« More "Values Voters" Help For Huckabee In Iowa | Main | America's Rising, And It's Raised A Bus »

Polling In Iowa: Why A Lead Might Be A Tie

10 Dec 2007 11:31 am

It's not impossible to poll the Iowa Democratic caucuses accurately, but it is very hard, and results have to be taken provisionally. The caucus rules skew the math so weirdly that pre-Caucus polls often over-capture momentum surges and understate core strength.

It's clear, from a variety of recent polls, that Barack Obama has marginally improved his standing among likely caucus voters since September, and that Hillary Clinton's standing has marginally dropped. (John Edwards is standing still, roughly).

But a poll of likely caucus goers -- roughly 5% of adults, requiring an initial sample of 3,500 or so -- does not really capture and cannot really project delegate allocation ratios.

One reason is that a surge or decline in turnout can completely muck up the model. And it only takes about 20,000 troops to implement this surge.

More fundamentally, the caucuses themselves can vary wildly. You might show up supporting candidate Green but be forced to support candidate Blue because of the alignments of that particular caucus. Some caucuses may be entirely for one candidate or another; others may be split. .....

And the allocation of the delegates itself is not proportional to population. Bonus delegates are awarded to Democratically performing areas. Certain smaller counties pack the same punch as bigger counties -- a caucus of 50 in one part of the state can yield the same number of delegates as a caucus of 100 in Des Moines.

As a totally unscientific rule of thumb, some analysts tend to subtract three points from Barack Obama's percentage in a good poll -- he does better in urban and suburban areas than he does in rural precincts ... and tend to add a few points to John Edwards's tally. He has many second-tier counties locked up.

Do not put much stalk in Democratic polls.

Comments (29)

"As a totally unscientific rule of thumb, some analysts tend to subtract three points from Barack Obama's percentage in a good poll -- he does better in urban and suburban areas than he does in rural precincts ... and tend to add a few points to John Edwards's tally. He has many second-tier counties locked up."

Unless Obama can magically expand the universe, this race is going to come down to whether Edwards or Clinton can bring home the rural vote.

And I don't underestimate the Clinton machine's strength here.

I've always thought that parlaying an Iowa win into the nomination was the easy part for Edwards, but that winning Iowa was going to be the hard part. Clinton isn't going to let Edwards bring home the rural vote without contesting it.

^^^^^^^^
Discount Obama at your peril, my dear little Petey Peter Pitoto

I'm not sure where this logic is coming from, but Obama is doing very well in rural counties, and has the most campaign offices in Iowa.

And what does your "all knowing" analysis say about adding or subtracting from Hillary...oh let me guess her number is golden as is right...

"Discount Obama at your peril, my dear little Petey"

Perhaps my use of the word "magically" was too glib. I do think Obama has a real chance to expand the universe of caucus-goers in Iowa in such a way that he ends up winning the state. I just think the odds are against him because such attempts usually fail.

^^^^
I understand what you mean. His candidacy and the state of the polls is nothing short of phenomenal (I mean who would have thought he would be where he is 2-3 yrs ago, who woulda thought...all those crowds, the excitement and all...).
It is harder for him than Clinton or Edwards but over the next 3 weeks, can his campaign put enough work, make enough phone calls, get enough good press to make one last giant effort before the voters have their say? We will see.

The number of offices doesn't necessarily translate into votes. Strong precinct captains, particularly ones who have done this before, is a stronger indicator. Right now, that still appears to be one of Edwards' strengths.

This means that Edwards is not out of it and Hillary isn't as dead as those in press would have you think.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

The Iowa caucuses are complete bullshit. The most undemocratic and unprogressive "election" in American politics.

I think you mean stock not stalk, but the vision of celery is entertaining.

What insightful analysis, Korha. The very idea of people who live together in communities all across the state, gathering together in order to speak with each other in order to determine their nominee for President! I can't simply imagine how this could be more undemocratic...
And as for 'progressive,' I can only say that the technology of a voting machine, however far advanced, is never as progressive as people gathering together to vote freely.

"The Iowa caucuses are complete bullshit. The most undemocratic and unprogressive "election" in American politics."

The caucuses give a megaphone to the most committed Dems - the activists - and that's why I like them.

They are the one shot for a candidate who appeals to those who want a Democratic Party with a little backbone to compete with candidates who have the advantages of celebrity and wealthy donor bases.

Petey- why do you prefer Edwards to Obama?

"Petey- why do you prefer Edwards to Obama?"

Better on policy. Better on politics.

By running as a populist ideologue, he has a clear opportunity as President to shift the mainstream of politics to the left in the same way that Reagan shifted the mainstream of politics to the right in 1980.

He's the best shot for enacting a decent and popular universal healthcare program.

He's the best bet for increasing Democratic majorities in the Congress.

He'll prove to the Democratic consultant class that you can win elections without having to constantly triangulate.

He's the best front person for a Democratic Party that can be competitive in all 50 states.

And on and on...

