desmoinedem has been right about a lot of stuff. I'm betting JRE is going to win Iowa. It will be race for second between HRC and BO. I'm betting on HRC. Here's how I think it will play out:

35%  JRE
28%  HRC
27%  BO

Putting into perspective

Number of serious black or women candidates
2008     2
2004     0
2000     0
1996     0
1992     0
1988     0
1984     0
1980     0

This will be a historic election regardless so it is no surprise that a field of white guys would attract less interest than a field that better represents America.

If Obama was REALLY at about 28 %, his results of 33 % and 24 % are only a little discrepant.

If Clinton was REALLY at 27 %, she could easily come in at 29 % and 26 %.

If Edwards was REALLY at 25 %, his results of 30 % and 20 % are not that discrepant.  

If the polls use different methodologies, or just get a bad mix, or use small samples, such results are to be expected.

With the recent scandals of School rankings at US News and World Report and the Ms. California fiasco, I really doubt whether we Americans can seriously count even with a calculator! I hope they can count the actual votes!

Not sure if it is their methodology, their screen, luck or what but this is the 3rd or 4th time they have come out with some very good Obama numbers that don't jive with other recent polling.

In 3 of the last 6 polls Ibama has been at 33%; the other 3 put him more around 26%.  It has got to be different models with different turnout assumptions.

Let's put one other set of numbers out there:  estimated turnout (combined)

Iowa 250,000   NH  400,000

Considering that NH has about 40% of Iowa's population that shows the effects of an open primary (independents, too, thank you) versus a 4 hour marathon caucus.

If these two must lead the way, why can't they each primary on the same day?  That would leave us with a much higher probability of a split decision (no Iowa bounce in NH) and some input from the rest of the country.

Yes! Yes! that's what we need... more polls!

ex animo
davidfarrar
The National Online Party

of people, a few in Iowa, who are voting for Obama and it is the first time they are voting.  People are talking more about this election than any election I can remember.  I think turnout will be high.  But, even if it is not I think Obama has the ground game to turn out at least 40,000 committed supporters - then it just comes down to 2nd choice.

Personally, I think Clinton may squeak through. There are going to be a lot of ups and downs in the next two weeks.

BUT, if she really does spend $15 million in Iowa, and then loses, she might actually run into some money trouble herself down the road -- especially if she were to lose New Hampshire.

I don't know what she's spent so far elsewhere, but I'll bet it's pretty huge. Dean found himself broke after Iowa -- I realize there were issues of campaign management there, but I'm wondering if the financial "maw" of a modern national presidential primary campaign isn't bigger than even the Clintons of the world can budget and raise money for.  

We've all been expecting the other candidates to run out of cash long before Hillary does, and struggle to compete in Super Tuesday February 5th. That's probably still what'll happen, but there's at least a chance she could be cash-short too, and writing off some states.

Just a thought...

---

Off topic, as an editor, I couldn't help myself. I had to correct the spelling of "bizarre" in the subject line!

If this were indeed the case, I will sit back and watch as they send all the jobs from Ohio to other countries and sign more free trade agreements...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/ohio/ohio_2008_preside ntial_election

This poll has some questionable methodology, as Chris at Open Left points out:

Insider Advantage Iowa poll, 12/16-17, 977 LVs, no trendlines
Edwards: 30%
Clinton: 26% (fixed)
Obama: 24% (fixed)
Other: 12%
Unsure: 7%

Why is this survey more favorable to Edwards? It could be because of an Edwards surge, but it could also be the result of the poll projecting that only one in eight caucus goers will be under the age of 45. Not only is that wildly inconsistent with 2004 entrance survey results for Iowa which indicated one in three caucus goers were under the page of 45, but it is also certain to drag down Obama's numbers given that he has consistently performed well among younger voters.

Guys, take a deep breath ... you CAN'T poll the Iowa caucuses.

One-seventh of registered voters show up ... there's no effective methodology to screen out that many non voters and still have a large sample size.  You'd basically need to get 3500 responses.

Plus, the end result is nothing like the raw vote total.  Let me give you an example from the precinct where I was an Edwards captain in '04.

Raw votes were 18 for Kerry, 15 for Dean, 15 for Edwards, 10 for Gephardt, 2 for Kucinich.  That's 30% Kerry, 25% Dean, 25% Edwards, 12.5% Gephardt, 2.5% Kucinich. But guess what ... none of those Gephardt or Kucinch votes counted because they didn't meant the 15% threshold.

So that 12 people had to redistribute ... and they went 6 Kerry, 6 Edwards for a second round of 24 Kerry, 21 Edwards, 15 Dean.  The eight delegates were split up Kerry 3, Edwards 3, Dean 2 ... which is 37.5 percent Kerry, 37.5 percent Edwards, 25 percent Dean.

