Cross-posted at The Field.
With holiday travel season now on, the window has slammed for various things in Iowa, among them negative ads and accurate polling.
While Huckabee seems (to me) to be on the way to a likely Iowa victory on the Republican side (sorry, Mitt), the Democratic caucus results elude. Polls are all over the map. (In a real smart post, Kos demonstrates that different pollsters have given supporters of Edwards, Clinton and Obama conflicting reasons to crow). And the differing methodology of each pollster for screening “likely caucus goers” is widely variant because nobody knows how many voters will turn out. I do think there will be a record high turnout on the Democratic side, way beyond anyone’s stated expectations...
...given the obscene amount of money and field muscle that have been put into the contest, and the fact that Independents and even a decent number of moderate Republicans will choose to vote in the Democratic caucuses, as they are allowed by law to do as long as they register Democrat the same day.
But as for calling who will win, place and show, I feel much like Universal television’s House, M.D., with a patient (the Iowa results) that eludes diagnosis....
If you’ve not seen House in action, here’s a short trailer:
Will the Iowa disease turn out to be Clinton, Obama or Edwards? Or some rare infirmity that nobody anticipates? Typically, House asks his assistants – Drs. Foreman, Cameron and Chase – for suggestions. Foreman might say “neurological disorder,” Cameron “auto-immune disease,” and Chase “infection.” (The hospital oncologist, Dr. Wilson, then does a walk on and says "cancer!") Then House will say, “You’re all idiots!” And add, “we need to stress the patient to find out what’s killing him!” And he’ll pump the patient full of some drug or put her on the treadmill, the patient gets sicker, but the weak point is revealed, a diagnosis ensues, and then the life is saved.
So, last night, I decided to do the same. I sent a provocative email to a very smart collection of political junkies and advisors – supporters of each of the candidates plus some disinterested analysts – and scared the bejeezus out of some of them, while pleasantly surprising others, saying that my preliminary prediction is that Clinton will win Iowa, but that Obama would bounce back in either New Hampshire or South Carolina, making Super Tuesday on February 5th a real horse race.
Plausible, sure, and, har har, I lied! I don’t really believe it. Yet. But it sure stressed the patient, and I’ll share with you some of what came back.
Here’s a smart response from one of my favorite and wise analysts:
“As as opposition research specialist, I am keenly aware of how vulnerable HRC is likely to be in a general election, when her opponent spends some real money to dig up more stuff. As usual, her primary opponents have failed to test how she would hold up under such attacks. I have been told over the last few years by a diverse cast of characters that the Rs will be feasting on her entrails if she wins the nomination…
"As to Iowa, having lived through the Kerry experience there, I am very dubious of the ability of pollsters to divine what the hell will happen in a setting that departs so radically from the political settings in which they do all of their other work. Picking out primary voters in any other state is already a ferocious challenge. My interpretation of the numbers we've been seeing is that it would be a fool's errand to forecast a winner.
"In 2004, I was very impressed with the seriousness with which Iowa voters evaluated the candidates, not just as individuals, but also in the larger context of who might be the best general election candidate, regardless of how one felt about a given candidate. There is no question in my mind that Kerry was able to push past Dean in no small part because Iowa Democrats decided they needed someone with Kerry's experience and gravitas.
"I think that one of the reasons HRC has not done better in IA, despite Teresa Villmain and all the money, is that Iowans know, in their guts, that the Republicans will be dragging up all kinds of stuff from HRC's past, including new stuff that we've never heard of before. So even though she gets major creds for experience, there is this lingering anxiety that just won't go away. And her campaign's decision to bring Bill stumbling back on the stage for the stretch run heightens, rather than diminishes, this anxiety. Her campaign's response to the apparent tightening of the race has also raised the anxiety level.
