Well golly - it would look really su$picious if Hillary raked in all the unions. Need to route a few through Dodd and Biden who'll throw their support to Hillary when they drop out.

It is true polls in Iowa are meaningless until very close to the caucus. There are several reason for this. The main reason is national polling organizations (Gallop, ABC, Washington Post, etc.) conduct polls that are flawed to begin with. Anyone who has taken a college level statistics class will tell you one of the first rolls for a poll to be valid is to start with a proper polling sample. The more narrowly defined your group the better your odds of obtaining legitimate information (you can still introduce polling bias, by the manner in which you frame your question, the lack of rotating available responses, etc.). If the community/group is narrow, your poll sample needs to reflect that narrow community. If you are polling for a primary election for a state race, a good (statistically valid) polling sample should include a large number of randomly selected prior primary voters, as they are more likely to vote in the primary you are polling on. A random poll for a primary of all registered voters, without regard to past primary voting decreases the reliability of the poll. This is even more true with a caucus poll. Voting in Iowa is quick and easy, and can be done by mail, prior to election day etc., a caucus is a major time commitment. They last on average over 2 hours. The greatest predictor of likely caucus attendance is past attendance. A poll of likely caucus goers needs  a sample that consists overwhelmingly of independently confirmed (not by the person being polled) prior caucus goers. Any poll where the sample is not made up of at least 90% independently confirmed prior caucus attendee's will be flawed, the larger the number in the sample that are not independently confirmed  prior caucus attendee's the less reliable the poll. The reason this is important is because the highest caucus attendance years have been in 88 and 04, neither year exceeded 20% attendance, usually attendance is in the low teens. The Washington Post ABC poll was of 500 randomly selected registered democrats. That poll was flawed on its face, its information was meaningless-although no main stream media outlet mentioned the flaw with the sample in their reporting. Statistically if you poll 500 randomly selected registered Iowa democrats 400 of those polled have not and will not attend a caucus.  This is no different than if you were to do a poll on the quality of education in Iowa, and you polled 100 Iowan and 400 Minnesotans, and passed the results off as how Iowans view the state of education in Iowa, it would rightly be viewed as a joke. The organizations polls would also be rightly viewed as a joke, if people were fully informed as to the improper polling sample.

The state parties own the caucus lists and they sell these lists (to help defray the cost of the caucuses, which are expenses of the political parties, not the state) for 100,000. No polling company is going to fork over 100,000 for political polling. Instead they use state voter registration lists that can be purchased by the state at substantial less costs.

This is the main reason the polls were so off in 03/04. Lieberman was in 3rd according to the polls in August. No one on the ground in Iowa thought he was in third, he had no support at all. No one (relatively speaking) was attending his events, he couldn't even find active Jewish Democrats to host events, less than 20 days after a poll showing him with double digit support and in third place in Iowa Lieberman dropped out of Iowa to concentrate on NH. In November even though he had given up on the state over 2 months earlier Lieberman had only dropped to 4th in the "polling". He wasn't even coming to Iowa when debates were being held here. At the caucus he received 0% of the vote (He tied Sharpton) While I don't doubt that Edwards is currently first in Iowa (and neither Clinton or Obama are neck and neck or dead even with him as the MSM keeps indicating) and either Obama and Clinton or Clinton then Obama are next, their support is no where near what the polls show. Richardson is polling in 4th, but those numbers reflect his large TV ad buys i.e. name recognition. Richardson has lost support since May, people feel he is qualified, but can't campaign on a national scale. On the ground Richardson is in 5th place at best. If you base support on attendance at events, bumper stickers, and buzz, then Biden is in fourth right now.

While Dodd is right the polls mean nothing. He doesn't have a chance in Iowa as long as Biden is in the race. People look at Dodd, and they see him as qualified, competent, etc, but they can't think of any reason to support him over Sen. Biden. The best Dodd can hope for is a 5th place finish in Iowa (leap frogging over Richardson, as he continues his fall).

