Both Obama and Clinton have dropped 6 points since the debate

[bigdarryl]

Well i guess this means people in Iowa don't like meaningful debates on issues http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/27/iowa.race/
In Iowa, it's a whole other presidential race - CNN.com

[Demeter]

1. I Rather Suspect The Dislike Of Unseemly Bickering

in the face of overwhelming problems turns the public off. It sure does for me!

[Mojorabbit]

2. Maybe because

it was a petty argument. It lowered my opinion of both of them.

[Christa]

38. Agree 100%. nt

[bigdarryl]

3. Most intersesting is Richardson is gaining slowly but surely in Iowa

[On the Road]

4. Iowa is Quite the Wild Card, Isn't It?

I will be fascinated by how the caucus results affect NH and the following races. Edwards is staking his whole campaign on that questions. Obama has the most to fear.

[Faygo Kid]

5. It's the dust-up. The way it's been presented.

Since the GOP marches in lockstep, the media will treat their disagreements with kid gloves.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

6. The corporomedia is working hard to turn this into a "Dean Scream" moment.

Neither candidate should have take the bait. There was so little acrimony between the candidates that this one very minor exchange was seized upon and hashed out over and over.

The only consolation is that it will eventually go away, but sadly, it will be because another meaningless sound bite, from only the Democrats, of course, will be leaped upon by the MSM scavengers.

In the meantime, Romney demonstrates he doesn't even know the freaking difference between YouTube and MySpace and not a peep from the empty headed bleached blonds out there.

Imagine if one of our candidates had stumbled with that idiotic of a slip up. :eyes:

MKJ

[pstans]

7. No, they have dropped 6 points since May

The poll just happens to have been done right after the debate. It isn't like there was a poll done the day before the debate to compare to this one done right after.

For two months, Hillary and Obama have been holding large campaign events in Iowa with 500-1000+ people. Iowans want to speak to the candidates and that can't be done in these settings. There is an older stubborn Democrat in my town that won't go to any events unless she can meet the candidates in someone's living room where she can sit down and listen and grill the candidate. There are a lot of Iowans who don't want to attend rallies, but want to run the candidates through the wringer.

Trying to hold small events is a tough thing to accomplish when a lot of people want to see you. If they turn people away, they will get negative press. I know Obama had to change the venue in Ames earlier this year 3 or 4 times and they ended up having 5,000 people at Hilton Coliseum (where Iowa State plays basketball).

Until Hillary and Obama hold these smaller events and participate in retail politics they will continue to drop in the polls.

[maximusveritas]

10. Not only that, but it's just one poll

You can't make a determination of a trend from a single poll, especially when that poll has been unreliable.
Some of the comments here are just hillarious examples of armchair analysis gone horribly wrong.

[pstans]

15. These polls were very accurate in the 06 Iowa Governors race

but yes, it is just one poll.

[maximusveritas]

17. Yes, but a Governor's race is a different animal from a Presidential caucus

They were not nearly as accurate in 2004. And so far in this race, they've been all over the place. So I think we need to wait and see what the other polls show.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. ARG had Obama at 13%. Is that poll inaccurrate too now? It wasn't when they had BO at 23%... nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. No BO supporter claimed this poll was "unreliable" when they had Obama at 22%...

Once again the BO camp refuses to accept a poll result they don't like...This is endemic to the Obama camp. You don't see HRC and JE supporters do this when they do not like the result of a poll.

The last ARG poll, which was the last Iowa poll prior to this one and done in late June, had Obama at 13%. I know, I know. That poll is rigged too. We all know Obama is the "real" leader in all 50 states. :crazy:

[madrchsod]

8. i for one am tired of the bullshit

and edwards gets no air time because he is to left for the media...

[benny05]

16. I hear you there

Pisses me off as well that media has ignored Edwards, Dodd, and Richardson. My choice is Edwards but I like Dodd too.

One of the problems Obama and Clinton has is the Secret Service Protection. You cannot get to see the candidate very close and upfront, which is what Iowans expect.

An Iowa blogger reported yesterday that Obama isn't taking direct questions from the voters either in Iowa, which hurts him.

