Eighth in a series interpreting the results of Iowa’s 2024 state and federal elections.
Iowans could reasonably view the 2016 general election as an anomaly. Diverging sharply from the national mood, this state voted for Donald Trump by more than a 9-point margin, even as Hillary Clinton won the nationwide popular vote by a little more than 2 points. But maybe that was a one-off; Iowa had been a swing state for the previous six presidential elections.
When Joe Biden failed to flip a single Iowa county in 2020—even heavily Catholic counties where he should have done substantially better than Clinton—I concluded that Iowa was no longer a swing state. That post got some pushback from Democrats who thought I was reading too much into the results.
Trump’s third win in Iowa, by his largest margin yet, underscores how far this state has moved from the center of the national electorate. As Democrats search for a way back to winning more statewide and down-ballot races, they need to recognize that reality.
A COMPREHENSIVE VICTORY
Final results certified on December 2 show that 927,019 Iowans voted for Trump and 707,278 for Vice President Kamala Harris (55.7 percent to 42.5 percent). Even though statewide turnout was down by about 1.5 percent compared to the last presidential election, Trump received nearly 30,000 more raw votes than he did in 2020, when he defeated Biden by 53.1 percent to 44.9 percent. Harris’s vote total was more than 50,000 below Biden’s.
Trump flipped Scott County and increased his majority in longtime Democratic strongholds along the Mississippi River. He held Harris below 50 percent in Black Hawk County, which (like Scott) hasn’t voted for a Republican for president since 1984.
By my calculations, Trump carried 20 of the 25 state Senate districts that were on the ballot in 2024, and 71 of the 100 state House districts.
Iowa’s statewide swing toward Trump of about 5 points from 2020 to 2024 was fairly close to the national swing toward the Republican nominee. But Iowa’s starting point was far to the right of the national electorate, which preferred Biden four years ago.
A SHORT HISTORY OF IOWA’S PRESIDENTIAL VOTING
Iowa’s “Partisanship Score” shows enormous shifts over the past 60 years, with a GOP advantage solidifying during the Trump era.
This spreadsheet by the Daily Kos Elections team (now publishing as The Downballot) explains the concept: partisanship score “compares the percentage point difference in the two-party-only vote share margin between Democrats and Republicans” in each state with the national result in a given year.
The measurement makes it easier to understand how voter preferences in each state relate to the U.S. electorate as a whole. It can lead to some counterintuitive results. For instance, Lyndon Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in Iowa by 24 points in 1964. But since the national election was also a Democratic landslide, Iowa’s partisanship score was just D+1.
Iowa was less in step with the national mood during the Nixon years. Iowans voted for Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey in 1968 by 53.0 percent to 40.8 percent—much more than Nixon’s national popular vote advantage of 0.7 percent. That produced a partisanship score of R+12. Iowans voted to re-elect Nixon in 1972 by a huge margin of 57.6 percent to 40.5 percent for George McGovern. But Nixon won the nationwide popular vote that year by more than 23 points. So paradoxically, Iowa’s partisanship score in 1972 was D+6, indicating that Iowans voted six points to the left of Americans generally.
Four years later, Gerald Ford carried Iowa by a 1-point margin. But since Jimmy Carter won the national popular vote by about 2 points, Iowa’s partisanship score was R+3.
The farm crisis of the 1980s caused a dramatic change in Iowa voting patterns, relative to the rest of the country. The state’s partisanship score went from R+4 in 1980 (a comfortable victory for Ronald Reagan) to D+11 in 1984, when Reagan carried Iowa by 53.3 percent to 45.9 percent while winning nationally by 18 points.
The 1988 presidential election was a high water mark for Iowa Democrats. Michael Dukakis carried 75 of the 99 counties en route to winning the state by 10 points. Meanwhile, George H.W. Bush won nationally by nearly 8 points, giving Iowa a partisanship score of D+18—hard to believe, even for those old enough to remember it.
20 YEARS AS BELLWETHER ENDS
Then came a period of relative stability: for six elections in a row, Iowa’s popular vote for president was not far off from the national popular vote. Our partisanship score was D+1 in 1992, D+2 in 1996, R+0 in 2000, and D+2 in 2004, 2008, and 2012.
Iowans who became politically aware during this period had good reason to think our state would remain a presidential battleground indefinitely.
Trump was expected to carry Iowa in 2016, since Clinton invested little in the general election campaign here. That said, most observers (aside from Iowa Poll director Ann Selzer) didn’t anticipate the scale of the GOP victory. Trump’s 9-point win in Iowa translated to a partisanship score of R+12, since Clinton won the national popular vote.
Even though Trump carried Iowa by slightly less in 2020 (finishing about 8 points ahead of Biden), the state’s partisanship score moved further to the right of American voters (R+13).
This year’s national popular vote is not quite fully counted, but Trump is on track to beat Harris by 49.8 percent to 48.3 percent. Iowa’s partisanship score will be in the range of R+12 again.
A HARDER ROAD FOR DOWN-BALLOT DEMOCRATS
A lopsided vote for president creates problems for Democrats seeking other offices. In 2016, the party suffered net losses of two state House seats and six Iowa Senate seats. Flipping the upper chamber gave Republicans their first Iowa trifecta since the 1990s, with devastating results in many policy areas.
