I don't think any poll will be all that important until the last ones before the Iowa caucus.

[LoZoccolo]

I'm speaking of the ones where each Democratic candidate is matched against the Republicans.

We saw Dean lose a double-digit lead last time, and that was before the scream. Depending on who wants to push what, you'll hear that it was a media conspiracy in retribution for the threat of re-regulation, or that he did it to himself. What I remember at the time - as a Dean supporter, mind you, and please dig up the posts before making a claim that I was not - was that the last poll before the caucus showed that Kerry and Lieberman could beat Bush*, and Dean could not. Later when I was talking to my father, he also coincidentally cited that as the reason he thought Dean took a slide.

I think most of the actual primary voters are practical, and want to elect someone who could actually change things, rather than lose. I think whether or not a candidate can actually be elected is a necessary condition for their vote. People here try to discourage consideration of it, but I think that has to do with the nature of a message board: people come here to try to control each other's minds, not make important decisions. Keep that in mind when surveying conversation here.

[rinsd]

1. That last week's daily tracking poll should clue us in.

[TwilightZone]

2. There's an article floating around DU that indicates that more than half of Iowa voters in '04

didn't choose a candidate until the last few days. In that event, as you noted, polls won't mean much until just before the caucus.

Re: electability - people like to vote for a winner, so I think your assertion is an accurate one.

[frazzled]

3. Well, apparently popular support means nothing in the Iowa Dem caucuses anyway

I was totally unaware of this until I read the editorial in today's NYT. Neither we nor the press ever knows who got the total number of votes in those caucus rooms: those numbers are sent to party headquarters and kept under lock and key. There, apparently, party officials assign to each candidate a number of delegates based on Democratic voter turnout in each precinct during the last two general elections--in other words, delegate apportionment is "weighted." The numbers we hear reported from Iowa are NOT the percentages of voter support each candidate got, but the percentages of delegates assigned according to this secret, byzantine system by party insiders. (The Republicans don't do this: it's a straight head count.)

Iowa is even less relevant than I thought--only the press will spin it differently.

Dem-Rep matchup polls are totally useless altogether--EVER. Until there are two nominees.

[CoffeeCat]

4. I've come to the conclusion that...

...most of the Iowa caucus goers, are people who are very
serious about this process. Most of them are very "tuned
in" to the political process. They attend candidate events
and they pay attention to politics in the news.

These Iowans demand to know the candidates personally--
talk with them, ask them questions and challenge them.

In 04, during the caucus run-up--Dean did not do well with the
Iowa media. He practically got into a fist fight with an Iowa
who was pressing him, during a Dean rally on the Iowa fairgrounds.
He also made really biting and condescending comments to Iowa media.
This stuff was widely reported--just as Hillary's horrendous gaffes
have been reported.

Conversely, Edwards and Kerry really worked well with the Iowa media
and the people. They were accessible. They answered questions. They
held small meetings in community centers and hotel banquet halls. I remember
Kerry hanging out in local bars. This type of one-on-one incites caucus
attendance and support. Impersonal speeches with empty platitudes...not so much.

I was a Dean supporter in 04. I was shocked when I showed up to the caucus
and my husband and I were the only ones caucusing for Dean. It doesn't matter
how many foot soldiers you have knocking on Iowa doors. It's about how
genuine you are and how many individual people you propel to those caucus sites
to support you.

That's they key to who will win Iowa. Who has been the most open, honest and
comfortable when challenged and when asked questions? Who has connected with Iowans?
Who has dropped the impersonal, preach speeching and favored real dialog with voters?

The candidates who have succeeded at this, might not always make the news. After all,
meeting with 6 women in What Cheer, Iowa--in a local diner--might not splash the
front pages. However, if you've been open, gracious and willing to listen--and
you have an appealing message--those six women are yours. They'll caucus for you, and
those women could ensure victory in that precinct. They'll go on to lobby other caucus
goers for you. Caucus goers who support non viable candidates--will have to
move to viable candidates--in order to be counted.

Who will most of those Richardson, Kucinich, Biden and Dodd votes go to? They'll go to
the candidates who have the most inspired, loyal caucus goers who have been inspired
to argue for their candidates.

I think we all pretty much understand which Dem candidates are passing the Iowa test, and
which ones are not doing as well.

You don't need polls in Iowa--you just need to watch how the candidates are behaving.