Zogby, huh. (0.00 / 0)

http://www.dailykos....

Anyway this gets sliced, it is a three man race for the Democrats.  The neocons/Liebermans have thrown their support to McCain, and Huckabee has the religious right.  Ron Paul could be a lot of fun.

---

by: dkmich @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 17:20:59 PM UTC

I would have said.... (0.00 / 0)

..............Edwards is charging to a victory!

But, hey! That's just me....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 17:32:55 PM UTC

Ever since the Zogby exit poll predicting (0.00 / 0)

Kerry winning in the afternoon by a significant number. I believe NOTHING that ever comes out of that mans mouth!
That being said, it is a 3 way tie in Iowa.....It will come down to the younggins', and if it is a large turnout, Clinton loses!

---

by: gaiilonfong @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 17:35:49 PM UTC

Zogby predicted Kerry win in Iowa (0.00 / 0)

with Edwards as second and Dean third. in 2004.

---

by: aiko @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 19:20:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Truths (4.00 / 1)

Well one thing is certain.  If Obama is the nominee, he will get CRUSHED.  If Hillary is the nominee, people will HATE her.  If Edwards is the nominee, he will tank because he couldn't even win his own state last time.  And he's a LAWYER.

And for sure, none of these candidates are saying what I want them to say, which means that they will govern like they said they would in the campaign, because politicians always do that. 

I wish I were galactic overlord.  I'd show you all how to run a campaign, a nation, a blog.  Someday I'll get you all.

---

by: Crab Nebula @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 17:41:15 PM UTC

Zogby number's (4.00 / 2)

Chtis you got Obama's number wrong it is 27 not 25

With 2nd choices it is:
Clinton; 35.8
OBAMA 33.4
Edwards 30.8

BOTTOM LINE IT IS TOO CLOSE TO CALL.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 17:54:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let's Look At The Numbers (0.00 / 0)

from the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released today:

The poll found Clinton's supporters were the most dedicated, with 76 percent saying their support was "very" strong, compared to 65 percent for Edwards and 56 percent for Obama.

Under Iowa's arcane caucus rules, candidates must receive support from 15 percent of the participants in each precinct to be viable. If not, their supporters can switch to other candidates.

Edwards was the most popular second choice with 30 percent, while Obama had 25 percent and Clinton only 12 percent.

http://news.yahoo.co...

The first set of numbers should be an eye opener. Solid support - Clinton 76%. Obama 65%. 11point different in solid support. That's a lot. 

Now let's look at what this article says about second choice. BTW I'm not disputing BDM's numbers above, I am just posting what this article says and working from them.

Much has been made about who is running the strongest second and a lot of weight has been put on those numbers. but like all numbers they need to be qualified. Let's take Obama and Edwards at 30% and 25%. OK - but here is the qualification...

Second to who?

If Edwards is the second choice of Obama supporters, which is very likely, then those second choices don't amount to much because voters can't change their vote UNLESS their candidate receives under 15% in their district. I think we will all agree that Obama is not going to receive less than 15% anywhere in Iowa. So...

Those second place votes don't add up to much. The same scenario holds true for Obama - most of his seconds are Edwards supporters and Edwards won't poll less than 15% anywhere either.

Who will poll less that 15% is the question because it is those voters second choices that are the have overwhelmingly likelihood of changing.

Well you got Biden polling at 5%. IMO most of those go to Clinton.

5% polling for Richardson. Richardson = Experience. Experience voters go to Clinton.

Dodd and Kucinich have 1% each. It's not a big factor where those go but Kucinich is probably split between Obama and Edwards. And Dodd's could very well be a three way split. Again we are only looking at 1% support each.

Bottom line - when you really analyze the numbers here Clinton appears to hold the advantage of getting the most second choice votes even though she is running third in that category.

It's not who has the most second choices upfront. It's which second choices are actually going to materialize and that is factored by a poorer that 15% showing which means Biden and Richardson supporters - again breaking to Clinton.

One last thing to ponder. When Biden and Richardson tank with less that 15% - who do you think they are going to tell their supporters to vote for? Yep, again Clinton.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 20:41:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't agree with this statement at all (0.00 / 0)

If Edwards is the second choice of Obama supporters, which is very likely, then those second choices don't amount to much because voters can't change their vote UNLESS their candidate receives under 15% in their district. I think we will all agree that Obama is not going to receive less than 15% anywhere in Iowa.

