Entrance Poll: Obama Won On High Turnout — And Edwards Lost

Comments (33)

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:51 AM:

Trippi basically predicted this in advance:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/01/trippi_live.html

The key exchange:

"RCP: The Edwards campaign disputed the results of the Iowa poll. Do you buy the results at all?

TRIPPI: If 220,000 people vote, then I think the Iowa poll is probably accurate.

RCP: What are you guys projecting for turnout?

TRIPPI: Well, the most that's ever turned out in history is 125,000. If this thing is around 150,000, in that environment, we're right there, we're competitive, excellent chance to win the thing. Any number below that we're going to do really, really well.

Anybody who tells you this thing gets up to 220,000, that's some number of people who've never participated in this thing. It'd be an incredible thing to see if it happened, and more power to the candidate who pulled that off."

Tom wrote on January 4, 2008 2:06 AM:

Obama is not going to be able to pull off that kind of turnout again. He doesn't have the time to organize and reach out to all those voters. And he won't be able to bus them in from Illinois.
Edwards will leap ahead of him thanks to him capturing the votes of Biden, Dodd, and Gravel supporters.

destor23 wrote on January 4, 2008 2:06 AM:

DTM, that's the kind of thing that's pretty fascinating from a pure tactics standpoint. Thanks!

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:10 AM:

Tom,

Gravel?

Anyway, we shall see. Indeed, NH is up next in just five days.

CalD wrote on January 4, 2008 2:19 AM:

Oh, I think a little of the credit for the record turnout has to go to George W. Bush, don't you?

Dan wrote on January 4, 2008 2:20 AM:

I'm not an Obama supporter but his exploit to turn out this many voters is truly incredible. And it's kind of amazing Clinton and Edwards survived with 30% under such conditions. Great job for Obama, really. And now on to New Hampshire, the latest poll was released today and has Clinton up by 17%. The poll is a tracking one so will be updated in the coming days and we will measure the bounce Obama gets.

Worms-eye view wrote on January 4, 2008 2:21 AM:

Edwards' campaign was telling precinct captains to expect a 15% increase on 2004 turnout. Our precinct saw an over 75% increase. It was incredibly frustrating because we didn't even have basic supplies for that many people -- not enough stickers to identify them or literature to give them. When we called to ask for more, we were told that there was a statewide shortage of stickers. I know they don't have much money, but that's ridiculous planning...

We were also told all along that the strategy was to win previous caucus-goers. We managed that, and pulled in double the turnout expected, but it definitely was fighting last election's battle.

For what it's worth, Hillary's camp had loads of organization, professional organizers, supplies and a captive audience of elderly women apparently ferried in from a senior center. They also had zero momentum or enthusiasm. If Iowa is any indication, her campaign is in real trouble.

kozmik wrote on January 4, 2008 2:23 AM:

Except Trippi was basically saying it wouldn't happen, becasue Dean couldn't make it happen. And anyone who can't tell the difference between Obama and Dean... not terribly observant.

Trippi is like a lot of early tech companies or early computer geeks. They do something early and have limited success and proclaim themselves experts. Inevitably, soon after, large numbers of people enter that market and some of them do it far better.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:23 AM:

CalD,

Absolutely. As I have noted elsewhere, Obama isn't just doing this on his own. Rather, he is a very good politician with the right ideas and the right message for the moment we are in. But that of course implies that the historical forces which shaped this moment, good or bad, are part of the explanation for why this is happening.

Tom wrote on January 4, 2008 2:26 AM:

I thought I heard on Olberman that Gravel was dropping out, but apparently that report was incorrect. In any case, it's clear that Edwards is the 2nd choice of most 2nd tier candidates. As the race narrows, he'll pick up those votes. Maybe he'll even get endorsed by someone like Dodd.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:30 AM:

Tom,

Again, we shall see.

Spotty Dog wrote on January 4, 2008 2:32 AM:

Shows you can have the "best" campaign machinery in the world, but if you don't have an authentic message, you lose. Obama and Edwards appear to have heartfelt, authentic messages. Clinton, though clearly a bright, well-intended person, appears too "managed". I like Obama, his final Iowa speech was, by far, the best written, most poetic, and thoughtful. But at the end of this (since I am in an "irrelevant" blue state), I will vote for any Democrat over any Republican, for the good of the country. Enjoy the party! those lucky enough to be in a state that is part of the early primaries.

Worm's-eye view wrote on January 4, 2008 2:43 AM:

Two observations about Obama's turnout.

First, while his turnout was larger than expected, it also wasn't in line with either his monster-sized early rallies or even his immediate pre-caucus rallies and meetings. Obama may have been getting twice as many attendees as Clinton or Edwards in the past week or so, but his turnout advantage was closer to 30% -- not 100%. That suggests to me that either his "flake rate" is higher, or that he is still attracting a lot of people who are curious but not committed.