[Double T]

9. John Edwards is looking better as the Democratic Presidential Candidate.......

with each day. obama and clinton are in the self destruct mode with more interest devoted to attacking one another than attacking the rethugs and the important issues.

[Catch22Dem]

11. This is a debate?

No, they don't like the petty bickering between two front-runners in a VERY important election. I feel the same way. This is part of the reason I support Edwards and Richardson while I wait with quite anticipation for Wes Clark.

[Jim Sagle]

12. Hillary SSSSUXXXX!!!!!!! So does Obama. Edwards RRRRRAWWWXXXXX!!!!!

It's all good. :beer:

[w13rd0]

13. Doesn't Gephardt...

...have something to say?

But in that sense, perhaps history offers some lessons, who knows.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. The lesson he teaches is that he and Dean were badly damaged by constantly attacking each other

They were long 1-2 in the polls but then constantly attacked each other and turned off voters. Perhaps Clinton and Obama should give him and Dean a call...

[MADem]

14. Isn't Edwards just about LIVING there these days? NT

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. No. That is a myth (promoted by those who can't accept the reality that their hero is losing in IA)

Here is the reality.

Visits to Iowa

Edwards has visited 26 times since 2005.
Obama has visited 17 times since 9/2006.
Clinton has visited 11 times since 1/2007.

Money spent in Iowa

Obama $1.6 million (has run TV commercials)
Clinton $837,863 (no TV commercials)
Edwards $525,027 (no TV commercials)

Organization in Iowa

Obama 28 field offices
Clinton 15 field offices (100 staffers)
Edwards 14 field offices (50 staffers)

If we accept the meme that the only reason Edwards is leading in Iowa is because he "lived" there then Obama should be crushing Clinton in Iowa too. He has been there more often, has spent twice as much as her, has run television commercials, has twice as many offices in the state, is from a neighboring state, and so on.

This poll debunks the meme btw. What does Edwards visiting Iowa in 2005 have to do with both HRC and BO losing 6 points in Iowa since May? Moreover, shouldn't they be rising in the polls at Edwards' expense under the theory as they bring their magic to Iowa?

[MADem]

24. Well, I have no hero, and your stats proved my point. He's been there

a THIRD more than Obama, and way more than DOUBLE Clinton's visits.

I didn't talk about money spent, commercials, or what have you. I talked about time on the ground.

He's winning the Time On The Ground race.

How do you think Dean did so well there? Time On The Ground. He established roots, and then he gently TENDED them. Over TIME.

Which is what Edwards has done, apparently.

It's a CAUCUS effort there, not like the other states. It demands a different approach. One he is taking, and one that the truth of which perturbs you. Why, I can't fathom.

The only thing that counts at the end of the day is who takes the state, not how they do it.

Some candidates, in fact, want to get rid of Iowa as an early contest, because it requires WAY too much chawing and standing around talking about corn and pigs to suit some Twenty First Century tastes. It requires going around to podunk counties and spending hours with precinct captains and minor movers and shakers. It's slow, it's ponderous, and ya don't get a lot of money out of that state, either. Or electoral votes (7), really.

As for Obama in Iowa, he's got an uphill battle, not the least of which is a component of benign racism. That's a dirty little unmentioned secret. And Hillary has to deal with the gender thing, too--those caucuses have some interesting dynamics. Edwards isn't home free, either--he's too slick for the farmers, too much of a big spending lawyer, but that is mitigated for some by the 'poorboy' roots.

Why, though, do you approach my comments as though I am suggesting his time on the ground is a BAD thing? In the context of Iowa, it's the way to win it.

There's way too much "sensitivity" hereabouts, it would seem. It makes discussion of candidate strategy and tactics if not impossible, incredibly TIRESOME. Between the accusations of hero worship and the invective, I sometimes feel like I've fallen down the rabbithole into a grade school playground.

I still have no dog in this race. Unless Gore gets in.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. I didn't mean you

I was making a general comment about those who promote that excuse.

==a THIRD more than Obama, and way more than DOUBLE Clinton's visits. ==

Obama has visited Iowa 55% more often than HRC yet he is behind her...

==He's winning the Time On The Ground race.

