Entrance Poll: The Second-Prefs Winner Was ... Edwards

Comments (51)

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:38 AM:

But that is not the only possible factor explaining the difference between the entrance polls and the final delegate counts. For example, there is the disproportionate delegate allocation to certain rural precincts, which likely favored Edwards as well. From what I saw, it also helped that in a competitive three-way race in precincts with something like six delegates, getting two delegates was the likely result despite small differences in support. And so on.

Michael's Mom wrote on January 4, 2008 1:39 AM:

I am proud firstly of my country and secondly of my candidate. In the end, the Obama campaign just outworked the others, from the beginning. The way he thanked the people who worked for him, over and over throughout the campaign, embued those kids with more will to win than was clearly expected. Ms. Selzer, the Des Moines Register pollster, is vindicated, again.

S Brennan wrote on January 4, 2008 1:40 AM:

Entrance polls?

Never heard of them, how many have been taken, whats the history?

along wrote on January 4, 2008 1:47 AM:

I'm with DTM. We can't assume that the delegate percentage approximates the actual vote count.

hillbilly wrote on January 4, 2008 1:47 AM:

One thing I’ve noticed tonight is the spin coming from the MSM of something that seems significant to me. Regarding the turnout in Iowa they mention an 89% increase in caucus turnout over 2004 for the Dems, which is true, but they then mention that the Rep turnout is also up 30% so they had good turnout also. The problem there is that the Rep increase comes from 2000, and in that year the Dem attendance was only 61k, so comparing apples to apples the Dem turnout is up 290% versus 2000 compared to the Rep increase of 30% over the same period. The 2004 Dem numbers should stand alone since Bush had the Rep nomination locked up and there was no competitive Rep event.

It seems like an attempt to minimize the true extent of Dem gains in Iowa. The fact that almost 4 times as many people attended a Dem caucus in 2008 versus 2000 is the real story of the night for me. It makes the Rep attendance gains seem paltry.

My puke on a pundit moment came on MSNBC when Chris Matthews started whining with Giuliani about how unfair it was that Giuliani would not be able to regain the 10 polling points he lost to inaccururate reports of hiding expenses related to Judy Nathan. Yeah, technically they did not try to hide her expenses specifically and it was just incidental to hiding all kinds of other expenditures, but watching Matthews dance around that and paint Giuliani as some kind of victim was nauseating.

Tom wrote on January 4, 2008 2:03 AM:

So what this means is that now that the race has been narrowed to Edwards and Obama, with Clinton in the background, Edwards will get a huge bounce thanks to his remarkable performance in Iowa and the fact that he'll get all the votes from the 2nd tier dropouts and losers.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:12 AM:

Not surprised. In my precinct, Edwards got approximately 50% of the second-choicers, enough to put him within a few attendees of Obama's delegate count. I don't think I saw Clinton get more than 1 or 2 second-choicers, if that many. Richardson scored more second-choicers than Obama, but that was due to much more effective politicking -- Obama's folks were completely unprepared and barely knew how caucuses worked.

BruceMcF wrote on January 4, 2008 2:14 AM:

In addition to a extremely successful organizing and GOTC effort, Senator Obama may also have been the beneficiary of another element ... one that was supposedly going to be working against him.

That element was the scheduling of the caucus during college Christmas inter-semester break. While it may have resulted in some out of state students no caucusing ... it seems likely that it also spread trained supporters of Senator Obama across the state.

One factor that has in the past tended to work against candidates attracting enthusiastic college student support is that geographic concentration of the support, resulting in dominance of some precincts, but large numbers of others where they fall short of viability. In that context, its beneficial if those supporters are spread more evenly around the state.

And, of course, that is exactly what the Christmas break does for in-state Iowa college students ... spread them out more evenly across the state.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:23 AM:

Tom said:

"...the fact that he'll get all the votes from the 2nd tier dropouts and losers."

Let's not imagine that very many people will still be voting for former candidates who have dropped out already.

Voting for losers might work out up to a point ...

