That doesn't look like a statistically significant lead for Obama to me. I suspect Eric meant "statistically INsignificant".

That said, I find it interesting ARG has Obama in the lead, and Edwards so close. Up until now, they tended to give Clinton relatively good numbers, and Edwards relatively bad numbers (as compared to other contemporaneous Iowa polls).

But as always: there is still plenty of time left for these polls to change dramatically, and as I have noted several times recently, with the polls this close in Iowa we should expect a lot of lead "changes" (which could just be statistical noise).

By the way, a little comment on political futures markets:

As a result of recent Iowa polls, Obama has closed the gap in the RCP recent poll average, and with this poll replacing the last ARG poll, he actually took a tiny lead.

Meanwhile, RCP also links to Intrade. Intrade has recently shown Obama's futures closing on Clinton's, and he just took a tiny lead.

My point? The political futures markets appear to be very good at quickly reacting to polls. But so far, I have yet to see them actually do a good job of predicting poll changes in advance, or do a bettyer job than polls at predicting electoral outcomes. So, despite the hopes of some people, they don't seem to be a significant leading indicator (meaning they are more reacting to, not predicting, political events).

Another theory of what Kleefeld meant when referring to statistical significance.

Last ARG poll had Clinton at 27, Obama at 21, Edwards at 20. Clinton sliding from 27 to 25 is a statistically insignificant change (most likely), as is an Edwards climb from 20 to 23 (again, most likely, assuming MOE is 3.5-4.5). Obama, however, gained 6 points from poll to poll (last poll was mid Nov, 10-14) within the same likely voter model. That's a statistically significant gain, unless their MOE is huge...

Michael,

Obviously you did not correctly predict what Eric meant, but your point is a valid one: the increase in Obama's share in the ARG poll is likely worth noting.

And it is also worth noting that the same thing that has been going on overall in the Iowa polls: Obama has been more or less steadily increasing his share in Iowa since August, and recently it appears that process may have accelerated a bit.

I think you may be right upper left.

Huck's going to be hard guy for the Dems to campaign against if he gets more traction. He at least appears to be honest. They should, but can't attack his fundamentalist superstitions and disdain for modern science, but he doesn't have Rudy's moral baggage or Romney's flip-flops.
Huck would satisfy the Hillary haters who don't like Rudy or Mitt
Of course, he could team up with a neocon like Lieberman to satisfy the rabid War Party base.

Your HRC bias is really showing. You consider it insignificant that there is a second poll in a week showing Obama has pulled into a lead in Iowa? This is confirmation that Obama is moving in Iowa.

I would attend to the adverb in Eric's sentence. It is statistically insignificant because the margin is 2%. Obviously it has significance in the general sense, and Eric doesn't claim otherwise.

There is a lot of bias out there in some of the left-blogosphere's reporting on the primary, but I do think that this site does a decent job of not letting whatever biases the authors have manifest themselves in the reporting. Let's not pillory Election Central on this score.

upper left: Edwards is in serious trouble

Gimme a break. The guy jumps eight points, and you're talking about "serious trouble"? Looks like his NH numbers are on the upward swing, too.

I also think Kleefeld is mistaken in painting Iowa as being solely an Obama-Clinton race - "Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a tight race in Iowa" - especially in light of Rasmussen's "second choice" and "favorability" numbers yesterday, both of which were strong for Edwards.

upper left,

It was true Edwards was on a downward trend in the polls until about the end of September. Recently, though, he has arguably leveled off and may even be recovering a bit. Just as importantly, we do not really know the order in Iowa. That is because the Iowa caucuses are incredibly hard to poll, for a host of reasons. So, for all we know Edwards has actually stabilized, and not in third place but in first place.

All that said, the most important point is that no matter what the current trends show, history says that until about two weeks before the caucus, they just can't be projected forward with any reliability. So this conversation is basically premature, and will be for a couple more weeks.

Hardly worth my time but here goes. First, I never in my post said that I like Edwards. I thought I made it clear that I am not committed to any candidate. If pressed, I would probably vote, at this point, for Obama. But that is not committed support.

Second, how can you say that Edwards support in Iowa is eroding when he has had an upwards move of 8 points in the past month, the largest jump of any candidate? The best you can say is that Edwards has regained lost ground as voters come back to him after the various campaign kerfuffles that caused a slip in his standing.

