Selzer/DMR/Bloomberg FINAL IOWA POLL: Trump +5, Clinton +3

[IceSpear]

So they'll be a lot of unenthusiastic Republicans regardless of who is the nominee.

That's the price of an overtly negative campaign. For all the talk about how Hillary and Bernie are at each other's throats, compared to the GOP side they're playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

[Adam Griffin]

Sanders is hurt by the fact that the caucus system penalizes his demographics - who are clustered on college campuses and in urban areas in general - while Clinton benefits from a larger than proportionate share of delegates being allocated to rural counties and caucus sites.

Is it true that, college towns aside, Sanders's support is more concentrated in urban areas than Clinton's support is?  I haven't seen evidence that it is.  See the discussion in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=227529.0

Looking at the initial numbers in the OP, I'm not convinced what I said isn't true. Relative to population distribution, Sanders will have a larger than average share of his voters in actual urban areas, based largely on the fact that the generational gap appears to be the largest determining factor in the poll (older people tend to stay in rural areas; younger people leave them). Sanders may be doing better in the west than he is in the east, but there are fewer voters overall in the west than in the east.

I'd really need to see what specifically are their defining boundaries for each region, as there are probably suburban and rural areas that get counted as part of "Eastern Cities" and so forth, naturally inflating Clinton's dominance there when compared to my hypothesis. If the 64% of Iowa that is classified as "urban" was actually urban in a real sense, then I'd expect more than 64% of his vote to come from there. Based on that 64% urban definition, however, it's possible that less than 64% of his vote comes from "urban areas". However, in terms of what I'd consider to be urban, I imagine a larger percentage of his vote will come from those places than they comprise as a share of the state's population.

In other words, I imagine that if the definition of "urban" is the area in gray (or even larger, god forbid), then my original statement wouldn't hold true. If the definition of "urban" is along the lines of what I would consider it to be (the areas in black), then I don't see how a disproportionate share of his vote doesn't come from inside of it.

[Ljube]

So they'll be a lot of unenthusiastic Republicans regardless of who is the nominee.

It matters not. TRUMP draws a lot of his support from the Democrats.

[Cruzcrew]

40% first time caucusers seems kinda high for the caucuses considering the registration numbers are slit lot lower now than they were in 2012.

What are you talking about?

The number of registered republicans is 17000 lower than in February 2012, post caucus. 612k now vs 629k 2012.

[Adam Griffin]

40% first time caucusers seems kinda high for the caucuses considering the registration numbers are slit lot lower now than they were in 2012.

What are you talking about?

The number of registered republicans is 17000 lower than in February 2012, post caucus. 612k now vs 629k 2012.

People can flip their registration at the caucus. In reality, considering how many apathetic independent TRUMP supporters are likely to show up and do just that...it's not a terrible position number-wise to be just 17k off of 2012.

[Bakersfield Uber Alles]

And who knows, Sanders is probably strong in some random rural areas as well. It'll be interesting to see the map.

I'm glad that you pointed that out. I'm not going to say that Bernie will sweep the rural areas, but it wouldn't surprise me if he picked up a fair amount of small counties.

[Cruzcrew]

40% first time caucusers seems kinda high for the caucuses considering the registration numbers are slit lot lower now than they were in 2012.

What are you talking about?

The number of registered republicans is 17000 lower than in February 2012, post caucus. 612k now vs 629k 2012.

People can flip their registration at the caucus. In reality, considering how many apathetic independent TRUMP supporters are likely to show up and do just that...it's not a terrible position number-wise to be just 17k off of 2012.

Yea that's true. I'm just wondering how many get off the couch and caucus for an hour with the snowstorm in southern Iowa taken into account.

[HillOfANight]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-30/bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-democrats

Only one in three likely Democratic voters in the survey are first-time caucus-goers, who break decidedly toward Sanders. That compares with 60 percent in the final pre-caucus survey of 2008

In addition, the survey finds Clinton’s support is deeper and sturdier than Sanders’ across many areas

“Most of the ways you look at it, she’s stronger than the three-point race would suggest,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer.

Sanders does not have as broad a reach as Obama did.
In the final pre-caucus survey of 2008, Obama led in many categories, with both definite and probable caucus-goers and decided as well as persuadable voters.

[Adam Griffin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-30/bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-democrats

Only one in three likely Democratic voters in the survey are first-time caucus-goers, who break decidedly toward Sanders. That compares with 60 percent in the final pre-caucus survey of 2008

In addition, the survey finds Clinton’s support is deeper and sturdier than Sanders’ across many areas

“Most of the ways you look at it, she’s stronger than the three-point race would suggest,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer.

