March Senate Predictions

I’m going to forecast some Senate races in 2008. These are obviously extremely preliminary, but early polling data can give us a rough estimate over what to expect in the fall. And I decided to be gutsy and not lump them into “Democratic favored” or “leans” categories…

I’ll keep up with Senate race predictions on my new “Senate Races” section.

Democrats Keep: (11 seats)

Pryor (D-AK), Biden (D-DE), Durbin (D-IL), Kerry (D-MA), Levin (D-MI), Reed (D-RI), Rockefeller (D-WV), Harkin (D-IA), Baucus (D-MT), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Johnson (D-SD)

Republicans Keep: (14 seats)

Stevens (R-AK), Sessions (R-AL), Chambliss (R-GA), McConnell (R-KY), Wicker (R-MS), Dole (R-NC), Inhofe (R-OK), Graham (R-SC), Alexander (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Roberts (R-KA), Cochran (R-MS), Enzi (R-WY), Barrasso (R-WY)

Democratic Takeover: Close races but are currently trending Democratic takeover (4 seats)

Norm Coleman (R-MN) to Al Franken, John Sununu (R-NH) to Jeanne Shaheen, Pete Dominici (R-NM) to Tom Udell, Open Seat to Mark Warner (D-VA)

Republican Takeover (1 seat)

Mary Landreau (D-LA) to John Kennedy

Too Close: Close races with no clear front-runner (3 seats)

Bob Schaffer vs. Tom Udall- Colorado, Gordon Smith (R-OR) vs. No Clear Challanger, Susan Collins (R-ME) vs. Tom Allen

I put in the “too close” category because there are truly a few races that will be very close in November, or at least they’re trending that way right now. Republicans Smith, Collins, Sununu and Coleman are vulnerable while Democrats have their eyes on open seats in Virginia & Colorado. If everything goes as planned for the Democrats, they could walk away with a net gain of 5 seats in November, giving them a 56-44 majority in the Senate. It currently looks like, unfortunately, Mary Landreau (D-LA) will lose her seat. In the after math of Hurricane Katrina, thousands of New Orleans residents fled Louisiana, depressing the city’s Democratic electorate. Landreau squeaked by in 2002 (before Katrina). Now it looks like without the base that elected her, she will be unable to win in November. That’s the only bad news for Democrats–and the only reason she is vulnerable is because of the political implications of a natural disaster. Republicans are certainly going to be on the defensive this year.

Once again, this is where I stand as of right now. I’ll post more in depth info about some of these races and new predictions as the year progresses. Public opinion changes, events happen, controversies erupt: you never know what can swing an election.

Obama wins Iowa… again…

Today Iowa had it’s state Democratic convention, and according to NBC’s Chuck Todd:

The state’s 99 county Democratic parties held conventions today and the two campaigns were actively fighting to gain even more pledged delegates. At stake: the 14 pledged delegates John Edwards earned during the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses. Tonight, the Obama campaign claimed a gain of 7 pledged delegates, added to the 16 they earned on Jan. 3.

I averaged out the difference between the major media outlets’ estimates of the delegate lead (Washington Post, New York Times, AP, CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC). Right now Obama has a 123 delegate lead over Clinton, including among superdelegates. Since her Ohio win, she has lost 7 super delegates, while Obama netted 6 today alone. She also lost the Texas caucus, allowing Obama to net more delegates out of Texas.

Update: 
Looks like Obama will gain two more delegates after last night. According to Todd:

Last night, when I reported the net gain of 7 delegates for Obama out of yesterday’s 99 county Democratic conventions, it was based on 96% of conventions reporting. But there were two Cong. districts where Edwards was teetering on the edge of viability, the 1st and the 4th. Well, Edwards teetered the wrong way and Obama netted the delegates. So, here are the final results: … the overall delegate take for each candidate: 25 for Obama (that’s up from 16 during the Jan. 3 caucuses). 14 for Clinton (that’s down one from her 15 during Jan. 3). And 6 hung with Edwards, that’s down from 14 on Jan. 3.

