I think I'm going to outsource my NYE Des Moines Register poll blogging to my distinguished colleague Marc Ambinder who has some doubts about the partisan composition of the sample.
« Happy Near Year! | Main | Who Rules Iran? »
Register Poll
01 Jan 2008 03:17 am
Comments (15)
What immediately strikes me as damn odd is Edwards' placement. What the hell?
That 60% rate of first-time caucus goers is downright bizarre to me. And the high percentage of non-Dems (about 40%, I believe). What is going on?
Abe,
"Faux" surge? Many various polls had him moving ahead over the past few weeks. Those are the same polls that once had Obama ahead.
The sad irony for me is that y'all have invested the DMR poll with mystical powers on the basis of one lucky result in 2004.
Problem is, once you did that, you introduced a self-fulfilling prophecy. Now the might DMR poll has spoken, everyone in Iowa will cast their votes with Obama's lead in mind. Americans like a winner, you know.
And so the progressive dream dies in an Iowa cornfield for another 4 years. Once Obama wins the Dem nomination we are guaranteed to see the President (Dem or Rep) introduce Social Security privatization as the major plank of his economic policies. Gotta love that Overton window.
"At the very least, this poll stops the faux "Edwards surge" spin"
Even with the "interesting" assumptions of the DMR poll, Edwards is up 3 points over the four days of the poll.
The beauty of a tracking poll is that even if the pollster is an idiot, they can still show you the momentum.
So even the DMR poll is showing Edwards surging over the past 96 hours.
This marks the third poll in the last 24 hours - DMR, Zogby, and Mason-Dixon - that all show Edwards surging in Iowa.
-----
As to the bizarre sample of the DMR poll:
Selzer deserves the benefit of the doubt based on her earlier caucus success. This poll smells really weird to me, but Selzer's odd assumptions should not be completely dismissed out of hand. We'll have to wait for Thursday to prove her crazy.
This whole thing is driving me completely nuts and I cannot wait for it to end. Should I be happy now? I was very happy with Dean leading four years ago, then pow! Happy is bad. If Obama wins Iowa I may vomit. Because I really really want him to win. I'm going to try and sleep now. Good night. Happy New Year.
"At the very least, this poll stops the faux "Edwards surge" spin"
From the DMR's David Yepsen:
"the nightly results show Obama's support flat over the last two nights, Clinton's declining each night, and Edwards' support increasing each night."
Are there any Democratic bloggers or commenters who think that nominating a candidate who attracts independent voters might be a good idea?
"Are there any Democratic bloggers or commenters who think that nominating a candidate who attracts independent voters might be a good idea?"
Sure. That's why I support Obama over Clinton, despite Obama being to the right of Clinton on policy and rhetoric.
But John Edwards is running to the left of the field and he does best in general election matchups against the GOP candidates. That's why the bulk of high-information Dems are supporting Edwards.
Obama is a wonderful half-loaf candidate. But this year, we've got a chance to get a whole-loaf.
I'm with Petey on this one. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for Obama to flesh out his gorgeous rhetoric with some concrete policy proposals, and all I've gotten (on the domestic side) is a not-very-good healthcare plan and mutterings about Social Security reform and kumbaya, all of which adds up to what Walter Shapiro brilliantly calls "nouvelle vague."
I'm willing to trust MY's take on Obama's foreign policy ideas: that Obama has assembled a deft team of advisers and therefore would implement a smart new approach after the disasters of the last seven years. And Edwards really hasn't been any more specific on foreign policy and national security than Obama.
That said, Edwards has consistently out-performed Obama in the debates, with crisp, tactical responses, a fighting passion and a more detailed vision of where he'd lead the country. And some of the polling indicates that Edwards is as electable as Obama, even though Republicans claim to like Obama more. (I'm certain the GOP's swoon over Obama, as exemplified by Brooks and Sullivan and other pundits, will peter out once McCain emerges as the Republican nominee.)
The cynic in me believes we're all being taken in by this notion that Obama transcends partisanship and will therefore capture the votes of weary moderate Republicans and Independents. Once there's a clear nominee-in-waiting, the Republicans will come home and prepare for all-out war. They always do.
