Obama 1st, Edwards 2nd, Hillary 3rd in Iowa in question adding 1st choice plus 2nd choice.

[Stop Cornyn]

The Washing Post poll includes questions about first preferences (which is already under discussion in several threads).

Because of the caucus format, the questions about second choice support are also interesting:

26% - Barack Obama
24% - John Edwards
19% - Hillary Clinton

If you add first choice support plus second choice support (a good model for the caucus), Hillary drops to third:

55 - Barack Obama
45 - John Edwards
44 - Hillary Clinton
23 - Bill Richardson
10 - Joe Biden
04 - Chris Dodd
04 - Dennis Kucinich

A third place finish would kill the inevitability nonsense for good.

[kimmerspixelated]

1. Why doesn't Iowa like Kucinich?

It certainly looks like the DU does! In fact he's tops, right? Or did I miss something?

[Stop Cornyn]

3. I don't think Kucinich has a campaign in Iowa. I'd still think his great platform would garner more

support.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. Well for one thing, he doesn't have a campaign office in Iowa

[elizm]

2. Obama will win Iowa...and then SC. :) nt

[mnhtnbb]

5. In the end, Edwards will win Iowa. His birth state of SC will get on board...

and Hillary and Obama will go back to the Senate.

[elizm]

9. Edwards is my second choice. I like Edwards....

And I voted for him in the 2004 primary. But the reality is he is way behind here in SC.

[mnhtnbb]

11. I'm hoping for a miracle...that Dems will wake up and realize Edwards

is the guy who can win the election against anybody the Repubs put up...that he cares about health care, jobs, poverty, and the disappearing middle class in America.

[razorman]

10. The national media is still playing it as "Hillary is inevitable".

I think this may spur the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire to act contrary and select Obama and Edwards as their top choice. They are famous for not wanting journalists to tell them what they think.

[elizm]

19. Good on the folks from Iowa and NH. :) nt

[aquart]

4. Good. Will Obama supporters stop being nasty now?

[ClarkUSA]

25. lol! That's Hillaryous.

We're just being as nice and hospitable as Hillaryworlders have been to us.

[Adelante]

6. Thanks for the second choices

Jenmito saw that on TV today.

[IA_Seth]

7. The poll is flawed..

If I am reading this correctly, and I believe it's been pointed out on the other threads (by a fellow Iowan), the poll provides only Clinton, Edwards, and Obama as "2nd Choice" candidates.

That isn't how the caucus works, and it doesn't accurately reflect anything.

[tammywammy]

12. No it lists all the main dem candidates for 1st & 2nd choices

5. If the Democratic caucus were being held today, and the candidates were: (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel), who would you support?

NET LEANED VOTE:
11/18/07 7/31/07
Barack Obama 30 27
Hillary Clinton 26 26
John Edwards 22 26
Bill Richardson 11 11
Joe Biden 4 2
Dennis Kucinich 2 2
Chris Dodd 1 1
Mike Gravel * 0
Other (vol.) 1 0
None of these (vol.) * 2
Would not vote (vol.) 0 0
No opinion 3 4


8. (IF NAMED CANDIDATE) Who would your second choice be?

NET LEANED VOTE:

11/18/07 7/31/07
Barack Obama 26 26
John Edwards 24 23
Hillary Clinton 19 23
Bill Richardson 13 12
Joe Biden 6 4
Chris Dodd 4 3
Dennis Kucinich 2 1
Mike Gravel * *
Other (vol.) * 1
None of these (vol.) 3 4
Would not vote (vol.) 1 1
No opinion 1 3

[IA_Seth]

13. Thanks! n/t

[BootinUp]

15. It is flawed though

if I understand caucusing, the candidates below 15 should not be available to get second choice votes.

[tammywammy]

16. Ah, okay I see

I'm not sure how exactly it works in Iowa, since I'm not from there. :)

[Adelante]

17. That's a good point

I didn't even think of :dunce:

[IA_Seth]

41. Well don't!

Dont think of that, because it's a false assumption. As I stated on the other post, quoting a fellow Iowa DUer who knows her stuff...

"The presumption that if a candidate is non-viable after the first round that some how they are 'knocked off' and only the viable candidates divvy up the remaining voters is WRONG.

Non-viable candidate supporters can join with either viable groups or non-viable groups to make them viable (the only thing they cannot do is to remain w/the non-viable candidate...well they can but then they won't count).

Also, a supporter of a viable candidate can join with a non-viable group to make them viable (say - to keep a different non-viable candidate from becoming viable OR to keep a different viable candidate from getting a delegate..that's called strategy, so says the IDP)."

[Tejanocrat]

20. But the 15% threshhold is precinct by precinct - not statewide. This poll is as close as you could

get it.

In truth, the caucus is notoriously difficult to poll (partly because LOTS of people identify themselves as likely to caucus and identify themselves as past caucus participants when they really are not -- only a tiny fraction of Iowa participates in the caucus). You simply can't replicate the caucus process. Still, polls give you a hint as to the direction the wind is blowing.

