New Report: Edwards On Top In Iowa?

The following piece is published on Iowa Independent as well as HuffPost's OffTheBus.

As the January 3 Iowa caucuses draw near, media outlets across the country will continue to buzz about new poll numbers and analyses from the Hawkeye state. Although they will not always be so careful to mention this, at Iowa Independent we feel it is important to emphasize how difficult it is to predict caucus results.

No poll is definitive, nor is any one columnist or pundit. Determining which Iowans will show up to participate in a caucus on a wintry January night -- one which, this year, will be only days after New Year's -- is nearly impossible. And pollsters find it difficult to include second choice support -- a very significant factor in caucus results -- in their horse race numbers at all.

I have compiled the first installment of what we are calling the "Iowa Independent Power Rankings" below. They attempt to answer the very narrow question, "If the caucuses were held tonight, what would be the results?"

Campaigns were evaluated based on impressions we received from activists, everyday caucus-goers, event attendees, and pundits about the quality of each campaign's on-the-ground organization, the likelihood of each candidate's supporters actually attending a caucus, second choice support, and -- at the most basic level -- gut feelings and guesses. We provide no guarantee that these results are accurate, but we hope that while our readers are looking at poll numbers and spin from day to day, they will keep these rankings in mind as another worthwhile point of reference.

Next week, we will turn our attention to the Republican race.

If the Democratic caucuses were held tonight, this is how we think they would end:

1. John Edwards -- Edwards started about a year ago with the best organization in Iowa, and most of the foundation he built here is still in place. Although concerns persist that his sharpening rhetoric may be alienating a few of his earliest supporters, his solid performance at the Jefferson Jackson dinner, his endorsement from Caucus 4 Priorities (and the potential 10,000 caucus-goers it could bring him), and his ongoing commitment to retail politicking keep him in the top spot -- for now.

2. Barack Obama -- Obama's organization was fairly inconsistent over the summer, with some counties getting a lot of attention and others getting barely any. Still, his campaign's ability to build crowds -- as evidenced by his huge and geographically diverse group of supporters at the Jefferson Jackson dinner -- are as good a measure of his strength as anything. And as Clinton continues to receive sharper attacks from Edwards and subtler attacks from Obama himself, the Illinois Senator could move up in the coming weeks -- particularly on news of his United Auto Workers endorsement. As things stand now, he would still place second behind Edwards.

3. Hillary Clinton -- Different sources tell vastly different stories about the Clinton campaign in Iowa. Some expect it to flop completely, but others point to poll numbers showing Clinton in the top spot among Democratic candidates in Iowa. All that said, her aura of inevitability has been all but shattered by increased criticism over the past few weeks, and she seems to lack significant second choice support. And her latest swing through Iowa highlighted her energy policy, something which may not resonate among working class women, which continues to be her key demographic. Frankly, although the polls show Clinton in first place in Iowa, many of us have been hard pressed to find solid Clinton supporters whose names have not already appeared on a campaign press release.

4. Joe Biden -- Biden's campaign only picked up steam during the late Fall, but one could be led to believe that he planned it that way all along. His list of legislative endorsements (including many in the Democratic leadership) is his greatest strength, because it lends him credibility that others in the so-called second tier do not have. The current situation in Pakistan highlights his foreign policy expertise, which allows him to continue to take ground from Gov. Bill Richardson. And his support comes largely from older Iowans, who are more likely to attend Caucuses than any other group.

5. Bill Richardson -- Richardson's campaign may have peaked too early, when its tongue-in-cheek TV commercials bumped his poll numbers into the double digits during the early summer. Since then, he has shown little positive movement in polls. His campaign events are known to be wildly inconsistent: some speeches and events are excellent, and others are lackluster at best. But his field operation appears to be solid in certain key precincts, where staff have been on the ground since early summer.

6. Chris Dodd -- Everyone who has attended a Dodd event or met the Connecticut Senator personally seems to like him, but few seem to have committed to him so far. While his International Association of Fire Fighters endorsement continues to be a major X-factor, he has attracted very few Iowa endorsements from activists and politicos outside the IAFF. One gets the sense that Dodd has very strong second choice support from activists who have signed on to one of the top three candidates' campaigns, but he needs to persuade more of those caucus-goers to put him at the top of their lists. The campaign shows real potential with its talented staff and a candidate who is so committed to Iowa retail politics that he has moved his family here through January, but if the caucuses were held today, they would not go his way.

