Can the Iowa Caucuses be Polled?

With just three weeks and three holidays between now and the Iowa Caucuses, the nation is soon to be inundated with public opinion surveys probing virtually every corner of the Iowa political psyche.

To casual observers, this is a run-of-the-mill modern day treatment of a major political event. But insiders understand the Iowa caucuses are not your run-of-the-mill political process, but instead are a throw-back to days when neighbor met neighbor and traded wisdom in the town square.

The Iowa caucuses require voters to go to a local school, church basement, private home or similar meeting place to spend between 90 minutes and two hours to register their preference. The process is a mixture of discussion, debating, a little horse-trading, and some consensus-building between neighbors. Anything can happen.

Some say the dynamic at play in the caucuses cannot be captured by a survey, and while the final outcome is impossible to predict exactly, preferences and trends leading up to the event can give us a pretty good picture.

In other words, the Iowa caucuses can be accurately polled.

Our survey work leading up to the 2004 caucuses is a good example. In Zogby surveys conducted in the months leading up to the caucuses, Zogby International asked about the "horserace" question of who likely caucus-goers would support. We also asked whether Iowa Democrats believed President Bush could be defeated, and whether they preferred a Democratic challenger who stood up for what they believed, or instead preferred a candidate who could win the election.

For months, Iowa Democrats said they did not think Bush could be defeated, and that they wanted a Democratic challenger who would at least stand up for what he believed and would hold the president's feet to the political fire, especially over the war in Iraq.

Given their feelings on these two questions, it was not a surprise that their favored candidate was former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, an anti-war firebrand with a flair for using the Internet to organize millions of campaign supporters nationwide.

However, just after the new year of 2004 began, Zogby polling found a startling change in the mindset of Iowa Democrats. In the aftermath of the capture of Saddam Hussein in mid-December, 2003, they apparently began to rethink the 2004 elections, perhaps thinking the election could turn on more than just the war in Iraq. Whatever the reason, Democrats began to think Bush could be defeated. With that change of heart came a change of momentum.

Our polling showed that Dean was peaking, and that others, including Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry -- the eventual winner -- began gaining steam.

At the start of Zogby's daily tracking in Iowa, on Jan. 10, 2004, Kerry stood 10 full points behind Dean, 25% to 15%. Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt was then in a close second at 23%, while North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was back at 14%. The tracking survey included a rolling survey covering the three latest days of polling - when a new day's results were added, the fourth-day results were pushed out the back end of the rolling average.

The second day the rolling average was published eight days before the caucuses, Dean had bounced up slightly to 26%, while Gephardt, locked in a furious media battle with Dean, held steady. Kerry ticked up one point to 16%, and Edwards dropped two points to 12%. The next day, Dean hit his high-water mark of 28%, while Gephardt yet again remained steady at 23%. Kerry gained another single point, while Edwards recovered the two points he had lost the day before.

From that point through the next week until the caucuses were held, Kerry and Edwards traded on their experience and electability, gaining steadily until the caucuses, while Gephardt and Dean continued slow fades into the ranks of the also-rans.

In the run-up to the caucuses, Dean and Gephardt, the one-time front-runners, brutally attacked each other with campaign advertisements, leaving Kerry and Edwards to benefit by avoiding the firefight and slipping past them in the end. Exit polls showed that Iowans were not as motivated by the two issues that Dean and Gephardt had championed most -- opposition to the war and to unfair international trade deals. Instead, health care and broader economic concerns motivated voters, the polling showed, and a huge volume of voters who made up their minds late in the process rejected the negative attacks of Dean and Gephardt in favor of the more optimistic messages carried by Kerry and Edwards.

When the final results of the caucuses were known, the four candidates finished in exactly the order indicated by the Zogby polls before the caucuses, though the percentages were different because undecided voters had finally made up their minds.

Can we predict the exact results of the Iowa caucuses ahead of time? The answer is simple: no. But that is not the purpose of political polling. As I mentioned earlier, there is no way to predict the neighbor-to-neighbor dynamic inside a caucus setting, and especially the effect that setting will have on those caucus-goers who show up to the events yet undecided.

But broad contours of the political landscape in Iowa can be determined by pre-caucus polling -- the rest is up to the voters.

Comments

[Stirner]

I've seen what has been done with the Ron Paul "polls" -- it all depends upon who is doing the polling. Since a lot of big outfits don't like his ideas, his numbers are always either low or non-existant. Let's be patient as we will find out soon enough who the winner is when the actual votes are counted.

[MidMo]

Hi- it is not clear in your piece that the republican to democrat caucus IS different.

Republican is a STRAW Poll.

[poopdeck]

Three facts demonstrate glaringly that the "Iowa caucuses" are the most dangerous way to begin the selection of our next president.
1. The Republican caucuses are apparently about to nominate Huckabee.
2. The Iowans have never in their history elected a woman to statewide, let alone national office.
3. "Horse trading" is a process by which a losing candidate can instruct his "handlers" to prevent the nomination of a specific front runner because winning a caucus means 50% or more support.
God save America from this idiocy indeed. Who cares what the polls are.

