Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Poll

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:49:55 PM EST

There is one Iowa poll apparently held in the highest esteem by professional pollsters and that is the Des Moines Register poll conducted by Ann Selzer. Well, Selzer is out with the final DMR numbers and they look like this:

CandidateALLDEMIND
Obama322739
Clinton253315
Edwards242524

According to the survey, which was in the field Thursday through Sunday and included 800 likely Democratic caucus goers for a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points, 6 percent of respondents were undecided or uncommitted. No other candidate other than the three listed above received more than 6 percent support, suggesting that the second choices of supporters of these candidates could play a significant role Thursday night.

As you can see above, Obama's lead is entirely predicated on a likely voter model that predicts heavy independent turnout in the Democratic caucuses. Specifically, the poll predicts 40 percent of Democratic caucus-goers to be independent, and another 5 percent to be Republican. So while Clinton leads slightly among just Democratic voters, Obama's lead comes entirely from independent voters, who back him by a wide margin. So if indies turn out in a few nights, it looks like it's going to be a good night for the Obama camp. However, if indies are fickle and stay at home Thursday night, it might be a relatively long night in Chicago.

Update [2007-12-31 22:54:37 by Jonathan Singer]: Just to add...

An analysis of likely caucusgoers' second choices showed that the results would change little if the votes for the lower-rated candidates were redistributed among the front-runners.

Anyway, much more data here. Hope everyone has a happy and safe new years!

Update [2008-1-1 0:11:23 by Jerome Armstrong]: Regarding it's turnout projection, I'll just add a comment on this from the poll:

All of the three leaders in Iowa draw a majority of support from new caucusgoers, although Obama benefits the most with 72 percent of his support coming from first-timers compared to 58 percent of Clinton's and 55 percent of Edwards' supporters.
That doesn't seem like it could be correct to me, unless the DMR poll is projecting that over 180,000 persons are expected to caucus. I have to figure that at least 3 out of every 5 person's that caucused four years ago would caucus this year, and it's probably more likely that it'd be 4 out of ever 5 that would vote again in the caucus-- those are the 4/4 voters. But if over half the '08 caucus goers are going to be first-timers, and if 3 or 4 out of 5 of the 120,000 caucus attendees in '04 do so again, then this poll projects a turnout of way above 150,000, more like above 180,000. The only other possibility is that less than half of those that caucused in '04 are going to do so in '08-- very unlikely.

Ann Selzer may well have polled an outlier this year and turn into a toad, or Obama might prove her to be a poll god by turning Iowa's traditional caucus on its head by ramping up Independent & Republican participation in the Democratic event to an unprecedented record level-- we'll know in 72 hours.

Also, the Edwards camp has a memorandum out on the poll. I wrote the above prior to getting the note, but it seems that they see the same thing in their second point. I'll put the Edwards memo in the extended entry:

MEMORANDUM
TO: Edwards for President
FROM: Harrison Hickman
RE: Des Moines Register Poll Results
Date December 31, 2007

In response to questions, here are some observations about the Register poll released this evening.

Is the poll accurate? There are good reasons to think it is NOT.
The poll was conducted during the holiday season AND over the weekend. (One column says interviewing ended on Sunday while the article says interviewing was conducted Thursday, Friday, and Saturday.) Numerous professional studies indicate that either of these would make it more difficult to obtain a representative sample. The combination makes the problem of obtaining a valid sample geometrically worse.

The poll is at odds with history.
The poll says 60% of Democratic caucus participants will be first timers who have never before participated in a caucus. This matters in the horserace because the poll finds that about three-quarters of Obama's supporters are first-timers. The poll is at odds with known tenets of partisan caucus participation. The poll says 45% of those at Democratic caucuses will be Independents or Republicans. This matters because the entirety of Obama's "lead" is due to his advantage among non-Democrats.

The poll is at odds with other polls.
Several other polls show a closer race with other candidates leading. Others seem suspicious of the horserace numbers. David Yepsen's column highlights the fluidity of the results rather than the horserace.

What does the poll say? The race is close.
The race is yet to be decided. 34% say they could change their minds, and 6% do not express a preference. This means 40% have not made a final decision. As Yepsen points out, 21% of those in the 2004 entrance poll said they had made their decisions in the last 3 days -- something this poll cannot capture.

