Iowa - Hillary's dropped to 3rd among "certain" caucus participants and 3rd in "2nd choice" support

From today's Rasmussen polling report:

In terms of second-choices in Iowa, John Edwards tops the list of candidates. He is the second choice for 28% of likely caucus participants. Obama is the second choice for 18%, Clinton for 16%, and Richardson for 15%. Second choice preferences are especially important given the nature of the Iowa caucuses. In a particular caucus setting, if a candidate receives less than 15% of the vote, their supporters will be re-allocated to other candidates.

There are many challenges to polling a caucus, primarily around the question of who will actually participate. Those challenges are magnified this year by the timing of the caucus on January 3 forcing candidates and their teams to explore tactful methods of contacting voters during the holiday season.

When only voters who are “certain” they will participate in the caucus are included in the totals, Obama is supported by 26%, Edwards by 25% and Clinton by 23%.

However, when only those who are certain which candidate they will support are included, it’s Clinton 27%, Obama 25% and Edwards 22%.

Among those who have participated in a caucus before, it’s Edwards 25%, Clinton 24% and Obama 22%.

I find Ras to be pretty accurate except for the Bush approval polls.

So it struck me as funny. I understand accentuating the positive, but it's still funny.

do better than their polling indicates and who may do worse than their polling indicates.

I thought it was supposed to be a good thing to have strong support of prior caucus participants, but maybe not.

We'll know the answers soon enough.

I'm from Iowa and I've participated in the caucuses.

The caucuses involve more than pulling a lever. As you are correctly
assuming, a person's 2nd and 3rd choices are indeed important, because
the caucuses are full-on, passionate debates in which caucus goers
attempt to persuade other caucus goers to support their candidate.

In my small city, dozens of individual caucus groups meet in libraries,
high-school auditoriusm, community centerss--some even meet in living rooms.
Each caucus group (mine was 100 people) divide into candidate camps and the
debates, arguing and speeches begin. Anyone talks...grandmas, teenagers, moms, and
makes the case for their candidate Slowly, people start shifting into other
candidate camps.

Caucus goers who support candidates with very few supporters begin
moving to other candidates. This is where a person's 2nd and 3rd choices
is significant. Most likely, candidates such as Biden, Kucinich, Richardson,
and others will not be "viable", so those supporters will move to another
candidate camp--or their vote will not be counted.

Given that most of those low-support candidates are progressive, I'm guessing
that most of those caucus goers will end up supporting Obama and Edwards.

So...2nd choice is VERY important.

Furthermore, it would seem to me that supporters who have attended previous
caucuses, comprise a very vital demographic. They're most likely to attend
again--more so than someone who has never attended. So yes, having the support
of those prior caucus goers is essential and polling data from them would
probably be the most accurate predictor of the caucuses.

Previous caucusers (is that even a word?) are hugely important. When you call people at random and say "will you be going to the caucus?" everybody says they will. Most have good intentions. But things come up and people don't make it for one reason or another. It is really the hardcore base who shows up for these things.

Of course what I've said so far is also pretty much true of regular primaries. The Iowa caucuses, at least on the democratic side, are a whole other beast entirely. Just like TwoSparkles has described. Hours of debating, speaking, courting, seat shuffling... And not everyone knows this. I'm sure there's a lot of first-timers who think they'll be in and out in a couple minutes who end up just saying "fuck it" when they realize it requires a considerable participation, or at least patience.

So anyway, it's really hard to get accurate polling on Iowa, especially considering the importance of 2nd choices. There's a whole shitload of variables.

Usually the presidential preference portion of the caucuses is over in one hour, then the party building portion of the caucuses occurs.

There is no guarantee that The Big Three are going to be viable in each precinct and the behavior of the candidates and their campaigns are starting to resemble the Dean/Gephardt behavior of 2003-4. I see more folks going to the The Next Three in the realignment process.

That's why I see the emergence of a second tier candidate in the 1,2,3 spot and one of The Big Three being in 4th or 5th.

Also, nobody talks about supporters of viable candidates jumping over to non-viable candidates to help them become viable in order to keep a different candidate from getting an additional delegate (this happened in my caucus last cycle - Gephardt/Clark folks went to Edwards making him viable and keeping Dean or Kerry from receiving the additional delegate, it ended up 1 - 1 - 1).

:hi:

34 days!

Hey Debi, I hope you don't mind me asking you a question, but I was wondering
about our Iowa caucus date. It falls during the time when all of the colleges
will be on break. Therefore, a good many progressives will be out of the state
or their college towns--and most likely will not participate in the caucuses.

Call me paranoid, but I find that a bit suspect. Those dynamics certainly
help some candidates, and hurt the more progressive ones.

Do you know how that early January date was selected?

Thanks for any info.

Yes, 34 days! I can't wait!!

I can't find the link but my recollection was that both the original date and the jumped up January 3 date are both before the schools start back and many campuses are making special accommodation to facilitate the caucus participation of their students so it is hard to read any conspiracy into the timing.

possible away from New Hampshire. If you want to be upset or feel suspect pls talk to the folks in Michigan who felt it necessary to move up to January 15 making New Hampshire up to the 8th.

