Interpeting The Iowa Polls

CNN, Insider Advanatage, and Zogby which show Hillary winning are using traditional models...The DMR poll is using a "non-traditional" model ... DMR's model is predicated on a massive, massive number of new and independent voters voting in the Iowa caucus...

We will learn shortly which model is right...

Anybody think this is not a "non-traditional" year?

Yes, we will learn shortly.

That's a little different than saying a pollster massages his models to get the numbers he wants... If there was something out there I suspect he would pick it up but on the other hand, maybe not...

Basically, their analyst said that anyone touting polls and claiming that they're predictive of the outcome don't know what they're talking about.

They also weren't too complimentary about Iowa's non-representative caucus process- but seeing as how turnout was over 95% in the last election, it's easy to see why they'd shake their heads.

Leave it to the Aussies to call a spade a spade.

according to the people who I've talked with, it doesn't happen very often, as it seems you can send in an excuse.

The Aussies I know here, even people who you talk with casually, are far more politically aware and active than Americans- and voting days (Saturdays) are sort of a cultural thing.

A wierder thing involves the "donkey vote," where people who just don't care, vote their preferences from line one down. That seems to run at about 2% or so- which can make a difference in marginal constituencies.

I bet it'd be in the double digits if there were compulsory voting in the states!

"Basically, their analyst said that anyone touting polls and claiming that they're predictive of the outcome don't know what they're talking about."

If that is the case why were the final election polling within thr margin of error in the past presidential elections?

http://www.pollingreport.com/2004.htm#Pollster

http://www.pollingreport.com/2000.htm#LATEST

"They also weren't too complimentary about Iowa's non-representative caucus process- but seeing as how turnout was over 95% in the last election, it's easy to see why they'd shake their heads."


That's just factually incorrect... I think 5% or 10% or so of registered Iowans participated in the Iowa caucus...

If you are going to respond can you please provide me with other than ipse dixit reasoning...

which for quite a number of reasons, is extremely difficult to poll.

Also- he was talking about turnout in AUSTRALIA's last election- 95% whereas Iowa's archaic caucus process typically runs in single digits.

IA is difficult to poll...

Now I see... 95% of the people in OZ vote... But in the IA caucus about 5% or 10% of eligible voters participate... I don't think primary participation much exceeds 20% or so anywhere...

Last time new registars were added to SOS list was November 15-17. At Caucus training we were told that anyone who registered after that time would not be on the SOS list.

I'd laugh if Dodd ran away with it!

It's not terribly representative of anything other than means, motive and opportunity on a particular day. All of the Iowans who are out of state (What? How DARE you go on winter vacation with your kids??? And you, serving in Iraq and Afghanistan--how DARE you not be present to caucus?) are disenfranchised, fucked, left out of the process. It's why the whole drill doesn't impress me much.

Whoever wins, it's not something to bank on. It can help, but it doesn't as often as it does.

Both numbers seem rather...optimistic.

If DMR's model is right Obama wins... If CNN's, Zogby's, and Insider Advantage's models are right Clinton wins...

It's (almost) that simple....

A couple of those seem to be within the MOE (Obama on the CNN poll and Edwards on the Insider Advantage), but the underlying assertion stands. Somebody is going to be way off.

Prior to the DMR Release HRC was leading in intrade trading now she's sinking like a stone and Obama is rising like a phoenix:

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

It's counterintutive to reject three polls showing one thing in favor of the one poll showing something else but in this case that one poll may be right...

The DMR assumptions seem pretty unrealistic, but this is also an unprecedented election cycle, so predicting based on history isn't likely to work.

That being said, in '04 the majority of Iowans didn't decide until the last few days, and there's little evidence that that won't be the case again here.

Clinton is down 3 and Obama up 6 but Clinton is still 66 and Obama 24.

Did I get those right?

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch /

2008DEM.NOM.CLINTON
Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 66.5 66.8 66.5 361030 -3.2

2008DEM.NOM.OBAMA
Barack Obama to be Democratic Presidential Nominee in 2008 M 24.6 27.6 27.0 243099 +6.3

There was a twenty five point swing:


2008 Democratic Iowa Caucus
DEM.IOWA.OBAMA
Barack Obama to Win M 46.1 50.0 50.0 2695 +19.5
DEM.IOWA.CLINTON
Hillary Clinton to Win M 33.1 35.0 33.1 1672 -6.8


http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/

Poll...

I don't think CNN included third place choices...

But when you look at all the available data with all its contradictions it's look like it's going to be Hillary and Obama vying for the one or two spot...

The Iowa caucus is so atypical that it almost renders the available metrics useless or much more difficult to employ...

We also see indy's breaking to Obama in NH to the tune of 61-39 over McCain Kind of tells you who the stronger GE candidate would be, doesn't it?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-independents30dec30,1,7800241.story?coll=la-politics-campaign