Iowa poll throws the chess board into the air

December 2, 2007

As recently as a few weeks ago, there was a semblance of stability in Iowa. Among Republicans, Mitt Romney enjoyed a big lead, and was on his way to a fairly easy win, while Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, and Rudy Giuliani fought it out for second. Among Dems, Hillary Clinton had a modest-but-steady lead over her rivals, with Barack Obama and John Edwards fighting to keep up.

A new Des Moines Register poll reminds us just how quickly a race like this can change. The latest standings among the Democrats:

* Obama 28% (up from 22% in October)
* Clinton 25% (down from 29%)
* Edwards 23% (unchanged)
* Richardson 9% (up from 8%)
* Biden 6% (up from 5%)

And among the Republicans:

* Huckabee 29% (up from 12% in October)
* Romney 24% (down from 29%)
* Giuliani 13% (up from 11%)
* Thompson 9% (down from 18%)
* Paul 7% (up from 4%)
* McCain 7% (unchanged)
* Tancredo 6% (up from 5%)

A quick word about the poll itself. There are obviously plenty of news outlets conducting plenty of surveys, but in most circles, the Des Moines Register’s poll is considered the most reliable for gauging the caucuses. Marc Amminder, noting the results, called these “the newest numbers from the BEST public pollster in Iowa, Ann Selzer, who conducts the Des Moines Register poll.”

As for the analysis, all of a sudden, the entire race is starting to look a lot more interesting.

Let’s take the Republicans first. Huckabee isn’t just pulling ahead, he’s rocketing past the field.

Mike Huckabee has leaped ahead of Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney in Iowa, seizing first place in a new Des Moines Register poll of likely Republican caucus participants.

Huckabee wins the support of 29 percent of Iowans who say they definitely or probably will attend the Republican Party’s caucuses on Jan. 3. That’s a gain of 17 percentage points since the last Iowa Poll was taken in early October, when Huckabee trailed both Romney and Fred Thompson.

Other poll findings indicate that the former Arkansas governor is making the most of a low-budget campaign by tapping into the support of Iowa’s social conservatives.

Romney looked well-positioned to win each of the first three contests — Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. If Huckabee maintains his lead and wins in Iowa, the entire race becomes far more unpredictable. Question #1: would Huckabee have the resources necessary to capitalize on an Iowa victory? Question #2: If Huckabee can start raising money and building institutional support, couldn’t he conceivably win the nomination now? Question #3: how aggressively will the rest of the GOP field target Huckabee now?

As for the Dems, Obama’s surge is happening at an advantageous time with advantageous constituencies.

In the new poll, Obama leads with support from 31 percent of women likely attend the caucuses, compared to 26 percent for Clinton. In October, Clinton was the preferred candidate of 34 percent of women caucusgoers, compared to 21 percent for Obama.

Women represent roughly six in 10 Democratic caucusgoers, according to the new poll.

Obama also dominates among younger caucusgoers, with support from 48 percent from those younger than 35. Clinton was the choice of 19 percent in that group and Edwards of 17 percent.

The under-35 bloc represents 14 percent of Democratic caucusgoers, up from 9 percent in the October poll.

Obama has an advantage among first-time caucusgoers. He also leads among people who say they definitely will attend the caucuses.

An Obama win in Iowa could help give him a boost in New Hampshire, where the polls are also tightening, though Clinton maintains her lead.

It just keeps getting more and more interesting, doesn’t it?

Anyone interested in a funny (but it really happened) column about what Huckabee is really like face-to-face should try:
http://goupstate.us/index.php/lanefiller/2007/11/02/title_14

  • I’d love to see Huckabee win – he would galvanize voters the way the Rethugs fantasize Hillary would – everyone (and we’re a big majority) who isn’t a member of the American Taliban, er, the Christian Right will vote to avoid turning the country into a big Republican mega-church.

