2007-12-26_iowa_dems_pollster.thumbnail.jpgThe ARG poll released on the 24th has Clinton now beating Obama in Iowa (Clinton 27%, Obama 21%, Edwards 20). Jerome Armstong says he thinks this means Obama peaked in November and is on a downward trend. And Chris Bowers has taken a mean average of the last five polls from each state and combined it with the Pollster regression line for each state, and come up with Clinton 29%, Obama 27.4 and Edwards at 22.7%.

But Pollster’s chart (above) says that Obama has taken the lead, and David Kurtz at TPM says "It’s really a rather remarkable event." Obama has also historically been a very good closer in his past races, so the possibility that he is still trending upward is not remote.

For the confused, there’s also a good article up at Pollster on the difficulties of polling in Iowa, and how all the polls depend on defining who a "likely primary voter" will be, and each polling outfit has a different definition. Which is to say, it’s an apples-to-oranges affair — and probably anybody’s race to win or lose at this point.

Jerome offers up this interesting comment from Dan Conley in Iowa:

The DMR endorsement and the Newsweek cover for Edwards have helped slow the Obama momentum in Iowa, turning the huge-universe sample into a three-way tie. This is largely an Iowa phenomenon, Obama’s momentum in New Hampshire continues unabatted.

As I’ve been saying for weeks, the results in Iowa depend more on campaign strategy and precinct captain training than polls … Obama and Edwards have the strength and organization to push Hillary into third place if they don’t care which one comes out on top (by trading spare votes across the board.) My guess is that team Edwards is confident enough in their rural organization to offer an arrangement to Obama, but Obama has to fear an Edwards win, so he’s likely to roll the dice. It’s a risk, though, because any Hillary win raps up the nomination.

Richardson slamming Hillary on Iraq yesterday is potentially huge news … I doubt that there’s a reciprocity agreement between their campaigns now. Hillary could very well be on her own in Iowa, which is not good … Biden and Dodd should be looking to Edwards for vote trading relationships. Kucinich had one in 2004, but his lack of precinct captains made it impossible for Edwards to full capitalize on it.

I’m predicting a surprisingly comfortable win for Edwards, with around 35 percent of delegates, with Obama and Hillary in a fierce fight for number two. The Edwards people in 2004 were disappointed that they didn’t do more to deprive Kerry of oxygen and let Dean fall too hard … don’t be too surprised if there’s a last minute Edwards-Clinton deal that seals a first place win for Edwards while pushing Obama to #3 (which helps both campaigns short and long run.)

…It can go beyond that, conspiracy. Once you pass viability, there are thresholds before you get to extra delegates. So often you end up with spare voters who make no difference in your delegate count, but if passed to another candidate, can deprive a rival of a delegate.

Hillary is likely to be viable everywhere … but if she and Edwards cut a deal to share spare delegates, they can probably deprive Obama of one delegate per precinct, which is basically the difference between getting 30 percent of the vote and 18 percent.

Now, you can’t deploy this strategy unless you have a skilled precinct captain AND a precinct chair who understands the rules. I, an Iowa novice in 2004, had to instruct the chair about re-division of the house rules in our precinct last time out … and most of the caucus participants were unaware of what I was talking about. I was fortunate to get the ruling in my favor, but the chair has a lot of power to shut things down, even in violation of the rules.

People think that the Iowa caucus is a participatory democracy, but it is much more similar to a huge, chaotic congress.

Nobody can afford a Hillary win — her "inevitability" factor becomes enormous. But Edwards and Obama are splitting the "reform" vote right now, and it will make life easier for camp Clinton for that to continue. Would they make such a deal to help Edwards take #1 and slow down Obama?

Obama obviously sees Edwards as a threat in Iowa, hence the attacks on Edwards for using 527s in the primaries (though he won’t say whether he’ll reject the help of 527s in the general). But even if Edwards wins Iowa, he’s got a lot of real estate to make up in New Hampshire. The latest Boston Globe poll has Obama 30%, Clinton 28% and Edwards 14%.

And beyond New Hampshire, what’s the Edwards plan?

Related posts:

  1. Lose/Lose: Co-Ops Don’t Work – and They Won’t Get Republican Support
  2. Republicans are Lying: Seniors Will Not Lose Medicare Benefits
  3. For Democrats, NY-23 is Heads We Win, Tails They Lose
  4. The Republicans and Health Care: They Snooze, You Lose
  5. Will Reid Lose His Senate Seat to Take the Hit on Health Care?