There is a general sentiment that following the competitive, horserace aspect of elections is a lesser, lower form of political engagement, especially when compared to ideological, policy and issue coverage. There have been numerous times during this, and past, elections where people have written me asking for more coverage of issues and policies, rather than "just the horserace." It is an understandable sentiment, since really, isn't the entire reason we get involved in politics because we care about how ideas, policies and legislation can impact people, our country, and our world? We all want to make a difference, and making a difference means changing the sort of laws that are passed, changing the way that the government is administered, and changing the way that powerful institutions operate. One example of this would be that we don't want to just elect more Democrats, we want to pass universal health care. We don't want to just follow elections, we want to end the war, or improve education, or act in a sustainable manner with the environment, and so on.
I admit that this is a perception I labor under myself. Generally speaking, I think of the content I write about the quantitative side of elections to be of a lower order of importance than, say, the residual forces campaign, the Responsible Plan to end the war, the Iraq supplemental fights, or other Iraq-centric policy that we have discussed here on Open Left over the last nine months. Surely, Iraq, health care, or global warming is more important than the latest poll numbers of out Pennsylvania. When I list moments that I think Open Left has made a difference, I cite things like the SChip fight where we flipped votes, the Responsible Plan to end the war that dozens of challengers have signed onto, or when we helped push the issue of residual forces into the public consciousness. That is when we made a difference rather than, you know, just followed the horserace.
However, the more I think about it, this strikes me as basically internalizing a form of Washington, D.C. elitism. For several reasons, horeserace coverage is an extremely important, and populist, contribution to political activism around the country. First, when someone is not a political professional, his or her options to "make a difference" in politics are pretty limited. Apart from contacting local elected representatives, there are virtually no options to make a difference in legislative battles. Apart from attending political rallies, there are virtually no ways to raise awareness for a given issue. When you don't have many political contacts, the one constant and immediately available way to make an impact on the political discourse and institutions in America is to engage in electoral activism. There are always elections, whether primaries or generals, and whether they are at the local, statewide, or national level. You can participate in these elections just by talking to friends and family, or by voting, by making small donations or by volunteering on the weekend. For someone who does not work in politics, that sort of activism is a lot easier, and has more of an impact, than a nebulous attempt to change the way lobbyists and staffers write obscure legislation.
This is where horserace coverage comes in, and why it is so important for grassroots political activism. Since elections are one of the few regularly available means for almost anyone to participate in politics, providing accurate information on which elections are coming up next, where those elections are taking place, and where those elections currently stand is immediately actionable information for virtually the that entire country. That is the sort of knowledge that facilitates the most common and readily available forms of political activism in which most Americans engage. By comparison, going into the details of health care policy, energy and global warming policy, telecom policy, or Iraq withdrawal policy just is not as useful. If anything, information on those policies is actually most useful to the general public by giving them more information and context for their electoral activism.
Elections are an immediate, more effective, and near constant means of engaging in political activism for a much wider range of people than are discussions on the intricacies of policy. Every American can make a quantifiable impact on an election in a way that they cannot make a quantifiable impact on almost any other area of politics. This is also why clear differences between parties and cnadidates are important and useful for the general population, even though such partisanship is looked down on by elites. When there are clearly defined differences between Democrats and Republicans, then people have an easier time understanding what they are voting for, and a greater belief that the outcome of the election matters (this is one of the key reasons why voter turnout has increased from 2002 forward, after years of a long, slow decline). When there are no clearly defined differences, then only insiders who really understand and work in the system know where the power centers are, and also how to get things done. Bi-partisanship is actually quite elitist in this sense, because it obscures the process from the general public, and makes the easiest way to get involved in politics--elections--seem less important.
When there are clear differences between candidates in an election, and when there is clear, easy to understand information on when and where elections are taking place, not to mention the current state of those elections, involvement in the political process will increase nationwide. It is in this sense that clear and accurate horserace coverage, just like clear and thoroughgoing partisanship, are actually huge positives in our political system. Simply put, they both increase transparency in the political process, and make it easier for people to get involved.
.Now, this isn't to say that policy discussions are not important, since I believe they are. Rather, I've just decided to stop internalizing the notion that horserace political coverage is somehow of lower value than issue-based political discussion. Hell, the entire reason I first started reading political blogs six years ago is because I found the electoral information on places like CNN and MSNBC for the 2002 midterms to be woefully inadequate and lacking in specifics. Eventually, providing that service myself was a natural fit.
During 2007, South Carolina ranked behind only Iowa and New Hampshire in terms of candidate visits and campaign spending. However, it now seems that both Michigan and Nevada have surpassed South Carolina in terms of importance to the campaign. On the Republican side, a Romney win in Michigan probably means that McCain skips South Carolina to focus on what should be a safe win in Nevada. With Romney and Giuliani already pulling out of South Carolina, if McCain pulls out too, it would deny Huckabee virtually any benefit from winning the state. then again, if McCain wins Michigan, he then has a very realistic chance of knocking out Romney and mortally wounding Huckabee by winning South Carolina, thus cementing his frontrunner status. As such, Michigan has become more pivotal than South Carolina for Republicans.
