GOP Poll: Close Races In Iowa
The new Strategic Vision (R) poll in Iowa has a statistical three-way tie on the Democratic side: Barack Obama 30%, Hillary Clinton 27%, and John Edwards 27%. In their last poll a week ago, it was Obama 33%, Hillary 25%, Edwards 24%. Now, it's anybody's game.
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee's lead over Mitt Romney has not changed significantly, with Huckabee at 31%, Romney 25%, and Fred Thompson 16%. A week ago it was Huckabee 30%, Romney 25%, and Thompson 13%.
Comments (16)
jem wrote on December 20, 2007 11:52 PM:I just watched the election video Josh did forecasting who the Republican and Democratic nominees would be and how the primary season would likely play out. Pretty sensible on the Republican side, but when discussing the Democrats Josh didn't once utter the name "Edwards" nor did he make any reference to him whatsoever. Although he lags behind in national polls, he'll likely win Iowa, which will throw the nomination fight into a clear three-way race where just about anything can happen. Regardless of how one feels about him personally, it's undeniable that he's in the top tier of candidates on the Democratic side.
jem wrote on December 20, 2007 11:53 PM:I just watched the election video Josh did forecasting who the Republican and Democratic nominees would be and how the primary season would likely play out. Pretty sensible on the Republican side, but when discussing the Democrats Josh didn't once utter the name "Edwards" nor did he make any reference to him whatsoever. Although he lags behind in national polls, he'll likely win Iowa, which will throw the nomination fight into a clear three-way race where just about anything can happen. Regardless of how one feels about him personally, it's undeniable that he's in the top tier of candidates on the Democratic side.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 21, 2007 12:35 AM:Jem, I agree entirely.
Edwards is looking likely to win Iowa. Heck, the polls have him in a tie for the lead. Yet many in the press (including the progressive presS) are treating Edwards like the Republican machine treats Ron Paul.
Edwards is surging just before the holiday downtime. Further, Clinton and Obama voters are becoming polarized. In a caucus setting, many Clinton and Obama voters will be forced to go with their 2nd choice. I believe both Clinton and Obama caucus goers are likely to choose Edwards rather than let their main opposition win.
The worrying part for Edwards is that there isn't much time for him to build on a victory between Iowa and New Hampshire. I think his best chance is to make sure New Hampshire voters know about the polls which show Edwards as the strongest Democratic candidate. He's trouncing every Republican candidate in hypothetical match-ups.
Nationally, the #1 issue for Democrats is electability. All the polls I've seen give Edwards larger margins than any other Democrat. Right now, this is Edward's biggest strength. If he wins Iowa, he should push on nothing but electability.
jeanba wrote on December 21, 2007 5:07 AM:Guys stop dreaming, no matter what Clinton does, Obama is going to win IA, NH,SC and Feb 5th is game, no wonder she is willing to use racism, and all nasty smear against Obama because she knows her internal are looking bad. Shame on this woman and Bill, if she wins the nomination, my family, friends will never vote for her in the general we will write in our pets or vote GOP, "better the devil you know than the devil you don't know."
DemAC wrote on December 21, 2007 6:03 AM:jeanba wrote: no matter what Clinton does, Obama is going to win IA, NH,SC and Feb 5th […] Shame on this woman and Bill, if she wins the nomination...Do you care to explain how any candidate wins the nomination by losing the primaries?
Oh no sorry, that’ll require that you actually know something about politics; or at least had anything interesting to say. My bad.
Abe wrote on December 21, 2007 7:16 AM:Look, I know Edwards has a good rural support, but Obama has organized the hell out of Iowa. He has organizers covering every square inch of Iowa, meaning that if anybody is going to squeeze every last available vote out of the state, it's Obama.
If Iowa goes Obama, then so does New Hampshire and South Carolina. And much as Clinton supporters want February 5 to be the bulwark, there is no way Hillary loses all three early states to one candidate and stays in front. Never happened and Hillary is not particularly inspiring enough to make it happen.
Then again, maybe Hillary's swiftboating is working. Edwards may steal Iowa.
nogo war wrote on December 21, 2007 7:27 AM:Why is everyone convinced a candidate will come to Denver with 51%?
Obama = 30%.
Clinton = 27%.
Huckleberry = 31%.
Lying sack o' shit = 25%.
Frankenberry = 16%.
That's a crap load of Republicants.
Josh did not mention Ewards cuz he's a DEMONcrat and everyone KNOWS that DEMONcrats are EE-val . . .
NCSteve wrote on December 21, 2007 9:36 AM:I can't call Iowa. No one can call Iowa. There are just too many imponderables to poll it accurately. What will the weather be like on 1/3? Will football nuts tivo or videotape the bowlgame so they can caucus? Will people be mellowed out of politics by the holidays, or resentful of the candidates for continuing to campaign? And, above all, what will the turnout of first-time caucus goers and the under-24 demographic be like?