  • The Seven Dwarfs:

    * Huckabee 29% (Believes neandertals were on the Ark.)
    * Romney 24% (Believes Eden was in Missouri and will be there again some day.)
    * Giuliani 13% (Believes taxpayers should pay for his trysts.)
    * Thompson 9% (Believes that “Scientists who insist that global warming is ruining nature, are like those true believers four centuries ago who insisted that the Earth is flat.”)
    * Paul 7% (Believes Kennedy was killed by the US Govt and that 9/11 was an inside job.)
    * McCain 7% (Will be a Believer for your vote.)
    * Tancredo 6% (Believes Miami is a third world country)

  • Anyone interested in a funny (but it really happened) column about what Huckabee is really like face-to-face — lane
    I like how you after you describe Huckabee’s wallet, you speculate about how the other presidential candidates’ wallets looks, in the typical “this confirms my biases of them” fashion. That’s real quality writing there, not a shameless plug-in or anything.

  • Des Moines Register is a shameless huckster for the so-called importance of Iowa. (Can’t you smell the horse race?) Did Frank Baum get it wrong by tying Kansas, rather than Iowa, to the Wizard of Oz books?

  • Huckabee looks to be real trouble for the Repubs. I agree with Tom Cleaver that instead of being a code word christianist like Bush who cloaked his nature with words like “values” and “faith-based”, Huckabee is an overt Bible thumper. When this nation is less concerned about issues of gayness and more concerned bout the Iraq war and a tanking economy, do we really want a fundie dragging us through the mud of social conservative issues? I think the nation in toto will reject that.

  • slip kid, was the “shameless huck[abee]ster” pun intended? 🙂

    While DM Reg is an undeniable cheerleader for the Iowa caucuses, that does not mean there is anything erroneous about the poll. It conforms fairly well to what all other signs have been showing. On the Democratic side, adjusting for margin of error there is a fairly stable 3-way tie — as nearly every poll of every stripe has shown for nearly all of 2007. On the Republican side, Huckabee is making a big push as Thompson failed to become the saviour of the wingnuts and the Iowa Christian Coalition has coalesced around the minister from Arkansas. The poll mainly seems to confirm what we already know.

    The prognosticators have got to hate that Dem race — so close that it all comes down to things that can’t be measured well in advance: targeting within the state, intensity of support, second choices of non-viable candidates, what groups turnout, how well each candidates ground game works in the last 24 hours, etc.

    Even in the drill-down the race is wildly close. Obama leads among those who say they definitely will caucus. Edwards has the highest percentage of those who actually have caucuses (i.e. not relying on first-timers). Clinton runs best among the age 50+ who have long been reliably the most numerous caucus attendees (I believe the article said 55% of all caucus goers).

    And for the PodPaulPeople, it is great that Paul now equals McCain – that should pretty well end this silly stubborn talk of a McCain comeback – but they remain tied for 5th, which, along with a buck will get you a cup of coffee in New Hampshire.

  • It’s the Richardson / Biden 2nd choices that are going make things interesting for Edwards and Obama. I have a hard time believing that HRC would be anyone’s 2nd choice, which will put her in third place in Iowa.

    I’d love to get a poll of the Richardson / Biden supporters. If they break more than 2:1 for Edwards, then he’ll have won.

  • I actually think there is a good chance Richardson supporters may have HRC as their second (I suspect most other candidates’ supporters’ second choices are Obama or Edwards). But Richardson was in the Clinton cabinet, is pretty centrist, and has been strongly defending HRC from negative attacks and is frequently the subject of speculation that he is angling to be her VP. I can’t imagine people sticking with him if they found her entirely distasteful.

  • how in the world are RooDee’s numbers going up?

    Polls are lagging indicators; it takes a week or two for the public to process information coming at them, and for the pollsters to run their surveys and tabulate. Next week we’ll start seeing the polling results of the Sex on the City scandal.

    Huckabee, as others have mentioned, is anathema to the Republican money people. If he gets too far ahead they will detonate him.

    We’ll see if Obama or Edwards can pull a John Kerry to Hillary’s Dean. Color me skeptical. Even if she loses Iowa, she’s well positioned for the rest of the primary schedule, AND she’s the establishment candidate.

  • Zeitgeist makes the case:

    …there is a good chance Richardson supporters may have HRC as their second ….Richardson was in the Clinton cabinet, is pretty centrist, and has been strongly defending HRC…

    That’s a good point. Richardson’s also probably got the deepest resume of all the candidates, too. So looking at it that way, I could see how Hillary could peel off a substantial portion of Richardson’s base. On the other hand, I can auger that the Richardson supporters willing to break for Hillary, have already done so, and what he’s got left, will not vote for her. But that’s me speculating.

