Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee won in Iowa last night, although I can’t say theirs were decisive victories. I know they want to think that, and maybe the media promotes it; but let’s put the Democratic and Republican caucuses in perspective.
It was estimated that between 120 thousand and 150 thousand Democrats would participate, while 80 to 90 thousand Republicans would do the same. I haven’t read the actual numbers for the turnout, but it did seem that attendance ran high.
Here’s the thing. As of 2006, approximately 2.9 million people claimed Iowa as home. Of those residents, approximately 23.8 percent were under the age of eighteen and not eligible to caucus. That left 2.2 million. Now if both Democratic and Republican turnouts were at the high end of the original estimates, it means that little more than ten percent of the population affected the outcome. I wouldn’t call this decisive.
What I would say is that those who voted seemed to want younger leaders, candidates who pride themselves on being outside the Washington Beltway’s political influence. Obama is forty-seven, Huckabee is fifty-two. Maybe candidates who were born before 1950 better think about this.
New Hampshire’s primary is next. For the record — and I researched the U.S. Census Bureau for all statistics in this blog — that state’s 2006 estimated population was 1.3 million, with approximately 22.6 percent of those residents under 18 years of age. That leaves a little over a million people who could go to the primary on January 8. Regardless of whom they vote for, I hope more than ten percent — even more than twenty percent — show up. A decisive victory would have more meaning if more people were involved.
Leave a Reply