The Edwards Campaign Responds To The Register's Poll

Here's the Edwards campaigns' internal take on Register poll, which shows them in third.

Is the poll accurate? There are good reasons to think it is NOT.

-The poll was conducted during the holiday AND over the weekend. There is plenty of evidence that either of these would make it more difficult to obtain a representative sample. The combination makes the problem of obtaining a valid sample GEOMETICALLY [sic] worse.

-The poll is at odds with history. The poll says that 60% of Democratic caucus participants will be first timers. Usually, the number of first-time caucus goers is no more than 20%.

-The poll also says that 45% of those at Democratic caucuses will be Independents or Republicans.

The poll is at odds with other polls. Other polls show a close race with other candidates leading.

-Yepsen himself highlights the fluidity of the results rather than the horserace.

What does the poll really say

-The poll says the race is close. With a margin of error of +/-5, any of the top 3 Democrats could be in any of the top 3 positions.

-The poll says the race is yet to be decided. 34% say they could change their minds, and 6% do not express a preference. This means 40% are yet to decide.

-As Yepsen points out, 21% of those in the 2004 entrance poll [said they had made their decisions in the last 3 days -- something this poll cannot capture.

Comments

Now I agree with some of what they say but come on now. Do you really think they would be talking about how unreliable holiday polls are if the poll had proven the Edwards momentum storyline right ?
Besides isnt Edwards claiming said momentum based on the crowds that are HERE during the holidays since they went to see him in the past two weeks ?
It is a nailbiter, he is right. And it is fluid. And the idea of first-timers voting in such large numbers is going to be a big question mark. But I can't help liking it when the smugness is wiped right off their face so fast.

Posted by Benjamin | December 31, 2007 10:29 PM

ITA Benjamin, plus I think the polls recently noting Edwards real surge (which I think is happening among democrats) failed to account for Obama's support among Independents and Republicans. Plus, the Edwards camp HAS been drawing smaller crowds than Obama so the excitment argument doesn't work as well for me either. I think the fact is that it is a horse race but with his ground game and support Obama looks like he has the best chance in Iowa right now.

And this is bound to bring back the MO he'd looked to have lost to Edwards recently: this is a narrative change for this campaign at a time when people are focusing in on electabilitiy and combined with the money issue its not good for Edwards.

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

The basic point that the race is too close and too fluid to call at this point is certainly correct.

Some of the more minor points Edwards raised are debatable at best, but personally I more or less stop at the basic point above.

Posted by DTM | December 31, 2007 10:51 PM

the Edwards folks were understandably a bit flustered, as seen in the mistaken attribution of the Register article to David Yepsen. The actual author was Thomas Beaumont.

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

misattribution and misspellings... things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

The Register uses Iowa-based pollsters (Selzer & Company) and they are very knowledgable about the caucus process and Iowa voters.

This was the only poll who got it right in 2004.

A very Happy New Year's Eve for Team Obama!

Posted by Jade7243 | December 31, 2007 11:09 PM

Yepsen wrote a different article, presumably the one being referred:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071231/OPINION01/71231038/-1/iowapoll07

However, Edwards is wrong about the 5% MOE. The Register says it's 3.5%. But formally the reported MOE isn't exactly the number of interest. Doing a bit of math, my own calculations suggest that -- ignoring all sampling issues -- the probability of Obama's number coming out 8 percentage points above Edward's number, supposing they're actually both equal at about 30%, is on the order of 1 in 1000 (it's basically 3 Standard Deviations off the mean).

Posted by Alex F | December 31, 2007 11:09 PM

Funny, they weren't discrediting polls that occurred over the holiday that showed them with MO. And in light of Obama's helpful memo this morning, I'd say Edwards' campaign can't be too confident about January 3rd.

Posted by Keith | December 31, 2007 11:23 PM

The poll is at odds with history because Obama is creating history.

Posted by Todd Smyth | December 31, 2007 11:33 PM

Despite the results of the poll, which seem to be contradicted by most others, the last two days show a surging for Edwards while Obama is flat.

If the Obama campaign is relying ont this, they are going to be extremelyy disappointed come Jan. 3rd. And certainly they wouldnt be attacking Edwards.

Posted by Josh Medeiros | December 31, 2007 11:34 PM

thanks for that correction alex F. I assumed it was the Beaumont piece because of the "fluidity" reference.