How do you think Dean did so well there? Time On The Ground. He established roots, and then he gently TENDED them. Over TIME.

Which is what Edwards has done, apparently.

It's a CAUCUS effort there, not like the other states. It demands a different approach.==

So is Nevada. Richardson has been there far more than anyone. He is the only one really campaigning there. Yet, he is in 4th there. What you say is true (although offset to a large degree by the money advantage, organizational advantages HRC and BO have, and the regional advantage BO has) but the bottom line is Edwards' message is resonating in Iowa. This is something some HRC and BO supporters can't bring themselves to accept.

==As for Obama in Iowa, he's got an uphill battle, not the least of which is a component of benign racism. That's a dirty little unmentioned secret. And Hillary has to deal with the gender thing, too-==

These are lame excuses. Is Iowa more racist than the rest of the nation? Is it more sexist? Did Iowans not know Obama was biracial when he was at 22% and 23% in polls there? Whatever Obama is selling in Iowa is not resonating (an unfathomable thought for some of his die-hard supporters, who cannot even accept the fact that HRC is the national front-runner, not BO). With HRC's case we will have to see if other polls confirm this trend.

The race excuse is interesting and is revived when Obama declines in the polls. Isn't that odd for someone who is running on an alleged special ability to bring various people, including progressives with right-wingers, together? That is what we are told when he is doing well in the polls. When he is not doing well we are told the man his supporters say is the most electable candidate can't even win over white Democrats.

[MADem]

29. That race thing is an issue. Only two percent of Iowa's population is black.

They have the highest percentage of black people in proportion to their total population in prison than any other state.

Harold Ford, Jr. had it right--if you expect to win, you need to have fifteen percent more in the polls than you think you need just to squeak by. And he was unable to squeak, too.


I think Obama has an uphill battle for that reason. As does Clinton. Both need to poll higher than they actually need to win. What happens is, in public, people say one thing, and behind the privacy of the voting booth curtain, they do another. Then they come out and either lie to the exit pollsters, or, if they have any shame at all, refuse to be interviewed--if there are a lot of refusals, there's a lot of vote-switching, generally speaking.


As for Nevada, how many electoral votes are you gonna get there? And when is their primary? In any event, at the end of the day, if Romney is the GOP pick, that'll probably be his state. Unless Richardson can be a player and deliver the state for the ultimate candidate--and get SECSTATE as a reward, perhaps. That could well be Richardson's tactic and purpose all along--either SECSTATE or VP, depending on how it plays and who gets it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. And only 11% of voters nationally are black--plus you hit upon the elephant in the room

==Harold Ford, Jr. had it right--if you expect to win, you need to have fifteen percent more in the polls than you think you need just to squeak by. And he was unable to squeak, too.

I think Obama has an uphill battle for that reason. As does Clinton. Both need to poll higher than they actually need to win. What happens is, in public, people say one thing, and behind the privacy of the voting booth curtain, they do another. Then they come out and either lie to the exit pollsters, or, if they have any shame at all, refuse to be interviewed--if there are a lot of refusals, there's a lot of vote-switching, generally speaking.==

You are right. You hit on an inconvenient truth that is the elephant in the room in discussion of Obama's poll numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect

==The term Bradley effect or Wilder effect refers to a phenomenon which has led to inaccurate voter opinion polls in some American political campaigns between a white candidate and a non-white candidate.<1><2><3> Specifically, there have been instances in which statistically significant numbers of white voters tell pollsters in advance of an election that they are either genuinely undecided, or likely to vote for the non-white candidate, but those voters exhibit a different behavior when actually casting their ballots. White voters who said that they were undecided break in statistically large numbers toward the white candidate, and many of the white voters who said that they were likely to vote for the black candidate ultimately cast their ballot for the white candidate. This reluctance to give accurate polling answers has sometimes extended to post-election exit polls as well.

Researchers who have studied the issue theorize that some white voters given inaccurate responses to polling questions because of a fear that they might appear to others to be racially prejudiced==

No one wants to talk about this but when polls show Obama, at say, 16% in Iowa and 23% nationally his real level of support may be 10% in Iowa and 15% nationally. This also factors into general election trial heats. Obama usually slightly outperforms Clinton, and this is cited as evidence that he is more electable than Clinton. However, the gap is so small he may actually be performing worse than Clinton once the Bradly Effect is taken into account. People are accepting Obama's poll numbers at face value; they may be in for a rude awakening when the voting actually occurs--and the media says he underperformed.