7. Dennis Kucinich -- Although Kucinich may have a small number of hold-outs from his 2004 campaign, the vast majority of his past supporters appear to have migrated elsewhere, because Kucinich has spent such little time and money on the ground here.

8. Mike Gravel

Comments

[laurenc]

I just read this on AP..check it out at USA Today: DES MOINES " Jackson Browne says that Democrat John Edwards is the most progressive candidate with a chance at winning the White House, and that he would do the most for working-class Americans.
"It's a challenge to hook yourself up to what a politician says he's going to do, and see if he's going to do it," the singer-songwriter said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "I think it's a really critical time in our country and our world, and I think that working people need a champion, and I think that John Edwards is that person."

[maryinbelltown]

This is My Page on the John Edwards blog: http://johnedwards.com/action/contribute/mygrassroots/?page_id=MjgxOTc

Analyst Reveals John Edwards, not Hillary Clinton, as Most Electable Democrat

David Terr, PhD number theorist and graduate from UC Berkeley, "we have almost 250 polls involving a hypothetical election between Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton and she is consistently performing worse than Edwards is in those same polls."

They argue that Hillary Clinton performs worse because of polls of Independents and Moderates that find her objectionable and have vowed to never support her -- regardless of circumstance. "John Edwards does not suffer from such objection which is critical in a close election" says David Terr.

The data PresidentElectionPolls.com has used to come to their conclusions can be found at
http://www.presidentelectionpolls.com/20 08/articles/john-edwards-is-the-most-ele ctable-democrat.html

Pundits say that a Democrat cannot win in the South, Midwest or West. They say places like Arizona, Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, Indiana, Georgia and Louisiana are Republican strongholds. Well, they are wrong. Democrats have won there statewide--as governors or senators. And the right Democratic presidential nominee--one who shares their values, understands their issues and offers real and bold solutions--can win these states.

"Poll after poll in the battleground states shows Edwards to be the strongest Democratic challenger in a general election match-up with the leading Republicans."

EDWARDS: The problem is the press and the pundits have confused the candidate who would win an election inside the Beltway with the candidate who can win an election in the rest of America. I believe any candidate who takes money from lobbyists and special interests is not electable, and I believe any candidate who defends the broken system in Washington will not win."

[MidMo]

John Who?

I have canvassed three times in Iowa- three different towns since SEPT.

It is clear to me that with first and second choice in mind- Obama wins.

THAT tells me that HE is winning.

[poopdeck]

It does not matter who wins the Iowa charade because it is all over.

[sa]

it's very interesting and telling to watch and listen to republicans tweak and twist the democratic candidates.

everyone, watch carefully what they're doing:

they desperately hope that hillary heads the democratic ticket. she is very defeatable. they have given edwards zero comments or dismissive ones at best. they truly fear him - as they should. an edwards/obama ticket is a winner.

obama and hillary are both very vice presidential. both bring a lot of "sexiness" in the v.p. spot, but to lead the ticket would be death.

rove recently commented that he was surprised how weak he thought edwards and obama were - subtext: please, please, please let hillary be the democratic choice! they know she would be beaten - and she would.

a gore/clinton ticket would win.
an edwards/obama ticket will win.

please dems - don't fall into their trap and pick hillary to lead the ticket - even the media is rooting for her to win and ultimately lose.

it's a trap!!!

edwards/obama '08

[win2kpro]

Polls are polls and not votes, but I fully believe that John Edwards is going to upset both Hillary's and Barack's apple carts in Iowa.

EDWARDS/BIDEN IN '08

[Evolin]

Iowa may just not call it correctly this time. If the opinions here reflect caucus Iowans, they just may call it wrong this year.
Nobody's right all the time or even most of the time.

[Justis]

As much as I want to believe otherwise, I think Iowa caucus voters will make the "sensible" and "practical" and "safe" choice, just like they did in 2004. And that means Hillary.

The theory behind letting these insignificant states essentially choose our nominees for us is that a pissant state's voters can really evaluate the candidates up close and personal, and that a quality, diamond-in-the-rough Democratic darkhorse has a better chance.