  • Re: jimBOB @ #11
    Huckabee, as others have mentioned, is anathema to the Republican money people.

    Yes, the NeoCon Party would have a big problem with the loss of power and control that the continuation and expansion of American Imperialism and the advent of the Huckle-buck’s “theocratic” or “theological” war(s) would cause for the NeoCon Globalist Movement.

    I think you’ve just become a casualty of the Global War on a Psychological State.

  • Well, yeah, JKap, if you want to go and get all logical about it, of course Huckabee and the liklihood he would get us into a Clash of Civilizations would be great for Halliburton and Lockheed and their ilk, which should make the “Pure Corporate Greed” wing of the party happy.

    But no amount of “birds in the bush” potential windfall can overcome the “apostasy in the hand,” the one unpardonable sin among those who worship at the Church of the Club for Growth: when he actually was running a government, ol’ Huck (can I say this in public?) raised taxes! (hide the children!)

    No amount of logic can overcome that.

  • There was talk this morning on one of the talk shows – ABC? – that Huckabee is actually Rudy’s best friend right now – that if Huckabee can knock Romney out, it really paves the way for Rudy to take the nomination. Interesting theory, but I think it fails to take into account the fallout from Shagfest – and what I think will be the soon-to-be-more-prominent stories about Rudy’s ties to a sheik who is alleged to have helped Khalid Sheik Muhammed escape.

    The problem for all of the candidates may be that there is only 5 days between Iowa and New Hampshire – a short period of time to capitalize or recover from whatever happens in Iowa.

    I had to laugh when Katrina vanden Heuvel ticked off all of Huckabee’s wacky positions, and summed it up by saying something that amounted to, yes, he’s affable, but he’s nuts.

    As for the Dems, every single news media person I have heard in the last week or so – talking head, reporter, anchor – is talking only about Clinton and Obama – it’s like there is no one else in that race. NBC had a series on African-American women, and one of them was about who black women Democrats are going to vote for. Despite the fact that Edwards has paid more attention to the African-American community, there was not one word about him – it was all Clinton or Obama? The woman who is white, or the man who is black.

    Gonna be a wild time between now and Iowa.

  • Anne writes:

    …every single news media person I have heard in the last week or so – talking head, reporter, anchor – is talking only about Clinton and Obama – it’s like there is no one else in that race…

    That’s the top story. The in-between story is that it is very much in Clinton’s best interests to have a strong Edwards showing, too. It splits her opposition. If either Edwards or Obama fades too soon, the support from the one will go to the other, and Hillary will be using her 25% against either Edward’s or Obama’s 50%, and she’ll be toast.

  • Two reasons the Club for Growth hates Huckabee:

    1. He’s not down enough with the gimlet-eyed social darwinists (see Zeitgiest’s comment on taxes)

    2. He’s got Big Loser written all over him. The margins the Dems would build in the non-south could mean a 60-Dem Senate, leaving the GOP unable to even mount a fillibuster. A true disaster for business classes trying to hang on to all the gifts Bushco gave them over the past seven years.

  • Huckabee would be to the GOP what Carter was to the Dems: men of principle, but ultimately incompetent in office.

  • zeitgeist writes:

    But no amount of “birds in the bush” potential windfall can overcome the “apostasy in the hand,” the one unpardonable sin among those who worship at the Church of the Club for Growth: when he actually was running a government, ol’ Huck (can I say this in public?) raised taxes! (hide the children!)

    Bingo. Not only that, but he actually seemed to run a halfway competent government focused on addressing public needs as he perceived them rather than going pedal-to-the-metal to further enrich the already-welathy. Remember that for the Norquist/Club for Growth assholes, Katrina wasn’t a tragedy–it was proof that government *deserves* to be “drowned in a bathtub.” Even if some poor people drown along with it. If he cracks their coalition, the Greed Wing will have a very hard time putting it back together.

    As for the Democrats… who knows. But one thing that leapt out to me from the DM Register article was this:

    Other troubling news for Clinton included a sharp decline in support from members of union households, where she was the preferred candidate with support from 34 percent in the October poll. In the new poll, Clinton is third among union households with 21 percent.

    As I see it, Clinton’s whole gambit has been to leverage her institutional alliances into bodies at the caucuses; in Iowa, that has to mean the unions, whom she could have courted in back rooms. If they come out big against her, she’ll probably finish third, and then it’s anybody’s game.

