My One Question About The Register Poll So Far...

Is in its turnout assumptions: only 50% of the sample are Democrats... 40% are independents and 5% are Republicans.

This could mean two things:

1. Independents love Obama and say they're going to caucus for him but won't

2. Independents love Obama and will go to the caucus, register as Democrats, and caucus for Obama

In any event, the poll suggests that independents are asserting themselves in a way that's confounding the pollsters and the establishment.

Note: Obama's internal polling does not show this high a proportion of independents choosing to caucus.

Comments

From being in Iowa recently... believe #2.

If you doubt the Iowa Poll, look at the recent NH polls that show Obama drawing huge support from Indies and GOPers.

Posted by Chuck | December 31, 2007 10:33 PM

If you read Yepsen's analysis, if the 2004 voter affiliation held up Obama is still within 2 points of Clinton. It's highly unlikely the the electorate will reflect 2004 levels. No one disputes that turnout will increase from 2004.

Posted by Andy | December 31, 2007 10:35 PM

This is BIG NEWS! The DMR poll has earned the reputation as the most important pre-caucus poll in Iowa because they were the only pre-caucus poll in 2004 to correctly predict the rank of the top 4 democratic contenders coming out of the caucuses that year. All the other polls were all over the place but DMR got it right. Looks like Obama is going to win Iowa.

Posted by Ava | December 31, 2007 10:37 PM

Bill was chasing Register Female Editors (all three) constantly calling them. They were overwhelmed and they bought his story of his wife's (false/invisible) experience.

The Clinton Attack Machine is bad. The US Press is responsible. They are guilty of high crime and misdemor. They allowed the Clintons to escape their bad behavior (e.g., Bill on Rose lying).

That said: The race will be:

McCain and Kay Bailey
versus
Clinton and Richardson/Kerrey

The victory will be McCain.

The theme will be Character and Integrity.

Both of which Clinton lacks, but Obama has.

For Democrats to win, the ticket should have been (assuming the Press was like an Umpire):

Obama and Biden/Dodd

Enough said. McCain will be the next President. He will demolish Clinton. I will cheer for him all the way. All the way, even though I am a Democrat.

Posted by eorse | December 31, 2007 10:43 PM

If DMR is right about independents, the Republicans might as well not even show up in November.

Posted by ChrisK | December 31, 2007 10:44 PM

"Independent" is a meaningless word for analysis to me. How descriptive is something almost everyone claims. Everyone is an independent the same way everyone is middle-class. EVERYONE claims to be middle class (from the most impoverished to the most obscenely wealthy)

Posted by RothNRA | December 31, 2007 10:55 PM

On the GOP side, this sets up Mitt's expectations strategy perfectly. Huckabee's monumental gaffe earlier today will be the big story for the next couple of days. There are no more polls coming out. And when Romney wins on Thursday he will get the Big Mo going into New Hampshire and Huckabee will effectively be eliminated as a threat. The bump should help Romney beat McCain in New Hampshire and run the table in January.

Posted by Dave | December 31, 2007 10:58 PM

Um, isn't it somewhat obvious that the truth could fall somewhere between #1 and #2, meaning maybe significantly more independents than usual will caucus, and maybe many of those will favor Obama, but not all independents will both caucus and favor Obama?

Posted by DTM | December 31, 2007 10:59 PM

That's a valid question, Mark. One point, though: given that so many GOP candidates punted in Iowa this year, would that not add to the numbers of independents and even Republicans who decide to caucus as Democrats? Not to mention the candidates have spent more on this race than ever before, it's a wide open field, etc.

So, I'm not sure I buy those numbers completely, but... they might be in the ballpark of plausible.

Posted by PJ | December 31, 2007 11:17 PM

Maybe I missed something. What was the reasoning that DMR used so many independents? PJ may have a point that the weak GOP could add to independents, but I'm wondering what DMR's pollsters are foreseeing.

Posted by ChrisK | December 31, 2007 11:30 PM

Dave,

The media determines who gets a momentum. Remember Ames? Romney won but Huckabee got the press. Value voters... Romney wins but the story is Huckabee. Romney might very well win the caucus but the story will be McCain and Obama.

Posted by RothNRA | December 31, 2007 11:51 PM

I'm registered as an independent in Utah.
I'm changing my party to "unaffiliated" so i can vote for Obama. MY FIRST PRIMARY EVER.

So I'm guessing it's #2.

Please, Iowa! support Obama and we will send him to the whitehouse in 2008!

