Ed. Note: Updated below.
Last week, I offered some commentary on the recent flourish of polling on the 2008 Iowa Caucuses that had come out and said that right now, none of the polling really matters. What truly matters is the perception of the candidates at the base level activists. The pundits and those in the media will continue to hype the polls and talk about the horserace nature of the contest, but for now, they’re going to neglect the small things that the candidates will be doing in Iowa as we approach the season of retail politics at its finest.
Today, Chris Cillizza over at the Washington Post gets a bit giddy as he begins to parse the most recent ARG polling, which as Drew has noted, is a little bit off compared to the other recent polling. For the record, Cillizza neglects to even mention or discuss the Research 2000 poll and instead bases his comparison on the Environmental Defense poll that was conducted in October and the June Iowa Poll from the Register. In all reality, he should be comparing the ARG poll versus the Research 2000 poll, which were conducted at essentially the same time.
Mark Blumenthal, pollster extraordinaire, examines the polling so far and calls it “only the beginning,” which is absolutely the case. He examines the methodology of the polling and the circumstances surrounding the time period of the polling and ultimately concludes his post with this little bit:
“All of which leaves me scratching my head, except to say this: Whenever very small differences in methodology make for huge differences in results, it suggests that voters are not yet engaged in the race enough to have strong allegiances. Put another way, while each poll may have a candidate running in front, in Iowa at least, there is not yet a true “front runner.”"
Thankfully, Blumenthal gets what I’ve been saying: That there are some top candidates in Iowa, but it is too early to declare a front-runner because their are few substantial allegiances right now.
Cillizza writes a bit about the ARG polling and comes to this summary:
“None of the other candidates tested in the survey were able to crack mid-single digits in more than a single state — which could signal that polls done this early largely serve as a measure of name identification OR that a field including Clinton, Obama and Edwards leaves little room for other candidates.”
However, I don’t grant his premise that the ARG poll actually signals anything meaningful, particularly when Research 2000 says Edwards and Obama are tied for the lead, with Clinton in fourth versus ARG who puts her on top. Truly, with the limited base of Democrats who will actually participate in the 2008 Democratic caucuses, it will be hard to find a good sample this early. And even if there is a good sample, like I said above, there aren’t significant allegiances forming yet. Retail politics is how things are done. If you want to really judge motivation and support for particular candidates, then you should be examining the ways in which they’re reaching out to constituents not just in Iowa, but in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina as well. The small community gatherings and the outreach to interest groups will be critical in the next several months, particularly as field operations come to life.
UPDATE: Mark Blumenthal posts an update on his post with this little bit from Mickey Kaus over at Slate.com, which is worth considering:
“There’s a big difference between 1) asking voters if they “definitely plan” to go to the caucuses, and 2) asking voters if they actually participated in the 2004 caucuses. Lots of people say they “plan” to attend. That’s normal! But those who have attended are the sort of pathetically unrepresentative hard core activists …sorry, committed citizens who make up the tiny sliver (6%) of Iowa voters who actually show up and choose the winner: … In this case, the merely aspirational caucusgoers pick Clinton, while the hard core goes for Obama–a result consistent with the idea that Obama is capturing those who think a lot about politics, while those who don’t think as much about politics haven’t yet been hit by the wave.”
In this case, ARG polled with questions asking the voter if they planned to attend while Research 2000 polled by asking did you attend the 2004 caucuses and will you participate in the 2008 caucuses. The fact is, from what I’ve seen, the hardcore activists are definitely excited about Edwards and Obama, but I’ve heard nothing encouraging about Clinton at all, other than that people want her to visit the state so they can learn more about her.