Sanders does not have as broad a reach as Obama did.
In the final pre-caucus survey of 2008, Obama led in many categories, with both definite and probable caucus-goers and decided as well as persuadable voters.

What I do find interesting in the poll, however, is that Hillary is within the margin of error of being toppled yet again in IA with only 34% of intended caucus-goers being first-timers, whereas it took 60% to dethrone her in 2008. This tells me that Clinton, in some ways, is even weaker than she was in 2008. However, it's worth noting that there is an eight-point difference between now (Clinton +3) and 2008 (Obama +5), and the difference between 34% and 60% isn't that large of one when you consider that it might be a 60/40 split in both years in terms of first-timers' preferences.

[IceSpear]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-30/bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-democrats

Only one in three likely Democratic voters in the survey are first-time caucus-goers, who break decidedly toward Sanders. That compares with 60 percent in the final pre-caucus survey of 2008

In addition, the survey finds Clinton’s support is deeper and sturdier than Sanders’ across many areas

“Most of the ways you look at it, she’s stronger than the three-point race would suggest,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer.

Sanders does not have as broad a reach as Obama did.
In the final pre-caucus survey of 2008, Obama led in many categories, with both definite and probable caucus-goers and decided as well as persuadable voters.

What I do find interesting in the poll, however, is that Hillary is within the margin of error of being toppled yet again in IA with only 34% of intended caucus-goers being first-timers, whereas it took 60% to dethrone her in 2008. This tells me that Clinton, in some ways, is even weaker than she was in 2008.

It didn't necessarily take 60% to "dethrone" her. She got beat by 9 points. You're better with data than I am: what would the results have been if 2008 was 34%? Or 2016 being 60%?

[HillOfANight]

The thing is, Selzer picked up the upcoming huge wave for Obama. She doesn't see it for Sanders. And with 60% being so huge, absent large population growth, 60% again might not even be possible.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
She only led 2 out of the last 5 polls in 2008.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html
She's leading 5 out of the last 7, including in the DMR that predicted her demise last time.

[IceSpear]

The thing is, Selzer picked up the upcoming huge wave for Obama. She doesn't see it for Sanders. And with 60% being so huge, absent large population growth, 60% again might not even be possible.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
She only led 2 out of the last 5 polls in 2008.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html
She's leading 5 out of the last 7, including in the DMR that predicted her demise last time.

It's pretty interesting that the only 2 pollsters to show Hillary ahead in 08 (ARG and CNN) show Sanders ahead this time.

[RBH]

does anybody really have any sort of gauge on likely results out of Des Moines?

It seems like the only parts of Iowa with a lot of African-American voters are in Des Moines, Waterloo and some in Davenport. So, that'll diverge from the numbers for Obama in 2008.

As for the R side... Trump's looking like a solid pick, unless the non-Trump voters can stomach voting for Cruz.

If Rubio was already in 2nd, he'd have a chance.. but having Cruz 2nd to Trump is one hell of a buffer for Trump.

[Ljube]

The thing is, Selzer picked up the upcoming huge wave for Obama. She doesn't see it for Sanders. And with 60% being so huge, absent large population growth, 60% again might not even be possible.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html
She only led 2 out of the last 5 polls in 2008.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html
She's leading 5 out of the last 7, including in the DMR that predicted her demise last time.

It's pretty interesting that the only 2 pollsters to show Hillary ahead in 08 (ARG and CNN) show Sanders ahead this time.

After the latest Weather.com poll and weather forecast, it seems Hillary will win.

[Mr. Morden]

I'll ask again, since no one answered the first time: Have they released the full crosstabs for this poll?  Because all I can find is this:

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r1OvZ1NeDjnY

which includes results on a number of questions, but doesn't tell you how each demographic group is breaking.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'll ask again, since no one answered the first time: Have they released the full crosstabs for this poll?  Because all I can find is this:

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r1OvZ1NeDjnY

which includes results on a number of questions, but doesn't tell you how each demographic group is breaking.

The one I have seen was Hillary with a 12% lead among women or something? But... that doesn't seem like enough.

[Adam Griffin]

I'll ask again, since no one answered the first time: Have they released the full crosstabs for this poll?  Because all I can find is this:

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r1OvZ1NeDjnY

which includes results on a number of questions, but doesn't tell you how each demographic group is breaking.

