With polls showing an absolutely even division of voters among the top three Democratic candidates going into the Iowa caucuses this week you're beginning to hear a lot of talk that "Iowa might not decide anything" on the Democratic side of the primary ledger. In addition to many comments here at dKos that are beginning to toe that line, the NY Times has an analysis piece discussing the issue tonight. In the piece even a senior Obama staffer says:
"It would be like a six-month trial and a hung jury," said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "I think it is really possible."
But the fact is, Iowa will have a clear winner. . .
. . . although I have no idea who it will be.
I've written many times before -- and it's not an original thought -- that the Iowa caucuses are impossible to poll. Pollsters are used to polling elections, whether the primary or the general, but there simply isn't a way to obtain an accurate answer to the questions
- Are you going to be one of the small minority of eligible voters to attend the caucus?
- After the speechifying and shouting that goes on, which candidate are you going to cast your vote for?
I never paid a lot of attention to Iowa polls (or, frankly, to Iowa) before 2004. But in 2004, the caucus results were more or less unrelated to any pre-caucus polling. There's no reason to expect the polls to be any more accurate this time. The odds that the top three candidates will divide the vote evenly among themselves -- or even spread over a five or ten percent range for all three of them -- is pretty low. We saw huge movement in 2004 and we'll see huge movement again this year. Movement that will likely give us a significant winner.
In 2004 Edwards moved from single digits to a very strong second place showing in Iowa surprising pretty much everyone. And, unlike Clinton or Obama, he's been running more or less full time since then. Given his fantastic showing in 2004 and his knowledge of the state (as well as his time spent there) the new, improved model might well pull off a similar surprise this year. Of all the Democrats he has the most riding on Iowa -- he needs a solid surprise victory there to become nationally viable. Of course, he could turn out to be not the John Edwards of 2008 but rather this year's Richard Gephardt, flaming out where he was expected to be strongest.
Obama, it's said, has built a huge organization in Iowa and organization plays an important part in caucus turnout out -- it's considerably more important than get-out-the-vote operations in primary states. And the fact that Obama -- a liberal big city African American son of a foreigner -- is polling tied for first, or ahead, in a rural, white state is pretty remarkable. The man exudes leadership and some accounts have him attracting the largest crowds and the most cross-over voters. It's true that Dean had large crowds and the all the press attention in 2004, but unlike Dean, the Obama wave seems to be cresting at exactly the right moment.
Clinton, like Obama, has a lot of institutional support and the money to mount a really first class field operation (although Obama has more buzz in the organization department). I sometimes think people underestimate "Clinton nostalgia", as well as the "first woman President" effect -- there will be considerably more women than African Americans caucusing in Iowa. She also has a lot at stake -- a significant loss in Iowa if not followed by a crushing win in New Hampshire could really eat into her national numbers. On the other hand, even a small win in Iowa, a state she's not especially expected to win, could bolster her national numbers.
I realize that here at dKos the "thing" is to predict that your own candidate is going to win big on the theory that if you can convince enough people here that somehow it will affect the outcome. My problem is that I don't have a candidate (I like Clinton and Obama) and if I did I still wouldn't have the faintest idea who's going to break out in the caucus.
I will say, however, that I don't think the results are going to look like the polling. I believe one of the candidates is going to be the clear winner with 40% or more of the vote and one is going to be at 20% or below. I'll go out on a limb and say that I think the top vote-getter will collect 45% to 60% of the vote.
If it's Edwards who comes in third, he's finished. If it's Obama, he's badly wounded and quite possibly finished. If it's Clinton she's badly wounded and she must win New Hampshire to have any hope of winning the nomination.