CalD wrote on January 4, 2008 2:26 AM:

Wow, that's a 6.75% bump for the guy that didn't cut a back room deal with Bill Richardson, versus 2.6% for the guy who did.

kozmik wrote on January 4, 2008 4:41 AM:

btw, I just have to point out that Obama's win was even better than expected. He basically broke the mold by bringing so many voters with him, voters that everyone else had forsaken becasue they couldn't reach them, and were supposedly illusionary becasue Dean couldn't get them, and so on. (Dean of course had many problems of his own.)

Out of this some people, especially hyperbolic pundits, will start expecting Obama exceed all expectations.

Hillary will try to demonstrate her leadership by copying Obama, while claiming she's more electable, more capable, wiser, more changier, more fired up and ready to go, etc. Obvious problems there too.

I also just saw Trippi on Charlie Rose, and think Edwards' campaign is in trouble strategically. Basically, Trippi was emphasizing the likelihood of Edwards going negative in the next debate on large narrative issues.

The strategy to attack Obama as the "compromise" or "negotiator" candidate is one narrative that Edwards and Hillary have already tried, and it's failed. Regardless, it's unsubstantiated, a smear really, and his actual polices don't reflect that.

Hillary is sure to use it up, hoping it will benefit her later in deep blue states. Which I also doubt. Edwards doesn't really stand to benefit by it as it won't get him NH or SC, and then he's out.

So, the question is: does Edwards want to attack Obama to help Hillary? Except for spite, which I hope won't happen, I don't see why he would.

However, that was a weakness of Edwards in 2004 as well, to be a little too combative and portray himself as the lone chance for people's salvation. Which works well in a court room, but comes off as vanity and over-reaching in debates, and which he reveals in facial tics and shows of aggression.

Obama is very good at akido'ing political attacks with a smile, causing opponents shading the truth for political gain to fall on their own sword.

On both likability and the issues, Edwards can beat Hillary but I doubt he can beat Obama. He voted for Iraq and is for medical mandates, and recently his former campaign manager started running ads on his behalf, which hasn't really caught up to him yet, but puts a big hole in his finance integrity argument.

Edwards would do better to engage in wonky policy discussions and not go negative, which would benefit him in regards to character issues. He'd do well to focus on middle class issues. Personally, I'd like to see him appointed to a position, not VP, where I think he could actually do a lot of good for people if that's his sincere wish beyond personal ambition. He could be the Bobby Kennedy of the middle class if he's smart and not vain like people say.

I don't see how Edwards can close the gap in NH or SC, so at this point it's more a question of whether he wants to go out classy and stay relevant to his issues beside the apparent agent of change, or go out flaming and actually help the status quo candidate.

jf wrote on January 4, 2008 5:31 AM:

I wonder if Edwards had come in third whether we would have been treated to Trippi giving cell phone interviews from his car, driving back East after bailing on the campaign, kind of like 2004. I love his candidates, but he just can't place the product.

StJason wrote on January 4, 2008 5:54 AM:

I think that with this showing, Edwards has nicely cemented himself a position. Maybe not as the president, but whoever the winner a few caucuses on would be a fool to not bring on everyones 'second choice'.

Jason wrote on January 4, 2008 7:00 AM:

I think this 2d choice result hurts Edwards going forward. Edwards was outspent but he basically maintained his ties by more or less campaigning in Iowa since 2003. He has nothing comparable in NH. I cannot stress this enough. Obama's NH field organization is every bit as powerful and savvy as the Iowa field org. They (in NH) have had 1.6 million voter contacts since they started. That is sick.

I talk to Obama field staff that has been there since May on the ground since I was co-staffing with some of them in the 2006 races (a bunch are Tester people). Edwards has been banking on a post-Iowa bump to compensate for the lack of field organization. He badly lags the other 2 in NH. You'd have to assume Obama doesn't lose any support to Edwards after this Iowa result - committed voters don't defect from a winner - and that to catch Obama in NH, Edwards has to take the majority of Clinton's support - and that just doesn't seem real. Edwards would seem to be arguing that Clinton is finished and now the previous Clinton support is going to translate to anti-Hillary votes and specifically in the Edwards FLAVOR of anti-Hillary vote. Clinton has the low-information name loyalty vote (think - the last Lieberman Dems in the Dem primary in 2006) and those people are going to be hearing huge good buzz about Obama.

