Des Moines Register throws political world a curveball

* The DMR poll does not reflect second-choices, which may make quite a difference, given the number of candidates who may not make the 15% threshold in various parts of the state.

Actually, in the full write up on the poll, the article online last night said that analysis of second choices showed that they made no meaningful difference in the results of the top 3 candidates — in large part because they all look viable everywhere, and the support for the non-viable candidates has dropped to such small numbers.

The Iowa Poll is considered to have the best grasp on “likely” caucus going behavior. That said, as a lifelong Iowan who has been going to caucuses for 25 years, the Iowa Poll seems to have bought into the “growing the pool” theory more than usual. 40% independents? 70% of Obama’s supporters would be first-time attendees? Forgive my skepticism, but I’ve seen campaigns swear that would happen and push them over the top before – those sorts of massive realignments of the profile of the caucus pool just dont happen in a single cycle. (moreover, even this large lead is just at the margin of error).

The best news for Obama is, as Steve notes, the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of this particular poll and its huge in-state media coverage.

I spoke to several Republican friends of mine yesterday who do believe Huckabee is in free fall, in the same under the radar areas that propelled him from nowhere to the top.

I was at a huge New Years party for Clinton last night that drew 1000 people easily. And I still think looking at the internals of all of the recent polls that Edwards not only has a shot, but if I were a betting man I would probably put my money on Edwards for Thursday night (assuming early reporting and other quirks dont suppress his rural support). Interesting, given Biden’s small-and-dropping poll numbers, he had an event in Story County – decent sized, but hardly the most populous in Iowa – that drew 300 people. In prior years, the front runner wouldn’t get that many at a single event. This is a bit of an odd year; I would like to think the real message is that Dems across the Board are really fired up.

And I will be thrilled to see Giuliani and Thompson crash and burn.

Polls are the mass media’s attempt to manipulate the public. They are scared that the real numbers will reflect the real Revolution that is happening in this country. 2 days until the MSM is declared completely illegitimate by the majority. Peace, Love, and Freedom!!! Revolution!

I think Huckabee’s initial surge stemmed from the fact that he was neither Mitt Romney nor Giuliani. On the other hand, he’s Mike Huckabee, which the people are now starting to discover to their horror, thus the freefall. One look at the rationale he used in governing decisions he’s made clarifies just how dangerous he is.

I can see Paul taking a distant third in Iowa behind Huckabee and Romney. But it’s in New Hampshire that he might, just might, take second behind Romney. Which would make the GOP reach for a whole roll of Alka-Seltzer.

seems like someone wandered into the wrong blog.

I’m not a big fan of Ron Paul, but I hope that he finishes very high in the Iowa caucuses. It would throw the Republican establishment into chaos and panic.

And it just might happen – Paul’s supporters are nothing if not dedicated. Expect a very high percentage of them to show up on caucus night.

you know, JKap hasn’t been seen here in a while – JKap, are you in Iowa volunteering?

CB, is it normal that so many polls of the same question within such a short period of time yield such varying results? Doesn’t seem normal to me.

I wonder what it means.

CB: * If Giuliani comes in a distant sixth, behind Ron Paul, after having been in the lead in the spring of 2007, I’m going to laugh my butt off.

steve, there you go being a potty mouth again… but i will too.

I’m listening carefully to what our friend Zeitgeist is saying about things in Iowa, and I’m also looking at the Pollster.com trend lines, which has shown Obama trending down – not up.

Guess there’s nothing to do but wait for the results.

FWIW, I went to the Census Bureau’s State and County QuickFacts site to see what I could about Iowa and New Hampshire. One thing that jumped out at me was the homogeneous nature of their populations: Iowa is 94.9% white, New Hampshire is 96.1% white. The national average is 80.2%. I’m not drawing any inferences here but, it does seems odd that the two states which so strongly influence rest of the the electoral process are so unrepresentative of the nation in this respect.