If things on the ground in Iowa continue, once again the national media will be shocked at the results. Much will be there own fault, because they continue to place too much stock in polls that are invalid to begin with.  

Its fitten that the unions would support Hillary. Most union workers I know want something for nothing.
Hillary would be the worst president out of all the liberal democrates.

A song about pools-"Fly Me To the Moon"-Frank Sinatra

And polls

WOW Sara!  A lot of info there.  I do hope you're correct that the folks in Iowa are looking at Biden and Dodd.  And I hope they leap frog the top tier as well as Richardson.  Richard I'd disagree completely with your comments.  Dodd and Biden are both in to win, they aren't playing Clinton's lap dogs.  And I'd hope people would look at the firefighter's choice of who to back and maybe take look at that candidate too.  We're not talking about a fringe group. These are the men and women that come to save your house, pull you out of a crashed car and maybe get your cat out of a tree.  

The dichotomy of this is interesting.  “Polls don't mean spit” - "Dodd doesn't mean spit”.

It works!

John Edwards in 08!

Pete, Hartford, CT I agree that both Biden and Dodd are running to win. Richardson has already said he would take he VP spot, Biden has specifically and clearly stated he would not take the VP position, or accept the secretary of State position. I haven't heard or read Dodd on that issue.

I think that Richardson is qualified and would be a good President, but on the ground in Iowa he has lost a lot of support. I was supporting him in March, because of his diverse career, Hispanic heritage, and being a governor I felt he had the best chance to win in Nov 08. I was willing to ignore the fact he has the highest NRA rating of all candidates (even the GOP) in exchange for electability. However, not only did he do really poor in the first debate, and a couple of others. He hasn't impressed people on the stump. He has seemed disorganized, and hasn't made a very good impression. I was really surprised, because I met him in Seattle at a convention and was really impressed. He has had great ads, which increased his name ID which is all the polls are measuring right now. But he  hasn't been impressive before groups in Iowa. And then he's done some rather dumb things, like say homosexuality is a choice at the gay forum in LA, and then the next day say he doesn't believe it, but was suffering from jet lag. And then the following week he pulled out of the Hawkeye Labor Council forum(a group of all the major unions in Eastern Iowa, where more than 2/3 of the state live) a week before the forum, despite having agreed to be there 3 months earlier. This didn't only piss off labor, but the article in the paper caused Democrats who don't care about labor to think he screwed up big time. His reason was he wanted to get a good night sleep before the morning debate on ABC. If he was the only one who was going to be at the forum that would have been one thing, but all the other candidates were at the labor council forum (which was a fund raiser for their PAC)even though had to get up early the next morning. At the livestrong forum Richardson was asked how his life has been touched by cancer, does he have any family members close friends who've had cancer, and his response confirms my suspicion that he either doesn't listen well to the question, or he has an hearing problem, and could use a hearing aid. His response was about him, and his health, not whether any family member or friend has had cancer. He started out saying "I've been lucky. I've made good lifestyle choices..." The young women behind me groaned and said "not again"  (thinking about the gay=choice), and the person next to me, who is leaning Richardson said he doesn't look like he is making good lifestyle choices referring to his weight) It was also seen as a bit insensitive of a comment to make given the first 10 rows were reserved for people battling cancer. During one local visit to a small town that was covered on the 10 PM news he's talking with the people at a small town diner and starts eating french fries off this guys plate. He might have thought that was acceptable, or "down home", but it turned off a lot of people. I could go on, and on regarding why caucus goers in Iowa have turned away from him in the last few months who were supporting him, or haven't given him a good look. It maybe unfair, but it is part of the weeding out process, if you don't make a good impression it is hard to recover. I've had people tell me how stupid I was to contribute to his campaign in March, and I admit I wish I could have that money back now.

I didn't mean to leave you with the impression that I think Dodd is likely to do better than 5th (jumping over Richardson only), or that Biden and Dodd's chances were equal. Biden is connecting with people and impressing them, people like Dodd, but he hasn't been as impressive as Biden, and the feeling is why go with Dodd, when Biden has more experience etc. Biden has the chance to surprise the MSM at the caucus, just like Edwards and Kerry did in 04.

