MyDD :: What's in the Iowa water?

What's in the Iowa water?

by Jerome Armstrong, Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:12:40 AM EST

Or probably it's just the way Newsweek juiced this poll with their secret weighted sauce that includes 23% of the 'likely caucus goers' being Independent. Anyway, according to this poll, it's very clear that Huckabee and Obama have now become the favorite in the narrative of who is going to win in Iowa.

I'm only interested in the "likely caucus goers" usually, but since this is weighted to Iowa census data, and the Iowa caucus looks nothing like that, this poll is highly useless, so it's worth having it aside the 1st & 2nd choices for the Dems (where that matters). No wonder they put the disclaimer that "In addition to sampling error, the practical difficulties of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias to poll results" at the bottom of this crap poll... if I were more cynical I'd think that they are just fomulating the numbers to push the story they want, but let's just see it as candy for Newsweek to shop around their hype narrative.

Here are the numbers:

Democrats
              (likely caucus goer)  (1st & 2nd choices combined)

Obama         35                       55
Clinton       29                       50
Edwards       18                       45
Richardson     9                       16
Biden          4                       11
Dodd           0                        2
Undecided      5                        5


Republicans

Huckabee      39
Romney        17
Thompson      10
Giuliani       9
Paul           8
McCain         6
Tancredo       2
Undecided      8

It's over in Iowa for the Republicans. Huckabee's won, done. He'd have to crash in an amazing way to lose it there now. Romney will settle for second, although I believe that Paul has a good shot at making an upset in Iowa for 2nd place too, but 3rd seems more likely, ahead of Giuliani. This means Thompson is going to drop out, and I'll bet he endorses McCain if there's a shot of McCain winning in NH.

The "1st & 2nd choices combined" numbers for the Dems is probably a bit more of an accurate barometer of the race, or one that's at least more in line with other recent polling that's come out of Iowa. Obama has lead consistently in most of the polling that's come out in the past week or so for Iowa. It's not by enough to say he's the clear frontrunner there, but taking this and the other recent polling at face value, it's enough to say Obama's the favorite.

So Huckabee vs Obama, imagine that match-up in a general election. That seems like one to me that would pull for the 3rd Party entry of Bloomberg.

Update [2007-12-8 1:55:16 by Jerome Armstrong]: But Hickman releases poll numbers showing Obama in third place:

The survey, which was completed by Edwards pollster Harrison Hickman on Wednesday night, shows Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) leading among likely caucus participants with 27 percent, followed by Edwards at 24 percent and Sen. Barack Obama with 22 percent. The race is even tighter when only definite caucus participants are included -- with Clinton at 26 percent, Edwards at 25 percent and Obama at 23 percent. "When sampling error is taken into account, support for the top three candidates is so close that it is impossible to distinguish among them with the commonly accepted level of statistical confidence," writes Hickman in the polling memo.

So there.

Tags: 2008 election, Mike Huckabee, Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 50 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (2.00 / 1)

what the hell is it with you and Obama? Bloomberg would proabbly simply endorse him, he would bring out record numbers of young people and minorites along with some repubs and a majoriy of independants. Against Huck where Obama would have no foreign policy disadvantages he could win a near Reagan type landslide.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:29:33 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (2.00 / 1)

"A near Reagan type landside".

Man, you are really quite swept up there in it all.

The Bloomberg thing was someone elses, I was just to lazy to go and find the link... I think it's plausible, especially with Penn free for Bloomberg to have.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (2.00 / 1)

In Iowa where every has seen all these people up close and in person Obama's ahead by 20 points against the GOP. The more he campaigns and the more people get to know him the better he does. It explains why Iowa,NH and SC are his best states outside Illinois in the entire country for him. I know it's hard to deal with but people just like and trust the guy.If he's able to beat Hillary and all the dem interest groups in a primary race the GOP will be a piece of cake, even Kerry's idiotic campaign almost won.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:44:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

I think it's plausible, especially with Penn free for Bloomberg to have

LOL.

by dblhelix on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:49:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

I think Chris Bowers wrote the other day that approximately 19% of likely Iowa democratic caucus-goers are registered independents. Correspondingly, 2004 entrance polls reflect 19% participation by independents in the IA dem caucus.

Here's the link to Chris's poll. You'll have to scroll down to find the part to which I'm referring.