The 2008 Electoral Map

In the first national poll of presidential preferences, SurveyUSA asked 30,000 respondents in all 50 states, if the election were held today, who would you vote for.

The Results:
Both Democrats Beat John McCain
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Hillary Clinton 276
John McCain 262

States Democrats Pick Up:
West Virginia, Arkansas, New Mexico, Ohio, Florida

States Democrats Lose:
Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire

View Clinton/McCain Electoral Map
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Barack Obama 280
John McCain 258

States Democrats Pick Up:
Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia

States Democrats Lose:
Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey

View Obama/McCain Electoral Map

I’m always skeptical of national polls, but it’s interesting that this is the first conducted in all 50 states for the general election.

Obama Crushes Clinton in Iowa

Historic. A junior Senator of African descent has won the Iowa caucus. Really, not only did he win it, he crushed his opponents big time. Iowa, a state which has never elected an African American to office, has elevated Senator Obama to front runner status.

Final Iowa Caucus Results:
Sen. Barack Obama 38%
Fmr. Sen. John Edwards 30%
Sen. Hillary Clinton 29%

It’s a political earthquake to the likes of which this country has never seen. Lets look at the breaking news as Obama emerges victorious Thursday night:
MSNBC (1 min).

CNN: (40 sec)

CNN’s breakdown of what demographics went for who is available here.

Here are some things that I noticed:

1. Youth came out in tremendous numbers to support Obama. In the counties of Iowa State University and the University of Iowa, Obama won in a landslide. CNN reports that 57% of voters between the ages of 17 and 35 voted Obama. Unprecedented for that generation to turn out in such large numbers… a generation which in 2004 only 14% voted in the general election. I think this speaks to the quality of Senator Obama’s message, his call to change, his appeal of newness, his exciting and engaging personality, that excites so many youth.
2. Men and women both went for Obama. Women–a demographic heavily courted by the Clinton campaign broke for Obama 35%, compared with Clinton’s 30%.
3. The wealthy and the poor broke for Obama. He won over caucus-goers who earn less than $50k a year by 34%, and those over $50k a year by 36%. Particularly interesting: 41% of those earning $100k a year + caucused for Obama. John Edwards, who’s entire message has been to fight poverty, was dealt a major blow. His central campaign theme fell upon def ears in many of these precincts: only 19% of those earning under $50k a year voted Edwards, and among the even poorer–less than $15k a year, Edwards lost with only 17%.
4. 51% of Obama’s supporters caucused for him because they find him most likely to bring about change. John Edwards, who’s been echoing the same theme, only had it resonate with 20% of his caucus-goers. Hillary Clinton, who in recent days also harped on the change message, got 19% of Iowa Democrats caucusing for change.
5. In the experience question, the lines couldn’t be more definite: 5% of Obama’s supporters caucused for experience, compared with 49% of Clinton’s supporters who caucused for her experience qualities.
6. Obama and Clinton equally won over union households, 30% apiece. A big upset to Edwards, who counted on union endorsements to put him over the top, received 24% of their support.

What does this mean? Well unprecedented turn out– approx. 230,000 people, nearly double 2004. 20% more independents voted in the Democratic caucus, most of whom went to Barack Obama.

Image from Huffington Post.

Repercussions: Edwards, Clinton dealt a devastating blow, Obama catapults into New Hampshire

I think this is it for John Edwards. This is the best he’s going to do. A second place showing is not enough to catapult him into New Hampshire where he does not have the ground organization or the fund raising reservoirs to compete with Obama and Clinton.

Now Obama has a huge fund raising and psychological advantage. On the fund raising side he’s going to raise millions within the next few days, and Clinton’s Silicon Valley supporters are going to be edgy, soon flooding her offices with calls expressing concern and anxiety over Obama’s feat. Psychologically, Obama has this huge lead in Iowa, which may very well resonate with New Hampshire voters when they read the headlines this morning.

