comment #1

thatrader says ...

Here's hoping Newsweek is right and that Edwards is the sleeper. I'd love to see him take Iowa.

comment #2

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Each of the big three Democratic candidates can point to recent polls that show him or her in the lead. The Des Moines Register poll is respected by other pollsters and called the 2004 final results (if not the margins) correctly.

The two differences between 2004 and 2008 are the fact that the caucuses are much closer to Jan. 1 than last year, making polling over the holidays (when many people are traveling or unavailable) more difficult and that there is a contested Republican caucus this year as well. Independents and even Republicans can decide to attend the Democratic caucus and register on-site, but they also could go to the Republican caucus or sit the whole thing out.

The results that will be reported Thursday are not raw vote totals (which aren't kept) but delegate totals, and the delegates are determined after an extended period of arm twisting and calculated maneuvering. Any candidate who does not get 15% of the vote in a precinct (25% in smaller precincts) won't get a delegate, so how Biden's, Dodd's and Richardson's supporters go will have an effect in the eventual totals. Also, broad statewide support wins more delegates than heavy support in a few areas.

Howard Dean's downfall in 2004 was partly because his supporters were overly concentrated in a few areas, mainly college campus precincts, and because they (and the precinct captains) weren't as adept at striking deals during the haggling phase of the evening. If the same thing happens to Obama (or anyone here), their final delegate totals could me significantly less than their percentage of the original raw vote. A skilled precinct captain who adopts the right strategy can gain a delegate in a number of Iowa's 1800 precincts. Do that enough times and the election swings.

It all boils down to who shows up, where they show up, and how adept the candidates (and their field leaders)are in the strategy and tactics required to do well in Iowa caucusing.

comment #3

Silverscreenvideos says ...

I'd add that each precinct is allotted delegates based on population and how the precinct voted in the 2004 general election and the 2006 governor's election. So it doesn't matter how many people actually show up to caucus this time (or how many showed up in 2004); the precinct's delegate total has been predetermined. So it's very possible that 100 voters in some precincts may be able to choose as many delegates as 500 or 1000 in others.

comment #4

siowafc says ...

Not even inclusing any of the other intangible variables involved with in Iowa caucus race and focusing on this poll alone, the margin of error is +/- 3.5%, meaning that Obama could be at 28.5%, and Hilary Clinton would be...also at 28.5%. Edwards would be trailing by 1%. This race is still a statistical tie, and anyone trying to claim victory or that other candidates ot lagging from a poll like this--so close with so much in the air at the moment--is foolish, plain and simple. It all depends on which random group of 800 Iowians you ask. This race will be undecided until Thursday night.

comment #5

siowafc says ...

Not even inclusing any of the other intangible variables involved with in Iowa caucus race and focusing on this poll alone, the margin of error is +/- 3.5%, meaning that Obama could be at 28.5%, and Hilary Clinton would be...also at 28.5%. Edwards would be trailing by 1%. This race is still a statistical tie, and anyone trying to claim victory or that other candidates or lagging from a poll like this--so close with so much in the air at the moment--is foolish, plain and simple. It all depends on which random group of 800 Iowians you ask. This race will be undecided until Thursday night.

comment #6

nemo says ...

Look at that left-most column: 29% Edwards, 23% Obama, 21% Clinton.

I had no idea there was ever a DS Register poll showing Edwards beating Obama and Hillary, and by such a margin.

There is a good chance that there will be no front runner coming out of Iowa, and the caucuses will be a 3-way draw.

comment #7

Silverscreenvideos says ...

Margin of error means that there is a high percentage (usually 95-98%) that the results are within the margin of error. So, if the poll says Obam's totals are 30% with a 3% margin of error, it means that there is a 95-98% chance his total is between 27 and 33 percent.

The more polls there are, the more of a chance of an outlier, which is that one poll in 20 or 30 that is actually outside the margin of error (just like the longer you play roulette, the better the chance you'll eventually see a 0 come up).