And second support shows that people LIKE Edwards, but it also shows that after surveying the field, about one-quarter of his support in Iowa didn't like him as their first choice. So Biden and Dodd folks who are looking at the post-Iowa discussion of Obama's "historic" victory and hearing questions of where did Obama's speech rank among the all time great American orations (CNN just had one of these segments)... these people are supposed to be breaking for an Edwards who has such little field presence in NH? I don't buy it. I see an easy, easy win for Obama in NH and then obviously a win in SC, and by Feb 5 Clinton will seem like a fossil amid rebutting questions of "will she drop out?" Clinton is relying on a chit-machine-system to drive her turnout in the Feb 5 states and Obama has real organization whose offices will be flooded with volunteers who saw last night as a revelation.

The nomination is a series of dominoes that is Obama's to lose. And if he wins the nomination he is going to win 49-1 or 50-0 in a massive national landslide.

Just look at the way that Iowa - an Iowa that went for Bush in 2004 - HATES, HATES, HATES the Republican Party. Like one poster brilliantly pointed out above - 30% turnout gain vs, 290% turnout gain over 8 years??? This is a landslide Dem year nationally. There are more stunners in store - and I am talking about a black man smiling above an all-blue map on November 4.

heretic wrote on January 4, 2008 7:31 AM:

We'll see if Obama gets a bump in the polls. The real news from last night is:

"Obama's victory was much narrower in the race for delegates. The AP analysis estimated Obama would win 16 delegates, compared to 15 for Clinton and 14 for Edwards. Clinton will win more delegates than Edwards, despite getting fewer votes, because of Iowa's complicated caucus system.

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton leads with 175 delegates, including superdelegates, followed by Obama with 75 and Edwards with 46."

Remember, it's all about the delegates.

Mauimom wrote on January 4, 2008 7:51 AM:

Re Bruce McF:

I live in the DC area, and several college students I know were in Iowa working for Obama and are now moving on to NH -- all taking advantage of their college break to do so.

I'm an Edwards person, and I'm disappointed they're not working for him, but I have to acknowledge Obama's smarts in getting them organized to work in Iowa & NH.

I think one of the main stories of last night should be that Edwards, who was OUTSPENT 2x1 by Obama and 4x1 by Hillary, and IGNORED by the MSM, did as well as he did.

I think this points to his MESSAGE as the thing that attracted voters.

NCSteve wrote on January 4, 2008 7:54 AM:

Remember, it's all about the delegates.

I beg to differ. On February 5, it's all about the delegates. Until then, its all about the perception of being a winner and morale and money you raise off that perception. The combined delegates of Iowa, NH, NV and SC are a drop in the bucket.

osage wrote on January 4, 2008 8:06 AM:

What am I missing? Why is it not bankable that Obama's victory in rural/white "Iowa" over the establishment Clinton and the anti-establishment Edwards will propel him to victories in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Michigan? It is now obvious that any reservations black voters had about whites supporting Obama should be gone. And what's even more obvious is that the overwhelming increase and superiority of Democratic and Independent voter turnout over Republican voter turnout means that whomever the Republicans nominate hasn't got a shot in hell of winning.

john mccutchen wrote on January 4, 2008 8:35 AM:

They've still not recovered at MSNBC!

A goosebumps moment Eugene Robinson, WaPo

The Victory Speech that Greg Sargent doesn't want us to see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc

NH Dem wrote on January 4, 2008 8:37 AM:

I'm loving seeing this in the sidebar:

IA-Pres (D)
Jan 3 ARG
Clinton 34%, Obama 25%, Edwards 21% ...

I'm having visions of Clinton as the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, shouting, "You can't beat me -- I'm invincible!!"

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 8:52 AM:

kozmik,

I agree: I don't see how Edwards draws voters from Obama in NH, which means Obama is probably going to beat him in NH.

On the other hand, I think beating Clinton in NH is a possibility for Edwards. It all depends on how soft her support is, and also how much of the Biden, Dodd, and possibly Richardson vote Edwards can swing his way.

