MyDD :: Iowa tied up?

Iowa tied up?

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:05:18 AM EST

New WaPost Poll out of Iowa (no trendlines):

Obama        27
Clinton      26
Edwards      26
Richardson   11
Biden         2
Dodd          1

This poll has a strong sample of young voters that haven't turned out before, but say they will for Obama:

Obama's hope for winning in Iowa appears to depend heavily on his ability to turn younger voters out on caucus night. Iowa's caucus process demands far more of voters than do presidential primaries. Participants must spend several hours at a caucus, and there are no secret ballots. All voting is done in public.

Among Iowa voters younger than 45, Obama has the advantage -- 39 percent, compared with 24 percent for Clinton and 22 percent for Edwards. Among those age 45 and older, Clinton and Edwards were tied at 28 percent, with Obama trailing at 18 percent. Four years ago, these older-than-45 voters made up two-thirds of all caucus participants.

In this poll, 31 percent of likely caucus-goers said the upcoming caucuses will be their first. Half of those younger than 45 said this would be their first time out. Converting interest into commitment among younger voters is one big challenge facing Obama's team.

They'll have the money, like Dean, and so the question is whether they have the talent to turn out this number of voters, and whether these young voters are spread out enough around the state to change the arithmetic; when you start talking about proportional delegate share, it's not all about the sheer number of votes, but involves things like proportional representation based on Democratic turnout in the previous election... nobody counts the total votes, they count the percentage of delegate strength based on precinct & county numbers, with thresholds also a factor.

But for Obama fans, good news.

Tags: 2008 Democratic Primary (all tags)

Permalink :: 94 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

They have got to launch some type of voter registration and look for unregistered voter that may favor Obama but never attended a caucus before...I've heard that about 10% of Iowans attended a caucus?..This pretty low and this means that there's a large pool of people that needs to be convince to not only register but to caucus for Obama.

Obama is doing a nice jobs registereing students on campus , but he has to find a way to take it a step further and maybe stress to those student to lobby their parents and family members that lives in rural Iowa.

by JaeHood on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:24:14 AM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Dean only raised 50 million total in 2003-2004. Obama has already raised 58 million in 6 months. Obama will have more resources than Dean did. He will have more resources than Hillary and Edwards also. A new poll showing Obama in the lead for the first time in Iowa and the only thing the diarist can do is criticize Obama? If Obama finishes 1st in Iowa, no matter how close, the race will be over and he will win the presidency.

by allmiview on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 06:29:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (3.00 / 1)

Money's not going to win Iowa. It cost 8 million to run an entire camapign for Governor there.

by MassEyesandEars on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 07:20:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

If you dont have money, you could lose Iowa, just ask Vilsack. He couldnt even make it to the caucus because he couldnt raise the cash.

by allmiview on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 07:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Kerry flowered the state with around 10 million dollars in the last few months of the primary. Yes, money plays a large role in Iowa, not everything though. Having the resources makes the difference.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:25:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Dean only raised 50 million total in 2003-2004. Obama has already raised 58 million in 6 months.

Please, that's like parsing the difference between a 50 megaton warhead and a 58 megaton warhead. True, it's all in how you target, but the effect at ground zero just might be the same.

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:57:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

College aged voters (none / 0)

Obama may have some problem with college aged voters as many of the private schools in here in Iowa may be on winter break before the during the Caucuses, as last time they were not.

by danIA on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:01:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Complete poll results (3.00 / 1)

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone July 26-31, 2007, among a random sample of 500 Iowans likely to vote in the Democratic caucuses. The results have a four percentage point margin of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, Pa.

= less than 0.5 percent

1. (FOR SCREENING PURPOSES) Are you registered to vote in Iowa at your present address, or not?

Yes No No opinion
7/31/07 100 0 0

2. How closely are you following the 2008 presidential campaign: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not closely at all?

----- Closely ------ ----- Not closely ------ No
NET Very Smwt. NET Not too At all opinion
7/31/07 88 42 46 12 9 3 *

3. (FOR SCREENING PURPOSES) I'd like you to rate the chances that you will attend one of the Iowa presidential caucuses that will be held in your precinct next January. Are you absolutely certain you will attend, will you probably attend, are the chances 50-50, or less than that?

Certain Probably Chances Less than Will not No
to attend attend 50/50 50/50 attend (vol.) opin.
7/31/07 50 50 0 0 0 0

4. (FOR SCREENING PURPOSES) If the caucuses were being held today, would you attend the (Democratic Party caucus) or the (Republican Party caucus) in your precinct?

Democratic caucus Republican caucus
7/31/07 100 0

5. If the Democratic caucus were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel), who would you support?

NET LEANED VOTE:

7/31/07
Barack Obama 27
Hillary Clinton 26
John Edwards 26
Bill Richardson 11
Joe Biden 2
Dennis Kucinich 2
Chris Dodd 1
None of these (vol.) 2
No opinion 4

6. (IF NAMED CANDIDATE) Do you support (CANDIDATE) strongly, or somewhat?

7/31/07 - Summary Table

Strongly Somewhat No opin.
Hillary Clinton 60 39 1
John Edwards 53 47 0
Barack Obama 56 44 0

7. (IF NAMED CANDIDATE) Who would your second choice be?

