THE PLANK JANUARY 2, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
For those who spent the past 36 hours celebrating (and recovering) rather than obsessing over presidential politics, the big news over New Year's was the final Des Moines Register poll. Released just hours before the end of 2007, it showed Barack Obama increasing his lead in Iowa over fellow
Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.
But even before the
Register's morning edition began hitting doorsteps, both the Clinton and Edwards campaigns had put out their
counter-spin. And high on their list of complaints was
the poll's unusually large sample of independent voters, whose
overwhelming support for Obama was largely responsible for his
expanded lead of seven points.
While independents can participate
the caucus, as long as they register as Democrats for the day,
it seems they've never shown up in the sorts of large numbers the Register's
poll anticipated. If the poll had assumed
turnout more along historical lines, the results apparently would have been different. And, as if to prove that very point, later in the day CNN and Zogby published polls based on more traditional turnout models. In both cases, Clinton finished first (although, for the record, the margins were reasonably close in all three surveys).
Over at the Atlantic, Marc Ambinder notes that while the Register's sampling of
independents does seem rather large, the Register's pollster, Ann Selzer, “is considered to
be the best in the business and has earned the benefit of the
doubt.” And over at the Politico, Ben Smith says it will all come down to turnout. So if you were looking for a definitive prediction of what will happen on Thursday, you're basically out of luck.
But if, like me, you're less interested in the Iowa results per se and more interested in what this process reveals about the candidates' relative appeal, then the Register poll does offer some insights. Obama has always claimed
he's the candidate in the best position to draw support from swing
voters and, therefore, to win the election in November. The fact
that he's winning so handily among independents in Iowa would seem to strengthen that claim.
Or would it? If you look closely at the
way the Register's numbers break down (scroll down to the bottom of this page) another interesting tidbit emerges: the huge class divide among
the candidates.
Obama was the clear favorite among
respondents with a college degree: Thirty-nine percent of them told
the Register they supported Obama, while just 20 percent backed
Clinton and 22 percent backed Edwards. But among respondents without
a college degree, it was Clinton who finished first, with 32 percent.
Obama finished second, with 26 percent, just ahead of Edwards at 25.
(Among respondents with some college, the candidates basically
tied.)
So the question is which group is
actually more representative of the swing voters a Democratic presidential candidate would need in
November: people who don't align with a party (i.e., independents)
or people lower on the income scale (i.e., people without a
college degree).
Alas, I have no particularly informed opinion on
this, either. But maybe somebody with more expertise in these
matters, like my colleague John Judis or one of his friends, can help sort this out. (Apologies for turning this blog item into a bleg.)
--Jonathan Cohn
16 comments
Like this post, Jonathan. Like any good poll, the DMR survey is more important for the questions it frames, rather than the answers it provides.
Another question I had after reading the poll: the poll has Obama and Clinton each leading in different "assets", e.g. respondents think Obama can "best bring about change," think Clinton "has the experience to lead". But Edwards comes in third based on 4 of 5 of those "asset" rankings, and only comes in second place in the fifth. That makes me ask whether Edwards might have a glass jaw. The conventional wisdom has been that Edwards would be the most likely to pick up supporters after the first round. But this could indicate that Edwards voters might not feel particularly attached to their man.
Am I reading too much into this? Eager to hear other thoughts.
- gea1434
January 2, 2008 at 1:45am
What's a 'bleg?'
- aeromonas
January 2, 2008 at 1:53am
Mr Cohn: "which group is actually more representative of the swing voters a Democratic presidential candidate would need in November: people who don't align with a party (i.e., independents) or people lower on the income scale (i.e., people without a college degree)."
The swing voters we need to target fit a much more specific demographic profile than either of your two examples. They are white working-class and middle-class 1) _two-parent families_ with 2) _school-age children_ who live in the 3) _suburbs and exurbs_ of the 4) _purple states_
That would be, in places like Clark County OH, Orlando/Tampa FL, Littleton CO etc. My (totally nonscientific) hunch is that NONE of our Little Big Three really has much to offer these voters who traditionally vote 2-to-1 Republican and who represent-- were we to take them and their concerns seriously, for once, with a platform and a message aimed at two-parent working FAMILIES, instead of codewords for kulturkampfer yuppieren or dopey faux-socialist rhetoric about haves and have-nots-- that we could poach a big chunk of these voters. In other words, easily sweep every purple state in the Union.
Help the puppies, not the yuppies.
- teplukhin2you
January 2, 2008 at 4:50am
bleg = [Leslie] Gelb, spelled backwards. Could be either a transparent admission, unlike Gelb and his ilk, that the author is ignorant and seeks help in correcting his ignorance, or it could be a very wry, postmodern subversion of our media-mad age's categories of truth and certainty.
- teplukhin2you
January 2, 2008 at 4:53am
Yesterday I noticed that CNN, ever the corporate shill of the establishment, did post the results of the Des Moines register poll, but continually presented them in light of their own older polls which show Clinton comfortably ahead, and then every hour on the hour began posting surveys which showed her 20 and 30 points ahead in the categories where she is strongest, while conveniently omitting the results of the categories where Obama is stronger. And they had a bunch of talking heads doing their best to convince America that Hillary is not in trouble, and is still comfortably in control of this race. It looks to me like a blatant attempt to swing voters over to Hillary Clinton, as if they were attempting to influence the voters, and point them in a certain direction. Much the same as I saw Markos shamelessly doing yesterday over at Daily Kos.
www.dailykos.com/.../428561
So I don't want here anymore crap about how the media, especially the big mainstream networks are giving Obama some kind of pass, when they are obviously bought and paid for by the Democratic establishment, hardly better than Fox news/propaganda or MSNBC. They're all pushing their agendas, the only difference between them and me, is that I come out and state who I support, while they and many other supposed impartial sources put on this farce of presenting facts objectively. I call that deceptive and unacceptable.
And someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the CNN and Zogby polls don't take into account independents or unaffiliated at all, as far as I can tell. It says Democrats, so where is the inclusion of independents and unaffiliated? If TNR has this information, please post it so we can compare.
The one thing I like about politics, you get to see who and what people really are underneath their façades. It's a cleansing process, like giving the country an enema.
"Let all the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out."
- AaronBBrown
January 2, 2008 at 7:54am
Tep, you're spot on about who dems need to target. Bush has done a pretty good job in alienating the college educated and affluent in general, and if I remember correctly Kerry won these groups handily. (I'm going to Gelb it and assume it's true rather than take the two minutes to look it up on Wikipedia.)
I'm more optimistic about Obama's and to a lesser extent Edwards' chances to pick up the puppies from the Republican camp than you are, however. To add my completely non-scientific take: Bush's unpopularity and the lackluster reception all of the Rep. candidates have received so far make me believe that these exurban voters are pretty pessimistic about federal politics in general. There's a good chance they will vote in smaller numbers than in 2000 or 2004, and the way to persuade them to vote for a Dem is to present a non-establishment candidate who can use character, independence from the party establishment, and "freshness." These people have most likely rejected Hillary on those exact grounds. (I know I have, and I'm a solid Dem.), but Obama and Edwards, assuming he can tone down the tired rhetoric, have a chance to appeal on those terms.
- ilnoca
January 2, 2008 at 8:25am
Aaron -- CNN are clowns with their pro-Clinton spin, pretty much whenever possible.
- J.J. Gould
January 2, 2008 at 9:04am
I see Micheal Moore has endorsed Edwards and Alexander Cockburn has a very pro-Huckster article.
- The Ignorant Populist
January 2, 2008 at 9:37am
7% sounds a teeny bit high to just be wayward independents, no?
- Wandreycer1
January 2, 2008 at 10:22am
This is a thoughtful post, still...eye-yi-yi -- wake me when it's over!
- Lymon1
January 2, 2008 at 10:29am
I believe it would be useful to know how accurate the Des Moines Register poll was at this point in 2004. I believe I read yesterday that it was nearly dead on with the final results. That's important and suggests that this poll has more credibility than outlets like CNN are giving it.
- BHLnyc
January 2, 2008 at 11:44am
I think the most interesting news about the Des Moines Register poll is that it shows, again, how much
- Anonymous
January 2, 2008 at 12:30pm
There were whispers about the state just before the election that Jesse Ventura was looking very good to win. The establishment all pshawed and pshawed more until.......
- boxofrox
January 2, 2008 at 12:47pm
ABB: Well said! While I believe the FNNs have been hard on her, the Clinton News Network has been shameless... I just spent a week working phones and doors in Iowa, and I can tell you without a doubt that the poll analysis above reflects my experience in SE Iowa where I was. We even had BO and HRC at events separated by 2 days: BO got 500, HRC got 320, and the general income level was lower with HRC. I also saw a lot of thoughtful INs at BOs event. However, there was also a lot of anti-clinton sentiment which was pushing that audience to Edwards. Still, once the hand-over-heart and muslim smears were dealt with, even they were more open to BO. Alas, there may still be a racist element too...
- dbhuff
January 2, 2008 at 3:09pm
My friend Jon Cohn has asked me to respond to his posting about the Des Moines Register poll, and I will
- Anonymous
January 2, 2008 at 4:20pm
I've been following the TNR debate over Obama's appeal to independents, and I thought I should throw my two cents in here, because it may actually be somewhat illuminating:
When I first registered to vote, in Massachusetts in 2003, I checked the box marked “independent” under political affiliation. For the next 4 years I continued to stubbornly insist that I was an independent whenever asked, despite my support for a range of left-of-center views on many issues and my vote for John Kerry in 2004 (I'm convinced that he couldn't have won Massachusetts without my support).
Yet I stand before you today as a registered Democrat, and I there is exactly one reason behind why I took this step: I now live in New Jersey, and I want to vote for Barack Obama on Super Tuesday.
I will retain the right to renounce my party affiliation after February 5th, and perhaps I will if the Democratic base makes the wrong decision, just as both bases routinely do year after year. Most Americans agree on a wide range of significant and important issues. As Barack Obama once said, back when lots of Democrats believed in him, "We worship an ‘awesome God’ in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq. We are one people, all of use pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”
The preferences of the Moderate Majority are continually subverted by the interest groups, extremists, and partisan hacks on the left and on the right. Most other democratic countries avoid this problem by allowing a true multi-party system to operate via parliamentary politics. They also offer a tantalizing advantage over American "democracy": the votes of "all men (and women) are created equal.”
If we had such a system in America, perhaps John McCain would have been elected president in 2000, and I think most of us can agree that America would have been much better off for it. In fact, in the (fairly unlikely) case that I find myself choosing between John McCain and a democrat like John Edwards (or Bill Richardson…heh…) on election day, McCain will be getting a serious look from this “registered democrat.”
I admit that I may be setting myself up for a huge fall. If Obama loses the nomination, I’m sure I’ll deal. But if he does get elected, and it turns out that I’m wrong about him, if it turns out that he does not have the sincerity, the integrity, the intelligence, and the desire to do the right thing that he so plainly projects, then I may give up the tattered remnants of belief in the American democratic process that I still retain. Nevertheless, I would rather “hope” that Barack Obama is the savior of American politics that I believe him to be than give up all hope about this country whatsoever.
So don’t deride this independent revolution. Obama motivates unlikely people to get involved. He gives hope to many of those who have lost faith in American democracy and our electoral system. At least, that has been the case for me.
- shims-b
January 3, 2008 at 5:47pm