So please, for my own edification and reassurance--when has this actually happened?

[GGinSC]

I'm seeing John Edwards as our next President; no, I don't wear rose-colored glasses.

Those of us who believe Edwards is the best hope for America--and the worst nightmare of the GOP and the coronation-minded media--need to help him get elected: talk to voters, volunteer, write letters to the editor, send monetary contributions. A few people I've talked with said Edwards is their first choice; however, the media and polls have made them think he won't have a chance. Let's dispel the media myths.

This is our chance to prove that a courageous candidate with an agenda for the people for a change can get elected without the corporate bankroll. Let's make it happen. Go John Edwards!

[Listen2me]

Does everyone give Sen. Biden a pass on his plagiarism? From what I've seen of the guy over the years, he's a typical finger-to-the-wind political opportunist.

That said, I still say the fix is in for Sen. Clinton. Who will then proceed to lose to Giuliani. Can you see a debate between them? Rudy would not be kind to her. This script favors the fascists.

As for Edwards, his own inexperience is showing. I believe he'd do better by concentrating furious fire on the Bush crime syndicate, and demonstrating the ability to effectively attack Republicans.

It would hardly be necessary for him to even criticize Sen. Clinton, if the Iowa Dems were to hear him really flaying the incumbent criminals.

I happen to believe that the only reason Kerry carried Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in the 2004 general election was the last-minute barnstorming that Edwards did in those states.

But he needs to tell us, if he hasn't yet, that he regrets not only his vote for the Iraq war--but also the indecently quick election capitulation in 2004. Are any of the Demo candidates talking about election fraud, about the Justice Dept election rigging, about the black-box voting perils still out there?

Edwards' dilemma is he MUST win Iowa, but doing so gets him no particular advantage elsewhere. I think his campaign is playing catch-up, without much oxygen. His apparent support for a line-item veto was a head-scratcher. What was that about? But Hillary is so widely despised--somebody's got to head her off, please! In a street fight with Rudy, she'd get eviscerated. Or broom-handled. Edwards might have a chance . . . though he showed nothing against Cheney, in 2004.

The only encouraging political development is the Ron Paul bandwagon.

[Boadicea]

This is opinion and conjecture, and nothing more. The title is misleading.

The polls say it's neck-in-neck, and I'm inclined to accept that. Edwards is losing county chairs in Iowa, and that's huge. He's lost supporters to Hillary.

It's a crap shoot.

[Gussmith]

Sorry, GuiltyBStander, but Mr. Biden will never be president of the U.S. Look at the track record of former senators, although we have a few in the running now, but not Mr. Biden. He would talk us to death and not be able to withstand the incessant criticism of Repugs. So forget it and please, why do we have a Canadian involved in our political process? Unacceptable.

[texanna]

I am glad to learn that Iowans don't seem to be buying the corporatist media attempt to push Hillary and/or Obama down our collective throats just because it's the easy story. While I would support any Democratic candidate to ensure that the Neonuts don't get to continue their desecration of our government, I would prefer that candidate to be Edwards. I think he's not being tough enough in his comparison of himself to Hillary. Maybe he might have used another word other than "corrupt", but unfortunately, that is exactly what the present form of our government is! It's corrupt because the multi-national corporations, the military-industrial complex, big PHARMA and big agra are able to hand out millions while we, the citizens, can barely afford the maximum allowable contribution. Hillary and Obama have taken money from all of the above, so the expectation is that they would continue to allow them to have a place in the national dialogue. If she doesn't like the association, maybe she shouldn't have taken their money.

[laurenc]

thank God. I met John Edwards today, and he is the smartest, most passionate, most populist, and totally incredible candidate imaginable. Better than anyone could imagine.
He will bring us back the White House in a way none of the others can. Read Daily Kos' on tonight's global warming debate in L.A.

[UNCLEJOE]

If Hillary wins the nomination the Democrats lose the election. She's got too much baggage.
If Obama wins the nomination, the democrats lose in 2008. America is still a racist nation.
Any white male can win for the democrats in 2008, the Republican corrupt Administration has burned down the store. They will get the dumb and the rich to vote for any Republican and get 25% of the vote in 2008.
Two Times Two = Four
It is that simple.