#HoyasInIA: The Candidates Through the Eyes of Their Supporters
GRACE SHEVCHENKO: The race for the Democratic presidential nominee may not be an ideological one. During my time in Des Moines observing the caucuses, I met with political analysts and journalists who sought to tell the story of the Democratic primary race. Some saw it as the ideological race for the heart of the Democratic Party between progressives and moderates, or as the downfall of Biden’s campaign and potential for Bloomberg’s, or as a push for a highly electable Democratic candidate to take on President Trump’s very strong campaign in the general election. I, however, found myself viewing the race and the candidates through their supporters on the ground. On the night of the caucuses, in Iowa’s 38th precinct at Drake University, I asked supporters of each candidate their main reason for caucusing for their candidate. Additionally, I asked who their second alignment choice would be if their candidate didn’t reach viability. Then, as the caucus began I was able to observe how supporters of different candidates interacted with one another as well as with undecided voters. While the saying “Iowa-Nice,” a particularly high level of kindness, definitely showed during these brief conversations, certain distinctions were evident between each group.
Here’s what I observed:
Buttigieg: One of Buttigieg’s supporters gave what was definitely the most eloquent, if not the most compelling, answer to my question that evening. This supporter said that Buttigieg “calls me to my highest values and makes me want to be a better person.” His supporters gave us copious amounts of Boot-edge-edge stickers for the road and said that if he didn’t reach viability, they would go to either Warren or Klobuchar because their goal was to “unite the entire country.” Buttigieg was viable during the first alignment and his supporters immediately went over to reach out to voters whose candidates were not viable during the second alignment. All in all, they were able to bring over enough people to receive two delegates at the end of the night.
Warren: Her supporters believed that she had the most “experience, passion, and ambition to beat Trump” and indicated that should she not reach viability their second alignment would be with Klobuchar or Buttigieg, notably not Sanders who Warren is often compared most closely to. Warren reached viability during the first alignment. During the second alignment, they began rounds of chants while some of her supporters mingled with undecided voters to pull them over to her corner. By the end of the night, they were able to bring over enough new supporters for her to receive two delegates.
Sanders: When asked his biggest reason for supporting Sanders, one voter launched into a list of policies, “the green new deal, medicare for all” as well as Sanders’ consistency in his proposed plans. The same voter said that he would realign to Warren if necessary because she has the most similar policies. I immediately noticed that Sanders supporters, who I spoke to last, were decidedly different than anyone who I had spoken to before and were the only ones to highlight specific policies as their primary reason for supporting their candidate. Sanders was viable during the first alignment. However, I noticed that the majority of his supporters sat down after the first alignment, making very little effort to reach out to undecided voters. Ultimately, Sanders only gained one delegate at that precinct as a result of very little new second alignment supporters.
Yang: One Yang supporter stated that Yang was the “only one who understands America’s current and future problems” and that Bernie was their second alignment choice. Yang was not viable during the first alignment.
Klobuchar: When asked about their primary reasons, Klobuchar’s supporters emphasized her “midwestern values, experience as a coalition builder, ability to unify the country and her pragmatic approach to incremental change.” They stated that they were deciding between Warren and Yang for a potential second alignment, stating that Yang shared Klobuchar’s pragmatic qualities, while Warren shared her idealism. Klobuchar was not viable in the first alignment.
Biden: The supporters of Former Vice President Biden emphasized his “empathy and integrity” as their primary reason, saying that they could trust and count on him to make good decisions if he was in the oval office. They said that they were unsure of who they would choose to align with if he did not reach viability. Biden did not reach viability.
Booker: The most interesting aspect of the night was the passion with which one voter spoke about former presidential candidate Cory Booker, stating that she was choosing to caucus for him that evening to send a message to the nation that “a campaign rooted in optimism, hope, and love stands for something” and she noted that she would realign to either Yang or Biden. Although Booker did not reach viability after the first alignment, by the end of the second alignment, the former candidate gained one delegate as a result of a coalition built from Yang, Klobuchar, and Biden supporters who evidently resonated with that voter’s message.
Many of the voters’ first and second choices flipped between the more moderate and the more progressive candidates showing that voters valued something beyond strict policy. While many people may choose to paint this race as an ideological battle, my observations, while limited, showed that it was definitely not the case, for the most part, voters primarily valued the character of their candidates as well as their electability rather than the level of progressiveness of their candidates.
Grace Shevchenko is one of six students who joined GU Politics in Iowa as part of #HoyasInIA.