The trend is moving toward Edwards. The nightly results show Obama's support flat over the last two nights, Clinton's declining each night, and Edwards' support increasing each night.




Tags: Iowa Caucuses, Iowa, Democrats, Democratic Primaries, 2008 (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 170 Comments :: Post a Comment


DMR Iowa Caucus Poll (2.00 / 2)

I like Ann Selzer, but does she seriously think Independents will constitute almost half the caucuses?  Seriously?


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:53:16 PM EST

Re: DMR Iowa Caucus Poll (none / 0)

Apparently she thinks Obama's organization and operations are really good in Iowa.... This will be that test.  If its as good as we have read about, then we may indeed see a bunch of indies switch to Democrats that night... If it isn't then its going to be tough going.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:34:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Internals (none / 0)

I'll point out a few things:

DMR has 40% of the voters as Independents and 5% as Republicans. Obama wins in both categories. In 2004, Only 19% were Independents and 1% were Republicans.

DMR has 55% of the voters as Democrats. Hillary Clinton leads among this group. In 2004, 80% of the voters were Democrats.

DMR has 60% of voters as newcomers. In 2004, 55% were new to the caucus. 72% of Obama's support comes from newcomers compared to 58% for Clinton and 55% for Edwards.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:55:14 PM EST

Re: Internals (none / 0)

True, but DMR also was the closest in 2004 to the final Iowa results... apparently she thinks highly enough about Obama's organization to go with that voter model....

It will be interesting to see if Obama's organization is really as good as it seems like it might be in getting out the indies and the young voters or if it will end up being a let down like it was for Dean four years ago.  I like the polls, but at this point, any of the three winning wouldn't surprise me and while the numbers show low polling, a 4th breaking threw such as Biden wouldn't surprise me either.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:23:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

Actually, you can't really say that DMR was the closest model - it depends on what criteria you use. They definitely got the order right, but other polls did well in other areas.  There's an excellent article on this over at Pollster.


No Way. No How. No McCain.
by Denny Crane on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:05:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

2004 was different. Your 2004 factoids are only relevant if you have an argument that the turnout methodology of this year's poll was somehow flawed.

In 2004 there was an incumbent president, independents did not lean Democratic, there were not so many high profile candidates, crowds at events (from the Harkin summer fry to the pre-caucus rallies) were a fraction of the size the top three are drawing this year, no Bill, no Oprah, etc., etc.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

Actually, from the CNN entrance polling in 2004, 45% were new caucus goers, 55% had previously caucused.


by hwc on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:56:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

Thanks for the correction.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

Anybody know what percent of Iowa voters are registered independent?


by del on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

According to CNN exit polls for the 2004 general election, 30% were Independents. 34% were Democrats and 36% were Republicans. Of course, that was four years ago.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:32:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

Interesting, I wonder if that is a true representation of registration.


by del on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 08:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

As far as I can tell, the most recent Iowa party registration numbers (active voters) are:
http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/VoterReg StatsByCounty.pdf

Democratic: 602,947
Republican: 575,025
No Party: 740,400

So the Register's mix, while not reflective of recent turnouts, is closer to actual voter registration.


by along on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 12:39:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Poll (none / 0)

The trends are bad for Clinton, if this poll is right. She went from 27% in the first two days to 23% in the last two days.

The Insider Advantage poll, which was also very accurate in 2004, had Clinton at 30%, Edwards at 29%, and Obama at 22%.

This could go anyway and it will depend on turnout. Personally, I think the DMR poll is a bit odd, given the sample weights.


by Progressive America on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 10:57:08 PM EST

It would interesting (none / 0)

to know whether DMR anticipated in the last poll that 40 percent of caucus goers would be Democrats.  If that number has changed, the two polls wouldn't lend themselves to immediate comparisons.  

Even so, this is one more piece of data in a lot of data.  I don't dismiss it even though it leaves me cold.


That's it, baby; let's go win this election!
by Beltway Dem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus (none / 0)

What?  Obama is ahead?  But his campaign is dead, isn't?  I thought it was over for this guy?


by Namtrix on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:02:38 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus (none / 0)

I am walking on air! Happy 2008.


by aiko on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:36:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

Excellent news.


