« Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns | Has Hamas Finally Gone Crazy? »

December 31st 2007     

Iowa Polls Show … Nothing

Posted by: Laer at 11:35 am

As the Iowa caucuses draw near, the news is full of the latest polls — Huckabee’s falling, Edwards is strong, Thompson is … is whatever the most recent results of a few hundred phone calls across the frozen fields says it is.

And it’s all pretty much meaningless, mostly because only about six percent of Iowans actually participate in the caucuses. A poll of party regulars could be meaningful, but nearly all the polls are drawn from random samples of Iowa registered voters, most of whom will be busy doing something other than caucusing this Thursday evening.

John Fund has broken down all this in an excellent WSJ Opinion Journal article today, What’s the matter with Iowa? In it, he lays down these faults with the caucus process:

  • They occur during a brief, fixed window at night, so those who work odd hours or have to care for kids or home-bound loved ones can’t make it.

  • There are no absentee ballots, so the sick, disabled, elderly and busy are hugely underrepresented.
  • The rules of the Democratic caucus require participants to publicly stand with others who support their particular candidate — this is no secret ballot.
  • To further complicate things, if less than 15% stand for a Dem candidate at a caucus, they have to pick another candidate to stand with, resulting in yelling, cajoling, and results that are anything but representative of a primary or an election.
  • “Entrance” polls that are reported Thursday night under-represent rural communities and the candidates, like Thompson and Edwards, who are stronger there.
  • There is no process of screening caucus participants for residency, so results could be skewed by over-zealous campaign workers.

In short, polls on Iowa voter preference are virtually meaningless, and the results of the caucuses are not representative of much other than a candidate’s organizing abilities — and this year, his commitment to campaigning there.

Yet it is the first test of any sort for the 2008 election, so the media cover it from border to border, from morning to night, the pollsters call and call and call again, in search of tea leaves to read, the candidates pour their hearts and purses it it … and we political junkies wait anxiously for the results, cloudy, faulty, skewed and weird as they may be.

Share this Logic Bomb with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • bodytext
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • De.lirio.us
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • Technorati
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
No tags for this post.

Posted in 2008, Democrats, GOP, Media bias | No Comments yet » | Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Recent Posts:

Post URITrackback URI

Leave a Reply

[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]

Tags:
Separate individual tags by commas

« Inept Panel Of Climate Clowns | Has Hamas Finally Gone Crazy? »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here