"You may be right, that in the end, HRC will spend enough money to pull this out. But I don't understand why you think Obama is not capable of matching her dollar-for-dollar in walking around money, and god knows David Axelrod is familiar with handing out money on election day to preachers, ward bosses, etc. So I don't find the money argument to be very compelling--seems more like a wash to me…
"You got major kudos this fall for predicting that HRC would find herself in serious trouble. That was a nice Wolcott piece. But it was a conclusion that you could reach based on understanding the HRC campaign, regardless of where she was campaigning…
"As to my private analysis, I expect Edwards' support to fade on caucus night. Iowans are a pretty pragmatic bunch, and I don't think Edwards has succeeded in making the case that he can win the nomination, whether he wins in Iowa or not. As between HRC and Obama, I think she's in big trouble, but could still pull it out."
And this, from a veteran of the last Iowa caucuses, who lists some of the factors that cause movement to or from a candidate:
"Accommodating/Shaping/Connecting authentically: Shaping always trumps content, see Huckabee for evidence. Shaping is the ability of the candidate to move both posturally and gesturally in three-dimensional patterns that include the back pat, handshake, hug, or inclusive spreading and enclosing patterns. The key here is authenticity. Clinton and Reagan had it, Kerry had it on the stump but rarely on TV, Bush has it on occasion but anyone who thinks it's authentic is fooling themselves--we know there are a lot of easily fooled folks out there. Huckabee has it. Edwards does too, but it does not read as authentic all the time--he often distances at the same time he accommodates. Hillary does not do this well at all, although she can--at least I have personally experienced it in a small group setting. Obama has it in droves, but does not always ACCESS it when necessary. He is not yet master of the authentic exchange, but he can get there. The question is: Will he? Has he?...
"Complexity/Innovation: Movers who are patterned and predictable, but complex and variable (within a range) inspire. Huckabee has this ability, which is why he is beating the crap out of Romney. Hillary has little variability and she needs to develop more--the droning just does not work. Edwards is almost always the same: predictable without offering anything new or innovative. (I say this despite his having some of the better policy ideas--if you can't sell it at the dance, no one will buy it). Obama has much more of this than any of the others, which is part of his appeal.
"Iowans, god bless 'em, are hard to fool. Those who participate in the caucuses are still thinking about it. But, there is also the concept of the "last click" and that plays a role. For those who work fulltime and are swamped with information, there is a tendency to go with the most recent impression. This is a function for western society as a whole. It does not hold true for the older generations, who are slower to come to conclusions. But for anyone under 60, the "last click" impression is the most potent impression and people will vote for the one whose most recent "click" resonates positively."
This, from someone that thinks Clinton will win the caucuses because Edwards and Obama will keep each other from defeating her:
“…with two males and one female, there are a lot of females who will vote for Hillary just to vote for a woman and Obama and Edwards split the vote. I still worry that Obama and Edwards will split the vote and Hill will swill her way to victory, then go down in November.”
This, from an Obama supporter:
“My thoughts on your predication is that you are putting a lot of weight on Whouley. Yes, Whouley is now on board with Clinton, however, I think it's a little too late. Also, Whouley's team Illinois in '04 is now with Obama in Iowa.”
An Edwards supporter offered a more romantic view: “Money can’t buy you love.” And followed up to a provocation from me that the Clinton campaign would be emptying out the rest homes and wheeling voters into their candidate’s corner:
“The rural counties have potential to counter the old coot theory in the cities. Obama's a shooting star this week ... then again there's Edwards quietly working for literally years. Hard pressd between the two. I still think it's all down-Hill from here in IA.”
The Edwards camp seems to know it still has work to do convincing Iowans that the candidate is viable beyond Iowa, heading into the very expensive Super Tuesday states on February 5, and beyond. The argument is still weak:
"John Edwards learned in 2004 that he has to have an organization ready to seize the lightning out of Iowa," said campaign spokesman Eric Schultz. "We have a true four-state strategy and the infrastructure in place to win nationwide."
