Iowa S-Vision: Hillary 28%, Obama 23%, Edwards 20%..

[SaveElmer]

This is like the third or fourth poll in a row with Hillary in the lead...looks like she has created a gap there for herself...

Looks like Edwards has dropped back with Obama holding steady or inching up...creating an opportunity for someone like Biden to sneak in there

Here is the trend in this poll

Oct Sept Aug June May March Feb Jan
Clinton 28 24 21 20 16 19 18 15
Edwards 20 22 23 26 29 27 24 25
Obama 23 21 22 21 24 20 18 17

http://strategicvision.biz/political/iowa_poll_101807.htm

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Still picking Obama to edge a win in Iowa, with everyone else other than Clinton collapsing, but a

three-way race this tight would be something to see.

[SaveElmer]

2. Based on past demographics in Iowa...

I'd say Hillary has the edge. The two groups in Iowa that are most likely to attend a caucus are senior citizens and women...demographics categories which both generally favor Hillary...

I think Biden may surprise...

[Colobo]

5. Obama's doing good. If Edwards keeps losing ground

many people might jump on our side.

[SaveElmer]

6. Well if you look at the trend...

Hillary has gained the most during this time...Obama gained some...and Edwards has lost support...

In any case, if Edwards loses he is toast...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. I'll say Obama 30, Clinton 28, Biden 14, Uncommited 9, Edwards gonzo

(I think Clinton may win, but where's the fun in that? It would be over before it started.)

[maximusveritas]

3. Hillary definitely looks to be in the lead

Most polls are now showing her with a 5-6 point lead.
Obama is still within striking distance, however, and might benefit if Edwards continues to move down in the polls there.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Edwards is in big trouble.

The SEIU machine will help with the ground game but not sure it'll be enough...

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. If Hillary is in the lead, we're ALL in big trouble. nt

[durrrty libby]

9. WooHoo Go Hill Take it all baby. I can't wait.

[1932]

13. Edwards would be more worried if he were spending as much money as Hillary in Iowa and was polling

the numbers Hillary is polling now.

[bigwillq]

10. The only polls that matter begin in January (nt)

[Rhythm and Blue]

12. If that were true,

candidates wouldn't commission private polls every three to seven days, and wouldn't hire teams of statisticians to interpret them.

[1932]

14. If that weren't true, people who were behind now would quit.

[Rhythm and Blue]

16. Polls are meaningful, not binding. nt

[1932]

17. ...and the one that matters is in January.

[Rhythm and Blue]

19. This is like saying

that a SAT diagnostic test is useless because the only test that matters is the official SAT. Well, yeah, but the diagnostic can still give you a pretty good rough idea of how things are going for you.

[bigwillq]

20. It didn't for me.

The only polls that truly matter are the ones that begin in January. I am so sick of tired of everyone trying to decide this election for me. If come January, Hill happens to emerge victorious then I will support her, even with all of her flaws.

[Rhythm and Blue]

21. If you're irritated with polls,

don't click on threads presenting polling data. Your irritation with polls does not invalidate them, however.

[1932]

26. Then where can you express irritation with polls? In the threads that aren't talking about them?

[bigwillq]

27. I'm not saying my irratation with them invalidates them

I only said the only polls that matter are the ones beginning in January and I am sick and tired of the polls and media determing a 'winner' before an actual human had the chance to vote in an offical election.

[1932]

24. No, it's like saying, the SAT test that matters is the one colleges look at.

I think the person above was saying that the trend doesn't preclude Edwards winning the vote that counts.

[Rhythm and Blue]

31. That...is the exact analogy I used, yes.

Polls are like non-binding SAT tests that colleges don't look at and that get thrown out after you take them and look at them. You know, like the diagnostic tests that students buy in bookstores. They aren't "the one that matters," but they certainly have value, and claiming they don't because colleges don't look at them is totally missing the point.

Sure, if you're getting 1100s on the practice tests, it doesn't preclude you from getting a 1600 on the real thing (old-school numbers; sorry). But it should tell you that your odds of getting that 1600 aren't great, and saying "well, this one didn't count" doesn't change that.

[1932]

34. Kerry was getting an 1100 on 10/31/03 SAT and got a 1600 on 1/19/04 SAT.

So the analogy fails a little there.

[Rhythm and Blue]

36. Kerry was more getting a 1300, and got a 1350 on the later one,

while the two guys ahead of him in class rank spent the last 20 minutes of the test scribbling all over each other's test sheets to sabotage each other. It wasn't so much that Kerry sprinted to victory, but that Dean and Gep killed each other and Kerry managed an upset victory. There was a lot of fluctuation in '04 beforehand, and it really looked like anyone's ballgame.

