The Iowa Poll’s Huge Assumptions
Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 02:07:43 AM PDT
The Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll is considered the "Gold Standard" by pollsters and political junkies alike. In 2004, the Iowa Poll was the only poll to get the top four Democratic candidates in the correct order – Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and Gephardt.
Just before the ball dropped in Times Square, the Des Moines Register released its final Iowa Poll for the 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses. It showed Barack Obama with 32%, Hillary Clinton with 25%, and John Edwards with 24%. But the Iowa Poll contains three huge assumptions. First, that 40% of the participants in the Democratic caucuses will be Independents. Second, that 60% of the participants will be first-time caucus goers. And third, that 17% of the caucus goers will be under 35.
- Independents
The Iowa Poll assumes that 40% of the Democratic caucus goers will be Independents as well as another 5% Republicans. There are multiple points of criticism. First, in 2004 only 20% of the Democratic caucus goers were Independents (19%) and Republicans (1%). And there were no Republican caucuses to siphon off Independents. In 2008, the Republican caucuses are as contested as the Democratic. Second, it appears from the limited published data that the Iowa Poll allocates Independents 2 to 1 or more to the Democratic caucuses. Since registered Democrats slightly outnumber registered Republicans in Iowa and since Bush carried Iowa in 2004 by a tiny margin, it would appear that a small majority of Independents voted Republican in 2004. (Even though the exit polls said a slight majority of independents voted Dem, the results argue otherwise.) Third, and most importantly, Independents participate in the political process at a significantly lower rate than either Democrats or Republicans. In the 2004 presidential election, Independent turnout was 65% compared to 81% for Democrats and 83% for Republicans – nearly a 20% gap. The gap is even more pronounced in off-year elections. In 2006, despite exciting, contested congressional races in Iowa, only 36% of Independents turned out compared to 62% of Democrats and 65% of Republicans – nearly a 30% gap. It begs credulity to expect high Independent turnout in caucuses that attract only 10% to 15% of the electorate at best.
- First-time Caucus Goers
The Iowa Poll assumes that 60% of the Democratic caucus goers will be first-time participants. In 2004, that figure was only 45%; thus, the Iowa Poll suggests that there will be a 33% growth in first time caucus goers. The Iowa Poll stated that 72% of Obama’s support comes from first-time caucus goers compared to 58% for Clinton and 55% for Edwards. All of the figures seem high, especially considering that the turnout in the highly contested 2004 caucuses was high – approximately 17% of registered Democrats. By deduction, one can determine that the percentage of first-time caucus goers supporting the remaining 19% – second tier candidates and undecideds – is 49%. Now, this may be interpreted in a couple of ways. Perhaps the first-time caucus-goers are motivated by one of the top-tier candidates, especially Obama. Or perhaps there is first-time caucus goer inflation with the 49% figure far closer to what will be the actual turnout. If such is the case, then the most inflated figures in the Iowa Poll are Obama’s. Not to mention that Bill Richardson and/or Joe Biden might have a pleasant surprise on Thursday night.
- Young Voters
The Iowa Poll assumes that 17% of the Democratic caucus goers will be under 35. Probably the soberest comparison is with the youth turnout at the 2004 Democratic caucuses at a time when youth were highly motivated by Howard Dean and other Democratic candidates. It would be wonderful if young people were to participate in the political process at levels comparable to older cohorts; however, this has never been the case ever since the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971 lowering the voting age to eighteen. In fact, a five-point drop in voter turnout between the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections was largely due to lower youth voting. As Markos Moulitsas discussed recently, caucuses make it even harder for young people to participate since they more often work night jobs, have young children to care for, and have night classes or homework to prepare.
The Iowa Democratic Party reported that only 10% of caucus goers were under 35, only 4% under 25. Mike Connery challenged that figure in a MyDD diary, countering that a Circle Poll which focuses on youth issues estimated the participation level at 17%. Yet, if one looks at the breakdown of Democratic voters in recent Iowa elections, the Iowa Dem Party figures seem much more plausible. The difference in youth turnout among Democratic voters between the 2004 and 2006 elections is illustrative. While 19% of the Democratic vote in the 2004 election was made up of voters in the under 35 category, only 12% of the Democratic vote in 2006 came from people under 35. The 2004 presidential election had the highest level of youth voting; yet still, young people voted far less than older people. In 2004 in Iowa, only 58% of people 18 to 24 voted and only 61% of people 25 to 34 voted – compared to 85% of people over 50. The percentages are abysmal in off-year elections. In 2002, only 22% of people 18 to 24 voted and only 34% of people 25 to 34 voted – compared to 73% of people over 50. These numbers improved slightly in 2006 with 29% of people 18 to 24 voted and only 36% of people 25 to 34 voted – compared to 77% of people over 50. See Iowa SOS But the clearest observation is that the youth vote drops off far more precipitously in non-presidential elections than does the older vote.
<<<>>>
What does it all mean?
Well, it appears that the Iowa Poll made three very big assumptions all of which may inflate the numbers for Barack Obama. Anne Selzer, director of the Iowa Poll, stated that the numbers indicate the conclusions; however, the numbers contradict well-established national and Iowa voting history. More importantly, polls are weighted with varying percentages of different demographic groups. To include such high percentages for groups that have never before participated at such levels demands a thorough explanation; yet, none was forthcoming.
Without going into definitions of independent and dependent variables, suffice it to say that many young voters will be Independents/Not Registered as well as first-time caucus goers. Although some older voters will be first-time caucus goers and some young voters will be registered Democrats already, the categories have significant overlap. Thus, you cannot simply modify totals separately for each category. Lacking the actual data, it is impossible to determine the degree of overlap.
In conclusion, I believe one can surmise from the above analysis that Obama’s caucus totals are likely to be lower because of the three assumptions in the final Iowa Poll - the number of Independents, first-time caucus goers, and young people participating. One of the least discussed ramifications is the impact this may have on second-tier candidates. Bill Richardson and Joe Biden may likely have a larger percentage in the entrance poll; however, this still may not be enough to overcome the 15% threshold. Hillary Clinton is likely to benefit from the greater percentage of Democrats and older voters than the poll registered. John Edwards is likely to benefit most from the greater percentage of Democrats and previous caucus goers.
And the Iowa Poll is likely to lose its luster.
Permalink | 40 comments