[IA_Seth]

40. No, that's wrong....

As quoted from another Iowa DUer:

"The presumption that if a candidate is non-viable after the first round that some how they are 'knocked off' and only the viable candidates divvy up the remaining voters is WRONG.

Non-viable candidate supporters can join with either viable groups or non-viable groups to make them viable (the only thing they cannot do is to remain w/the non-viable candidate...well they can but then they won't count).

Also, a supporter of a viable candidate can join with a non-viable group to make them viable (say - to keep a different non-viable candidate from becoming viable OR to keep a different viable candidate from getting a delegate..that's called strategy, so says the IDP)."

[BootinUp]

42. interesting,

but I don't see how it negates my point (complicates yes). There is still almost over 10% of voters with nonviable candidates in the example above.

[Debi]

44. How did the poll treat non-viable voters?

In the CBS/NYT poll the question was asked that if your candiate is non-viable who of the viable candiates will you support (I'm paraphrasing here, but they only listed The Big Three as viable).

I know several of the questions in this poll were only asked about The Big Three.

Did they ignore the remaining five candiates for the pollee's second choice?

(Sorry I'm posting and running - I have GOT to work today....)

[IndyOp]

8. Very nice! Thank you. (n/t)

[Bitwit1234]

14. And his halo brightened as he spread his wings.

but he still has feet of clay.

[JackORoses]

18. better than a whole body made of Straw, like your beloved Hillary

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I agree with your conclusion

A close third in Iowa for Clinton would not at all kill her candidacy, but it would kill any sense of inevitability for her ultimate victory. Using the model you present, at this point it still is too early to be confident about any predictions though, especially those involving second choices which for many voters are still a relative after thought at the moment and almost certainly still fluid.

[Maven]

22. It's already been pointed out that the timing of this poll makes the results unreliable. nt

[Stop Cornyn]

23. If believing that gives you some comfort at this difficult time please feel free to indulge yourself

[cascadiance]

24. Kind of applies to ALL of the polls now I think!

They are still rather meaningless, except for those who want to try and push the "inevitability" mantra to try and rope those in that want to be "on the side of the winner".

[Maven]

28. I agree.

:thumbsup:

I do find it amusing that many of those who downplayed the importance of polls and "inevitability" yesterday are crowing about polls and inevitability today.

[surfermaw]

26. Edwards is ahead of Both B.O. and Hillary in Iowa

[harun]

33. Edwards will win Iowa (n/t)

[AZ Criminal JD]

29. The poll makes no sense

It adds up to 185% not 100%. The Iowa caucus will add up to 100% no matter what people's 2nd choice is.

[Stop Cornyn]

30. The number you are looking at is 1st choice % (out of 100%) plus 2nd choice % (out of 100%).

The result is a number, not a percentage, because it's a score on a 200 scale.

[boricua79]

31. one can only hope and dream

I much rather like Obama or Edwards, though I'd prefer Kucinich or Dodd.

[Stop Cornyn]

32. I'm with you (although Dodd dropped in my estimation by throwing the downpayment assistance program

under the bus).

Still, I wish we could nominate Kucinich, and if we can't, I'd much prefer Edwards (who has a platform for change) or Obama (who embodies change) over more corporatism and war.

[Imagevision]

34. And just last week Hillary hit one out of the park at Vegas debates (heavy sigh)...

[Capn Sunshine]

35. and yet by all accounts, she didn't

except to her crew. Which is why the numbers reflect what they do.

[Tejanocrat]

36. Did you watch the debates? The only standard Hillary exceeded was in comparison to her prior debate

[Beacool]

37. Hillary doesn't need Iowa

Hillary may or may not lose in Iowa, but she's the only candidate who doesn't need to win that state to win the nomination. Furthermore, she can even afford to lose in New Hampshire. If Obama loses Iowa he can still limp along to NH, but a loss for Edwards would mean that he's out of the race since he doesn't have the money nor the votes to continue to the next round. Either way, barring any disastrous occurrence, Hillary will be the Democratic nominee going to the general election.

[Tejanocrat]

38. Apparently, Iowa doesn't need Hillary either.

[Beacool]

39. Nope

It just means that any of the 3 in the top tier can win Iowa because the polls are very fluid in that state. Iowans are very fickle and it will boil down to who actually gets the most people out to vote on Jan. 3. It also means that the only candidate who doesn't need to win Iowa is Hillary. A loss in Iowa will affect her much less than her rivals.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

43. Just for the record, there will be few caucus sites where Clinton and Obama don't pull 15%

particularly after everyone has made up their minds, so combining 1st and 2nd is probably pretty irrelevant for either of them.

A chart of second choices for all second tier candidates would, however, be interesting.

[Debi]

45. That's it! there are 1,700 (actually a little more) precincts in Iowa

The Big Three aren't going to be viable in all of them (my precinct elects only two delegates - so somebody is gonna lose out).

The MSM and national pollsters are making a big (false) presumption that all three will stay viable and none of the other five will have support. I think that is misleading and will lead to some surprises on caucus night.