Second, and somewhat harder to put a finger on, I also sensed a greater cultural difference between Obama's caucus-goers and those for Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Richardson. I don't know if this will bear up across precincts, but Obama's caucus-goers were overwhelmingly young and somewhat counter-cultural (nose-piercings, beanie hats, facial hair, etc.). The other candidates had a broader range of ages and backgrounds among their supporters. The reason I think it is relevant is that, in the course of chatting with many non-Obama supporters over the evening, I got a strong sense of discomfort from a good number of working-class and middle-aged and older Iowans.
While Obama may be drawing across party lines, he still runs the risk of coming off as a children's crusade. The increased youth turnout is, imho, an unqualified good for democracy as a whole, but it is worth keeping an eye on the potential strategic dangers as well.

Max wrote on January 4, 2008 2:48 AM:

Tom,

You made a lot of normative statements here in recent weeks about what Edwards would do in Iowa, with very little humility, and you ended up very wrong.

You a superstitious guy at all? Ever think you may be jinxing your guy with this over-confidence and these aggressive projections?

Max wrote on January 4, 2008 2:55 AM:

I also sensed a greater cultural difference between Obama's caucus-goers and those for Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Richardson. I don't know if this will bear up across precincts, but Obama's caucus-goers were overwhelmingly young and somewhat counter-cultural (nose-piercings, beanie hats, facial hair, etc.). The other candidates had a broader range of ages and backgrounds among their supporters.

Very cute spin, but entirely counterfactual.

Obama won across every single income group, including wealthy professionals, led among men and women, led among liberals and moderates, led in union households, led among urban and suburban voters, led 30-44 voters decisively.

Check the data first, and check the spin at the door.

CalD wrote on January 4, 2008 2:57 AM:

Oh DTM, I definitely think a little of the credit for turnout really has to go to George W. Bush.

Worm's-eye view wrote on January 4, 2008 3:13 AM:

Max --

Thanks for the data. I did say that I wasn't sure that this would hold across precincts, but the polls do provide support for a cultural divide: despite a substantial overall lead, Obama lost with married people, rural people, previous caucus-goers, and everyone over 45. Shoot the messenger if you like, but my sense was that there were a number of caucus-goers who were sympathetic to Obama's platform, but felt uncomfortable making the switch.

Desider wrote on January 4, 2008 4:02 AM:

Congrats to the Obamites, they seem to have gotten out the vote, including tapping into what was seen as a large female turnout. The Republicans have put out false numbers on the supposed failure of the youth vote in 2004 and 2006, when actually youth vote had gone up quite a bit (enough to keep Kerry's campaign from being a complete disaster), and hopefully this is a sign that the FUD hasn't worked nationwide.

Regarding premature declarations of the campaign being over, the actual delegates have been split pretty equally 3 ways. The actual primaries start now, and we'll see how this breaks in the 1 month to Super Tuesday - how much bounce Obama gets, what that means in New Hampshire and from there to the other states. Pollwise Obama hasn't been able to close the deal yet in NH, and we'll see how much this helps him. (I think there's an ornery streak in NH, where they don't like Iowa telling them how to vote, and there won't be trading of votes in the primary, though someone more familiar with candidates backing than I am can guess where support for Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel's backers will drift).

Desider wrote on January 4, 2008 4:07 AM:

And I should say congrats to Edwards for doing so well after the FEC screwed him and the netroots.

Keith wrote on January 4, 2008 4:20 AM:

For pure comedy relief, I highly recommend Hillaryis44.com.

Desider wrote on January 4, 2008 4:46 AM:

At FiredogLake, Jane is noting that Obama's actual strength was apparently much greater, but votes weren't counted once there were enough to give him the edge. (A posting at Slate recently described how we don't see the actual results of Iowa, more a heavily distorted hunch of how it probably was).

green heron wrote on January 4, 2008 4:55 AM:

I don't see how Edwards can win. I think he's toast.

Jan wrote on January 4, 2008 6:56 AM:

A VERY hardy congratulations to Barack Obama, from a Clinton supporter, on a GREAT victory in Iowa. No excuses; he won.

His speech is wonderful -- the perfect blend of MLK, Jr and JFK, for us old farts.

I live in New Hampshire and will be proudly voting for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday.
For all the Democratic Clinton Haters, it's not over until it's over. You fool yourself if you think that every vote that wasn't for Clinton was also against Clinton.

If we are getting into strategy, I will predict that Obama won't get the Indies in NH, because Ron Paul and John McCain are going to fight it out for them.
So I predict Obama will not win NH.
However, I'm not saying it's over.

In fact, I say "Game On." SC is gonna be fascinating.

Gosh, I love politics.
(Not as much as the Patriots or the Red Sox, but close.)

