Republicans:
Huckabee 30%
Romney 20%
McCain 15%
Thompson 15%
Paul 10%
10% uncommitted
Iowa Conservative ministers carry the day and instead of racial slippage, we have Mormon slippage. I actually anticipate a higher number of uncommitteds simply because no one seems to like their second choices, but I cannot figure out where it comes from so I leave it at 10%.
Democrats
Obama 36%
Clinton 30%
Edwards 27%
Uncommitted 7%
While everyone seems obsessed with Yepsen’s inane ranting about college students from out of state, the reality is that there was a rally for Obama in Iowa City with 10,000 people on December 28th when there aren’t really any students around other than those from the local area. I’ve seen that kind of energy once before and that was in 2004. No, not in Iowa, but in the Illinois US Senate Democratic Primary. There’s not as much of an upside in Iowa as what happened on election day in 2004, but there’s enough to give Obama a clear win. The other two I believe are topped out at about their sensitive estimator on Pollster simply because neither is new to Iowa voters.
Why so high for uncommitted? In 2004, only 0.1% of delegates went uncommitted. If uncommitted is not viable in the first run, can all the NotHillaryOrObamaOrEdwards people combine to form an uncommitted group?
I would believe 7% for “Other/Uncommitted”, but not uncommitted itself. But it feels a tad high. And I think between the second choice and the rural tilt of the rules, that edwards will finish at least second.
Some of the polls show the remaining 15-20% of Iowans giving edwards a boost, but others show an even split. If it’s the former, than I think it’s edwards by a nose; if the latter, than a sizeable win for O.
I forgot how much the uncommitted have been reduced. As late as 1992 12% were uncommitted. You are probably right on there not being that much uncommitted–and it may be that small margin might go to other candidates who reach threshold elsewhere.
My favorite uncommitted bit is Jimmy Carter. He didn’t “win” the Iowa caucuses, he came in second by a big margin to uncommitted. A simpler time, etc., etc.
Not sure how the Repub. side works but I thought in reading how the Dem caucuses work that the field keeps getting winnowed down to reduce “uncommitted” and “not viable”.
It’s how Edwards came in second in 2004. Dean would’ve been second had Kucinich been more viable, but with Kucinich not viable his supporters went to Edwards (at DK’s request) and popped Edwards into the #2 spot and then Dean did his geography bee bit and the rest is history (I’d love to see the winner of Iowa’s caucuses do that same thing this year in jest…).
With the large field we have the top three all essentially tied and then four more candidates (5 if you count the Alaskan) who don’t appear to be viable. No single one of those second tier candidates appears likely to be able to accumulate support from among the other second tier guys’ supporters, so it’s likely they’ll split off and their supporters will each go separate ways based on what their candidates ask them to do or what their own heart guides them to do.
Not sure about Dodd, but I see supporters for Biden and Richardson (Richardson currently being near the top of the 2nd tier pack as it is) going to Clinton… and in such a tight race that’s a huge swing for her — certainly enough to top the Register’s 6-point Obama “lead”.
(And Kucinich, polling just above asterisk, has already asked his supporters to back Obama if DK isn’t viable.)
We won’t know til tomorrow night whether or not caucus-goers are “released” to follow their conscience or are directed to support another candidate should a caucus meeting go to a second round.
Edwards is out of the race if he doesn’t win and Obama does, right?
Won’t Obama become the anti-HRC candidate?
Edwards needs a bounce to even get in the game in NH, SC and NV, right?
If HRC wins, the number two candidate is the anti-HRC candidate for a little while, but it’s functionally over.
If Edwards wins, I predict it will deflate Obama in NH and SC, but I doubt it will make Edwards strong enough to win. It might make sense to HRC to release some supporters to Edwards to make sure Obama doesn’t win. Of course, if HRC is significantly lower than the second place candidate then she looks weak.
Iowa gives us so much intrigue, even if few participate.
will NOT make Edwards strong enough to win.
==It’s how Edwards came in second in 2004. Dean would’ve been second had Kucinich been more viable, but with Kucinich not viable his supporters went to Edwards (at DK’s request) and popped Edwards into the #2
Kucinich was only polling at 4% and Edwards was 13% better than Dean so that wasn’t what threw it. Edwards strength was his presence in nearly all of the rural precincts which individually didn’t have many votes, but together made up a good portion.
I’d also say that Richardson’s supporters are more likely to go the Obama and Edwards–they are the people who are most rabid about getting out of Iraq even though their candidate is very much establishment.
The notion of being instructed to do something is far overstated by the national press and others–it’s really more like some will suggest, but you are on your own when your candidate doesn’t meet viability. That might mean you stick as a group if you are close, or it might mean your friends in other camps convince you.
After reading some more stuff from Pollster, let me say this:
There are good reasons to think that Obama voters, being somewhat younger, having somewhat more education, and somewhat more money, are more likely to travel over holidays, and that the Xmas polls understated his support, which means those polls make it look closer than it really is. So he may be ahead by a good five points, in which case it’s over.
Carl: I think if it’s Obama-Edwards-Clinton in IA, especially if it’s Obama 37, Edwards 36, Clinton 27 (not that that’s likely), I think Edwards might try to soldier on to NH, on the theory that he could come in second again, knock Clinton down, and become the “not Obama” alternative. But for the most part, yes, it’s one-and-done, or probably one-and-stay-in-through-SC-just-for-grins, for Edwards.
Tradesports for Iowa has Obama 55, Clinton 35, Edwards 20, which feels about right.