Posted by jds | January 1, 2008 12:12 AM

RothNRA: Re your point about people saying they are "Independents": All the respondents in the Register Poll are registered voters--either Democratic, Republican, or No Party. The Independents referenced in the poll are registered No Party voters. To participate in the Democratic caucus, they must switch their party affiliation at the door to Democratic.

The most recent Iowa party registration numbers (active voters) are:
http://www.sos.state.ia.us/pdfs/VoterRegStatsByCounty.pdf

Democratic: 602,947
Republican: 575,025
No Party: 740,400

So the Register's mix, while not reflective of recent turnout, is closer to actual voter registration.

Posted by along | January 1, 2008 12:20 AM

Coming in 2008:

Obama vs. Keyes: The Rematch

Posted by lampwick | January 1, 2008 12:34 AM

This poll is hard to believe. According to this poll half the people voting in the Dem primary will be non Democrats. I don't think this has ever happened in the history of elections.

Posted by MikeB | January 1, 2008 12:38 AM

What if the poll is way underestimating Republicans who want to stop Hillary Clinton's chances NOW and not go through a year of suspense?

Posted by Karen | January 1, 2008 12:49 AM

Karen,

So you're talking about Republicans who are committed enough to politics to go through the trouble of going in a Democratic caucus for four hours and change their voter registration and publicely take position and caucus against Hillary when they could also decide the nominee of their own party?

Posted by Daniel | January 1, 2008 2:05 AM

Dave....

addendum

re: momentum

Momentum does not occur in a vacuum. What creates a momentum? Newpaper headlines. Don't forget that ALL the NH and MA papers have endorsed McCain and are pretty much acting like a 527 on his behalf. if and when McCain comes in 3rd, he will have exceeded expectations and he will be the story in New Hampshire.

Posted by RothNRA | January 1, 2008 2:12 AM

Marc, how about a third option: Independents don't like Hillary Clinton, are worried by Edwards angry populism, don't like the idea of healthcare mandates, are completely uninterested in the Republican primary, assume that a Democrat is going to be President and find Obama to be far preferable to the two viable alternatives.

Posted by Sean Wright | January 1, 2008 2:13 AM

This poll is hard to believe. According to this poll half the people voting in the Dem primary will be non Democrats. I don't think this has ever happened in the history of elections.

Agreed. DMR's polling has a good reputation based on 2004, but this one is a bit hard to buy, and it's quite the outlier, too, based on what I've seen in other polls. There might be one ray of hope for Clinton/Edwards in all this: if it is an inaccurate poll, and Obama indeed fails to place first, he'll have failed to meet expectations. Personally, I'd rather be counting on rural folks, union members, and blue hairs than on independents and 20-somethings who have never voted before.

Posted by Jimmie | January 1, 2008 2:16 AM

Meanwhile it looks Like McCain will come back to Iowa after all on the Jan 2 and Jan 3 for Stops. Word on the Ground the Vets are very orgizine and can lead to a suprise McCain number (say 20%).

Posted by Paul8148 | January 1, 2008 2:22 AM

Consider the following from a recent article in the New York times: "'Instead of sending someone to Washington to play the game, we need someone to change the game plan,' Mr. Obama said. 'We are not a nation divided as our politics suggests.'"

“'I welcome their hatred,' Mr. Edwards says of 'entrenched interests,' quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt. His crowds, heavily populated by 'my brothers and sisters in organized labor,' are the most likely to break into spontaneous chants. He received a long standing ovation in Davenport, begun by his wife, Elizabeth, seated behind him, while a scattering of older voters covered their ears."

Can you see how moderate independents and Republicans might be unusually tempted to intervene in the Democratic primary in what looks to be a Democratic year?

Obama is a f**king genius! That's one of the main reasons I support him.

Posted by Sean Wright | January 1, 2008 2:25 AM

eorse - McCain and Kay Bailey
versus
Clinton and Richardson/Kerrey
The victory will be McCain.
The theme will be Character and Integrity.
Both of which Clinton lacks, but Obama has.

The only ones going on and on about McCains "character and integrity" are the media that love him.

The rep McCain actually has is hot temper, self-righteousness, and tendency towards treachery in abandoning deals and commitments to go his own way.

McCain was not promoted to Admiral despite his dad and grand-dad becoming 4-Stars and his recent POW status, which back 25 years ago was huge due to the national Cult of POW/MIA at the time. Not promoted, passed over and asked to depart the Navy, purportedly on matters of McCains poor temperment.