So, personally, I would think Edwards would go negative on Clinton again, not Obama. But we shall see.

Jeff Winchell wrote on January 4, 2008 8:54 AM:

The MSM will continue to pretend Edwards doesn't exist. Hopefully NH voters are smarter than the MSM (admittedly, a VERY low barrier).

BTW, the Des Moines Regsister has the actual final votes (not just delegates), and the percentages were

Obama 37.05%
Edwards 29.33%
Clinton 29.05%

So that means the 2nd choice additional votes were
Edwards 59%
Clinton 21%
Obama 20%

So the delegate numbers vs. vote numbers were only off 1/2 of a percentage point.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 9:13 AM:

Jeff Winchell,

I agree. What I am seeing in the press today is a lot of people arguing that Edwards is done because Obama has beat him to become the anti-Clinton candidate.

Which is true. But pretty soon I think people are going to realize that the next question is actually who is the anti-Obama candidate--or, less negatively, if anyone is going to contest the nomination with Obama, who is that going to be?

That is now a choice between Edwards and Clinton, and Edwards has every right to argue that he and not Clinton is the logical person to contest the nomination with Obama. I actually find his basic argument quite compelling: both the polls and the results in Iowa tell us that voters in 2008 are overwhelming looking for a change candidate, and that is not a fact unique to Iowa. So, Clinton's support is capped well below 50% because she is not a credible change agent. Hence, the contest should be between the two credible change agents, namely Obama and Edwards.

And those second choice numbers should indeed be very encouraging for Edwards going into NH. That is because the rest of the field collectively had decent support in NH, and Edwards was already a solid third. So, If Edwards can swing enough of those people his way, plus take some votes from Clinton, I see no reason why he can't finish second again, no matter how well Obama is also doing.

And if he does that, then I think the media and everyone else will wake up to the fact that Edwards and not Clinton is in the finals against Obama.

Of course all that is a big series of ifs. But certainly it is a perfectly plausible scenario given the results in Iowa.

waka waka wrote on January 4, 2008 9:44 AM:

President Obama.
Get used to it! w00t!

anon wrote on January 4, 2008 9:56 AM:

If Obama gets elected what will the fallout be when his idealistic young followers find out he isn't actually going to achieve anything legislatively because he has already compromised away the store in advance? This has been the specialty of Washington DC Dems for decades now and Obama is carrying their banner, but the young and the naive think the word change alone and platitudes about bringing people together on the lips of a candidate of a different race in and of itself is meaningful which, of course, it isn't. So after four or eight years of disappointing failure another generation of hopeful, idealistic Americans will have been jaded, disappointed and turned off by a young, naive politician who promised change but was unable and unwilling to lead the fight to deliver it. Sad story, but that's exactly what's in store.

Johnny2Bad wrote on January 4, 2008 10:02 AM:

waka waka wrote on January 4, 2008 9:44 AM:
President Obama.
Get used to it! w00t!

Paleeze.

Get used to President McCain if Mr. O. is the nominee.

Wake up!

bnb wrote on January 4, 2008 10:10 AM:

Big thanks to TPM who managed, even though the only candidate to make a second preference endorsement was Kucinich, to ignore him, once again. This IS a story about second preferences isn't it. Dennis DID endorse the winner of the second endorsements, didn't he? Think TPM would see a connection?
It's apparently TPM's policy to ignore Kucincih. Even though he's the only one to vote against invading Iraq; who's brought articles of impeachment; who said he will cancel NAFTA; who promises to stop spending all our money on 'defense' idiocy. Thanks a pantload Eric, for helping to make the conscience of the Democratic party 'un-viable' in Iowa. Write some more about Romney

Pat Kelly wrote on January 4, 2008 10:19 AM:

Realistically, Edwards has neither the momentum nor the finances to be the "ABC" (Anyone but Clinton) candidate. If you'll excuse the expression, this is a 2-man race: Clinton & Obama. Obama has greatly improved his odds, but he still has to 1) at least narrowly beat HRC in NH, 2) get a clear victory in SC, and 3) be within a few points of Hillary in Michigan. If he can do all three of these, it'll be a horserace, but slipping up on any of them will put Clinton in a nearly unbeatable position. If he can outright win all 3 he's unstoppable. I'd still bet on HRC to win the nomination, but not as easily as expected. Perhaps, that's to her good.

bnb wrote on January 4, 2008 10:21 AM:

Ooops, how embarassing. Just reread the article. Edwards won the second prefs? Assuming the second preferences hadn't already become the first by the time people went to the polls, I guess I was wrong about this article. Sorry, Eric.
I still think Kucinich should have had equal coverage, at least until yesterday, and TPM's treatment of him was shabby.

