« Netscape: How The Mighty Have Fallen
Puerto Rico Must Declare Independence to Restore Spanish to its Rightful Place »
Final Iowa Polls: Contradictory But Ron Paul Could Hit Double Digits
As Iowans vote in the Iowa caucuses today, final polling shows contradictions and something that could generate a lot of media buzz: in one poll Rep. Ron Paul is breaking into the double digits.
Democrat Barack Obama continued his upward momentum through the evening before the Iowa caucuses, capturing the lead ahead of rivals John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.. Meanwhile, Republican Mike Hucakbee widened his lead over Mitt Romney down the stretch, the newest and last Reuters/C–SPAN/Zogby daily telephone tracking poll in Iowa shows.
Obama broke through the 30% barrier for the first time, gaining 31% support after another strong day leading up to the caucuses. But more dramatic was Clinton’s four-point drop in this last day of tracking. Edwards moved into second place by himself after another day where he steadily gained ground. This fifth and final daily tracking poll was conducted using live telephone operators in the Zogby call center in Upstate New York. Edwards finished this Zogby daily tracking in Iowa in the same place as four years ago, when Zogby correctly identified the finishing order of the candidates in that caucus.
Obama continued to perform very well among younger likely Democratic caucus-goers, while Clinton enjoys strong support from older voters. Among men, Obama has sprinted ahead of Edwards, who is now second. Clinton continues to lead among women, but only by a small margin.
This could be a highly symbolic vote since it could show how younger voters are ready to shove aside the Baby Boomer generation which has probably done more to polarize American politics than any generation since the Civil War. Baby Boomer political frictions and hatreds run deep and permeate many areas of America’s national debate and perceptions.
Clinton’s camp has already started putting out the message that if she finishes third it really isn’t that big a deal. But no matter what polls in New Hampshire that show Clinton ahead indicate, a big loss in Iowa will shatter the “inevitability” argument — and will accentuate the Democratic battle until Super Tuesday in February.
And on the GOP side (EDITOR’s NOTE: Wrong passage was here earlier) ?
With a Huckabee surge and a Romney dip, the former Arkansas governor opened up a six-point lead over his nearest rival. Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson also lost a point, and Arizona Sen. John McCain, who has been surging in New Hampshire, faded here into a tie for fourth place.
Huckabee’s strength among women was notable – he leads Romney by a 37% to 25% margin, while enjoying a narrow 27% to 25% edge among men. Huckabee also continued to show well among those likely caucus-goers age 25-34 and age 35-54, where he held significant leads over Romney and the rest of the field.
This poll shows Ron Paul now at 10 percent — which would be huge news since he will no longer be able to be dismissed as a merely well-funded single-digit contender with lots of loyal (and noisy) followers.
BUT another poll, Political Wire reports, shows Hillary Clinton has a big lead in Iowa:
The final Iowa poll from the American Research Group shows Sen. Hillary Clinton leading with 34%, followed by Sen. Barack Obama at 25% and John Edwards at 21%.
As for second choices: Biden supporters – 25% say Edwards, 31% Obama, 12% Clinton. Richardson supporters – 31% say Edwards, 19% Obama.”
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee leads Mitt Romney 29% to 24%, with 13% for Fred Thompson.
Meanwhile, Obama has received another bit of good news.
Gov. Bill Richardson’s campaign is expected to direct their supporters to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama in the second round of voting at Thursday’s caucuses in precincts where he is not viable. Two sources familiar with the plan told Iowa Independent that the New Mexico Governor’s organizers have been instructed to direct supporters to Obama in the places where they fail to reach the 15% threshold for viability.
Richardson, whose poll numbers in Iowa have hovered near 10% since June, may need a solid fourth-place finish in the caucuses to continue his campaign. And he is best served by directing support away from former Sen. John Edwards, who consistently polls between him and the two national front-runners, Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton, in national and early state polls.
But Richardson’s modest gains from diverting second-choice support away from Edwards may be eclipsed by Obama’s potential success on caucus night, should everything go as planned. If Richardson’s field organization manages to direct a significant number of supporters to Obama, it could be enough to win him the Iowa Caucuses.
