5 big takeaways from the Iowa entrance poll

We actually know quite a bit -- thanks to an entrance poll conducted by a consortium (great word!) of networks. An entrance poll is exactly what it sounds like: People are asked a series of questions about the candidates and issues on their way into the caucuses. Now, obviously they can change their mind once in there, but history has shown that the entrance poll (like the exit poll conducted in primaries) provides a useful snapshot of who voted and why.

Given that -- and the lack of actual votes cast in the caucuses -- I went through the entrance poll to look for insight into the current state of the Democratic Party and where it's headed. They're below.

1. Iowa so white: The critique of Iowa's right to go first in the nominating process -- prior to the utter collapse of the system Monday night -- was that the state is simply not diverse enough to be given such a prominent position in choosing the standard-bearer of a party that is increasingly non-white. Lost amid the chaos over the failed reporting of caucus results was this: More than 9 in 10 Iowa Democratic caucus-goers were white. Sidebar: New Hampshire, which votes next on February 11, is even whiter; it ranks as the third whitest state in the country.

2. Liberals rule: Two in three people who caucused on Monday called themselves either "very" or "somewhat" liberal. Those numbers were broadly consistent with the composition of the 2016 Iowa caucus electorate, when 68% identified as either very or somewhat liberal. Those findings are broadly in keeping with movement over the past decade among the rank-and-file, with many more Democrats now proudly calling themselves liberals. It's also consistent with the leftward movement of the leading candidates in the 2020 race -- particularly on issues like healthcare and immigration.

3. New caucus-goers? Not so much: In 2008, almost 6 in 10 (57%) of caucus-goers were participating in their first-ever Iowa caucus. That was a massive boon for then-Sen. Barack Obama, who had worked to expand the caucus electorate, and won first-timers by double digits over Hillary Clinton. In 2016 -- the next contested Democratic caucus -- first-timers made up 44% of all caucusgoers, with Bernie Sanders dominating Clinton among that group. On Monday night, just more than 1 in 3 were participating in their first-ever caucus. Could that be because they got involved in 2008 or 2016 and just stayed involved? Maybe! But it also could be a sign that the supposed energy coursing through the electorate to remove Trump isn't all it's cracked up to be.

4. Electability is the name of the game: More than 6 in 10 Iowa caucusgoers said they would rather nominate a "candidate who can beat Donald Trump" as opposed to pick someone who agrees with them on most issues. Compare that to just 20% who said in 2016 that a "candidate who can win in November" was the most important trait in making up their minds. Call that the Trump effect. In 2016, Democrats voting in Iowa had no sense that Trump a) would be the Republican nominee b) would win the White House and c) would be the sort of President he has been. Armed with all that knowledge now, beating Trump appears -- at least in Iowa -- to take precedence over literally everything else.

5. Health care, health care, health care: The overriding issue on the minds of Iowa voters was health care, followed -- waaaay back -- by climate change. (The four options respondents were given were health care, climate change, income inequality and foreign policy.) That's a different landscape than the 2016 Iowa caucus, when 33% named economy/jobs, 30% health care, 27% chose income inequality and 6% named terrorism. The centrality of health care as an issue in the 2020 caucus is intriguing -- especially because it's one area where the top candidates disagree. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren favor the elimination of the private insurance market while Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg prefer to work on making the Affordable Care Act better.