The one I have seen was Hillary with a 12% lead among women or something? But... that doesn't seem like enough.

Considering Clinton was losing to Sanders among women under 45 by something like 15 points and was ahead with women over 45 by like 20 points (I saw these numbers mentioned in the live feed), that doesn't sound terribly far off.

[Adam Griffin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-30/bloomberg-politics-des-moines-register-iowa-poll-democrats

Only one in three likely Democratic voters in the survey are first-time caucus-goers, who break decidedly toward Sanders. That compares with 60 percent in the final pre-caucus survey of 2008

In addition, the survey finds Clinton’s support is deeper and sturdier than Sanders’ across many areas

“Most of the ways you look at it, she’s stronger than the three-point race would suggest,” said pollster J. Ann Selzer.

Sanders does not have as broad a reach as Obama did.
In the final pre-caucus survey of 2008, Obama led in many categories, with both definite and probable caucus-goers and decided as well as persuadable voters.

What I do find interesting in the poll, however, is that Hillary is within the margin of error of being toppled yet again in IA with only 34% of intended caucus-goers being first-timers, whereas it took 60% to dethrone her in 2008. This tells me that Clinton, in some ways, is even weaker than she was in 2008.

It didn't necessarily take 60% to "dethrone" her. She got beat by 9 points. You're better with data than I am: what would the results have been if 2008 was 34%? Or 2016 being 60%?

Well, in 2008, she lost to Obama by 5 points as best I can tell. Today, she's up by 3. It's totally possible that if 60% of voters were first-timers in this caucus, that she'd be exactly where she was.

If we assume that it's 59/39 for Sanders among first-timers (34%), then it'd be about 57/40 Clinton for the rest (66%). This would give us a 51/48 Clinton result (Clinton +3, as in the poll).

If I've done it correctly, then a 60% first-timer crowd/40% repeat caucus-goers group would be:

52% Sanders, 45% Clinton

Which means she would lose by 7 (as opposed to losing by 5 in 2008). So, not very significant movement in one direction or another, but one could make the argument that she is possibly a bit weaker than in 2008, or at the very least, just as weak, when it comes to this one metric.

[Adam Griffin]

^^^ It's also worth noting that I edited my original post in between the time you quoted it and the time you posted it, explaining that the difference likely wouldn't be as monumental as I initially had thought.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Well, in 2008, she lost to Obama by 5 points as best I can tell.

Um, she lost by 8 (37,6 to 29,5).

[Admiral Kizaru]

I see the 30 paid staffers Jeb! has in Iowa have really paid dividends.

[Adam Griffin]

Here are some data-points from the Democratic side:

18-35: 63-27 Sanders
65+: 65-27 Clinton

Those earning >$100k: 57-28 Clinton

"The system works reasonably well for those who work hard to get ahead": 60-29 Clinton
"The system is rigged against all but the very rich and powerful": 50-39 Sanders

First-time caucusgoers: 53-34 Sanders

Men: Sanders +5
Women: Clinton +10

No religious affiliation: 67-27 Sanders

Independents: 55-30 Sanders
Liberals: 51-41 Sanders

[Adam Griffin]

Well, in 2008, she lost to Obama by 5 points as best I can tell.

Um, she lost by 8 (37,6 to 29,5).

Ugh, why does IA have two caucuses and a primary? I was going off of the numbers Leip has listed and I'm assuming his are correct in some context. Are those numbers Leip has for the county delegates or what?

[RBH]

there's also not an infinite number of first time voters. It'd be a nice split to see how many 2016 voters are first-timers from 2008.

I'd guess virtually everybody 25 or younger (born in 1991 or after) is going to be first time for the Dems, unless somebody caucused for the uncontested Obama candidacy as their first time in 2012. That universe seems to be kinda lower than you'd think.

But then again, an age breakdown of the 60% first timers in 2008 seems helpful here and idk if that got split by the surveys.

[Mehmentum]

there's also not an infinite number of first time voters. It'd be a nice split to see how many 2016 voters are first-timers from 2008.

I'd guess virtually everybody 25 or younger (born in 1991 or after) is going to be first time for the Dems, unless somebody caucused for the uncontested Obama candidacy as their first time in 2012. That universe seems to be kinda lower than you'd think.

But then again, an age breakdown of the 60% first timers in 2008 seems helpful here and idk if that got split by the surveys.

Eh, there might be some Paul 2012 first timers switching to Sanders.  But yeah, you make a good point that many of the 2008 first timers are going to be voting again.