As three candidates – Romney, Paul, and Santorum – now vie for the chance to take home the blue ribbon from the Iowa caucuses tomorrow night, there are just two numbers to watch that will likely tell you all you need to know about who ultimately comes out on top. And they both have to do with turnout.
A little history: in 2008, the expected turnout for the Republican caucuses was 80-85,000 voters. Back then, the Romney campaign reportedly identified nearly 50,000 Iowans who backed Mitt, and worked using a normal political assumption that half to two-thirds of those would show up to caucus for him — giving him around 30,000 votes total. Under the assumed result of 85,000 votes cast, that would have given Romney 35% of the vote – enough to win the caucuses outright.
Well, Romney got his 30,000 voters out in the dead of winter on January 3, 2008, but as we all know, the assumptions were shattered as over 118,000 people voted that year (a record number of votes for any Republican caucus in history). Where did the extra voters come from?
Quite simply, from evangelical churches – the informal but passionate, under-the-radar “organization” that propelled Mike Huckabee to victory. Huckabee, a former Baptist preacher, consolidated and encouraged evangelical support like no other candidate has been able to do, and in the process flipped the entire caucus on its head.
Under “normal” circumstances, the percentage of evangelical voters participating in the Iowa caucuses is around 35%. In 2008, that number nearly doubled to 60%. There were literally more evangelical voters at the caucuses in 2008 than there were in 2000 and 1996 combined. To put that in a little more perspective, more evangelicals voted for Mike Huckabee in 2008 than voted in total for all the candidates in 2000.
In 2012, however, nobody expects evangelicals to comprise 60% of the caucus attendance this time around. In fact, the Des Moines Register poll shows evangelical turnout in the state back down to normal levels – they have it pegged at 38%.
Just thirty-eight percent – a decline of 22% from four years ago. Why? Because there’s no Huckabee on the ballot this year. There is no evangelical preacher who naturally and overwhelmingly connects with that community of people. This year, the evangelical vote is splintered — or at least, was splintered until Rick Santorum started his flavor-of-the-month surge.
Now evangelicals, following the lead of Bob Vander Plaats and a few other prominent religious leaders, have someone they can line up behind. It is by no means anywhere close to the support Huckabee enjoyed in 2008, and the religious vote is still more splintered than it was back then, but Rick Santorum’s caucus strategy has got to be to maximize the percentage of religious voters who turnout tomorrow night.
If exit polls show evangelical voters around 35% of the electorate, Rick Santorum cannot win. If they approach 45% or 50%, however, he could pull this thing off.
On the other side of the equation is the number of Democrats and independents who decide to play with the caucus results. Polls overwhelmingly show Dems and Indies breaking heavily for Ron Paul while Romney and Santorum split the GOP vote. So if Ron Paul wants to have a shot at winning, he needs to maximize that population of voters. If the percentage of non-GOP voters in the caucuses stays below 20%, Ron Paul probably cannot win. If it gets over that threshold, he has a shot. And this is a real possibility, at least according to some politicos.
Estimations for turnout for this caucus are all over the map. Some campaign analysts predict that turnout will be in the “normal” range of around 85,000 participants. Others are predicting a massive turnout of more than 140,000 participants. Their thinking is that since there is no Democratic caucus this year, Dems and Indies will turn out in droves to cast a vote for GOP candidates this year. The analysts predicting lower numbers think that non-Republicans would have to be ridiculously motivated to go out on a cold winter’s night just to have fun throwing the caucus to Ron Paul.
Regardless, both of these scenarios require higher voter turnout for Santorum or Paul to win. Therefore, conventional wisdom says that the lower the turnout the better for Mitt Romney. Especially because I’ve heard (completely unconfirmed) rumors that Romney is again quietly aiming to replicate his 2008 efforts and turn out 30,000 voters this year.