Anne, I’m with you on that. SB., and Zeitgeist. Zeitgeist needs to live blog Thursday from the caucus to really give us a flavor of it. And if you can’t set that up, please, pretty please have him submit an entry after the fact.

Well, this cycle is nothing if not exciting. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that the anti-Clinton forces will prevail.

Look forward to reading your report on Thursday, Zeitgeist.!

Some notes from the DMR story:

Thirty percent of the poll’s respondents said a candidate’s ability to bring about change is the most important, followed by 27 percent who said their priority is choosing a candidate who will be the most successful in unifying the country.
Asked which candidate would do the best on these themes, caucusgoers most commonly name Obama.
…
Clinton receives more support from women 55 years old and older than her rivals, and she and Obama draw evenly from the pool of female caucusgoers between 35 and 54 years old.

However, she trails Obama badly among women under 35, with just 15 percent to his 57 percent.

Obama’s advantage among younger women reflects his decided advantage among younger voters in general. A majority of caucusgoers under 35 support Obama, more than three times the support Edwards receives from them and five times Clinton’s.
…
Clinton remains the favorite of the party faithful, with support from a third of self-described Democrats. However, Obama is the clear choice of caucusgoers who affiliate with neither the Democrat or Republican parties, with roughly 40 percent of them backing him in the survey.

The support from non-Democrats is significant because a whopping 40 percent of those planning to attend described themselves as independent and another 5 percent as Republican.

So the dynamic seems to be: older, bitter-end hyper-partisan Democrats for Clinton versus younger, less partisan Democrats and independents for Obama. Which coalition do you think is more likely to secure a victory in November? Or to provide a political base for progressive policy change once in office?

That Obama is vastly more appealing to non-hardcore Democrats than the woman who is the living symbol of the zero-sum, scat-throwing politics of the last 15 years should not be lost upon any of us who want to get past that kind of politics.

Careful, Zeitgeist.

alternatively, one could read that as mature, loyal, long-time Democrats who have worked hard in the trenches for years are for Clinton, while inexperienced, unproven, MTV-celeb-of-the-moment bandwagon cult-of-personality types who have little life experience, little responsibility, and who have done nothing in the past for Democrats, progressives, or politics in general think its cool to support Obama assuming they have nothing better to do on Thursday.

This is tough to square with data that shows Obama ahead among better-educated and more highly-informed voters.

But it’s increasingly clear that Clinton backers are more interested in “loyalty” and what I’d consider to be distorted nostalgia for the 1990s than in trying to figure out politically palatable solutions to the problems of the country.

I think there are so many unknowns, it’s just impossible to tell what’s going to happen. I do think Edwards has some momentum, and I do find it hard to square Obama’s downward trend-line with such a huge upward jump in his numbers in just one day. I do think Obama’s numbers portend victory only if the large percentage of first-time caucus-goers actually come through for him. I also think Edwards has solid support in the more rural areas – I did hear something about not discounting that sector because of the way caucus votes are weighted (?) – maybe Zeitgeist could enlighten us on that one.

I would like to see Edwards win – aside from liking his fighting spirit and the feeling that he will give us common folk the seats at the table that were taken away from us over the years, and my confidence that he will not compromise on issues like torture and habeas and wiretapping, I truly believe he is electable in a general election. If we can’t win the general, we can’t bring about the changes we need. I worry about Clinton’s high unfavorable numbers, and I worry that enough people will be susceptible to the dirty campaigning that will be brought to bear on Obama. I also worry that Obama is too much like Clinton and not enough like Edwards. I hear too much in Obama’s speeches that speaks to the rightward-leaning crowd – the kind who voted for Lieberman – and it’s annoying me that he is running away from those of us who are angry – and have a right to be – about what has been going on the last 7 years.

I’m pulling for Edwards – and hoping I don’t have my heart broken.

And, after looking at the comment preview, I also apparently worry too much, lol.

