The DMR Poll: Momentum boost for Obama and validator for wavering Iowa voters

[jefferson_dem]

DES MOINES, IA -- So what do we think of the new Des Moines Register poll, which shows Obama leading Clinton and Edwards, 32%-25%-24%? No matter how you slice it, it provides a definite momentum boost for the Obama folks; it’s the equivalent of receiving the paper’s endorsement (as Clinton actually did a couple of weeks ago). Perhaps most important of all, for those Iowans who like Obama but don’t think he can win, the poll is a validator of sorts.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/01/542090.aspx

[KingofNewOrleans]

1. I think it ups the ante for Obama

The big selling point for Obama is that he brings in new people. The DMR poll is predicated on that. It has 60% of the caucus goers being first timers. If they show up and turnout is huge then Obama wins and gets a huge boost. If they don't show up, then Obama's balloon has burst.

[Colobo]

2. That's right!

[Texas_Kat]

3. It certainly ups the stakes

From this poll alone, if Obama doesn't win by at least the margins indicated, he's in trouble.

[maximusveritas]

4. So if he wins by 1 point, you think he's in trouble?

What a clumsy attempt at spin.
There have been enough polls showing each candidate winning.
The only importance of the DMR poll is that it's in Iowa and so it influences Iowan voters.

[Texas_Kat]

5. yes

The more this poll gets hyped, the bigger his margin has to be to make his win significant.

[Califooyah Operative]

7. haha. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

10. You're really bad at this spin thing...

I mean, thats not what the poll means, at ALL.

[Texas_Kat]

11. Why, thanks..... I'm really hoping the Obama camp continues

to blow this poll way out of proportion.

As far as I can tell, none of the pollsters are considering geography and weighting either. Caucuses are NOT primaries -- winners are NOT just based on 'statewide' percentages. Heavy concentrations of a candidate's voters in a small number of precincts is not a way to win the game. You have to have voters in ALL precincts..... in all parts of the state. But you knew that (and understand its implications), right?

One way or the other, Thursday evening will be interesting.

[Joe the Revelator]

12. I think the DMR (and most other pollsters) have done enough Iowa Cacus polls

Over the decades to know what they're doing.

[Texas_Kat]

13. okay, whatever

Didn't mean to interrupt your happy dance with a dose of reality.

Most people miss the importance of the mechanics of politics.

[Joe the Revelator]

14. To believe what you're saying....

I would have to believe that you know more about polling then the major polling firms who are working the Iowa Caucus. I'm just not quite ready to make that ridiculous jump in logic.

[Texas_Kat]

15. I never claimed that.... only that polling for caucuses is terrifically difficult

and that 'all' factors can't be accounted for.

Unlike many here at DU, I don't claim to know more than I really do. I DO know (however) what these polls aren't able to tell us.

So maybe swallowing the numbers hook, line and sinker is cause for celebration... maybe not. I expect that we'll know on Thursday night.

[Debi]

6. I don't dispute that Obama will do well in Iowa

I have no faith in the DMR poll. 60% polled will be (or MAY be) first time caucus-goers? Sound a little Howard Deanish? Had all the folks that were going to caucus for Howard Dean shown up he would have swept Iowa. But they didn't show up (around 20% did). And we have no proof that these new voters will show up this time (I hope they do, the greater amount of participation Thursday night = a more active party for June and November's elections). I also am uneasy about the republican and independent crossovers. Yes, traditionally SOME (1%) of republicans cross over and some (19%) independents cross over. But the DMR poll has 5% of gopers switching and 40% of independents crossing over.

I think the DMR did a poor job with this poll.

[Texas_Kat]

8. Yepsen is skeptical as well.

I don't always agree with him, but it certainly is his backyard.

[Debi]

9. Except that if you read the analysis - Yepsen f*&%s up the 'second choice'

question AGAIN. Just a reminder to those I haven't hammered this home to...If a candidate isn't viable in the first round they are NOT out of the running. Their supporters have the opportunity to join with other non-viables or non-committeds and make their candidate viable (or convince 'extras' in a viable group to join them to make their candidate viable - keeping a delegate away from a different candidate) OR join with a viable group OR not to anything and not be counted.....Somebody PLEASE tell David Yepsen and just about EVERY friggen pollster out there that the way they ask the question is WRONG and has definitely skewed the way those being polled have answered the question. :banghead:

[jenmito]

16. A woman from the DMR, J. Ann Selzer, was on C-Span this morning, explaining the reasoning behind the

large number of Independents, 1st-time caucus goers, and some Repubs. She defended the poll, saying they took great pains to get an accurate make-up of who WILL be caucusing. They screened the people they polled, asked if they'll be caucusing, what party they consider themselves part of (or will become on caucus day), and they even looked deep into the numbers to see if there was any way that there'd be a different outcome, and they're pretty darn confident they did an accurate poll.