ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Oh-eight (D): Is Hillary too scripted?

Posted: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 9:13 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under:

The toplines of the New York Times/CBS polls: In Iowa, Clinton is at 25%, Edwards at 23%, and Obama at 22%, with Richardson the only other Dem in double digits at 12%. In New Hampshire, Clinton leads with 37%, followed by Obama at 22%, and Edwards at 9%.

The Times: "Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire — the states that begin the presidential nominating battle — say Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards are more likely than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to say what they believe, rather than what they think voters want to hear. But they also view Mrs. Clinton as the best prepared and most electable Democrat in the field, the polls found."

CLINTON: The Los Angeles Times’ news analysis asks this question: "Is Clinton campaign too scripted?" "No presidential campaign likes surprises, but Clinton's operation may be unmatched in its discipline. The current front-runner for the Democratic nomination hews to her message and avoids messy campaign leaks and personnel drama. Still, by planting questions at what are supposed to be unscripted question-and-answer sessions with Iowa voters, Clinton may have fed perceptions that her campaign is too programmed for its own good, Democratic strategists said.”

More: “The episode followed a Democratic debate in Philadelphia where Clinton was widely faulted for offering ambiguous and perhaps overly calculated answers on Iraq, immigration and Social Security."

The Boston Globe: “In the past week, the Democratic nomination fight has become more of a referendum on the Clinton years and whether Bill Clinton brought the good life to middle-class Americans or squandered eight years in compromise and scandal.”

The New York Daily News says the student who asked the planted question “said Tuesday the staffer who gave her the question took it from a sheet in a binder that had seven other questions for people to ask.”
 
On the heels of a poll showing Spitzer’s approval rating plummeting and a lack of public support for his driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants plan, the New York governor is now scrapping the plan.

A new Quinnipiac poll in Ohio, meanwhile, shows that new Clinton supporter, Gov. Ted Strickland (D), might not help if he's on the ticket. "Strickland was overwhelmingly elected in November 2006, only 13 percent of Ohio voters, including 20 percent of Democrats, are more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket next year if Strickland is running as Vice President. Eleven percent of voters say they are less likely to vote for a Strickland ticket and 68 percent say it won't affect their vote."

The Hill takes a look at campaign spending by state, and notes that Clinton has increased her spending in South Carolina. 

EDWARDS: The Los Angeles Times looks at the new Edwards Iowa is seeing: "When Edwards first ran for president in 2004, he told Iowans that if they were looking for a candidate who would attack fellow Democrats, ‘I'm not your guy.’ But in a series of recent appearances in Iowa, Edwards peppered his speeches with barbs about his primary competitors, particularly front-runner Clinton.”

“Iowans embraced Edwards in the 2004 race, pushing him to a second-place finish in the caucuses that helped him land the nomination for vice president. Now, most analysts agree that Edwards must win Iowa's caucuses on Jan. 3 to have a shot at the 2008 nomination. Some voters are welcoming his tactics, saying candidates need to differentiate themselves. But others wonder whether Iowa voters will align themselves with a candidate who attacks his rivals."

The former North Carolina senator becomes the first Dem candidate to make a major TV buy in South Carolina. The ad is Edwards speaking in front a textile mill that his father worked in. 

“Edwards drew flak Tuesday for a new TV ad in which he says he would cut off health insurance from members of Congress if they didn't pass a universal health care plan within his first six months as president,” the Des Moines Register writes. The Clinton campaign called it “unconstitutional gimmickry,” and the Register contacted Edwards by phone and “acknowledged that a president would not have the power to unilaterally pull health care coverage from federal employees or members of Congress.”

OBAMA: The Chicago Sun-Times' Sweet reports that Obama yesterday “disclosed the amounts his very top fund-raisers -- called bundlers -- are pulling in for his presidential campaign. Initially, Obama's campaign revealed the names of people who raised at least $50,000 for him; now the campaign is disclosing the elite superbundlers -- those raising $100,000 and $200,000. There are 327 Obama superbundlers, including couples listed as a single unit.”

“Obama is disclosing more information than chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is willing to reveal about the amounts her top players are raising. Clinton's campaign puts out a list of her "Hillraisers," bundlers who are responsible for generating at least $100,000.”

At Google headquarters today, Obama will unveil his innovation and technology agenda. He will say, per excerpts his campaign gave First Read: “To seize this moment, we have to use technology to open up our democracy. It’s no coincidence that one of the most secretive Administrations in history has favored special interests and pursued policies that could not stand up to sunlight. As President, I’ll change that. I’ll put government data online in universally accessible formats. I’ll let citizens track federal grants, contracts, earmarks, and lobbyist contacts. I’ll let you participate in government forums, ask questions in real time, offer suggestions that will be reviewed before decisions are made, and let you comment on legislation before it is signed. And to ensure that every government agency is meeting 21st century standards, I’ll appoint the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer.”

The Columbia State front-pages Obama’s chances in South Carolina, and it encapsulates what he needs to do in the state: “Obama’s key to victory is distinguishing himself from front-runner Clinton -- particularly in the eyes of African-American voters … who are expected to cast about half of all Democratic votes and who hold allegiances to the Clinton name.”

The San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci argues that Obama’s next campaign move has to be to cross the racial divide in order inspire people of all races as the Democratic nominee. This jump in campaign strategy involves bridging the gap between simply being a distinguished presidential candidate and becoming “the Tiger Woods of American politics.” 
 