Am reading Charlie Savage’s new book, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy; I highly recommend it, but would not advise reading it before bed – it will not lull you to sleep!

the non-Hillary voters know exactly what it is they’re choosing not to support. She really should be getting majorities in these early contests; that she isn’t strikes me as a pretty clear signal that most Democrats have looked closely and then decided to go elsewhere.

I think there is a very activist, very leftist group for whom that is an accurate analysis. But I also have read literally dozens of quotes in news stories (and have heard them first hand among friends and associates) to the extent that “the choice is hard this year because I like all of our candidates.” These are not just low information voters — some of these are long-time party activists who go to all of the events, take all of the phone calls, read all of the direct mail, etc. Moreover, at least some of the recent polls have Clinton as the leader among second choices (although, as with everything else right now, there are also polls that say the opposite). For that group, this is not some vehement anti-Clinton vote.

Sometimes I have to talk politics with people non on CBR to remind me that left-wing Clinton hatred of the “I wont support her in the general” variety is not the norm. Nearly everyone I know personally who is supporting another candidate has told me they’d be fine supporting HRC in the general. (And those I know supporting HRC say the same of the other candidates). I think that is more the norm, at least in Iowa – everyone is just thrilled they aren’t Republicans where all of the choices are bad choices.

Indeed, I recall that in the heat of the battle in 2004, the Dean and Kerry hardcores had a frothing hatred — Kerry was old-establishment; there was no way the Dean revolutionaries could square supporting Kerry with their beliefs. And it did take a while. But in the end everyone I knew in the Dean camp here got on board, even if it was as an “anyone but Bush” effort.

One wonders where we would be with the election if Hillary hadn’t been tapped with the media’s “inevitable” wand, and Barack Obama hadn’t been tapped with the “ooh, new guy, cool” wand. I say that because I think Biden deserved more of a hearing before the electorate, and so did Dodd. Kucinich, UFO’s notwithstanding, also had something valuable to contribute, as did Richardson, but if you can’t get the media to do any more than cover the odd gaffe, or things that don’t matter, it’s not just an uphill battle, it’s uphill with the wind in your face. As an aside, I think there is something to be said for Edwards’ ability to get the numbers he has, given that the media just elbows him out of the picture so that it can continue the Clinton-Obama storyline.

And if the media had not inserted itself into the contest, I wonder what differences might have been made had the general mix-up between and among the contenders been allowed to work on them and work on the problems and issues on the table – even if impeachment was not there. If Hillary had not spent the better part of the last 12 months being the presumptive front-runner, would she have moved more to the left? If Obama had not been dubbed the presumptive challenger to Clinton, would he have shown more leadership in the Senate, would he have risked more? If the people could have heard more from Biden, would that have changed the metric on Iraq? If we had had more exposure to Dodd, would that have heated things up on the FISA debate, or put more pressure on the US Attorney purge?

I suppose I see the media not as any kind of facilitator, or exposer of truth, or devil’s advocate, but as an impediment to all of that. Watching the news tonight, the top story was, of course, the DMR poll, but as my husband said, “if you didn’t know any better, you would think the only candidates running on the Democratic side were Clinton and Obama.” Very true, and very frustrating.

As frustrating as it is, there is unfortunately nothing to be done about it.

As disappointed and disallusioned as I’ve been with the Democrats over the last year, since I’ve been on the radio In Tampa, I think were going to see “The” turn around in Iowa. The last chip fell in place with Nader coming out for Edwards. Not only does this bring his viability to a new level with the “Disaffected”, but it hammers home the fact to independants that there is a constituency building beyond the “Clinton Machine” to win the country back. It’s my belief that Edwards not only harbors the abilities to pull of a win, but additionally can pull of a restorative Presidency.
YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST! Edwards all the way.

Regarding the DesMoines Register poll – based on their sampling, that would mean that Democratic turnout for a Democratic primary will drop; in 2004, Democrats were 80%, are we to believe that now only 55% will be Democrats (the rest being Independent and Republican)?