So to get a great idea of which way the caucus results are heading, pay attention to two numbers tomorrow: percentage of evangelical caucus-goers and percentage of non-GOP caucus-goers. If any entrance polls get leaked early tomorrow evening, those two statistics will likely be the best predictors of the ultimate outcome.
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:27 pm
If Romney can get the 30k to 35k voters his campaign is expecting, he will will this thing. Even with a massive turnout of 120k, that will get him 25% to 28%. He would be sitting pretty.
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:28 pm
Democrats had like 240k caucus attendees in ’08. If Republicans can’t even match their ’08 levels, when they had the massive Democratic caucus to compete with, nominee Romney ought not to bother coming back to Iowa because Obama has it in his backpocket. Not that I’d have expected Iowa to be near the top of his “target” list in a general election but I’d hope he’d least make a play there.
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:29 pm
My best guess (subject to change in next 24 hours):
Romney 23% (low percentage will take some of the luster off his win)
Santorum 21
Paul 18
Perry 16
Gingrich 16
Bachmann 5
Huntsman 1
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Maybe all those evangelicals had so much fun last time that they’re all going to caucus again. Of course, there’s no guarantee they all vote for Santorum. A few, with college educations, may want to actually beat Obama. Evangelicals for Mitt? Well they do have a website: www. evangelicalsformitt.org
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Just saw an add in Des Moines starring Bob Vander Plaats.
Over his shoulder was a photo of Mike Huckabee and over his other shoulder was a bookshelf with a bible.
BVP said “like Mike Huckabee, we don’t have to worry about Rich Santorum flip flopping or changing his values. Why can we trust him? Because he’s one of us”
Then they had a title screen with a photo of Rum and big green type: “ONE OF US”
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:36 pm
3.
If that becomes final result it would be perfect night in the Hawkeye State.
Give em hell Mitt!
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:36 pm
I was talking about this earlier this morning. I highly doubt Santorum gets the same level of support that Huck did in 2008. I am also very skeptical of his get out the vote ground game (which hasn’t been discussed at all, from what I can tell). Intrade and Nate Silver are right. Romney has to be the favorite right now, with Paul posing the greatest threat if he can get Dems out for him (though his absence from the state is odd).
I would be shocked if turnout is higher than it was in 2008.
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
I actually made Get Out The Vote calls for Mitt, today.
I only took a 45 minute shift and all the calls were apparently to previous Romney supporters.
Of everyone I connected with, only one was for someone other than Mitt (and it was a very old lady who took 20 seconds to say Santorum’s name). Of those who said they supported Mitt, only 1 said they would not caucus. The others split about 50/50 between Yes and Maybe (would try).
Some that I talked to did not know where their caucus was being held, so my call may have made it easier for them to go (the script gives them the website to look up the location).
The script had us saying their vote was very important because we believe 2 or 3 votes could be the difference between winning and losing.
Mine was a VERY small sample, but I’m hoping there were dozens of others who took shifts, as well, and had similar results. I’m hoping this effort gets a huge turnout for Mitt.
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:38 pm
3 – There will be no luster lost if Mitt wins. Are you kidding me?
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:39 pm
5 – Pathetic!
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:43 pm
Mitt Romney today announced the support of 15 additional New Hampshire State Representatives. With today’s endorsements, Governor Romney now has the support of 73 New Hampshire State Representatives, 9 State Senators, 4 out of 5 Executive Councilors and 8 out of 10 Sheriffs.
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:45 pm
THIS is pretty cool. Though I doubt it will impact Iowa much.
http://mittromneycentral.com/2012/01/02/big-romney-endorsement-from-independence-hall-tea-party-pac/
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:49 pm
12 – It won’t get any coverage, unfortunately (and unfairly).
January 2nd, 2012 at 4:53 pm
If only a few percentage points separate 1-5, a very distinct possibility, I think it will be argued that Iowa settled nothing, and all will move on. Romney and Santorum to New Hampshire, with both Newt and Perry waiting in South Carolina. Paul of course moves on but he’s not a player for the nomination.