Reminder: the cliche in politics is true. The only poll that matters is the big one on Election Day. It’s going on now.
The second choice matters in caucuses.
10 Responses to “Final Iowa Polls: Contradictory But Ron Paul Could Hit Double Digits”
Let’s not be as silly-youth-oriented as the Yahoo main page. Also, do not fall into the trap of conceit (if you’re one of them) or of ignorance about Boomers, and mischaracterize the entire cohort as the same as the leading edge of that cohort.
For your information, once again, the darling of the young-voter crowd, Barack Obama, is a Boomer.
May the Left one day also prefer substance to symbolism.
Arrgh.
a) Barack Obama is a Baby Boomer.
b) It is silly (if based on observation) or conceited (if based on experience) to mischaracterize the entire Baby Boomer cohort as being monolithic and like the few at the head end (the oldest) in that cohort.
c) One should not be youth-obscessed and ageist (take a look at Yahoo’s stupid main page sometime).
d) May the Left someday also prefer substance over symbolism.
Server crashed — editors may delete this entry and one of the two previous.
P.S. I’m a baby boomer. People who meet me insist I must be 35 (genetics and overall immaturity). Let’s just say I remember the debut of the Mickey Mouse Club, watched Pinky Lee when I was in kinder, and was shaped by Howdy Doody, Lou Costello, Jackie Gleason and Jack Benny in how I do my family shows. But I admit it: us baby boomers have hurt political discourse in this country and the U.S. will be much better off when a new generation takes over the political leadership. This isn’t a political statement, as much as a sociological one.
Also, Obama was born as a baby boomer but as Andrew Sullivan notes he really is not part of it. Sullivan has done a lot of stuff on this..and I agree.
Here’s an intriguing link on this issue.
I was just reading Sullivan’s “Goodbye to All That” and okay, so there’s more to your point than I had thought.
(here)
* * *
Don’t forget the hair coloring over the gray. Guys can “cheat,” too! Hiding the gray works great especially in ageist times or environments, especially if you are one of those who has gotten gray (much) earlier than average.
Given the poor behavior of younger people that we so often see, we’ll be assuming greater risks in the years to come then we have assumed before. And just wait until the Social Security and Medicare “war” begins (beneficiaries versus taxpayers) in 10-20+ years.
[...] just a few hours we should know which two candidates can claim victory in Iowa. If polling means anything, the winners will likely come from this pool: Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Romney, and [...]
I agree that the boomers have not exhibited the same willingness to sacrifice for the greater good that the greatest generation did, and are far too self-absorbed in gratifying our needs for luxury, comfort and entertainment. There are many times that we and our representatives have taken the easy way out, hoping we’d never have to really pay for it. Problems that once would have been manageable are now complicated and frustratingly difficult to solve.
The next generation, however, may be even less prepared to deal with the country’s massive problems than we were. Many have never performed manual labor or had to develop inventiveness or ingenuity, having had indulgent parents who did it all. I think each subsequent generation is getting softer than the last one, which means we’re all about due for a rude awakening when these ever-worsening problems reach a head.
oops ignore my last post -I’m on the wrong thread!
In 10-20+ years, Social Security and Medicare will blow up in our faces. (The Trustees have warned us about this fact for years.) There are no assets in the “trust funds” to pay for benefits, simply claims on Treasury revenues, which will have to be found from all-new sources (new taxes or tax increases).
At the same time, the Boomers will be selling assets in large numbers to finance retirement, which points to a long, cold bear market for assets of all kinds. (No, the rest of the world cannot be counted on to develop to the point where foreigners will be in a position to buy everything for sale and support asset prices.)
[NOTE: GAO says there won't be a sudden, sharp drop in asset prices. Note also wealth distribution at bottom of page.]
This does not even begin to account for the unpredictable, such as more terrorism, a civil war or revolution in Mexico (with attendent refugee problem in the USA), et cetera.
2020 may be a watershed year; the 2020s will be an, ahem, interesting decade.
Better hope the Chinese didn’t hear that!