NET LEANED VOTE:

7/31/07
Barack Obama 26
Hillary Clinton 23
John Edwards 23
Bill Richardson 12
Joe Biden 4
Chris Dodd 3
Dennis Kucinich 1
Mike Gravel
Other (vol.) 1
None of these (vol.) 4
Would not vote (vol.) 1
No opinion 3

First choice/Second choice NET

7/31/07
Barack Obama 51
Hillary Clinton 48
John Edwards 48
Bill Richardson 22
Joe Biden 5
Chris Dodd 4
Dennis Kucinich 3
Mike Gravel
Other (vol.) 1
None of these (vol.) 5
Would not vote (vol.) 1
No opinion 7

8. Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the choice of candidates for the Democratic nomination for president - are you very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, somewhat dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?

---- Satisfied ------- --- Dissatisfied ---- No
NET Very Somewhat NET Somewhat Very opinion
7/31/07 89 53 36 10 9 1 1

9. Regardless of who you may support, which of the Democratic candidates do you think (ITEM) - (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden , Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, or Mike Gravel)?

7/31/07 - Summary Table

Other/none/
Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson no opin.
a. is the strongest leader 36 18 23 9 13
b. best understands the problems
of people like you 22 25 27 9 17
c. is the most honest and trustworthy 14 24 30 8 24
d. has the best experience to be president 50 15 7 13 15
e. has campaigned the hardest in Iowa 30 29 22 3 16
f. has the best chance of getting elected
president in November 2008 35 22 23 4 16
g. is closest to you on the issues 20 24 26 11 19
h. is best able to handle the situation
in Iraq 29 16 17 12 25
i. is the most likeable 14 33 33 9 11

Trend:

a. is the strongest leader

7/31/07
Hillary Clinton 36
Barack Obama 23
John Edwards 18
Bill Richardson 9
Joe Biden 2
Dennis Kucinich 1
Chris Dodd *
All of them
None of them 2
No opinion 9

b. best understands the problems of people like you

7/31/07
Barack Obama 27
John Edwards 25
Hillary Clinton 22
Bill Richardson 9
Chris Dodd 2
Dennis Kucinich 2
Joe Biden 1
Mike Gravel
All of them 1
None of them 4
No opinion 6

c. is the most honest and trustworthy

7/31/07
Barack Obama 30
John Edwards 24
Hillary Clinton 14
Bill Richardson 8
Dennis Kucinich 3
Joe Biden 2
Chris Dodd 2
Mike Gravel
All of them 4
None of them 5
No opinion 9

d. has the best experience to be president

7/31/07
Hillary Clinton 50
John Edwards 15
Bill Richardson 13
Barack Obama 7
Joe Biden 5
Chris Dodd 2
Dennis Kucinich
All of them 2
None of them 3
No opinion 4

e. has campaigned the hardest in Iowa

7/31/07
Hillary Clinton 30
John Edwards 29
Barack Obama 22
Bill Richardson 3
Chris Dodd 1
All of them 3
None of them 1
No opinion 10

f. has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008

7/31/07
Hillary Clinton 35
Barack Obama 23
John Edwards 22
Bill Richardson 4
Joe Biden 1
Chris Dodd *
Dennis Kucinich
All of them 1
None of them 2
No opinion 12

g. is closest to you on the issues

7/31/07
Barack Obama 26
John Edwards 24
Hillary Clinton 20
Bill Richardson 11
Dennis Kucinich 3
Joe Biden 2
Chris Dodd 1
All of them 2
None of them 3
No opinion 8

h. is best able to handle the situation in Iraq

7/31/07
Hillary Clinton 29
Barack Obama 17
John Edwards 16
Bill Richardson 12
Joe Biden 5
Chris Dodd 2
Dennis Kucinich 1
All of them 2
None of them 5
No opinion 12

i. is the most likeable

7/31/07
John Edwards 33
Barack Obama 33
Hillary Clinton 14
Bill Richardson 9
Joe Biden 1
Chris Dodd
Dennis Kucinich
All of them 2
None of them 1
No opinion 6

10. So far in the Democratic campaign, have you (ITEM)?

7/31/07 - Summary Table

Yes No No opin.
a. Been called on the telephone
by any of the campaigns 71 29
b. Attended a campaign event 40 60 0
c. Contributed money to any of
the presidential candidates 17 82
d. Visited any of the candidates'
Web sites on the Internet 33 67 0
e. Received e-mails from any
of the campaigns 32 66 2

Trend: comparisons to Pew Research Center Iowa Democratic caucuses poll, December 2003.

a. Been called on the telephone by any of the campaigns

Yes No No opin.
7/31/07 71 29
12/4/03 74 26

b. Attended a campaign event

Yes No No opin.
7/31/07 40 60 0
12/4/03 34 66

c. Contributed money to any of the presidential candidates

Yes No No opin.
7/31/07 17 82
12/4/03 20 79 1

d-e. No trend.

11. All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

----- Worth fighting ---- --- Not worth fighting -- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
7/31/07 11 5 6 87 8 79 2

12. Have you attended any previous Iowa caucuses, or will this be your first caucus?



            Have attended     First caucus     No opinion

7/31/07           68               31

13. Which of these is more important to you in a candidate for president: (strength and experience) or (a new direction and new ideas)?

Strength and New direction Both Neither No
experience and new ideas (vol.) (vol.) opin.
7/31/07 39 49 11 * 1

NOTE: J. Ann Selzer of Selzer & Company, Inc of Des Moines, Iowa consulted on this project.

