What Iowa Means

Conventional wisdom, like nature, abhors a vacuum. We're less than than 24 hours after the election, and already the narrative has been written. To step back for a moment into a little meta-analysis--this is remarkable. For months, states have been jockeying to get in closer to the front of the line with the hopes of having some influence. Yet that front-loading focus seemed only to heighten, not mitigate, Iowa's influence.

Since we live in such a media-saturated environment, memes travel instantly and storylines emerge with far greater ferocity than in years past. Already, this is the final recap: it's a change election; Obama's appeal is as broad as it is deep; Huckabee's win shows a deeply fractured GOP; Edwards is out, Hillary on life support. None of these stories reflects reality--350,000 Iowans have only as much influence as the rest of the country gives them--but they can create reality, and apparently have. Once the votes get cast, campaigns totally lose control of the storyline.

Hillary and Giuliani both made strategic miscalculations on this front. Both knew they couldn't do well in Iowa and so took different tactics. Rudy tried a stealth campaign, never visiting, but putting a lot of money into ground troops and advertising. He was hoping for a respectable third or fourth. He finished sixth, though, and no one could miss the fact that he got only a third the vote of the fifth-place finisher, Ron Paul. Hillary knew she couldn't win last summer, but rather than drive down expectations, she competed for the win. Had she publically shot for second, a virtual tie with Edwards could have been spun as a win. Instead, she'll be held hostage by headlines describing this as a personal rebuke to her campaign. Both New Yorkers underestimated the impact of Iowa on the race: Rudy should have spent more time there, Hillary less. Now they know.

Unconventional Wisdom
Obama's win was impressive because he won so fully across demographics--women, the poor, Democrats (whom Hillary was supposed to dominate), everyone under 45 years old. And of course, he won mainly because 52% of the people who showed up to the caucuses wanted change, and half of them voted for Obama (Hillary and Edwards got less than a fifth of that vote each).

But the thing that really lept out at me was the difference in voter composition between GOP caucus-goers and Dems: those who went to the Democratic side were far more diverse, both in terms of party identification and political ideology. Fewer people turned out for the GOP caucuses, and they were overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. Half the people who turned out to the Democratic caucuses were moderate, and a quarter were not Democrats. Since it's just a single election, and a caucus at that, it's not worth spending too much time talking about the trend toward Dems and what kind of huge coattail effect this might have on congressional races. But still.

Here is ideological identification:

Republican Caucus-goers (125,000)
45% - Very conservative
43% - Somewhat conservative
88% - Total conservative
12% - Moderate and liberal

Dem Caucus-goers (232,000)
18% - Very liberal
36% - Somewhat liberal
54% - Total
46% - Moderate and conservative

And here's party ID:

Republican Caucus-goers
86% - Republican
_1% - Democrat
14% - Independent and other

Dem Caucus-goers
76% - Democrat
_3% - Republican
22% - Independent and other

I'll probably continue to comment throughout the day, but this is the one point I wanted to highlight from the outset.

Iowa Results

OBAMA!

With 99% of precincts reporting:

38% Barack Obama (931)
30% John Edwards (740)
29% Hillary Clinton (731)

Obamamania

Imagining myself like a member of the Rebel Alliance, cheering all good news from the front. Two bits.

From the Iowa Independent:

[Exclusive] Gov. Bill Richardson's campaign is expected to direct its supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday's caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico governor's organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they have not reached the 15 percent threshold for viability.

[Update. Richardson, Obama camps deny the report.]

From Intrade:
Current markets on Intrade--Obama's trading at 70 and Hillary at 20 on the Intrade market. Edwards is running third at 17. Huckleberry is fairly thumping Romney, too, 70 to 29. Weirdly enough, McCain is out in front on the overal nomination trading. Hillary still leads the Dem pack, though that may change once Obama wins Iowa!

Just 3.45 hours to kickoff...

Who Wins Iowa?

