Early analysis of turnout by caucus site shows a very clear trend: lower turnout than '16 in less educated areas and an increase in well-educated areas, likely reflecting the Trump era realignment in Iowa and elsewhere
In perhaps a bad sign for the Sanders campaign: no greater increase in turnout in areas where 18 to 24 year olds represent an above average share of the population
Similarly, turnout tended to increase more in Buttigieg precincts / those where Sanders struggled (well-educated, suburban)
I should emphasize one caveat: I'm measuring change in turnout by raw numbers, not with a denominator of population or registered Democrats (I do not have denominators for 2016 by precinct)
It is conceivable, for ex., that pop growth in suburbs could exacerbate this pattern a bit
It is conceivable, for ex., that pop growth in suburbs could exacerbate this pattern a bit
The entrance poll tells a different story, I know, but those are pretty imprecise instruments for measuring the composition of the electorate.
For one, it's a poll of 1600 people. Margin of error? Yes, it applies.
And it's even greater than usual because it's a cluster sample
For one, it's a poll of 1600 people. Margin of error? Yes, it applies.
And it's even greater than usual because it's a cluster sample
It's just a sample of precincts. Say, 30 to 50 (IDK). So, if in 2020 there's an extra college campus site in the sample precincts, that on its own could move the youth share of the electorate.
They're just not designed for precise measurement here
They're just not designed for precise measurement here
Now, turnout by precinct isn't a precise measurement, either! Turnout could increase among young voters without showing up in young precincts. It's possible.
(it is just as possible, by the way, that the '16 entrance poll underestimated the youth share of the electorate as it is that the '20 one overestimated it)