What would LBJ do?
by Socks The Cat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:04:37 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (2.00 / 1)

Congratulations to the Obama footsoldiers and phonebankers. Keep it going right through Caucus night.


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:04:38 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

We will.  Enthusiasm is very high.  Lots of people working 16 hr. days that are still coming into the office every day "fired up and ready to go."  


by Ryan Anderson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:26:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

I thought Obama was toasted. Now the dirts will really start flowing


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:12:03 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (1.00 / 1)

If Anne Selzer is right about the voter model, she's a freaking prophet.

Otherwise, when the first timers don't show up and its an actual contest among Democrats where  Edwards and Hillary fight it out, she's gonna look like a hack.  


"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."
by ThinkingDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:12:08 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

Again, most ignorant signature line ever...

That aside... She looked pretty good in 2004.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:25:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

Again, most ignorant signature line ever...

That aside... She looked pretty good in 2004.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Given sample this poll is very strange. (2.00 / 1)

Last time around indies were 19% and the DMR is now counting them as 40% of electorate. Republicans were 1% and they are being counted as 5%. Last time Democrats at the "Democratic" caucus were 80% of voters and the DMR is estimating they will only be 55% of attendees this year. If Jonathon's numbers are correct, what's wrong with this picture. In fact these differences from the previous experience are so great as to be unexplainable based on my experience looking at market research numbers and I'd be interested in the DMR's rationale for the difference.      


by ottovbvs on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:15:46 PM EST

Re: Given sample this poll is very strange. (none / 0)

2004 was different. Your 2004 factoids are only relevant if you have an argument that the turnout methodology of this year's poll was somehow flawed.

In 2004 there was an incumbent president, independents did not lean Democratic, there were not so many high profile candidates, crowds at events (from the Harkin summer fry to the pre-caucus rallies) were a fraction of the size the top three are drawing this year, no Bill, no Oprah, etc., etc.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:51:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I hope (none / 0)

this is right because we would be looking for a death wish by nominating Hillary.  


by Toddwell on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:19:41 PM EST

Re: Ottovbvs stop digging (none / 0)

this is the most respected poll from Iowa


"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod
by Jr1886 on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:20:41 PM EST

I hope (none / 0)

this poll is wrong because we're screwed if Obama is the nominee. Of course, it also couldn't roll like it did in 2004 either.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:22:39 PM EST

Re: I hope (none / 0)

No We wouldn't be screwed, we'd be in far better shape than with Hillary...

I think the contest, regardless of who wins, will be MUCH MUCH closer than this... if Obama DID win by this margin, there is a really good chance of a steamroll, especially as Obama's camp gets out there and works to spin the Michigan "primary".  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:28:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Are you kidding? All I hear about is Hillary's negatives well Obama's are higher than hers. He wants to roll over for the GOP and loses states like OH and KY that Clinton or Edwards would carry. His background is also a big negative in a general election.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:30:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

"His background is also a big negative in a general election."

Explain.


by Louverture on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Um, his step father registering him as a Muslim when he lived in Indonesia for one. The drug use etc.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:35:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Did you miss the backlash that Bill Shaheen (in NH) got when he made comments about Obama's drug use?

And given how he's been playing on his christianity, I don't think that muslim angle is going to be very effective either.


by Nautilator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:48:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Well that just proves Iowans are not alright in their head. Question a man's drug use is not okay, but say a Senator contributed to the death of Bhutto is acceptable.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:53:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

His playing up religion only makes it look like he's being defensive about his background. The more he talks about it, the more people think he has something to hide about his religious background--like he is overcompensating.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:10:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

The media has Obama's back on that crap. They would not go to bat for Kerry but they will for Barack.

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Obama's mesmerizing effect on the media is something the Dems have not had since JFK (and Bobby).


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:53:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Again, you're kidding right? Are you so naive that you think the media will continue to cover for him? They'll turn on him just as quickly as they attached themselves to him. Is the media going to form a 527 to defend him? No they won't and they'll be laughing at him all the way to the landslide loss.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

No, I am not naive. I have studied the media professionally for many years.

