CBS: Iowa DEADLOCK. Clinton 25%, Edwards 23%, Obama 22%

[Bluebear]

(CBS) Democrats and Republicans are both headed toward heated showdowns in Iowa, where, according to a new CBS News/New York Times poll, Hillary Clinton holds a statistically insignificant lead over John Edwards and Barack Obama, and GOP hopeful Mitt Romney finds his long-held position as the state's front-runner challenged by a surging Mike Huckabee.

The situation in Iowa, where nominating caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3, is in stark contrast to New Hampshire, where Clinton and Romney continue to hold large leads among those likely to vote in the state's first-in-the-nation primary, which could come only days after Iowa's contests.

But in both states, large chunks of voters have yet to make up their minds, meaning the results of the contests that will kick off the 2008 nominating season are still difficult to predict.

In Iowa, the Democratic contest is knotted up. Among likely caucus-goers, Clinton came out on top with 25 percent support, but she was trailed closely by Edwards at 23 percent, and Obama at 22 percent. With a margin of error of 4 percentage points, there is no clear leader. Trailing behind was Bill Richardson, at 12 percent, with all other candidates in single digits.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/opinion/polls/main3497993.shtml

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Congrats to the GOP, Edwards, and Obama!

All that negative sniping and those attack ads have worked!!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. she's causing her own problems, in spades.

and the GOP ain't laying a glove on her. Her own mistakes are simply opening doors that her competitors would naturally point to. Or is it because she is SPECIAL, and a WOMAN, and Bill's WIFE, that makes her special and immune to accurate criticism? Her campaign blew it with that approach, too.

[journalist3072]

14. Your post is full of crap. No factual basis whatsoever. eom

[ChairmanAgnostic]

15. sniff, sniff? SAY we got another Hill Supporter here!

hiya! How are you? Welcome to a REAL democratic outpost. Pull up a chair. Open the mind. Enjoy.

[CoffeeCat]

34. I would add that...

orchestrating "fake" events with planted questions--and then lying
about it--does not sit well with Iowans.

Some may see Iowans as a bunch of hayseeds, but we know a phony when we
see one.

Edwards has surged in the polls, because he's criss-crossing the state and
meeting with Iowans and talking with them directly. His fresh, honest approach
is appreciated and he will be rewarded at the caucuses.

Hillary's canned lectures are sinking her.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. To Those Who Thought Resistance Is Futile:

Nyeh-nyeh. It ain't over till it's over.

Clinton is extremely vulnerable in at least two ways - her infatuation with war, and her refusal to give a direct answer. As long as people keep her feet to the fire, her numbers will melt.

[Cha]

13. What about

her fascination with plants?

[RiverStone]

17. And it is far from over!

I do hope JE can catch and pass Hillary. How wonderful would it be to toss the pundits out on their ass - all those in the M$M that have already anointed Hillary!

We deserve a long and thoughtful primary process. Well, we sure as hell got the long part right - I just hope it becomes and remains very competitive.

[WA98296]

3. I honestly believe the network polls are complete bullshit, totally fabricated.

[nadinbrzezinski]

27. I will agree with you parially

due to my experience wiht a pollster...

That said... it wasn't pushing her competitors...

What is more... the only poll that counts will be over soon.

[Renew Deal]

4. So, now the question is... Is Edwards peaking too soon.

Oh boy!

[ramblin_dave]

5. Peeking too soon may apply to Senator Craig but not to

Senator Edwards.

[Renew Deal]

7. Mildly amusing

E for effort

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. How about Peking t'Stoon?

[Bluebear]

23. :)

[laureloak]

11. LOL! n/t

[OzarkDem]

9. IIRC the Iowa Caucus is not very transparent

Recall the strange things that happened in 2004, when Dean was running strong there, then Kerry pumped a bunch of money (and helicopter campaigning IIRC) in at the last minute, winning? I seem to recall some strange goings on with regard to people w/ cell phones giving play by play reports on the process and a large groups of unknown, first time voters with no previous party affiliation suddenly appearing at key meetings at the last minute to suddenly swing the vote Kerry's way? I'm not casting asparagus at Kerry, it could have been someone outside the party messing with the outcome.

I don't trust the process. In 2004 it appeared they could be manipulated with no way to track it. Will something similar happen again?

[Turn CO Blue]

28. Exactly! What if

the big campaigns were seedy enough to load the caucuses at the precinct level by having their own PLANTS (registered Iowans, but still loyalists or employees) who suddenly show up at the key precincts with very strong opinions - who will be trained to SHOUT-DOWN others during the 30 minutes of debate? I don't put it past certain campaigns to try to load the precincts. I don't trust the process.

[cyberswede]

31. Have you ever been to a caucus?

You're there with your NEIGHBORS. People don't shout anybody down.

