I remember the images like it was yesterday. I was driving on University Street in Pella, Iowa, on Saturday, January 23, 2016, on the campus of Central College. I saw the line extending from the exterior door of Douwstra Auditorium, down the campus walk, and then down the University Street sidewalk. There were vendors selling hats, buttons, and other memorabilia. The description above could describe a number of events held on college campuses every weekend. A concert. An appearance by a popular comedian. But what I was witnessing was no typical college campus event. What I saw was hundreds of Iowans who wanted to see Donald Trump, candidate for president. The Iowans in line that day filled Douwstra Auditorium to capacity and those who could not get into the auditorium were allowed into an overflow space in the banquet hall of an adjacent building. Mr. Trumpâs message that day was typical for his pre-Iowa Caucus rallies and would become the backbone of his message during the general election campaign. According to media reports, he talked about building the wall and that Mexico would pay for it. He discussed his support for the Keystone Pipeline and the Second Amendment. Ultimately, he reminded supporters in the room that his goal was to âMake America Great Againâ (Presley 2016).
Donald Trumpâs ability to connect with people drove Iowans to attend rallies all over the State of Iowa during the pre-caucus period, and nine days after his rally in Pella, Trump finished second in the Iowa Caucuses to Senator Ted Cruz of Texas by a margin of 27.7% to 24.3% (WSJ News Graphics 2016). Trump carried 37 Iowa counties that evening and netted seven pledged delegates to the Republican National Convention (RNC).1 After his close second-place finish in Iowa and a significant win in the New Hampshire primary the following week, Trumpâs campaign took off. While Cruz, Governor John Kasich of Ohio, and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida won a handful of primary contests throughout the primary season, Trump secured the nomination at the RNC in July 2016.
One week after giving his acceptance speech at the RNC in Cleveland, Donald Trump was back in Iowa campaigning for the presidency on July 28, 2016. On the same evening that Democratic nominee and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was giving her acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Trump held a campaign townhall at the Adler Theatre in Davenport, Iowa, followed by a campaign rally in Cedar Rapids (Appleman 2017). In addition to visits from running mate Governor Mike Pence of Indiana and other prominent surrogates for the Trump campaign, Donald Trump himself returned to Iowa six additional times throughout the fall campaign to interact with and engage supporters around the state. By the time November rolled around, Trump was well on his way to winning Iowaâs six Electoral College votes. And indeed he did. On November 8, 2016, Donald Trump won the state over Hillary Clinton by nearly 10 points, securing the votes of 51.7% of Iowa voters (Iowa SOS 2016a).
Most observers of Iowa politics know that Trump won Iowaâs six Electoral College votes by securing a majority of the popular vote in Iowa and that the typical county Trump won was primarily rural, white, lower income, and less educated. What many do not know is that the magnitude of Trumpâs victory was staggering. After Barack Obama won Iowa in 2008 and 2012, Trump won the popular vote in 93 of Iowaâs 99 counties. Additionally, Trump flipped 32 counties that President Obama won in 2012. In these 32 counties, the difference between the margin of Obamaâs electoral victory in 2012 and the margin of Trumpâs victory in 2016 was not small. In fact, the average difference across the 32 counties was 27.6%, the difference in electoral margin was over 30% in 13 of the 32 counties, and the difference in electoral margin was over 40% in Howard County. These results lead to the following questions for this book: What explains Trumpâs electoral victory in Iowa in 2016? More specifically, what factors shaped support for Donald Trump among Iowa voters and explain the dramatic shift in county-level vote margins discussed above between 2012 and 2016? The goal of this project is to explain these shifts in electoral margin and ultimately identify the key factors which led to Trumpâs victory in the state.
The argument made in this book is that Donald Trump was the perfect candidate at the perfect time in Iowa. He entered the campaign as an âoutsiderâ in a cycle that was identified as a âchangeâ election. After he defeated 16 Republican candidates for the nomination, he entered the general election against Hillary Clinton, who was the epitome of the establishment. Clintonâs ânegativesâ also helped fuel Trumpâs âchangeâ narrative during the fall campaign. Furthermore, Trump had the special ability to communicate with Iowaâs largest demographic cohort: White, working-class voters with conservative political views, especially regarding immigration and race. By winning over these white, working-class voters who had previously supported Obama, Trump was able to assemble a winning political coalition in the state and secure Iowaâs six Electoral College votes on his way to the presidency.
The findings presented in the next three chapters make an important contribution to our understanding of presidential elections and Iowa politics for three reasons. First, while much has been written over the last few years about the 2016 presidential election, much of it utilizes national-level data, which does not allow for scholars and political observers to examine electoral outcomes on a state-by-state basis. The findings presented here, while taking into account major scholarship on presidential elections and the 2016 election, specifically, provide scholars and observers of Iowa politics a detailed explanation of support for Donald Trump in 2016 and the factors which shaped the significant shift in candidate preference between 2012 and 2016.
Second, Iowa is considered a swing state in presidential elections (Cillizza and Blake 2011; Hoffman and Larimer 2015). Over the last 10 elections dating back to 1980, the winner of the popular vote in Iowa was also the winner of the national popular vote in eight of those elections. The winning candidate in Iowa has been the Democratic nominee on six occasions (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012) and the Republican nominee on four occasions (1980, 1984, 2004, 2016). Iowa was also a unique case in 2016 since many voters, who had supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, supported Donald Trump in 2016. Examining the shift in candidate preference will help scholars and practitioners not only gain a better understanding of the results in 2016, but it will also advance our knowledge of the relationship between candidate dynamics and electoral outcomes, particularly in swing states like Iowa.
Finally, this volume will contribute to our understanding of Iowa elections and politics. In attempting to defend Iowaâs âfirst in the nation status,â Lewis-Beck and Squire (2009) argue that Iowa is fairly representative of the nation as a whole, particularly in terms of economic characteristics. As a result, scholars and practitioners can learn from scholarship which focuses on the State of Iowa itself. There is a significant amount of scholarship focused on the Iowa Caucuses (e.g., Hull 2008; Squire 2008...