I was about to write “we’re entering the make or break period in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses.” But let’s stay calm and keep repeating some of the reasons Black Ink calls poll stories Crack for Political Junkies: “Caucus support is very hard to measure. The whole situation in Iowa changed in the last few weeks last time. The polling data will be coming thick and fast. Mustn’t overreact to any one or two polls. Rinse. Repeat.”
So let’s just call this an interesting moment, on the Dem. side, because of John Edwards’ recent entry into the air wars and the increasingly sharp attacks by him and others (but not much by Barack Obama) against Hillary Clinton. (And Edwards is definitely keeping it up.) Any sign of poll slippage by Clinton will be magnified by the pundits, and here comes an interesting Zogby poll, out yesterday.
When asked their first choice, 502 “likely caucus goers” in Iowa broke down this way:
Clinton: 28%- Obama: 25%
- Edwards: 21%
- Not sure: 12%
- Everyone else: under 10%.
- Margin for error: 4.5%. (Methodology, telephone interviews.)
Compared with the previous most recent Iowa poll, (by American Research Group, taken a week earlier),the Zogby polls could be taken as showing slight slippage by Clinton and gains by both Obama and Edwards. But the movement is small and it’s not recommended to make comparisons across polls with different methodologies. Still, watch for this: if a real downward trend develops for Clinton, the pundits will go crazy about the possibility of her frontrunnership being in jeopardy.
But Zogby did an interesting followup question that calls attention to one of the funny quirks of the Iowa caucuses. After all attendees have expressed a first preference and been counted, any candidate who received less than 15% at that precinct is eliminated (and gets no delegates). Those candidates’ supporters are given a chance to join one of the higher first-round finishers. So Zogby asked his Iowans for their second choices. And, since all but the top three Democrats were well below the 15 percent threshold, he assigned the respondents who backed the “losers” to their second preference. It came out:
- Clinton: 30%
- Obama: 29%
- Edwards: 27%
- Not sure: 15%.
Hmmm. What think?
The obvious conclusion is that it’s a tossup, since they’re all with the margin or error of the poll.
OTOH, if it’s close going into the last couple of days, which campaign is likely to run the most effective ads, and run the most of them?
This is where Edwards (relative) lack of funding will hurt him, and Hillary’s well oiled machine will help her.
Should have been _within_ the margin _of_ error.
This thing should have an edit function, or I should read my typing before submitting
(make sure brain is engaged before …. ;-)
It seems that either the American people are just plain stupid, or they are just plain stupid. A vote for Clinton will simply continue many of the policies of Bush, including: the Iraq war, an attack on Iran (if Bush doesn’t get around to doing it), corporate control of health care, Guantanamo, torture, big pharma, and the imperial presidency. Clinton will not give up any of the “powers” Bush and Cheney have usurped through signing statements and executive orders. Clinton will not shift money from the bloated military to social needs. And Clinton will not provide an “even hand” in the Middle East. Every speech and news release of Clinton’s regarding the Middle East has been pro-Israel. Clinton is one of the biggest recipients of AIPAC money, and any “president Clinton” foreign policy initiative in the Middle East will favor Israel’s current illegal and immoral military occupation and apartheid. Next to Bush, Clinton will be America’s worst nightmare. But go ahead liberals, vote for her because she’s a woman. And reap the consequences.
Paul -
I am with you that it’s a toss-up. Where I disagree is Mr. Edward’s lack of funding. He’s worth about 30 Mil (http://tinyurl.com/2qp472) so if push comes to shove, if he needs last minute advertising, he can come up with the money. What fascinates me about this poll is I thought Mrs. Clinton had Iowa sowed up, and now it appears as if there may indeed be a race here. I would think if she fails to win Iowa by a respectable margin, or god forbid, she loses in Iowa, that would be BIG news.
Any new thoughts on this after the big Sat Nite dinner? Seems like the pundits are taking to Obama. I’m curiously awaiting new polls & the Thurs Nite debate…