RICHARDSON: Per his campaign, Richardson last night attended a fundraiser tonight hosted by former Chrysler head Lee Iacocca -- who has endorsed the New Mexico governor -- and actor Martin Sheen. The event was held at Iacocca’s home in California, and it featured more than 100 Hollywood VIPs, including Jon Feltheimer, Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Lionsgate; Steve Papazian, President, Worldwide Production, Warner Bros. Pictures; and Ed Lammi, executive vice president of production at Sony Pictures Television.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Too scripted?  No.  Too stupid?  Yes!
Mike K, Denver

Which source, about Iowa polling?  The polls (except the Hawkeye poll released in late Oct, which didn't even sample registered voters, it called residential households!) don't obtain their sample from the caucus lists, these lists are property of the political parties (call the Iowa Democratic or GOP party- I don't have a written source- but it's a fact)

The parties charge an enormous fee for the lists, all credible candidates purchase the lists, and the candidates internal polling comes from random samples of prior caucus goers. No public poll has ever used random samples of previous caucus goers. Source: Look at the polling data it will tell you where they obtained their sample. They will usually state their sample was obtained from a random sample of registered voters (except the Hawkeye poll which indicated it came from residential households). The polling data usually has information on their methodology.

Source of 80% of registered Democrats don't attend caucuses. You can get the information from many sources, I've seen sources that indicate 6% ( or maybe it was 3% I think 3)of eligible caucus goers attend the caucus. To obtain this figure they (It was in a Des Moines Register story) use the number of Iowans 18 or older by the  general election, compared to the small number who attended the last caucus. This number will be so low because it included independents, and GOP when there really wasn't a reason to go in 04, and people who have never registered to vote.

The 20% figure can be obtained by looking at the number of registered democrats in Iowa in January of 04 (you can get this from the Iowa Secretary of state website)and compare it with the 04 Democratic caucus turn out of 124,000. You will get 20% (not exactly but under 21%-close to 20% than 21%). 1988 and 2004 had the highest Democratic turn out. The state historical museum in Des Moines also has a lot of this information in their caucus exhibit, they might  also have a website, I've never checked.

To arrive at "likely caucus goers" the polls ask the people on the phone whether they plan on attending the caucus. Relying on respondents saying they'll attend, as opposed to paying for the actual 04 list, results in far more people saying they'll attend than ever have attended. George Gallup discovered in the 50's that a large percent of people polled will say they are going to vote, but when they checked those who said they were voting against those that actually did close to 20% of the people who said they were going to vote in the Presidential election did not vote.

Social scientist have known for a long time that people will say what makes them appear civic minded in polls. It is why they look at whether the people surveyed think the country or their neighbor would vote for a Hispanic, and not what they say they'll do. All the caucus polls show more people claiming they'll caucus than ever do. Given caucus attendance has never exceeded 20% in Iowa it is reasonable to expect that only 20% of random registered voters will attend their caucus.

This is the reason that caucus polling in 03 and 04 was way off. It was because the sample reflected name ID and public perception, not actual likely caucus goers.

If you want to know the source of Biden being the second choice of many 04 caucus goers, that is coming from sources within many campaigns. I think the Register may have also reported this but I'm not 100% sure on that.
Mike K, Denver

Which source, about Iowa polling?  The polls (except the Hawkeye poll released in late Oct, which didn't even sample registered voters, it called residential households!) don't obtain their sample from the caucus lists, these lists are property of the political parties (call the Iowa Democratic or GOP party- I don't have a written source- but it's a fact)

The parties charge an enormous fee for the lists, all credible candidates purchase the lists, and the candidates internal polling comes from random samples of prior caucus goers. No public poll has ever used random samples of previous caucus goers. Source: Look at the polling data it will tell you where they obtained their sample. They will usually state their sample was obtained from a random sample of registered voters (except the Hawkeye poll which indicated it came from residential households). The polling data usually has information on their methodology.

Source of 80% of registered Democrats don't attend caucuses. You can get the information from many sources, I've seen sources that indicate 6% ( or maybe it was 3% I think 3)of eligible caucus goers attend the caucus. To obtain this figure they (It was in a Des Moines Register story) use the number of Iowans 18 or older by the  general election, compared to the small number who attended the last caucus. This number will be so low because it included independents, and GOP when there really wasn't a reason to go in 04, and people who have never registered to vote.

The 20% figure can be obtained by looking at the number of registered democrats in Iowa in January of 04 (you can get this from the Iowa Secretary of state website)and compare it with the 04 Democratic caucus turn out of 124,000. You will get 20% (not exactly but under 21%-close to 20% than 21%). 1988 and 2004 had the highest Democratic turn out. The state historical museum in Des Moines also has a lot of this information in their caucus exhibit, they might  also have a website, I've never checked.

To arrive at "likely caucus goers" the polls ask the people on the phone whether they plan on attending the caucus. Relying on respondents saying they'll attend, as opposed to paying for the actual 04 list, results in far more people saying they'll attend than ever have attended. George Gallup discovered in the 50's that a large percent of people polled will say they are going to vote, but when they checked those who said they were voting against those that actually did close to 20% of the people who said they were going to vote in the Presidential election did not vote.

Social scientist have known for a long time that people will say what makes them appear civic minded in polls. It is why they look at whether the people surveyed think the country or their neighbor would vote for a Hispanic, and not what they say they'll do. All the caucus polls show more people claiming they'll caucus than ever do. Given caucus attendance has never exceeded 20% in Iowa it is reasonable to expect that only 20% of random registered voters will attend their caucus.

This is the reason that caucus polling in 03 and 04 was way off. It was because the sample reflected name ID and public perception, not actual likely caucus goers.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=465954

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google