On the Democratic side, Clinton seems to be skipping South Carolina altogether, considering that she hasn’t visited the state since November 27th (and before that, since October 29th). (stupid Washington Post campaign tracker) Clinton actually now has more events in Nevada than she does in South Carolina. Since South Carolina alone probably won’t be enough for Obama to catch Clinton nationally, the Nevada caucuses could be the turning point in the campaign, determining whether Clinton heads into February 5th as the favorite, or whether Obama and Clinton are roughly tied before the quasi-national primary. And so, Nevada has surpassed South Carolina in importance on the Democratic side as well.
No rest for the weary. January 15th and January 19th now loom as just as important as Iowa and New Hampshire once were. Here are today’s numbers:
I’m starting to think that, with the exception of tomorrow morning’s Zogby tracking numbers, there won’t be any more polls released before Iowa. Since the glance has two purposes, to make it easier to understand the state of the campaign and to predict the winner of the nomination before Iowa begins, this means that it is just about time for me to try and fulfill the latter purpose.
For the nearly final projection, I have decided to take the average of the most recent poll from every polling organization that polled Iowa since December 26th, and combine it with the sensitive poll estimate from Pollster.com. For New Hampshire, I have done the same thing. For national polls, I’ve decided to just use the Pollster.com projections. For momentum, I’m using the Iowa to New Hampshire and Iowa and New Hampshire to national, numbers produced by fladem.
I have to say, I don’t feel terribly confident about these numbers, as they seem to be projecting both the Democratic and Republican nominations to follow the same path that the 2004 Democratic nomination followed. In truth, Iowa is so close right now, there will probably be very little momentum from it. No matter who actually wins Iowa, this could very easily allow Clinton and McCain to win New Hampshire, putting them both in good shape to win their respective nominations. As an election forecaster, it isn’t fun trying to pick winners in contests where enormous structures are balanced on the head of a single, teetering pin. Still, in the extended entry, here are my nearly final pre-Iowa projections nonetheless.
Money has been removed from the glance. On Friday, it will be replaced with delegate counts. All polls for states occurring after New Hampshire that were taken before New Hampshire are now considered irrelevant, and thus not included.
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Iowa
Jan 03
8
28.6%
27.0%
25.6%
6.0%
5.0%
1.0%
2.0%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
6
30.4%
28.5%
17.5%
6.5%
2.5%
3.0%
0.7%
National
NA
5
44.1%
25.0%
12.8%
2.5%
3.1%
1.8%
1.0%
It is remarkable how the scenarios haven’t changed much at all in the last seven months. If Clinton wins either Iowa or New Hampshire, the nomination is hers. If Obama wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, the nomination is almost certainly his. If Edwards wins Iowa and New Hampshire, then it becomes Clinton vs. Edwards. If Edwards wins Iowa, and Obama wins New Hampshire, then things get really messy.
I’ve been writing this as long as I can remember. However, as Charles Franklin writes today, figuring out which path Iowa and New Hampshire will take has become impossible from a polling standpoint. There are Iowa polls showing Clinton, Edwards and Obama all in front by decent margins. It is unlikely that clarity will appear in the polling situation over the next two days. I’m starting to think that whoever wins the entrance poll can and should declare victory immediately. The winner of the entrance poll might be the only Iowa winner on Thursday night.
Republican Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Romney
Huckabee
McCain
Giuliani
Thompson
Paul
Iowa
Jan 03
8
27.9%
28.3%
11.6%
6.3%
11.3%
6.7%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
6
30.3%
10.3%
26.3%
13.0%
3.2%
6.8%
National
Feb 05
5
15.6%
22.9%
13.2%
21.3%
10.8%
3.8%
While Romney and Huckabee remain deadlocked in Iowa, McCain might very well have taken the lead in New Hampshire. Thus, it would now appear that a Huckabee win in Iowa, coupled with a McCain third place in Iowa, would all but guarantee a McCain New Hampshire win. An Obama Iowa win might throw a wrench into that scenario, but that is purely speculation.
It looks like Iowa is now a must win for Romney. If he loses there, he will also lose in New Hampshire, and then it will be game over. Should Romney win Iowa, Huckabee can probably regroup to make a stand in South Carolina, especially if McCain takes New Hampshire. The scenarios here are more dizzying than on the Democratic side.
Our next President will be one of the following six people: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. I don’t think Romney can win a general election, so maybe it is just one of five people. Clinton’s chances are still the best, but at this point it would be crazy to count any of the other four out. Maybe it is crazy to count Romney out, too.