They tend to choose a narrative and stick to it. They vary within their theme, but they return to the same old refrains again and again.

John McCain is a great example. Mr. Straight Talk is still that in their eyes -- a courageous iconoclastic moderate. Were it not for Katrina, there's a good chance Bush would still be "the guy you want to have a beer with."

At stake for the media is a narrative. Nothing matters more than the drama. They need to fill the roles in their script. They need the "outsider" and the "wizened veteran" and they really love a hero. They found one in Obama.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:02:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

I guess you've never seen them turn on anyone then? I've certainly seem them change their narrative again and again. The press helped bring us Bush so why do you trust them? Once the GOP starts, they'll fall in line like they have for the last decade or so. I've seen nothing to make me change my opinion.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:07:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

The media loves stars.  Obama is a star.  Bush was a star in 1999, that's how come we wound up with Bush.  

I love this quote by the President of the SEIU (sorry, I can't remember his name).  He told Bill Moyers "Democrats think that a Presidential Election is like Jeopardy, where you have to get the right answers.  Republicans understand that elections are more like American Idol, where your skills are second to your star power."

The narrative on Hillary is that she is a power-hungry, ambitious, bad mother.  Totally unfair, but that's it.  The narrative on Edwards is that he's an ambulance-chasing, mansion-dwelling, $400 haircut populist.  Again, totally unfair, but there you have it.  The narrative on Obama is that he is charismatic, will bring the country together, is smart, and reasonably good-looking.  I'm not sure that's fair either, but that's the narrative.

Personally, I think any of the three candidates could beat Romney, Giuliani or Huckabee.  But a McCain-Clinton or McCain-Edwards matchup could be a lot more problematic.  Go back to the narratives.  The centrist straight-talking war hero versus the power-hungry woman or the phony populist (again, these are the narratives, fair or not).  That spells trouble.


by the mollusk on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:32:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Nope, that's not the narrative on Obama. But believe it if you like.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:23:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

what do you think it is?


by the mollusk on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Go to snopes.com and see. That's what he'll be swiftboated with and don't naively depend on the media to defend him. They'll be playing those ads over and over and tsk tsking them all the while reinforcing the negative image.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 05:19:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Obama's negatives are at about 25%.  Hillary's are about double that.  Clinton would not carry Kentucky and probably would end up losing Ohio as well due to the need for any Democrat to win a good amount of pro-life and pro-gun votes that Hillary will never get in that state.  


by Toddwell on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Obama's negatives have now gone up to 51% according to Rasmussen. It'll be easy to put his up to 60% or more because he'll be easily defined by the GOP.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:59:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

25%? In 2004 maybe. Today it's at 51%.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:01:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Clinton's are 50% in that poll.


by Toddwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:20:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

What is your point? You provided VERY inaccurate information regarding Obama. I educated you and judging by your answer, you are speechless. Obama has a higher unfavorable rating that Clinton at 51%, a net -8%. Clinton is 48%/50%. A net -2%.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:30:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

The polls show Hillary winning OH and KY and Obama losing them. If Hillary can't carry the state then you can bet that Obama won't. Obama will carry IL and maybe the west coast. He even loses New England against some GOP candidate. Romney would probably beat him in New England.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:01:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

She wont win either of those states.  She is only leading there right now because Republicans have not united against a candidate.  Once the campaign heats up there is no place for her to go but down and those leads will evaporate quickly.  


by Toddwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:21:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Same can be applied to Obama.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:31:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Well do tell, how is Obama going to do when he starts off losing and has higher negatives?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:34:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

He has the same negatives.


by Toddwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:39:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

So you admit you outright lied to us when you said Obama's negatives are at 25%.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:44:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I didnt know (none / 0)

that there was a Rasmussen poll out that said that.  I found that number in a poll on polling report.  


by Toddwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:10:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

No he doesn't. His favorables are lower so he comes out worse.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:17:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

You say "Obama's negatives are higher than hers (HRC)."  Based on what?  I have not seen a single poll where HRC's negs were not significantly higher than Obama's.

If you can't back up this statement with evedence, you have just demonstrated, for all to see, how completely out of touch you are with objective reality.

