« Edwards' Voice | Main | Maxspeak's Greatest Hits »
September 01, 2007
The Deal With Iowa
At the beginning of August, the University of Iowa did a rather interesting poll. They asked Democrats and Republicans who they were supporting in the primaries, and showed how the numbers progressed under a series of increasingly tight screens. Shown below are the numbers for the 469 registered Democrats, the 425 Democrats who didn't rule out going to the caucus, and the 319 Democrats most likely to go to the caucus:
469 RV | 425 CG | 319 LCG | |
Clinton | 30.0 | 26.8 | 24.8 |
Obama | 20.4 | 22.3 | 19.1 |
Edwards | 16.1 | 22.1 | 26.0 |
Richardson | 5.5 | 8.5 | 9.5 |
As likelihood of caucus attendance increases, so does support for Edwards (and Richardson). This isn't surprising -- the highly interested voters who go to caucuses pay attention to candidates outside the spotlight. Obama's sweet spot seems to be among the middle category of probable caucusgoers, while Hillary's support slides as you get closer and closer to the caucusgoing population. (For reasons unknown to me, RealClearPolitics continues to display the results with 425 respondents, despite the fact that the pollsters say that sample is "not directly comparable to the March UI Poll sample of likely caucus goers.")
A far smaller number of people turn out for caucuses than even the last sample projects. To quote Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com:
even the "most likely" caucus-goer definitions for this survey project to a combined Democratic and Republican turnout of 1.1 million participants - half the adults in Iowa. By comparison, Democratic turnout was 147,000 in 2004, and Republican turnout was 90,000 in 1988.
While the 'likely caucusgoer' population is about 2/3 of registered voters, only a single-digit percentage of registered voters usually turn out for caucuses. Poll respondents are known to overreport their past turnout, and predictions of future turnout are similarly likely to be too high. Still, there are good reasons for pollsters not to screen any tighter -- not only would it be very difficult to construct an appropriately tight screen, but the number of respondents would be small enough that the margin of error would go through the roof.
So what does this all mean? Well, if we take these three sets of data and try to extrapolate the opinions of the small group of folk who will trudge through the Iowa snows to choose the Democrats' next nominee, things look really good for John Edwards. The closer you get to the <10% of people who will attend a caucus, the higher Edwards' support rises. Any reasonable extrapolation you want to make from his numbers in the three polls suggests that Edwards is positioned for victory in Iowa.
As an Edwards fan putting up a post like this, there's always a question -- is it a good idea to say all this publicly? Isn't it better to keep people in the dark about stuff like this so that the surprise gives my Johnny the biggest possible boost coming out of Iowa? Well, I'm just one guy writing on someone else's blog, and I don't think I can move the conventional wisdom very far.
And even if I were a bigger blogger than I am, I wouldn't worry overmuch. For entirely understandable reasons of demographic novelty, the media focus until Iowa is going to be on Hillary and Obama. (The Republican obsession with Hillary also plays some role.) The larger media narrative simply isn't going to include Edwards until then. But that narrative will shatter against the hard results of the first primary contest. You don't have to overcome the estimates of the sharp-eyed poll-watchers -- you just have to surprise the broader media, which doesn't do that much fine-grained poll analysis and isn't especially perceptive. If he wins Iowa, John Edwards will get his week in the sunshine no matter what I post here.
September 1, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Um. I'm an Edwards supporter too. But I do find the way you refer to him as "my Johnny" slightly creepy.
Posted by: Battlepanda | Sep 1, 2007 12:51:45 PM
I also find it interesting. Name recognition and nostalgia for Bill among less interested Democrats may account for some Clinton votes.
I think Edwards supporters in Iowa are strong supporters will will go in a snow storm to caucus for Edwards.
Good post, Neil.
Posted by: Tom Wells | Sep 1, 2007 1:00:40 PM
Does it help that I've been on pulling the "Pick Edwards" bandwagon for over three and a half years? At a certain point, one gets that way.
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Sep 1, 2007 1:00:52 PM
Good post, and don't worry about saying what out loud what we Edwards supporters say privately, that Edwards is leading in Iowa. As long as there are crappy polls like ARG and Zogby to skew averages, there will be the a widely held belief that Edwards and Clinton are tied--a belief that will produce the kind of bounce that comes with a "surprise." No matter what, whether the poll monkeys tell us that Edwards is 2 points ahead or 2 points behind, he'll exceed expectations.
An Edwards victory in Iowa immediately alters the narrative, creating the prospect of a underdog victory against two cashrich-celebrities, who'll be subjected to What-happened-to stories.
Yeah, Edwards has to win Iowa, but the other two have to come in second.
Posted by: david mizner | Sep 1, 2007 1:10:07 PM
It seems a little iffy to be assuming the Edwards number will necessarily increase with further filtering. After all, the Obama number first rose and then fell. And all these numbers have pretty large error bars on them, even if you consider only sampling error, which could be the least of the problems.
Posted by: KCinDC | Sep 1, 2007 3:14:53 PM
Well I certainly hope the optimistic predictions turn out to be true. It would certainly have a transformative effect on the debate and that's the first step towards the transformative politics that so many desire.
On a purely speculative note, how does Edwards stack up in comparison with RFK? I'm thinking of RFK"s broad appeal across class, racial, ethnic and sectional divisions with his call for civic, economic and social justice. Is there enough political consonance between Edwards and RFK that the former could benefit from association with the legacy of the latter? Or is this hopelessly retro, boomerish thinking?
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 1, 2007 4:06:29 PM
Just came across this:
Below is a quote from Bobby Kennedy on what the Gross National Product means and more importantly what it does not mean. He would have a made a fine economist...
"Too much and too long, we seem to have surrendered community excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things. Our gross national product ... if we should judge America by that - counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts the destruction of our redwoods and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.
"Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans."
Robert F. Kennedy Address, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, March 18, 1968
Posted by: WB Reeves | Sep 1, 2007 4:26:47 PM
The trendlines at pollster dot com show Edwards' Iowa support steadily declining since his peak in the Spring.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Always be wary of extrapolating from the results of one poll.
Posted by: br | Sep 1, 2007 4:55:56 PM
BR:
Has Edwards even ran an ad in Iowa yet? I haven't heard about one going up yet.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Sep 1, 2007 7:29:16 PM
better yet, what polls are included since that's the point of this diary in part
Posted by: akaison | Sep 1, 2007 8:14:48 PM
Excellent post, although I still would bet anyone a beer Edwards is gonzo by Lincoln's Birthday. After Iowa comes N.H., where he will finish third, come what may.
Posted by: JMG | Sep 2, 2007 9:01:56 AM
JMG, I would seriously counsel against guessing where anyone will finish in the NH primary until after the Iowa primary has been completed. It's even more pointless to look at the polls for states beyond NH.
Posted by: soullite | Sep 2, 2007 10:00:31 AM
soullite what all of this tells me is really more that Americans have no sense of history whatsoever.
Posted by: akaison | Sep 2, 2007 12:31:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.