With only one week to go, money doesn’t matter right now. All the campaign events have been scheduled, all the staff has been hired, and all of the ad buys have been purchased. Further, polling in states after New Hampshire don’t matter right now either, since the first two states will scramble everything. All that matters is Iowa, how Iowa will impact New Hampshire, and then how New Hampshire will impact the national scene. With all of that in mind, and in the interest of providing more clarity, here is the only information on the nominations that currently matters:
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Iowa
Jan 03
5
28.2%
26.2%
26.2%
6.2%
5.2%
0.8%
1.6%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
5
30.4%
29.8%
18.2%
6.4%
2.6%
3.0%
0.6%
National
NA
5
44.1%
25.0%
12.8%
2.5%
3.1%
1.8%
1.0%
Now, let’s combine this information with the three questions presented above:
Iowa? Clinton holds a very slight edge in first-place choices, but that is entirely due to her advantage in ARG and Zogby, the two least respected polls among pollsters. Edwards has a favorable trend and a seeming advantage among second-place choices. Obama’s trend isn’t favorable right now, but there is also evidence to suggest that polls are currently undercounting his support in Iowa. In other words, no one has a clear advantage right now, and the top three could still finish anywhere in the top three.
Iowa’s impact on New Hampshire? It is hard for me to imagine a scenario where, if Clinton or Obama wins Iowa, that person does not also win New Hampshire. When it comes to Edwards, with an average Iowa bounce of 11.3% in New Hampshire, and current New Hampshrie deficits of 11.6% and 12.2%, it has become impossible to tell whether or not an Iowa win will translate into a New Hampshire win, too. Right now, Obama must wish that New Hampshire, with its enormous secular electorate, was the first state in the nation, instead of Iowa. If, for some reason, Iowa has no impact on New Hampshire, right now I would favor Obama in the state. as the trendline there is extremely favorable to him.
Iowa and New Hampshire’s impact on the national campaign? According to fladem, the average national swing for a sweep of Iowa and New Hampshire is 33%. This means that if either Clinton or Obama win Iowa, and thus New Hampshire, the nomination almost certainly breaks their way. If Edwards sweeps the two states, then it looks like a close two-way campaign between Edwards and Clinton. If Edwards wins Iowa, and Clinton hangs on to take New Hampshire, then it looks like Clinton wins the nomination. If Edwards wins Iowa, and Obama hangs on to win New Hampshire, then all three should have a good shot and it is anyone’s guess as to what happens next. I have to admit, the political junkie in me is kind of pulling for that result. This is great political theater, and I don’t want it to all end on Thursday night, or even next Tuesday night.
For my part, I’m not making any predictions until I see the final Des Moines Register poll. I will say, however, that I think the Edwards rise in Iowa has slightly improved his chances to win the nomination, but also improved Clinton’s chances to win the nomination. Right now, I say that based on the likelihood of the scenarios I presented above, Clinton has a 60% chance to be the nominee, Obama a 30% chance, and Edwards a 10% chance.
Also, I’m sticking with my new methodology, which works as follows. First, where possible, use registered voters instead of likely voters. Second, combine the most recent five-poll simple mean with the Pollster.com regression line. Third, estimated momentum is still based on fladem’s work (see here and here). Fourth and finally, I reserve the right to slightly tweak final estimated Iowa standings based on the various Iowa factors unique to the Iowa caucus, as discussed here and here.
A house of cards? Maybe. Presidential primaries are the most difficult to project elections in American politics. This is the best I can do.
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$32.2M
$30.5M
$18.0M
$5.1M
$1.5M
$0.4M
$3.5M
Iowa
Jan 03
5
29.3%
27.1%
24.1%
5.6%
5.5%
1.6%
1.6%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
5
31.0%
29.4%
16.9%
6.8%
2.6%
2.7%
0.8%
Nevada
Jan 19
5
43.0%
21.4%
12.0%
5.5%
3.6%
3.0%
1.0%
South Carolina
Jan 26
5
38.2%
33.8%
14.4%
1.6%
2.5%
1.4%
1.0%
Florida
Jan 29
5
47.9%
21.4%
13.8%
2.9%
2.6%
2.3%
1.7%
National
Feb 05
5
43.9%
25.1%
13.1%
2.5%
3.2%
1.8%
1.0%
The table appears to be set. If Clinton wins Iowa, it will almost certainly push her over the top in New Hampshire, thus handing her the nomination. If Obama wins Iowa, it will almost certainly push him over the top in New Hampshire, probably handing him the nomination. If Edwards wins Iowa, whoever comes in second in Iowa probably takes New Hampshire. If that is Clinton, she then goes on to take the nomination. If that is Obama, then strap yourself in for a long, close, three-way campaign. However, if Edwards keeps closing in New Hampshire, it remains possible he could take both states, thus setting up a close two-person campaign between Edwards and Clinton.
