Obama Leads in Worthless Poll

People are buzzing about Barack Obama supposedly surging among Iowa Democrats. A Newsweek poll has Obama besting Clinton by four points and Edwards by six, but like most early polls, this is pretty worthless.

First, the poll asks people who they would back if the January caucus were held today - a huge if. The more accurate query is whether Iowans are backing a candidate yet. Large pluralities continue to say they're undecided, according to campaign sources, which is the norm for the Iowa Caucus.

Second, it's very hard to accurately poll the small, unpredictable "universe" of caucus attendees. This poll has a high margin of error at plus or minus seven points, (explained here), and it purports to identify "likely" caucus attendees by asking if they plan to caucus. But this is not like planning to vote. It takes over an hour to attend the caucus -- smack in the middle of Iowa winter -- so schedules and weather make turnout much more unpredictable than regular voting.

Third, no Iowa poll incorporates the defining feature of the Iowa Caucus: The required "viability" minimum of 15% that candidates must reach to have any votes count in a precinct. On caucus night, Iowans first gather into groups for their preferred candidate, and then any groups falling short of 15% must change to support a viable candidate. The final caucus tally refers to those second round totals. That means victory can depend on the second-place preferences of Iowans backing "second-tier" candidates. Field operatives get this dynamic. While the media chases worthless national polls and sloppy slices of state electorates, veteran strategists like Michael Whouley are tracking Iowans' second-place preferences. (Whouley is famous in Democratic circles for his field work for Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry, but he's likely to become a household name soon, thanks to Denis Leary's portrayal in HBO's forthcoming movie about the Florida recount.)

Finally, it is just too early to deduce anything meaningful from national or state polls. This time last cycle, Wesley Clark led national polls, as the Article 19 blog notes, while Democrats and pundits debated who were the "top three" in Iowa. There was the seemingly inevitable frontrunner, and that populist with deep roots in the state, and the new yet inexperienced candidate who wanted to bring America together. Sound familiar?

Now Hillary has Dean's frontrunner spot, Obama is the old Edwards, and the new Edwards is doing the Gephardt thing. The top three of 2004 had one thing in common: high poll numbers and losing campaigns.

Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber

Comments

[jeffmorgan]

"That means victory can depend on the second-place preferences of Iowans backing "second-tier" candidates."

The same Newsweek poll you're talking about showed that when combined with second preferences, Obama's lead doubles.

[jeffmorgan]

oops sorry forgot that what you talk about is only candidates that are disqualified. So if the primary were today there would be about 17 points to distribute between Edwards, Obama, and Clinton looks like.

[longislandlol]

I'm an Independent- and your article has given many of us hope that perhaps someone like Biden might come through!

[MPeter]

I sense panic. How is it that the polls are only worthless when Obama leads? Why do you not react the same way when they cite HRC's numbers nationwide or whenever they show her improving in Iowa?

[FlowerGirl]

Hear! Hear!

[genmalia]

Ditto. Isn't the big "if" the same in all polls that show Clinton in the lead? "If the priaries were held today, who would you vote for?"

I wouldn't know for sure. I use a cell phone only, and I've never been called by anyone.

[Ari Melber - Huffpost Blogger]

MPeter: Yes, most of the polls are meaningless and this applies equally to all candidates.

And the national polls are as almost as useless as polling Canada, since both universes are filled with millions of people who have no say in the early states that select the nominee.

[MichaelJames]

Of course, all of the polls, whether Iowa-centric or national are pretty meaningless at this stage, although focusing on people likely to caucus in Iowa seems likely to be a better indicator of sentiment in Iowa than the national polls.

You are correct about viability in each of the 1,900 precincts being key, but this will be advantageous to Obama. I know I saw a more recent poll somewhere, but Obama also leads as the second choice for people whose candidate is not viable: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_080307.html

What will put him over the top in Iowa, however is the fact that Obama has the most extensive organization in Iowa with something like 30 field offices and people who support Obama tend to really, really, really support Obama, which will be key to getting them to turn out on a cold winter night to caucus.

[JoAnnCr]

Your poll has an August 3rd date.

[nypoet22]

Losing campaigns? isn't that also jumping the gun a bit?

[Qbear]

My guess is Edwards dropped slightly because he isn't seen much except the debates. Hillary is going to drop like a stone because of her AYE vote on Kyl/Lieber­man,,,,she ENDED her campaign. Obama just held his own, while others crash and burn.

[jsarets]

Obama didn't show up for the vote. One might argue that this was a mistake; voting against Kyl/Lieberman might have given Obama quite a boost. However, there's still well over 3 months until the early primaries, and like it or not, we're probably going to strike targets in Iran before the conventions.

While voting against the resolution was clearly the "right thing to do", it wouldn't have made a difference in the outcome. The only thing it would have done is turn Obama into a naysayer throughout the military campaign, which will conveniently coincide with the general election campaign. If Iran is anything less than a boondoggle of Iraqi proportions, Obama would likely lose to a more hawkish Republican.

If the Bush Administration times this right, we will hit our "Mission Accomplished" moment in Iran right around election time. If Obama were on the wrong side of the decision to attack Iran and things are going well on election day, America might very well elect a Republican.

In politics, it seldom pays to oppose that which is likely to happen anyway. If it goes well, you're a spineless naysayer. If it goes poorly, you're an arrogant elitist. Either get on the bandwagon or stay out of it. Obama chose the latter. If Iran becomes another disaster, no one is going to be in the mood for "I told you so".

[Grunty1]

Everything you said jsarets is incredibly sick. Entirely true and I understand that you are not showing support for these actions, but sick none the less.

[Qbear]

Obama had the RIGHT reaction to a stupid non binding bill...IGNORE IT.
It was a gottcha vote Reid should have kept off the floor of the senate,,,as he promised.
When Cheney attacks Iran,(and he will) he'll use the Sense of the Senate vote to validate starting ANOTHER War. Then Clinton is TOAST.
Why would Clinton leave the entire campaign in the hands of Cheney...that was NUTS!

[meese]

Actually the reason Sen. Obama didn't vote is actually much simpler. To quote someone who posted the explanation on theatlantic.com:

"He missed the vote because (1) Reid originally scheduled it for Tuesday night, (2) Tuesday night Reid pulled the bill and said it would be tabled for the foreseeable future, (3) Obama heads off to campaign in NH, (4) Reid schedules the bill for a vote at noon on extremely short notice. It happens. Now you know, so stop spreading bs that he could've voted."

[JoAnnCr]

Obama's health care only covers children in the beginning.

[FlowerGirl]

And Hillary's only covers the Insurance Companies.