Dear reader (and of course I mean that in the literal sense), how is Iowa going down? You have until about 7 pm Pacific time to lodge your prediction.

more at twiigs.com...

Power Rankings and More

Cross-posted from BlueOregon, for the reader who doesn't read both blogs.

_________

Good, rational, sober bloggers should continue to have broad interests no matter how interesting a particular story is. I am not one of those bloggers: this week it's going to be impossible to focus on anything unrelated to the Hawkeye State. Giving way to this urge, I therefore offer the following analysis with no further apologies.

Iowa Volatility
For those who don't follow Iowa closely, you may not be aware of how radically things shift in just the days before the Iowa Caucuses. In 2004, polls still weren't picking up the Kerry/Edwards movement even a month out--they still had Dean and Gephart 1-2. But in the week prior to the election, the polls did register the shift--of eight polls done in that week, six had Kerry beating Dean. Only the Des Moines Register had Edwards also beating Dean, but savvy insiders, looking at the trendlines, might have been able to see that Edwards would catch Dean by the Caucuses. So when looking at the polling, forget about everything that has come before--only those polls done in the last week or two have any real validity, and in this year's race that's especially true.

Trends
Fortunately for us, Pollster.com has put together handy charts that track not only current trends based on aggregate poll numbers, but also charts tracking recent trends. Normally pollsters like to lag aggregates somewhat since poll-by-poll variability means that outliers can create the false appearance of changing attitudes. However, since Iowa is so volitile, it makes sense to pay more attention to those early indicators. I have cobbled together the trendlines of the three major candidates from these data and created this comparative chart at right.

The red line indicates the sensitive trend, and both Hillary's and Edwards' show that the candidates may be getting some late-breaking interest. Obama's, however (say it ain't so!), is headed down, even while his standard trend continues upward. One caveat: no one has ever tried to poll people during the holidays, so it's unclear what effect this may have on polling.

Caucuses
With the caucus system, initial support isn't the final factor. The degree to which candidates are organized in the caucuses themselves can hurt or help them to the tune of +/- 5% or more. In 2004, for example, pollsters did what they call an "entrance poll"--they asked people who they supported. But a funny thing happened--the entrance polls, while being the most accurate of any poll in determining the places of the candidates, didn't line up with the final delegate count:

The results there further favored Kerry and Edwards. Kerry moved up to 38% of delegates, from 34.8% in the entrance poll and 25.9% in the pre-caucus poll trend. Edwards got 32% of delegates, up from his 26.2% in the entrance poll and 21.4% in the poll trend. Dean ended up with 18% of delegates, down a bit from the 20.5% in the entrance and 20.3% in the poll trend.

Lesson? Look at the polls for a general sense of things, but don't bet the farm on what they're showing.

Iowa Power Rankings
Sports sites love to do power rankings of various sports leagues. They normally revise it once a week, but maybe I'll revise this once or twice more based on the arrival of new polling data. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

Democrats

1. Edwards. Although he's still trailing Clinton in the polling, two things suggest he may be able to pull it out in the end: the "anti-Hillary" forces may fracture in the caucuses, as Obama and Edwards supporters decide to back the candidate they think can beat the NY Senator; furthermore, those in the know say Edwards is strongest in rural Iowa and has the best organization.
2. Clinton. She took it on the jaw and she's still leading the polls. If she pulls out Iowa, the rest of the states become a coronation.
3. Obama. Unless he can make the case that he's the plausible alternative to Hillary, he's most vulnerable to a big slide on caucus night.

Republicans

1. Huckabee. This may change; his current numbers are all headed in the wrong direction (he's actually trailing Romney in the five-poll average). But he has a 20% floor of Christians who will not forsake him, and this gives him the edge.
2. Romney. Everyone says attack ads kill you in Iowa, but Romney, who was already experiencing rigormortis, decided "what the hell." It worked. If he finishes a close second, he should stay around a little longer.
3. McCain. Rudy's numbers are bottoming out, as are Thompson's. Only Ron Paul is edging up among the second tier candidates, and that's because he started at bupkis. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a strong McCain third-place heading to New Hampshire, especially if Romney finishes second?
   