*END**

by allmiview on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 08:12:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Complete poll results (none / 0)

Thank you. I was looking for these. I don't see the Youth stats that Jerome was talking about. Where are they?

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 08:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Complete poll results (none / 0)

Come on now. It's Jerome, what do you expect? Spin City baby!

by rapcetera on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks. Interesting to note that (none / 0)

Hillary is seen as the strongest leader (36 Hillary to 23% Obama)) with the best experience (50 to 7%), but lags Obama in honesty/trustworthiness (14 to 30%) and in understanding problems that concern voters (22 to 27%) and on the issues (20 to 26%). Now that was what I expected, but it's interesting nonetheless - Iowans seem to care less about experience and strength than about trustworthiness and caring about their issues.

What I didn't expect was that Hillary is believed to be best able to handle Iraq (29 to 17%) given how she's hawked the war from the start and only recently called for an exit.

On likability she's getting only 14% compared to 33% for Obama and Edwards each. I think that's her big vulnerability; Iowans are concerned that she may not be likable enough to win the general election, which is what I've been saying for a long time.

by End game on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 08:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks. Interesting to note that (none / 0)

Iowans are concerned that she may not be likable enough to win the general election, which is what I've been saying for a long time.

You didn't read question "f", did you? I wouldn't make that assertion without having a look at the crosstabs.

f. has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008

7/31/07
Hillary Clinton 35
Barack Obama 23
John Edwards 22

543,895 votes

by Michael Bersin on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:39:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks. Interesting to note that (none / 0)

It does not seem Iowans are connecting likability with electability. This might be a nationwide trend. More polling is needed.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:43:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly right (3.00 / 2)

And that's why they picked Kerry, Dukakis and Mondale.

Time to make the connection, or we Obama and Edwards supporters should make it for them.

The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.

by Populism2008 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:00:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly right (3.00 / 1)

As much as I like to blame Iowa, and NH for that matter, for many of the problems of the primary process, the state didn't choose Dukakis in 1988. They went with Gephardt. Dukakis actually finished 3rd behind Paul Simon.

by Double B on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly right (none / 0)

Nonsense. This isn't Iowa's fault.

"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin

by Denny Crane on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:44:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks. Interesting to note that (none / 0)

Could it be that more goes into that equation? If you were to ask me who is most likely to be President November 2008 I would probably say Hillary. She has the best shot at winning the nomination, and the Democrats are well positioned to win the Presidency. That doesn't tell you where I stand on who is the most electable in the general.

by Obama08 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Saw part f, but (none / 0)

I think it just reflects her front-runner status. If I had to place a bet today on who will be elected Prez in 2008 I'd put my money on Hillary. At the same time I think she's a weaker general election candidate than Edwards and Obama, which is part of the reason why I'd prefer one of them get the nomination.

by End game on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:24:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks. Interesting to note that (3.00 / 1)

"I think that's her big vulnerability; Iowans are concerned that she may not be likable enough to win the general election, which is what I've been saying for a long time."

Yeah, let's leave it to Iowans ability to judge electability. What could possibly go wrong with that?

by Double B on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:40:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks. Interesting to note that (none / 0)

Remember, in elections women do not have to be liked. They need to be seen more as strong (and maybe experienced) than likeable. It's men who need to be seen as likeable to counter their perceived manly nature.

by meliou2 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:45:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks. Interesting to note that (none / 0)

All candidates have to be liked.

by allmiview on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:27:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Complete poll results (none / 0)

I AM SHOCKED that Edwards did run away with the campaigning in Iowa question... just shocked.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Has this big a generational gap shown up in other polls before? That's a really interesting result.

It's a good point about the proportional representation. It doesn't help Obama if he only sweeps Grinnell. Though I guess the interesting thing is that here "young" voters means under 45, not just college kids.

There's a lot to chew on in this poll. Another interesting thing to know would be the second choices of some of these demographics. (Rumor has it that Obama, and no doubt all the other candidates, are polling these kinds of things.) Who are those Edwards voters supporting as a second choice? Or would those younger Obama voters support Edwards over Clinton?

I would also love to see an urban/rural breakdown. Obama has been investing a lot of money/organizers/offices in expanding into rural Iowa. Maybe this is partly exactly to balance out his support as Jerome suggests?

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:44:53 AM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I guess the Post poll asked about second choices, didn't get any revealing answers though:

Iowa Democrats were also asked to name a second choice. When those results were combined with first choices, the race remained equally tight, with each of the three leading candidates being the first or second choice of about half of those surveyed.

The Post article also makes a point about 2004 Iowa voters describing when they decided on the candidate they ended up voting for:

History suggests that these voters are quite willing to change their mind as caucus day approaches and the campaign intensifies with television advertising and more direct engagement among the candidates. In the 2004 Iowa caucus day poll by the National Election Pool, 42 percent of caucus-goers said they made up their mind in the last week of the campaign. Just 30 percent made their final decision more than a month before caucus day.

And there's an interesting breakdown of change vs. experience voters here too --- with change voters being 50% and experience voters 39%:

Among those who are looking for new ideas and a new direction, 37 percent supported Obama, 31 percent Edwards and 15 percent Clinton. Among those who cite strength and experience, Clinton had a wide lead, with 38 percent saying they would vote for her, and Edwards second at 21 percent.

