Like every other one at this time of the year, the new Reuters/Zogby tracking poll might or might not mean anything. But it did include a couple points that struck me as credible given my take on the race. (Two caveats: one, I plan to vote for Obama in my state's primary, and two, anything from bad methodology to unseasonable weather could render this data meaningless, taking my analysis here along with it.)
Since last winter, I've thought that the 2008 Democratic primary campaign essentially would be a sort of referendum on Hillary Clinton, but one that because of other factors would be easier for her to win than most referenda. Her victory didn't require a majority or even a near-majority, just a plurality of first-choice supporters in the early-voting states. Getting that, her institutional advantages of money, establishment support and media willingness/eagerness to stage an early coronation of any plausibly royal family, she rolls to the nomination. In other words, most of the Democrats can be somewhere between unenthusiastically for and doggedly against her, but she still gets to win. (This is true in every race, but for reasons I'll get into below, I believe it's more important when the candidate is as well-known as Clinton is.)
Political Wire's take on the poll notes that Clinton has 30.7% support, to Obama's 26.8% and 24.2% for Edwards. (MoE is 3.3%.) That looks like a slight lead. But even if it's valid--if you think their methodology is sound and their sample is a close-enough match for the caucus-goers--the lead might not mean what it would be portrayed as ("a dramatic win for Sen. Clinton!") if it held up next week. This finding highlights one reason why:
Edwards is the clear second choice favorite with 30.4%, followed by Obama at 24.9% and Clinton at 12.2%. According to Democratic caucus rules, candidates who receive less than 15% of the vote are considered "non-viable." Their backers have the choice of either going home or casting their ballots for their second choice.
One way to interpret these numbers, combined with the above, is that Clinton is the first or second choice of about 43 percent. By contrast, Edwards is the first- or second choice for 55 percent, and Obama is the first or second choice of 52 percent. Flipping those numbers upside-down, Hillary is at best the third choice of 57 percent; for Edwards, the 3rd-or-lower total is 46 percent, and for Obama it's 48 percent.
This certainly doesn't mean she won't "win," in the sense that will get Chris Matthews jibbering, on Jan. 3. But it does raise the serious possibility that even a majority of Democrats aren't very excited about seeing her in November. I'm sure most of them will still vote for her, but in a close election--and any election with Hillary Clinton probably will be close, given that we know she boosts Republican enthusiasm--that lack of Democratic enthusiasm, plus the refusal of those of us who find her totally unacceptable that vote in states that matter (not me; I live in NY), could lose it for her.
Here's another finding from the PolitcalWire story:
Democrats think Republicans will choose Huckabee as their nominee; Republicans think Democrats will choose Obama.
Again, this could mean a lot of things, or it could be meaningless. One thing it could mean, given human nature, is that the most voters from the other party would be open to crossing party lines to support Obama or Huckabee in November, if either is nominated. But I think it's especially interesting considering the fact that so many Republicans nationally still seem to think Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. That their Iowa peeps disagree suggests that the race really looks different when more people are paying close attention--probably another indication of how meaningless Clinton's national polling leads are.
If I had to bet, I'd bet that Edwards is going to "win" Iowa; the second-choice thing is huge and a lot of the other candidates won't get to 5 percent. But Clinton certainly might get the plurality, and if she does, she probably rolls to the nomination.
That it could prove to be so easy for her based on the preferences of maybe 130,000 Iowans, most of whom aren't very psyched about her, shows just how screwy our system is.