate, which will of course be crucial in the general election when voter turnout and victories in swing states will be instrumental in determining the outcome.

Although Iowa only offers a limited view into the temperature of voters, it will be our first real clue to understand just how worked up each side has become to making sure that their party wins the White House.

Polls are one thing, actual votes another. As the Iowa results come in we should start to get a stronger sense of where things stand.