And geographically:

[Obama] runs best in eastern Iowa, which borders his home state. Edwards does best in more rural and conservative western Iowa, which is GOP territory in general elections. Clinton's support is about even across the state.

71% percent of voters ["equal to the percentage of likely caucus-goers who reported getting called in December 2003, the month before the 2004 caucuses"] reported already being called by a campaign, 50% had already received an email, and 30% had visited a campaign website.
It's a really interesting analysis.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 06:05:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

If I understand the Iowa caucuses system, running even across the state will be to Clinton's advantage as it will assure that she gets the 15% minimum in as many places as possible and it could also avoid essentially losing votes due to large number of supporters showing up in particular locations but not being fully counted due to proportional distributions of caucus delegates across the state.

by markjay on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

The key word is even. Show me broad even support, I'll show you a winner. For this reason, this poll is still good news for Hillary.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:49:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Interesting analysis psericks. Good read. Thanks.

I would caution everyone to be careful in interpreting the "wants change" vote in the 2008 election. With a presidential approval rating below 30%, just about everyone wants "change", including I suspect a majority of Republicans.

This may not mean that voters are looking for some fundamental sweeping change of philosophy. Keep in mind that the change could be from incompetence to competence from Iraq to out of Iraq, etc.

by hwc on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:46:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I agree the Post's idea of young is interesting, it would be more informative if they gave three age groups maybe. Is Obama winning 18-30 by huge margins, then tying in 30 somethings, or is 45 the real breaking point?

by MassEyesandEars on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 07:25:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I believe most of the Iowa info I have seen shows Obama with a big lead in the under 30 age group. Edwards is favored by those 30 and over.

by mikeporter on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:20:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (1.80 / 5)

It is so sad that hystericial minion like Jerome can't afford to speak the truth. Last few days, when ARG poll came out; he was busy looking for excuse--by saying ARG enlarged the polling from the regular primary voters, now he is looking for another excuse on why the Washington post/ABC poll is having Obama leading in Iowa.
I have a point for Jerome: Keep looking for excuses, Obama will be the next president and guess what, your excuse will be that he rigged the Republican nominee out.

by Slave on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 07:26:59 AM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I'm giving this a two rating because it deserves a 1 and not the 0 someone gave it.

by Obama08 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:06:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

This is a lot more informative and meaningful than all of the national polls being conducted, but it's still way too early to predict what's going to happen in Iowa.

I'm guessing most Iowa voters won't be making up their minds until after New Year's.

by Will Graham on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 07:48:44 AM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

agree

by allmiview on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 07:51:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OK Youngsters! Wear Out the Old People! (none / 0)

This is funny.

The Obama people should start filibustering until Hillary's people have to go home for their warm milk.

by Bush Bites on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:05:14 AM EST

Come on. (none / 0)

Come on. It's their first Iowa poll.

We've already seen the huge difference between ARG and one time pollsters like Mason-Dixon and this poll and the more credible Iowa polls.

Average out the last 5 CREDIBLE Iowa polls (I don't count Edwards 5 point lead in the latest R2K poll, because R2K's screens are not tight enough, which is why like ARG, they had McCain and Clinton in the lead while everyone else had Romnet and Edwards, but the fact that Edwards is leading in a poll with a methadology that helps Hillary says a lot) and the current state of Iowa is clear.

EDWARDS - 29.8%
OBAMA - 20.4%
CLINTON - 19.6%
RICHARDSON - 10.6%

That's what happens if you average out the last 5 CREDIBLE Iowa polls - Selzer and Co.,Strategic Vision, PPP, Richardson Campaign, Strategic Vision 2)

Crap like this always happens. ARG or some 1 time Iowa pollster like Mason-Dixon will put out a poll that has Hillary in the lead or the race tied and people will claim that Edwards lost his lead. Then, when the most respected Iowa polls come out (Selzer/Des Moines Register, Strategic Vision) it becomes clear that Edwards never lost his lead.

When is everyone going to look at the total history of Iowa polling and see that first time polls that show Edwards not in the lead always end up being WAY off of the most respected Iowa polls.

ARG - Look at how consistently off they've been. On the GOP side they also had McCain up while everyone else had Romney.

R2K - 1 Obama/Edwards tie, 1 Hillary win by 2%, and 1 Edwards win by 5%. Their methadology is clearly flawed as they has McCain up on the GOP side like ARG.

Mason - Dixon - Only put out 1 poll that gave Hillary a 2% lead.

And now...

ABC - 1 poll gave Obama a 1% lead.

When are you guys going to see that these hacks always get over-ruled by trustworthy Iowa polls.
And the trustworthy polls always say the same thing...Edwards has a solid lead in Iowa.