Yes, you can cherry-pick a few individual states where trial heats she her running ahead of Obama, but overall his numbers are consistently better in trial heats agianst any of the Repubs.  Obama runs best in Iowa and NH where the voters have gotten the best look at him.  The same will likely happen in Ohio and other states.


by upper left on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:46:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Today's Rasmussen Poll:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/daily_presidential_tra cking_poll

Clinton

FAV 48%
UNFAV 50%

Obama

FAV 43%
UNFAV 51%

Neither of these means all that much.


by hwc on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:57:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I hope (none / 0)

Do you guys keep up to date on things? You always accuse anyone who says anything the least bit unfavorable about Obama as out of touch when it's the Obama supporters who are out of touch with reality for the most part.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:54:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (2.00 / 1)

Hard not to feel good about this poll, but I will keep my hopes down for one reason only: I just can't believe there are this few undecideds in Iowa.  Just about everyone I've called and every house I've canvassed is weighing Edwards and Obama or Clinton and Obama or are somehow otherwise undecided.  I do see a lot of Republicans/Independents who say they are for Obama, and the campaign is very aggressively courting them to turn out, but who really knows what will happen.  Good news, especially considering the dire predictions we were given about this poll earlier, but this race is not over yet.


by Ryan Anderson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:23:16 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

It does say a 3rd could be convinced to change their minds... I actually CAN believe that the number of TRUE undecideds is 5-6%... and that a lot of people LEAN one way but its soft and could change.


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

That's my feeling.  I think a lot of people have a vague impression of who's corner they'll be seeking out on Thursday, but won't really make up their minds until they get to their caucus location and talk it out with their friends and neighbors.


by Ryan Anderson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

Yea, but there is randomness in the direction last second deciders will move, making it something of a wash.

Plus, the least decided are also disproportionately among the least likely to caucus.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead (none / 0)

Ryan, speaking for a group of phonebankers sitting out here in California, thank all you guys for what you are doing out there in Iowa.  It's been a spectacular job.  


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:30:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead (none / 0)

Thank you.  There are a LOT of people a lot more deserving than I of your gratitude, but I'll be working my butt off through Thursday to earn it anyway.


by Ryan Anderson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:34:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Undecideds? (none / 0)

After all the rallies, ads, mailpieces, Bill, Oprhah and huge rallies, why should there be many undecideds?


by RandyMI on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:58:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Undecideds? (none / 0)

Don't ask me, that's just the impression I get.  Obviously, I'm only contacting targeted voters, and undecideds are the biggest target, so that skews my perspective.  But it sure feels like it's higher than 6%.  I think that "30% might change their minds" number is important.


by Ryan Anderson on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

DMR is the most reputable poll on Iowa caucus.

Some of us might not like the output or might choose to run with the freaks like the ARG that did  H-O-E 34-20-19 on 12/26/07 and overnight gave us a different H-O-E 31-25-26 on 12/28/07.

The fact is that DMR successfully called the 2004 caucus and they're doing the same now.


by igwealth5tm on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:35:13 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

Has anyone figured out (or is the data available) as to how many caucus goers this poll (or the other recent ones w/Edwards up) project?  I remember a couple polls a while back that, when you extrapolated out from the internals were projecting something like 500,000 people to show.  Are these more in line with reality, and in particular, is this one (w/Obama up as opposed to Edwards) projecting the turnout in the 150,000-200,000 which people have been thinking would benefit Obama?


"Success is dependent on effort." Sophocles
by B VT on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:36:25 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR Iowa Caucus Pol (none / 0)

This poll predicting 150 K


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:56:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (2.00 / 1)

Do you see the number of indies and reps that would swith party to vote for Obama?
That is the answer to the electability question.
This is unprecedented in the dems' history.

Hillary is unelectable and Edwards could not win ND in 2004.
Edwards failed to win a single Southern state for John Kerry in 2004.

