The Numbers
A Run at the Latest Data from ABC's Poobah of Polling, Gary Langer
Gary Langer is director of polling at ABC News, where he's covered the beat of public opinion for nearly 20 years - conducting and analyzing ABC News polls, evaluating data from other sources and setting the news division's standards for poll reporting. Langer has won two Emmy awards for ABC's reporting of public opinion polls in Iraq, and The Numbers blog was honored this year as winner of the 2008 Iowa Gallup Award for Excellent Journalism Using Polls.
ARCHIVES
SUBJECT INDEX
RECENT POSTS
- In Afghanistan Decision, Risks Abound
- Views on the Terror Trials
- Sarah Palin: Rogue for President?
- Chasing Feathers
- Tomorrow's Elections: An Obama Referendum?
- Schwarzenegger's Nastygram: One in 10 Billion?
- Executive Pay? Cut Away
- Pols, Polls and Pushback
- On Nuclear Iran, Diplomacy and Sanctions are Preferred to Hostilities
- Polling, Politics and Nobels
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Our Latest From Iowa
November 19, 2007 5:50 PM
(Updated)
We’ve now posted both analyses of our new ABC/Post poll in Iowa, reporting results among likely Republican and Democratic caucus-goers alike, with fascinating results on both sides.
We report the surprising surge for Mike Huckabee in the state, remarkable for its intensity as well as its breadth. A Baptist minister, he's now leading longtime front-runner Mitt Romney by 2-1 among evangelicals, who account for nearly four in 10 likely participants in the Republican caucuses.
Among Democrats, the overall race has hardly changed, albeit with just enough movement to give Barack Obama a statistically significant lead over John Edwards – surely not welcome news for Edwards, who's run what’s been described as a make-or-break effort in Iowa.
The Obama-Hillary Clinton race remains quite close, among likely caucus-goers overall and also among the subset who say they’re "absolutely certain" to attend a Democratic caucus. But there’s more going on just under the surface – a shift toward Obama on his “new direction” theme, some significant blowback for Clinton on the issue of saying what she really thinks. It’s also worth a read.
I blogged in August, at the time of our last Iowa poll, about our methodology there, and we followed the same random digit-dialing procedures this time. Again there’s a lot of winnowing involved in getting down to likely voters: to get 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers we had to interview more than 4,800 adults in Iowa. That’s a lot of calls.
Sampling methodology is a critical point of differentiation among surveys. Another difference is in the number of undecideds – just 3 percent in our survey of Democrats, 4 percent on the Republican side, vs. anywhere from 10 to 16 percent in other recently released Iowa polls.
Undecideds in fact are pretty much of a misnomer, given the construct of the question all these polls ask – in essence, "If the election were today, for whom would you vote?" If the election were today, and you truly were voting (which is what all that “likely voter” winnowing is meant to approximate), then “undecided” would not be an option. Indeed we find that likely voters do have preferences, and with very little encouragement are perfectly willing to share them with us. Thus low undecideds, in our view, represents better pre-election polling.
For sure some people have lightly held preferences, and that’s well worth knowing and analyzing. But those aren’t undecided voters, they’re movable ones. We measure them in this Iowa poll, as elsewhere, by asking people if they might change their minds, and if so, how likely that might be. It’s an important element of the story, underscoring the substantial room to move that still exists in the contest.
The bottom line, as I’ve suggested in a previous blog on election polls, is that we’re certainly not trying today to predict who’ll win the Iowa caucuses in six weeks, nor even to focus singly on the horse race. Our intent is to try to understand the election as it unfolds – in Iowa as elsewhere, the issues and candidate attributes that people care about, the judgments about the candidates they reach, the various groups and competing interests involved. I hope you find it informative.
November 19, 2007 in 2008 Primaries | Permalink | User Comments (31)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
At a time like this, America needs a change born out of pragmatic necessity. Corporate-insurance induced "Universal HealthCare" is another poison that the public should not be allowed to fall into again. And again I dont think we need another experience Washington candidates, an honest and morally sound candidate is better than the unexamined 'experience'candidates that the media are busy promoting.