The bold progressive leader is the most electable candidate. Reclaim the Democratic Party! Support John Edwards.

by Michael 4 Edwards on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:12:58 AM EST

Gotta' Read The Fine Print (none / 0)

NOTE: J. Ann Selzer of Selzer & Company, Inc of Des Moines, Iowa consulted on this project.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:24:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on. (none / 0)

Edwards is still the frontruner in Iowa.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:27:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on. (3.00 / 1)

why are these polls consider more credible than others?

by bruh21 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:43:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on. (none / 0)

It all comes down to predicting who will go out and caucus. The ones many of us think are more credible use a tighter net based on whether people have caucused in the past.

by awgupta on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:05:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on. (none / 0)

I think what's interesting about this poll are not the final results but rather the details of which groups each candidate needs to get to the polls to win, which demographics he is leading in and needs to turn out, which regions of the state are important to each candidate. There's a picture of a winning coalition for all three candidates in these numbers.
We see, for example, that Obama has a lot of support in the under 45 crowd, but needs to expand his support in rural areas (which he is working on ), such that he broadens his support to all areas of the state to avoid running afowl of the proportional representation rules.
Edwards should have a lot to be happy about in these polls. Whereas Hillary wins the experience question and Obama wins the Change question, Edwards actually pulls a strong second on both, meaning he doesn't have the weaknesses of the other two.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:44:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I am sorry - but are we suppose to believe that Obama is tied with HRC and Edwards? Right - okay.

by bruh21 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:21:22 AM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (2.00 / 2)

Show me a poll where Obama i building solid strength among older voters and I will be impressed. John Kerry is still waiting on the "youth" vote. Good for morale though, but nothing more.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:26:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (3.00 / 1)

Point about Barack: The neocons have been responding to his every move, and while Hillary has tried to exploit perceived Obama "gaffes", this development has the practical effect of at least psychologically, making Democratic voters think Obama is the GOP target. I think this is huge for Obama due to the logic being that if he gets targeted relentlessly by Republicans, Democrats begin to think he is the frontrunner. Otherwise why would Rudy and the posse bother?

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:32:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I agree. Basically someone talked about how the youth vote typically works in Iowa versus what people are saying here- where its concentrated at etc, and that means to outcomes with a caucus system. Can't remember who or where, but it was informative as to the mistakes being made here.

by bruh21 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:41:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Iowa is convoluted. I dislike the process strongly. I think for Obama to assume he will get the youth to show up more than Dean did is fantasy. Remember the "ones" Dean supposedly had? No, Obama has tomake gains with the older established voters. He does that, and he has something.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:46:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Question bruh21? Did my post on me questioning Obama's strength with older voters really deserve a troll rating? I thought it was reasonable analysis.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I didn't troll rate you.

by bruh21 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:06:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Mo. Sorry. I know that. clider86 did. I just don't think that was warranted. Sorry for my not making that clear.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:10:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

there are some people here who use rating system as a way to cut off debate. it's childish but there you have it.

by bruh21 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:31:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

You got a 3 from me to compensate for it.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:48:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Thanks a lot.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:06:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Concentration of youth vote (none / 0)

Jerome basically makes your point in the diary about young voters probably not being spread out enough.
Is this what you're referring to? From desmoinesdem :

But Geraldine shows that those who do show up on caucus night do not exercise equal political power, because it takes more voters to assign a state delegate in some counties than in others.

During the last presidential race, 122,193 Iowans came to their precinct caucuses to elect county delegates, who in turn selected 3,000 state delegates. It works out to almost 41 voters per state delegate.

But in "the People's Republic of Johnson County," where Iowa City and the University of Iowa are located, turnout was very high; there were 79 voters per state delegate assigned by Johnson County.

Meanwhile, there were more than 30 counties in which it took fewer than 30 voters to elect one state delegate. At the low end, it only took about 22 caucus-goers to elect a state delegate in Fremont County in western Iowa. Geraldine lists the figures for all 99 counties, so click through if you are interested. All you really need to know, though, is her conclusion:

When one looks at the number of caucusgoers that it takes to elect a delegate in each county, there is a clear pattern. Caucusgoers in small, rural, Republican counties wield disproportionate power compared to those in more urban Democratic counties. In fact, the people who are most disadvantaged by this are students. Of the four counties where it required the most caucusgoers to elect a delegate, three of them had significant student populations: Johnson, Poweshiek and Story. It is a system that favors the old over the young, the rural over the urban, Western Iowa over Eastern Iowa. It is a method that of selecting a candidate that has a clear bias and to be successful, presidential candidates have to spend a disproportionate amount of energy on less populous rural areas.

I want to underscore this point: three of the four counties where it required the most caucusgoers to elect a state delegate had large student populations: Johnson (University of Iowa), Poweshiek (Grinnell College) and Story (Iowa State University). The other county in the top four was Jefferson County, home to Maharishi University and a large contingent of progressives and Greens (not only Dean, but even Kucinich did better than Kerry and Edwards in that county).

You can add this to your list of reasons why Dean's perfect storm failed in Iowa.

Look at the 2004 Iowa caucus results by county: several of Dean's strongest counties happened to be those where the caucus-goer/state delegate ratio was the highest.

Like I said in my first diary on the caucuses, you don't want pockets of deep support in Iowa. Dean turned out hundreds of supporters in crowded precincts, but it didn't translate into as many delegates as he needed.

Obama already knows all this know. Hence his 28 field offices spread out across the state. His emphasis on rural areas. And the fact that he is spending August on a rural issues listening tour leading up to a rural poverty summit.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:57:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Concentration of youth vote (none / 0)

By the way, desmoinesdem, if you're out there, I've been going back to reread your diaries explaining the Iowa caucus. It's a great series. Thanks!

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:59:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks! (none / 0)

It's been a while since I had time to write another installment in that series. I've got several more in mind...

