Hawkeye poll shows Edwards slipping, Huckabee surging

One can make a very reasonable case that Iowa’s unique role in the presidential nominating process is excessive and unwarranted. Indeed, Paul Waldman recently did just that. The state has too much power and too much influence, and as Kevin Drum noted not too long ago, it’s actually getting worse.

That said, given the media’s coverage of the Iowa caucuses, and the built-in significance of the caucus results, we might as well keep an eye on how the candidates are doing, since — fair or not — how the candidates do in Iowa will have an enormous effect on how the process plays out.

According to most recent polls, Hillary Clinton enjoys a modest-but-steady lead in Iowa, followed by Barack Obama whose support has been growing, with John Edwards third but dropping. Among Republicans, Mitt Romney’s support has put him way out in front, followed by Fred Thompson who support has been leveling off. Rudy Giuliani has been third, but is in decline, with surging Mike Huckabee not too far behind.

This morning, a new University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll reinforces the recent trends. First up, the Dems.

Clinton leads the poll with 28.9% while Obama garnered 26.6%. John Edwards trails with 20%, a 6-point drop from the last Hawkeye poll in August.

For Edwards, who has basically been living in Iowa (and who parlayed a second place finish there in 2004 into a spot on the Democratic ticket), the results have to be disconcerting. Unlike Obama and Clinton, he has few other strongholds, and a poor showing in Iowa could place his candidacy in serious jeopardy.

On the bright side is that the people who do support Edwards have a history of showing up when it counts. Nearly 76% of Edwards’ poll supporters attended the 2004 caucus, while 58% of Clinton’s and 55% of Obama’s supporters made the trip four years ago. “If we only look at caucus-goers who are almost certain to attend, we find that Edwards makes up the gap with Obama and Clinton, and moves clearly ahead,” said David Redlawsk, the poll’s director and an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa.

Bill Richardson, who’s been running ads in Iowa for a couple of months, is fourth with 7.2%, down from 9.4%. Joe Biden is fifth 5.3, while “others” (the Hawkeye Poll is open-ended, and respondents are not given a list to choose from) got 3.3%. About 9% are undecided.

As for Republicans:

[T]he Hawkeye poll showed that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has widened his overall lead by 8 percentage points, to 36.2%. But Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, has gained ground despite spending just $1.7 million compared to Romney’s $53.6 million. Huckabee is up from less than 2 % in the same poll in August to 12.8%, putting him in a statistical tie for second place with Rudy Giuliani who garnered 13.1%. Giuliani had spent $30.2 million as of September 30, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

“If Huckabee can motivate religious conservatives to attend the caucuses in large numbers, he may well threaten Romney and close some of the overall gap,” said Redlawsk. About 44% of Iowa Republican caucus-goers consider themselves Evangelical or born again.

Fred Thompson is fourth with 11.4% (up from 7.6% in August), John McCain is fifth with 6% (up from 3.1%), Tom Tancredo is sixth at 2.2% (down from 5.4%), with others garnered 3.5%. About 15% are undecided.

Among Dems, expect the field to pull all the stops, working under the impression that a Clinton victory in Iowa would effectively end the process (before 49 other states even get a shot). Among Republicans, the race for second is on — my money’s on Huckabee, though he may not have the resources to capitalize on it.

Stay tuned.

I know it’s still early, and a lot of people in the rest of America aren’t even bothering with this stuff yet, but I am troubled by the Edwards strategy, which seems to be putting all the eggs in one basket – Iowa – and counting on a good showing there to translate to a national surge. It would be just fine with me if that’s what happens, but the compression of the primary season is going to make that a lot harder than it was 4 years ago. People keep pointing to how dismal Kerry’s numbers were in 2004, heading into the primaries, as proof that all is not lost among the so-called second tier, but the 2004 race did not have the media-anointed juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton.

I really like Edwards – even if it does annoy the crap out of me that Edwards consultant “Mudcat” Saunders keeps trying to frame him as a “good ol’ boy” with all the over- and undertones that go along with that – and I am very impressed with Chris Dodd. Dodd’s age kind of squeezes him out of contention for a VP spot, since by the time we get to 2016, when a two-term VP is positioned as the de facto nominee, Dodd is something like 73. If Dodd doesn’t end up on the ticket, I think he would make an excellent Senate Majority leader – head and shoulders above Harry Reid (no doubt due to the existence of a fully vertical spine on Dodd).

  • Looks like 591 Iowans with landline telephones have an inordinate amount of influence upon American Politics. How’s the two-party system that Rudolf W. Giuliani says has “served us well” working out for us?

  • Like Anne, I am disappointed with the decline in Edwards’ numbers, And Obama seems to have folded as well. The little pittance money I can donate won’t help either of them.

  • the 2004 race did not have the media-anointed juggernaut that is Hillary Clinton

    As I recall Howard Dean was supposed to have it all sewn up (remember, the “scream” wasn’t until AFTER the Iowa caucuses).

    However I do agree Hillary’s is a far more robust candidacy than Dean’s was.