Since Independents and Republicans can go to the Democratic caucus and must register as Democrats to vote, this seems counter-intuitive to how the process should be – shouldn’t lifelong or long-term Democrats (the Democratic wing of the Democratic party) be the ones voting for their candidate – as opposed to fly-by-night, switch affiliations Independents and Republicans who find it politically convenient to support Obama. If the latter becomes the case, this whole process is a Fiasco.

Zeitgeist –

I just found an interesting tidbit on the website of the Hoover Institution regarding the number of independents:

“Twenty-five states that record voter registration by party report a surge in independent/nonpartisan registration between 2000 and 2004 averaging 21 percent, compared to 7 percent for Democrats and 5–6 percent for Republicans. In such deep blue states as Massachusetts and Connecticut, independents became the largest category of registered voters some years ago.”

http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/10679671.html

Over the past year, I’ve heard it repeated on the news several times that there’s been a surge in people changing their party affiliation from democrat/republican to independent. This website shows it’s true. These independents didn’t just pop up out of nowhere. Many of them are disaffected previous democrats/republicans who changed their party affiliation. The thing though is that even when they become an “independent” many still lean more toward one party than the other (often their original party).

Maybe there’s nothing wrong with the DMR poll at all.

(to be accurate, that should say Iowa has at times had a plurality of its citizens registered independent/no party)

I do not believe the numbers are accurate in this poll. Those who are thinking of voting for Obama please look at the facts first. Bush said during his first campaign Washington politicans can not be trusted to fix Americans problems. So elect me George Bush. Obama has said the same thing. Neither had or has any idea what their talking about.
Inexperince has gotten thousands of brave soliders dead in Iraq and no way out. And inexperience has cost hundreds of New Orleans their lives.

And Obama is a politican who has burned bridges and played games to become the Senator he is today. How do you think he got the money to run his campaign? Being a politican makes you dirty in the first place. Favors for political contribtions goes back to George Washington. There is no Mr. Clean politican out there, only a con job on the American people. Voters do your research. The only politican above it, is a politican that you have never heard of.

If anyone is still around to read this:

The talk about Obama trending down on pollster is misguided. I left for vacation on Dec 23rd and when I did, Obama was still trending up, his trend estimate at 29%. In a week he lost 3 points and went from trending definitively up at a rate faster than any of his competitors (Clinton was flat and Edwards was gaining at a less-steady pace) to trending down. Such a sharp turn should raise eyebrows, especially since it coincides with the start of winter vacation. The period from Dec 20th to Jan 1st is a notoriously difficult time to poll because so many people travel at the time, and its very possible that the type of people who travel at the time overall differ politically from those who don’t travel.

In the Dem primary this is seems particularly obviously true, since Obama tends to double support (40 to 20 to 20) among college-educated voters and voters making over ~60,000 a year….a group, I think, we could assume is more likely to be travelling at x-mas time than the opposite groups (under 60K or w/o HS or college-education).

There’s a reason polls traditionally shut it down for 2 weeks at the end of Dec. The only reason that tradition wasn’t upheld this year was that we’re looking at the last 2 weeks of the primary pre-Iowa, so the pollsters really want to get those last polls in.

zeitgest:

The Iowa Poll is considered to have the best grasp on “likely” caucus going behavior. That said, as a lifelong Iowan who has been going to caucuses for 25 years, the Iowa Poll seems to have bought into the “growing the pool” theory more than usual. 40% independents? 70% of Obama’s supporters would be first-time attendees? Forgive my skepticism, but I’ve seen campaigns swear that would happen and push them over the top before – those sorts of massive realignments of the profile of the caucus pool just dont happen in a single cycle. (moreover, even this large lead is just at the margin of error).

The best news for Obama is, as Steve notes, the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of this particular poll and its huge in-state media coverage.