RockGolf wrote on January 4, 2008 10:27 AM:

Deep down, I'm still scared about a repeat of the 1968 scenario. An almost-dream liberal/reform candidate as the de facto Democrat nominee who then gets assassinated.
Sad but true, both leading Democrats will have large targets on them from nutcases who cannot accept either a woman or a black man as president.

take back the country wrote on January 4, 2008 10:46 AM:

I have the same fear, but nutcases had nothing to do with it unless you count the fascist rich powers who benefit as nutcases.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 10:47 AM:

American voters don't care about issues.

JoeB wrote on January 4, 2008 11:36 AM:

While all you Hill slashers are kissing each others ass, we are giving the Republicans the next Presidency. My wife and I live in two states,[Tn.& Fl.] and I see no indication that a Black person can win in either! We supported a good black Rep. running Tn.[Ford] and he was beaten by a CROOK[made 16 million one year-paid no taxes] I attented rallies ,donated money,organized vote get togethers,and we voted!!! THIS COUNTRY WILL NOT ELECT A BLACK MAN PRESIDENT. I have lived and worked in 25 states building large complex projects wher almost always Our company was the largest employer in the area, if not the state. Good Luck

Juanito wrote on January 4, 2008 11:52 AM:

Being thoroughly unfamiliar with the Iowa caucus system, I wonder whether first-timers, supposedly of one or the other party, were actually registered to vote with the local county, and if so, exactly which party affiliation they had stated.

Given that, could it be possible that some of the first-time Dem caucusers were really Repugs? And that they had not had a life changing change in their political worldview and actually were there purposefully to vote for Obama and scew the whole result and after-effect?

If that were possible under the Iowa caucus system, it would be pure Rove.

Pat Kelly wrote on January 4, 2008 12:22 PM:

Juanita: Your scenario is possible but unlikely. GOPers could vote for Democrats, but the Caucuses occurred simultaneously in different places - like different rooms in the same school. Doors were locked to keep people from joining late. And what Repub candidate could spare any supporters out of their own party? None.

Bo J wrote on January 4, 2008 1:00 PM:

JoeB wrote at 11:36:

THIS COUNTRY WILL NOT ELECT A BLACK MAN PRESIDENT.

...
Until we do.

Joe wrote on January 4, 2008 1:15 PM:

Since both Kucinich and Richardson, who surely combined have over 10% of the voters on their side (R. with his strong get out of Iraq now stance and experience), encouraged their supporters to vote for Obama, the fact he won Iowa (no shoo-in to the presidency in the past, btw ... but hey, Iowa is over, let's skip to November!) is far from surprising, is it?

deuce wrote on January 4, 2008 1:29 PM:

Juanito -
good insight, but I was a the chair of my caucus last night - 75% increased turnout from '04, and Obama had 50% - and these folks were not Republicans...

Those few that were were definitely of the "repentant variety".

You could do mischief at a Caucus, but it sure wasn't happening in mine.

daCascadian wrote on January 4, 2008 1:42 PM:

I share the fear of RockGolf & take back the country

And JoeB needs to take a stress pill and join reality. Screw the racists in the southeast. Time to move into the future & leave them behind.

