Iowa Independent: If Caucus Were Held Tonight, Edwards Would Win

Since most polls are unable to capture the complex nature of the Iowa caucuses, Iowa Independent has taken to using a less conventional methodology to try and answer the question: "If the caucuses were held tonight, what would be the results?"

Campaigns were evaluated based on impressions we received from activists, everyday caucus-goers, event attendees, and pundits about  the quality of each campaign's on-the-ground organization, the likelihood of each candidate's supporters actually attending a caucus, second choice support, and -- at the most basic level -- gut feelings and guesses.

Interestingly, their conclusions are pretty much the inverse of what most polls are telling us right now.

1. John Edwards -- Edwards started about a year ago with the best organization in Iowa, and most of the foundation he built here is still in place.  Although concerns persist that his sharpening rhetoric may be alienating a few of his earliest supporters, his solid performance at the Jefferson Jackson dinner, his endorsement from Caucus 4 Priorities (and the potential 10,000 caucus-goers it could bring him), and his ongoing commitment to retail politicking keep him  in the top spot -- for now.

2. Barack Obama -- Obama's organization was fairly inconsistent over the summer, with some counties getting a lot of attention and others getting barely any.  Still, his campaign's ability to build crowds --  as evidenced by his huge and geographically diverse group of  supporters at the Jefferson Jackson dinner -- are as good a measure of his strength as anything.  And as Clinton continues to receive sharper attacks from Edwards and subtler attacks from Obama himself, the Illinois Senator could move up in the coming weeks -- particularly on news of his United Auto Workers endorsement.  As things stand  now, he would still place second behind Edwards.

3. Hillary Clinton -- Different sources tell vastly different stories  about the Clinton campaign in Iowa.  Some expect it to flop completely, but others point to poll numbers showing Clinton in the  top spot among Democratic candidates in Iowa.  All that said, her aura  of inevitability has been all but shattered by increased criticism over the past few weeks, and she seems to lack significant second choice support.  And her latest swing through Iowa highlighted her energy policy, something which may not resonate among working class women, which continues to be her key demographic.  Frankly, although the polls show Clinton in first place in Iowa, many of us have been hard pressed to find solid Clinton supporters whose names have not already appeared on a campaign press release.

The implication here is that Clinton's lead in the polls out of Iowa is hollow, which I find to be an intriguing conclusion for a couple of reasons. First, while Clinton's lead has been narrow (and shrinking of late,) it has been consistent. The last poll to show her in anything but first place was a Newsweek poll in late September. The other thing about her polling strength is that it was completely earned. Throughout the spring and summer, Clinton polled regularly in second or third place; for the past month, while second third have been fluid, her lead has been remarkably stable. So, while I'm not in Iowa, nor do I claim to be an expert on the complexities of the Iowa caucus, my gut tells me that, were the caucus to be held today, Clinton would probably end up in second and Obama in third. Not that I would suggest you take my gut into consideration when predicting Iowa. Iowa Independent's Power Rankings on the other hand are something to keep your eye on. Next week: the Republicans.



Display:


interesting (none / 0)

The fact is that no one knows for sure, and since the election is not tonight, it doesn't even matter.  But as much as I would like this order (I think it would be good for Obama), I find it hard to dismiss the polls so easily.  They may be "hard pressed" to find Clinton supporters, but apparently all you have to do is dial random phone numbers to find lots of them.


New Jersey politics and news
by John DE on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 02:34:38 PM EST

Second choices (2.00 / 2)

I think it's that second choice support that makes the difference here. Are Kucinich people going to walk over to Hillary's corner when Dennis doesn't get 15%? Richardson polls a solid fourth; where are his people going to go? With Hillary you either love her or you hate her and I don't think she's anybody's second choice.


by davefordemocracy on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 02:43:47 PM EST

2nd choices on most of the polls (2.00 / 1)

that list them give an advantage to Edwards, with Hillary running a clear 3rd.


by okamichan13 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 03:08:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry Todd but given this (2.00 / 1)

"So, while I'm not in Iowa, nor do I claim to be an expert on the complexities of the Iowa caucus,"

and the analysis from the Iowa indepedent, your reliance on polls for Clinton, which is odd with the very first statement of your diary, seems a bit off.

Also even the polls clearly show Clinton's "lead" if she ever had one on the ground, is now diminishing.


by okamichan13 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 03:08:04 PM EST

Re: Sorry Todd but given this (none / 0)

I'd say Todd is just making an educated guess... from what I have read, I never got the notion he was a Clinton supporter.


by yitbos96bb on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:39:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed I don't think (none / 0)

he's a Clinton supporter.

I just don't think his guess is very educated :).


by okamichan13 on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 10:43:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh yes, where are those Clinton supporters (none / 0)

I have heard that one before. It's a total phantom BS arguement that's used here to explain why she would come in third here yet has lead every single Iowa poll since late August. Obvious there must be some anti Clinton bant to whoever is doing these rankings.


by Christopher Lib on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 03:13:26 PM EST

Re: IOWA INDEPENDENT ON THE DEBATE (none / 0)

by: Douglas Burns
Thursday (11/15) at 23:12 PM

[Commentary] U.S. Sen. Barack Obama tonight turned in his strongest presidential debate performance and exposed a clear regional difference with front-runner Hillary Clinton.
Is $97,000 a lot of money? In most of Obama's Illinois and just about all of Iowa, the answer to that is "yes," which makes Obama's position on the question of whether to raise or lift the cap on Social Security taxes more reasonable to Hawkeye State voters than the New York shape-shifting of Clinton.