If anything, I thing we may see more independents than usual this year. So, the newsweek number for indies doesn't strike me as facially problematic. Of course, there may be other details about the methodology that would bother me (I haven't looked), but I'm just commenting about the 23% number for indies.

by DPW on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:31:20 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

link: http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =2635

by DPW on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:31:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

OK.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:44:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

Yes, but keep in mind that was based on 2004. There was no competitive republican primary that year -- and there had not been a multi-candidate dem primary in Iowa since 1988. My point is that 2004 was probably a high point for independent participation in Iowa caucus.

I don't understand the 1st+2nd choice total. It appears to be total 1sts and 2nds, which doesn't predict much. Most of the Clinton, Edwards and Obama supporters are unlikely to get to their second choice. If their first-choice preferences are soft, their second choice matters. And of course 2nd choices among supporters of the rest of the candidates matters a lot. Even seeing just the 2nd choice preferences would be interesting.

by desmoulins on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:09:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

DPW -- I left a comment a little while ago in imaready's diary. Forget the independents. Do you think the census age distribution in IA matches turnout for a Democratic caucus?

by dblhelix on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:37:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

Hey, yeah I checked out your comment and generally agree that it's bad methodology to assume caucus attendence will match census data. It's not clear precisely what kind of adjustments were made, but they are bound to be slightly off. On the other hand, polls that avoid demographic adjustments deserve criticism as well. I suppose the best model for demographics is prior participation rather than census data, but even that poses problems.

In the end, I wish we would just admit that land-line telephone polls are subject to lots of sampling issues and that the numbers indicate trends much better than specific levels of support. Of course, I'm as guilty as anyone of the occasional poll fever, but I know, deep down, that I being foolish.

by DPW on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:30:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

Mark Blumenthal at Pollster.com has the same numbers:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/more_on_th e_iowa_state_poll.php

He also reports that 39% of Iowa voters have no party registration at all.

I agree with DPW. In this race, I think it's quite plausible that 23% of the likely Iowa Dem caucus goers in any given poll consider themselves an Independent.

by along on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:23:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am skeptical about that (none / 0)

I don't think one in five people who show up on caucus night are registered independents. Independents are far less likely to vote in primaries than voters registered as Ds and R, and a caucus is a much bigger time commitment than voting in a primary.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:12:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

hell even KOS (none / 0)

who hasn't been the most pro-Obama guy has all but stated he's voting for him by process of elimination in California on feb 5.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:32:56 AM EST

right, because of the money primary (none / 0)

That is the most important thing to Kos. It has long been obvious that he would vote for Obama.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (2.00 / 1)

I think Jerome should start a loyalty oath movement like the virgina GOP did or perhaps we should close our party to indies in the primary. I think we need to keep nominating more polarizing candidates who lose general elections.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:36:54 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (2.00 / 1)

I thought you took the oath to never come back?

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:44:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

I would love to see obama take on huck. Huck has too many scary things hanging around his neck for a general election.

Immigration.. all undocumented workers have to register and leave america in 120 days... yea, right.

evolution- aint havin that science crap.. voters are sick of anti-science presidents.

Fair Tax- visciously regressive, unworkable ,too radical..

This guy would get beat by any dem.

by hawkjt on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:54:18 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

That race is my worst nightmare. Hillary looks better by comparison.

Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven?

by NM Ward Chair on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:44:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

Funny, just the opposite seems more plausible to me.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 05:18:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (2.00 / 1)

go ahead Jerome ban me, I think you want to get rid of Obama supporters anyway , and kudos for putting an Edwards internal poll up like it means something. No one has released an internal poll all year but right when it looks like they need to give thier supporters a pick me up they put one out. Even honest internal polls are known to find a way to get the results one wants through the "screening for likely voters) a new Iowa poll has been released virtually every day for a while know and overall they show the same damn thing whether you like it or not.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:59:55 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (2.00 / 1)

lol, you are paranoid too. Obama had his pollster put out a poll to frame the Iowa race earlier, and so has Richardson.

a new Iowa poll has been released virtually every day for a while know and overall they show the same damn thing whether you like it or not.