As far as Iowa itself goes, Clinton holds the current polling edge. However, Obama and Edwards, mainly Edwards, hold advantages in the “hidden” aspects of the caucus: second place choices and areas with lower population density. This means I favor Clinton, but can now see paths for all three to take both Iowa and the nomination. Right now, thinking out loud, I give Clinton a 55% chance, Obama a 35% chance, and Edwards a 10% chance to win the nomination.
Republican Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Huckabee
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Thompson
Paul
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$0.6M
$9.2M
$5.0M
$11.4M
$6.4M
$5.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
5
32.3%
23.5%
12.1%
8.3%
8.8%
5.5%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
5
10.6%
31.8%
23.4%
14.3%
3.3%
6.5%
Michigan
Jan 15
4*
18.8%
19.8%
13.0%
12.5%
6.5%
4.3%
South Carolina
Jan 19
5
24.3%
19.6%
11.8%
14.0%
14.6%
5.6%
Nevada
Jan 19
2*
20.0%
24.5%
7.0%
21.0%
7.0%
4.0%
Florida
Jan 29
5
22.9%
18.5%
11.0%
26.7%
9.0%
4.1%
National
Feb 05
5
21.1%
15.2%
13.9%
21.1%
11.3%
4.3%
If Huckabee wins Iowa, and it certainly looks like he will win Iowa, will Romney hold onto his lead in New Hampshire, or collapse and open the door for McCain? Right now, I think Romney will still win New Hampshire, as long as he isn’t blown out in Iowa (aka, by more than ten points). After all, McCain would suffer in terms of news coverage from a Huckabee win in Iowa, too. In fact, while many are arguing that Huckabee will help McCain in New Hampshire, I actually think that McCain’s rise could really help out Romney once New Hampshire is over. If Romney goes second and first in Iowa and New Hampshire, while Huckabee goes first and third in the two states, it seems entirely possible to me, if not likely, that Romney will go on to take Michigan, Nevada and even South Carolina. For a while I had been projecting Huckabee second in New Hampshire, but a third place finish there could stop his momentum in its tracks. Thus, if McCain takes second in New Hampshire, but not first, Romney will actually be the main beneficiary. Also, McCain’s New Hampshire success rests significantly in how well Obama does in Iowa. The better Obama does in Iowa, the worse McCain will likely do in New Hampshire, as New Hampshire indies choose between Obama and McCain.
But really, whatev. Good luck to anyone trying to figure this mess out.
Notes: Bold-face indicates either a lead or an effective tie. Due to the dramatic, post-Thanksgiving transformation of the Republican campaign, I thought it prudent to only include post-Thanksgiving polls. also, Michigan is intentionally excluded from the Democratic campaign because so few candidates are on the ballot. Cash on hand includes estimated loans taken in advance of matching funds.
Clinton has re-established a decent lead in New Hampshire, and has narrowly also edged in front in Iowa (although second-place choices might tell a different story). McCain, via a wave of media endorsements, is making a big impact on the campaign. Not only is he rising in New Hampshire, but his improvement there probably comes from independents and mainly at Obama’s expense. Thus, McCain’s improvement is also helping Clinton.
While McCain’s chances of winning the nomination are still pretty small, the specter of a McCain nomination changes the electability dynamic. McCain, like Edwards, has accepted matching funds. In the general election, McCain, like Edwards, also polls better than the top two contenders on his side. If one of the two third-place longshots slips through, we will be in a situation where the leader in the polls is significantly shorthanded monetarily from mid-February through late August. If McCain and Edwards both slip through, we will be oddly spared of Presidential advertising and fundraising this cycle.
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$32.2M
$30.5M
$10.0M
$5.1M
$0.8M
$0.3M
$2.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
6
28.7%
27.8%
23.8%
6.8%
5.0%
1.0%
1.0%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
4
34.8%
27.5%
16.3%
7.3%
3.0%
2.5%
1.5%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
39.5%
22.0%
11.5%
4.5%
4.0%
3.0%
1.0%
South Carolina
Jan 26
6
33.3%
32.3%
15.8%
1.8%
5.0%
1.4%
1.0%
Florida
Jan 29
4
47.3%
22.5%
14.5%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
1.7%
National
Feb 05
NA
43.6%
24.9%
12.7%
2.7%
3.2%
1.8%
1.0%
Republican Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Huckabee
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Thompson
Paul
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$0.6M
$9.2M
-$0.1M
$11.4M
$6.4M
$5.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
6
30.5%
24.3%
11.0%
8.5%
9.5%
5.8%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
4
10.3%
31.3%
25.5%
14.0%
3.0%
6.3%
Michigan
Jan 15
3
18.7%
19.7%
13.0%
13.0%
6.0%
5.0%
South Carolina
Jan 19
5
25.0%
18.6%
11.2%
13.6%
14.2%
5.8%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
20.0%
24.5%
7.0%
21.0%
7.0%
4.0%
Florida
Jan 29
4
23.3%
19.0%
11.0%
25.3%
8.8%
3.3%
National
Feb 05
NA
22.8%
16.0%
13.0%
21.6%
10.8%
4.2%
Iowa and New Hampshire polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted December 13th through December 20th. Polls for all other states included in the averages has the majority of their interviews conducted between December 4th and December 20th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included. Margins of 1% or less are considered draws.
