A Reason For Edwards's Confidence: The Second Choicers

John Edwards is said to be in the catbird's seat to finish strong in the Iowa caucuses because most polls show that he is the second choice favorite of a plurality of Iowa Democrats, and is especially strong among those Democrats – Bill
Richardson and Chris Dodd included – who, in many precincts, won’t be able to meet the viability threshold of fifteen percent. (Or higher, depending on...well, never mind.)

Remember -- or behold: at the caucuses, there are two preference allocation alignments – if an alignment group fails to make threshold, its members are free to either leave the caucus or realign with a group that has made threshold. Between the two groupings there’s a wonderful outburst of deliberative democracy. Those preference groups who’ve “made threshold” will spend about a half hour making the case for their candidate, either one to one or in small groups. Then there’s a second alignment, which is converted to a percentage, which is converted to an estimated share of statewide delegates. (Candidates who didn't make threshold on the first try could make it on the second try if those viable candidates somehow lose supporters...)

There is not a one-to-one correspondence between the make up of the alignment groups and the percentage of statewide delegates they receive. Depending on the percentages, a larger preference group could receive the same number of delegates as a smaller percentage group.

So you can see how, if the race is “tied” – something an entrance poll would show – Edwards has an edge if he has a better than even chance of adding caucusers to his alignment groups.

BTW: Edwards aides say they haven’t made any pre-emptive deals with any other campaigns to share support if a candidate fails to be viable in a particular precinct. In 2004, deals were made with Dennis Kucinich’s campaign, but aides say that, for various reasons, the deals may have hurt Edwards in certain very liberal precincts. Edwards caucus precinct captains will be equipped with specific arguments to make for supporters of different candidates. Biden supporters, as an example, would be targeted differently than Dodd supporters.

Comments

I am not sure I am following this, Mark.

Don't we think Obama and Clinton campaigns are intelligent enough to have specific arguments for different second-tier candidates as well ?

Isn't the assumption that Edwards would be favored by second-choice realignment, just an assumption recent polls contradict ?

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 11:42 AM

"Isn't the assumption that Edwards would be favored by second-choice realignment, just an assumption recent polls contradict?"

Every single poll in the last couple of weeks has shown Edwards winning the second choicers.

Yesterday, there was one poll (Insider Advantage) showing Edwards winning 60% (!) of the second choicers.

I don't think Edwards is going to do that well among second choicers, but at the same time, I think it's close to a lock that he'll do better among second choicers than Obama or Clinton.

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 11:47 AM

The Insider Advantage poll of Iowa indeed has some great news for Edwards who shoots up 11% once second-choices are accounted for and ends up with 41%. The latest Zogby tracking poll also shows Edwards ahead 30-22-15 for second-choice.

Posted by Dan | January 1, 2008 11:55 AM

The only second choices that matter are the ones for Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich. It doesn't matter if Edwards is the second choice of HRC or Obama the second choice of Edwards, etc. The top three will be viable in the vast majority of the districts. Polls that just give "second choice" percentages are incredibly misleading -- tell us #1: what are the second choices of the second tier and #2: what percentage do they poll (again, if two people out of 100 are going for Dodd, the impact of his caucus-goers is pretty small).

Posted by cms | January 1, 2008 11:57 AM

This is all predicated on the notion that the turnout figures are incorrect in the DM poll and the fact that the CNN poll also has him stagnant in third will have no effect on voters at all: it also neglects the fact that the Biden camp are hitting Edwards hard and the Richardson people apparently strongly favor change and therefore a pitch CAN be made for Obama to be second choice with either of these.

The DM poll notes a fluid race with soft support: but by virtue of the lead today being Obama ahead it should solidify his support, no? And make it easier going forward for him to press his case over the next two days.

I think we shouldn't undersestimate another story in today's DM too: about Michelle Obama and the disapppointment Elizabeth Edwards feels for her mentioning her husband has more money to compete nationaly on a change message than Edwards does too. That's going to be a fact people are going to couple with the lead in the DM poll; again another favorable for Obama.

So this race can go any way and its all down to turnout and everyone has a great organization; its going to be who can get their voters there and make a case for the undecideds.

Posted by Rhoda | January 1, 2008 11:57 AM

I see, Petey. But don't those polls show him doing much better than both the DMR and CNN polls show ?
So why take some of their findings and not the other ?
Isnt the idea that Edwards will take second-choices the idea that he will do better than those last polls show ?
In other words, isn't this entry about Marc telling us he thinks the Edwards boomlet is real, even if the polls show him dropping ?

And isn't the dynamic in caucuses more likely to drive Biden and Richardson supporters to Clinton who has more experience ? Or Obama who has more enthusiastic supporters ? If people are enthusiastic about Edwards, why not vote for him first ? I can see how he could be the first choice of a lot of people. I have more trouble with the idea that he would be the second-choice of those who, in spite of the odds, are going with sober experienced moderate statesmen.