    I expect that, as usual, the nomination fight will be long over by the time my own state (Missouri) votes. Last time I threw Howard a vote anyway because he was the only person in the media with a sensible comment on the Janet Jackson nipple brouhaha. This time I expect I’ll have the choice of irrelevantly ratifying Hillary or sending a meaningless vote to one of the also-rans (probably Dodd if he’s still on the ballot).

  • This poll has a margin of error of 6% yet it is reported as Edwards losing 6 points. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

  • I am troubled by the Edwards strategy, which seems to be putting all the eggs in one basket – Iowa – and counting on a good showing there to translate to a national surge

    Given Edwards’s lack of money, I don’t think he has much of a choice. He needs the free media publicity and the “he’s electable!” narrative to come out of Iowa to have a shot. If he loses in Iowa, his candidacy will be dead – not because of any choices he’s made about how to run the campaign, but because of the realities of the presidential primary horse-race reporting. If Edwards had Obama or Clinton’s bankroll he could afford a different tack. He doesn’t, so he can’t. Personally, I think New Hampshire is a bit more receptive to populists than Iowa, so if I were Edwards I would have made New Hampshire my battleground (Southerner winning in New Hampshire is also better narrative than Southerner takes Iowa), but it’s almost six-of-one half-dozen of the other, really, and Edwards probably has a better shot of beating Clinton and Obama in Iowa than he does in New Hampshire.

    And comparing Clinton to Dean is flawed on a number of levels. Clinton is the annointed machine candidate, Dean was the populist insurgent. Iowa, because of the nature of the caucus, biases heavily towards the machine candidate – New Hampshire is where the populist bias can emerge. IIRC, Dean looked good among Iowa voters, but Iowa caucus goers are different than Iowa voters. We’ll see how things look when the Iowa caucus starts, but unless there’s some major gaffe from Clinton before then that would anger the moderate-left Iowa Democrat caucus goer, I doubt we’ll see a repeat of Dean’s sudden fall from grace.

  • The poll of 285 likely Republican caucus goers and 306 likely Democratic caucus goers was conducted October 17 to 24.

    In 2004, 121,068,721 people voted for President. Does each person polled here represents 204,854 voters? TIME and other news outlets report this as if the opinions of so few were ground breaking, earth shaking news. It’s less than 0.0005% of the voting population.

    I’m sure if they ran the same poll again it would come up differently for every sample set and that the stated 5.8% margin of error nowhere near accounts for this.

    591 polled is a joke. You’d fail a statistics class trying to represent a large population with such a small sample, yet we allow this absurdity to drive the media coverage of every Presidential election.

    All these polls are designed to do is fuel the juggernauts and further limit our choice. Otherwise, there is no excuse for conducting them in such a statistically dishonest way.

  • A little Iowa geekiness for the day. From this point in, a potential caucus-goer’s second choices become very important. A live caucus, as opposed to a primary, amounts to “instant runoff voting.” Unless there is a rules change, Iowa traditionally has used a 15% “viable” threshold for delegate selection — i.e. 15% of the attendees at the precinct have to form a “preference group” for a particular candidate or that group/candidate is not “viable” for that precinct and their supporters have a chance to move to someone else. The Democratic candidates above that line acocunt for only 75% in the Hawkeye poll above, so 25% of the hypothetical attendees would have to move to their second choice.

    This in part explains Edwards’ “surprise” finish in 2004. He was a lot of peoples’ second choice. Kerry people and Dean people were, well, Kerry people and Dean people. If a voter wasn’t in one of those camps by the day of the caucus, they likely weren’t inclined to ever be there. So when the weaker candidates fell under the 15% threshold, a lot of those folks went to Edwards. (And there will always be some precincts where even one of the “big” candidates falls short – in my precinct has Dean had one less person, we would not have been viable.)

    So my suggestion for political geeks: from here on in, keep an eye out for polls that ask for second choices as well in Iowa. Those will tell you a lot more about likely caucus outcomes.

  • 591 polled is a joke. You’d fail a statistics class trying to represent a large population with such a small sample

    This is standard polling technique. Assuming the 591 are chosen from representative demographics, you should get a decently stable set of results from iterated polls. If you want to quarrel with question phrasing, which demographics are represented etc, robo-polling vs. live interview, etc. you can. However the size of the respondent pool in this poll isn’t really controversial.

  • Thanks jimBOB, I feel better about this tired-ass system and am looking forward to World Wars III & IV.

  • Prediction: After all that’s said and done Huckabee will be the GOP nominee. The Dem nominee should watch out for him. He’s smart, skilled, tough — smooth.

  • Wish I could find the site, but the WSJ has been running some negative op-eds about Huckabee and the Club for Growth ilk are also openly opposing him. Apparently, he increased taxes and grew government while Arkansas Guv and that is anathema to global corporatism, where the real power lies.

  • Marc, yes, I wish you could remember because you need to back up your “facts” with truth and research rather than continuing to spread false information.

    The fact that Mike Huckabee has been able to accomplish so much with so little (financially) proves that he can work within a tight budget and still produce a great following. I believe Mike Huckabee has what it takes to the our next President!

    I LIKE MIKE!!!

  • Comments are closed.