(Cross-posted at The Field.)
With apologies to her fellow baby boomer McCartney:
“Hillary Clinton picks up the rice in a church where a wedding has been…”
After pointing out yesterday that holiday polling now is restricted to those lonely enough to answer the telephone for the 15th telemarketing call today, and how Obama supporters (young, college-educated, on-the-go) get underpolled, it’s a genuine surprise that the much-awaited Selzer/Des Moines Register poll has Obama on top, and beyond the 3.5 percent margin of error. If Barack is winning the lonely hearts club vote, he could be on the way to an historic victory to ring in 2008.
And after saying various times that Anne Selzer is the pollster I most trust (and that other pollsters most trust) to get it right in Iowa, I suppose I ought to take a closer look at these shocking results...
Plus, who can sleep late on New Year’s Day with all that screaming coming from the torture houses across the cornfield? Clinton and Edwards strategists are audibly shrieking, revealing that the Obama momentum that the poll created – whether right or wrong – has already turned the “inevitability” factor upside down.
Memo to Mark Penn: Live by the bandwagon, die by the bandwagon.
Iowa has turned out to be one of Dr. House’s favorite patients ever! (Does he get a new Dobro guitar if he diagnoses the case, Dr. Cuddy?)
The DMR poll says:
Obama 32
Clinton 25
Edwards 24
“The telephone survey of 800 likely Democratic caucusgoers was taken Dec. 27-30…
“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.”
If true, that would make final results tomorrow night something closer to: Obama 39, Clinton 31, Edwards 30.
First, the screaming:
- From Clinton strategist Penn: “as David Yepsen points out, had their pollsters used the 2004 turnout model, Hillary would lead by 29 to 27, figures in line with the other polls.”
Field Note: If that’s what the entrance poll shows tomorrow night – Clinton over Obama by only two points – at best Clinton will get a virtual tie (which will be spun by the press as a defeat) but more likely she’ll lose after the second choices - particularly Kucinich supporters (see below) - weigh in. And Penn sputtered a little too quickly out of the gate with that, getting Yepsen’s numbers wrong. Yepsen actually said 31 to 29. Same difference, but from a numbers guy like Penn that’s what a tortured scream sounds like.
- From Edwards spokesman Schultz:
“Is the poll accurate? There are good reasons to think it is NOT.
— The poll was conducted during the holiday AND over the weekend.”
Field Note: Will somebody please give those screeching kids a pacifier? It’s New Years Day, for heaven’s sakes (not that any of our heads and eardrums are more sensitive today than on any other). I agree that there are good reasons to think holiday polls are not accurate: they undercount Obama’s youthful supporters and still-traveling college-educated ones. But then Schultz cites three other holiday polls to counter the DMR one. Cue up Mr. Rogers, who whispers kindly for the hungover: “Can you say cognitive dissonance, children?”
But the DMR poll hardly suggests that it’s over for Edwards: He leads among rural voters with 30 percent to Clinton’s 25 and Obama’s 24, and the delegate count is slightly weighted to give rural precincts more bang for the result.
As the population density goes up – small town to small city to metro – Edwards falls down to 17 while Obama rises to 37. Edwards could lose 15 percent viability in some or even many urban precincts (then where do his voters go? Anybody have recent data on that?)
- More silver lining for Edwards in the DMR poll that may bounce him up to a first-class ticket out of Iowa while Clinton gets relegated to the coach section: The trend over four days ended with Obama 34, Edwards 26 (both ticking up) and Clinton 23 (sliding down).
If that trend keeps up on caucus night the entrance poll could say Obama 35, Edwards 28, Clinton 22, with 15 percent still left to spread around on “second choice.” Edwards would then be headed for a decisive second place finish. THAT would radically change the dynamics of the nomination fight. If Hillary-land then implodes in New Hampshire (likely under this scenario), look for a surprise two-horse Obama-Edwards death match into the later primaries. More patients - Nevada! South Carolina! California! - with new unpredicted ailments to diagnose!
- Also of interest: Despite (or perhaps, counter-intuitively, because of) independent union expenditures of almost $5 million on behalf of Clinton and Edwards, some half-a-million of which have been explicitly for anti-Obama attack ads, union voters are split down the middle: Obama 29, Clinton 28, Edwards 28.
(Does that turn the song, Solidarity Forever, on its head: “When the workers’ inspiration in the union’s blood shall run?”)
- And this: 38 percent say their decision was most impacted by watching debates. (Maybe those Fox News focus groups by Frank Luntz that kept showing Obama winning among viewers were spot-on. Just sayin’.) 25 percent said that it was seeing the candidate in person. (Size does matter: Crowd size, duh.)
- Among Yepsen’s observations, the DMR poll might well be undercounting Obama’s biggest support group, voters under 35.
Finally, what happens if Clinton does come in third? A fourth place finish by Biden or Richardson would suddenly send that person hunting for her flailing support in New Hampshire, creating the possibility of a substitute “experience” candidate for the duration.
- Listen to the brilliant Larry Rasky, on a potential Biden surprise:
"We’ve particularly seen people coming from the Edwards camp and the Clinton camp," said Rasky. "The Clinton people are starting to realize that Joe Biden is really the most electable candidate, the one guy who can take on the Republicans on national security. And I think with Edwards, you know we compete with John Edwards for the Iowans, you know the traditional Iowa caucus goers and I think at this stage we've really opened up the field. They find Joe Biden is more authentic, and closer to them in terms of their philosophy."
- And "the Kucinich Primary" results are in: This just in from Ambinder (cue gnashing of teeth from trade policy-centric wonks and netroots bloggers for Edwards)… Dennis Kucinich urges supporters to back Obama as their second choice: “Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: Change." Kucinich did the same for Edwards four years ago, pushing him into second place over Howard Dean. But now he has a smart post-boomer wife that can translate post-boomer-speak for him. Edwards’ Hail Mary pass – counting on second choices – just flew over the hands of the receiver, and straight out of the stadium.
Update: E tu, Joe? Murray asks Biden about a similar call for his supporters to back Obama as second choice:
Another option would be to cut a deal with one of the top-tier candidates, for instance Sen. Barack Obama. Under one possible scenario, Biden could throw support to Obama in precincts where he isn't strong enough to be viable, while in precincts where Obama has more than enough support, some of the extra could be transferred to Biden. All front-runners are competing madly to become these-called "second choice" of caucus goers who support Biden, Richardson and Dodd. A more formal deal between campaigns, if only in particular areas, could maximize the benefits.
Asked whether he and Obama could be helpful to one another, Biden said, "probably."
(Field Note: Did I already note that Biden strategist Rasky is not to be underestimated?)
But it’s just a damn poll. (I told you not to pay heed to polls!) A poll of lonely people… Ah, look at all the lonely people… Where DO they all come from?