Iowa: who the hell knows?
by kos
Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:23:42 PM PDT
Lots of polls coming out of Iowa, but this is my favorite:
Research 2000 for Lee Newspapers. Likely caucus goers. MoE 4.5%
12/26-27 12/10-13 11/12-14
Obama 29 33 25
Edwards 29 24 21
Clinton 28 24 27
Fitting, isn't it? The polls at this point can't tell us anything except that, well, any of these top three candidates can win. So while the numbers may be off by a point or four compared to other recent polls, the reality is that it's about as much of a "toss up" as you can possibly ever have.
Yet remember, these aren't the kind of numbers we'll see when the caucuses are over. This isn't a secret ballot situation. This is a social event, where campaigns will be herding people around trying to reach the magical "viability" numbers to garner delegates and deny them to their opponents. There will be a "first ballot" that might approximate what the polls tell us, but then the horse trading will begin, and then all predictive efforts get tossed to the wind.
In 2004, Iowa's results were impacted by Gephardt's unexpected collapse in a state where he was a co-front runner, requiring his supporters to unexpectedly choose a rival campaign to caucus with once their candidate had been eliminated. It was affected by Kucinich's decision to direct his supporters toward Edwards to harm Dean (who had, in Kucinich's view, unfairly taken the "anti-war" mantle from him). It was affected by Kerry's superior organization -- utilizing trusted local political leaders to run the caucuses, and using their experience and skill to herd caucus goers toward Kerry. (Remember, this is not a secret ballot, what better way to suck up to the local political bosses than to publicly caucus for their candidate?) It was affected by inexperienced Dean caucusers, who huddled together quietly as their rival campaigns skillfully scooped up caucausers for the non-viable candidates. (A fate that might befall Obama's also inexperienced base of support?)
Iowa isn't an accurate reflection of the will of Iowa's voters. It's a reflection of a tiny percentage (6-10%) of Iowa voters who turn out, and then a reflection of the bizarre whims of the caucus as chairs get shuffled around the deck all night until a final result is announced.
I'm glad this is likely to be Iowa's swan song in the primary process. This is a horrible way to pick a nominee. But I must betray that -- especially since I have no strong feelings for or against any of our top candidates -- this is about as exciting as political theater is ever going to get.
If this is Iowa's final bow, it's sure going out with a bang.
-----
One more thing: The last few weeks, the website Iowa Independent has had what it calls its "power rankings", predicting which campaigns would win the caucuses. For the past month or two, it had consistently placed Edwards first. The Edwards campaign and its supporters were quick to jump on these results, and supporters of rival campaigns were just as quick to dismiss them.
Well, today we got the results from their final Democratic power rankings, and there's been a shuffle -- Obama now tops the list, with Edwards demoted to a second-place tie with Clinton. The humanity! Now Edwards supporters will have to dismiss the rankings, and the Obama people, who had previously dismissed it, will now shamelessly reverse course and sing its praises! And the silly season will continue unabated for the time being.
I'm not on the ground in Iowa, nor do I profess to have any insight into the final results. But it's sort of ironic to me to see Obama replace Edwards on that list just as the polls seem to suggest a very real Edwards surge in the state. Perhaps it comes down to this:
And his wave of small-town newspaper endorsements should enhance his second-choice support in rural parts of the state where he has been perceived as weak.
Barring any surprising and successful chess moves (e.g. Clinton directing some of its supporters to vote for Edwards to kill off Obama, or Richardson directing his troops to caucus for, say, Clinton in exchange for a cabinet position), the "second-choice" question will likely be the ultimate factor in the final results.
- ::