But I’d like to focus specifically on John Edwards. He appeared on Larry King last night and had an interesting, yet hypocritical, spin to his second (nearly third) place showing. He said the Obama campaign won because they outspent him by millions and millions of dollars in advertising (nearly $9 million) and yet he beat the Clinton campaign who, as he said, also spent millions and millions of dollars ($7 million). He pointed to how little advertising he’s been doing in recent weeks, and his second place showing as a sign of momentum.

I say baloney. Edwards has been camped out in Iowa for the past 4 years, it’s devastating to his campaign that he did not capture the first place victory that they were dependent upon to bounce him into New Hampshire. It’s a equally devastating that the Clinton camp spent $7 million dollars in advertising–in the end, equal to Edwards’ time spent in Iowa. How hypocritical to suggest that one person spends millions, but hey, I beat the other person who spent millions as well, and point to the millions that person spent as a burden you’ve overcome. You can’t take two people who’ve spent millions, lose to one, win to the other, and say that spending millions is a burden you’ve overcome.

But enough about John Edwards, I think his economic populism will certainly not be able to turn out the massive amounts of independents to win in NH, nor will it appeal to the libertarianism of New Hampshire voters. I predict that after New Hampshire he’ll become increasingly irrelevant. (Thinking back to his 4th place finish in 2004).

Let’s begin to look at New Hampshire, at least initially. Polling there shows a tight race, like Iowa. Edwards attempted to spin it tonight on Larry King as still a three way race, but polls show a different story. This will be a Clinton-Obama show down.

The big question, can an Obama Iowa victory be the “umph” he needs to win New Hampshire? Well, he certainly has a catapult.

Franklin-Pierce, Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 32%
Obama 28%

CNN/WMUR, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%

American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 27%

Obama clearly within shooting range of Clinton in all these polls. I think within the next few days we’ll see some interesting new numbers come out of New Hampshire that show some kind of bounce. Of course he’ll still have to invest millions into the state and campaign hard, but hey, Hillary looks beatable, and independents may realize he’s their guy.

Equally bad for the Clinton camp: both her electability and inevitability arguments have been destroyed. Clinton is no longer seen as the most electable Democrat, and her aura of inevitability, that shield that we saw in earlier debates, has been punctured.

Of final notes in terms of political repercussions. Biden and Dodd drop out, Gravel, despite MSNBC’s report that he dropped out, is actually still in. Kucinich is to compete in New Hampshire. Earlier reports of deal making between Richardson and Obama and Biden and Obama have been publicly denounced, but were privately encouraged. Reports Political Wire: “Multiple reports — such as this one from The Hotline — confirming that Biden and Richardson backers are being urged to support Obama.” And this video from David Gregory.

Tracking More from Iowa

I feel as though I spent a considerable amount of space giving credit to the DMR poll, which as I outlined below, feel was significant. With that said, there are several other indicators that paint a different picture in Iowa.

Polling Data

Strategic Vision, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Edwards 29%
Clinton 27%

Des Moines Register, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 24%

CNN/ Opinion Research Corp., Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%
Edwards 22%

Insider Advantage, Dec. 30, 2007
Clinton 30%
Edwards 29%
Obama 22%

American Research Group, Dec. 29, 2007
Clinton 31%
Obama 24%
Edwards 24%

Mason-Dixon, Dec. 29, 2007
Edwards 24%
Clinton 23%
Obama 22%

Quad-City Times, Dec. 28, 2007
Obama 29%
Clinton 29%
Edwards 28%

Analysis: It’s all over the place. Whoever you’re for, congratulations because they’re doing well. Above is a chart from Wikipedia monitoring all the data averaging it into linear regression. Real Clear Politics did the same thing and came up with (for Iowa only) Clinton averaging only 1.1% overall. Obama has clearly been gaining, as has Edwards at the expense of Hillary Clinton. As you see on the graph above, the number of undecideds have also come down as we approach the caucus. It’s interesting how more undecideds turned to Edwards and Obama than Clinton.