Third, if Iowa is about momentum, Edwards is moving in the right direction at the right time. Iowa is even more about momentum in the last couple of weeks, as I was attempting to establish by showing anecdotal evidence that candidate support in Iowa is weak and none of the candidates has sealed the deal.

As far as polarizing is concerned, the polls (other than the ridiculous Zogby on-line survey) do not suggest that any of our leading candidates are unelectable. Clinton performs well in many of the polls as does Obama. Often times, Edwards out-performs both Clinton and Obama against the Republican candidates. It's also interesting to note that Clinton beats McCain in Massachusetts while Obama loses to him. In New York, Clinton easily defeats Giuliani while Obama struggles. So asserting that we need to gang up to avoid a polarizing and unelectable candidate does not cut it for me. (I am far more receptive to the argument that I would rather have a Democrat from the Democratic wing of the party than a triangulator who is far more hawkish than the other leading candidates. But that is something for the primary not the general election.)

As I was "researching" material for this post, the discussion had moved from this thread to here, but I think that it is not too big a digression to repost it here:

Michael wrote on November 30, 2007 10:00 AM:

dc, you keep either intentionally avoiding or unintentionally missing the point with clinton II energizing the republican base. That will put into major jeapordy light blue and purple states, like Florida, which she is losing by a large margin, pennsylvania, virginia, etc. You keep citing to national numbers which are skewed by big states dem states like new york and california. It's the smaller swing states that will be put into jeapordy or lost due to her being the nominee and which alot of people are concerned about regardless of your blind love. You're argument holds no water.

Michael wrote on November 30, 2007 10:21 AM:

dc, two other points. It is debatable whether she is the "best" nominee. That is your opinion, others may differ. I obviously don't think that she is the best nominee. Also, she doesn't "scare the bejesus" out of republicans. Why would she? Alot of her policies are republican (see iraq war, iran resolution, etc.), like Mr. Bill's were. They aren't scared, they just want to beat the clintons for a host of reasons, including they still want to fight the political wars of the 90's, which I am not particularly interested in, as are many.

OCD, indeed. Do you actually think before your post your comments? How could I possibly be "avoiding" or "missing" the purported point about Hillary "energizing" the Republican base while there are several of my posts which deal with nothing BUT that, and use the latest actual availabe numbers of self-identified Dem or Repub party affiliation to make my point? The Repubs can be energized all they want, there just aren't enough of them to make a difference, if Dems (including YOU) would just turn out to support our candidate on election day! And, even if Hillary does not win Florida, as you keep obsessing, there is still a clear path for her to take to the White House with no need to win FL, or Virginia or Ohio. If she loses Pennsylvania, there could be trouble but I am not sure which poll your are citing (it must me one of those bogus Zogby internet "polls") that show her losing PA or any of the Battlegound state that Kerry had won. I have done the work for you and anyone who think that Clinton cannot win.

Go here and looked at the table that shows average by month head-to-head poll numbers for Clinton v. Giuliani (update: 11/26/07) in PA, and tell me where you see Clinton in trouble there. In fact, she started out trailing Rudy 40.5% to 50% in Feb, and as of the last entry dated October, she was leading him 48% to 42%. That is a swing of 15.5% point for HRC in the state! And here are the LATEST AVAILABLE average by month head-to-head poll numbers for Clinton v. Giuliani (update: 11/26/07) for ALL the "Battleground" or Purple States:

FL: Rudy 49.5% Clinton 44%
OH: Clinton 49% Rudy 44%
PA: Clinton 48% Rudy 42%
NV: Rudy 47% Clinton 46%
MI: Clinton 49% Rudy 46%
NH: Clinton 47% Rudy 45%
CO: Rudy 50% Clinton 44%
OR: Clinton 46% Rudy 45%
NJ: Clinton 46.5% Rudy 41.5%
WA: Clinton 50% Rudy 43%
IA: Clinton 47.5% Rudy 41.5%
WI: Clinton 49% Rudy 42%
MN: Clinton 49% Rudy 43%
TN: Clinton 43% Rudy 43%
OR: Clinton 46% Rudy 45%
VA: Clinton 45% Rudy 45%
MO: Clinton 45.5% Rudy 42%
NM: Clinton 48% Rudy 44%

Michael, other than FL which we could do without, where is Hillary's GE weakness that you keep obsessing about?[I am sure that even after seeing the evidence you would continue with this obsession until another one takes it place].