This past week, Mr. Schultz put out a memorandum to reporters urging that they "not swallow the spin of our rivals" that Mr. Edwards doesn't have a national campaign operation in place. In a series of statistics, he noted that Mr. Edwards has 80 paid staff in New Hampshire -- eight times the number he had four years ago -- and that he has been running seven ads there since November, which is only one less than he's running in Iowa.
The Clinton and Obama camps haven't released similar numbers in New Hampshire, but both are believed to have larger operations in the state.
As for polling from media organizations: Which do I trust most? ABC/Washington Post and the Des Moines Register. I’ll tell you why in a moment.
Which pollsters’ data don’t I like? I ignore data offered by the campaigns: it’s all spin. For reasons spelled out the other day, Insider Advantage has lost trust from here. And Rasmussen, with its funny footsie game with Doug Schoen, Mark Penn’s longtime partner-in-crime, and (what I’ve noticed as) Rasmussen’s tendency to slap up good news for Clinton much faster in its daily tracking polls than on days when Clinton doesn’t do well, seems awfully biased to me. (Yes, it’s not Schoen’s firm, but why give a platform to someone that was caught red-handed cooking exit polls – and violating the ethics code of the American Association of Public Opinion Research – in Venezuela in 2004? Y’all are welcome to disagree, but Schoen is dead to me as far as trusting his data or analysis, and if other pollsters are unconcerned with his ethical lapses, then I wonder about theirs, too.) I find ARG to be all over the map. And I have no hard opinion, pro or con, about the other firms polling Iowa.
So why do I like the Des Moines Register and ABC/Washington Post pollsters? Both have the same pollster that saw Kerry coming from behind in the final stretch four years ago while so many others did not. Anne Seltzer. And she’s an Iowan. (In today’s Guardian of London, Seltzer is interviewed about why so many women voters have abandoned Clinton. She answers: "There are questions of manipulation and secrecy and that is a real problem for women, who tend to be appreciative of frankness.”)
Anyway, here are the last polls from ABC/Washington Post:
December 13-17: Obama 33 (+3), Clinton 29 (+3), Edwards 18 (-4 from November 14-18).
Des Moines Register:
November 25-28: Obama 28 (+6), Clinton 25 (-4), Edwards 23 (no change from October).
Each of these show trends that are consistent with the Pollster.com aggregate graph, which still has Obama rising, Edwards ticking up and Clinton skiing downhill.
But we still can’t diagnose the patient! Each of the three frontrunners – Obama, Clinton and Edwards – have less than a fifty percent shot at winning Iowa. And a lot depends on to what extent supporters of each “blink” on January 3.
But after “stressing the patient” via email last night, I come back to my first gut instinct: That Obama has the organization, the enthusiasm, and the kinds of supporters that are not likely to blink at the 11th hour. Edwards supporters are in do-or-die season: they want very much for the (Clinton campaign-fed) hype to be true, that Edwards really is making a surge, but the overall data doesn’t support it. And as for the claim that he has a better field organization having been through Iowa in (and since) 2004, there’s little hard evidence of that. Compared to Clinton and Obama, Edwards has less staff, fewer offices, and has lost various “yardstick moments” to both of them when the different campaigns did shows of strength of their organizational muddle.
Kos diarist worldtrippers points to three major organizational yardstick events in Iowa this year, each of which showed Obama to have the better organization in terms of the amount of supporters the candidates could turn out: the Drake debate, the Harkin Steak Fry and the Jefferson-Jackson dinner:
So now I’m stressing the patient with a different treatment: Not a “Clinton will win Iowa” electro-shock but an “Obama will win Iowa” needle in the arm. Am I lying again? Am I telling the truth?
Does that stress ya? Good! Use the comments section and tell everyone why that’s wrong or right.
Or if you prefer to comment anonymously, email me: fieldblog@gmail.com (I reserve the right to use only those statements that I find interesting, so posting your own comments might be your cleaner shot.)
Or just take two Vicodan and call Dr. House in the morning.