I would also like to clear up a few misconceptions. First, I am excited to work for the nominee in the general election, although I am more excited to continue to work to push the party to the left. However, I will work for both. The key to my lack of candidate-centric activism in the primary is that I just don’t feel enough of a gap between my top choices to spur me to the point of activism. I am proud of the issue advocacy work we conducted around residual forces here, but the lack of a clear-cut top choice for me makes candidate-centric activism impossible. Importantly, this is due just as much to there being positive things about most of the candidates as it is to there being flaws in all the candidates (both positive and negative qualities are in abundance pretty much across the board). Second, it is true that these tables are only meant to predict who would win if the voting started today. However, I think they are still useful in terms of figuring out where the campaign stands at any given moment. Also, making daily predictions helps make a more accurate final prediction, as it allows for ongoing tweaks in methodology and an improved understanding of the overall trajectory of the campaign. For example, I think conducting daily updates like this helped me slowly improve my predictions in 2006, and eventually make very good ones.
Anyway, on to the numbers, which you can find in the extended entry.
Why do I hold nomination at a glance posts until the wee hours of the day? Mainly, it is so that all polls from that day are included in the average. Also, it is to ensure that the under polled states of Michigan and Nevada haven’t seen any seen polls. Finally, it is because no new polls are released late at night, and so this is the only time when polling averages are stable.
For what it is worth, I consider these the gutsiest predictions I have made in over three years. Predicting an Obama vs. Huckabee general election is not the easiest thing to do right now. Literally hundreds of people have personally told me how disappointed they were in my 2004 primary and 2004 general election predictions, and so I made it my business to never be wrong again. If you think I am wrong, fine. However, express a real argument for why I am wrong in the comments, and go beyond simply declaring that your candidate rules. I stand behind my election predictions more than I stand behind anything else I have ever written. Seriously--insult my election analysis, and I will fight you to the death. Insult anything else I write, and I will grant that you might have a point.
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Obama
Clinton
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$30.5M
$32.2M
$20.0M
$5.1M
$0.8M
$0.3M
$2.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
4
29.3%
27.5%
24.0%
8.7%
4.0%
1.0%
1.0%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
4
28.3%
33.5%
16.3%
7.5%
2.0%
2.3%
0.8%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
22.0%
39.5%
11.5%
4.5%
4.0%
3.0%
1.0%
South Carolina
Jan 26
6
32.3%
33.3%
15.8%
1.8%
5.0%
1.4%
1.0%
Florida
Jan 29
3
23.0%
48.7%
13.0%
2.5%
2.0%
3.0%
1.5%
National
Feb 05
NA
26.5%
41.8%
12.9%
2.9%
3.1%
1.8%
1.0%
Republican Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Huckabee
Romney
McCain
Giuliani
Thompson
Paul
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$0.6M
$9.2M
-$0.1M
$11.4M
$6.4M
$5.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
4
30.5%
25.3%
8.5%
7.5%
9.3%
5.8%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
4
10.3%
32.3%
21.5%
15.8%
2.3%
6.8%
Michigan
Jan 15
1
21.0%
20.0%
8.0%
19.0%
9.0%
7.0%
South Carolina
Jan 19
5
25.0%
18.6%
11.2%
13.6%
14.2%
5.8%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
20.0%
24.5%
7.0%
21.0%
7.0%
4.0%
Florida
Jan 29
3
24.0%
18.7%
10.3%
24.3%
9.0%
4.0%
National
Feb 05
NA
22.2%
14.9%
12.2%
22.6%
10.7%
3.9%
Iowa and New Hampshire polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted December 11th through December 18th. Polls for all other states included in the averages has the majority of their interviews conducted between December 4th and December 18th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included. Margins of 1% or less are considered draws.
All that establishment money wasted on Giuliani and Thompson… what a tragedy. Hopefully, they will get the nominee they want in Romney.
I can’t shake the feeling of being fundamentally dissatisfied with my selection in the Democratic primaries. While I still understand and accept the rationale behind my endorsement of Edwards, I have to admit that a large part of me laments endorsing the one white guy among the top four, specifically as it relates to Obama. As I indicated in my endorsement post, I don’t see a significant separation between Edwards and Obama on the core set of issues I put forward. So, I sided with Edwards because, among the top three, I felt he had the best combination of policy and rhetoric on identifying with the new progressive politics and recognizing the conservative opposition. However, given the Obama edge in terms of raw activist excitement and in terms of the cultural change that Obama personally represents, that is a pretty bare minimum advantage.