Mike Lux had a good piece on precinct captains over at Open Left yesterday.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:43:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Concentration of youth vote (none / 0)

Barack knows the score. I just think the demographics of the process put him at a disadvantage. Which is why if he wins Iowa, it may be a done deal.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:03:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (3.00 / 1)

Point about Barack: The neocons have been responding to his every move, and while Hillary has tried to exploit perceived Obama "gaffes", this development has the practical effect of at least psychologically, making Democratic voters think Obama is the GOP target. I think this is huge for Obama due to the logic being that if he gets targeted relentlessly by Republicans, Democrats begin to think he is the frontrunner. Otherwise why would Rudy and the posse bother?

Not everyone is so partisan/foolhardy that they'll do they exact opposite of what a neo con says. Furthermore most average voters probably dont use neocon in their lexicon regularly or watch neoconservative shows/read their columns/can identify a neocon.

by world dictator on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:55:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I would guess a lot of Iowa Democrats know the word neocon. Besides, it is just a knee-jerk reaction to think that the Democrat Republicans are attacking most must be the frontrunner or very close. If you were competing for a job with a guy, would you criticize your competition or someone in another department?

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Iowians know the word neocon like they know the word wonk. They've heard of it vaguely know what it means but not really. And if they met one or read an article by one they probably wouldnt know. Not everyone keeps tabs on who is a neocon in the media.

Also its ridiculous to think that Republicans are focused on Obama. The press Obama has been covering his 1. Bush Cheney light comments 2. His jihad on Pakistan comments and 3 his nuclear gaffe.

Not exactly positve pres. Also its not like the republican machine has been focusing on Obama. The time Obama has gotten specfic coverage has been when he said something controversial and everyone in the media was questioning him.

by world dictator on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:11:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

So Giuliani did not attack Obama? Get real. And he did not make a gaffe but the media and Republicans did take his comment out of context.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:13:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Giuliani has been attacking every democrat. He also attacked Edwards. He also regularly attacks Clinton.

Also I don't believe Giuliani is considered a neo con. Besides you need to have some foreign policy experience to have a foreign policy label.

Last, if the media is reporting that Obama made a gaffe most people are going to think Obama made a gaffe.

by world dictator on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:19:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Read Rolling Stone. Edwards says Giuliani is "Bush on Steroids". Neocon enough for you?

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:23:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

1. Bush isn't a Neocon...Bush is a tool with NeoCon puppets.

2. John Edwards saying something in Rolling Stone does not make it a fact. Also I wonder how many people in Iowa read Rolling Stone.

3. Being like Bush doesn't mean they're alike in NeoCon principles.

4. I wonder why any Obama supporters, or potential Obama supporters, would look to John Edwards opinions when considering who to vote for,

by world dictator on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:32:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Bush is not a neocon? That says it all. Truly and stunningly misguided. Tell that to the families of the nearly 4000 troops who have perished in this awful war. Good God indeed.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:34:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

1. I said he was tool with neocon puppets. (Was supposed to be puppetmasters)

2. War isn't a neocon exclusive attribute. How many people have died in Afghanistan? You can't say "Bush lead us into war therefore he's a NeoCon". You're truly uninformed if you take that much of a broadbased stance.

3. you're only saying "that says it all" because you can't support your arguments.

by world dictator on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:40:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (3.00 / 1)

John Edwards is a respected Democrat. Not all of Obama's supporters despise him. I would give you a suggestion: Read the PNAC and who wrote it. Bush may be a puppet, but it is a dreadful mistake to assume he does not maintain some sense of control over this trash. And no, war does not mean neocon. Oppressive global desires based on a fantasy of fundamentalist Democracy by Corporate Control makes one a neocon. You also need to take a look at I believe a Texas Monthly article from the late 90's when then Governor Bush specifically mentioned going after Saddam. That was in his head long before 9-11. I will try to post it in a diary if I find it.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:46:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

You're making tangential arguments that don't prove anything. Someone can agree with a NeoCon without being a NeoCon. If someone wants to go after Saddam that doesnt mean they are a NeoCon. Just like if someone wants to balance the budget does not make them a republican.

Anyways...this all doesnt matter because as i said before John Edwards saying something does not mean its a fact in the minds of voters whether he is respected or not. I respect John Edwards but I don't agree with is statement.

ALSO as I said before Giuliani has been attacking lots of Democrats. He attacked Edwards the other day and he attacks Clinton regularly on national TV.

by world dictator on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:53:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Obama is a bery different candidate than Kerry. I get comments on my campus all day when I where my obama shirt from people excited - that never, ever, happened with Kerry.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:19:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

"bery?" "where?"

I hope you mean "very" and "wear." As an English instructor, I hope your college professors are more lenient on your spelling and grammar.

"If you vote between the lesser of two evils, you're still stuck with evil." - Aaron MacGruder

by Nedsdag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Correction.

It's I hope you meant to say "very" and "wear."

"If you vote between the lesser of two evils, you're still stuck with evil." - Aaron MacGruder

by Nedsdag on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:31:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I'm dysgraphic...and a grad student at Princeton. But, thanks for mocking my writing.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 05:01:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I like the internals of this poll. Let's be honest here, if this were the true status of the race (I think Obama is a bit high, but future polls will show that) and people HAD to make a choice today, they would probably go for Clinton in the end, based on these very important advantages:

h. is best able to handle the situation
in Iraq Clinton 29% Obama 16% Edwards 17% Richardson 12% No opinion 25%

f. has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008
7/31/07
Hillary Clinton 35
Barack Obama 23
John Edwards 22
Bill Richardson 4

d. has the best experience to be president Clinton 50% Edwards 15% Obama 7% Richardson 13% No opinion 15%

Iowans feel that Clinton would be the best to handle Iraq, has the best chance of winning in November, and has by far the best experience to be president. Those are internals that make a huge difference, are probably THE difference maker in a tied environment.