  • dajafi @ #19 said:

    As I see it, Clinton’s whole gambit has been to leverage her institutional alliances into bodies at the caucuses; in Iowa, that has to mean the unions, whom she could have courted in back rooms. If they come out big against her, she’ll probably finish third, and then it’s anybody’s game.

    Interesting theory. How does the part about Clinton apparently being the first choice of roughly the same number of likely Iowa caucus-goers fit as the other two leading candidates even after taking a bit of a hit on union household support fit into it?

    I have a theory too, BTW. My theory is that some time during the week after Christmas, likely primary voters and caucus-goers in Iowa and New Hampshire are going to start making their final decisions about who to vote or caucus for. That may or may not end up being the person who’s ahead in the polls now and it may not be the same person in both states. But in both cases, it’s likely to be the person they can most realistically envision as president, for reasons ranging from their politics to how they present themselves to whether they want to have a beer with them to how well they flip pancakes.

    Whatever their reasons, with the races this close together people in NH are likely to have their own minds pretty well made up before Iowa caucus day rolls around. I am inclined to doubt Iowa will end up having much effect on NH this year unless something crazy happens. But it’s politics we’re talking about so crazy things do happen. Take Mike Huckabee… please!

  • Zeitgeist wrote:

    a buck will get you a cup of coffee in New Hampshire.

    in your dreams, that won’t even get you a cup of water in the Granite State

  • JKap –

    Yes, the NeoCon Party would have a big problem with the loss of power and control that the continuation and expansion of American Imperialism and the advent of the Huckle-buck’s “theocratic” or “theological” war(s) would cause for the NeoCon Globalist Movement.

    You miss the point – Huckabee isn’t a NeoCon at all. He’s actually an nearly-extinct “good government conservative”. You know the type – actually believes that the currently existing services need to be funded instead of choked off. Understands that sometimes raising taxes can have a BENEFICIAL effect on the economy if those taxes are re-invested in infrastructure and anti-poverty programs. Thinks that a good state needs to have good roads to compete – you know a “George H.W. Bush” type conservative.

    And the money guys in the GOP hate that because it runs counter to their religion – the Laffer Curve religion that states that tax increases can NEVER EVER NEVER have a beneficial effect on the economy. They can’t allow their influence over the GOP to wane, and a Huckabee presidency following a GWB presidency would be the nail in the coffin for their control of the GOP. Instead power would fall into the hands of the theocratic wing – which is the “big government” wing of the GOP.

    So while Huckabee would probably be more than willing to keep the Global Crusade Against Islam War on a Psychological State Terror going, he’d probably also allow for tax increases to pay for this mess, which is a big no-no to the Hair Club for Greed guys.

  • episty @ 9
    The longest lasting Middle East peace treaty was forged by Carter
    Nuclear Weapons reduction talks so successful that Reagan kept the name were started by Carter. SALT talks.

    Under Carter, 8 soldiers lost their lives. EIGHT.

    Carter stressed energy conservation and investigation into alternative fuels 30 years ago. Reagan, and the Bushes were oil men who led us into financing the Saud royal family and their 18 buddies that paid us a visit 6 years ago. Clinton / Gore despite much lip service didn’t do much to help in their two terms. Carter stood alone. Very alone. The cost for ignoring him was VERY high.

    Carter had runaway inflation before Greenspan came onto the radar screen.
    For THAT he is remembered. It was solely based on this that Republicans erroneously hung the placard “Bad at Economics” around Democrats necks and we still put up with it.

    If Clinton had done in 8 years what Carter managed in 4, I might be a Hilary supporter.

    Carter didn’t lose because he couldn’t govern. He lost because he lacked charisma and he was up against a Hollywood movie actor with charisma out the ying yang and that’s what America pays attention to.

    Since then, Carter has overseen international elections and spearheaded the household name housing organization Habitat for Humanity. He’s STILL governing very successfully. If people would stop worrying about whether their leaders looked good on camera or might be a fun drinkin’ buddy, our country wouldn’t be such a mess.

    Carter was a lousy campaigner and no pretty boy, but kindly refrain from spreading the right wing lie that he wasn’t a good president. As only a one termer, he was one of our best.

    • Comments are closed.