Even Kerry with a resounding victory in 2004 was not viable in all precincts, coming in as nonviable in about 10% of all precincts. I think Obama will not be viable in a good deal more.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 21:35:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

And you think Edwads (0.00 / 0)

will be viable in those that Obama isn't? Doesn't make sense to me. If you look at the blogosphere the vote is primarily split between Obama and Edwards. Take either one of them out of the race and the bulk of the votes would go to the other. Why would Iowa be any different?

I take you are an Edwards man. Well give this some thought. Given that the polls posted today Obama and Edwards are within two points of each other in each poll your argument can cut both ways. If Obama is going to fail in certain precincts then it stand to reason that Edward would fail in others. Why? Because they are so close in the polls is why. If one fails in certain precincts then the closeness of the math says the other has to also fail in some otherwise the math does not add-up too well.

So what you would end up with is each not reaching 15% in certain precincts with ones vote going to the other in each case. Bottomline a wash.

There is the possibility of course in your scenario that both could fail in in the same precincts which would present the possibility of both of their supporters going for Clinton which widens Clinton's lead.

Either way Clinton stands to gain more secondary voters with the trump card being both Biden and Dodd, sure sub 15% performers pointing their supporters to Clinton.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 21:55:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Maybe, maybe not (0.00 / 0)

I don't see how magically Clinton gets all the second choice votes, though. Edwards leads among second choice polls among supporters of candidates not named Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. People don't automatically listen to precinct captains telling them where to go, and there's no evidence that Biden and Dodd are sending their people to Clinton.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 23:26:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I didn't say Clinton (0.00 / 0)

gets ALL the second choice votes. I said she is s shoe-in for Bidens and Richardson's and if you don't think that is the case you haven't been listening to the debates and reading between the lines.

The two of them have both stood up in the debates and defended one person - Clinton. They also have long relationships with her. It isn't the precinct captains that will be telling voters where to go - it is Biden and Richardson themselves. It doesn't get any better than that. And if you don't think Clinton's people are already lining up them votes then you haven't paid attention to the Iowa Caucuses the last few cycles.

And again Biden and Richardson are the two candidates that are sure to poll under 15% in probably all precincts. That translates into the most second choice votes predictably available going to Clinton - i.e  possibly 10% more of the total votes cast in the entire caucus for Clinton. And that could end up being the deciding factor.

I don't think there is anyway that Edwards picks up 10% from Obama in your scenario. No way. Not 10% from his 27% or 22% he is polling in the two polls. To do that Edwards would have to have to get approximately 41%% of Obama's total supporters!!!!!

Ain't going to happen.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 00:49:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My response to that is HUH???? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: gaiilonfong @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 18:14:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dear god! (0.00 / 0)

Lawyers in politics?! Surely you must be mistaken?

---

by: Kanamit @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 20:25:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My view of Iowa (4.00 / 1)

is Clinton has a ceiling between 30 and 32.  In fact, Clinton has been over 31 ONCE since November, and that was in a VERY suspicious ARG poll which now shows her at 31.

Iowa is a two person race: between Obama and Edwards.  If it's a draw, Clinton may still win Iowa with 30 percent.  I think that is unlikely. 

I think there is a 5 point bounce for either Edwards or Obama to be had in the last week.

If I am right, the candidate who gets it will win the nomination. 

---

by: fladem @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 17:57:20 PM UTC

You really believe Edwards can win it all? (0.00 / 0)

I agree with everything you said except that last sentence.

But it won't matter: I am counting on Obama's ground game and GOTC and diversity and energy and excitement to pu that 5 point bounce but its only a guess/hope. I also think Obama wants it more than Edwards does...

---

by: aiko @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 19:26:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Clearly he can win it all (0.00 / 0)

He has some major obstacles, but there's tons of precedent out there for him taking it all. He has to win Iowa, obviously, and his spin-meisters have to do well on caucus night to make it seem like a huge surprise (remember, most people don't read polls and have no idea he's doing well). Then he needs to use the momentum to finish 2nd to HRC in New Hampshire, get the Culinary union endorsement in Nevada (which is likely if he wins Iowa) and win there, then finish well in South Carolina. He basically needs to do the best of any of the three in the first four states. AND (and this is critical and perhaps the highest hurdle) he needs his primary victim to be Obama. He needs to eliminate Obama for all practical purposes by Feb 5 (obviously Obama won't actually quit). If he can do that, and it becomes Edwards vs. Clinton on Feb 5, I think he wins.

