by Michael 4 Edwards, Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 05:47:14 PM EST
Tags: John Edwards, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton (all tags)
this poll has been diaried yesterday. It's the same poll, but different interpretation. In aggregate model, it's
Clinton 27 Obama 22 Edwards 22
The number you just showed is among 'most likely' caucaus goers.
duh?
Statistically speaking the aggregate number you give (N=426) gives a margin of error of +/-4.75 meaning that the 95% of the time we can say that the strenght in Iowa is.
Clinton 22.25-31.75 Obama 17.25-26.75 Edwards 17.25-26.75
Its also highly doubtful that these less likely caucus voters will show. The represent less than a 4th of the aggrate N, but they make it appear that Clinton and Obama are much stronger.
I found the electability question interesting.
[Candidate Name] is electable. DEMOCRATS ONLY Str Agree Agree Disagree Str Disagree CLINTON 24.4 54.2 16.9 4.5 DODD 2.7 27.2 50.7 19.4 EDWARDS 32.5 52.2 12.1 3.2 OBAMA 22.4 58.6 13.4 1.6 RICHARDSON 10.4 47.1 32.0 10.4
CLINTON 24.4 54.2 16.9 4.5 DODD 2.7 27.2 50.7 19.4 EDWARDS 32.5 52.2 12.1 3.2 OBAMA 22.4 58.6 13.4 1.6 RICHARDSON 10.4 47.1 32.0 10.4
These are very good numbers for Edwards, and very bad numbers for Dodd and Richardson.
That last set of numbers is very interesting re electability.
Agree + Strongly Agree SA A
CLINTON 78.6 24.4 54.2 DODD 29.9 2.7 27.2 EDWARDS 84.7 32.5 52.2 OBAMA 81.0 22.4 58.6 RICHARDSON 57.5 10.4 47.1
Does anyone realistically believe that anyone besides Obama, CLinton or Edwards is going to win in Iowa?
BTW, Was it you who had the friend who wanted to intern with Obama and filled out an internet form or sent an email from his site and was never called. It was you or Peter and I can't remember... You were upset, and I said you were nuts. Just wanted to let you know... I filled out or sent emails to all 3 of the big three just like your friend... said I was a poli sci major and wanted to intern or volunteer. Never heard from any of them... not Obama, Edwards nor Clinton. Just wanted to throw that out since i haven't seen you ina diary I've posted in in a while... and if its peter from WI who said it, then I hope he is reading.
Did you seriously just make this argument? Are you high?
Average of 5 most recent credible Iowa polls
Hehe.
Hillary was leading the poll out yesterday and is nipping at his heels inside the MOE in this one. Average the last 5 or 6 and he is down.
Michael in the time it took you to write this you could have canvassed ten Iowa houses, or at least called them. Iowa is close and does not belong to anybody. Your guy has a chance, just like the others. Trying to gleam the future vote from a micro sample like this will drive you bonkers. Trust me, I know. Just push forward, work hard and allow the chips to fall where they may. John is a good candidate. Iowans know this. Relax.
His biggest problem is people dont think he can win it all, so they are looking to Hillary and Obama and he is sliding.
His wife has been a disaster as of late as well with her tv and call in antics.
Also important in this poll was Obama coming in Third with Republicans...ahead of McCain and Thompson.
Do you think that Repubicans are going to be willing to go to the caucus and change their registration to Democratic?
Because you have to be a registered Democrat to participate in the caucuses.
doubtful, but it shows his potential with indi's and new caucus goers
I am sorry to be so critical of a fellow Iowan, but the U of Iowa poll is not very reliable for identifying caucus goers. To believe them, there were 425 people that were possible Dem caucus goers, but there were only 318 Dems surveyed. The most likely caucus goers totaled 319, which would mean that all the Dems and one "no-party" would be likely caucus attenders. If you believe the survey, we will have a huge turnout of over a million at the Dem caucuses (120,000 is more likely).
If you want to follow the trend lines for U of Iowa polls (3/19-3/31) using only the most likely caucus goer:
Edwards 26 (34) Clinton 25 (29) Obama 19 (19)
I can believe that we have a close race with the three top-tier candidates, and the recent ABC poll was close to this (Obama 27, Edwards 26, Clinton 26). But the likely voter models are pretty iffy, especially this far out. I think it is hard to say who is out front and by what margin.
If you can believe the trend in the University of Iowa polls, it would appear that Edwards is slipping, which is consistent with some other polls in Iowa and matches my impression talking to Democratic activists in the state. Clinton may be slipping a bit, too, but I think that conclusion would be giving this poll more credit than it deserves.
I think turnout will be well above 120,000 that was the 04 turnout...especially if the caucus is moved up to when students are home, I was talking to a friend today who said she may caucus for the first time if she it home.
It is very hard to say, though I think a better turnout than in 2004 is likely. 2004 was a big deal for Iowa Democrats, and many precinct caucuses were bursting at the seams.
But anything over 200,000 is not realistic, and more than a million is ridiculous. Even the poll's most likely group would indicate that we have over 600,000 attending the Democratic caucus. There are a little less than 600,000 registered Democrats in the state, and it will be difficult to get them to go out for a couple of hours on a cold winter night.
That was the point I was trying to make. This poll of most-likely caucus goers is simply not credible. And I am not saying that because I don't like the results.
I won't predict numbers, but I think this is going to be by far the biggest caucus ever. There is incredibly energy for the Democratic primary this year, as witnessed by the huge amounts of money being raised. Plus with a very tight three-way race in Iowa among three very attractive candidates, I think people are going to be highly motivated to turn out. I predict a huge turnout.
