One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton Leads in Pew Polling

The Associated Press and The Pew Research Center (.pdf) today released polling of likely Democratic voters from the early states. The polling isn't terribly new -- the median day the poll was in the field was November 15, which is less recent than four or five of the last polls from Iowa, four or five of the last polls from New Hampshire, and two or three of the last polls from South Carolina -- so it's not clear to me that these numbers do much to refute more recent numbers showing Clinton's lead effectively gone in Iowa and shrinking in New Hampshire. However, these numbers are still worth taking a look at even if they aren't entirely fresh, so here goes (along with the latest Pollster.com averages from these states, which include these Pew numbers).


IANHSC
CandidateNov (2nd
Choice)
PollsterNovPollsterNovPollster
Clinton31 (16)28.13836.54544.2
Obama26 (27)26.41923.23124.8
Edwards19 (22)21.21514.4.1010.9
Richardson10 (9)8.7108.811.1
Biden2 (4)4.622.522.0
Dodd1 (4)1.011.300.3
Kucinich1 (1)1.243.211.0
Polls in the field November 7-25, 2007; 460 IA Dem LVs, MoE +/- 5.5%; 594 NH Dem LVs, MoE +/- 5%; 373 SC Dem LVs, MoE +/- 6%

One more general point about these surveys before a bit of analysis about what they mean or might mean. Looking specifically at Iowa, Pew found 460 of the 2,111 registered voters it interviewed to "say they will definitely or probably attend a Democratic caucus." This would seem to correspond to a turnout for the Democratic caucuses of roughly 450,000 voters, which would be more than 3.5 times larger than the estimated turnout in 2004 and somewhere in the range of 2.5-3 times larger than the high end of predicted turnout for the Democratic caucuses next month. In short, one could question whether Pew's likely voter screen here was sufficiently tight.

That said, these polls, along with a soon-to-be-released survey from Iowa State University which also shows Clinton holding a lead in the Hawkeye State (though the poll seems to have a high margin of error at plus or minus 6 percentage points), could at least slow down the meme that Clinton has lost her lead in Iowa to Obama. The big take away from all of these polls (not just these ones but also those released in the not-too-distant-past), however, is that the race for the Democratic nomination is not by any means locked up, and that it should be an interesting couple of months going ahead.

Tags: 2008, Democratic primaries, Democrats, Iowa, Iowa Caucuses, New Hampshire, New Hampshire primary, South Carolina, South Carolina Primary (all tags)

Comments

21 Comments

Re: One Month Out from Iowa

The interesting read for me was the internals of the poll. This isn't a "name recognition" lead anymore. I had to dig around to find them, but here is the link:

http://people-press.org/reports/display. php3?ReportID=374

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-03 10:05AM | 0 recs
anyone can say they'll attend a caucus

but I would be surprised if turnout even hits 150,000 on January 3.

Biggest danger sign for Clinton continues to be that she trails among second choices. That is bound to cut into her delegate count.

But you are right, Iowa is still up for grabs. Many thousands of people who will caucus are still undecided.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-03 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: anyone can say they'll attend a caucus

Except for, of course, this poll did account for second choices, even among the second and third tier candidates, and clinton still won. interesting turn of events.

Really- it is the most comprehensive poll I have seen in a while. You should check out the internals and all of the questions asked. It's a fascinating read.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-03 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton in Pew

Mathematically speaking...

You need 15% to count...

There are 4 candidates totally 14% support.  If these 14% deliver their votes according to 2nd choice polls (not a given since these 2nd tier candidates attract people who may be outliers)...

That means Obama gains 41% of the 2nd choice votes... Edwards gains 33% and Hillary 25%.

Meaning the poll results in a 3 person race (extrapolating percentages out to 100) would be:

Clinton 33
Obama 32
Edwards  23

Ouch!

by jgkojak 2007-12-03 10:08AM | 0 recs
Maybe I am getting this wrong
But it is NOT a total 15% in the State. It is 15% per precinct. BTW, what a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE system. who dreamed that one up?
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-03 10:18AM | 0 recs
Iowan democracy...

Making every vote count...in varying percentages based on viability, etc.

What could be more fair?

by rashomon 2007-12-03 10:25AM | 0 recs
no, it's not fair

My vote only gets to count for my candidate if at least 15 percent of my politically-active neighbors agree with me.

So if I liked Kucinich or Gephardt in 2004, I would have been out of luck in my precinct--but if I'd lived in a different part of town, I could have helped them get delegates.

I don't like the threshold.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-03 10:37AM | 0 recs
people who wanted to build up the party

I'm with you, I don't like the viability threshold.

But on Friday I was talking with an older party hack type, who explained to me what the Iowa Democratic Party was like before the caucuses were a big deal. Basically, there was nothing happening, no organization, kind of like the Ohio Democratic Party has been in recent years.

The caucus system was created to facilitate party-building. That's probably the only genuine advantage of a caucus as opposed to a primary. Many Iowans believe Tom Harkin could not have beaten an incumbent Republican senator in 1984 if not for the caucuses earlier that year (and all the work done by field organizers for the various campaigns).