Here's how it goes:
After attendees are signed in (by a specific time), the total number of attendees is determined.
After some dry procedural stuff, people split into groups for their candidates.
If your candidate doesn't get 15% of the total attendees, s/he is not "viable."
You then have the opportunity to try to persuade people to join your group - it's an open process and very civil.
If you get enough to get to 15%, your candidate is viable and receives delegates. If not, your candidate is not viable and gets no delegates. You then have the opportunity to join another group, or be "undesignated" - you don't even have to choose a second choice. The number of delegates each candidate gets is determined by the ratio of the total attendees they have in their camp. So, if you have 100 attendees, each candidate would need 15 people to be viable. If one candidate gets 50 people (50%), they would get half the delegates for your precinct, and the others would be assigned based on the % each candidate receives.

[Turn CO Blue]

33. It's not like I'm the first person to criticize the lack of fairness

in the process.

New study puts Iowa caucuses under fire -- again
<http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/by_john_mccormick_the_oftenund.html>
The often-under-fire Iowa caucuses are taking some heat again as a new report by The Century Foundation alleges the voting procedure is antiquated and violates fundamental rights such as equal opportunity to participate and fair access to the ballot.

-snip-Same-day registration is also allowed for the caucuses, meaning that just about anyone who is a resident of voting age and can spend a couple hours at a meeting on a cold night can participate.

and

Rethinking Iowa
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8097-2005Jan13.html>

Although spawned by reforms aimed at making the nominating system more democratic, the Iowa caucuses aren't that democratic at all. In a primary, people can vote all day. But in Iowa, you must arrive at your precinct caucus site at exactly 6:30 p.m. and stay for several hours, which virtually bars people who work at night. There are no absentee ballots, and voting is not secret -- people often raise their hands to show whom they support. Democrats generally believe in making it easy to vote. But in Iowa, voting is comparatively difficult. And that difficulty is reflected in the percentage of people who participate: In both 2000 and 2004, roughly 50 percent of registered Democrats cast ballots in the New Hampshire primary. In the Iowa caucuses, it was between 10 and 20 percent.

Grinnell’s special role in Iowa’s quadrennial farce
<http://geekbuffet.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/grinnells-special-role-in-iowas-quadrennial-farce/>

Seriously, if you’ve never been to an Iowa caucus: It’s worse than you think. Leave aside the arbitrary timing of the primary calendar and the fact that the state is 94 percent white. Because big-city people seem to see the entire state of Iowa as a sort of joke, most of them (with the notable, perennial exception of Mickey Kaus) write off the caucus’s very serious democratic problems.
-snip- If state delegates were assigned in proportion to caucusgoers’ preference, they might be justifiable. But that’s not how things work in the Iowa Democratic Party. Instead, months before caucus day, each precinct is assigned a number of delegates (this year, between 1 and 37) based on the number of people who caucused voted in that precinct four years before. When the votes are counted in each precinct, its delegates are proportionally divided according to the local support for each candidate. (There’s one more undemocratic complication to the Democratic caucuses, but I’ll spare you.)

So the precinct system is a little bit like the electoral college, which assigns states votes based on their population in the previous census and which I’m actually in favor of. (The virtue of the college, unlike the caucus, is that the winner-take-all system requires candidates to campaign in centrist swing states rather than running up a big majority in one region of the country.)

-------
For myself, I believe that any non-private "voting" system where only a few people attend and where "neighbors" have been known to intimidate supporters of "non-viable" candidates and where all the "votes" of 5.7% of the population get APPORTIONED out like some kind of electoral college -- IS NOT at all little d democratic. You may also have noticed that this conversation-style voting makes the polls meaningless, since the purpose of the 30 minutes of debate is to "persuade" other voters and to "negotiate", blah, blah
and so the poll front-runners don't match up with the precinct outcomes.

[Debi]

35. The caucuses were never supposed to be like a primary

they were never supposed to be one-man-one-vote. Caucuses were ALWAYS designed to give a 'feel' of the preference of the caucus-attendees and narrow the choices to form a consensus (and actually to also be a party builder). As soon as people quit trying to compare the two things will go more smoothly.

As for intimidation, as soon as you give me one true example of intimidation at a caucus I'll try to have a rational conversation with you. For four years I have heard all the hypothetical stories I can stand. Show me ONE Iowan who has stated that they have been intimidated at a caucus. I'll wait here patiently.

I don't understand your concern about people actually caucusing in precincts and each precinct having a representative amount of delegates to the county conventions. If that didn't occur Iowa would be represented by Polk County, Johnson County, Sioux County and Linn or Scott County (sorry, don't know which is larger) ALL urban areas of the state. Smaller counties (which are obviously more rural) would have no representation and the issues that are important to the folks living in those counties would not be addressed by OUR elected officials. How can across the state representation NOT be considered democratic? Having the larger, more populated areas make the choices for the entire state sure seems less democratic than giving all citizens who choose to participate a voice doesn't it?

People forget that the Iowa Caucuses aren't just about showing our state's voters preference for who we wish to be the party's nominee - they are about creating our state and local central committees - about planning for our county conventions AND for recruiting candidates(or creating support for our current candidates) for the upcoming elections. They are so much more than just an hour or so of organizing. They are the stepping stone for the following year for our party.