I don't know what to think anymore- so many polls saying different people. But regardless, the polls that have Edwards slipping is bad news for him because it does put across the idea he has lost the lead and that could very well have an effect on both voters and people who give money- so even if they are not true and he is really leading, it still hurts him alot.
Latest polling aggregates:
RCP averages: Clinton 26.3%, Edwards 24%, Obama 20%. Clinton leads by 2.3%
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus -208.html
Chris Bowers:
Clinton 26.2%, Edwards 24%, Obama 20.1%, Clinton leads by 2.2%
http://openleft.com/frontPage.do
Pollster.com
Latest status: Clinton 25.9%, Edwards 25.6%, Obama 16.2%. Clinton leads by 0.3%
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php
Note: Pollster.com decided not to include this U-Iowa in their polling aggregate. They offer a lengthy explanation for why here:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/a_differen t_approach_the_univ.php
Conclusion:
Put another way, even the "most likely" caucus-goer definitions for this survey project to a combined Democratic and Republican turnout of 1.1 million participants - half the adults in Iowa. By comparison, Democratic turnout was 147,000 in 2004, and Republican turnout was 90,000 in 1988. Finally, even putting screening issues aside, this survey used an entirely open-ended vote preference question. Respondents had to volunteer the name of their choice without prompting. This method undoubtedly provides a tougher test of voter commitment, but also produces a much bigger undecided and renders the results incomparable to other Iowa polls. As such, we have not included either of the U. of Iowa polls in our Iowa charts.
Finally, even putting screening issues aside, this survey used an entirely open-ended vote preference question. Respondents had to volunteer the name of their choice without prompting. This method undoubtedly provides a tougher test of voter commitment, but also produces a much bigger undecided and renders the results incomparable to other Iowa polls. As such, we have not included either of the U. of Iowa polls in our Iowa charts.
Pollster.com's current Iowa graph, showing Clinton's rise and Edwards' steady decline in Iowa polls:
Recommended? Really?
The Mystery Pollster's evaluation of this poll:
A few additional notes on the poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers from the University of Iowa that we linked to earlier, based on information provided via email by U. of Iowa Assoc. Prof. David Redlawsk:
First, the survey used a sample drawn from a list of Iowa households listed in telephone directories. As such, it has a potential coverage problem because it misses Iowans with unlisted telephone numbers. The survey screened to interview 907 self-reported registered voters.
Second, "because of a programming glitch," Redlawski said he "cannot distinguish the â€<sup>~</sup>no registered voters' from other refusals." However, we know that as of the fall of 2006, 84% of Iowa's adults were registered voters (1.9 million registered voters divided by 2.26 million voting age adults).
Based on that statistic, we can make the following assumptions about the percentage of adults represented by the various subgroups reported on for this survey:
425 Democratic Caucus Goers = 40% of adults 319 "Most Likely" Democratic Caucus Goers = 29% of adults 306 Republican Caucus Goers = 28% of adults 223 "Most Likely Republican Caucus Goers = 21% of adults In short, the various subgroups of likely caucus goers in the U. of Iowa poll represent a much broader slice of Iowa voters than the recent ABC/Washington Post survey or the Des Moines Register survey from last year.
Put another way, even the "most likely" caucus-goer definitions for this survey project to a combined Democratic and Republican turnout of 1.1 million participants - half the adults in Iowa. By comparison, Democratic turnout was 147,000 in 2004, and Republican turnout was 90,000 in 1988.
-- Mark Blumenthal
August 09, 2007 in Disclosure, Likely Voters, The 2008 Race
I am sorry, I didn't see George's post. My post is redundant.
One.
This is also a major part of the reason why national primary polling is so unreliable. This poll demonstrates how massive the gap between casual Democrats and likely caucus goers actually is.
There is a huge difference between a primary and a caucus. More people typically attend a primary than a caucus because it's just like regular voting - very simple. A caucus is an entirely different animal, and there aren't as many people who will put up with it. As a result, you're likely to get different dynamics. National numbers can still give a reasonably accurate snapshot of most of the country, but may not apply specifically to Iowa.
Two.
Average of 5 most recent credible Iowa polls (before U of I poll) John Edwards - 29.8% Barack Obama - 20.4% Hillary Clinton - 19.6% Bill Richardson - 10.6%
John Edwards - 29.8% Barack Obama - 20.4% Hillary Clinton - 19.6% Bill Richardson - 10.6%
You cherry-picked the ones you liked and call them credible, while dismissing the ones you don't like. That's not exactly the scientific method, is it?
John let me apologise for that I was wrong Edwards is leading? IWith all the time he spends apologizing it's a wonder he has the time to campaign anywhere. What's he going to do next? Add the Boehener sob to his apologies?
Edwards is a hack using a populist message to get elected. He has very few core principles or rather his principles are determined by what will get him elected. He is a used car salesman in a very expensive suit.
When I read this I thought that I had accidently wandered into Redstate. Thoughtful criticism of Democratic candidates is one thing but this sort of sh*t does not belong on this or any other progressive blog.
Well if you paid attention to anything I have written about Edwards you would know that I used to support him until he started changing positions and going on the attack trying to gain traction. In short, I have written him off. If my opposition to him is intense it is at least honest. Since he has decided to imply that Hillary is bought and paid for by Washington lobbyists he has lost my support and has gained my strident opposition.
If Edwards did not change his positions when it became politically popular to do so and actually had some core values I would offer him respect. You are entitled to your opinion as I am mine.
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.