This party hack thinks that Democrats would be stronger as a whole if every state had caucuses instead of primaries, because it would force candidates and state parties to put some resources into building organization at the local level.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-03 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton Leads

Both this poll and the ISU poll were conducted before Thanksgiving. This shouldn't change the narrative as they fit in with the polls conducted at the time. Since then Obama has improved significantly in the polls with Hillary dropping off. These polls are close to irrelevant.

by Obama08 2007-12-03 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton Leads
I understand RCP is saying that but do we have anything from Iowa Sate saying that? Where is the release of the poll?
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-03 10:43AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton Leads

Yes, we do.

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2 007/dec/caucus.shtml

by Obama08 2007-12-03 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton Leads
RCP said the 18-19? This release says from the 10-25:
Polling was conducted between Nov. 10-25 and respondents were randomly chosen from a list of all registered Democrats obtained from the Iowa Secretary of State's office. The poll includes 328 probable attendees and 433 non-attendees. The margins of error for percentages calculated for these two groups are no more than plus or minus 5.5 percent and 4.8 percent, respectively.
So it is one of those long period polls - but includes polling through the 25th. But also has a MOE of +/- 4.8 for the Dem race. In essence, we got bad information everywhere.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-03 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton Leads
Oops, wrong polling release from me. My bad. Sorry for spreading bad info.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-03 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton Leads

I'm not sure where you read 10-25. In the link I included I see:

The ISU Poll, which was compiled through phone interviews between Nov. 6-18, presents a much different picture in the race than other recent polls -- the latest being one by the Des Moines Register on Sunday.

by Obama08 2007-12-03 10:57AM | 0 recs
Why do pollsters...

bother to release polls 2 weeks after they are in the field?  We're less than 5 weeks away...2 weeks ago data is practically worthless.

by rashomon 2007-12-03 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do pollsters...

Yeah, that's what a lot of people are saying.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/arch ives/2007/12/6388_new_appew_poll.html

by Bush Bites 2007-12-03 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do pollsters...
Other than RCP, does anyone have a link to the dates? So far this is all hearsay, includng the results.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-03 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Why do pollsters...

We do have the dates from the sources.

http://www.iastate.edu/~nscentral/news/2 007/dec/caucus.shtml

by Obama08 2007-12-03 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out

Only in the tired, twisted, bizarre methodology of the blogosphere and the MSM, who hate the Clintons with equal passion, could one spin the results of Clinton supreme leads nationally and very good leads in New Hampshire and South Carolina and with at best a wash in Iowa--in December with less than a month until first primaries--as indicating that the nomination is not a lock.

This is the former First Lady of the United States, arguably the most recognized woman on earth, married to the most popular politician on earth--with huge institutional support, and immense leads in superdelegates and in big primary states that truly matter.

The tortured mnemonic, by way of Karl Rove and MSM company (who know well that propping up the neophyte Senator Obama is only remaining obstacle to another Clinton White House) can parse polls to their heart's content.

But the Clintons are the very soul of the Democratic Party--like the Kennedys and FDR were generations earlier.  That core will not, regardless of unrepresentative and largely irrelevant Iowa, abandon the Clintons for the neophyte Senator Obama, absolutely dismal in the most recent (and most watched) Las Vegas debate.

So go on living the illusions.  Go on embracing losing candidacies from Ralph Nader to Howard Dean.  Go on assuming that this is a conventional year--when it is anything but.

If not for the Clintons in the race (ever and always a political tandem), then yes, one could parse polling ad nauseum.

But the Clintons are in the race, and the core of the Democratic Party will turn to them in droves, whether Iowa is a wash (as is likely) or there are temporary upticks for others in those early states.

Try as much as the MSM and the blogosphere may, even with the help of Karl Rove/Roger Ailes/Oprah Winfrey/and talking heads Russert/Matthews/Williams--they will not deny what most hard-core Democrats (and much of the nation and the world) pines for--a return to the White House of the Clintons.

by lambros 2007-12-03 11:17AM | 0 recs
I like to think I am not a Hillary Hater
ad there is NO WAY i hell you can consider her a lock NOW. Obama is definitely a big threat. Crazy not to ackowledge that.
by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-03 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: One Month Out from Iowa Caucus, Clinton Leads

Look what happened to Rudi G last week. Stuff surfaces quickly and changes the dynamic.
It is improbable that anyone running for President has not made some kind of deal with the devil to get elected at some time.

It will be interesting to see the timing of these deals exposed.

I pray for a Huckabee nomination. The mutant creationist MF'ers are below 35%..

Even IF Clinton is the best, it is time to end Dynasties. The people of Venezuela, as much as they may love him and have benefited from him,
did not want him here forever.

It is a catch-22.
Without being married to Bill it is probable she still would have risen in politics.
Perhaps she rose faster.
I have no desire to see 2012
Hillery Clinton/Jeb Bush..

Secession to the throne should have ended here in the 18th century.

by nogo war 2007-12-03 02:17PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------