The firefighters are a great group, and will work hard for Dodd, but I don't see that helping him like it did Kerry.

Hey Sara, I am a Biden supporter myself because I think he is the most qualified candidate and has the best plan on Iraq.

Is Biden gaining much support in Iowa? Do you think there is a chance at a third or second place finish for him? I would like to see him suprise everyone and finish second in the caucus. I think Dodd and Biden are very similar in most issues and I think they should be impressing people with their experience, I would like to see Dodd send his support behind Biden, the firefighters could help Joe because it can show the rest of America how pro-worker he is.

President Dodd- doesn't sound to bad to me.

Good insight sarah. How about Obama? How is he doing in  IOWA ?

Sara, I agree about Richardson he has been incredibly disappointing.  I from CT so I'm compelled to back my man Dodd.  He's a good Senator that I believe would be able to get things done in the White House.  He always wins be large majorities here in CT no matter what you may see out here in blogland.  I also like Biden and believe he would make a good President too.  I just wish the media would give more coverage to the 2nd tier so people can make their own decisions.  Margaret, I hope there are more of us out there!

Patrick, Cape May NJ:

It is hard to gauge with complete accuracy in late August, but it sure seems like Sen. Biden is gaining a lot of support, not only from undecideds but even from people who previously committed to a candidate. Monday August 20th over 120 people attended a open house party (it would be like a town hall meeting, but located at a home). People came either because they were called by the campaign and notified of the event (about 1/2 the people there), or because like all campaign events it was listed in the "caucus news" section of the newspaper, the day before and day of the event. For late August, and the evening before school starts this was a really good turn out. Many people who were previously supporting Obama and Clinton decided to change their support after hearing Sen. Biden.

Last night I attended a book signing at Barnes and Noble the 100 folding chairs set out were all taken. I and another 30+ were leaning against the back wall, and the book shelves. In between the rows of book shelves there were a lot more people. I'd guess an additional 50. Mark Doyle Sen. Biden's aide said this was the largest group ever for one of these events. Given he has had them in far larger communities on the east coast, than Cedar Rapids, that seems to me an indication of high interest.

Prior to last night I didn't think I could be more impressed with Sen. Biden, because I already am/was very impressed. I have met Bill Clinton five times while he was President, who is so impressive, and I've met every current (Democratic) candidate except Gravel, and all the Democrat candidates since 1988, except those who ran in 1992, when all candidates skipped Iowa because Sen. Harkin was running. I thought I had reached the ceiling where I could not be any more impressed with SEn. Biden or any candidate, and yet last night at Barnes and Noble he blew me away. He spoke first about the book, read some passages that were well chosen, and well received, and then opened it up for questions. The breadth of his knowledge on all subject rivaled, and maybe surpassed Bill Clintons. His composure, and ability to relate to people was equal to Bill Clinton. This nut interrupts and asks a question regarding the fair tax, and violated Sen. Biden's personal space. Instead of asking the question from the side of the room where he was initially standing he actually approached Biden, gave him a piece of paper promoting the fair tax plan, and kept talking after he had expressed his opinion, pointing to the book shelve where the full plan is laid out. (Ironically judging from his looks- clothing etc.,- which I know is wrong to do- he actually looks like the type who would be screwed under a fair tax or VAT plan) You could see/feel the disappointment among the crowd. Polite whispers regarding the jerk, etc. Several people spoke out and told him to back off that they came to hear the Senator not him. No one would have thought less of Biden if he had said nothing, or told the guy off. Instead he said "No its ok, let him talk" to the audience and then Biden quickly explained some of the plans proposals, told the guy he would be very happy to talk with him in depth about his views and the plan after the book signing, if he was willing to wait. He said he'd give him all the time he needed. Prior to the guy speaking up, the Barnes and Noble manager had said it was now past time to start signing books. Sen. Biden told the group that if anyone had any other questions he'd be happy to stay and answer them after he signed the books. It took over an hour for him to sign all the books. Between 1/3 and 1/2 those for the first hour+ talk waited until all the books were signed (another hour +)to listen to and ask additional questions. I was at Kerry's book signing held about the same time of year in 03, and there was no way near the turn out, and he just signed books, shook hands, and posed for photos. Sen. Biden stayed until just before close, and people were impressed.