NCSteve wrote on January 4, 2008 8:14 AM:

One of the things Obama is not getting credit for is an incredible ground game. The reason for it is that his campaign was pretty up-front about not wanting to have the details of their efforts published in papers for the other guys to read about. I suspect a lot of people assumed this meant he was trying to hide weakness.

In one sense, he played the classic Iowa game: "organize, organize, organize, get hot at the end." But, in another, they designed and executed a somewhat different kind of Iowa ground game that did what all the old time pros assumed was impossible and pure folly to try: he got the kids out and he brought in a vast number of new people. He didn't do that just with speeches and his personality and his vision. He did it by bringing his community organizing skills from Chicago to the cornfields. Hillary and Edwards relied on consultants to build their ground games and had to take their word for what worked. Obama didn't.

He's doing the same thing with his GOTV effors in all the early states and, last I hear, he's got field operations up and running in more of the Feb 5 states than Hillary.

This guy did not win because he gives a pretty speech, the media are in love with him and/or and he makes a handy means for liberals to work out their white guilt. As Bubba himself noted, this guy has mad political skills. Maybe by the time he sweeps NH and SC, some of you who've been insisting that the all-powerful Republican attack machine will destroy him will believe it. (And yeah, Nevada I see going to Hillary.)

john mccutchen wrote on January 4, 2008 8:35 AM:

They've still not recovered at MSNBC!

A goosebumps moment Eugene Robinson, WaPo

The Victory Speech that Greg Sargent doesn't want us to see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 8:43 AM:

NCSteve,

That is exactly right. And again, it really goes back to the 2004 Illinois primaries, where Obama shocked the field by turning out voters across the state. Incidentally, one of his mentors (who unfortunately passed away) was former Illinois Senator Paul Simon, who knew a thing or two about how to run as a progressive in small town America.

So to those of us who know Obama's political history, this is not a surprise. But if people are still counting on this being a fluke, so be it.

MasonMcD wrote on January 4, 2008 9:35 AM:

NCSteve,

to be fair, Edwards visited every Iowa county, twice, polishing and polishing that stump speech at even the smallest venues.

I don't think Edwards suffered from too much consulting. Obama just beat him in bringing in new people, and he won with people under 45. Props to him for that. People have tried and tried to get out the youth vote, and it just never materialized. It did this time.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 10:51 AM:

How many Illinois voters will vote in the NH primary.

nogo war wrote on January 4, 2008 11:04 AM:

C'mon we have all been thinking it since last night...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0XknwXqLDo

Joel Bloom wrote on January 4, 2008 11:24 AM:

Eric,

Of course they asked Democrats their second choice! See Mark Blumenthal's interview of Edison/Mitofsky's Joe Lenski here:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/joe_lenski_on_the_iowa_entranc.php

They asked second choice and they used it in their projections.

On the other hand, it's clear that the "talent" at MSNBC was not briefed on this. Both Matthews and Olbermann discussed the dynamics of the race based only on the first-choice numbers, which showed Clinton well ahead of Edwards. I don't know whether this is the fault of NBC's decision desk people not giving their on-air people the right information, or whether Matthews and Olbermann aren't smart or savvy enough to look beyond the intitial "topline" numbers, but the problem was NOT with the entrance polls.

Western populist wrote on January 4, 2008 11:35 AM:

In the big picture, an AP analysis of actual Dem Convention delegate selection resulting from the Iowa caucuses has Obama at 16, Clinton at 15, and Edwards at 14 (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/01/04/america/Democrats-Delegates.php), not exactly the "earthquake" we're being sold by the hyperactive media. Thanks, Associated Press, for injecting a note of reality at this point.

s_vitreus wrote on January 4, 2008 12:44 PM:

An 'O' to wish... An 'O' to hope...

It is an old saying that you can wish/hope in one hand and @#%? in the other. That sticks with me over the results in Iowa.

The week before the caucuses 3 different polls had 3 different results for leaders in Iowa. First Edwards leads in the Lee Poll, then Hillary in the ABC/WP poll, and then Obama in the DMR poll just prior to the caucus.

I have to say it is interesting that Tim Russert and NBC’s "MEET THE PRESS" gave Obama a very nice 30 minute Campaign Commercial taped directly at the NBC affiliates studio just the Sunday before the caucus (HUCK got the other 30 minutes). The reason I call it a commercial is because Mr. Russert stood 45 feet away lobbing softballs in for Obama to hit over the fence.

