Parsing the Polls: Inside the WP/ABC Iowa Survey showing Obama in the lead

[DeepModem Mom]

WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza
11/20/2007
Parsing the Polls: Inside the Post/ABC Iowa Survey

If the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is all about Iowa, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) has reason to smile this morning. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll -- released last night -- puts Obama at 30 percent in Iowa followed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) at 26 percent and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) at 22 percent. While pollsters will -- rightly -- warn that Obama's "lead" is within the survey's margin of error, meaning that it is not statistically significant, the symbolic import of the Illinois Senator topping Clinton in Iowa is HUGE. The strongest argument in Clinton's favor is the aura of inevitability that surrounds her; if that is taken away she becomes far more vulnerable.

The top line numbers of the poll are undoubtedly good news for Obama. But what do the internals tell us about the race? The Fix asked Post polling director Jon Cohen for a look at the numbers behind the numbers and he obliged....What immediately becomes clear from a look behind the numbers is that the race in Iowa is fundamentally a different one than in New Hampshire or nationally. In nearly every national poll, Clinton hold strong leads among women, low-income voters, less educated voters and older voters. Not so in Iowa. Among women in the Post poll, Obama actually leads Clinton 32 percent to 31 percent among women. Voters 45 years of age or older are similarly divided, choosing Clinton by a 27 percent to 26 percent margin over Obama. Ditto for those who earn $50,000 or less a year; 29 percent for Clinton, 29 percent for Obama.

It's not just in the horse race where this trend is apparent either. Asked which of the candidates better understands the "problems of people like you", 33 percent of women choose Obama while 24 percent opt for Clinton -- a stunning number. On that same question Obama leads Clinton among those who earn less than $50,000 by 11 points, roughly equivalent to the 12 point lead he carries among those who earn more than $50,000. The results were remarkably similar when the sample was asked which candidate they believed was more "honest and trustworthy." Thirty percent of women chose Obama while just 18 percent went for Clinton. Twenty eight percent of voters over 45 opted for Obama while 17 percent backed Clinton.

Those numbers suggest that the time and money Obama has dedicated in Iowa have altered the dynamics of the race in the state in a way he has been unable to do in other early states or nationally. Obama has found a way -- at least according to this poll -- to appeal to voters outside his most natural base, a key development especially if he is able to replicate it in other early states.

While the poll is undoubtedly good news for Obama, it also offers plenty of data points that suggest it would be a mistake to start writing Clinton's Iowa obituary just yet....

***

It all goes back to the head versus heart conundrum that we have talked about on The Fix for months. What this poll makes clear is that, as of today, Obama is the heart candidate and Clinton is the head candidate. Which organ their body will be more important to Iowa voters on Jan. 3 is anyone's guess.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/?hpid=topnews

[killbotfactory]

1. Yep

"The strongest argument in Clinton's favor is the aura of inevitability that surrounds her; if that is taken away she becomes far more vulnerable."

Hence all the national polls. The way her campaign has been run so far, is that if Clinton looks vulnerable, then she is vulnerable.

[rocktivity]

2. DING DING DING! Killbotfactory, you're our grand prize winner!

The way her campaign has been run...if Clinton looks vulnerable, then she is vulnerable.

Bingo. With the help of the MSM, Hillary's campaign has succesfully cultivated a PERCEPTION of being invulnerable. But between the backlash from the favoritism displayed by CNN at the Nevada debate and the GOP candidates acting as if there are no other Dem candidates, more people are starting notice that in reality, she's really actually kind of, well--MORTAL.

Even winning Iowa won't help Hillary if it's by just a couple of points. Unless she wins decisively, her opponents will be inspired do the OPPOSITE of back down.

:headbang:
rocknation

[wyldwolf]

3. Rothenberg/MSNBC parses media attention to the poll and time frame

If there is something surprising about the new ABC News/Washington Post survey of likely Iowa Democratic caucus attendees, it isn’t the fact that Sen. Barack Obama (30 percent) holds a narrow lead over New York Sen. Hillary Clinton (26 percent) and John Edwards (22 percent). It’s the curious way ABC and rival NBC reported on and interpreted the results during their Monday night national news programs.

For years, Independent political analysts have been warning about reporters’ tendencies to compare polls conducted by different polling firms, to over-interpret small changes in poll results and to treat the results of the most recent survey as if they are etched into stone. And yet that’s what the two networks seemed to do.

Interestingly (though probably not surprisingly), ABC News’s partner in the Iowa survey, the Washington Post, played the story in a much more measured and thoughtful way.

ABC’s World News opened with the network’s new survey, treating it with a breathless quality deserving of momentous breaking news. In fact, the ballot test in the new poll wasn’t all that different from the previous ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted in late July, which had Obama leading with 27 percent, to 26 percent each for both Clinton and Edwards. Obama’s lead both in July and in the most recent survey are statistically insignificant.

Oddly, ABC’s Kate Snow commented that one of the interesting things about the new survey is that likely caucus goers have “come to a different conclusion than what national polls say.” That’s a strange comment since the difference between the Iowa numbers and the national numbers has existed for many months, and many observers have questioned the networks’ focus on national survey data.

A minute or two later in the show, anchor Charles Gibson told chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos that he was struck by “what retail politics this all is.” This is news? Gibson didn’t know that Iowa (and New Hampshire) are famous for being retail politics states?

NBC also botched its report of the new survey. First, Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, referring to the Iowa race and the new poll, said “It’s tightening among the Democrats,” and then NBC Chief White House Correspondent David Gregory compounded the error by telling viewers that “For the first time, has a lead in the state.” Given the results of the previous ABC News/Washington Post poll, “tightening” is not an apt description. And of course, Obama held a “lead” in the July survey.

It’s worth noting, though nobody did, that the July ABC News/Washington Post survey was dramatically different than other surveys taken at the time. This does not mean that the July ABC News survey was wrong or that the current one is incorrect. It is a reminder, however, that it’s better to be cautious about reading too much into this, or any, poll – even if you are paying for the survey.

In fact, some campaign operatives with the Presidential campaigns are skeptical about many of the polls being conducted in Iowa because of the difficulty in predicting exactly who will participate in the January caucuses.

http://www.rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/

"The poll was conducted partially before Clinton's and Obama's last debate performances and partially after it, performances that saw Clinton regain her footing and Obama stumble a bit. We're not seeing the full effects of that debate reflected in this poll." - - -MSNBC analyst this morning.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Thanks for this info, wyldwolf. nt