Opinion: The big winners in Iowa: voters on the outs with their own parties

During CNN’s Iowa caucus coverage Monday night, political consultant (and former Obama campaign manager) David Axelrod distilled the difference between the candidates for the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Clinton’s speeches focus on her resume — years of experience as the first lady, as a member of the U.S. Senate, as secretary of State, all those past battles with the right that have prepared her for this moment.

Sanders, on the other hand, focuses little on his own background and bangs a steady drum about the economic health of voters (except when he’s channeling Donald Trump and talking about his poll numbers). With his rumpled appearance he channels Peter Finch’s Howard Beale character from “Network” — “I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” — and people join in.

So is this campaign about the voters, or about the candidates?

On most policy issues, Clinton and Sanders tend to overlap. Of course, there are differences, especially in how each regards Wall Street, healthcare (Sanders wants to replace Obamacare, which Clinton supports, with a single-payer system), and international engagements (he’s more of a dove). But connections with voters often hinge on the ephemeral — such things as likability — more than on specific issues. Voters like to feel that casting their ballot says something more than just, “yeah, I’ll go with this one,” or, worse, as a bulwark against a perceived electoral disaster. (“Anything to stop X.”)

And so far, Clinton hasn’t positioned herself as that kind of movement candidate. She’s staking out the more pragmatic ground, with a wink and a nod at the slate of conservatives the Republicans are considering for their nomination.

But Sanders, for all his calls for a political revolution, isn’t much of a movement candidate, either, and has a much narrower appeal than Clinton, according to the Iowa entrance/exit poll.

In a nutshell, Sanders trounced Clinton, 61% to 34%, among the 27% of Democratic caucus-goers to who listed income inequality as their top concern. But she trounced him among the 31% who focused on the economy and jobs, and the 30% who said healthcare was the most important issue facing the country. She got most of the older voters (age 45 and up); he got most of the younger voters. She got support from families making $50,000 a year or more; he prevailed among the lower-income caucus-goers. She won among women; he won among men.

In what may be the most significant divide, though, he won among self-perceived liberals and those who voted based largely on the idea that the candidate “cares about people like me” and is “honest and trustworthy,” while Clinton won among the moderates and those who focused on who “can win in November” and “has the right experience.”

So which will prevail among the Democratic voters as the caucuses and primaries go on? Will they go with their hearts or with their heads? With their dreams or with their fears? Will they head into the fall fighting from the left or the relative center?

Hard to say. But it’s interesting that women accounted for 56% of the Democratic caucus-goers, while men accounted for 52% of the Republican caucus-goers. And there Ted Cruz did best among lower-educated, self-described conservatives while Donald Trump and Marco Rubio did best among the moderates. Interestingly, 42% said they most preferred a candidate who “shares my values,” and those voters went heavily — 38%— for Cruz.

So for voters looking for a candidate they feel reflects their values (Cruz) or cares about them (Sanders), the choices in Iowa at least are the outsiders. That disconnect should worry establishment leaders in both parties.

Follow Scott Martelle on Twitter @smartelle.