Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

by Jonathan Singer, Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 07:07:46 AM EST

Update [2007-12-30 13:15:0 by Jonathan Singer]:I've pulled the first part of my post as it's largely duplicative of Jerome's previous post -- I'll blame it on being cooped up being sick for the past week. But there is a point worth raising here that I do want to keep: It's not clear to me that Zogby's numbers are internally consistent.

This isn't the most precise writing from Zogby because it seems to include roughly 18 percent of voters, more than the 12 percent of voters currently supporting non-viable candidates. (4.8 percent going to Clinton plus 6.4 percent going to Obama plus 6.8 percent going to Edwards equals 18.0 percent, not the roughly 12 percent currently backing Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich as their first choices.) In short, how does 18 percent equal 12 percent? Zogby may be including the second choices of undecided voters here to reach 18 percent (and that may be the likeliest explanation here), but that wouldn't really show what he's purporting to show. (The second choices of the undecided are a lot less meaningful than the second choices of those supporting non-viable candidates specifically because they are still undecided and could go any way.) Anyway, color me confused.

Tags: 2008, Democratic primaries, Democrats, Iowa, Iowa Caucuses, second choices (all tags)

Comments

57 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

Nothing could make me happier than if this was a two person race between Edwards and Obama. Its a win-win.

by aiko 2007-12-30 07:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

It's evident in the McClatchy poll, as well.

Before 2nd choices are put in.

Edwards: 24%
Clinton: 23%
Obama: 22%

After 2nd choices

Edwards: 33%
Clinton: 26%
Obama: 26%

Clinton falls back to a tie for third place when 2nd choices are added in.

I think this has to do with the fact Edwards is the most likable in Iowa.

Edwards: 73%
Obama: 66%
Clinton: 59%

by Progressive America 2007-12-30 07:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

Jonathan didn't read far enough through the Zogby poll.

"Importantly, if you eliminate the potentially 'unviable' candidates and redistribute their supporters' second choices, the result is: Clinton 35.8%, Obama 33.4%, Edwards 30.8%."

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-30 07:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: keep posting

AD, this is not going to help your cause now. She can't win with these 2nd choice numbers. Trust me

by Jr1886 2007-12-30 07:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Huh?

He/she is quoting Zogby about his own poll. Your comment is perplexing to put it mildly.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 07:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: keep posting

Jr, Who am I going to put more faith in: Zogby talking about his own poll or your conclusory statements masquerading as "arguments?"

(Hint: arguments usually have warrants, including either logic or evidence.)

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-30 07:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: keep posting

This folks must be on edge(yeah, I agree Obama). I have yet to see you make an argument why you think Hillary will win with this abysmal 2nd choice showing. She won't win because she has a ceiling set below 30% and considering the high turn out-Most experts have projected- she will slide to third place. Watch, hope you not too surprised

by Jr1886 2007-12-30 07:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Here's the thing

This post is about the Zogby poll, which, like Jonathan, I find unreliable because Zobgy manipulates it imo. But the FREAKING Zogby poll took into account second choice postions and found, according to his poll, that Clinton captures 36%, Obama 33% and Edwards 31%. Now IF Zogby is right, and I believe he is not, but I also believe the swing in the Mason Dixon poll is ridiculously high (according to them, of Edwards 33% support after second choices, 9 percent, almost a THIRD, comes from sceond choices, this is simply NOT credible. Even in 2004, WITH a Kucinich deal, Edwards increaesed by 6 from the entrance polll, about 1/5 of his total) w), then in fact Hillary only loses about a point after second choices. Jonathan ignores this finding which is frankly, irresponsble of him considering the topic of his post.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 07:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: keep posting

Well, I will engage this, largely against my better judgement, because I, too, "hope you not too surprised."

The "abysmal showing" among 2nd choices reflected in the poll include, clearly, the second choices of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama supporters. This is in interesting piece of trivia, I grant you, but not terribly relevant. Why? Because all three of these candidates seem likely to reach the viability threshold in almost all caucus precincts.

In predicting a winner, the more relevant question is the second choice support among candidates who are not likely to reach viability in most precincts. In this sandbox, Clinton fares much better. Several surveys in the past months have shown this support to be a three way tie among Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.