As it stands, the first $97,500 of a person's annual income is subject to the Social Security tax. Obama supports lifting that to shore up the future of the system while Clinton went with the nostalgia card, suggesting that she could resurrect the macroeconomic picture that prevailed under her husband and cause the Social Security problem to disappear without hard choices. She suggested that popping the cap would hurt middle-class Americans and argued that in some parts of the nation (namely high-priced New York City which she represents) $97,500 isn't a lot of money. It would be interesting to hear her make that argument in Audubon County, Iowa, where the average home is worth half that much: $49,000.


by BDM on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 03:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IOWA INDEPENDENT ON THE DEBATE (none / 0)

Boy what a stupid out of touch statement... $97,000 isn't a lot of money... sure to Paris Hilton... but to most Americans it IS a lot of money.  I've supported lifting the cap for years... I'm glad Obama proposed this and I hope he and Edwards NAIL Hillary on that statement... $97,000 isn't a lot of money... what idiotic bullshit... The world does not end and begin in New York City Hillary!!!


by yitbos96bb on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There is no methodology. It is an opinion. (none / 0)

Which is fine.  

We'll see if they are right.

Edwards campaign is short on cash, and has turned some people off with its attacking style.   Polls after poll lately has had him in 3rd.

I'd be surprised if he can go by the better funded candidates in Obama or Clinton.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 03:33:18 PM EST

we'll see who shows up on Jan. 3 (none / 0)

I like how Edwards is doing among the people who caucused in 2000 and 2004. Also, I think he stands to pick up a lot on second choices.

We will see if large numbers of first-time caucus-goers are able to bring it home for Obama or Clinton.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 04:55:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we'll see who shows up on Jan. 3 (none / 0)

Edwards winning wouldn't surprise me, but I think it will be VERY close between him and Obama... 1 or 2%.  Of course I could be wrong... but we shall see.


by yitbos96bb on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Newsflash: Blog thinks Edwards will win (none / 0)

Tell me something I didn't know.

The Iowa Independent group blog is more informed about Iowa, but, like many bloggers, Chase Martyn's history of hostility to Clinton, and barely concealed Obama boosterism, disqualifies him as an objective observer of the caucuses. I would take his analysis more seriously if he were up front about his biases, his claim of objectivity in the comments demonstrates to me that he is not fully aware of it.


by souvarine on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 04:39:22 PM EST

undecideds will move in December (2.00 / 3)

and not before. I just got home from three hours of canvassing my neighborhood. There are still many undecided voters, and many of them are still considering three candidates.

This thing will be decided in the final weeks, just like in 2004.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 04:54:11 PM EST

Re: undecideds will move in December (none / 0)

At least some excitement finally... this primary season has just sucked... IT IS WAY TO LONG AND MINDNUMBING... I miss 1992, where a guy from a small southern state could jump in late and still win.  


by yitbos96bb on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:45:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: undecideds will move in December (none / 0)

You ROCK, double D!


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: undecideds will move in December (2.00 / 2)

Just canvassed in Dubuque, using purely "Undecided voters" as the criterion... We found that most of these "voters" are undecided and about 1/2 are not even sure about whether or not they'll caucus. I got quite a few "I haven't made up my mind but I know it won't be Hillary"s, one Republican, one skeptical about Obama, and a few leaning Edwards.. Most were undecided between the 3, though I would have to give Edwards and Obama the slight edge in terms of preference (and again, this is just personal experience). I really do wonder though how Hillary is going to sway most undecided supporters.


by KainIIIC on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 08:16:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa Independent: If Caucus Were Held (none / 0)

I would agree... exceeding expectations like that would give Edwards a significant boost... whether it would propel him to the nom would remain to be seen... not sure if it would be a big enough boost to grab NH but it would be fun to see... I think it would depend on how everyone else finished and the strength of an Edwards (or Obama) win.  If He beat Obama by 1 or 2 (or vice versa) and Hillary finishes third, it might knock her completely off kilter.  If He (or Obama) beat hillary by a point or two, it will give them a boost, but I'm not sure if it is enough to kill her campaign completely.  

If they do finish in this order, Hillary is in serious trouble as the narrative coming out of Iowa will not be a flattering one.  


by yitbos96bb on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 07:37:22 PM EST

Second Choice Votes (none / 0)

It seems to me that by lumping second choice votes into a big pool we are overestimating Obama. Does it really matter who an Edwards or Clinton supporter has as a second choice? They are almost certain to be viable in the vast majority of caucus sites. Obama is probably going to miss the viability threshold in slightly more places than Edwards or Clinton. I would guess that this would benefit Edwards more than Clinton but probably not as much as the Edward's people think.
Edwards as the most anti-clinton probably gets most of the Kucinich second choices. The Dodd people probably break 60-40% away from Clinton, but because the 60% has two choices his second choices are a net gain for Hillary. Biden's people probably break the other way giving more to Clinton and that will definitely help her count more than any of the others so far. And then there are the Richardson people. The Resume part of his vote probably breaks Clinton's way, the anti-war part of his vote breaks against her. By caucus time most of the anti-war vote will have already abandoned Richardson so again his people are a net gain for Hillary.
So Hillary probably gains the most from the true second choice votes, followed by Edwards and finally Obama. Caucus night surprise is playing against Obama. And that is a big win for Hillary.
by Judeling on Sat Nov 17, 2007 at 11:58:04 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.