[Irish1139]

I have never been polled. Who are the people that are polled? Does anyone know anybody who has been polled? I am 65 years old, have always been a registered democrat, and I have never been polled. I think the polls are made up. I sure hope so, or we are in trouble.

[jsarets]

My deep opposition to polling is similar to a well-known phenomenon of quantum physics: the act of polling changes the outcome of the election. Pollsters like to think that they're just measuring public opinion, but they're actually affecting it dramatically. They're also reshaping the nature of campaigns and therefore the unwritten rules of the political process.

I submit that the benefits of knowing at all times which percentages of people support various politicians and policies is greatly overshadowed by its suppressive effect on the power of the individual in the democratic process. Polling allows political operatives to model the electorate as many overlapping layers of collectives that they can selectively target to assemble a majority. It gives the politicians an incredible power over the people.

Our political preferences and opinions are private. The pollsters have no right to demand this information, and we shouldn't be volunteering it. By responding to polls, we're actually minimizing our political power as individuals and in turn minimizing the creative inputs that underly the genius of democracy.

I can only imagine a politician in ancient Greece wondering, "If only there were a way to get the people to compromise so that the politicians don't have to." And thus the field of political polling was born.

[jumperpin]

From Illinois we dispatch diverse legions of shameless phone pests to IA. Then keep a low profile through our actual primary.

Keeps the noise down on our side while still focusing the farmers next door.

[bolderdash]

What is so amazing in possibly the most accurate poll to date of the voter's preferences in the Demo race for president in Iowa, is the forgotten candidate in the media obsession with Hillary and Obama, John Edwards, who remains in a three way tie for first.

He is possibly the only Demo candidate for President who can beat any Repub on the National election of the next President of the United States. Why? Edwards is a southerner with class, and the last Demo Presidents, Clinton and Carter, came fom the South, as well. Geography plays a big roll in determining winners in America...and demo's taking a few states in the South during the General Election can help them pull off the needed electoral College vote nation wide. Hillary and Obama do not have that luxury, nor the ability to Govern the Presidency with the experience that Edwards has over his opponents.

John Edwards simply is the most qualified, and has the best potential to win the National election for the next President in '08, defeating any Repub against him. Mark my word!

[IMPRISONBUSH]

WHAT I don't understand is why would the people of "IOWA " WANT ANOTHER GOP IN THE WHITEHOUSE.
" AFTER LOSEING MANY OF THE YOUNG IN THIS WAR
& AND KNOWING IT WAS ALL A LIE "
KNOWING HE WAS PAYING OFF RELIGOUS LEADERS IN NILLIONS FOR THERE VOTES "
KNOWING NOW THAT MITT HAS REFUSSED TO SEND HIS SONS TO IRAQ BUT YOURS ARE EXSPENDLE TO KEEP UP THE WAR.
IS YOUR FAITH TO SEND JUST THE FEW TO THER DEATH ?.

[andyboy]

I heard 60% of Iowa's commitee members said they could be convinced to change their minds between now and the primary.

The polls reflect this. Which is bad news for Hillary. She was supposed to have this thing sewn up. That bodes ill for the female. But good for the pretty white and black guys.

[slobone]

Kerry won Iowa in 04 by tirelessly campaigning here. He came to every little town and talked to people in person, answering any question anybody wanted to ask.

But this year every candidate (except Hillary) has been doing that. We're sick of them all! Just today I got flyers from Edwards & Obama, a phone call from Chris Dodd, and a postcard inviting me to dinner at the house of a local Obama rep! I feel like calling her up and asking what's on the menu.

That's what I get for registering as a Democrat. Big mistake.

[clintonius]

Why should we believe you Zogby? Polling is your livlihood! I'm 31 and don't know anybody my age or younger who owns a landline. Comparing now to 2004 is a bad idea. Three years has changed a lot. It's time for pollsters and the whole polling industry to be given the final death blow. It's bad for democratic systems anyway.

[Qbear]

I recommend LGBTs and several other constituencies form UNCOMMITTED sub groups.
Let the candidates WORK for OUR delegates for a CHANGE. Greens, Latino/as, and Anti Iraq War activists could also make Uncommitted sub groups.

[uncled]

Being from Iowa originally, I can't imagine anyone paying any attention to that backwards thinking place.

[GuiltyByStander]

"But broad contours of the political landscape in Iowa can be determined by pre-caucus polling -- the rest is up to the voters."

In other words, we don't know squat about Iowa's choice on Jan 3rd.

I've been working for Joe Biden. While Clinton and Obama are scrapping for the cameras, Biden is converting Iowa caucus-goers one straight answer at a time.

[Qbear]

Too many variables in Iowa in January to know anything, but maybe who has momentum.But momentum without follow thru means NADA.

"the world belongs to those who show up"

if weather is horrible, if some major gaffe in a candidate occurs, if record numbers show up,

if if if