With respect to women, sexism is a problem (also a plus, probably an offsetting plus. Some sexist women will vote for a candidate solely because she is a woman) but there is not the same history of inflated poll numbers for female candidates.

==As for Nevada, how many electoral votes are you gonna get there? And when is their primary? ==

Nevada has the second caucus, five days after Iowa and two days before New Hampshire. This is why I cited it. Richardson is betting on a win in Nevada to catapult him into contention.

[MADem]

31. That 11 or 12 or more percent, though, votes at a much higher percentage than other groups.

Which makes their percentage have more impact than other groups. And they overwhelmingly vote (D). The question is, which (D)?

The racial/gender bias issue, though, once overcome, is less of an issue in subsequent contests. Then, incumbency trumps other factors.

"Some say" Hillary will have trouble with educated females in later middle age--eg, her peers. I dunno if it's true, but it is being shopped about like it is. The "meow" factor is what the fat baastids in suits seem to be suggesting...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. In the Democratic primaries but not in the general election

In the primaries the African-American vote will be roughly one-fifth of the total. However, in the GE it will be 11% of the vote. That means if Obama has a problem with the other 89%, as we are sometimes told when he struggles in the polls, he will struggle in the general election.

==The racial/gender bias issue, though, once overcome, is less of an issue in subsequent contests. ==

I agree. The presidency is the ultimate "prize" in politics. I think we will see the Bradley effect in play next year. It may be declining in state races but some of the people who may be fine with a minority in Congress will unfortunately have a different view when it comes to the presidency. My rough estimate would be that Obama's real level of support is about 5% less than what the polls show. That also means, since most of that support will go to HRC and JE when voting occurs, their true level of support is higher than it appears in polls. This is especially true in the case of Edwards, whose numbers may be further artificially depressed in the polls because some will not want to appear to be voting for a male candidate against the first competitive woman. He is at 15% in the latest national poll. His real level of support is probably 20%...

[MADem]

34. But then, there's the whole "voter supression" issue, which could flip this time around

Instead of those guys doing it to us, they could do it to themselves.

A load of GOP voters could, if an exciting candidate on their side doesn't come to the fore, just stay home in disgust. Our side is motivated, theirs is not.

I really do think it's too soon to tell how it is all going to shake out. Any one of them could stumble, or climb the mountain. It's just a long, long way down the road...watching the race is interesting as hell.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Ford lost by 2.7 points, which was consistent with all the polling down the stretch

Corker had a statistically insignificant lead the week before the election, which is exactly how things ended up. See "opinion polling" toward the end of this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_United_States_Senate_election,_2006

Race obviously matters (Corker's flirtatious blondie ad probably turned the race around; Ford's ill-conceived parking lot confrontation with Corker in late October hurt as well) but there's nothing in recent history to suggest that black candidates routinely do 15 points worse than the polls indicate. In fact, the Ford race is the best argument going against that staement, Harold Ford's subjective analysis notwithstanding. It would be interesting to see if you had any objective analysis to the contrary.

[MADem]

36. Well, different polls, different numbers

A few days before the election Ford was up by five: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/10/31/new-poll-harold-ford-lea_n_32895.html

In TN, a Benenson Strategy Group (D) poll; conducted 10/26-28 for Rep. Harold Ford (D); surveyed 560 LVs; margin of error +/- 4.1% (Hotline sources, 10/30). Tested: Ford and ex-Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker (R).

General Election Matchup

Now 10/14 9/21
Ford 48% 46% 48%
Corker 43 45 41
Other/undec 9 9 11

Of course, these clowns had the situation reversed. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/tn/tennessee_senate_race-20.html

And some of these polls in this compilation list have Corker up by 12, which would make that fifteen number about right... http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2006/senate/tn/tennessee_senate_race-20.html#polls

I don't have access to Ford's internal polls. But I did hear him make that comment more than once.