Now: go do the same comparison with your favorite and then go have a stiff Johnny Walker Black as you realize that Clinton is by far the strongest candidate that the Dems could field in the GE against Rudy or McCain or Huckabee or anyone. Heck, the latest MA poll just showed McCain beating Obama and Rudy tying him there. MA, isn't that scary! Clinton would win EVERY blue states easily.

If your anxiety about a Hillary nomination is that she cannot with because she would energize the Repubs, then you must read this and all the preceding posts because they are well researched. It just took me about an hour researching this one. It is all based on available data. Hillary does not have an electability problem. She has a wingnut problem. The Dems' best chance to win next November is for them to nominate Hillary Clinton.

Provided not just as a Clinton supporter but also as a loyal Democrat, who would take to the polls on election day to support our standard bearer whoever s/he turns out to be.

Michael,

I don't think Edwards has a money issue as far as NH is concerned, and after that if he was winning he could expect a flood of donations.

The real advantage Obama and Clinton have is that they can stay competitive for longer without actually winning. That means if a clear frontrunner does not emerge after the first few primaries, they may still be competing with each other in February and beyond, with everyone else being forced out.

But again, if anyone else--like Edwards, or Biden, Richardson, or Dodd for that matter--emerged as the favorite by that point, money should not be a problem for that person.

DTM, you really think that they could raise so much money in such a short period of time, and get the marketing and ads out, and get their organization up and running in 22 states or so before February 5? That's less than 30 days from New Hampshire. I mean its possible, but I don't know, the odds seem kind of stacked against the second tier.

dc, I responded to your post on the other thread. It is amazing to me how someone as intelligent as you are refuses to accept the fact that clinton II is the most polorizing dem nominee and that she will rally the republican base. You obviously are not a loyal democrat, but merely a blind clinton II lover. I don't get it.

My comments where about Edwards' overall trend lines as documented by realclearpolitic.com's rolling average and pollster.com's regression analysis trend lines which are less volatile and show longer term trends. It is true that there is some evidence that Edwards has stopped his slide at leats in Iowa and NH where he has started advertising.

I think it is reasonable to give JE a couple of more weeks to try to demonstrate that he is getting some traction in these two states. If he is still tlailing Obama by mid-December, I think JE supporters need to take a long, hard look at Obama.

Even if JE could pull off the upset in Iowa, it is hard to see how he could get enough bounce in five days to win in New Hampshire. In addition, he would have very little time to raise money and make media buys to overcome HRC's large lead in the Feb. 5 states. Obama has more press, more money, stronger national organization and a larger base in the national polls. His chances of competing with HRC post-Iowa seem much higher.

Unless Obama has a complete collapse in Iowa and New Hampshire, which appears extremely unlikely, he is going to be in the race at least through Feb 5. I think the most likely effect of a strong showing by JE in Iowa would be to continue to split the "alternative to Hillary" vote and make it easier for her to recover from a poor showing in Iowa. If any of the JE supporters think I am wrong, please present an alternate analysis.

upper left,

I am not an Edwards supporter per se, and I don't really disagree with most of your analysis. But the one thing I would note is that it is possible Edwards could win in Iowa and Obama could win in NH (particularly, say, if Clinton finished a distant third or worse in Iowa).

What happens next after a scenario like that is anyone's guess, but it could be a two person race between Edwards and Obama at that point, not either of them and Clinton.

But there are a lot of Ron Paul signs in Columbia SC.....???????

Funny, but Gallup shows Hillary and Barack both whupping the GOP candidates...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx

Edwards numbers not shown, presumably also good.

Don't you just love how the O-Bomb-A fluffers have gone from spouting conspiracy theories about polls, to suddenly deifying all the complexities to be found... provided they're in their candidate's favor, of course!

Michael L,

I just wanted to note I agree that we cannot use 2004 as a roadmap to what will happen this time. But I do think it is useful just as an example of how dramatically things can change in such a short time.

I bought 50 Huckabees at 2.3. I wish I bought 200.

Huckabee! Then later, not Huckabee.

I gotta say- Huckabee scares me. I think he is the only Republican any Dem would have trouble beating. He is likable and seems genuine. Two characteristics that HRC lacks. I think if it were Huckabee v. Clinton, we would lose big time. The thought terrifies me.