Why we don't really know who is ahead in Iowa right now

[left-of-center2012]

Iowa's a little more than a month away, and we don't really know who is ahead, let alone who is going to win. Our lack of knowledge is for two reasons: a lack of polling and the polls that we do have show a close race at the top.

Over the last month, there have been only two public polls conducted and released in Iowa. Neither of them use live interviews or call cell phones, which are usually the marks of the most accurate pollsters. You have to go all the way back to early November to find a poll that meets those standards.

A lack of polling means we need to be extra cautious in examining polling averages. And this year, the polls are so tight. An average of polls since November points to a very close race. South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg comes in at 21%. He's followed by former Vice President Joe Biden at 19% and Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont at 19%, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts at 15% and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota at 6%. No one else is polling at 5% or above.

Such a close race would lead any analyst to say it was a tossup, even if this were the polling on the eve of caucuses. Buttigieg, Biden, Sanders or Warren would all still be conceivable winners. Given that we're more than a month away, we really don't know who the heck is going to win Iowa.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/28/politics/no-iowa-polls-analysis/index.html

[IADEMO2004]

1. This Iowan quit answering my phones months ago unless I see a name I know.

Feb 4 normal service returns.

[hlthe2b]

2. Polling caucuses, especially this far out is more folly than polling for primary elections.

Colorado still held caucuses as recently as 2016. I have to say, having participated then and in past years, there is a LOT of volatility among a large proportion of participants and their choices. Discussion/peer pressure does have some impact. Not to mention that polling is unlikely to accurately capture those who actually will show up at the caucuses.

[TexasTowelie]

3. The ordinal positions of the candidates won't matter.

With the race as close as it is, nobody is going to leave Iowa with more than a five delegate lead over the other candidates. The top four have the money and the egos to continue through Super Tuesday. I think that we'll have a good idea who the nominee will be after that date, but by the end of March the primaries will be decided.

[Baclava]

4. Forget the polls, no one is "ahead" in Iowa until the votes are counted.

All this handwringing over polls is just crazy, its those people who actually put down their phones, get off their couches and get out to vote that matter

[ritapria]

5. The Ground Game Advantage could be decisive in a close 4 way race

Which candidate is best organized ?

[Mr.Bill]

6. In any election the cable news networks

have a strong interest in making the public think the race is closer than it probably really is. That generates higher ratings, and that's all they really care about.

[frazzled]

7. Polling in Iowa is pretty irrelevant (re: caucuses)

The fact that such a tiny percentage of registered voters actually attend the caucuses means that polling voters in general is not indicative of much of anything.
Which is why the results of the Iowa caucuses themselves are so irrelevant.

* Turnout among registered voters in the 2016 Iowa caucuses was a mere 15.7%, and that number includes both Republicans and Democrats (the Republicans turned out somewhat more than the Dems in their caucuses).