As for folks not participating in the caucus, I don't believe it. Almost all of the colleges have made arrangements for students to come back early to participate in the caucuses (and the campaigns are making arrangements for housing as well). If a student wants to participate they will be welcome here in Iowa to do so.

They must have polls on what the breakup of Edwards' supporters would be. IMHO best case scenario: Edwards #1, Clinton #2 Obama #3.

now if you said, Hillary will finish 1st and Obama 2nd... but Obama's numbers would be close to hers..then Edwards turns over his votes to Obama to force through a Win for Obama. Then we could have a conversation.

He's not going to give them up for love nor money.

He offered his votes to Kucinich.

but realignment does occur and not having support in the second round is not a good thing (just ask Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt).

Man, this thing is TIGHT.

I said this a few weeks ago: Edwards stays in; Obama does not find his place in the sun; and Hillary lives to fight another day.

I would sure not bet against you.

could go either way. hillary is going down, though regardless.

and connect with voters much better.

I'm from Iowa, and it's highly likely that Edwards will secure
an endorsement from our Iowa governor's office. That's a big
endorsement because we have a popular, Democratic governor (Chet Culver) and
his wife, Mari, is highly regarded as well.

The Culvers supported Kerry/Edwards in 04, and Edwards showed up
at several Culver campaign stops--when Culver ran for governor.

There are many ties between the Edwards/Culver camps. Culver staffers Patrick Dillon and Brad Anderson worked for Edwards in 2004. Also, Edwards’ state director, Jennifer O’Malley, is engaged to Culver’s Chief of Staff, Patrick Dillon.

It's likely that Mari Culver will endorse Edwards. Christine Vilsack, former
first lady and wife of governor Tom Vilsack, endorsed Kerry last time around.
I assume our governors don't officially endorse because of our "first in
the nation" status--instead their wives endorse--but it's clear that the
endorsement is coming from the Iowa governor's mansion.

This endorsement carries a lot of weight in Iowa, was very significant for Kerry
in 04.

It will certainly help Edwards if he lands it. The Culvers are very well liked
in Democratic circles.

If Culver endorses Edwards, that will help him a lot. As a former Iowan who talked to a lot of them in the last election, I think many of them will still carry over the warm sentiment they had for him from the last election, where he made a big push upward there, even if Kerry won the state. I think Edwards is the kind of guy that could take Iowa and make it a launching pad this time around.

I haven't heard any rumors of endorsements - but then again Harkin's endorsement for Dean came out of the blue as did Gore's endorsement of Dean (in fact both those endorsements marked the beginning of the end for the campaign).

I don't think endorsements are that big of a deal. I think Kerry was on the way up and Vilsack's pitch was just the icing on the cake. If Edwards is looking to Culver to catapult him over the top, I don't see it happening (and I don't know that Culver wants to flex his political muscle on this...he's going to need it during the next legislative cycle. Does he really want to go against the majority of his Democratic legislators for the caucuses?)

You're so good Debi--you've always have a such a wealth of insight on
Iowa political matters.

I agree with you that Culver probably won't officially endorse anyone--mainly
because of the reasons you stated. This is why I think the endorsement will
come from his wife, Mari. They're so close with Edwards. I don't have a crystal
ball, but I'm guessing that Mari Culver will endorse Edwards.

I agree with you that an endorsement won't launch anyone over the top. Like you
said, it will be "icing on the cake" for some candidate. It will give someone
a little boost. Given the tight race, that little boost could be very significant.

Additionally, Hillary's star has been falling a great deal in Iowa. If Edwards
secures that Culver endorsement it will only cast a further shadow on Hillary.
Frankly, I believe that she'll come in 3rd or 4th in Iowa. Her support seems
very soft--much of it based on name recognition.

Edwards and Obama supporters seem very passionate and motivated.

Just my 2 cents.

:hi:

Good info.

Given the tight race in Iowa, the candidate with the most second-choice
support, will most likely win the Iowa caucuses.

See my post above in this thread for more info. :)

If he has a strong showing in Iowa and comes in 2nd place behind whoever wins. If either Obama or Clinton come in 3rd...their campaigns take a HEAVY shot.

39.6 EDWARDS 36.4 OBAMA 28.8 CLINTON in Iowa

and one of the other frontrunners won't place in the top three.

It's very likely that if Biden, Dodd, Richardson and Kucinich supporters find their candidate not viable they could very easily realign to the Obama or Edwards camps and bump Clinton. Also, soft Hillary supporters could be persuaded to realign to the different camps.
She very well could win...but it's not a slam dunk. Iowans are unpredictable. At my last caucus I was shocked at the the reasons people will realign for. Most often its to give another candidate a "chance".

choice for some Edwards supporters because of the Ron Paul crud.

:sarcasm:

many pollsters have been under the misconception that if a candidate is not viable in the first round that supporters of other non-viable candidates cannot move over to them. That skews the poll immeasurably.

Also, is the question ever asked that if your candidate is viable but cannot reach more than one delegate will you move to a non-viable candidate to help that candidate become viable (thereby keeping a different candidate from receiving a delegate)? I've never seen it asked.

Both scenarios have happened in the past and will happen in 2008.

Which means polls are meaningless (but Iowans have been saying that for the last year and nobody seems to be listening).