This is further complicated in that I feel a tremendous loyalty to Bill Richardson, both for his work on residual forces and in that I think the ad we cut with him is a real landmark for the progressive blogosphere. I am also aware of the danger--yes, the danger—of defeating Hillary Clinton in the primaries. If she doesn’t win the nomination, the nominee better win the Presidency, or the grassroots will be screwed within the party indefinitely (Of course, I guess, so would the country.) And you know what? Chris Dodd just did exactly what I want progressive in Congress to do, and Dennis Kucinich holds a lot of the right positions.
I guess what I am trying to say is that I think I would feel unsatisfied no matter who I ended up siding with in the primary. If it were possible to combine the Richardson Iraq policy and blogger outreach with the Obama activism and background with the Edwards advisors and rhetoric and with the Dodd leadership in the Senate, then we might have something. Maybe we would just have Russ Feingold, who I supported behind the scenes for nearly two years before the primary ever began. And maybe that is my problem: I had a clear-cut top choice for a very long time (like, from the day Kerry conceded to the day Feingold announced he wouldn’t run), and that person didn’t run. Or maybe my desires for the progressive movement have moved beyond something that any single individual could ever offer. Whatever it is, as long as he is still on the ballot when Pennsylvania comes around, I am still going to vote for Edwards, but I admit to a fundamental feeling of dissatisfaction in making my choice this time around. I wish the choice was clearer, but it isn’t.
Today's numbers can be found in the extended entry.
No new polls today, so the numbers don't change (except in Florida, where one poll dropped out of the averages). Still, I said that I would post these numbers everyday until Iowa. And so, here are the numbers:
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance Iowa and New Hampshire polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted December 8th through December 15th. Polls for all other states included in the averages has the majority of their interviews conducted between December 1st and December 15th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included.
Obama: The system sucks, but I'm so awesome that it'll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we're gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
With the Des Moines Register endorsement due out tonight, with only 19 days left before Iowa, and with many of those days being holidays, the beginning of the end of the nomination campaign is upon us. As such, today also marks the start of the final stage in the nomination at a glance series. This means daily updates of the nomination at a glance tables, and that the Iowa and New Hampshire polling averages have been reduced to eight-day calendars, rather than the fourteen-day calendars began employing on Thanksgiving. This ensures that the table will react with greater sensitivity to new Iowa and New Hampshire polls, and that the only Iowa and New Hampshire polls included in the final, pre-Iowa averages will be all conducted entirely after Christmas. Polling averages for all other states will continue to operate on two-week averages straight through Iowa.
On the Democratic side, it is hard to imagine a way for Obama or Clinton to lose the nomination if they win Iowa. It is equally hard to figure out what will happen to the nomination should Edwards win Iowa. (Interesting anecdote: when I met Obama in early August, he expressed his belief in that exact same set of horserace scenarios, way back then.) On the Republican side, Huckabee and Romney appear destined for a winner-take-all showdown in South Carolina on January 19th. (Go Romney!) Unlike the Democratic side, I don’t imagine that is a scenario anyone had in mind four and a half months ago.
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance Iowa and New Hampshire polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted December 7th through December 14th. Polls for all other states included in the averages has the majority of their interviews conducted between November 30th and December 14th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included.
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Obama
Clinton
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$30.5M
$32.2M
$23.4M
$5.1M
$0.8M
$0.3M
$2.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
4
29.8%
26.3%
23.0%
7.0%
4.3%
1.0%
1.0%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
5
28.8%
31.2%
16.2%
6.8%
1.8%
2.4%
0.8%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
22.0%
39.5%
11.5%
4.5%
4.0%
3.0%
1.0%
South Carolina
Jan 26
5
32.2%
34.4%
14.4%
1.5%
6.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Florida
Jan 29
3
19.3%
50.7%
11.3%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
0.5%
National
Feb 05
NA
24.0%
43.3%
12.0%
3.3%
3.4%
1.8%
1.0%
With Clinton only leading in one of the four polls in the current Iowa averages, and with Clinton slightly closer to Edwards than Obama in the those same Iowa averages, Obama moves back in front in the overall campaign. With only 2.4% separating the top two contenders in New Hampshire, I simply don’t see anyway that Iowa won’t be decisive in the results of the nation’s first primary. Momentum would have to cease to function in the nomination campaign altogether for Iowa to not determine New Hampshire’s results. And if back to back victories in Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t enough to put Obama over the top nationally, I’ll eat my hat.
To regain the overall campaign lead, Clinton will need two consecutive Iowa polls showing her leading the caucuses. Interestingly, an Edwards--Obama--Clinton 1-2-3 finish in Iowa currently projects to an Obama--Edwards--Clinton 1-2-3 finish in New Hampshire. Clinton finishing third in both Iowa and New Hampshire, with Edwards and Obama splitting the two states is, I believe, the ultimate insanity scenario. It is the only scenario that provides a reasonable chance for the campaign to drag on past February 5th.
