Non-Gold Standard Iowa Polling Contradicts DMR Poll

Zogby tracker:

Clinton 30 (30)
Obama 26 (26)
Edwards 25 (26)

CNN/Opinion Resesrch:

Clinton 33 (27)
Obama 31 (23)
Edwards 22 (28)

DMR is the gold standard of Iowa polls. So far no other poll agrees with that. It seems clear that these pollsters expect a different demographic to turn up.

Update [2008-1-1 10:43:4 by Big Tent Democrat]: Mark Blumenthal has a great writeup on the DMR poll. In words of great praise that I agree with for Ann Seltzer, the DMR pollster, Blumenthal writes:

Having said that, we all know that the conditions for survey research are treacherous this week, and even the best pollsters (and methods) are fallible even under the best of conditions. But with everything on the line, Selzer has done what good pollsters are trained to do: She put her trust in her methods and the results they produced, even when those results contradict conventional wisdom.

All respect for Ms. Seltzer for that. Watch Zogby hedge his results to more closely align with DMR now. It is whjy I do not trust him.

< DMR Poll: Obama With Large Lead | Axelrod's Iowa Strategy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The problem with these polls... (none / 0) (#1)
    by Aaron on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    ....in comparison to the Des Moines Register Poll, is that they apparently don't include independents, while the Iowa poll does.

    There are lots of independent voters in Iowa, and if you leave them out of your polling, then you're obviously not going to get a proper sample of all those who are going to show up at the caucuses.  

    Also there's going to be a significant Republican crossover that hasn't been counted in any poll, some predictions are for 5%, but I think it will be significantly higher, perhaps as much as 10%, because many Republicans don't believe that any of the Republican candidates can beat whoever becomes the Democratic nominee, not to mention that they have lost faith in their party, much the same as many Democrats have.

    Also the distaste for Hillary Clinton is driving Republicans as well, I imagine that a significant percentage may switch parties for the caucus just to try and prevent her from winning in Iowa.  Obviously motivations for such a switch on the part of Republicans will vary, but the effect will surely benefit of Obama.

    As I said in another comment, I suspect that this will be the largest turnout in Iowa caucus history, I think I read it averages around 200,000.  I wouldn't be surprised if it were double that or more.

    People are motivated in this election, motivated to participate in democracy and have their voice heard.

    Or maybe DMR's inculsion of an unprecedented (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 09:46:31 AM EST
    number of independents is the problem.

    Look, DMR is the golds standard. But itis clear she is predicting a caucus turnout in Iowa like we have never seen before.

    But she is the gold, so right now her prediction IS the reality until Thursday night.


    Well, at least the differences (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:50:36 AM EST
    and reasons are clear. I'll be watching from Miami.

    Yep (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 10:54:51 AM EST
    The expected turnout explains it entirely imo.

    Totally Agree (none / 0) (#6)
    by BDB on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 02:46:58 PM EST
    When I first saw the Iowa poll I thought is was news.  Now, I think it's what we've known all along.  If Obama can turn out his new folks in the numbers he needs, he'll win.   But the same is true for Clinton and Edwards.  As it has always been, it's all about turnout.

    Personally, I'll be shocked and a little dismayed if only 55% or so of Democratic caucus goers are actually Democrats, but I can't say it won't happen.  This entire campaign has a lot of unprecedented things in it.

    The question for me is will momentum pull Obama through or will he start running into trouble when he gets to states where independents and Republicans can't participate.  I'd think he'd still be a heavy favorite because of the momentum, but we know it's likely Clinton will win Michigan since Obama and Edwards aren't on the ballot and I think she probably stays competitive in Florida and Nevada.  So he probably won't have a clean sweep heading into February 5th.  But, barring any new development, you still have to like his odds if he wins Iowa decisively.

    The other question is if Edwards comes in third in Iowa is he done?  If so, does he throw his support behind Clinton or Obama?  Before the last couple of weeks, I would have predicted he'd support Obama over Clinton.  With all Obama's "trial lawyer" and anti-527 and union stuff, I'm less sure.  Which does Edwards care more about Clinton the "corporate democrat" or Clinton the fighter?


    odd, i read (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 12:07:20 PM EST
    both poll's (zogby & cnn) data, neither of them make any mention of independents, for either party. they both refer solely to "likely democratic/republican caucus goers". how did you determine that this didn't include independents?

    i'm sure ms. seltzer's a lovely woman. i'm just as sure that her past history has -0- bearing, with respect to this year's events, because the events themselves are totally different from any prior presidential caucus. as noted by someone else, on a previous thread, if you're going to compare apples-to-apples, you actually have to have two sets of apples, not a set of apples and one of oranges.

    that said, in the absence of compelling, tangible, identifiable confirmed data, showing every other poll to be fraught with methodoligical or sample error, ms. seltzer's wrong.

    i am underwhelmed by the DMR poll.

    on the other hand, sen. clinton could well be dewey reincarnated.