I have to respectfully disagree. If the caucus-goer breakdown is identical this year to what it was in 2004 (80% Dem, 20% Indie) according to the DMR #s, Obama and Clinton are in a statistical tie, 33-31, with Obama doing better on 2nd choicers. And considering Obama is the most popular politician in the country among political independents, it certainly seems plausible that those numbers, even if they don’t reach the 60/40 ratio this poll predicts, will skew further toward Indies, maybe 70/30. And that only helps Obama.

Remember, registered Indies outnumber registered Dems and registered Repubs in Iowa…traditionally, ~12% of eligible adults caucus in Iowa, but only ~3.5% of registered Indies. In this poll, Selzer is basically saying that this year, the registered Indies are going to come in line with their partisan brethren, getting to ~12% of eligible adults, to the benefits of Dems in general and Obama in particular. Given increased voter interest this year, dissatisfaction with the GOP everywhere and across all political stripes, and Obama’s documented popularity with Indies, that really doesn’t sound crazy to me, at all.

It is probably worth the time I’m spending at the keyboard—there’s about a foot of snow in the driveway right now, and I’m not looking forward to the near-zero windchill—to mention that regardless of the DMR poll’s “validity” (or lack thereof, as noted by anyone screaming “Foul!” “Fraud!” “Typical MSM Ploy!”), the caucuses are but the first step down the actual path to the WH.

Yes—it’s just one step, with many to follow—but it is the first of those many, and without a first step, there is no such thing as a second. That proves itself out with brutal clarity if the first step becomes “a mis-step of train-wreck proportions,” as a good many Deaniacs who are still trying to hide from their candidate’s “barbaric yawp” can substantiate with their ongoing therapy-session bills, second mortgages, and gleeful flockings-en-masse-like-wounded-lemmings to the safe comfort-zone of “established” political heavyweights.

Look at all the blogs, both Right and Left, and you’ll see a hauntingly-similar trend. The nation has been pounded for more than six years now, to the point of making the phrase “ad nauseum” seem an understatement of titanic proportions, about one issue—and one issue only:

9/11.

Is it any wonder that the far-and-away frontrunners of both parties, Democratic and Republican, were from New York?

As the glitzy mantra of 9/11 was peeled away, we on the Left rejoiced with giddiness the fiery tailspin of what was once Ghouliani’s frontrunner status. Did no one expect the same thing to happen to HRC?

Do those who lament the “MTV effect” of Obama actually believe that people might, having once peeled away the 9/11 coverlet from the Clinton machine, also elect to look at HRC without the jaded insulation of “the Big Dog years?”

Put both candidates under the microscope; examine their voting records, their actual years of public service (and eight years as “first lady” do not count in such a comparison), and their established positions on all issues, both political and otherwise.

Look closely how each has handled challenges to their being deemed “electable.”

Contemplate a diagnosis of their “youthful indiscretions” and all else that predates this campaign cycle.

In other words, peel away all the layers, and look at the core. Look not at the forest, but at the single tree. Not at the apple, but at the seed. Not at the beach, or the field, or the snowy day—but at the single grain of sand, the lone blade of grass, and the first snowflake.

Reduce both candidates to such a microcosm, and the juggernaut of longterm frontrunner status becomes not only meaningless, it becomes, in and of itself, a “barbaric yawp”—screaming out those famous words from Baum’s tale of a girl, her little dog, and a bunch of munchkins:

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN! I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ!

Welcome to OZ, Hillary—and here’s your bucket of water….

I found the following rather humorous.

Ben Smith notes the makeup of the poll participants: “The Register poll is including a surprising 40% of independents and 5% of Republicans among the people likely to attend the Democratic caucuses. If that pans out on January 4, it’s hard to see how Obama wouldn’t win.

You must be a member of the party to attend and vote in the caucus. Thus 45% of the Register poll is excluded. From a straw poll at work Hillary is not the front runner. I think the pollsters will be somewhat surprised come Friday.