Nathaniel Stone (sarcastically): "The very idea of people who live together in communities all across the state, gathering together in order to speak with each other in order to determine their nominee for President! I can't simply imagine how this could be more undemocratic..."

And just what percent are said people of the total Iowa electorate?

Well, 100% of the Iowa electorate has the right to participate. Are you trying to make a point of some kind, David T?

Perhaps concerns about Edwards' rural strength is behind this little missive from the Obama campaign - http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Obama%20Oppo%20on%20JRE%20-%20On%20Labor%20in%20Iowa.pdf?

Translated this means Iowa is a lock for Edwards. There is no other way to look at this, but our media is so totally dishonest and hates Edwards they won't admit the obvious.

Why do you think Obama is trotting out Oprah? Why was he encouraging Iowa students living in Illinois to caucus there? It's not because he's ahead there but it is a brazen admission he simply doesn't have Edwards' organizational prowess there.

Edwards should win the state handily.

And Hillary? Somebody upthread is living in a fantasy world if he or she has a chance.

She's basically thrown in the towel in Iowa. She doesn't have the organization. Neither does Obama.

I am certain organization is going to carry Edwards to triumph the same way it did for Dean.

Susan, Obama brought Oprah out because he could. He is encouraging college students to caucus because they are eligible to caucus.

Next your going to shock me with news that his campaign is planning to contact supporters on the eve of the caucus.

If Clinton threw in the towel there, why was she there this weekend?

Not saying Edwards won't win Iowa, but I wouldn't call that caucus a lock for anyone at this point.

For me, as a committed environmentalist, Obama's sop to the coal industry for coal-fired power plants was an early dealbreaker for me. Before then, Obama and Edwards had been about neck and neck in my own support, but when Al Gore had to go on TV to call it a "horrible mistake", that dropped Obama down in my book.

And then seeing Hillary and Edwards and Kucinich in person at the LCV forum on global warming, Edwards seemed to have the most concrete plans that married idealism with pragmatism. Hillary's theme seemed to be incremental change, which is simply not enough anymore. We need DRASTIC change if we're to fix the problem, and some say that we've already passed the tipping point, that now it's about reducing the number of casualties.

And also, the populist message Edwards has WORKS.

"If Clinton threw in the towel there, why was she there this weekend?"

Susan Nunes is insane. She supports the same candidate I do, but she's still insane.

"Well, 100% of the Iowa electorate has the right to participate. Are you trying to make a point of some kind, David T?"

Yes. Regardless of how many people have the *right* to participate, the fact that so few (even of committed Democrats or Republicans) actually *do* so makes the results wildly unrepresentative of actual public opinion even in Iowa, let alone the US.

Please take some time to listen to Joe Biden. Go to joebiden.com and view any of his videos (clips from news media). This is the most important election of our lifetime; we need the most capable candidate to nominate and win back the White House. Biden is a passionate public servant, an agent of change in the Senate, and respected worldwide for his expertise in foreign relations. He can win and he would be a strong leader - not would be - he IS a strong leader. One of endless examples: Biden voted "nay" against the Kyl Resolution, Clinton voted for it, Obama didn't show up, and Edwards left the Senate after one term.
A Democrat in CT

"Please take some time to listen to Joe Biden."

I think Joe Biden is clean and articulate.

Yes. Regardless of how many people have the *right* to participate, the fact that so few (even of committed Democrats or Republicans) actually *do* so makes the results wildly unrepresentative of actual public opinion even in Iowa, let alone the US.

With regards to Iowa, this is not correct.
While the total number of caucus-goers is not all that high compared to registered voters, the percentage is far higher than your normal poll, and thus is a very good indication of public opinion in Iowa.
example from 2004 Dem caucus:
there were 1,978,401 registered voters

28.9% were Democratic, or 573,736

124,000 caucused, or 22%

Unaffiliated voters can caucus for either party, if they register on caucus night.

so if you add in half of the 39.5% unaffiliateds, that gives you 48.65% eligible to caucus with the Democrats, or 962,492

Even then, 124,000 is still 12.5% of the eligible Democratic electorate. That's a significantly larger sample than any other Iowa poll, and so it can be counted on to be quite accurate about the Iowa Dem electorate's preference for the candidates--the aspect of public opinion the poll is measuring.

along,

That's just not true at all. If the caucus-goesr were picked randomly from the universe of potential attendees, then yes, they would be a highly representative sample. But there's a selection bias at work; the caucus goers choose to go, and probably differ in many ways from the overall electorate.

That doesn't mean they necessarily aren't reflective of the broader electorate, or even that we shouldn't approve of the ways in which they aren't representative. But you definitely can't treat them as if they're a simple randon sample.

Um, along, the number of people showing up (until it gets close to 100%) is not the only, or even the largest, factor to consider in the accuracy of your sample results.

Much more important is taking a RANDOM (or at least REPRESENTATIVE) sample. Caucus-goers are likely to be systematically different from the preferences of the rest of Iowa.

Then there's the caucus process itself -- people end up not being able to "vote" for their first-choice candidate because not enough people in their area line up with them?

Plus, why should Iowans get such a big say in this process?