And yes, all polls are meaningless. Iowans have been trying to tell other DUers that for sometime, but nobody wants to listen.

[cyberswede]

29. A caucus is completely transparent

I don't think you understand the process.

1. Caucuses are held in local precincts - people are from neighborhoods and many (if not most) know each other
2. Participants must live in the precinct where they caucus - there's not really the ability of large numbers of unknown first-time voters to swoop in and tilt the process.
3. All attendees have to be signed in by a certain time in order to particiapte. By the time you go stand for your candidate, entrance to the meeting is closed. There's not really a way people could look at the numbers and call in reinforcements at the last minute. Besides - who would they call? If someone was going to the caucus, they'd already be there. It's not like there are tons of people sitting around at home waiting to find out if they're needed...they would already be there.

I think Kerry had a strong showing because the firefighters union endorsed him, and the union did a lot get their members out to caucus. At our caucus, the Kerry supporters *gasp* brought SNACKS! Manipulators! :)

thx - cs

edit because I can't number chronologically, apparently.

[Debi]

38. Don't forget that it is against the law to 'flood' the caucuses with non-Iowa voters

Iowa Code Section 43.91 provides that only eligible Iowa voters may participate in the caucus. The only expansion upon that right is the additional factor is that if they are not an eligible voter on the evening of the caucus they will become one by the date of the next general election.

To become a voter in Iowa one must have a residence in the State. To have a residence in Iowa, one must have a home in the precinct "with the intent to remain there permanently or for a definite or indefinite or indeterminable length of time." (Iowa Code Section 48.5A). Further, a non-resident, with a voting registration in another state is not eligible to register in Iowa (i.e. "not claim the right to vote in more than one place." See Section 48A.5(1)(d).

Additionally, there is a limitation on what can be established as a residence. Under Code Section 48A.5A Determination of Residence (2) provides that "a residence for purposes of this chapter cannot be established in a commercial or industrial building that is not normally used for residential purposes", i.e. which I think we can reasonably take to mean not a hotel or a campaign headquarters.

There is a specific exception for students, who may declare either their campus residence or their hometown as their residence, but not both. See 48A.5 (5).

++++++++

However, last time I checked snacks were acceptable ;)

[MalloyLiberal]

10. He's climbing, mofos!

[WA98296]

12. So much anticipation over what, 4,000 votes?

[Divine Discontent]

19. no offense...

but we're talking IOWA here, not NYC...

[book_worm]

16. Go Edwards!!

[Imagevision]

18. Obama can only continue to go up in numbers from here on in...

[Divine Discontent]

20. WOOHOO!!! I knew her gaffes would give JE a boost!

Oh, to have him come back and win this after this year-plus of hearing she's a lock to win it all why are the rest of you running?, would be awesome! (or any of the others for that matter, esp. Gore, but I'm super happy if it's John since he's running)

[RL3AO]

21. Tick tock tick tock 7 more weeks. You better get on your game Hillary.

(Not that I want her to...go Obama)

[Odin2005]

22. Go Obama!!! Go Edwards!!! n/t

[Guaranteed]

24. Which means Sen. Clinton will lose- her support is soft.

Watch Edwards win this.

[Bluebear]

26. Obviously I hope so, but the numbers are breaking that previous voters are breaking for Edwards.

New voters for Obama or Clinton but their support is softer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Hmmm let me guess the undecideds are starting to jump into camps?

and the innevitabilty is starting to fall apart?

Hold it, didn't some of us who have been observing the PROCESS called this one?

[balantz]

30. John's been working hard for this.

He is genuinely courting the people and has put forth a major effort to win this.

[IronLionZion]

32. I'm as happy as a pig in mud right now

YES!!! Be competitive! Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised by Iowa. I'm sure those fine folks don't appreciate the corporate media telling them who to caucus for.

[Debi]

36. I said this yesterday, this poll is crap - I'll repeat

What kind of a poll excludes 1/2 the candidates and then proclaims the only three they asked about are the top three??

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_111307.pdf

One of the WRONG questions:

Second Choice

On the night of the Iowa caucuses, a candidate usually needs to meet a 15% threshold of attendees in a local caucus to be eligible for delegates. If a candidate does not meet that threshold, those supporters will then have to realign themselves at the caucus; either with another candidate or an uncommitted group.

Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel have the backing of fewer than 15% of likely caucus-goers statewide. Among those candidates’ supporters combined, 30% choose Edwards as their second choice, 27% pick Obama, while only 14% choose Clinton.

CHOICE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION – 2nd CHOICE
(Among candidate choices with less than 15% support)
Edwards 30%
Obama 27
Clinton 14

++++++

What the poll doesn't show is that if say, Dodd and Biden are non-viable the two groups could join together to make one of them viable. AND the poll doesn't even consider that in some areas 'The Big Three' may not all be viable...who will the second choice of the caucus-goer be then?

+++++

What crap.

[XOKCowboy]

37. Haven't they gotten the memo about Hillary's coronation? nt

[Blackhatjack]

39. KICK