Iowa: Three Scenarios

Things are starting to clarify. After Obama's robust rally, he's begun to fall again slightly and Hillary shows improved strength. Edwards continues his slow, steady incline. Since we know that the days just before the election in Iowa are more important indicators than the months leading up (by many factors), this is critical news. Based on what we're seeing right now (and we won't know if this trend holds--since it's still polling from two weeks ago), these are the three most likely scenarios I envision. For Obamaniacs like me, we best hope that Chris is able to rally the troops. Here goes.

1. Edwards wins.
One of my assumptions is that there are really two major camps, the Hillary and the not-Hillary. While some define themselves as (in particular) "Edwards voters," only a small portion have Hillary as a backup. Instead, if Obama rallies and Edwards is in trouble and the winner looks like it will be between Hillary and Obama, they may bolt. But I think the bolting is more likely to go in the Obama to Edwards direction, especially if he is successful at poaching the under-15s, those voters who support Biden and Kucinich and so on. Edwards has two advantages over Obama in the "not Hillary" crowd: he's strongest in rural districts, and his brand has the most solid backers. I think it's going to be an exciting day, and Edwards will capitalize on a lot of the hope that Obama's been running on.

2. Hillary wins.
Hillary's numbers shouldn't be overlooked. The major late-tracking shift is headed her way. I don't know why or what propels it or whether it's solid, but it's real. Iowa watchers should avoid dismissing it. However, she is the weakest in rural districts, and there's reason to believe that in Iowa, her support is the most provisional. So she has cause for concern.

3. Obama wins.
I regard this as increasingly unlikely because of what Hillary's rally suggests: Obama is losing votes to Hillary based on overall electability and experience, and to Edwards on populism and economic liberalism. When the horses start to trade, I think he's in the weakest position to make the argument that he's the best candidate. The way it looks to me, he's a number two for both Hillary and Edwards voters, but that won't help if he's not in the top two.

While I formerly thought a shocker like a Biden rally was possible (third place for him, beating one of the titans, would be considered a serious victory), it just doesn't seem to be in the polls. Something to watch, though.

The Edwards Rally

I still don't see how John Edwards becomes president, but winning Iowa--he may indeed pull that off. Until December, Hillary was doing surprisingly well in Iowa, in one of those bizarre feedback loops you see in politics. She was killing everyone nationally, and it appeared that Iowans were going with the mo. But when Obama showed life this month, it broke loose the logjam Hillary had established. Iowans began giving Obama a second look. As he moved abreast of her in the polls, voters in the next two states, NH and SC, started to reconsider her inevitability--and Obama soared in those polls, too. This appears to have created a feedback loop back to Iowa, as Hawkeyes now consider that if Hillary is not inevitable, maybe they can consider voting for someone else. And so they're giving Edwards a second look:

What about Iowa? There are two metrics, one of which we don't have available: their hard count of confirmed caucus goers. The other is crowds.

Not only has Edwards been greeted by unusually large crowds for him, he is outdrawing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton head-to-head. In Des Moines Monday, Edwards drew 400 to Hillary Clinton's 200; in Mason City on Saturday night, Edwards drew 600 to Obama's roughly 300....

Democrats with access to the internal polling data of some of Edwards's presidential rivals say that he may be winning back male voters he lost to Barack Obama and is consolidating his strength with the union electorate in Iowa.

Edwards has some organizational advantages, too--he's spent years in rural Iowa. Hillary has all but forsaken rural Iowa, and Obama's presence there may be thin. If Hillary and Obama duel in the population centers while Edwards sweeps rural districts, look for an upset on January 3. Of course, that's grim news for Obamaniacs like me.

Obama Surging in Iowa?