After New Hampshire, assuming Obama looks viable, he takes South Carolina fairly handily based on African-American voters who need a signal out of either Iowa or New Hampshire to believe white people will vote for him. Once that happens, the migration towards him will be fast. If he takes both, it could be amazing. Nevada probably goes to Clinton and then we end up on February 5th where the black vote nationally will be fascinating to watch. A lot can happen, but if Obama takes Iowa or New Hampshire, he’s in play for the 5th with at least two wins under his belt and a constituency that will see a history opportunity.
One thing here: in SC, white voters accounted for 51% of the electorate. So, it’s plausible to believe that Clinton, who still has some strength among African-Americans, could get 70% of the white vote and 30% of the black vote, where Obama would get the reverse. Edwards, of course, would be in much more dire straits in the Deep South; if he doesn’t win Iowa and either NH or NV, there’s no way for him to win without knocking Clinton out.
Yeah, so, if it’s Clinton-Obama on the 2/5, my scorecard gives Clinton AR, NY, NJ, and CT, with Obama getting IL, AL, GA, and UT (a poll this summer showed him way ahead out there). That leaves a number of battlegrounds in the midwest & plains (KS, NE, ND, MO, OK), plus CA, AZ, and NM, and CO, plus a few others here and there. I’m not clear on how that would work out.
Time makes the memory fuzzy…
Right you are, but in the final polling before the 2004 IA Caucus, Dean was only 3 points back from Edwards (Kerry 26%, Edwards 23, Dean 20). Final results showed much more differentiation with Kerry 38, Edwards 32, and Dean 18.
I don’t recall other stories of second tier candidates asking their supporters to break for specific frontrunners, but Kucinich’s actual caucus numbers in 2004 were double his polling (8% caucus, 4% in polls). The difference between Edwards’ caucus numbers and polling was 9 pts.
It’s imprecise, to be sure, but I don’t think the effect can be discounted in the least.
That said, Edwards has consistently (for several weeks at least) been polling #1 among “second choices” which could make things interesting.
—
Other random thoughts…
– I don’t think Clinton is going to end up non-viable in any more than perhaps a handful of precincts (that’s likely true of any of the top 3) so whether or not she asks her supporters to somehow block Obama supporters is likely moot.
– Who knows what the brinkmanship is behind the scenes but if Richardson (as the top among the second tier) is making backroom deals for second choicing it could mean the difference between Sec. of State, VP, or a return to the NM governor’s mansion for him… just saying.
– Loyalty to a candidate is a funny thing. You would’ve expected 2004’s Kucinich supporters to have Dean as their second choice in the first place… but history proves that assumption wrong.
– I don’t know that the press is in fact “overplaying” the ‘second choice’ effect. But there are too many unknowns at this point. Whether turnout is high, average, or low and whether it’s a bunch of first timers or old hats could all influence the viability/second choice scenarios… only time will tell.
– Whoever has more “states” by 2/5 will likely win 2/5 (net). To me, that implies whoever wins Iowa takes the nomination. There isn’t enough time and very few of the candidates (on either side) have enough money to change momentum before then. And, given the constant drumbeat of “Iowa is too close to predict” there will be a lot of mo’ for whoever pulls off the (sure-to-be-labeled) “stunning win” for the weekend heading into NH. (Recall that Kerry wasn’t solid in NH until after IA.)
– Smart news crews will have cameras set up on the interstate from Illinois into Iowa looking for college kids coming back to town, etc. 😉 I’ve read several stories indicating students understand the importance of attending the caucuses — “especially after 2004’s caucus results,” they seem to all say — but I’ll believe when I see it.
PS: 2004 Des Moines Register “final” polling stats and caucus results are from Keith Olbermann’s 1/2/08 Countdown.
===- Loyalty to a candidate is a funny thing. You would’ve expected 2004’s Kucinich supporters to have Dean as their second choice in the first place… but history proves that assumption wrong.
As a data geek, let me say, we don’t really know this–we simply know the effect between the candidates was similar, but without serious exit polling, we cannot know. There’s another aspect of Dean’s disaster–at only 18% statewide, he fell below threshold in several places and likely many of those went to Edwards too–especially in the rural areas where Edwards cleaned up.
Part of my take on it is simply being in Iowa and knowing how people think about caucuses. A big thing is how effective are the campaign organizations to direct people to the second tier candidate. If you look at Kucinich, BIden and Richardson operations (all rumored or announced as heading towards Barack) they aren’t that strong so their impact is unclear. I’d rather have them than not have them, but Iowans are pretty prickly about being told what to do.
OK, you win. 😉 I agree in principle if you couldn’t tell by all the caveats I tried adding in. I am admittedly discombobulated on the second choice effect. The candidates may have been rumored or even announced to be backing Obama, but intuition still tells me Richardson has some loyalty to Bill and that Biden’s “experience” in Washington gives him more time in having worked with both Clintons…. Plus, Edwards keeps showing up as a favorable second choicer (though I’ve never seen breakdowns on who those people’s first choices are; thus I can’t tell whether they support “viable” candidates or not).
Here’s another caveat: the Trib reports it may be Clinton weather — warming to the 20s plus dry/clear — which in their sexist opinion apparently means older women are more likely to caucus and thus to caucus for Hillary…….
Keep an eye on Voices for Creative Non-Violence’s caucus activities!
Visit:
http://www.desmoinescatholicworker.org/huckabeearrests.html
http://www.desmoinescatholicworker.org/sodapopiowacaucuses.html