Once again, I am not attacking the idea in itself, as it is quite possible that is what is going to happen. I just don't understand why it warranted a full entry on this blog, when it is just an assumption and guesses, just like any poll-driven commentary at this point.

Just like we don't know if independents will show up like the polls say they will, we don't know if Edwards really will convince second-choices to the extent polls you mention say.

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

Clinton, especially, is getting massacred among second choicers.

The polls are showing that if Iowans don't already support Clinton, they're not going to switch to her after viability.

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

PS: cms has actually a great point. The second-choicers probably include Obama and Clinton supporters who probably won't have to change their vote.

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 12:03 PM

"But don't those polls show him doing much better than both the DMR and CNN polls show? ... Isnt the idea that Edwards will take second-choices the idea that he will do better than those last polls show?"

No.

Again, every single poll I've seen in the past two weeks that has asked about second choice support has shown Edwards winning more second choicers than Obama and Clinton.

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 12:05 PM

"PS: cms has actually a great point. The second-choicers probably include Obama and Clinton supporters who probably won't have to change their vote."

Some polls have separated out the second choicers of the non-major candidates.

Those numbers follow the same pattern as all the other second choicer numbers, with Clinton lagging far behind and Edwards easily winning.

(The poll yesterday that showed Edwards winning over 60% of second choicers was only looking at Biden/Richardson/Dodd/Kucinich supporters.)

Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 12:09 PM

OK Fair enough. But I stand by my assertion that these numbers are as dubious as the independent number from the DMR poll.
All of these are assumptions that people are making and that nobody knows whether it will come true.
And I just wanted to point out I find it interesting Marc thought it was necessary to write a whole entry about that particular assumption.
I think the journalists are really convinced there is an Edwards bommlet going on and they want to cover their tracks and they do not want to buy into the DMR results.
Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong. We will see :)

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 12:15 PM

The Mason-Dixon Poll (for MSNBC and McClatchy), which had Edwards "leading" 24-23-22,polled the likely non-viable supporters for their second choices and after that it was Edwards 36-26-26.
As for them being more likely to go for Clinton for her alleged experience, they may not buy into that. I would guess that Biden and Dodd supporters are more likely to be men (and men don't like Hillary) and may be more likely to prefer Edwards as the most likely winner against the GOP, which he clearly is.

Posted by Barry | January 1, 2008 12:19 PM

The DMR poll's last sentence stated their results from second choices polling:

"An analysis of likely caucusgoers' second choices showed that the results would change little if the votes for the lower-rated candidates were redistributed among the front-runners."

Posted by Ben | January 1, 2008 12:22 PM

Folks -

The second choice support for Edwards/Obama/Hillary DOES matter. Kerry won 38% of the delegates, but he wasn't viable in like 15-20% of the caucus sites.

That being said - Edwards is teetering towards 15% in some of the polls (probably not believable, but if it is), even HE wont' be viable in tons of precincts...

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | January 1, 2008 1:52 PM

Edwards has arguably the best organization for the caucuses (experienced voters, etc...) and has got to be a favorite. He's been here before, Iowans like his message and he has some serious momentum.

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

Posted by matt | January 1, 2008 2:03 PM

Except Edwards asked his supporters to pledge not to caucus for anyone who received PAC or lobbyist money -- i.e., anyone but himself and Obama. Hard to cut deals with Dodd/Biden/Richardson under such constraints -- unless, of course, he didn't really mean his principled stand.

Posted by Adam B. | January 1, 2008 2:50 PM

Well Dennis told his supporters to vote for Obama, Biden has been attacking both Clinton and Edwards, I don't see his supporters flocking to Edwards, and Ricardson just said a week ago that according to his tracking, his supportors second choice is spilit between the top 3 equally. Like I said in another post, it will be Obama 39%, Edwards 32% and Clinton at 25%.

Posted by sonya | January 1, 2008 5:28 PM

By the way, I found the answer to my question. Marc made an entry about such a narrow assumption because JRE had a presser about it earlier today. So this is a regurgitation of what JRE says and that Marc A. apparently agrees with that assumption.

Posted by Benjamin | January 1, 2008 5:35 PM

Edwards benefitted from the media spinning the attacks by Clinton on Obama as fighting. Then Edwards came out with the strong 'fighter" routine and those sick of the media spin (about the other top two in battle) looked towards Edwards, and he started moving up in the polls.

Now that Edwards has been exposed as hypocritical for claiming he doesn't take campaign funds from corporate interests, when an upper level campaign staff formed a 527 group to raise money from special interests to run attack ads against Obama, the Edward's rise came to a standstill. Coupled with his hedge fund hypocrisy and too many votes to apologize for when he was in the Senate, no way.

Biden is much more likely to be a the favorite second choice, and will make a great Secretary of State.

Posted by PJL | January 3, 2008 2:18 AM