The short answer to your question is yes I think he is gaining support in Iowa, and HE CAN WIN IOWA, not just finish 2nd or 3rd. What it will take is people from other states to start donating to his campaign (I've donated past my current ability, and will continue to do so until I reach the cap). Unfortunately people believe the MSM that this is a 3 way race, and as a result are reluctant to donate to a candidate they mistakenly believe is out of the running. Dodd is getting more money due to his position on the banking committee, and Richardson because of the perception he will be the VP nominee. It isn't a 3 way race, and Sen. Biden is very much in the running. The media learned nothing from 03/04. Although David Brooks on "he Chris Matthews" show last Saturday, (not hardball) said that he thinks that the Democrats will be looking for a candidate with experience for 08, and he would not be surprised if Biden won Iowa, because of that.

I agree it'd be great if Sen. Dodd, who is a close friend of Sen. Biden's realized he does not have a chance in Iowa and threw his support around Sen. Biden, but unfortunately I don't see that happening.

Bee,

Obama is loved in Iowa. When my son and I first met him the Sunday before the 06 election he vowed never to wash his hands again. (which fortunately lasted only hours) Obama has done well with large crowds and more intimate gatherings. He will do well in Iowa and I expect him to finish in the top three. I would not be surprised to see him finish third and still ahead of Hillary. But I would probably have a heart attack if he won Iowa. What holds Obama back is experience. Even a partner of mine who is strongly leaning Obama is concerned about that. Iowan's really evaluate candidates on electability.  The fear my partner expressed after we went to a luncheon where Obama spoke, is that in November 08 if the opponent is Guillani that even some people with Obama stickers on their car will be influenced by the fear of how he would handle another attack, and in the voting both vote for the GOP candidate. A lot of people want to support Obama, but are being held back by the experience issue. While Obama's response re: judgment is more important than experience is appealing, the problem isn't just the Iraq war. Also most people in Iowa don't put that much weight in the fact he publicly was against the war in 02. If he had been in the Senate and voted against the war at the time, that would count for a lot, but just like Dean in the end wasn't able to parlay his public stance against the war prior to the war vote into a victory, it won't have a huge effect for Obama in Iowa. The lack of experience relates to a lot of issues. More than any candidate I've seen in Iowa he has been unable to answer a question because he has no knowledge of the federal program he's being asked about, or the military project, etc. He's honest and admits he's unfamiliar with the program, project etc, but it is a concern.

Peter

I like Dodd, and I think he's probably the second best candidate out there. But realistically he just doesn't have support. If Biden weren't in the race he could possibly be a long shot, but he's viewed as Biden lite, that maybe 10000% unfair, but it is how he is perceived. I have actually felt bad about the lack of interest we in Iowa are showing him. The only negative I hear about Dodd is the age of his children, people think he's too old to have kids that young. It is a stupid thing, but I've heard it many times.

Your right it would be nice if the MSM would report a bit more fairly on the candidates. I feel bad for Edwards, at the Livestrong forum he was by far the most well received, after John was Kucinich, then Clinton, then Richardson. The fact that Kucinich had a more robust response from the audience than Clinton was impressive, because 20% of those there at the start had left after Edwards, in part because they only came to see those two, and the program had run long, and was 10 minutes from the scheduled completion time, before Richardson came out. And yet if you watched MSNBC (the most fair of the cable channels) you would have thought the crowd was wild about Hillary, etc.

President Dodd- doesn't sound to bad to me.