The funny thing is, you are right, and they all pretty much show within the MOE that it's a toss-up among the top three.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:03:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

Your last statement is something that everyone agrees with. Depending on the turnout model some pollsters are more favorable to one of the candidates base of support.Obama though has been rising in every single poll with a trendline for the past few weeks I can;t remmeber the article but even Hillary and Edwards staffers said Obama was surging ahead on backround. However this late in the race when an internal poll comes out contradicting other polls one does have to wonder why, perhaps it's jsut that they deem likely different that other pollsters but know they are doing it in away that keeps Obama's numbers down. Edwards team's biggest problem down the stretch is polling showing Iowa a 2 way race.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:15:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

come on, nevadadem (none / 0)

Does it seem plausible to you that Edwards' support among definite caucus-goers is way below Obama's, when all of the recent polling suggests that he is doing better among Iowans who have caucused before?

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: come on, nevadadem (none / 0)

Demoinesdem (as usual) makes a key distinction -- between previous caucus goers (among whom Edwards has consistently been ahead) and those who say they are "likely" or "certain" to caucus (among whom Obama is ahead in this poll.) The question is whether the twain shall meet.

Anyone who's done precinct-level gotv for any election (and presumably this is particularly true for a caucus on a weeknight) knows not to believe people who say they are "certain" to vote. You don't even believe them when they tell you they've already voted. People always intend to vote. You don't count em until they're at the poll (or in this case, caucus site).

by desmoulins on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:18:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (2.00 / 0)

You're the paranoid one. Can't wait for your former employer to endorse Obama and watch you crack with envy.

by hanna on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:10:49 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

You've got to think Obama wouldn't be the worst candidate to run against Huckabee. Clinton v. Huckabee would make the change argument a wash and let the GOP flip the narrative as a populist running against the establishment. The thought of the likable Huckabee vs Clinton's calculating persona should also give people second thoughts.

by animated on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:13:23 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

I agree here...Huckabee would definately steal the 'change" mantle away from Clinton.

Hillary would be seen as the big business big establisment washington insider while Huckabee could run an "anti-washingtonz" campiagn against her.

Aso , Hillary would not be able to tie the Iraq war around huckabee's neck , so it would be a wash.

by Prodigy on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 07:58:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

and don't forget the SC poll either.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:18:38 AM EST

Is this analysis for real? (none / 0)

The marist poll aslo had Obama behind in Iowa...

How on God's earth do you come to the conclusion Obama is winning?

Love how Hillary-haters poo poo polls that don't conform to the fake "surge" narrative they'[ve concocted.

You are sure in the tank for him. I've never seen such an overtly biased analysis in my life.

Keep dreaming...

If Obama wins the nomination we'll be lucky if we win PA.

And I'll bet the bank on that...

by GregNYC on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:41:26 AM EST

Re: Is this analysis for real? (2.00 / 1)

Actually, I wouldn't take that bet.

by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:43:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this analysis for real? (none / 0)

Ohio is lost and PA will be a dogfight with Obama...

Race will play a huge factor, among other vulnerabilities he has that will be zeroed in on and exaggerated.

Especially after the Republicans intensify their divisive race-bating and lies (some of which we've already gotten a taste).

If they could turn Kerry the war hero into a feeble wimp, you can just imagine what they will do to Obama. Plus Obama has absolutely no capacity to fight back with any gusto.

They are salivating for him...past drug use, time abroad, his name, the rumors of his past and religious affiliations, licenses for illegals, and even more they will drum up with a southern strategy 2008 style the likes we've never seen before - fear, lies and videotape.

It will be a bloodbath...

Stock up on the Xanax now (though I still don't believe when the votes get cast he will get the nomination. Reality will win over idealism.)

by GregNYC on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:34:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this analysis for real? (none / 0)

GregNYC, you are absolutely right!!

by Boilermaker on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:16:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this analysis for real? (none / 0)

I'm getting sick of hearing this argument. If we're going to base our arguments around identity politics, why ignore polls that show TWICE as many people would be unwilling to vote for a woman as for a black candidate?

As for stuff from a candidate's past, why do you think the Republicans are salivating about the chance to run against Clinton? Do you really think there won't be an endless stream of stories, real and invented, about Bill's infidelity, Travelgate, shifty fundraising from Chinese donors, Jennifer Flowers, Lewinsky, Vince Foster, Sandy Berger, as well as new revelations on every single scandal from the 90s? If you think they won't be able to bring this stuff up again and find ways to make it play in the media you are dreaming.

by animated on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:15:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this analysis for real? (none / 0)

The Clinton stories will come up. And it will be old news. May have some impact but everyone knows Hillary's stories already. And they are much better at fighting back.

And find me those polls that twice show as many people won't vote for a woman as a black man.

I've seen the total opposite.