'08? Hillary is a steamroller in a way that Dean never even hoped to be.

[bigwillq]

37. And that's a big swing

Anything can happen in just a few months I guess.

[Rhythm and Blue]

Miracles do happen.

Generally not smart money to bet on them.

[bigwillq]

15. The polls said Kerry won

in 2004...the early polls said Dean was going to be the next nominee...they are not 100 proof and I don't use any of the polls to influence my vote and I wish these polls wouldn't be released because the media looks at them and runs with them....

[Rhythm and Blue]

18. The *exit* polls did in 2004. The pre-election polling was dead on.

The early polls showed Dean with a slight Iowa lead, but with a fluid field, low name recognition all around, and with large blocs of undecided voters. It was really anyone's ballgame back then. Hillary has a solid (and expanding) lead, and all candidates are known quantities. It would take a truly remarkable meltdown for Hillary to lose the primaries by this point.

[bigwillq]

23. So the polls are right

50 percent of the time? :shrug:

Exit poll=wrong
Early poll=right

That's 50 percent to me. So fuck, let's not bother voting because the polls have already decided it for us. I'm gonna stay home now.

[Rhythm and Blue]

28. Um...no. Those are totally different methodologies.

Telephone polls of likely voters are extremely accurate. There were many dozens of them in the few weeks leading up to the election, and they pretty much all showed Bush edging Kerry. In the real election, Bush edged Kerry.

Exit polls are often correct, but are more likely to be systematically biased, due to difficulty in actually getting responses, and a few bad clusters can destroy an entire state's polling. They're largely trustworthy, but can occasionally really fuck up. Most exit polls were dead-on; it was only a crucial few that blew it.

[bigwillq]

29. I always lie in telephone polls

just to throw off the results.

[Rhythm and Blue]

33. Fortunately,

malicious responders have been found to not bias any particular viewpoint. You get cancelled out by some Republican doing the same thing.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Yep!

I used to do phone surveys years ago. Losers like that don't affect the outcome.

The fact is, polls are very very accurate. It's only when people don't like the results that they complain about them.

[1932]

32. 10/31/03: Dean and Gephardt tied at 26, Kerry in second with 15%.

10/17/07: Clinton and Obama together have about the same as Dean/Gephard 4 years earlier, with Edwards doing a little better than Kerry.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-10-31-poll_x.htm

[Rhythm and Blue]

35. You may notice several differences between those polls and these polls.

The first is that the undecided levels are far higher in '04. The second is that the poll-to-poll fluctuation is much higher. The third is that name recognition is lower. The fourth is that there are two evenly-matched candidates, both of whom would go on to engage in a sad murder-suicide pact with negative campaigning, largely due to campaign inexperience on both sides.

'04 isn't '08.

[MonkeyFunk]

22. Nope

you're wrong.

[bigwillq]

25. Thanks for pointing that out buddy.

How will I ever go on? :eyes:

[MonkeyFunk]

30. No problem

but rather than being cocky, you might want to check the pre-election polls from 2004.

[bigwillq]

39. The pre-election polls for Shrub-Kerry

or the pre-election numbers for Dean?



on edit: because both suggest that Kerry was headed to the White House and Dean was headed to be our Dem nominee


The Shrub-Kerry race

http://www.exitpollz.org/


The Dean race
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=732

[Rhythm and Blue]

40. That is incorrect, but thanks for playing.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/special/polls/index.html

During the final stretch, Bush was consistently slightly edging Kerry.

In the actual election, Bush slightly edged Kerry.

[bigwillq]

41. I'm talking EXIT polls with Kerry

I edited the above post to include a link

[Rhythm and Blue]

42. Strange, here I thought "pre-election polls" meant pre-election polls.

[bigwillq]

44. I should've clarified my above statement

and for that I apology. In my first repsonse to you I said "the polls said Kerry won" I should've inserted "exit" polls. I wasn't talking the pre-election polls, which you are correct Shrub was generally leading most of those results.

[MonkeyFunk]

43. exit polls

are very different from regular polls. But you knew that.

[bigwillq]

45. I was talking about exit polls all along

in regards to the Kerry-Shrub race. I should've inserted that small little word in my initial response to another poster here.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. well, the two are very different

If you're trying to prove that polls are wrong, you'll have to do better.

[William769]

11. K&R!