Republican Nomination, At a Glance Iowa and New Hampshire polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted December 7th through December 14th. Polls for all other states included in the averages has the majority of their interviews conducted between November 30th and December 14th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included.
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Huckabee
Romney
Giuliani
McCain
Thompson
Paul
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$0.6M
$9.2M
$11.4M
-$0.1M
$6.4M
$5.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
4
34.0%
23.3%
9.8%
5.8%
9.5%
5.3%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
5
10.6%
32.0%
17.0%
18.6%
2.4%
7.0%
Michigan
Jan 15
1
21.0%
20.0%
19.0%
8.0%
9.0%
7.0%
South Carolina
Jan 19
5
24.4%
16.4%
15.0%
10.4%
16.8%
6.3%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
20.0%
24.5%
21.0%
7.0%
7.0%
4.0%
Florida
Jan 29
3
18.7%
16.7%
27.0%
8.7%
11.0%
4.0%
National
Feb 05
NA
20.5%
15.0%
23.3%
12.8%
9.7%
4.3%
Man, just as it was tempting to move Dennis Kucinich ahead of Joe Biden on the Democratic side, it is tempting to move Ron Paul ahead of Fred Thompson here. Not that the battle for fifth place really matters that much on either side, but it would be amusing none the less.
No big changes here. I see Huckabee and Romney finishing 1-2 in every state, straight through February 5th. Unfortunately, that seems to end any possibility of a maor Republican schism this time around. Overall, Huckabee seems to have the edge right now, but the Republican establishment is siding with Romney. As such, I wouldn’t count Romney out, not by a long shot.
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance All state polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted November 30th through December 13th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included.
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$32.2M
$30.5M
$23.4M
$5.1M
$0.8M
$0.3M
$2.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
8
26.8%
27.4%
22.4%
8.4%
4.4%
1.3%
0.8%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
8
32.1%
27.5%
15.9%
7.4%
2.8%
2.5%
0.6%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
39.5%
22.0%
11.5%
4.5%
4.0%
3.0%
1.0%
South Carolina
Jan 26
5
34.4%
32.2%
14.4%
1.5%
6.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Florida
Jan 29
2
53.5%
20.5%
10.0%
1.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
National
Feb 05
NA
43.3%
24.0%
12.0%
3.3%
3.4%
1.8%
1.0%
Republican Nomination, At a Glance All state polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted November 30th through December 13th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Huckabee
Romney
Giuliani
McCain
Thompson
Paul
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$0.6M
$9.2M
$11.4M
-$0.1M
$6.4M
$5.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
7
33.1%
22.5%
9.3%
5.9%
9.6%
5.3%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
8
10.4%
31.9%
16.9%
18.0%
3.4%
5.8%
Michigan
Jan 15
1
21.0%
20.0%
19.0%
8.0%
9.0%
7.0%
South Carolina
Jan 19
5
24.4%
16.4%
15.0%
10.4%
16.8%
6.3%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
20.0%
24.5%
21.0%
7.0%
7.0%
4.0%
Florida
Jan 29
3
18.7%
16.7%
27.0%
8.7%
11.0%
4.0%
National
Feb 05
NA
20.5%
15.0%
23.3%
12.8%
9.7%
4.3%
Commentary on the new numbers, including an explanation for why Clinton remains in front despite Obama leading in Iowa, and be found in the extended entry.
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance All state polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted November 28th through December 11th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included.
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$32.2M
$30.5M
$23.4M
$5.1M
$0.8M
$0.3M
$2.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
7
27.1%
26.4%
22.3%
7.4%
5.0%
1.4%
1.0%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
9
32.2%
26.0%
15.9%
8.1%
3.0%
2.6%
0.9%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
39.5%
22.0%
11.5%
4.5%
4.0%
3.0%
1.0%
South Carolina
Jan 26
5
35.0%
29.6%
13.6%
1.3%
6.0%
1.3%
0.7%
Florida
Jan 29
2
53.5%
20.5%
10.0%
1.0%
2.0%
1.0%
0.0%
National
Feb 05
NA
44.1%
24.5%
11.8%
3.4%
3.0%
1.8%
1.0%
Republican Nomination, At a Glance All state polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted November 25th through December 8th. Only the most recent poll from each polling organization is included
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Huckabee
Romney
Giuliani
Thompson
McCain
Paul
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$0.6M
$9.2M
$11.4M
$6.4M
-$0.1M
$5.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
6
31.2%
23.7%
8.8%
10.5%
6.7%
4.2%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
9
10.4%
32.2%
17.6%
3.6%
17.3%
5.8%
Michigan
Jan 15
1
21.0%
20.0%
19.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
South Carolina
Jan 19
5
23.2%
17.2%
16.4%
16.0%
9.8%
4.3%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
20.0%
24.5%
21.0%
7.0%
7.0%
4.0%
Florida
Jan 29
2
14.5%
13.5%
31.0%
12.0%
10.0%
4.0%
National
Feb 05
NA
19.0%
14.2%
24.4%
11.3%
12.2%
4.1%
Commentary on these numbers can be found in the extended entry.