Campaign Finances
2.3 million Iowans
$40 million spent in political advertising
= $150-$200/caucus-goer in Iowa

Without a doubt, the front runners are digging deep into campaign warchests. CNN reports that Barack Obama leads the field in spending for Iowa:

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois far outpaces any other candidate when it comes to ad spending in Iowa, having spent more than $9 million on close to 11,000 spots. That’s about $2 million more than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has spent ($7.2 million), and about three times the amount that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has shelled out ($3.2 million). Clinton has aired close to 8,000 spots while Edwards has aired 3,700.

Analysis: Both Clinton and Obama have spent millions on advertising: Obama just $2 million more than Clinton. Edwards on the other hand has only spent $3.2 million in advertising, suggesting that he is expecting traditional caucus-goers to bring him to victory. In spending $6 million less than other candidates, Edwards hasn’t been appealing to independents, or new demographics as Obama; Edwards’ support comes from those who propped him up in ‘04, and his lack of advertising suggests a reliance on ground infrastructure and retail politics over visibility.

Endorsements
Who has the most endorsements? Well, Edwards secured the endorsement of Mari Culver, the first lady of Iowa. Clinton, Edwards and Obama all secured the endorsements of Iowa’s three congressmen, respectively. And yesterday, Dennis Kucinich released this statement:
Kucinich Urges Supporters to Back Obama on Second Iowa Ballot

For Immediate Release — Tuesday, January 01, 2008

DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic Presidential candidate and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich opened the New Year by publicly asking his Iowa supporters to vote for him in the caucuses this Thursday and suggesting that if he did not make the 15% threshold, their second ballot should be for Sen. Barack Obama. “This is obviously an ‘Iowa-only’ recommendation, as Sen. Obama and I are competing in the New Hampshire primary next Tuesday, where I want to be the first choice of New Hampshire voters.

“I hope Iowans will caucus for me as their first choice this Thursday, because of my singular positions on the war, on health care and trade. This is an opportunity for people to stand up for themselves. But in those caucus locations where my support doesn’t reach the necessary threshold, I strongly encourage all of my supporters to make Barack Obama their second choice. Sen. Obama and I have one thing in common: change.”

Kucinich’s endorsement may mean little, but in a race that is a virtual three way tie, a 1% gain may be crucial. Of course people are free to make up their own mind and chose independently without anyone demanding caucasers support any one person, but Kucinich’s following is unique in that they’re all very loyal and committed to Kucinich’s ideals.

Des Moines Register Poll shows Obama Surge

To the right are the broken down results of the Des Moines Register’s (DMR) poll of 800 likely Democratic caucus-goers. In it we find:

1. More females support Obama and Clinton than Edwards; Clinton’s support among males is low (16%)
2. Obama carries the 18-34 demographic significantly–58% but falls 8% short of Edwards and Clinton in the 55 + demographic.
3. Those with a college degree are more likely to support Obama.
4. Obama carries a higher percent of the middle class and upper class than Edwards or Clinton; among those with annual incomes of $50k or less, the front runners’ numbers are split- despite the economic populism of Edwards.
5. Those in a rural residence are more likely to support Edwards; those in urban residences are more likely to support Obama.
6. Obama carries the support of 39% of independents. Clinton carries 33% of Democrats.
7. The DMR’s polling trend shows Obama and Edwards polling upward since Dec. 27, and Clinton declining.
8. Interesting facts: 38% of those surveyed watched a debate to inform themselves of the candidates and the issues; 25% have met a candidate.

