Pundits say caucus states benefit Bernie Sanders, but do they?
As the Clinton and Sanders campaigns argue over who won the Latino vote in Nevada, it might be worth looking elsewhere in the entrance and exit poll data for a glimpse of what’s to come.
For most of the 2016 presidential race, pundits have said that Sanders can expect to have an advantage in caucus states, while Clinton will fare better in primary contests.
So far, this theory hasn’t really been borne out by the evidence. And it’s particularly important with the Vermonter hoping to do well in the Minnesota and Colorado caucuses on Super Tuesday.
At the recent caucus in Nevada, where the Senator appeared to be neck and neck with Secretary Clinton as election day approached, he suffered a momentum sapping loss.
Sure, Sanders outperformed most of the polls in Iowa, running Clinton to what he called a “virtual tie” in the first contest. But the problem for his campaign is that Iowa is a white rural state (and quite liberal on the Democratic side). As many said before and after election day there, in a demographic sense it’s the sort of contest Sanders should be winning.
At New Hampshire’s ‘First in the Nation’ primary, things were different. Expectations were high, but Sanders exceeded them with his 22-point victory.
Looking at the entrance and exit polls across the three contests, the break down in party identification seems particularly pertinent. The difference appears to be the number of independent voters between the caucus and primary elections.
In all three states Clinton performed her best among voters who identified as Democrats, while a majority of independents broke for Sanders. In the New Hampshire primary, independents made up 40 per cent of voters, but in the caucus states, the number of unaffiliated voters was far lower: 20 per cent (Iowa) and 18 per cent (Nevada). Sanders collected about 70 per cent of the independent vote in each race — the difference in each contest was simply how many voters were unaligned.
It makes sense that Clinton, a Democratic heavyweight, would fare well with voters who feel an allegiance to the party, particular over someone who was until recently an independent. What’s perhaps more interesting about the data, however, is that while New Hampshire drew a large number of independents, the caucus states did not.
It’s clear Sanders’ strength is among non-aligned voters. While a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll showed the Vermonter behind by 11 points to Clinton, he held a 61 per cent to 33 per cent lead among independents.
The argument for why caucuses benefit Sanders (they bring out more engaged and enthusiastic voters) makes some sense. But so far it has also appeared that independents are less likely to turn out to caucus.
And if the Democrats-to-independents ratio in caucus states like Minnesota and Colorado replicates what we’ve seen in Iowa and Nevada, for Sanders, that could spell trouble.
It’s not all bad news, though. In Massachusetts, for example, where Sanders and Clinton are tied, exit polls showed 33 per cent of voters were independents in the 2008 race. Essentially, the flip side of all this is that if primaries turn out more independents, then Sanders should benefit in the majority of contests.