So Edwards could not help dems win in November as Obama would.


by igwealth5tm on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:41:15 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

Have you thought that they might want to put the weakest candidate forward? One who would go down in a Dukakis like landslide?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:50:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

From my own (granted, very limited) experience, I will say say that the Republicans for Obama are generally the most enthusiastic supporters I talk to.  Obama's post-partisan message is derided here on the blogs, but it is really resonating with a whole lot of people.  And for every GOPer willing to caucus for Barack, there are three more that say they're all for him in the general.  


by Ryan Anderson on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

Trash talk is cheap.  Explain your point of view and make your case, or go back to drinking champagne.


by upper left on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:54:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

Look at the state by state polls. Obama loses OH and FL therefore he can't win a general election. I don't understand why people think that Obama can win when they think that Hillary can not. Obama's net negatives are 4x what Hillary's are.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:26:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

Actually, I'm in my mid 40's and have always voted Republican in all presidential elections except for 2004, and that was a vote against Bush, not for Kerry.

And I am doing all I can in this part NC to get the word out about Obama and cannot wait to cast my vote for him come election day!  This is the very first candidate, of any party, that I can actually say I am enthusiastic about.


Carla
by hillsboroughrules on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

Have you done anything to help Clinton win?


by Piuma on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:48:29 PM EST

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

Come on now, everyone knows she hates Clinton. She supports Edwards.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:50:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Of course (none / 0)

though if this is correct it means Edwards will be out of the race then Hillary will probably win the nomination. All of Edwards support in SC will go to Hillary and she still has 20 pts nationally going into super Tuesday.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:51:49 PM EST

Re: Of course (none / 0)

Edwards' voters are not going to Hillary.  


by Toddwell on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

They will in SC. And Obama loses NV. I was in SC and saw no support for Obama in the part I was in. People are still mad about Jesse Jackson apparently so the vote mostly splits along racial lines and with Obama not getting all the black vote and Edwards and Clinton splitting the white vote right now if Edwards drops out his votes will go to Hillary in the primary.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:08:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

That's if they bother to show up.


by Louverture on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

Then again, why wouldn't these people go ahead and vote Edwards anyway if they bother to show up---especially if Obama has batted 2-0 in Iowa and NH.


by Louverture on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:54:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

The next thing will be the "Stop Obama" movement because the polls show him getting whacked in the general.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:09:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

That is a bunch of bull crap.  http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm  Obama does the same if not better than Hillary.  If Hillary was such a sure shot at winnning the general election, she would have double digit leads over any Republican.  


by Toddwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

I'm talking state by state. He loses swing states and may not even carry some of the Kerry states. He even loses New England to some of the GOP candidates.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:19:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

These comments are so full of crap and i sense some racial undertones to your insistence that obama has no chance at winning.  

if you know anything at all about south carolina democrats, you know that the black community is the absolute most important voting block in that state.  From what i hear from my south carolina relatives, the reluctance of some (mostly older) black democrats to support obama comes from their reluctance to believe that a black candidate can win.  If obama wins or is competitive in both iowa and NH, i imagine many of those fears will be quelled and these voters will have no problem getting on the obama train.

furthermore, your repeated references to current state horserace numbers from places like ohio and kentucky have very little meaning at this point.  voters in these places simply aren't paying attention yet because they won't be voting any time soon.   I would bet that numbers in most states will mirror what we saw in nh and iowa:  initially democrats reflexively back hillary because she is the most recognizable "brand".  Over time, as other candidates become more known with voters, there is a steady bleed in support from hillary flowing to the other candidates.  

i think you are cherry-picking evidence to support theories that you desperately want to be true.  i don't know what your motives are, but i get an ugly feeling...


by bluedavid on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:13:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nonsense (2.00 / 1)

If the poll is right, Obama is almost surely the nominee.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:50:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nonsense (none / 0)

Well we're screwed in the general then.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:11:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nonsense (none / 0)

With Hillary we would be screwed in Congressional races.  Republicans have already produced several ads tying our incumbents to Hillary and they work.  They sunk Robin Weirauch from being dead even in the polls all the way down to a 14 point defeat.  


by Toddwell on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:14:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nonsense (none / 0)

If we're screwed with Hillary then we're doubly screwed with Obama. His net negatives are 4x what Hillary's are.

