not an outlier to me, things are right on track (0.00 / 0)

Edwards understands that we can't negotiate with industries and insurance company interests, we have to fight them.  But the campaign's are behaving quite closely to what my instincts were telling me weeks ago.

by: gaspare @ Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 12:31:06 PM EST
I think Edwards also can be given a tactical advantage (4.00 / 1)
In the fact that Clinton sees Obama as her main rival and Edwards as "flailing".  The mistake Clinton made was in trying to win big early and giving an over emphasis to Iowa.  But maybe all the campaigns have put themselves in that trap, win Iowa, get big mo, win big in New Hampshire, slingshot that into the other states, etc. 
I think Edwards rightly and smartly held back on big spending in Iowa.  The spending cap he's stuck under sucks but may not matter.  I think TV ads serve to basically give the impression that a candidate is active and "alive and out there".  Now what might make a big difference is negative ads that Obama and Clinton may start throwing at each other.  Being an Edwards supporter, this is what I hope and am expecting them to do.  Now I'll offer Clinton free advice.  Wouldn't it be wiser to talk down a win in Iowa and be content with a second place finish? 

Clearly Edwards has the most to gain by a win in Iowa and I don't discount your 2nd choice theory.  But I am hopeful and confident that Edwards messaging on free trade, health care, war on Iran and other issues will resonate with Iowa voters.  I think Iowa voters in 2004 went with we got to go with the "most electable" person.  I think this go around they want to go with their gut instinct, they see a desperate need to change the direction of America and I think the thin slice of the electorate that actually votes on caucus day will vote with those primary concerns on their mind. 

And I think that Clinton and Obama are very, very atune to the fact that Dean and Gephart nuked themselves in 2004 and don't want to go down that road.  But, BUT, they seem to be pulled almost by gravity itself into going down that path.  And the Edwards camp has got to be thinking that beginning a surge at just the right week in December is just the time you want to surge.  Because here you have Obama, king of the hill now, whose got to DEFEND #1 for the next 5 weeks.  And Clinton thinking, shit if he wins Iowa, he could spank me in New Hampshire.  Edwards on the other hand takes a win in Iowa, goes immediatly to Nevada or South Carolina and shoots for a second place in New Hampshire or even third.  Meanwhile uses the Iowa slingshot for a big surprise in Nevada or South Carolina. 
So those are my thoughts not yours.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

by: gaspare @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 00:28:10 AM UTC

Canvassers that I know from the Boston area in NH, some for Obama,some (0.00 / 0)

for Edwards,are up in NH every weekend going door to door and have been for at least the last 6 weeks and both groups say the same thing:voters are still undecided in NH, and they have only seen Hillary canvassers the last 2 weekends.

Both my contacts believe that whomever wins Iowa could win NH. They do not see substantial Clinton support in NH.

Take it for what it's worth.

Neither my Edwards or Obama supporter friends inflate the weekend numbers - they only wish NH residents would make up their minds!!

Too many 3's out there or Undecideds that need a return visit.

---

by: Susan H @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:20:26 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Chris (0.00 / 0)

didn't Insider Advantage reweight their results to account for the low total of under 45s?

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 00:32:18 AM UTC

Yes. (4.00 / 1)

Chris has it wrong. The final numbers were weighted to reflect 2004 demographics. The internals aren't weighted and so Obama's gender numbers look strange. Of course, the poll might still be underestimating Obama if you think he'll bring out a bunch of new voters.

---

by: Jack @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 08:04:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Highly Likely Voters: (0.00 / 0)

RCP, among others, is using the HLV screen which shows Obama winning....

Insider Advantage Iowa poll, 12/16-17, 977 HLVs, no trend lines

Edwards: 26.0%
Obama: 26.6%
Clinton: 23.8%
Other: 14.0%
Unsure: 9.5%

---

by: aiko @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 00:37:46 AM UTC

of course they are (0.00 / 0)

They've regularly flat out ignored polls that showed Edwards winning.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 00:42:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

So if Edwards wins Iowa... (0.00 / 0)

  ...what will the commercial media narrative be?

  Here's a wild guess: It won't be ANYTHING like the lovefest that followed John Kerry after HIS win there four years ago...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:33:46 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Perhaps (0.00 / 0)

but in this case, RCP has always been a right-leaning outfit.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 13:15:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One conclusion we CAN draw... (4.00 / 3)

  ...is that Iowa is anybody's race.

  While I have mixed feelings at best about Iowa mattering so much in the primary selection process, it DOES indicate that voters who get long-term, detailed, close looks at candidates come to very different conclusions than voters whose primary information sources are random media soundbites and establishment narratives.

