As a follow-up to yesterday’s post on the tendency of people to overrate polling for the Iowa caucuses and to underrate the importance of organization, I note (via Memeorandum) that both Sen. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are taking issue with the latest Des Moines Register poll, which had Obama seven percent ahead of Clinton, while polls by CNN and Zogby both show Clinton clinging to a statistically insignificant lead.
This sort of hubbub from the candidates is to be expected, as they fear stories about polls may affect the outcome. And the DSM Register poll in particular is questionable.
DSM Register columnist David Yepsen highlights that last-minute developments are not reflected in his paper’s poll, even though 21 percent of those who showed up at Democratic caucuses in 2004 decided on a candidate in the last three days of the campaign. Also, while Yepsen argues that second preferences do not account for much in the Democratic caucus results, InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research argues that they put Clinton and Edwards in a virtual tie, with Obama lagging significantly.
Moreover, the Register poll’s turnout model includes a high percentage of independents and even Republicans. Yepsen suggests this is notable because it shows the GOP is in trouble. Clinton pollster Mark Penn attacks the model, which may be attributed to self-interest. However, as the Big Tent Democrat notes at TalkLeft, the model suggests that the majority of Obama’s support comes from independents and Republicans.ÂÂ
That result raises at least two possibilities. First, it may suggest the Register’s polling model is indeed flawed. Second, it the model is not flawed, it might fairly be asked whether those independents and Republicans will actually be sufficiently motivated — or captured by Obama’s organization — to get them to polling places on what is currently forecasted as a typically frigid January evening in Iowa. (Ironically, the Register poll could depress that turnout for Obama.)
On that subject of organization, I note on the GOP side that Mike Huckabee’s campaign in Iowa may well be showing the problems of a shoestring organization. Those stumbles may not turn off his highly-motivated base, which — as I noted previously — ought to be pretty good at getting butts on buses on caucus night.  However, weak organiztion may be a continuing obstacle to Huckabee broadening his appeal beyond that base.
Update: The NYT reports that Obama’s aides privately question the Register poll as well, as Obama tells supporters: “The polls are not enough. The only thing that counts is whether or not you show up to caucus.”
The male voter numbers for Clinton seem like the headline here if you ask me, since 84% of guys that are likely voters in Iowa are thinking no I really don’t think I want Hillary to be my president. EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT. Get the woman some gel or something.
All’s I’m gonna say about Iowa is, less than a week out in 2004 it looked like either Weaselly Clark or Howlin’ Howard Dean was going to win.
But this year the electability thing is confounding. It’s asking horseshoes people to play vulcan chess.
Yes I can be a snottier leftcoaster when I really try.
Per usual, I’ll note that the electability thing cuts both ways. The national polls show Obama is more electable, but I don’t think he’ll be the nominee. The same polls suggest McCain is the most electable GOP candidate, but he still faces an uphill battle. People don’t vote just based on electability. Indeed, in party primaries and caucuses, you tend to get the true believers who really do care about issues.
Right – you’re right – I just brought up electability cause that seems to me what was the catalyst for the volatility last time round McGehee noted.
Obama is Matthew McConaughey right when he was cast in A Time To Kill and no one knew who he was but WB had the press releases ready and had the Time Inc. people put him on a bunch of covers and they used Extra and all to make it look like he was this big bankable star when really he was a dirty pot-smoking hippy and not near smart enough to be a lawyer for real.
Hah. There is nobody in either bunch who is “electable” in the sense that he or she looks like someone who could do the job, even if in a way a particular individual might not like. It’s a Helluva note when the entire field consists of people who couldn’t even do it wrong.
Meanwhile, back on my hobby horse:
What the man is telling you is that religious conservatives signed on with Reagan all those years ago — and they feel like they’ve got nothing to show for it. Huckabee is the result.
BTW I wonder why so few people are willing to utter the name “Lurleen Wallace” in connection with this campaign?
Regards,
Ric
Lurleen Wallace
The comment thread at that TalkLeft link is hilarious, after an epic demonstration of their mad leet math skills, they come to the conclusion that Obama is the new Lieberman. I am serious.
Ric,
Ed Rollins of the Perot campaign? Ed Rollins, who claimed he paid black ministers “walking around” money for Christie Todd Whitman’s 1993 campaign? Ed Rollins of the Katherine Harris for Senate campaign?
Any rep Ed Rollins has is based on campaign years where there was a GOP tidal wave — Reagan ’84, Nethercutt ’94. The late appearance of Ed Rollins in the Huckabee campaign tends to support my point about the dangers of having a weak campaign organization.
I don’t entirely disagree with your overall point, but if you have to have a hobby horse, you really don’t want to see Ed Rollins as the jockey.
B Moe,
Yes, I recommend those comments to everyone.
BTW, this post popped up as a link on CNN’s “Election Center 2008” page under the “Blogs from the Right” column… and the “Blogs from the Left” column.
Protein Wisdom: Fair and Balanced.
oooh, my favorite so far:
Karl, we need a screencap of that.
Karl, that’s hilarious, especially coming from what many would have you believe is our most responsible cable news network.
This, however, is just depressing.
Re electability, it’s one of those funny traits that results from a large number of people forming individual subjective judgments based on the individual subjective judgments of a large number of other people.
It’s something to consider when you’re trying to choose between a small number of otherwise excellently qualified candidates.
As a first-round qualification, it sucks 747s through a straw.
Pablo,
That is depressing, particularly the “soundtrack.”
I believe Huckabee has a large support base because of the Evangelical Christian base along with his ultra liberal views. He has the perfect political balance to sway some of the Christians and gain a large liberal base as well. He also has very good communication skills. I don’t think he will win because Fred Thompson has a higher likability factor which is ultimately what sways the voting public whether we like it or not. I personally hope Fred Thompson wins the Republican nomination but he will need to get in there more then he has. He has been too laid back.
We need renewable energy!
Ambit Energy
Ambit Energy
Ambit Energy