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance All state polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted November 25th through December 8th
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Biden
Kucinich
Dodd
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$32.2M
$30.5M
$23.4M
$5.1M
$0.8M
$0.3M
$2.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
8
26.6%
26.5%
22.8%
7.9%
5.1%
1.4%
1.0%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
8
33.1%
24.4%
15.6%
9.1%
2.9%
2.4%
0.9%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
39.5%
22.0%
11.5%
4.5%
4.0%
3.0%
1.0%
South Carolina
Jan 26
4
33.3%
26.5%
14.5%
1.3%
6.0%
1.5%
0.8%
Florida
Jan 29
3
52.7%
20.7%
10.3%
2.5%
1.0%
2.5%
0.5%
National
Feb 05
NA
44.0%
23.0%
12.0%
3.5%
2.9%
2.3%
1.0%
Obama appears to clearly be getting closer in both New Hampshire and South Carolina. Why then, would I put Clinton back in front? The reason, as always, is Iowa. Simply put, I don’t trust the likely voter screens being used in the state. The final set of 2004 polls showed Dean doing better, and Edwards doing worse, among likely voters. However, when the actual voting took place, the opposite proved to be true. As such, I don’t use “likely” or “certain” voter results, that currently slightly favor Obama. Further, Clinton has erased Obama’s advantage among second-choice results. Newsweek (C 21%--20% O), Rasmussen (O 18%--16% C), Mason-Dixon (O 30%--29% C), and Zogby all show Clinton gaining ground among second-place choices. Third, and most importantly, the Iowa trend appears flat over the last two weeks. While Huckabee appears to be pulling away on the Republican side, Obama and Clinton remain deadlocked. The last seven media polls out of Iowa show Obama ahead in three, and Clinton ahead in four (although in two of the polls where Clinton leads, Obama actually leads among all voters). Clinton also leads in the Edwards internal poll from Iowa. And yes, I include internal polls in the means.
So, while Obama is now clearly in position to take both New Hampshire and South Carolina should he win Iowa, and close enough in Nevada that a double Iowa--New Hampshire sweep should be more than enough there, I can no longer say with an certainty that Obama is ahead in Iowa. Until Obama regains a clear Iowa advantage, Clinton will remain the frontrunner. In this instance, a “clear Iowa advantage” is defined as one candidate ahead in two-thirds or more of all Iowa polls, and two-thirds or more of all trendlines. It is all about Iowa. Click here for more thoughts on what aspects of polling matter most in the first nomination campaign state.
Republican Nomination, At a Glance All state polls included in the averages had the majority of their interviews conducted November 25th through December 8th
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Huckabee
Romney
Giuliani
Thompson
McCain
Paul
Net Avail Cash
Sep 30
Q3
$0.6M
$9.2M
$11.4M
$6.4M
-$0.1M
$5.4M
Iowa
Jan 03
7
28.9%
23.9%
10.4%
10.4%
6.6%
4.6%
New Hampshire
Jan 08
8
10.3%
32.6%
17.8%
3.6%
16.6%
6.0%
Michigan
Jan 15
1
21.0%
20.0%
19.0%
9.0%
8.0%
7.0%
South Carolina
Jan 19
4
21.5%
17.0%
17.3%
15.5%
9.8%
4.3%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
20.0%
24.5%
21.0%
7.0%
7.0%
4.0%
Florida
Jan 29
4
15.3%
13.0%
31.5%
11.0%
11.0%
4.0%
National
Feb 05
NA
16.2%
11.5%
26.3%
13.1%
13.6%
4.2%
Huckabee now holds a solid lead in Iowa, ahead in five of the last seven polls and down by only 1% in the two polls where he trails. Given the trendline, that lead is well on it’s way to becoming a decisive advantage. He maintains his lead in South Carolina, and now has even nosed ahead in Michigan. With second place standings in Florida and nationwide, he has become the clear Republican frontrunner, even though he still struggles a bit in New Hampshire and financially.
Now, Huckabee's rise won’t continue at this same pace. This is a typical pattern for every new candidate to grab the national attention: meteoric rise because all the press is good, followed by a period when s/he comes back down to Earth when the press coverage stops being perfect. Also, establishment Republican attacks against him on taxes and terrorism will intensify significantly over the next four weeks. Without much money to back him up, can he withdstand the barrage? Really, that is anyone’s guess, but given the pattern of the Republican campaign so far, I bet he crashes pretty hard at some point. Huckabee is the fifth national leader in the Republican campaign, and none of the previous four showed any ability to stay on top. The 2008 Republican nomination is just like the 2007 BCS, in that whoever wins will probably end up winning by default.
STATE BLOGS