So you ask, why am I focusing on the DMR poll instead of all else? Because many many Iowans woke up today and read the headline, “Obama, Huckabee lead into final stretch” with pictures of both candidates smiling. On top of the HUGE media market, the DMR poll is significant because it has been a past predictor of Iowa success. Consider this news story from the DMR around the same time in 2004:

Kerry, Edwards surge;
Iowa Poll shows many voters still open to change; 8 points separate top four candidates
Jonathan Roos, Staff

A late surge by Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and John Edwards has pushed them slightly ahead of long-standing front-runners Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt in the race to win Monday’s Iowa caucuses, a new Des Moines Register poll shows.

Kerry, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, leads the Iowa Poll with 26 percent of likely caucus participants naming him their first choice for the presidency. The poll, conducted Tuesday through Friday, also showed him gaining strength as the week wore on.

Edwards, a North Carolina senator who was in single digits in an Iowa Poll taken two months ago, follows in second place at 23 percent -his highest finish in any media poll of Iowans.

Dean, the candidate who seemed to be in the driver’s seat as recently as two weeks ago with a key endorsement from Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, has slipped to third at 20 percent. But the former Vermont governor remains within striking distance of the lead in an unusually close race in which almost half of caucus-goers say they could still change their minds.

It’s almost prophetic. As reported, that is exactly what happened. Final DMR results: Kerry 26%, Edwards 23%, Dean 20%. Final caucus night results: Kerry 37%, Edwards 31%, Dean 18%.

Same poll, different players, different year.

Clinton’s campaign has criticized the poll. Reports the Washington Post:

[Clinton Chief Strategist] Mark Penn disputed the poll, calling the Register’s turnout model “unprecedented” and “out of sync with other polling done in the race,” including several recent surveys that showed a statistical dead heat. Edwards spokesman Eric Schultz called the Register model “at odds with history.”

Even Obama’s campaign was surprised by the large sample of independents, and aides cautioned that it could be overblown. “We’re not modeling it that high,” senior Obama strategist Steve Hildebrand said of the independent pool. “We love the numbers in the Register poll, but we know this is going to be very tight.”

I don’t care how the Clinton campaign spins this, it still is disastrous news. The reality is that Obama, Clinton and Edwards are split among likely caucus-goers. A new CNN poll out today demonstrated that:

CNN/Opinion Research Corp, Jan. 1, 2008
Clinton 33%
Obama 31%
Edwards 22%
MoE +/- 4.5

Both polls show Obama and Clinton in the first and second place showing, though the Register’s poll for Obama yields a significant difference because of the percentage of independents included among respondents. Unfortunately for Clinton, independents could make or break this caucus process. If she is polling statistically even with Obama among Democrats, then independents can be the “x” factor. The Democratic caucus is expected to have double the turnout of the Republicans, meaning more first time caucus-goers and independents will vote.

Lucky thing for Obama–he leads in both demographics.

Edwards and Clinton are relying on caucus veterans, and hoping Obama’s supporters don’t turn out. The Clinton campaign has in the past tried to discourage youth voters from caucasing (because both Clinton and Edwards would prefer this to be a “traditional” caucus evening). However, given the excitement and the gravity of this presidential election, analysts have high expectations. And as for Edwards? Placing third in two polls cannot be good; he’s ignoring these results, licking his wounds and moving on. Wednesday he will start a 36 hour tour all-nighter as he travels across Iowa. But I would agree with CNN’s Keating Holland in saying: “The survey suggests that for the Democrats, a three-way race may have effectively become a two-way race.”

Edwards’ only hope? 25% of Democrats are still making up their minds… so were 50% in 2004.

A Happy New Year for the Obama Campaign

Des Moines Register Poll, Jan. 1, 2008
Obama 32%
Clinton 25%
Edwards 24%

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has widened his lead in Iowa over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards heading into Thursday’s nominating caucuses, according to The Des Moines Register’s final Iowa Poll before the 2008 nominating contests… Obama’s rise is the result in part of a dramatic influx of first-time caucusgoers, including a sizable bloc of political independents. Both groups prefer the Illinois senator in what has been a very competitive campaign.