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:05 pm
13. That organization can help get out the vote
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:17 pm
#14–everyone is moving on; Bachmann just said she’s in it for the long haul.
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:22 pm
What time should we expect results tomorrow night?
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:31 pm
17 well don’t know but it doesn’t start till 8pm est DC time
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:33 pm
MY question is How BIG thing could it if a Marco rubio endorsement comes before the Florida primary?
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Paul depending on democrats & Santorum depending on pastors organizing their congregation, talk about a silly caucus.
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Iowa caucuses are mighty close to meaningless – it’s not an election, it’s a straw poll limited to people who can “make the meeting” and have time to devote to it. It’s not even run by the state, it’s run by the parties! My prediction: “none of the above” will be victorious. . .
January 2nd, 2012 at 5:45 pm
If your sitting in the white house right now the night before the iowa primary Which candidate are they HONESTLY not wanting??
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:00 pm
You’ve got Santorum misspelled in the opening
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:06 pm
#23: At least it’s not “Sanoturd.”
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Interesting point on CNN just now. The more candidates that trudge on to SC (splitting the SoCon vote), the better it is for Mitt Romney.
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:10 pm
I’m still not sold on Mitt, but I find myself hoping he wins tomorrow.
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Do you ALL think The candidates can ALL make it ($$$) from now till the end of January 31 FL primary whats everyone thoughts?
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Ugh. Jindal is campaigning with Perry: Picture on Foxnews dot com right now. What was he thinking?
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:22 pm
i think all the canidates will have the $$to make it from tomorrow to super Tuesday march 6th don’t you?
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:23 pm
@26 – well thats a start
@28- yeah bad move by Jindal. not exactly his brightest moment
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:26 pm
@29
Figure Romney does
Perry might depending on his burn rate the last 30 days or so
Paul – for sure
Newt – again depends on burn rate and debt but i think he will
Santorum- doubtful since he had very little at all and even with higher numbers over the last few days probably not to March
Huntsman- can self fund if he wants, dont hink he will last past SC/Fl
Bachmann- doubt it
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:32 pm
31- I was just asking because I live in a super Tuesday state! You all Do think this makes it to super Tuesday March 6th don’t you all?
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Remember, a vote for Mitt is not necessarily a vote for Satan but IT IS a vote AGAINST Jesus Christ. Iowans it is in your hands to save souls!!!!
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:45 pm
28 – Makes you question his judgment.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:02 pm
In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:08 pm
That was by Martin Niemoeller by the way..
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:21 pm
35. “Then they came for me”
It was the men in white coats, right?
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Nowandlater, what the hell is up with you. Please inform me precisely how a vote for Mitt has anything whatsoever to do with Christ?
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:29 pm
I am a religous authority??? Ask your religous advisor or pray about it…
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:36 pm
39, you are obviously enough of an authority to make an assenine claim. So spit it out. What does one have to do with another? And, how does this primary election affect souls? Am I going to hell for supporting Romney? Set me straight.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:38 pm
40. Leave it be, Bob. He’s trolling. And, you’re biting.
January 2nd, 2012 at 7:46 pm
37, not everyone is immune to the brainwash. You are a good “YES Man” Keith. ; D
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Yes man, Wallace? Color me confused.
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:35 pm
I sure will!!! Lol
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Bobinator,
Nowandlater is an intriguing fellow. In ’08 he was a Mormon and, initially, a Romney supporter. Then, if I recall correctly, he went over to Huckabee (?) because he was afraid that Romney’s victory would hurt the Mormon church. Maybe that’s what he means here? Or maybe he’s been converted away from Mormonism and now sees it as a cult?
January 2nd, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Larry Sabato makes the good point that the candidates don’t need much money to stay in the race. There are many more debates, they get free media on TV and radio, and they can just hang in for the heck of it–or to cause trouble–and can “live off the land.”
