Iowa: Clinton 35% / Obama 24% among Democrats (Informative sub-set)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

In Senator Obama's best state... the only state he is close to leading (except, presumably, Illinois) he is not particularly competitive among Democrats. The only thing making him competative is non-Democrats.

Most primaries are not "open" so support among Democrats is key to the Democratic primary process. As with John McCain in 2000, running for a party nomination by appealing to independents is good for early headlines but less than useful in the long haul. Obama's appeal to coddling Republicans is exactly what beltway CW peddlers and mushy-headed unaffiliated voters love to hear, but it doesn't have legs within the party.

(Obama supporters have convinced me that it is appropriate to headline this kind of sub-set polling result.)

Poll: Clinton, Obama in Virtual Tie in Iowa With Edwards Close Behind
The Associated Press
Dec 03, 2007 10:05 EST

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 31 percent
Barack Obama, 26 percent
John Edwards, 19 percent
Bill Richardson, 10 percent

Clinton and Obama are in a statistical tie among likely Democratic voters in the state, whose Jan. 3 caucuses will open the voting in the 2008 presidential campaign. Clinton has only a slight lead among women, a group she usually dominates. Though Clinton leads Obama 35 percent to 24 percent among Democrats, Obama leads 32 percent to 19 percent with Democratic-leaning independents, who made up a fifth of Democratic caucus-goers in 2004. Obama has a slight lead among voters less than age 50, but Clinton has a two-to-one edge among older people — and they were a majority of caucus participants four years ago.

http://people-press.org/

[geek tragedy]

1. Old poll, Worthless.

"Results for the state surveys are based on telephone interviews with a sample of 5,462 adults living in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, conducted by Princeton Data Source, LLC under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International, from November 7-25, 2007."

[madrchsod]

2. one of latest iowa poll has obama ahead by a few pts.

listened to the davenport tv news this morning did`t catch what poll it was. npr was reporting that students are solid behind barrack in iowa and one reason given was hillary`s staff planting questions.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. Yes, a couple of polls have Obama ahead in Iowa

Personally, I think Obama IS ahead in Iowa.

The point of the OP is not that Clinton is ahead in Iowa, but that Clinton's base is Democrats, which is not the worst base to have in a Democratic primary.

[CountAllVotes]

4. I am listening to Ray Taliaferro from last night

and he figures that Obama has the race sewn up and that he'll be the winner without a doubt. (?)

Link here (use Windows Media Player): http://lark.net/kgo_archive/kgo-01.mp3

:kick:

[frazzled]

5. Well, you must be registered Democrat to participate in Iowa Dem caucus

True, you can change your registration, even on the day of the caucus, I believe, to be Democrat, so Independents can participate in the Iowa caucus quite easily.

But the claim that "most primaries are not open" is weak at best: twenty states have open primaries (plus I'm not sure how many others allow change of registration ... in New Hampshire, I know, "undeclared" voters can change their registration in order to be able to vote in a party's primary, though it must be done a certain period ahead of the primary date, not on the day of: believe me--the campaigns are very focused on informing Independent voters on their lists who have voted Dem in the past to change their registrations by a certain date). I have not cross-referenced how many of those 20 have their primaries on Tsunami Tuesday. But Independents interested in voting in a primary usually have a way to do so, even in so-called "closed" primary states.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. 60% is most. And that includes some really big states.

I don't have the figures handy, but I suspect at least two-thirds of delegates come from closed primaries/caucuses.

In any event, the test of the analysis is practice, rather than theory. I can't think of an instance where a candidate won a nomination without being the choice of the party rank-and-file. I am sure that Bill Bradley out performed Al Gore among independents in the early 2000 primaries. Ditto McCain in 2000, Hart in 1984, etc..

If one favors our nominee being determined by non-Dems, conceptually, that's a reasonable point of view. Independent support is a sensible component of certain electability arguments, for example.

But it's always worthwhile to at least note party support in a party primary process.

[frazzled]

7. Independents can vote in California primary, for example

That's a pretty big state with a lot of delegates.

"California currently has a "modified" closed primary system. SB 28 (Ch. 898, Stats. 2000), relating to primary elections, was chaptered on September 29, 2000 and took effect on January 1, 2001. SB 28 implemented a "modified" closed primary system that permits unaffiliated ("decline to state") voters to participate in a primary election if authorized by an individual party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State.
(Ch. 898, Stats. 2000)"

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_decline.htm

It is really complicated, state by state ... because there are open, semi-open, closed, and semi-closed primaries: whether unaffiliated/independent voters can participate, and the rules for doing so, varies widely.

In general, an "open" primary means that voters of ANY party can vote in any primary (i.e., Republicans could vote in the Democratic primary). Many states have something between that: independents can choose where to vote, but people may not switch parties to vote in the other's primary. Some states, such as Illinois, require that you vote in the same primary you voted in the previous election (though I don't think it is effectively enforced). But there is no doubt that independent voters can play crucial roles in primaries. I, myself, am opposed to truly open primaries: I don't like the idea of the other party crossing over to interfere. But I'm divided over the issue of independents voting. In theory, I'd prefer that people register to be Democrats, to build party strength. But in reality, today a lot of people do not want to register in one party or another and prefer to remain unafilliated, though they may vote one party more than another. That's a currently reality ... it's up to the parties to lobby if they want to change rules in individual states.

[sundancekid]

8. when will you people do at least the lowest common denominator of fact check? quoting from OLDEST

of the last 5 polls makes you look, well ... pick an adjective, any adjective that means other than bright or factual

[Nimrod2005]

9. Way outdated ....