Here’s the thing, the political advertising dollars in this race scares me, actually the political advertising dollars in politics scare me. I think the Obama victory gives credence to that. The Media in this country wants the candidate with the 125 million dollar war chest because it comes back to them in advertising. In Iowa alone Obama spent nearly 9.5 million in TV advertising, Clinton spent 7.5 Million, Edwards only 3 Million. This is not to mention what was spent in phone bank, mailings, flyers, newsprint, radio ... With the conglomeration ownership of our US media it is in their best interest to have the party candidate with the most dollars to spent in the race no matter what they represent as long as they won't mess with campaign finance reform. That is the strange thing Edwards is the only candidate talking about how the entire campaign finance system is still corrupt and how it is not about message it is about dollars.

Someone will now post what about "HUCK", he will be down for the count by Super Tuesday and the Republican Machine will fund whoever their candidate is regardless. That is where they truly stick together.

If you look at who went out and voted for Obama you have to realize that those numbers will not translate in a national race. As much as I would like to see 53% of voters under the age of 30 (MSNBC numbers) it is never going to happen nationally I don't care who you put on the ticket. The upper Midwest has extremely high voter turnout nationally (2004 - MN 1st 77.2%, WI 2nd 76.2%, IA 7th 69.7%) and I wish the rest of the country was like that but it isn't (2004 - NH 4th 71.1%, ME 3rd 73.4%). http://www.nonprofitvote.org/resources/todata/?gclid=CKL3-Nvo3JACFQYBkgod40riOQ None of those states are going to decide a national election by themselves based on their electoral college value. I want a ticket that did what Regan did in 1984 a clear and decisive victory. I also had 2 neighborhood kids home from college from Iowa on winter break that went back early just to caucus for Obama. I wonder how many college students from WI, IL, and MN flocked back to the state and help make up that 53% of voters under 30 that MSNBC reported.

Edwards has the best populist message that resonates to electorates across the country and reminds us of T-REX, FDR, JFK, RFK, and Jimmy Carter. He can win states in the south he can bring trade workers back to the party that left for Regan’s economic message and never came back. Make no mistake about it; there are real differences with the change candidate. Edwards health care plan covers every American and leaves no DOUGHNUT hole ( http://obamatruth.org/ ), he is against the trade deals that our congress has recently passed while Obama voted for hurting our US Agriculture and Manufacturing. John Edwards has also spoke out against the re-birth of nuclear power in America, while both Clinton and Obama are all for re-issuing agreement to prolong the life and waste storage at our countries aging nuclear power plants (it floors me that Kucinich pushed his voters to Obama because of this issue). Edwards has the most comprehensive environmental and energy policy that truly creates high tech jobs in America. Not to mention Obama has skirted key votes in the Senate while campaigning, like the Iranian Guard vote. He basically said it was a mistake and he was busy running for president. Where does that leave us as Americans in the future if Iran becomes an issue and the war drums beat again? If he is President in January of 2009 he can say he never voted for or against it so now we can go in and it is business as usual – no voting record behind him on that issue so where does that leave us.

Obama’s message of hope scares me; I also hope to win the lottery, and that is just hope. Does that put it into perspective? I think he may be the best public speaker running for office (has trouble in debates), he reminds me of the big tent revival evangelicals of old or of any of the Sunday morning sky pilots who have the direct link to the almighty himself only rather than GOD he preaches of hope and unity. It reminds me of GWB in 2000 who ran on compassion and unity; the really scares me. When he speaks of hope it is his version of hope with no substance of what makes up his vision, just as GWB spoke of compassion, but his version of compassion ended up being far different than the general public’s. All I am saying is the rhetoric must have substance and answers behind it, not just words that are put to a focus group and make us feel good but are nothing but empty words. As Ben “COOTER” Jones said, “Hillary is the ‘past candidate’, Obama very well maybe the ‘future candidate’ of the Democratic Party but I do not think he is the ‘present candidate’ that currently is John Edwards.

Edwards is the candidate that can get out there and bring in the most diverse cross-section of the electorate, protect current House and Senate seats and probably gain margins there as well.
Edwards beats every republican candidate in the CNN general election poll in mid December that weighted the front runners against each other. He wins every general election poll (all posted) against all republican candidates listed on real clear politics by the widest margin. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Edwards is the choice for America's working class.

Think about this – “Edwards/Obama 2008” – That ticket could do for the Democratic Party what Regan/Bush did for the Republican Party. They could get this country in an unbelievable place over the next 16 years. That ticket could change the world. An 'O' to wish... An 'O' to hope...

Jeff Winchell wrote on January 4, 2008 3:01 PM:

"Trippi is like a lot of early tech companies or early computer geeks. They do something early and have limited success and proclaim themselves experts. Inevitably, soon after, large numbers of people enter that market and some of them do it far better."

The notion is fair when applied in some circumstances, but since Trippi has been doing this stuff for 2 decades, I'm not yet convinced it fits in this case.

BTW, my favorite poster boy for that kind of thing was Philippe Kahn after several of his post Borland ventures failed. But then he invented the camera cell phone, pocketed a few hundred million, and it kind of ruined my story.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)