Last week, an ABC/WaPo poll showed Obama with a slim lead over Hillary in Iowa. This is a most interesting development, because if he can pull off a win there, he has a very good chance to continue into New Hampshire--independents can vote in either primary, and they tilt heavily to Obama. Two primaries in five days, with the money he's got, would put him back in the picture. The question, then, is whether this poll is revealing a new trend or is an outlier.

The answer, as always, is at Pollster.com. The folks there aggregate polling and create trendlines based on the average of recent polls--eliminating the see-saw effect of individual polling. The result? With something like 35 days left to go, Obama is definitely trending up. But wait!--so is Hillary. Both are gaining as Edwards voters jump ship, but the split of deserters seems to be weighted toward Obama. Look at the trendline to the right (a detail of this larger Pollster.com graph). The shakeout began back in the summer. First Edwards started to slide, but most of his support went to Hillary; Obama flattened out. But in the past quarter or so, Obama has found new life. And all the polling from mid-November to now shows Obama neck-and-neck with Hillary:

Research 2000 (11/12-14): Hillary 27%, Obama 25%
ABC/Post (11/14-18): Hillary 26%, Obama 30%
Strategic Vision (11/23-25): Hillary 29%, Obama 29%

And what do the horse-racers at the Iowa Elections Market think? They are also starting to come back around to Obama. (A description of the IEM, and the doom it seemed to be predicting for Obama just before his rise, is here.) He's obviously got a ways to go to close the gap, but if he wins Iowa, watch his trend line snap right back up with Hillary's, like it was in March. The IEM, despite its unorthodox methodology, is a pretty good weathervane. That it supports the trendlines reported on Pollster is more evidence that Obama's on the move.

Just over a month to go, but things are starting to get interesting.

Iowa: Hillary 27%; Everyone Else 73%

This year's Iowa caucus is shaping up to be as unpredictable as it usually is. In '04, Dean went in with the polling lead, and a purported horde of staff on-site to ferry people to the caucus. This year, Hillary goes in with the lead (currently a trend of 26.9%) and Edwards and Obama are hanging on by the skin of their teeth. If Edwards loses, he's out. If Obama finishes third, he's almost certainly out. If Hillary finishes first, she's almost certainly the nominee--she'll go on to NH and win big, get a bump in the polls that will buoy her in South Carolina and Nevada, and win big in Florida. And this is all before Super Tuesday, where she looks very strong even without the bumps she'd get from these early victories. In short, if she wins Iowa, she's likely to lock it up before Super Tuesday even arrives.

But leading in Iowa doesn't mean winning in Iowa, because the caucuses are bizarre:

Democratic candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the votes in that precinct to move on to the county convention. If a candidate receives less than 15 percent of the votes, supporters of non-viable candidates have the option to join a viable candidate group, join another non-viable candidate group to become viable, join other groups to form an uncommitted group or chose to go nowhere and not be counted. Non-viable groups have up to 30 minutes to realign.

In a regular primary, they'd just vote and be done with it. But in Iowa, only a few hard-core voters will show up for the long, grueling process--in '04, it was just 6% of registered voters. So the first step is getting your voters there. This is why the three front-runners are spending so much time and energy in Iowa--to create enough energy that their supporters will show up on caucus night (as Dean's, famously, failed to do). This is why it's difficult to look at polling numbers and figure out which candidate is actually doing well among the six percent who will actually show up.

Okay, so now the voters are at their precincts. Let the horse-trading begin! Here is another bump in the road for Hillary--she will easily hit the 15% mark, as will Edwards and Obama in most precincts. But what happens to the left-overs? If Hillary is looking strong, it's possible that the anti-Hillary forces (of which there are far more) could choose to band together. In some ways, the issue isn't how much support Hillary has going in, but how much those who are in other camps actually inhabit the anti-Hillary vote. In which case, they might throw their support behind the strongest candidate not named Clinton.

Interesting possibilities.