Indeed, the Zogby survey released this morning shows that when these people are reapportioned, Sen. Clinton still is ahead. Indeed, her margin is decreased by less than one point.

So, there it is.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-30 07:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

If those numbers prevail--a close second like that is a win for Obama. (and takes it to NH for a do over)
(bye bye JRE)

by aiko 2007-12-30 07:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Zogby himself says otherwise

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 07:55AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby himself says otherwise

I meant it will be perceived as a win by the national media--it will keep Obama alive through NH if he comes in second to Hillary by 1-2 points (as predicted today by Zogby).

by aiko 2007-12-30 08:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

Also in the poll Clinton has the highest percentage of support that is very strong for her, 76%, compared to 65% of Edwards' support and 56% of the support for Obama. Clinton supporters are particularly passionate which could nullify the second choice effect.

I believe it will go Edwards, Clinton, and Obama in that order. I think whoever comes in first will not do more than 10% better than whoever comes in third. Edwards just seems to have momentum. Hillary's prospects for a first place finish looks much better than a few weeks ago, but think it'll be a norrow second. Obama has to hope young people are more passionate for him than women are for Hillary, which I seriously doubt from those "very strong" numbers above.

by Christopher Lib 2007-12-30 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: not good news for the Clinton crowd

with these numbers, Hillary is heading for a 3rd place finish. She will not win sorry folks!! well, not with this abysmal 2nd choice support

by Jr1886 2007-12-30 07:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Jonathan

Perhaps you missed it but ZOGBY provided the same type of roundup including second choices from the nonviables, as did Mason Dixon. Indeed, Jerome posted BOTH of these numbers in his post. You may want to add Zogby's numbers - Clinton 38, Obama 36, Edwards 31.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 07:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Jonathan

Ooops the numbers are Clinton 36, Obama 33, Edwards 31.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 07:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Jonathan's update

seems stubborn in that it does not include ZOGBY's reapportionment numbers but added Mason Dixon's. This is, to say the least, bizarre. Here's a hint Jonathan, JEROME IN HIS PREVIOUS POST has BOTH sets of numbers.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 07:48AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stubborn??

just because his numbers just negated your wrong-headed rationale doesn't make him stubborn.

by Jr1886 2007-12-30 07:52AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stubborn??

Um, sure dude. Whatever.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 07:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Stubborn??

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/12/obamas-friendly.html

educate yourself

by sepulvedaj3 2007-12-30 11:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Jonathan's update

No, just hadn't seen them until reading the comments. But thanks for assuming the worst of intentions from me...

by Jonathan Singer 2007-12-30 07:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

I am glad to hear that your intentions

were not bad. I must then assume you did not take the time to read Zogby on the subject. And yet you posted a fP post on the subject that is completely contradicted by Zogby's findings. Maybe you should pull the post dude. Next time do your work before you post.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 07:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I am glad to hear that your intentions

The problem is that Zogby's numbers don't show what he says they're showing. He says that when you break out the second choices of the non-viable candidates they result in Clinton 35.8%, Obama 33.4%, Edwards 30.8%. The problem is that those numbers represent a net increase of 18 percent in support for those three candidates when adding 12 percent support from the non-viable candidates. How does 18 percent equal 12 percent?

by Jonathan Singer 2007-12-30 08:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Great point

Now what do you think of the fact that Mason Dixon turned 23 points into 14? There are 23 percentage points to non-viable candidates in the M-D poll but they only apportion 14 of these points. 9 for Edwards, 3 for Obama, 2 for Clinton. Here's what I think, ALL POLLS SUCK and nobody really knows nuthin on THIS issue. That said, the idea that Edwards will gain NINE FREAKING points on 2nd choices is simply not conceivable to me. I do not for a minute believe that.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 08:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Jonathan

With 2ND CHOICES ZOGBY:
Clinton 35.8
Obama 33.4
Edwards 30.8

by BDM 2007-12-30 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

I believe there are two re-apportionment of caucus goers. The first, for candidates who don't meet the threshold and the second for caucus goers who can redistribute without costing their candidate a delegate. i.e. if Obama is one voter short and CLinton is 10 votes over, a couple could switch sides to Obama to give him the other delegate without costing CLinton.

by Orlando 2007-12-30 07:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

Calling it!