Can you face that fact?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:20:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No (2.00 / 1)

He is a Media Darling. Hell, he may be our Teflon President. He wins in the General.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Well, I hope you're right but he seems to think he can play kumbaya with the GOP. Sounds like sending off a lamb to slaughter to me. And he already starts down in a number of swing states-he's losing OH and FL.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:31:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Media Darling (none / 0)

It is about all he is. If the choice is really Hillary or Obama (and I really don't like Hillary), I don't know what I would do. I see them as the same corporate package. At least with Hillary, we know what we're getting if she wins. At least with Hillary, there is less of a learning curve. Maybe she'll try to clean up her husband's legacy.
Follow the money
by dkmich on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 06:41:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

"All of Edwards's support in SC??????????"

Just how much is there to begin with? Please respond with polls or some facts.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:05:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

The last poll had him at about 17%. Hillary was at 44% and Obama at 40%.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:12:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

That adds up to 101% just between the top three.  What poll are you looking at???


"Success is dependent on effort." Sophocles
by B VT on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 11:39:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Of course (none / 0)

Don't remember but I'm approximating here anyway. It was about a week or so ago and probably a gallup poll. I know SC and the only way Obama wins there is for the white vote to be split or people sit home.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:30:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama Widens Lead in Final DMR (none / 0)

"I don't believe" is not evidence.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 11:57:30 PM EST

Translation (none / 0)

What does the poll say? The race is close.
The race is yet to be decided. 34% say they could change their minds, and 6% do not express a preference. This means 40% have not made a final decision. As Yepsen points out, 21% of those in the 2004 entrance poll said they had made their decisions in the last 3 days -- something this poll cannot capture.

We say the poll is total crap. But the poll is also accurate because it's close.


by RandyMI on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:46:28 AM EST

say what you will (none / 0)

If you have believed all the poll nonsense then this was THE poll everyone was waiting for. The most respected etc. It means that NOTHING that we have seen, the Bhutto assassiation, Axelrod's craziness, Obama on the attack, etc., had ANY effect, indeed, Obama has stretched his lead when it all happened. If you believe in the DMR poll, and too many have to go back on that now, Obama will win, Axelrod knew what he was doing and this race has never been in doubt. Let's eat our crow those of us who thought Obama was done. Not only is he NOT done, heis in the catbird seat. Tonight, we have to say the obvious - Obama is the favorite to be ourt nominee.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:49:16 AM EST

Re: say what you will (none / 0)

" Obama is the favorite to be ourt nominee."

- Not necessarily , he is the favorite to win Iowa.

The nomination is not a guarantee , its a long process and their would be wins and loses a long the way .

I like the dmr poll and I am not about to start questioning its integrity .


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:55:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

absolutely necessarily (none / 0)

If Obama wins comfortably in Iowa, he will NH and S. Ca. and carry that Big Mo into 2/5 and win then too. I fund the DMR poll to be a shocking poll, I am inclined to not believe it, I understand Jerome's critique, think it makes sense but the bottom line is this is the vaunted DMR poll. If ever there was a perception gold standard for a poll in this race, it is THIS poll. Obama is the clear favorite to be our nominee. Everyone know my problems with him. I tepidly support him because of the Media darling question. I think Axelrod is a tool. I worry that his election would mean next to nothing if he does not snap out of this Kumbaya thing. All that said, this was THE poll and that means he will be the perceived odds on favorite on Thursday and he wil likely get a swing from this. That said, now a SECOND is a bad night for him. More reward for his win, but more risk. And I am not spinning. I think this is all true. Obama can win OR lose the nomination on Thursday. And so can Clinton. It is NOW do or die.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:01:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: absolutely necessarily (none / 0)

Thanks for the big helping of reason you just dished out.


Visit DebateScoop
by demondeac on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:07:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I always deal in what (none / 0)

I believe is reason. I know Obama supporters doubt it, but my concerns about his political style are genuine. I am absolutely shocked by the DMR poll. It makes a lie of everything I have thought. It means Obama os made of teflon because the last 2 weeks have been nothing but blunder after blunder. It means he really is bringing in the young folks, the indys, etc. It means he really is a pol who defies gravity, in Iowa. You can not wish that away. I still believe that Republicans are Republicans and getting things done is a challenge he simply has no idea how to handle YET. I think when he is President, assuming the DMR Poll, which everyone agreeD was to be trusted, is right, he is in for rude awakening.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:15:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I always deal in what (none / 0)