You spelled it wrong.

It's "President Dudd".

I live in Iowa, and I have heard all of the candidates who have been to Southeast Iowa, some only twice or more and John Edwards maybe six times.  Beyond that, I read voraciously--books and online, and I have volunteered in the political process for years.  I typically attend the caucus and plan to again in '08----and I have never yet been contacted by a pollster to declare who I will support.  

Joseph Biden has not made a dent in Southeast Iowa where I live.  Hilary Clinton has a following here, but too many of us are not disposed toward being "told" by the media (or the Republicans) that she is the front-runner and we should all get on the bandwagon.   If the Republicans are talking and talking about her, I am concerned there's truth to the belief that if she's nominated, it will mobilize the Republican base and we will have a much bigger fight to win the Presidency back than if another Democratic candidate is chosen.
  Frankly, I was not impressed at all by Obama (other than his ability to give an inspiring speech at the Democratic Convention one year)---and I was disposed to like him because of that speech.   He talks a lot, but he says very little.  He's careful and his speeches are full of rhetoric that can be inspiring, but I"m looking for what a candidate has actually done and how he plans to translate goals into what he can actually do if he were president.  I don't see or hear that with Obama.    The first time I ever heard John Edwards, I was so impressed, and left feeling and saying that "Someday, that man is going to be President.  Not in 2000, but he will someday."   I like the man and what he stands for and his fire, and I like his plans and his ability to talk about them and to make me believe that those plans will happen.  
NOW, . . . .after saying all of that. . . I am actually planning to caucus for Senator Christopher Dodd.  I have heard him speak three times and again have actively read a lot about this man.   I am so impressed with him.  This is a man with incrediable political WORK experience and relevant life experiences, yet he is held in high regard and respect by people from both parties and in both sections of Congress.   Although he has authored many important bills in Congress over the years----the one that amazes me and is the most telling of his character, perseverance and commitment
is his work in passing the FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT that he authored.  As he says, it took him "SEVEN YEARS, TWO PRESIDENTS and THREE VETOES" before he was finally able to shepherd it through Congress with bi-partisan support.   This is a HUGE accomplishment that means the world to ordinary every-day workers who finally got someone in Congress to actually represent them and provide them with some help that means something.   I worked with a young client who had three small children, went through a divorce and developed aggressive breast cancer.  Her insurance on her job was the only thing allowing her to obtain treatment, including some new drugs that cost $2,500 per shot.  Keeping that job was paramount, despite the fact that all of the treatment made her sick and the drugs made it likely that she could contract colds, pneumonia and infections if she had to deal with the public and small children---and, of course, her job required that.  The FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT saved her life.   She was able to be off work when she absolutely couldn't work, and her job waited for her to come back---and her insurance covered her because she still had her job.    That woman owes her life not only to her doctors' skills, the new drugs and her own determination to live, but to Senator Christopher Dodd who was determined to represent the ordinary citizen who is not rich enough to have resources outside their jobs. He is a man who I believe can UNITE this country, not further divide it.  WE NEED this kind of man as President at this time in our history.    This man believes this country has to continue manufacturing---we can't send our jobs overseas and give these companies tax breaks to do it.  He is known as "The Children's Senator" because of his active and enduring commitment to children and to their health needs and their education.   Although I could say more, I'd rather that you become curious about how I have arrived at my decision and check out through reading, research, investigation and personally meeting the candidates  in order to decide for yourselves who the nominee ought to be.   Please do not let the soundbites, the newspaper articles and the fundraising totals lead you to a decision based on inevitability.  
If people would spend more time actually READING about what these candidates have actually done in their work, their accomplishments, their beliefs and NOT just what the pollsters, journalists and media have to say (or more often, only say about the top-tier) we'd have a President we deserve and who doesn't disappoint---after he gets the job----as has happened especially this past eight years.  

You may come to a different conclusion than I have, but my conclusion is:   This country will be LUCKY to have Senator Christopher Dodd as our next president!

Shy

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):