---

by: ColoDem @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 20:32:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You better rethink your numbers (0.00 / 0)

Don't forget who is most likely to get second choice votes.

http://www.openleft....

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 20:44:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My blog with.... (0.00 / 0)

..............with the help of McClatchy/MSNBC sez otherwise!

And since I and not Mr. Nebula am in fact the Galactic OverLord I declare that:

Edwards is leading!

At least until noon....

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 18:50:39 PM UTC

Mason Dixon has Edwards much higher after first round (4.00 / 1)

Thats first: If second choices are added to the first round and non-viables are pulled it looks like this

Edwards 33 %
Clinton 26 %
Obama  26 %

Those are the big numbers hoped for -- Obama or Clinton is going to lose if these numbers are accurate. So "Clinton isnt losing" may not really be the right headline here.

It will all depend on second round, and HRC may loose Iowa. She has twice the staff and lot more money invested here, its gonna hurt, it will need spinning.

HRC's best hope is nobody's watching. A 'win' in the ignored/debased Michigan race may put her back on track for Nevada. But Nevada is Edwards fulcrum.

For those of you who have decried JRE's post Iowa fundraising, it just might be time to get on the phone.

It feels to me like a movement is building here. Historically it might be time for a woman or person of color to be our nominee, but Edwards is the right person for the job that needs to be done. We might wish that Obama was the right choice for the job, that Hillary offered more than a machine, but JRE is the one. The task ahead is too onerous, too big, what John offers is too good to turn down.

Let's get ready to win. With a mandate.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 19:36:55 PM UTC

NY TIMES TODAY (4.00 / 1)

The Clinton, Edwards, and Obama camps seem to agree with this:
-- if turnout equals 2004 (approx. 125,000), advantage Edwards.
-- if turnout is slightly up (say, 130,000-140,000), advantage Clinton.
-- and if turnout is way up there (think 140,000+), advantage Obama.

Gov. Culver said that what he has seen in the canpaign;s GOTV, that an increase of 20,000 Attendee's will mot surprise him and he expects that increasefrom 2004.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 19:59:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes but (0.00 / 0)

Polling second choices is ridiculous and should not be taken as accurate. Many of those "non-viable" second tier candidates WILL be viable in many precincts (a lot of precincts only take a few supporters to be viable, and Richardson, for one, is almost viable statewide) and the top three will be non-viable in a bunch as well. So who exactly will be free to choose a second candidate is completely unknown.

---

by: ColoDem @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 20:11:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Edwards winning (0.00 / 0)

I thought Edwards was winning when he was a few points lower in the polls because of rural strength and 2d choices.  Now he's ahead, by about 5 points.

The drama is 2d place.  Good weather => higher turnout, but is not necessarily an advantage for Obama because his younger supporters will show up (or not) regardless of the weather.  The key is rural support:  Does Obama have enough enthusiastic support there to be viable in most precincts?  Does Clinton?  I wish someone would try to poll that.

---

by: benjamins @ Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 20:06:23 PM UTC

Prediction (0.00 / 0)

Either Edwards or Obama will win Iowa.  Even if Obama just gets second place he will eventually win the nomination b/c he'll crush Edwards in New Hampshire.  Edward will soon bow out and endorse Obama.  Game over.

And I say this as an Edwards man.  I desperately want him to win, but Obama would have to come in third in Iowa for Edwards to start locking in the anti-status quo vote.  It's not enough to beat Clinton, but to show you're the most formidable anti-Hillary opponent.

---

by: Patrickson @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:21:37 AM UTC

If Edwards wins Iowa (0.00 / 0)

He may well win NH. Look at the latest polls; he's only down by ten and actually leads among independents. If Obama loses Iowa AND NH (his neighboring state and then the state where his non-partisan unity schtick was supposed to appeal to independents and carry him to victory a la McCain 2000) he's probably done.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 13:15:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]