"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today." - Isaac Asimov

petermalex wrote on January 4, 2008 1:46 PM:

The experience at my precinct in Iowa City was that Edwards won big on second choicers. The first tally had Edwards at 124, Hillary at 120 and Obama at 260. At the end, Edwards had picked up 58 to 182; Obama had picked up 47 to 307; and Hillary had picked up exactly 9. With the odd math used at Democratic caucuses, Obama ended up with 6 delegates, Edwards with 3 and Clinton with 3. This is only one precinct, but it usually parallels the state pretty well. And this also suggests not only that Hillary failed to pick up second-choicers, but that she may have done even less well with voters than the the close delegate count reflects.

petermalex wrote on January 4, 2008 1:59 PM:

Juanito: In order to participate in the D caucus, you would have to register as a D. Forms have to be filled out at the caucus to change registration from one party to another, or from independent to either party. I don't see that happening in large numbers here.

Something else to keep in mind about Iowa: the caucuses are actually pretty good at cutting out the "non-viable" candidates. If a candidate can't win supporters in all the face-to-face meetings in coffee houses and living rooms, s/he is not a credible candidate. That said, the results don't mean quite as much at the top. You can't pick a front runner or eliminate any of the three top finishers on the basis of the caucus results. The good news is that voters in the coming primaries still have a powerful influence on who will be the nominee, which is as it should be. We in Iowa enjoy the opportunity to meet all the candidates and are proud to contribute to the process, but I don't think anyone here believes that the caucuses do, or should, decide the nominee.

Jeff Winchell wrote on January 4, 2008 2:57 PM:

DTM,

Yes, I agree with the IA 2nd choice vote greatly influencing the NH vote. It seems to me that Edwards gets a 10 point bump from that in NH, putting him right in the thick of it again.

Though I fear that if we have a NH finish that says
37 Obama
30 Edwards
29 Clinton

that the MSM will STILL be talking all about Hillary and completely ignoring Edwards.

I think it will take a bunch of sharp whacks on the head before they wake up (look how long it took them to realize the Iraq War was a gross mistake).

Someone should make a MSM Pundit Whacker so we can go around and whack people on the head who make simplistic statements so typical of the MSM Punditocracy (though made of foam because we hope that their problem is learned behavior, and not genetic).

Paulie wrote on January 4, 2008 3:08 PM:

Here's the thing I don't understand and perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Going into the Iowa caucus, all of the MSM were saying that the polls projected a virtual dead heat between Obama, Clinton and Edwards. Even if Obama "got out the vote" more than the others, these are people that would (or could) still be included in most polls. So my question is, how come the polls were off by so much? I know they have a margin of error built in to them but the 38-30-29 scores are nowhere near a virtual dead-heat. Am I missing something?

lonesomerobot wrote on January 4, 2008 3:20 PM:

dear joeb,
i live in tennessee also. ford ran an absolutely stupid campaign here as a "centrist" (dlc) democrat, didn't respond forcefully enough to the 'call me harold' ad, and then pulled the stupid stunt confronting corker at one of his rallies. he was uninspiring, was easily painted as the establishment candidate who spent half of his life in d.c., and made voters have to basically choose between the white republican who campaigned as a moderate or the black democrat who campaigned as a moderate.

in a red state voting to replace their former republican senate leader, who do you think wins?

also, i hope the fact that obama is black doesn't prevent YOU from voting for him if he is the eventual nominee, because it sounds like what you're saying isn't that america has a problem voting for a black man, it's that you do.

before jfk was elected people said america wouldn't elect a catholic. i seriously don't think it matters anymore.

bittern wrote on January 4, 2008 3:23 PM:

Paulie, a likely possibility is that many people who told the pollster that they would vote for Clinton and Edwards failed to turn out, while the Obama supporters did.

rssrai wrote on January 4, 2008 6:45 PM:

The dems are going to pick the wrong candidate again. JRE is the most electable candidate. Obama will lose Ohio and Florida if Huckabee is the repug nominee. Huckabee could very well win by the biggest margins ever. You need a populist to beat a populist.

Liam wrote on January 4, 2008 9:05 PM:

Second choice votes are useless. They create a false sense of support. Stop and think what they really mean. A person did not choose you, but the person they really wanted was not viable in that particular caucus room. If they had their way, they would never vote for you.

Those second choice votes in Iowa in 2004 were what made Edwards look stronger than he really turned out to be. When he went on to all the other places where you better be the first choice of voters, he fell flat on his face, and he will do so again this time.