Edwards 36%
Obama 33%
Clinton 31%

Let's rumble!

by MNPundit 2007-12-30 07:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

by Orlando 2007-12-30 07:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

I don't put much stock

in any one poll, but the totality of the polling, as well as my voter contacts, suggest that it's a close race at the top and that Clinton will gain much less from second choices than Edwards or Obama.

I'm sticking with the same prediction I've had all year: Edwards-Obama-Clinton.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-30 07:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Do you buy that

Edwards will gain 9 points from second choices? That would be unprecedented no? And frankly, is as severe an indictment of this system as I could possibly imagine. BTW, there is little evidence of Obama gaining in either of these polls signifincatly more than Clinton. Edwards shows that in the M-D poll.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 08:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Do you buy that

How is a shift because of second choice by 9 points considerd a severe indictment of the system?

by bruh21 2007-12-30 08:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Nearly a third of the support

comes from second choices for the "WINNER" in a multicandidate race? Puhleeaze. It is a freaking joke.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 08:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Nearly a third of the support

Honestly, at this point- I find this all bewildering and will just shy away from believing anything except the actual outcomes.

by bruh21 2007-12-30 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Nearly a third of the support

Honestly, at this point- I find this all bewildering and will just shy away from believing anything except the actual outcomes.

by bruh21 2007-12-30 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

I think he gained about that much

from second choices in 2004. So no, not unprecedented.

It all depends on who is not viable where. Right now my biggest worry is that Richardson and/or Biden could be viable in many more precincts than people are expecting.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-30 08:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I think he gained about that much

desmoinesdem, I was struck by both Richardson's and Biden's numbers in the MSNBC/McClatchy poll. Richardson was at 12 -- his highest since mid-Nov in any poll, and Biden was at 8 -- his highest outside of any ARG poll. Any thoughts why this might be so? The Zogby numbers didn't show the same; they had 5% for each. Do you think McClatchy is an outlier, or do you think they are detecting something real before others do?

by katerina 2007-12-30 08:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I think he gained about that much

You really should take a look at this:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_accura te_were_the_iowa_pol.php

It is a graph of the final polls in 2004, the caucus entrance poll and the final results.

Edwards gained 5 points and Kerry 10 points between the final poll and the entrance poll. Once inside the movement was a lot less substantial.

The Gephart people had already left Gep before they got to the caucus. Other pre-entrance poll movement came from undecideds and a few others. Dean lost 2 points and Kucinich lost 2-3 Inside the caucus. But aside from that there wasn't a whole lot of movement inside the caucus (comparing the entrance poll to the final).

Iowa had made up its mind to go with Kerry before it got to the caucus--it makes 2nd choices a little less important--at least in terms of negotiating inside the caucus.

by aiko 2007-12-30 09:05AM | 0 recs

permalink

Not so

He gained 6. Not 9. And that was with a formal deal with a more poetent Kucinich. Kucinich got 4 perecent but only 1 percent of the delegates. In essence, he ceded 3 percent to Edwards.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 09:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

Here's the real poll news

ARG Out of New Hampshire:

Clinton down seven to 31
Obama up three to 27
Edwards up 6 to 21

and the huge finding

Edwards now leads Obama among undeclared (independent) voters 38% to 23%, with 17% for Clinton.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

New Hampshire
Democrats    Dec 16-19    Dec 27-29
Biden    4%    3%
Clinton    38%    31%
Dodd    2%    1%
Edwards    15%    21%
Gravel    1%    1%
Kucinich    2%    3%
Obama    24%    27%
Richardson    5%    5%
Undecided    9%    8%

by david mizner 2007-12-30 08:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

After Iowa is when you pay attention

in NH imo.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 08:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: After Iowa is when you pay attention

Well, sure, but the fact that Edwards is crushing Obama among indies is huge, especially when Obama supporters argue against Edwards by claiming he can't win in New Hampshire.

And it tells you something about the power of his message.

by david mizner 2007-12-30 08:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Sounds good to me.

Bounce bounce bounce.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-30 08:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Here's the real poll news

Well, if this is right it continues to validate Fla Dem's argument about how this would play out. Although at this point I want to just see what happens because all of this is confusing to me.

by bruh21 2007-12-30 08:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Zogby Second Choices in Iowa

According to Pollster--Zogby did best in 2004 predicting the winner. However it is not the most trusted polling outfit for Iowa--DMR is...