Another tidbit about Edwards' reasons:
Does polling over a weekend skew results? That's debatable, but it's become close to conventional wisdom. The problem is that if you're using mostly landlines, which I believe most polls still are (many polls now include cell numbers in their samples, but I can't tell if the Register does), younger people are more likely to be underrepresented. That would eat into Obama's numbers more than Edwards or Clinton's.

Posted by along | December 31, 2007 11:42 PM

This polls is way outside common sense. According to this poll only about half the people voting at the Dem caucus will be Democrats. 45% will be independents and republicans. That is hard to believe. I can't imagine Dems voting in such low numbers. I can imagine 10-20 maybe even 30% non Dems but not nearly half. The polls is seriously skewed and underestimates Dem numbers.

Posted by MikeB | January 1, 2008 12:29 AM

they never polled me, and I'm supporting edwards.

Posted by Ryan | January 1, 2008 1:13 AM

"Obama is creating history."

That is quite possibly the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard.

Obama can't "CREATE" squat. What do you idiots (Obama supporters) think he is, a god?

Posted by framecop | January 1, 2008 2:48 AM

framecop: Uh, I would say that Obama has already created plenty.

For example, Obama has obliterated the record for most donations ever made prior to any voting. He's also destroyed the record for most donors of any primary campaign in history. He's also raised more money than any campaign in history without accepting lobbyist or PAC donations.

Currently, 400,000 people have registered accounts on BarackObama.com. There have been 15,000 policy ideas submitted. Obama's youtube channel has been viewed millions of times and has tens of thousands of subscribers. Obama has hundreds of thousands of friends on MySpace. Even if he loses Iowa, Obama has already made his mark on the history books by running a truly revolutionary campaign on a scale never before seen in American politics.

What amazes me is how little credit Obama gets for this. He is running a grassroots campaign the likes of which Washington has never seen. He is the only candidate who has an office for every single Iowa precinct, meaning that his turnout operation covers every last inch of the state. He has the widest net with offices in more states than any other candidate(illustration: the campaign just set up shop in Alaskas!).

So yes, you might say Obama is making some history.

Posted by Abe | January 1, 2008 3:33 AM

Its racist, its anti female, its horrible, I don't support any of these feelings, but America isn't going to change social standards by November 2008. Vote for Edwards, he can win, he is honest, and he can change America for us. Let John win, and then focus one changing the status quo. When voters go to the polls, some won't vote for a woman or for an African American. They can vote for Edwards, and with his strength and unity will pave the road for a Clinton or an Obama to win someday soon.

Posted by Andy | January 1, 2008 3:34 AM

It doesn't matter whether the Edwards campaign would be singing a different tune if there were different results--if their critique is valid.

I agree something is up with that poll, but I don't see it being so radically off that Obama won't win. It's all but certain. I mean, a seven-point advantage is something else in this ultra-competitive race.

Posted by Peters | January 1, 2008 4:19 AM

Abe,

Well in 2010 those candidates will be "creating history" and the election after that...and so on. If anything, Dean deserves much of the credit; he laid out a basic template to run great digital campaigns. Obama's done him one better with a solid ground plan.

Obama's youtube channel has been viewed millions of times and has tens of thousands of subscribers. Obama has hundreds of thousands of friends on MySpace.

And? According to that "Ask a Ninja" is making "history" as well. I can't help but feel our political process has fully become co-opted into American Idol-type pop culture.

It's great that people are so excited about a candidate, really, but it's disturbing how God-like his supporters regard him and how little they know about his voting record, policies, and rhetoric (i.e. "bipartisanship" won't cut it in Washington--ever). Check out his voting record on Iraq (blank checks to Bush). Read his inflammatory Pakistan rhetoric made earlier this year (deploy troops to Pakistan; violate its sovereignty if Musharraf fails to act) and realize he's a politician. If anything, him seeking the support of McClurkin should've caused some disillusionment.

Whatever. We'll see how well he does on Wednesday.

Good luck to everyone--except the GOP. May you pick Huckabee and commit political suicide. Hey, I hear Larry Craig would make a great VP.

Posted by Peters | January 1, 2008 4:33 AM

I doubt the poll is accurate but it doesn't matter. The story tomorrow will be 'Obama beating Clinton' in Iowa. That should stop whatever slide Obama was on and end Edwards momentum. On the negative side Obama better start managing expectations or a 2% win is going to be spun as a loss.

Posted by creating reality | January 1, 2008 5:17 AM