Now, logistically, how can Obama turn out all these youth voters who claim that they will come out for him? Iowa is almost certain to move caucuses to mid-December, which is when school is in recess. Many of the students not even be in the state to cast a vote, let alone go through a grueling caucus system. Speaking of which, the finding that Clinton has the highest contingent of "strong support" (most dedicated) rather than just "somewhat" bodes well for turnout of her vote as well.

I feel good about Clinton's chances of actually winning Iowa (by a small margin, but win nonetheless) based on the internals I see in this poll.

by georgep on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:23:38 AM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

The poll has the best news for Hillary. 27-26-26, none of that matters much. Even and consistent support across the state, that matters. The poll is good for the Obama camp's morale, but the meat and potatoes of it should be very exciting to the Hillary camp.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:32:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Obama was not only the first choice, he was also the second choice. That is GREAT news for Obama in a caucus.

by allmiview on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:35:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

True but the proportional support for Hillary is huge. Obama needs to understand that she will get her 25-32 percent. He has to be the guy to consolidate the majority of the remaining vote, and if Edwards stays in, I think they both come up short.

by Todd Bennett on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:38:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Just because Hillary leads in those categories doesn't mean that Iowans think Obama and Edwards don't have enough experience to be President. And the same internals show her lagging Obama and Edwards in likability, honesty, trustworthiness and some other categories, so it's a mixed bag at best.

And for the record, while I support Obama, I would agree that Hillary clearly has the most relevant experience to be President since she has been in the Senate longest of the front-runners and because she was an active first lady for 8 years. I also think she has the best chance to be President at the moment in terms of intrade type odds, but that is not to say that I think she would be our strongest candidate in a general election. Her perceived ability to handle Iraq is the only surprise to me, but I guess it goes hand in hand with her experience level.

by End game on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

I question whether students are particularly significant in the caucus system, given how heavily they are concentrated.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:49:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (3.00 / 2)

I take this with a grain of salt. As an Obama supporter it is encouraging only in the sense that it gives some indication that his reported weakness in Iowa might be overstated.

I don't believe Hillary Clinton is inevitable fo rthe nomination any more than I believe Edwards is inevitable in Iowa.

I refuse to let this one poll convince me we are ahead in the state, but it goes a little way towards convincing me that we can still compete there and that the fight for Iowa is worth it.

by AdamSmithsHand on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:31:24 AM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Strategically I assume that Obama's chances are best served by denying Iowa to Hillary, one way or the other. If she wins Iowa it becomes very dicey, if she doesn't the race is still wide open.

As an Obama supporter I am certainly hoping that Edwards wins Iowa if Obama doesn't.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:04:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The numbers for Obama in this poll (none / 0)

contradict just about everything we've seen so far. Pollster.com shows him on a downward trend for some time.

More than a grain of salt, we need a whole shaker.

by okamichan13 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 11:56:38 AM EST

Re: The numbers for Obama in this poll (none / 0)

There are pretty big problems with the Pollster.com graph of Iowa. For one, there are too few data points to build much of a curve. This is why the lines are so squilly, not because candidate support is going up and down, but because you're switching back and forth between pollsters.

So for example, there have been five polls taken in Iowa since the end of June 24. Obama's numbers have been 27, 15, 16, 13, 21. What's his current rating by Pollster.com? 15.2 What's the problem? Two of these are from the same pollster, the two lowest, from ARG. Therefore, it seems like this pollster is weighing down Obama's stats and because they poll more often, they're being counted twice.

Here's the problem. All year ARG has shown significantly lower poll numbers for Obama in the 10-16 range with one exception at 19 in April.

Every other pollster since October 2006 has shown Obama at least in the high teens (min 17 or 18) and most somewhere in the low 20s.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:48:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

One less ARG poll (none / 0)

doesnt change that downward trend.

by okamichan13 on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:17:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: One less ARG poll (none / 0)

In the last 40 days, we've had four pollsters put out numbers in Iowa, showing very different results. How is it relevant to try to draw a line of best fit through those four points and call it a trend --- when those four pollsters have different methodologies, different sample sizes, etc?
Especially if one of the pollsters is represented twice. If you only have four points, there are going to be big shifts that have more to do with the differences between the pollsters than with a candidate's actual support.
To see the difference, look at the national Pollster graphs and the relatively large number of data points.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 08:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

doesn't the support need to be spread widely? (none / 0)

Obviously I am happy to see a poll like this, but even if these "young" voters (how nice to be included in young!) all turn out, if they're in just a few districts it won't do much good.

New Jersey politics and news

by John DE on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 12:48:29 PM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

What I get out of it is that Obama needs a massive GOTV program for the youth, then he will have a strong pressence in Iowa for sure.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:16:34 PM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Obama's Iowa director is John Norris, who directed Kerry's campaign in Iowa. So obviously, Obama's campaign knows everything they need to know about how to win Iowa.

With the 28 field offices that he has established more than any other candidate, He seems to be very well organized. I doubt that he will be repeating the Dean mistakes

by BDM on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:26:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

As much as I hate to say it, to a large extent this poll doesn't seem too credible. And to the extent it is credible, it seems to offer more comfort to the Hillary campaign than to the Obama one.