Bachmann’s merrily on her way to SC. Same with Perry. Newt will be there for sure. Santorum will be on a high. They all know Mitt will struggle in SC (and maybe other Southern states). The problem is the longer they all stay in, the more they split the SoCon vote and give the advantage to Mitt.
It seems their staying in is good for Mitt. The last thing he wants is for some adorable AMR to catch fire and consolidate against him. Doesn’t look possible right now; I guess you never know.
January 2nd, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Romney wins, winning defined as having a clear path to the nomination, if he takes first or second place, provided he’s second to a hopeless candidate like Santorum or Paul. Since they’re the other frontrunners he’s probably safe. Romney’s only risk comes if a viable candidate pulls off an upset. That’s a short list: Perry or Huntsman. With Perry at 9% and Huntsman at 5% Romney can rest easy.
January 2nd, 2012 at 11:07 pm
@22: The candidate they least wish to face is Ron Paul. http://youtu.be/zrAXfIdRqmU
Both the NRA and the ACLU find that Paul represents their interests better than Obama, and that’s some political heft right there. There are a variety of other issues that Paul outdoes Obama on, including things that Obama listed as campaign promises and fiscal matters. Paul would absolutely beat Obama, I’d guess by a good 5-6%. The question is, can Paul get the nomination, because he probably couldn’t beat Obama on anything but a Republican ticket.
Paul polls best against Obama among independents. Paul has the youth vote. Independents and younger voters are a large part of what gave Obama the white house in 08, and he’d lose his base to Paul and have to try to get the left to show up and vote for him. You know, that left that he’s been dumping on for the last year or so as he’s moved to the right (at least from their perception) and ticked them all off.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Paul managed to take California in the general election against Obama. Things have been less than great out here for the President, he’s not too popular, and Paul could capitalize on it. For example, there’s a medical marijuana establishment that’s closing it’s doors in a week or so (I think, could be wrong, might have already closed). It was one of the first few that opened, and it has 40,000 customers. They’re closing because of federal pressure to close, and that’s 40,000 that are very, very angry about it. Just to name one example where Paul would pull voters away. At the very least, Paul would force Obama to campaign here instead of elsewhere. I imagine an honestly assessed swing state map for Paul would be a very interesting thing to see. The swing states would be fewer, and be in more heavily blue country than any other candidate could do. Some of the current swings would be a lock as red states.
Geez what a ramble. Now I remember why I try to keep things short. Not that I manage it often, but I do try…
January 3rd, 2012 at 1:58 am
I am “trolling” by giving a voice to the inner thinking of some voters out there.
January 3rd, 2012 at 8:06 am
48:
From mid December
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1220925.pdf
Romney wins independent by 9 points against Obama when Paul wins by 3. Winning the general election independents is different than winning pro-pot / anti-NDAA / extreme isolationist independent vote in Iowa caucuses. General election independents don’t care much about those things.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:47 am
[...] then there is the turnout: As three candidates – Romney, Paul, and Santorum – now vie for the chance to take home the [...]
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:54 am
What explains evangelical turnout so high in 2008. was it the fear of the mormons? has anybody come up with an explanation for that. I assume that it will hold true this year as well if it was indeed because mitt was a mormon.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:56 am
I think it may have been this
“nowandlater Says:
January 2nd, 2012 at 6:38 pm
Remember, a vote for Mitt is not necessarily a vote for Satan but IT IS a vote AGAINST Jesus Christ. Iowans it is in your hands to save souls!!!!
”
kind of crap that got the evangelical vote up in 2008. Hope i am wrong. what a moron.
January 3rd, 2012 at 10:59 am
will my state still matter come march 6th super Tuesday??
January 3rd, 2012 at 2:19 pm
Mormons and American evangelicals are fairly similar in their piety and practice.
I can understand why my people would be leery of Mormonism but I couldn’t understand why American evangelicals would. It’s pretty clear I’m not the same religion as Mormonism but many American evangelicals seem to be almost Mormon (ex: Joel Osteen).