Anyone know of any info on who this caucus system is likely to benefit? I have to imagine that Obama is more likely the 2nd choice for many than both Hillary and Edwards.... which would play into his favor in the caucus, right?

"The memo was obtained by Election Central and its veracity was confirmed by the Edwards campaign".

The TPM guys do a terrific job but on this one they stray: They do realize that the Edwards campaign leaked this info to them. So why not say so?

re: second choice among candidates not receiving 15% in individual caucuses...did i read on TPM somewhere that the assumption was Hillary would be favored by the second choice issue? reasoning being: Biden, Richardson, and a handful of others represent establishment Democrats / beltway wisdom and are therefore more likely to lead supporters in the direction of someone like Hillary.

sadly...that makes some sense.

i can see Edwards and Obama splitting the second choice votes of Kucinich, et al.

I agree Martinez. The article is quite clear on source and what they are reporting.
Keep perspective. This is a great source progressive post, not a campaign website.

I'll set aside the necessary caevats about internal polling, etc. I trust this is accurate based on their methodology. It's a data point showing that Iowa is tight.

I think the larger point of pushing this poll out was to try and get Edwards back into the conversation. But it's not showing us anything that we don't know . . . Iowa is TIGHT (all the recent polls have confirmed that). It doesn't reintroduce him to the conversation in a meaningful and positive way. The only thing it puts out there, at least in my opinion, is that Edwards is desperate. Maybe that wasn't the intent, but that's the only "new" news in the poll.

MStevens...I like your "most expensive item on the menu" thought. I don't think it will play that way when all is said and done in this primary season...but that's an interesting perspective. I think Hillary is the odds on favorite...with the potential for an Obama surge the only real X factor here. That said...I haven't really looked at S.Carolina lately and don't know where Edwards stands down there. If it's Iowa-tight in S.Carolina, I could be wrong about Obama. In the end...it's going to take three very strong showings for anyone other than Hillary in order for significant movement come February.

According to Rasmussen, Edwards handily tops the "second choice" category:

In terms of second-choices in Iowa, John Edwards tops the list of candidates. He is the second choice for 28% of likely caucus participants. Obama is the second choice for 18%, Clinton for 16%, and Richardson for 15%. Second choice preferences are especially important given the nature of the Iowa caucuses. In a particular caucus setting, if a candidate receives less than 15% of the vote, their supporters will be re-allocated to other candidates.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/iowa/democratic_iowa_caucus

As an aside, ad-generated support is not necessarily false support. Ads often convey relevant information to a lot more voters than the press (which tends to focus on information voters find less relevant) or debates (which few people watch).

Anyway, everyone knows leaking internal polls is something campaigns do when they are worried about the impression the public polls are creating. As others noted, though, that doesn't mean this poll is wrong. And in any event, overall Edwards has been gaining recently on Clinton (although not so much Obama), and I don't think anyone really knows what will happen if Clinton finishes third in Iowa.

Ultimately Iowans will remember what all of us remember. John Edwards not only is vastly underqualified to be president, with just a single term under his belt, but also he has effectively pulled the wool over voters' eyes about his record.

Let's look at each part.

Besides his one term in the senate, what did John Edwards do that is relevant to government or the community? He was a trial lawyer. Not to be rude, but he was essentially a high-priced and glamorous version of the lawyers you see ads for on TV who want to make money suing anyone they can get their hands on.

About his record, he has deceived people for far too long. His record in the senate included co-sponsoring the Iraq war authorization, voting for Bush's failed No Child Left Behind, voting for Bush's Patriot Act, voting for storing nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, and voting for a bankruptcy bill that hurts poor Americans that get hit with big healthcare bills. Finally, he talks about how he fights against big businesses, like when he blasts corporations and their offshore tax shelters, but then goes to work for a hedge fund for $500,000 per year incorporated in - you guessed it - an offshore tax shelter.

I'm going with Hillary. At least with her I know where she stands.

Debbie, you're bankruptcy bill canard is a load. Edwards voted with 82 other Senators in 2000 for a bankruptcy reform bill. Senators who voted with Edwards include Dick Durbin, Max Cleland, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Barbara Mikulski, and Ron Wyden.

And, of course, the very important question, HWHHV?

How Would Hillary Have Voted?

Oh wait, she was conveniently absent for the vote on the 2005 bankruptcy bill, so who knows?

Jeff, I agree Edwards has not "run away" from his voting record. Edwards has accepted that almost every single one of his major votes was a mistake.