The end result in Iowa is a statewide tally of that last number, the distributed delegates, not the raw vote total.  So you could get the raw vote 100 percent right and still be WAY, WAY off on caucus night because you don't know how the pinballs will bounce.

Again, you CAN'T POLL the Iowa caucus.

Polls are pointless in Iowa caucues other than to show who will end up in the top 3 or 4

Here is a link to age demographics of Iowa caucus goers:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/iowa_2_und er_age_25.php

Evidently 40% of those polled hang up (I am one of them) and we are getting called frequently. Under those circumstances all you can do is average as many polls as possible and hope for the best.

Early on I was called four times in one day. I have friends who have been called twice in a day. In the past week my wife and I have been called five times. In addition we get a giant post card a day from Edwards (after the third card he moved from second choice to 13th).

A long time ago in a galaxy far away it used to be fun to caucus in Iowa. It has not been fun for quite  awhile. We are all looking foreword to Jan 4th when all of the candidates, campaign staff and reporters leave Iowa.

I keep running into people who are regular caucus-goers but already made holiday travel plans before the caucuses were scheduled and won't be back by January 3. Even if there are a lot of new caucus-goers, I would be stunned if the total turnout exceeds 150K on the Democratic side.

I am hoping for a big turnout. I don't want people to spin away an Edwards victory by saying bad weather kept turnout low.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the polling in IA is pretty well worthless except as a guide to who the top two or three contenders are. Forecasts of turnouts over 125,000 seem largely pie in the sky. It looks like we're just going to have to carry on guessing for the next two weeks.

College kids don't have at the same that adults over 40 do per each election cycle. I'm 24 and I predict the college turnout for Obama will not suceed expectations. The turnout for young-adults will be slightly better than the 2004 election. It will be good, but nothing that dramatically impacts the outcome of the Iowa caucuses.

College kids don't vote at the same that adults over 40 do per each election cycle. I'm 24 and I predict the college turnout for Obama will not suceed expectations. The turnout for young-adults will be slightly better than the 2004 election. It will be good, but nothing that dramatically impacts the outcome of the Iowa caucuses.

Sorry for Typos!

College kids don't vote at the same rate that adults over 40 do per each election cycle. I'm 24 and I predict the college turnout for Obama will not suceed expectations. The turnout for young-adults will be slightly better than the 2004 election. It will be good, but nothing that dramatically impacts the outcome of the Iowa caucuses.

Essentially anything can happen. The Iowa Caucuses have a way of being unpredictable. What adds to that more so this year is it's taking place two days after New Year's Day. That would seem to favor Edwards who is rellying the least on first titme caucus goers, and not rellying on younger voters and college students like Obama. If there is higher turnouts that favors Clinton and Obama more so who need those first time caucusers to come out. I don't know about the descrepancy of these polls, but essentially it's a threeway horserace. I still believe Edwards wins it in the end.

It's true that anything can happen ... and most people don't understand how strategy can come into play, especially if the precinct captains are well trained.

Consider this scenario ... a precinct has 10 delegates and 100 voters show up.  In the first count, the vote is Edwards 30, Obama 30, Clinton 20, Richardson 9, Biden 6, Dodd 4, Kucinich 1.  only Edwards, Obama and Clinton are viable, so those 20 other votes have to redistribute.

Often campaigns will cut side deals ...you help me out when I need support, I help you out when you need it.  Say, for example, that Richardson had 14 votes and his campaign had a side deal with Clinton ... because she's viable, the campaign could have orders to send a spare voter to Richardson on the first round to make sure he gets at least one delegate. Why do this?  Because in the long run, it will help Clinton because Richardson voters will move to her on second ballot (if they follow the precinct captain instructions, which often they do not.)

But let's get back to this scenario ... there are times when your campaign might have excess voters to meet a delegate threshold and you have to decide whether to let the results stay as they are or send your spare votes to another candidate ... say, for example, that Edwards has passed the threshold for 4 delegates, but has 2 to spare ... if he keeps them, both Obama and Clinton will get 3 delegates, but if he sends those extra voters to Obama, it ends up 4-4-2.

It's entirely possible that Edwards and Obama have a side-strategy in place to deprive Clinton of delegates, under the theory that the winner of Iowa is less important than ensuring that Clinton does not win (and, ideally, finishes in third.)

that desmoinesdem (you know, our guru of Iowa) has been stating for some time; polling institutions have been polling two entirely different universes of Iowa caucus-goers. What really counts is which universe actually shows up to caucus.