And the problem all these polls have is the problem in identifying what a "likely" caucus goer is. They do screen, but screening methods differ and it's not an exact science. Add to that the difficulty I mentioned above in matching initial raw vote totals to final delegate totals and the bottom line is no one knows with any degree of certainty. Factors like the weather (the worse it is, the lower the turnout) and the football game that night will make a difference. A caucus is not a primary, where you take five minutes sometime in a twelve hour voting day to vote. You have to be there in the evening and stay for 2-3 hours until it's all over. There's no absentees, no provision for people who have to work that night or who can't get a baby sitter, no provision for anyone still traveling.

comment #8

jeffmcm says ...

I would be a lot more interested in Wells's daily "Yay Obama!" post if they were about the issues than about the polls.

comment #9

BurmaShave says ...

I dont know why anyone in their right mind would be hoping for Edwards. He has neither the resources nor the platform to sustain himself in further primaries, so his victory would settle nothing and hurt Obama, thereby helping to ensure a Clinton victory. Since Obama is already leading or contending in New Hampshire and South Carolina (Johnny Edwards' home state), an Iowa victory would be a huge boost for him.

Edwards has some progressive vision and is developing or at least pretending to develop a fiery anti-corporate spirit (witness Nader's endorsement), but no matter how well he does, he would merely join the long list of carcasses of Iowa victors. Just ask President Gephardt.

It would seem for progressives the choice is clear: Barack Obama. He has the resources to make it to the showdown, as Plainview would say.

comment #10

Silverscreenvideos says ...

It would seem for progressives the choice is clear: Barack Obama.

Obama is no progressive. He is a smooth talking centrist who will be, by design or default, more conservative than Hillary and far more so than Edwards. Obama's positions, on those few occasions when he actually is forced to take one instead of voting "present," are very mainstream. He masks it with empty happy talk about hope and a new vision.

The problem, as every real progressive knows, is that you can't deal with Republicans by trying to come to some meaningful compromise. They will dig in their heels and accuse you of being an obstructionist. Obama's tendency to twist and turn will get clobber him in the general election when the Republican noise machine won't give him the free pass that the mainstream media has to date.

Think about one thing. All the conservative pundits are offering Obama advice and talking about how his vision is a wonderful thing for this country. Does anyone think they would do this if they actually wanted him to win the election?

comment #11

christian says ...

Obama is for people who like to use the word "re-branded" when describing our breaking political system. No thanks. To quote Frank Bullitt, "Sell whatever you want, but don't sell it to me."

comment #12

BurmaShave says ...

Notice neither of you refuted my point that Edwards has no chance, so then... what? Fuck it, if you guys are that far gone, just start the revolution.

comment #13

Mgmax says ...

I can't wait until this election is over, so that we can begin the process of attacking the winner as the most stupid and evil malefactor ever to occupy his office.

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

Silver: "Obama is no progressive. He is a smooth talking centrist who will be, by design or default, more conservative than Hillary and far more so than Edwards."

I doubt anyone outside of Lieberman is going to be more conservative than Hillary. Moving on, Edwards voted for the war and even let Kerry endorse it. So how is Obama, who opposed the war from the start, *more* conservative than him?

"Obama's positions, on those few occasions when he actually is forced to take one instead of voting "present," are very mainstream."

I don't care whether they're mainstream, as long as they're not spineless. That clearly hasn't been the case with Hillary or John.

"The problem, as every real progressive knows, is that you can't deal with Republicans by trying to come to some meaningful compromise. They will dig in their heels and accuse you of being an obstructionist."

Fortunately, that issue will be resolved when more of them lose their seats in Congress this year.

"Obama's tendency to twist and turn will get clobber him in the general election when the Republican noise machine won't give him the free pass that the mainstream media has to date."

It doesn't matter what the Republican noise machine does, because no one listens to it anymore outside of the fascist wing of the party.

"All the conservative pundits are offering Obama advice and talking about how his vision is a wonderful thing for this country. Does anyone think they would do this if they actually wanted him to win the election?"

No, but I'm guessing they're tired of having to be ignored by the "experts" in their own party.

comment #15

BurmaShave says ...

Lord and Saints protect me, D.Z. is exactly right.

comment #16

SpinDozer says ...

'I can't wait until this election is over, so that we can begin the process of attacking the winner as the most stupid and evil malefactor ever to occupy his office.'

It would take a minimum of 7 years to approach W's claim to the throne.