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_accura te_were_the_iowa_pol.php

by aiko 2007-12-30 08:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Jonathan Makes an Excellent Point

Zogby's number do NOT add up after applying second choices. How did 12 become 18? By the same token Mason Dixon's number ALSO do not add up. How did 23 become 14? 9 added to Edwards, 2 to Clinton and 3 to Obama. What happened to the OTHER 9 percent? It all goes to prove my theory - ALL POLLS SUCK!

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 08:08AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Jonathan Makes an Excellent Point

It's impossible to poll the potential power of second choices.

by david mizner 2007-12-30 08:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Intrade today this PM

INTRADE:
Obama 40.5
Clinton 35.1
Edwards 24.7

by BDM 2007-12-30 08:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Indeed

So why don;t we say we do not know and leave it at that?

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 08:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Indeed

because we live in the internet age where no one has patience for waiting?

by bruh21 2007-12-30 08:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Intrade today this PM For IA

INTRADE:
Obama 40.5
Clinton 35.1
Edwards 24.7

by BDM 2007-12-30 08:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Jonathan Makes an Excellent Point

Well- exactly- all polls do suck. In a way I am happy they are confusing because at least then the arguments isn't about who is winning the polls in the voters minds, but whom do they want to support.

by bruh21 2007-12-30 08:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

MSNBC's First Read on the M-D poll

Some of this morning's First Read reaction to the Mason-Dixon poll:

* So what about tea leaves? This poll indicates that the candidate with the greatest upside on the Dem side is Edwards. He's polling competitively and has the highest ceiling of support among these likely caucus-goers; he's tops among second choice AND he's got the highest fav rating. Obama appears to have the next highest ceiling, with Clinton with the smallest room to grow, as she trails badly in second choice and her fav rating -- while excellent -- is third among the top three candidates. As for the tea leaves on the GOP side, Romney appears to have the big Mo; these numbers match the anecdotal we've picked up.

* Should the Dems go negative, too? Will Romney's apparent success in going negative change the CW about negative ads in Iowa on the Dem side? Maybe not. Why? It's much easier to go negative in a two-way race than in a three-way one, and that's why you aren't seeing any of the Dems risk going negative for fear that if candidate A attacks candidate B, candidate C gains.

A good point about the three-way race dynamics, but it will be a shock if there are not some negative attacks by surrogates in this final week. The big money candidates know that if they let Edwards get rolling, they quickly lose any advantages.

by MeanBoneII 2007-12-30 08:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Now this is an excellent post

Seriously.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-12-30 08:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Now this is an excellent post

Simple possibility: Undecideds are pressed to pick 2nd choices.
See 2004 Zogby vs. Entrance vs. Actual: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/how_accura te_were_the_iowa_pol.php

Very little movement took place inside the caucus--at the entrance poll there was virtually 0 undecideds (down 9 points from Zogby) and Gephart had lost 8 points since Zogby.

If you look at DMR--undecideds are also eliminated at entrance (5 points) and other (5 point) and Gepheart (loses 8 points).

There was some movement from Kucinich (2-3 points) and Dean (2 points) inside the caucus but the entrance poll was pretty darn close to the actual--seems like folks decide before they get there.

I think the fuzzy math everyone is complaining about is simply the combination of undecided and unviable second choices...

by aiko 2007-12-30 08:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Now this is an excellent post

What Zogby did is eliminate the undecideds when he counted second choices. The three numbers add up to 100%. Obviously, an undecided can't have a second choice because that's their first choice.

by BRoss 2007-12-30 08:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Now this is an excellent post

Right on. And the final numbers become unquestionable.

by aiko 2007-12-30 09:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Blumenthal

at pollster.com observed that Zogby actually was closer to getting the margin between Kerry and Edward right in 2004 than anyone else. He certainly got right that Kerry won and Edwards came in second.

Zogby's reputation has suffered a lot because of online polls. His telephone polls continue to be credible, and these results are not so different than ARG of "LA Times."

by Beltway Dem 2007-12-30 10:06AM | 0 recs