Yeah but he isn't made of teflon because his net negatives are now 8 43pos/51neg according to Rasmussen. Apparently, there's some underlying sentiment against him.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:26:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not in Iowa (none / 0)

And now I wonder if it is just Rass noise. Look, nothing rationally makes me think this poll makes sense. But we can not ignore the polling outfit. Are they predicting an unprecendented demographic for the Iowa caucus? Yes. Are they saying nothing that has happened in the last weeks has dented Obama against all reason? Yes. Are they saying Obama is made of Teflon? Yes.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:28:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not in Iowa (none / 0)

I admit to being shocked but I am happy offer you some crow. Maybe there are some old poll theories at work:

Polling in Iowa is suspect and hard to do. In addition we have seen the Obama decline beginning just before we entered the so-called: Dark Side of the Moon--polling from December 22nd-31st was said to be especially suspect and unreliable.

Plus via Bowers, via RCP, some believe that Obama's base (wealthy educated liberals and all of academia) go on vacation, and are out of town over Christmas, and were unavailable to be polled.

And remember how many people said that the polls would basically hold steady beginning the Friday before Christmas--due to 11 day weekend--but of course that didn't happen, instead Edwards surged and Obama tanked---but were any of those polls done over the 11 day weekend even accurate? If you take the 11 day break out of the equation these raw numbers in the DMR don't seem so unbelievable.


by aiko on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sorry (none / 0)

They are unbelievable on every level. But that does not matter. This is the DMR Poll!!! It is the gold standard. The best in the business. Right now, it IS the reality unless Thursday tell us something different.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:53:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sorry (none / 0)

They don't seem unbelievable compared to the previous DMR poll:
Obama 28, Clinton 25, Edwards 23

or to the most recent ABC/WashPost poll:
Obama 33, Clinton 29, Edwards 20

or the second to last Research 2000 poll:
Obama 33, CLinton 24, Edwards 24
(this one was done over 4 days; the most recent Research 2000 poll was done over 2 days, Dec. 26-27)

or the last 2 Strategic Vision polls:
30, 27, 27
33, 25, 24

Of course, there are a lot of other polls that do contradict this new DMR, and most of them are more recent than the ones I list here. But this is some supporting context.


by along on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:37:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

See (none / 0)

I try and treat you Obama folks seriously and then you post soemthing like this. No poll IN THE TIME FRAME is shoiwing these results. None. ZERO. ZILCH.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:23:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See (none / 0)

You're treating the results seriously, which I respect. But it seems to me you have recently treated Obama supporters with no respect. It demeans you.

I was responding to your assertion that "they are unbelievable on every level." And echoing aiko's questioning of the post-xmas polls.

I even acknowledged the out-of-date nature of the polls I cited. Nothing I wrote deserved your hateful, condescending reply.


by along on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:10:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: absolutely necessarily (none / 0)

If Obama wins comfortably in Iowa

- No one is going to win comfortably in Iowa , its going to be all bunched up really close . But he might come out on top , it won't be of a wide margin.

I think if he wins in Iowa which is very likely now  because I actually believe he would turn out his people , then he is in a position to win NH I don't doubt that , but if he can't put her away in Nevada if she pulls off a victory in any state after he wins Iowa ( if he does) I think that will be a game changer.

A victory by Clinton can turn things on its head.

If she gets to Feb 5 still in it she would probably win it.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:18:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The DMR poll (none / 0)

the most respected, the most reliable, etc. says otherwise. Hell, the trend is such that Obama could win by 10. Now, it makes no freaking sense to me either. Nothing before, not the trending in the other polls, not the previous DMR results (one could reasonably argue there is an pro-Obama House effect), not the vents, not the Media, not the behavior of the Obama campaign, makes this seem a reasonable poll. Hell, if it was ANY OTHER outfit, OUTLIER would be screaming at us. But it is NOT any other poll. It is the most respected poll inthe business. you can not just thorw that out now.
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 01:25:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DMR poll (none / 0)

I am not dismissing the poll .

If you look at the 04 results , they scored the order right but not the margins .

I am not saying Obama is not the favorite right now but I don't see him winning by that margin.


Educated in a small town