[BeyondGeography]

37. If the white guy is up by 12 and the black guy loses by three

then support for the white candidate was overstated in the polls, not the black candidate. :shrug:

Suffice it to say that black candidates probably have to discount their numbers slightly, but double-digit variances are not supported by recent history. Most such examples are over 10 years old. I lived through two Dinkins-Giuliani races; the polls were notoriously unreliable but nothing approaching 15 points of unreliable. There are other cases (Wilder in Va., Bradley in LA) where variances between pre-election polls and actual results were in fact significant, but, again, these are in the distant past.

At any rate, Ford's race actually makes the case that what is called "The Bradley Effect" is diminishing. Here's another article:

In 2006, there was speculation that the Bradley effect might appear in the Tennessee race for United States Senator between Harold Ford, Jr. and white candidate Bob Corker. Ford lost by a slim margin, but an examination of exit polling data indicated that the percentage of white voters who voted for him remained close to the percentage that indicated they would do so in polls conducted prior to the election. Several other 2006 biracial contests saw pre-election polls predict their respective elections' final results with similar accuracy.

One exception was in the race for United States Senator from Maryland, where black Republican candidate Michael Steele lost by a wider margin than predicted by late polls. However, those polls correctly predicted Steele's numbers, with the discrepancy in his margin of defeat resulting from their underestimating the numbers for his Democratic opponent. Those same polls also underestimated the Democratic candidate in the state's race for governor — a race in which both candidates were white.

The overall accuracy of the polling data from the 2006 elections has been cited by those who argue that the Bradley effect is diminishing in American politics.<25><7> When asked about the issue in 2007, Douglas Wilder indicated that while he believed there was still a need for black candidates to be wary of polls, he felt that voters were displaying "more openness" in their polling responses and becoming "less resistant" to giving an accurate answer than was the case at the time of his gubernatorial election.

As of 2007, the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama, a black United States Senator, was being watched to see if it will be subject to the Bradley effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect#_note-Polman

[MADem]

39. The numbers are all over the place. From Ford way up, to Corker way up.

If you look at those polls, you just can't get a sense of who might win.

I think Ford was talking about a "sleeping well" margin, though, not a "necessary" one.

[zulchzulu]

22. That's news from Iowa. Also " Undecided is up the most (6 percentage points)."

I'll be in Iowa next weekend and will report what I see...

[frazzled]

23. And Edwards is down from 14 to 9 percent in New Hampshire

Which is what you read when you click the sister link in the Iowa article.

These numbers will be all over the place for the next five months.

Final proviso: do not expect a repeat of the "Iowa determines all" phenomenon that occurred in 2004. That was unique, since the primary that followed in NH contained a favorite son. From experience canvassing there extensively, New Hampshirites who supported Kerry early on gave up on him when his campaign seemed to be sinking financially and organizationally. His winning in Iowa allowed them to come back to him big time. (Dean was the other favorite son there, in the western and northern parts of the state nearest to Vermont, while Kerry remained popular in the more populous southern parts of the state, close to Massachusetts).

This time there is no similar phenomenon. Iowa and NH may turn out to be very different races. Not to mention the primaries that follow. It could (hopefully) get interesting, with a more contested race for a longer time. At least I hope so. It would be good for the party and good for the eventual candidate.

[MADem]

25. These numbers will be all over the place for the next five months.

I agree with that completely. The candidates will adjust, and so will the voters...!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Edwards tanked in NH. Edwards supporters are not in denial about that

The primaries are even more front-loaded this time than in 2004. This places more of a premium on momentum. How can someone struggle in Iowa and then do well 5 days later in NV? How can a candidate do poorly in IA and NV and then do well in NH? And so on. Early state momentum (and the free media coverage it generates) will be huge on Super Tuesday.

The threat in Iowa is to Obama, not Clinton. Clinton is strong enough to sustain a poor finish in Iowa. If Obama finishes 3rd he is in bad shape heading into the early states; if he finishes 4th his candidacy is crippled.

[Forkboy]

26. That's a shame.

[Kingstree]

35. Why is Iowa the so called "pulse" of the political nation?

Any one know why? Please explain. Thanks.