Check out the crosstabs. Of course, there's the expected if unwanted "experience gap," which is unsurprising. But the Iraq question really got me. Along with the depth of Hillary's support (which is what always fails to resonate with me, even though it is globally indicated). Another weird wrinkle comes with the who has campaigned the most in Iowa question; I thought Edwards would be a gimme here. Apparently not.

by Zephyrus on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:50:43 PM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

And by crosstabs, I just mean the complete poll

by Zephyrus on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 01:51:44 PM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

"They'll have the money, like Dean, and so the question is whether they have the talent to turn out this number of voters, and whether these young voters are spread out enough around the state to change the arithmetic; when you start talking about proportional delegate share, it's not all about the sheer number of votes, but involves things like proportional representation based on Democratic turnout in the previous election... nobody counts the total votes, they count the percentage of delegate strength based on precinct & county numbers, with thresholds also a factor."

AND THIS, BOYS AND GIRLS, is why caucuses SUCK compared to Primaries.

by yitbos96bb on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:05:54 PM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Clyburn in SC said if he looks like a winner coming out of Iowa and NH in the end he'll win 80% of the black vote in SC, the Obama theory of the race is the right one, Hillary is the bohemoth but ones she gets beat, she looks like old news plus early on black voters don't make much of an impact however come feb 5ht and beyond if the race is still up for grabs they probably make the difference like for Mondale in 1984, when push comes to shove black voters are not going to be the ones that stop an Obama with momentum from becoming president, he needs to beat Hillary in Iowa and win NH, looking at the polling and the fact that NH indies really don't have a better fit than Obama it's not hard to see this strategy working.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 02:18:53 PM EST

Ive always stated exactly that (none / 0)

If Obama comes out of Iowa and NH in good shape , you better believe the black vote will not want to be the one group to crippleS his chances...

by JaeHood on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 04:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

We need people to commit to Edwards soon or we loose him. Unless this poll is as lame as suggested.
But lets say it isn't for these purposes and just go ahead. Its time to commit to John and get into the field if you can.

If anything is true from the last few days, our best progressive hope is John Edwards.

He needs a couple of early endorsements right about now.

Its time to get to work.

by inexile on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 05:52:31 PM EST

Re: Iowa tied up? (none / 0)

Of course this poll is a fluke.

Obama is not leading in Iowa, and never has been. The sample size in that poll was way too large, for starters.

They probably overpolled college towns, which probably made Obama look stronger than he was.

Obama has been "FALLING" in every poll out of Iowa, and then you have this one ABC poll that's completely different from every other "LEGITIMATE," polling company. Nearly every poll shows Edwards leading there, and then you have the ARG polls that always show Hillary Clinton leading in Iowa, for whatever reason. If 3 polls come out showing Edwards leading in Iowa, ARG will release a poll showing Clinton winning there by 10 points. Most people who follow this stuff have learned to ignore ARG. I guess I'm going to have to start ignoring these ABC/WaPo polls as well if they are going to be oversampling.

There is no way Obama's winning in Iowa, where polls consistently show him hovering around 18%, well down in 3rd place.

by OE on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 06:44:30 PM EST

Huh? (none / 0)

Obama is not leading in Iowa, and never has been. The sample size in that poll was way too large, for starters.

Huh?

I'm certainly no statistician, but I was under the impression that as the sample size increased, accuracy also increased. There's a point where adding to the sample will yield no greater accuracy-- that is, a sample of 5,000 is as accurate as 50,000-- but you can't have a sample size be "too large."

Did you perhaps mean the sample screen? It could be that the poll included too many non-caucus goers, I don't know. But provided the screen is accurate, you can't ask too many people.

Walberg Watch - Following Radical Conservative Rep. Tim Walberg in MI-07

by Fitzy on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:17:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Huh? (none / 0)

I'm no statistician either. Based on what I "heard," by oversampling, I'm saying, compared to past numbers for how many people turned out for the caucuses, unless they are expecting a lot more people to turn out this year for the causes then too large a sample size becomes disproportionate to the population that it's supposed to be representing.

Supposedly, this sample was disproportionate to previous polls out of Iowa.

One thing that people should be able to agree about is the fact that showing Barack Obama in first place in Iowa is a bit of a stretch since every other poll out of Iowa has been showing him falling there.

You can't really compare different polls, specifically, like some do. Some people see one poll this week that shows Clinton at 20% and then they show another polling company this week showing her at 26% and they immediately say, "she's gained since the last poll," even though they are two different polling companies with different samples and probably using different methodologies. They polled different people IN THE SAME WEEK, so you can't take those different polls and get a sense of any movement. You have to look at all of the polls as a whole to get a real sense of what's going on, or look at the polls from the same company to see if the numbers have changed. Since all of the other polls show Obama has been falling in Iowa, you can't all of a sudden make the "leap" to say that he is in first place just because one outlier poll showed him there. You have to wait for the next poll to really see if he has started back moving up. If the next poll shows him in 3rd just like the rest of them do, then that makes this poll look even more suspect. If it shows him in second, then combined with this poll it shows upward movement. If it shows him in first, then we can tentatively believe that he is gaining in Iowa.

You can't tell a lot from this poll, because it shows Clinton and Edwards where they normally are, around the 26% range, but it shows Obama way higher than he normally is.

by OE on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 09:42:53 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.