Edwards (and Clinton, too, for that matter) get this. I'm not sure Obama does.
From looking at the polls for the democrats and republicans, it may be that people want something different as Frank Rich had said in his column a couple a weeks ago. Nevertheless, the poll results are weird. I think that Edwards is going to continue to do better than Obama.
BryklynLibrul,
Obama's healthcare plan is very similar to Edwards' and Clinton's except that it doesn't have a mandate. As for lifting the cap on Social Security, I think that this is a good idea. I also think the payroll tax should change from being regressive to progressive. More people are impacted by the payroll tax than they are by income tax.
As for lifting the cap on Social Security, I think that this is a good idea.
Posted by MGJ | January 1, 2008 9:53 AM
I'm sorry you reminded me. As far as I can tell , a self-employed plumber who makes $115,000 would pay $2000 more Social Security tax. I think that's outrageous. Until millionaires and billionaires start paying their fair share for exploiting this country, that plumber is already paying too much.
MGJ:
Just to clarify: I don't care for Obama's plan because in theory its framework enables the insurance industry to continue its current practices of providing less or no coverage in the name of profits (as Krugman and others have pointed out). It's more of a "status quo" plan than either Edwards' or Clinton's, and as the parent of a child with a serious genetic disease, I know we're in desperate need of a more comprehensive plan. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent fighting my HMO over their desire to cut even the most basic medications that my child requires. Beyond stupid.
"as the parent of a child with a serious genetic disease, I know we're in desperate need of a more comprehensive plan. I can't tell you how many hours I've spent fighting my HMO over their desire to cut even the most basic medications that my child requires. Beyond stupid."
Edwards has started talking about Nataline Sarkisyan in his stump speech in a really beautiful way.
a self-employed plumber who makes $115,000 would pay $2000 more Social Security tax. I think that's outrageous.
The moaning of the rich on the educated-liberal blogs - Ygelsias or DeLong for example - is always a joy to behold. The tears of the top 15%.
I actually don't think the numbers should be dismissed so lightly. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this has been the longest primary in recent history, if not since Iowa became 1st-in-the-nation in the early 70's; that the campaigns have put more money and built more sophisticated organizations than we've ever seen before in Iowa; that Obama has aggressively gone after Independents and moderate Republicans; that Americans in general are more politically engaged now than they were in 2004.
In fact, we have plenty of evidence for _all_ of the above, especially the last bit (about everyone being more engaged).
Now, think of the results this way, instead of the gaudy "40%" numbers:
All those factors have added up to a very good possibility that 3% more of Iowa's population will go to the caucus this year than in 2004.
That doesn't seem that implausible at all, considering the fact that some polls have suggested voters have been twice as likely to be strongly engaged early on in the primary process, that Obama is so well liked among indies, etc etc.
As others have said, the proof is in the pudding, but you can frame the issue in a variety of ways, that all might favor one candidate over the over (Edwards was climbing day-by-day! Clinton actually leads if the voter make-up looks like 2004! But that lead is statistically insignficant and Obama is much stronger in 2nd-choice, so even then he probably would get the victory! etc etc).
Selzer claims that her formula has stayed the same, but the response right of independents has differed dramatically. Is that because, as they get engaged, they really like what Obama has to say? Was this just one of those "5%" polls where the results are actually outside the MOE? Is something larger going on that's centered around, maybe, general dissatisfaction with the gov't? Some of all of the above?
Dunno, but I certainly don't think the blanket skepticism that then reverts to "actually the poll shows my candidate is winning" is really the best reading...
Comments closed January 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't think that many independents will show up. Some will, some won't. But I am encouraged that the lowest Obama goes in the models is -2 to Clinton(whereas Edwards doesn't win any of them).
Couple that with the fact that Obama has an enormous Iowa organization that blankets every inch of the state(the largest of the 3), and I feel good about this. Obama is also caught up with Edwards in the second choice category.
At the very least, this poll stops the faux "Edwards surge" spin that never seemed to materialize. I would also point out that Edwards wasn't spinning when the over-Christman ARG poll showed Hillary at 30%.
Posted by Abe | January 1, 2008 3:47 AM