StirFry wrote on January 4, 2008 10:57 PM:

Well! It's definitely refreshingly different to see a post about Edwards on TPM! Sometimes I thought I was reading the WaPo or the NYT.

Edwards came in second when according to the MSN, he shouldn't have even placed. None of the other candidates they ignored while pouring ink and pixels on Obama and Clinton did, after all.

As to what will happen now, I haven't a clue. I do know that the media will continue to ignore Edwards, unless he wins NH by a very LARGE margin (anything less they'll think up some excuse). Not that I think that will happen; in fact, I have no clue WHAT will happen in NH and beyond.

Despite this, I'm proud of the Iowans and their caucuses. Wish we had caucuses in Maryland.

Blue in IA wrote on January 5, 2008 8:31 AM:

Liam, how do you know that the second choice isn't the "real" choice? What a second choice system does, among other things, is allow people to express solidarity for candidacies that might be otherwise ignored. Allowing second-choice votes means that people can vote first-choice for a particular issue (Kucinich for anti-war stance in 2004 or UHC), or express the sentiment that they don't want someone's candidacy to end in Iowa, and then move back to their equally or even more deeply-held loyalty. You can't assume that second-choice is always second-best -- Iowans use the system to make different types of political statements.

cal1942 wrote on January 7, 2008 1:41 PM:

It's the 7th and no one will read this but:

The actual delgate take in Iowa was:

Obama 16
Clinton 15
Edwards 14

These numbers are what will come out of Iowa's state convention and brought to the National convention.

The difference between Edwards and Clinton probably came about in the math of breaking this all down into delegates selected in individual precincts.

A precinct won by a wide margin can only yield a finite number of delegates to the state convention.

So far as second choice is concerned, a lot of people above spun that phenomenon more by emotion and advocacy than by reason.

The difference between a Dodd supporter and an Edwards supporter or Biden/Edwards may hinge on nothing more than a single factor. A Dodd supporter may have been someone impressed with his princiopled stand on FISA. A Biden supporter may have been impressed by his sharp remarks during one of the debates.

Those people ended up supporting a candidate they believe in save for the small factor that had originally captured their hearts and led them to support a Biden or a Dodd or a Kucinich.

I don't believe for an instant that any of those second choice votes represent soft support. In fact I believe they represent very solid support for that second choice.

cal1942 wrote on January 7, 2008 2:54 PM:

Again it's the 7th and no one will read this but:

Someone above said -

"On both likability and the issues, Edwards can beat Hillary but I doubt he can beat Obama."

Actually a national poll finalized on the 29th tallied favorable/unfavorable this way:

Favorable Unfavorable

McCain 53 27

Edwards 49 42

Clinton 48 50

Obama 43 51


Now I know that this stuff can turn. But barring a massive spectacular NATIONAL event those numbers will turn a little more slowly than polls in a single political/geographical area and don't always translate into votes.

Interesting that the undecided (do the math) is only 2 points for Clinton. Though Clinton's numbers could move it seems to me that people have already formed hard opinions and simply won't listen. Their are no brain receptors left to accept any argument. Very unfortunate and not just for Hillary Clinton. Unfortunate for the nation because it demonstrates that when the press is snarky and/or adopts a storyline, it sticks.

The same can be said of McCain. Our opinions of McCain are driven by actual reality, but the press loves him and it shows in that poll.

Interesting also that the press hasn't really been able to completely bury Edwards despite their best efforts.

Despite the Iowa and what will probably be the New Hampshire reults I don't see Obama's unfavorable changing that much. I think that much of the 6 undecided points may go to favorable due to Iowa and New Hampshire and the press frenzy.

I believe that the closer negatives get to positives AND come close to adding to 100, the smaller the potential change.

McCain and Edwards have the most room to move, Clinton has very little chance to move.

The blunt, sad fact is that both Clinton and Obama bump up against a high level of unmoveable bigotry and in Clinton's case a press that has never been fair. How many times have we read articles or watched TV reports that do not, at some point, alude to an established, unreasoning dislike of Ms. Clinton. Too few.

Put aside the emotion and euphoria and think clearly. A Clinton or Obama candidacy in the general election (say against McCain) would be a terribly daunting task.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)