Hyperbole doesn't win an argument.

Obama will be eviscerated in a week of attacks and it's all downhill after that.

I'm going on the record, Obama gets the nod we are going to lose.

Hope I am worng, but I doubt it.

by GregNYC on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is this analysis for real? (none / 0)

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/storie s.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=www/story/12-17 -2006/0004492582&EDATE

In the latest Newsweek Poll, 86 percent of those polled say that if their party nominated a woman for president, they would vote for her if she were qualified for the job. When asked if America is ready to elect a woman president, 55 percent of those polled said yes, it is; 35 percent do not believe America is ready to elect a woman president. When Americans were asked if their party nominated an African-American for president if they would vote for that person, 93 percent said yes, they would. When asked if America is ready to elect an African-American president, 56 percent of those polled, said yes; 30 percent of those polled responded no.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archive s/2007/02/black_president_more_likely_th an_mormon_or_atheist_

Gallup Poll - 5% would not vote for AA, 11% for woman

by animated on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:50:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perzackly (none / 0)

"When sampling error is taken into account, support for the top three candidates is so close that it is impossible to distinguish among them with the commonly accepted level of statistical confidence." -pollster Harrison Hickman

Nobody knows. Need anything more be said?

Senator Al Franken. Have I died and gone to heaven?

by NM Ward Chair on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:41:18 AM EST

Pathetic. (2.00 / 1)

your bias against Obama shines through...yet again

by rapcetera on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:03:46 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

Did I miss it, or was there some acknowledgment of the bizarre screen for "likely voters". They simply asked will you definitely attend, probably attend, probably not attend or definitely not attend. So anyone who said they would probably attend was considered a "likely voter".

by AlanR on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:58:27 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

by AlanR on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:59:16 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

I don't see how the D candidate running on a 'post partisan' platform would create space for a 'nonpartisan' candidate in the middle.

by shaesin on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 06:55:16 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

What jerome and others do not tell you is that a previous strategic vision poll that was taken before this newsweek poll confirms Obama's movement.

So there you go , you have 2 polls in about 2 days who pretty much agree with each other poll number.

by Prodigy on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:03:12 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

We shall start talking about Obama nomination when he starts leading elsewhere other than SC. We shall also start talking about the Huckabee nomination when he starts leading in New Hampshire. Two polls do not a national nomination make!!

by Boilermaker on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

He's leading in Iowa on the realclerapolitics average.

He's also within single digit in NH and S.C.

The 2 latest S.C polls are showing a tight race with onethat has him leading by 2%.

by Prodigy on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:22:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

"He's also within single digit in NH and S.C."

In New Hampshire? In one poll..ABC. Marist has him way behind Clinton, taken on the same days. You can pick and choose the polls you want.

by Boilermaker on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:26:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

And the Marist poll was releasted on December 5, less than seventy two hours ago...

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/

As I said, you can pick and choose the polls.

by Boilermaker on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:28:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

Obama will be putty in the hands of the GOP. It won't be just the Repub nominee he has to confront - it will be the GOP hate machine and yes, Rove is still lurking there behind the curtain.

God help us.

The Facts: Please Read

by Regan on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 08:53:36 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

The GOP would crush Edwards and Hillary...Obama is our only chance.

Edwards would be cupcake for the GOP and they would be able to use the $400 haircut to tagg him as a limo liberal thats out of touch with middle america.

Hillary is just too cold and unlikeable to win...Too many people do vote for likeability and because of that , she's just unelectable.

by Prodigy on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:25:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

I think you are as deluded as Obama!

by Boilermaker on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:25:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

All I want for Christmas is the Republiacans to nominate Mike Huckabee, Mike Hubabee, Mike Huckabee.

Thank You.

No offense, but the Jesus-Freaks are running the show in Iowa and that hurts Rommney big-time.

Looks like Obama is in the driver's seat since he would destroy the leading Republican in the general election. Game over!!

by Djneedle83 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 10:29:50 AM EST

Re: What's in the Iowa water? (none / 0)

DJ, my sense is that Huck is the only republican, besides McCain, who really scares me. Huck could run without the baggage of the Bush f/p and would consolidate what is now a fractured republican base.

I'm praying Romney or Giuliani hold on. Those are the ones who as gop nominee would open up the playing field. We'd be competitive across the board.

Edwards vs Romney sounds to me the race I've waited my entire adult life for.

by desmoulins on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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.