This comes just after I posted about Obama’s declining poll numbers in Iowa. It just goes to show how close Iowa really is.

Obama fights for victory in Iowa

Obama’s campaign has been on the upturn since his announcement last February, but can he win Iowa?

Rival John Edwards never stopped campaigning in the state after his loss in 2004. Edwards had established himself in Iowa, and immediately began campaigning in every rural town in the state.

Upon Clinton’s announcement, early polls indicated she was the national front-runner. Over the summer the media painted her as the “inevitable” nominee but months later she lost significant support in early states. Voters soon tuned in and ultimately the value of her name recognition was put up against the arguments of “change vs. experience” and “electability” (and she’s lost a lot of support.)

For Obama, it’s been an uphill fight against an established campaign at the grassroots level and a nationally recognized former first lady. Ask an Obama staffer and they’ll tell you that they’re “building a plane in mid flight”- a reference to building a campaign while running at the same time.

I am not in a position to predict who will win Thursday night’s caucuses. It’s just too close. But I can give you the numbers that I’m looking at that show both discouraging and encouraging news for Obama.

Pollster.com reveals that Obama’s support within the state is declining; he peaked a week ago against his Democratic rivals and has lost a few percentage points. RCP and Pollster reveal the field’s average at Clinton 29.3%, Obama 25.9% and Edwards 25.2%.

CNN reported an American Research Group (ARG) poll released Dec. 25, 2007 that revealed Obama slipping significantly among male voters.

According to the poll, Obama has lost some ground among male voters in Iowa: Last week, he led the field with 27 percent support, followed by 21 for Clinton and 19 for Edwards. This week, the leaders are Clinton and Edwards, with 28 and 27 percent support among Democratic men. Obama has 16 percent support, and Joe Biden has 11 percent.

However, the same ARG poll has been widely criticized for straying away from the vast majority of polls in Iowa. ARG reported that 34% of Iowa caucus-goers support Clinton, compared with only 20% for Edwards and 19% for Obama; most polls show a statistical tie, and ARG was way off.

Still, if their finding for the male demographic is correct, perhaps that, coupled with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto could explain a small boost in Hillaryland. Clinton has revived her “experience” rhetoric in the wake of the Pakistan crisis, and since has painted the junior senator as inexperienced, a “roll of the dice” as Bill said.

But there are encouraging signs coming out of the Obama camp.

Strategically, the campaign is spending more in Iowa advertising than any other candidate, outspending Senator Clinton by $2 million. Edwards, who has been criticized for allowing an independent PAC to spend $750,000 in advertising for him, is no where near the spending level of his rivals. Reports the International Herald Tribune:

The Democrats are spending by far the most on television advertising here, and smashing records in the process. Senator Barack Obama has spent the most, at $8.3 million, Clinton has spent $6.5 million and Edwards has spent $2.7 million, according to an analysis by CMAG, a firm that tracks political advertising spending.

Obama is spending more than Clinton in the last throws of the Iowa campaign. Interesting note: Edwards is spending only $2 million–perhaps reflective of his reliance on grassroots infrastructure instead of a sudden media blitz.

Money doesn’t buy votes, but visibility certainly gives you the edge.

In one of her biggest expenditures of the campaign here, advisers said Thursday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is spending more than $20,000 to broadcast a two-minute taped message during every 6 p.m. newscast in Iowa on Wednesday, the eve of the caucuses, which will be seen by an estimated 515,510 adults in the state.

Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign purchased the next two minutes of advertising space. Initially, they wanted to lay the trump card on Clinton, attempting to buy a 5 minute segment directly following Clinton’s ad that would be synced live. Complications in coordination and federal election laws however made that impossible.