Magic 8 balls and Ouija boards will work at well as polling with all this crap flying.
Obama's ground game looks to be the best from this distance, but, hell, I'm four digits worth of miles away from Iowa so wtf do I, or does anyone who's not actually there, know? Heck, do the people who are there really know? Who knows?
The one thing I do know is this: no one who caucuses for Obama or Clinton will have to go for their second choice. Any Edwards supporters who are pinning their hopes on that happening have been inhaling.
NCSteve wrote
The one thing I do know is this: no one who caucuses for Obama or Clinton will have to go for their second choice. Any Edwards supporters who are pinning their hopes on that happening have been inhaling.
Wow. I just had to point out how completely inaccurate your statement is.
Especially in close 3-way races like this, many people who walk into the caucuses intending to vote for one candidate will end up voting for someone else.
That's simply the way the Iowa caucuses work.
You're also clearly forgetting what most Democrats are saying is their #1 criteria in a Democratic candidate. Electability.
Another thing you're forgetting is that most Democrats are happy with all three of the top candidates. Many (perhaps most) Democrats just don't give a damn which of the three gets the nomination, as long as that nominee can win in the general.
These "just want to win" Democrats are not going to be overly bothered to change their vote for Obama, Clinton or Edwards. They'll be perfectly fine to agree with the majority of their caucus.
Another factor is polarization and 2nd choices. 2nd choices DO matter, because those unable to have their first choice will tend to migrate toward their 2nd choice. This is a statistically tied three-way race. 2nd choices are hugely important in these sort of situations. In fact, in a statistical three-way tie, in a winner-take-all caucus, statistically, the 2nd choice candidate is by far the most likely to win.
Especially this year, especially for the Democratic ticket, there will be a lot of people intending to vote for one candidate, who will walk out having voted for another. That's just the way it is.
Greg Dea wrote on December 21, 2007 11:00 PM:Especially in close 3-way races like this, many people who walk into the caucuses intending to vote for one candidate will end up voting for someone else.
This is a statistically tied three-way race. 2nd choices are hugely important in these sort of situations. In fact, in a statistical three-way tie, in a winner-take-all caucus, statistically, the 2nd choice candidate is by far the most likely to win.
Especially in close 3-way races like this, many people who walk into the caucuses intending to vote for one candidate will end up voting for someone else.
Sure, no doubt, but unless you mean to say that Edwards voters are firmer in their preference for Edwards than are other voters (and if you are saying this, I would be interested to see any polling data which inform this opinion) then presumably this should not much change the outcome of the election. If 150 voters walk into the caucus intending to vote for Clinton but end up switching to Edwards and another 150 walk in intending to vote for Edwards but end up switching to Clinton, then the net effect is a wash.
This is a statistically tied three-way race. 2nd choices are hugely important in these sort of situations. In fact, in a statistical three-way tie, in a winner-take-all caucus, statistically, the 2nd choice candidate is by far the most likely to win.
Er, o.k., but the Iowa caucuses are not winner-take-all, so what does that observation have to do with the matter at hand? I think that NCSteve's point is far sounder than you make out - it matters only slightly if Edwards is the 2nd choice of a lot of Clinton or Obama supporters because these candidates will reach the viability threshold in all caucus sites, so they will have no compelling reason to switch to their second choice. What really matters is the second choice of voters who support the less popular candidates (Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, etc) because these folks are much less likely to reach the viability thresholds in their locations, and thus much more likely to have to commit to their second choices.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 11:10 PM:Please excuse the truncated post. My son, who was sitting in my lap as I typed, tapped my return key while I was still just starting to compose.
Michael Stevens wrote on December 22, 2007 12:36 AM:I thought the viability percentage was quite high.
Have they changed it (again)?
Michael Stevens wrote on December 22, 2007 1:10 AM:The AP says the viability threshold floats between 15% and 50%, depending on the precinct.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gs4Ou9kF-PH-aCYQc4IprYb8g2CAD8TLDVBO0
That being the case and given the current statistical 3-way tie, there should most certainly be precincts where no candidate is viable after the first tally.
Meaning that even supporters the big three will almost certainly be faced with the prospect of either going home or selecting another candidate. (their 2nd choice)
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 22, 2007 11:38 AM:The precise formulae for calculating the viability threshold in each precinct can be found in the PDF linked below. Briefly summarized, the precincts with a 50% viability threshold are the few really tiny ones with only one delegate at stake, so it is hard to believe that these will greatly affect the overall outcome. What more, these really small rural Iowa precincts already favor Edwards, so he cannot be planning to pick up many delegates based on second choices in these locales as he is already the first choice favorite in most of these places (see poll URL below). As such, I am still not convinced that the second choices of Clinton, Edwards and Obama supporters really make that much of a difference, especially for Edwards.