Then the Keating 5 and a reputation of sabotaging deals leadership arrived at to push back room deals he reached with Democrats. We know some of them - The Gang of 14 orchestrated by McCain-SChumer, the McCain-Feingold law, the MCain-Kennedy backroom deal on illegal alien amnesty.

Now his "character and integrity" seems to have boiled down to yelling and cussing at anyone who challenged his illegal alien amnesty or his determination to give terrorists full Geneva protections.

Sorry, but McCain is the past, with a closetful of personality, integrity, and character skeletons & disorders no matter how much the press adores him as the straight talking Victim-Hero, though not the warehouse full Giuliani has.
Not trusted by his fellow Senators on the Republican side, too old and bitter to lead.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 1, 2008 2:48 AM

Either way, this can't but help Obama. People will switch to him to vote for the winner (self-fulfilling prophecy).

This poll strikes me as so messed up. I've never seen a poll like this before in Iowa. The turnout must be HUGE.

Posted by Peters | January 1, 2008 4:00 AM

Sean Wright,

Genius, eh? So he's lying to us about "bipartisanship" and will end up being a progressive? Even if his rhetoric is just a ploy, his voting record--especially on Iraq--doesn't show that. Worse, he has no history of leading the charge to pass substantial legislation, if any, against firm opposition.

So even though he'd likely beat the pathetic GOP field as a nominee--unless it's McCain--I don't see him truly changing anything due to his "bipartisanship" zeal. The GOP is absolutely cutthroat; he'll likely just be co-opted.

Posted by Peters | January 1, 2008 4:15 AM

Obama and his team are geniuses. I don't think anyone else would have come up with the plan to appeal to independents and Republicans in order to win the Iowa Democratic caucus. His tactic of treating the weakest part of his health care plan (non-universality) as a strength and then attacking the other candidates for proposing universal health care/mandates in order to appeal to healthy young people was unbelievably bold.

The Obama campaign has succeeded in their attack from the right flank in Iowa. The real question is where does this leave him in the general when he will be competing against a team that is much better with Rovian jujutsu and right wing talking points.

The Obama campaign may smash conventional wisdom by being the first to ever run right in the primary and then left in the general.
That really would be Politics 2.0

Posted by paradigm shift | January 1, 2008 5:07 AM

I switched from Independent to Democrat so I could vote for Obama in the primary.

Posted by Adam | January 1, 2008 10:38 AM

I watched a video from Iowa where Obama talked about "Obama Republicans", the comparison being to Reagan Democrats. While Reagan never was a moderate Republican, indeed, up to then the most conservative president we'd ever had, he did however know how to talk in a way that Democrats responded. That's why they called him the Great Communicator.

Obama has the same gift.

Democrats would be foolish not to grab onto the person who has that gift.

Posted by KathyF | January 1, 2008 10:57 AM

I suspect that Obama is going to win with more of a margin than the polls are showing. His supporters are disproportionately young, and likely do not have and/or answer land lines via which most polls are still conducted.

Hillary's supporters are disproportionately older and are the only people who have and answer land lines even when the caller ID does not recognize the number.

Posted by AgathaX | January 1, 2008 12:01 PM

What the hell? Independents get to decide who the Democratic nominee is?

What's an Independent anyway? Someone that can go either way? How wishy-washy.

I liken an Independent to a bi-sexual - can't make up their mind what their preference is.

There's no room in our party for flip-floppers that can't decide what team to play on.

Posted by Ron | January 1, 2008 12:27 PM

I have faith in American. I have faith in the good people of Iowa. Come-on Iowa, give Hillary her walking papers. Show her the breeze: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | January 1, 2008 2:03 PM

That would have been me in 2000, I registered as a democrat so I could caucus. (for Bradly, actually). Of course I'd just turned 18 in '98, so this was my first presidential election.

Posted by Chad Okere | January 1, 2008 3:31 PM

This will indeed help push Obama over the top regardless of whether it is completely accurate. What we do know is that this poll typically has been more accurate than any of the others and the folks behind it are the most respected of any in the Iowa polling community. It has also given Obama a push after a number of Edwards and Clinton revival news days. Obama is now front and center on the front page of the NYT, DMR and HuffPost and this poll seems to repudiate any momentum Hill received from the inaccurate ARG poll. I think this is a turning point.

Posted by Suzanne Striker | January 1, 2008 8:34 PM

If the poll was weighted similar to 2004 clinton only leads by 2 points a small independent turnout would shift the numbers to Obama given the conversion of non-viable candidates to the front-runners.

Posted by bill p | January 1, 2008 10:36 PM