Posted by: Justice Uche | Nov 26, 2007 4:39:19 PM
Who said the small state of Iowa was that important. Its too small to be important and if Obama wins it so what. There are 49 states left for him to win and he will not win them. He may win a few but that's as far as it goes. Edwards should hang it up. Clinton doesn't need Iowa to win the nomination. Where have you been? She is ahead of Obama in New Hampshire by a large margin and will be leading in the larger states as well. Get use to it. As much as some people would like to see Obama in the white house you will but not as president he will be a visitor only. That's as far as he is going to get.
Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Nov 29, 2007 4:12:10 PM
Until America looks at the real problem of spending and education we are doomed to fail. Governmant schools churn out idiots. We are tops in spending and our kids rank only 17th in education. Worse they rank 24th in the world for problem solving abilities. Everywhere you look money is wasted. Parasitic governmental Unions cry for more despite nonperformance. Cut spending and reduce goverment - Stop punishing success than perhaps we will be great again.
Posted by: Bill | Nov 30, 2007 9:53:19 AM
Why does everybody say, Clinton is more experienced than Obama? Do you count eight years of preparing state banquets, smiling and waving as significant experience?
Posted by: Julian | Dec 1, 2007 10:14:24 AM
Another example of the continued dishonestly and manipulation by Obama.
Barack Obama is drawing Hugh skepticism RECRUITING NON-IOWANS TO THE IOWAN caucus. NO OTHER CANDIDATES are systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses like Obama
“Barack Obama” brochure “If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your neighborhood. The brochure gives instructions about where to call or go online for information about where to caucus”
David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, the state’s leading political commentator, wrote “The Illinois Caucus” that the effort to increase participation by out-of-staters “risks offending long-time Iowa residents.” And he’s correct! “Given that students in Iowa’s colleges and universities are from Obama’s neighboring home state of Illinois, the effort could net him thousands of additional votes on caucus night,” Yespen wrote. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans. NO OTHER POLITICAN Democrat or Republican is sending bogus literature recruiting out-of-state voters to manipulate IOWA Caucuses,
Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:
“I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign's attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. ... ‘New Politics’ shouldn't be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa."
As an IOWAN who was on the fence between Sen Clinton and obama, this seals my vote for CLINTON! This guy is showing he will cheat, lie and steal to win; we already have that in a President. CLINTON IS THE TRUE CHANGE IN 2008
Posted by: Iowa for Clinton | Dec 2, 2007 8:32:24 AM
SEriously people, Ron Paul is the only person who isn't owned by the media, and he's the only one that knows how to save this downhill country of ours. Time to wise up or we will definately hit the point where nuclear weapons kill us all off.
Posted by: David | Dec 5, 2007 3:29:21 PM
Why is there so much Clinton bashing? I think Hillary is smart, capable and experienced.She will make a great president!
Posted by: Dr Maung | Dec 13, 2007 2:51:45 AM
I think supporter of Ron Paul have a point.
Posted by: Cynthia Joffrion | Dec 15, 2007 12:23:14 AM
A vote for anyone other than Ron Paul is a vote for "give me more of the same". Wake up third party members, this is the same Ron Paul that ran last time.
Posted by: Bill Gorisek | Dec 16, 2007 6:19:02 AM
Americans must be sleep walking. It looks like If Donald Duck was the Democratic nominee and Mickey Mouse was the Republican nominee we would have a duck or a mouse for our next President. This is not a sporting event where we have to stick with the home team. Its our country, which these same "Democrates" and "Republicans" that we blindly fall behind, have managed to, Spend us into an obscene debt, make us the bad guy in the world and create an out of control government whose members spend most of their time in office campaigning for the next election while big business runs the country. If Vagas will take the bet I'll lay down 100 to one that if any of the now front running nominees from either party wins, NOTHING WILL CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.
Posted by: Bill Gorisek | Dec 16, 2007 7:04:51 AM
If the evangelicals continue the takeover of the Republican Party, even I will vote Democrat of for a Third Party. And if an untested Obama becomes the nominee we will be in for another Bay of Pigs or the equivalent (Remember Jack and Bobby), I will be looking for a Third Party.
The only solid candidate, with honesty and integrity: McCain.
Posted by: Herb Phillipson | Dec 31, 2007 8:22:24 AM
Post a comment