In 2020, Republicans picked up two of the three U.S. House districts Democrats held in Iowa, maintained their large state Senate majority, and had a net gain of six state House districts.
This year, Christina Bohannan fell agonizingly short in the first Congressional district, as Trump’s win by 8.4 points pulled GOP incumbent Mariannnette Miller-Meeks over the line. Lanon Baccam held his own in the third Congressional district, but that wasn’t good enough to beat Representative Zach Nunn when Trump carried the district by 4.4 points. Trump and Biden had nearly tied across the counties that now make up IA-03.
Republicans also expanded their legislative cohorts again. Their Iowa Senate majority (35-15) will be the largest since the early 1960s, and their Iowa House majority (67-33) will be the largest since 1970. The GOP lost only one state Senate seat and one state House seat while picking up two Democratic seats in the upper chamber and four in the lower chamber. In most of the legislative districts that flipped, the Democratic nominee outperformed Harris—but not by enough to win.
Democrats have reason to hope for a decent midterm election. The party picked up two of Iowa’s U.S. House seats and several state legislative seats in 2018, the last time Republicans had a trifecta in Washington.
On the other hand, Democrats are starting from a deeper hole now than during Trump’s first term. The GOP has a large voter registration advantage and more resources to turn out their base. For the first time in recent memory, more Iowa Republicans than Democrats cast ballots before election day. Candidate recruitment and fundraising will be more challenging, compared to cycles when Iowa was widely perceived as a purple state.
The first step toward finding a solution is acknowledging the scale of the problem.
Top image was first published on Donald Trump’s campaign Facebook page.
6 Comments
Moving back to the center
Maybe Democrats should cut ties with their fringe warriors. I don’t think many Iowans believe that abortion is harmless healthcare; that blue hair dye and puberty blockers are the right answer for struggling adolescents; that subsidies are the best way to grow the economy; and that kids learn better when their schools are closed.
Iowa Democrats can help Iowans in many other ways: Preserving land and water like the successful Story County bill. Promoting green energies and smart, responsible development. Bringing the quality of public schools back to where it was decades ago by getting rid of ideologies that don’t work and focusing on quality in the classroom. Promoting democracy and open-record laws, and this starts by bringing back the Iowa caucus. Informing about predatory companies, like Medicare Advantage and other private health insurers.
Karl M Tue 3 Dec 4:46 AM
Thanks for the analysis
I don’t comment much on this site, yet I wanted to say thanks for the analysis of the 2024 election results. This closing statement is particularly important: “The first step toward finding a solution is acknowledging the scale of the problem.”
Politics in this election affirmed what I saw in 2022: the old way of running a campaign is obsolete. This cycle, local political operatives were repeating what was done in 2020 and 2022. No one I know identified the new paradigm… yet. To get there we need analysis like that provided by Bleeding Heartland.
Paul Deaton Tue 3 Dec 5:27 AM
Depressing and sobering picture
Thanks Laura, agree that the scope is breath-taking, but it won’t get better until people face the ugly truth.
I hope the Iowa Dems start by first cleaning house in the party leadership. Whatever they’re doing, it’s not working, and we can use a fresh approach. Maybe ask some of the hard-working winners in this disaster, like Sarah Trone Garriott and Josh Turek, for their thoughts (maybe guest columns) on what the party could do to help down-ticket candidates and start winning more close districts? Or ask Ryan Melton in the ultra hard 4th US district what help he needed most?
My vote would be to take a hard look at the party’s adversion to break with Big Ag, and get serious about talking about water quality and industry capture. Not to mention degrading the health of Iowa’s with growing rates of cancer and the impact of ag chemicals, and note the GOP gave legal immunity to pesticide manufacturers? Why exactly was that necessary? The impact of the school voucher legislation and its impact on public schools is another prime issue to club the GOP with.
Time for everyone to get busy…
Jeff Tue 3 Dec 11:56 AM
Because this post is about facing up to painful political realities...
…I would like to know, per Jeff’s comment, why Iowa Democratic candidates this year were reportedly advised to stick to a script that talked about a few specific issues, and Iowa’s awful water quality was not one of them.
I have been assuming that happened because Iowa Democratic polls indicated that most Iowa voters don’t care enough about Iowa’s awful water to even make it an issue in the 2024 campaign. If that is really true, I would like to know. If that is not true, I would like to know the reason(s) why water quality was basically absent from the 2024 Iowa election. Was it because talking about water quality in Iowa means talking about agriculture?
If the answer(s) are painful and hard to hear, so be it. Iowa political reality in general is painful now.
PrairieFan Tue 3 Dec 2:56 PM
Water Quality
I did ask Jennifer Konfrst “Are Democrats talking about water and air quality and the environment as issues? If not, why not?” Her answer was nuanced.
There is a link to the interview on my website in this post. It was question #8 of 11 asked during the interview. https://pauldeaton.com/2024/09/11/interview-with-iowa-house-minority-leader-jennifer-konfrst/
Paul Deaton Tue 3 Dec 3:30 PM
Mr Deaton asked the right questions
Listen to Jennifer Konfrst, and you’ll understand why Democrats lost big time. She is laser-focused on fringe issues, disconnected from the economy, and does not really care about water quality. The thoughts on school vouchers and their effects on rural schools is spot on, however.
Karl M Tue 3 Dec 8:02 PM