The basic question is why would we trust Edwards to make good decisions when he admits that almost every major decision he made in the only public office he held was a mistake. Sure, I forgive him for his mistakes. But asking for voters' forgiveness in a soft accent may work well for getting forgiveness, but ultimately we have no way of knowing that 4 years from now, if elected, he won't be coming back to us saying "everything I did was a mistake, and I'm sorry".

A president Edwards who admits the mistakes he makes isn't much better than a president Bush who is in denial about the mistakes he makes. Mistakes are mistakes.

Garth wrote on December 8, 2007 1:40 PM:

Edwards, despite constantly polling a strong third, is not taken seriously by the MSM, unless it's to take cheap shots.

That is precisely the problem. He's been running a distant third nationally and in most states, including his home state of NC, where the latest poll showed him trailing HRC; had a hard time raising dough, so he went to the public trough tin cup in hand for cash to sustain his moribund campaign; is an also-run in a party that does not do re-runs. Unless he convincingly trounces everyone in IA, where he's been running a very close "third" (although for all we know he might actually be ahead there), there won't be a "John Edwards Show" on your TV after that, not even in syndication.

I think the Neocons are scared of him as he is definitely the most dovish of the top three D contenders.

I think the rich are scared of him as he is definitely the most populist of the top three D contenders.

And i think the MSM knows their marching orders. They are going to savage Edwards and act surprised by his strong showings in the early primaries.

I'm pulling for Edwards.

No doubt...

Garth wrote on December 8, 2007 3:12 PM:

What nonsense.

So you agree that he is the most dovish of the three. Hillary's a hawk and I'm sure the military industrial complex will do just fine.

Just because you call it "nonsense" won't make it so, and I agree with no such thing. Edwards is as "dovish" as Hillary or Obama is. Go and read Edwards' Senate floor speech in support of the Iraq war authorization bill that he'd co-sponsored. Edwards' serial mea culpas for that vote won't change the facts. And conjectures about what Hillary would do when elected POTUS cannot be passed for facts either, but since we are in the la-la land of conjectures, let me let you in on a secret: President Hillary will immediately pull us out of Iraq; will initiate low level talks with Iran and Syria, and restart the stalled Palestinian-Israeli talks; she will dispatch her husband to every capital where we used to have strong allies, as the US Ambassador for Peace to try to undo the damage that 8 years of Bush have done to our image, standing and relationships worldwide.

Why would she do that? Simple: No one runs for the presidency so that s/he could go to war (remember that the 1999 version of GWB "did not do nation-building"), and only an idiot would launch or perpetuate wars of choice after seeing what they have done to the presidency of GWB. Hillary is anything but stupid. Moreover, why would the first ever female POTUS squander her historic presidency by pursuing senseless wars of choice? If you believe that she would waste her time following the clearly failed policies of the current Village Idiot then you are in his league because Hillary would certainly know better.

As for this perception that people don't find him "convincing" that's a bullshit talking point. Polls show that he is by far the most inspiring candidate and his supporters are the most committed.

As for fundraising, he'll have plenty of money to go the distance. He's got a good team and if he wins Iowa he will make good showings in other primaries and the whole calculus will change.

I can't wait.

And as for re-runs, Hillary would be the biggest re-run of them all.

Yeah, I know he's in third, but I think he will surprise some people, your ill-informed comments aside.

Clearly, there is only one author of ill-informed comments here, and it ain't me!

"Just because you call it "nonsense" won't make it so, and I agree with no such thing. Edwards is as "dovish" as Hillary or Obama is. Go and read Edwards' Senate floor speech in support of the Iraq war authorization bill"

And I suggest you read the transcript of Hillary's speech in support of authorization for military action against Iraq.

"Clearly, there is only one author of ill-informed comments here, and it ain't me!"

dcshungu before you declare Garth uninformed you should probably understand that by 're-run' garth is very likely talking about a re-run of Republican Lite, the DLC in command.

"I am glad you cited polls, because they, in fact, do prove that the only bullshit here is your statement that JRE is by far the most "inspiring" candidate. LOL."

dcshungu, I suggest that you get your mind around the idea that name recognition and identity with the most recent Democratic president might have at least a little bit to do with Hillary's lead. As for inspirational, I would suggest that you actually take some time to read the details of each candidate's proposals. What will emerge is that Edwards is most like an actual Democratic candidate. For more than a decade the Village press (and all too many seriously overpaid consultants) have urged Democrats to act less like Democrats and more like 1950s Republicans. That so many Democrats followed that advice has IMO made Democrats seem, to all too many voters, a party that stood for nothing.

That Edwards' policy positions address the major problems facing our nation, in a way reminiscent of the direct assault on problems the Democrats were once lauded for, is indeed inspirational.