  High-information voters are the key to a functioning democracy. And therein lies Iowa's value.

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:29:48 AM UTC

Imagine for a second... (0.00 / 0)

  ...an Edwards vs. Huckabee race.

  While such a matchup may be precarious for the Democrats (though I still think Edwards would win it), the idea of the beltway/economic elites going into apoplexy over it would be immensely gratifying...

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

---

by: Master Jack @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:38:45 AM UTC

A new CNN poll shows JRE administring... (0.00 / 0)

.................the mother of all butt kickings to Ol' Huck. JRE beats him by 25 points.

By the way, just go off the phone with my cousin. She lives in North Highlands, as suburb of Sacramento CA, a red as red zone can be.
She happens to be a dog breeder and has an extensive network of friends throughout Northern CA who all share an interest in dogs.

And...

One, every one of her George Bush supporting card-carrying dog friends are spewing like volcanos about....

Huckabee and his son's torturing and killing of dogs. See C&J for more. Now folks there are lot of dog lovers in this country and the Huckabee 'dog story' is real vintage ReThug: Sadistic, cruel and vile. I doubt me that Ol' Huck kin count on the dog lovers vote.

Two, many of her Republican friends are saying they would rather vote for a Dem this time. They are that disgusted.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:21:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

personal anecdotes mean less than zero, fwiw. (0.00 / 0)

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

---

by: avenged savant @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 20:48:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This would explain.... (0.00 / 0)

Clinton sudden NICENESS toward Edwards, her attacks on Obama and Obama's attacks on Edwards. They all saw the same trend coming.
To Clinton, an Edwards win is better than Obama. To Obama, he's guarding his left flank because he loses more voters to Edwards.

This is great news. Perhaps a bit early, though. I'd rather Edwards stay in third for a while longer so the piling on couldn't happen too soon.

---

by: IndySteve @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:39:54 AM UTC

gender numbers? (0.00 / 0)

check out the LV gender percentages: when you do the math, none of them work out to equal the candidate's final LV tally. Is that an artefact of the weighting for gender?

---

by: along @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 01:40:13 AM UTC

Obama doing well among the older crowd (0.00 / 0)

It is nice to see Obama that doing well among the older crowd.  He gets enough likely voters that young voters could push him over the edge or give him a pretty big victory.

---

by: Astera @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:08:37 AM UTC

Wrong numbers (0.00 / 0)

Interesting poll, but I think you posted the wrong numbers. The page you linked to shows Clinton at 26 and Obama at 24 among likely voters.

---

by: ukit @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 02:46:13 AM UTC

thank you (0.00 / 0)

fixed

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:46:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Strange Poll (0.00 / 0)

Is Edwards getting two thirds of 2d choice votes or just over 40%?  I can't understand their tables.

Edwards will win Iowa.  If he gets over 40% of the delegate equivalent, how will the media react?  Will he get positive coverage?  How could they ridicule him?  They won't be able to.  But if he doesn't win NH, the narrative will be that Edwards "failed."

That four days between Iowa and NH is gonna be wild.

 

---

by: benjamins @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 03:50:31 AM UTC

New Wash. Post Poll to be released Wed. (0.00 / 0)

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday showed Obama with 33 percent support of likely Iowa caucusgoers, while Clinton had 29 percent and Edwards 20 percent. The poll found, however, that Edwards' backing might be more dependable because he had more support than Obama and Clinton from people who previously attended a caucus.

---

by: BDM @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 05:15:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Numbers Look to Be Weighted for Age (0.00 / 0)

Why is this survey more favorable to Edwards? It could be because of an Edwards surge, but it could also be the result of the poll projecting that only one in eight caucus goers will be under the age of 45.

The total percentages in this poll appear to be weighted to something very much like the 2004 Entrance poll age group distribution. Your post got me curious so I tried taking their table and re-weighting each age group to 2004 levels. but when I did I found the total percentages really didn't change much.

I thought I was going nuts until I figured out that if you just turn all their percentages for each age group from their LV table back into people, add up all the people for each candidate and recalculate percentages from the raw, unweighted totals, it comes to:

Edwards 29%
Clinton 32%
Obama 19%
Another candidate 13%
Undecided 8%

So I'd have to conclude that the total percentages they're reporting either reflect re-weighting or else there are typos in their cross tabs. Most likely they're weighted though. The results I got seem too close to be coincidence.

---

by: CalD @ Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 13:30:57 PM UTC