One measure of a candidate’s potential success is their turn out to events. The Obama Campaign posted the following graph to demonstrate overwhelming support:

It would be difficult to suggest that Obama does not have rock star status. His popularity among young people has scared the Clinton Campaign into discouraging young voters from turning out on caucus day. Young people, 14% of whom turned out in 2004, are a major demographic for Obama for America (often underrepresented in the polls). They’re just gravy to his support across the state.

And many polls reflect this graph put out by Obama for America, a demonstration of Sen. Obama’s electability:

Edwards Cannot win the Nomination

Yesterday the Edwards Campaign had great resaon to rejoice. Three new polls show John Edwards with the big mo, but can he sustain it until Thursday? Check out these numbers:

MSNBC, Dec. 30, 2007
Among Iowa caucas-goers
John Edwards 24%
Hillary Clinton 23%
Barack Obama 22%
MoE +/- 5

Reuters/C-Span/Zogby, Dec. 30, 2007
Second choice among Iowa caucus-goers*
John Edwards 30.4%
Barack Obama 24.9%
Hillary Clinton 12.9%

MSNBC, Dec. 30, 2007
Second choice among Iowa caucus-goers
John Edwards 36%
Barack Obama 26%
Hillary Clinton 26%

American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007
Among New Hampshire Voters
Hillary Clinton 31%
Barack Obama 27%
John Edwards 21%

Same poll, among independent voters:
Edwards 36%
Obama 23%

In the last two weeks:
Clinton – 7%
Obama + 3%
Edwards + 6%

*In Iowa all candidates must obtain a 15% threshold after the first round of caucusing to be considered “viable.” Candidates without 15% support in their precinct are eliminated, and their supporters must either choose another candidate or go home.

In short, every Iowa poll shows a statistical dead heat, BUT these three out today show Edwards in first place in IA, first among second choice candidates, and gaining among Democrats and Independents in New Hampshire.

What the Edwards campaign is looking to do is translate a victory in Iowa into momentum going into New Hampshire. Edwards has spent the better part of two years campaigning in Iowa, and so his grassroots ground infrastructure is superior. He is well known around the state, and has solidified his image in the rural Western counties of Iowa.

Both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns would prefer an Edwards victory should their respective candidate not place. Edwards lacks the financial support to run a national campaign, and an Iowa victory would make him completely dependent on momentum. Clinton is fairly secure in Edwards winning because after Iowa, he has little established ground infrastructure. Despite recent gains in New Hampshire most polls still show him dragging. A victory in Iowa would mean that he’d have to make up a 10% gap between him and Obama/Clinton in NH, and 20-25% nationally. Another reality is that his message wouldn’t likely appeal to average NH voters; his entire pitch to rural farmers has been to battle evil lobbyists and corporate greed that are consuming our interests in Washington, something that honestly wouldn’t resonate with the many urban and suburban Democrats in New Hampshire who may have jobs in large corporations. Despite one poll that shows a significant “surge” for Edwards in New Hampshire, there are 4 other polls that all show him lagging 12% (RCP). In South Carolina, he has up to a 22% deficit based off of 5 different polls.

My prediction is that if Edwards wins Iowa, it’s a victory for the Clinton campaign. His support among rural townships gives him a huge edge in Iowa’s caucus, because western counties are disproportionately represented in the delegate selection process. Given the choice between Edwards winning in Iowa and Clinton, the Obama campaign would prefer Edwards, because at least that would fend off Hillary’s aura of inevitability.

According to OpenSecrets, Edwards has raised $30m and spent $17m, compared with Clinton ($91m raised, $51m spent) and Obama ($80m raised, $44m spent).

These poll numbers out today demonstrate to me that Edwards has momentum, but once again I’d like to take these numbers with a grain of salt. They’re polling an extremely close race, and none of this matters other than to show that Edwards is up, Clinton is down, and Obama is fairing well. And it’s still 3 days until Iowa, could it be possible that Edwards is peaking too early?