Understanding Iowa's Caucuses

[MineralMan]

On February 1, 2016, Iowa's Democratic primary caucuses will be held. To participate, a person has to physically go to the caucus location for the precinct in which they are registered to vote. On February 1, it's entirely possible that roads will have snow or ice on them, and it's certain to be cold, cold, cold.

O that date, most Iowa college students will be at school, and many will be registered in the precinct where their residence is located. In any case, historically, Iowa caucus attendees trend older, partly for that reason.

Prior attendance by habitual caucus goers, thus, is one of the factors weighed into the Monmouth poll that produced the extraordinary results today. Those who do not attend the caucuses won't be counted. If someone was planning to attend, but was off at school, was influenced by bad weather, or any other factor, they won't be counted, since they won't be there.

I suspect the Monmouth pollsters thought this all out and looked at who actually ends up going to these caucus meetings in the cold, snowy chill of winter. This poll may be closer that you might think to what the results actually turn out to be.

[MohRokTah]

1. People forget that caucuses are completely different animals from primaries

Caucuses require much more devotion, time, and effort.

BTW, Loras has confirmed the Monmouth results with the same 41 point lead for Hillary.

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks. Then it's looking more solid.

This has to be a serious blow to Sanders' optimism in Iowa, I think. It would be of great concern to his campaign. If he has peaked and starts declining, it could be a fatal blow.

[Gothmog]

3. The ground game and organization is critical in caucus states

In 2008, I met a number of Obama staff members who came straight from the Iowa caucuses to Texas for the Texas two step. The Obama staffers were great on caucuses and I understand that most of these people are now working for the Clinton campaign

[MineralMan]

4. Minnesota is a caucus state, too.

Obama delivered a huge raft of new people to our precinct caucuses in 2008. It was amazing to see.

[Gothmog]

12. I love game theory but the Obama people took the concepts of game theory to a new level

I was very impressed with the Obama people

[brooklynite]

8. ...and Caucus ground game is a lesson Clinton will have learned from 2008.

[Gothmog]

11. Again, Hillary Clinton has locked up the Obama team who are very very good at caucuses

Hillary Clinton is running a very smart campaign that is very different from her 2008 try

[liberal N proud]

5. Yes in Iowa, caucuses are a participation sport

And they don't move real fast to start.

You don't just go to the poll, vote and then go home. The event takes place in the evening and starts with a lot of speeches and then people moving about and more speeches and more moving until the final count of who is with who at the end.

2008 Republican caucus turnout rate: 20.69%
2008 Democratic caucus turnout rate: 39.57%

Here is a little about turnout: http://iowacaucusproject.org/2015/07/how-many-people-participate-in-the-iowa-caucuses/

[MineralMan]

6. Note: Caucuses are what they are. I didn't invent them,

although I participate in them in my state of Minnesota. We take a secret ballot here at the precinct caucuses. Iowa's Democratic caucuses work by people gathering into groups to support a particular candidate. It's a more traditional method of counting votes. For people not used to the system, it seems primitive and a bit chaotic, really.

It still counts, though.

[Mass]

7. True, but this is also what makes them extremely difficult to poll, particularly so early on.

So, I would not spend too much time on polls from Iowa.

[MineralMan]

9. It's not the poll figures, exactly, that get my attention.

It's the sudden shift following the debate, Biden's non-candidacy, the Benghazi hearing, and Sanders supporters walking out after Sanders spoke, snubbing Clinton.

All of those things, I believe, were factors in this polling. the change was dramatic and fast. That's what I'm looking at.

Watch out for the upcoming national polls, too.

[PATRICK]

10. This is a better post

than poll touters and deniers who seem to be missing the point, which in either event favors Hillary. Without a competitive ground game no ground swell of voters in the general population is likely to win against solid candidates with solid organization. Distribution of the enthusiasts is also able to be gamed. So it seems to me that a decent choice among the top contenders has to have ground game to win. Doping well without it would be very impressive actually but the stage is being set also for interpreting the "win" where money media and organization would piss all over any populist insurgence or deep political reality.

It is true that Sanders could win with a mostly non typical campaign especially when the status quo is pretty hostile to actually and enthusiastically representing issues and crises important to the 99%. Anytime you stray onto the gameboard of the current power holders however you can expect incredible and clever opposition. IF there is an incredible groundswell or equally incredible collapse of HRC then the polls would not apply. Right now, at this point they seem simply reflective of what is most likely to happen.

If there are stunning differences in how effective the organizational ground game works against a supposed populist underdog in a more conservative and managed caucus that would be the news, not the victor's crown or delegates. Still, the chances of a non-typical campaign are still slim against awell financed, experienced juggernaut and strong candidate.

Is Sanders doing what Dean did? And its even harder now to compete. The momentum/expectation theme will always be twisted against him. His supporters will have to be pretty damned smart and grass roots disciplined for even a large groundswell to have a chance at denting the system.

[Gothmog]

13. To translate, these polls are using a likely caucus goer filter which explains the demographics

Predicting who is going to be a likely caucus goer is harder than predicting who is a likely voter. The use of a likely voter or "likely caucus" goer filter makes the poll someone more meaningful as to the probable results of the caucuses.