First, a disclaimer, in that Obama was a law professor of mine and I have done some volunteering for him in my home state of Iowa (I don't live there anymore). Obama's organization in Iowa should not be under-estimated. For most of the last year, he has had more boots on the ground, and he's done very well with state legislative endorsements. My impression of how things were going in November in my home territory (rural, northeast) was that that he and Clinton were battling for first there and Edwards trailed considerably -- and that was at the time of the Philadelphia debate. That may be a function of a peculiarly strong local organization in that one county (out of 99), but if he can do that well in rural Iowa, he will be fine Tuesday. HRC has visited fewer places than Edwards or Obama, and right or wrong, that will hurt her somewhat. Bottom line: 2nd choice votes will determine the winner. I'm not sure that's as bad news for HRC as the CW would suggest. I would think she would do well with the Biden crowd, perhaps Dodd too (if it's "experience" they're looking for). Even though Richardson has tried to place himself furthest to the left on Iraq, his experience is still probably what attracts at least some of his support. There aren't going to be many places where Obama or Clinton don't exceed 15%, so I don't expect the second-choice preference of their supporters to matter much. Lastly, you can take this as biased expectation setting, but I think Obama can win NH as long as the results from Iowa are close enough the media essentially calls it a tie.

Edwards does have the most second-choice support and I think Plum is correct that if Obama or Clinton supporters would go to him second as well over the other one. That's exactly what led me to change my prediction to Edwards the other day. He's inoffensive enough to be in the good graces of everyone, which is ideal for a caucus system.

Bottom line: 2nd choice votes will determine the winner. Posted from previous message: Second Choices of voters for Candidates other than Edwards, Obama, or Clinton: John Edwards 42.3% Barack Obama 29.4% Hillary Clinton 28.2%

Another thing is that there is a big risk in a black or female candidate. John Edwards is a white man and thus a lot "safer" in that respect.

I really hope this turns out to be the barn-burner the polls are hyping it to be.

For once, the leaning calls are almost as split as the polls.

Yeah, seriously. A third of us are going to walk away with some serious points.

Posted from previous message: Second Choices of voters for Candidates other than Edwards, Obama, or Clinton: John Edwards 42.3% Barack Obama 29.4% Hillary Clinton 28.2% Edwards does tend to come out ahead in the second choice contest, although several polls gauge it as much closer: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119890104865157383.html?mod=googlenews_wsj For Democrats, a voter's second choice can also play an important role because of the 15% rule. A poll taken this past week shows John Edwards is the second choice of 23% of Iowa Democrats, followed by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, with 18% saying he is their second choice, and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, with 16%. (IF NAMED CLINTON, OBAMA OR EDWARDS) Who would your second choice be? John Edwards 27 Barack Obama 24 Hillary Clinton 21 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_121907.html?hpid=topnews

Just for some levity, The Amazing Kreskin just said on CNN that Obama will win the Iowa D caucus, and Huckabee wins the R caucus. He also warned, "don't short-circuit Oprah."

Edwards does tend to come out ahead in the second choice contest, although several polls gauge it as much closer: Neither of the polls you posted are useful in this case. Second choices only transfer if the first choice doesn't make 15%. Your first poll is second choices from all Democrats. Your second is the opposite of what is useful - people whose votes won't likely be transferred. However, your second link does include the relevant information as 8a: 8a. (IF NAMED RICHARDSON, BIDEN, DODD, OR KUCINICH) If the only three viable candidates in your precinct were (Clinton), (Edwards) and (Obama), who would you support as your second choice? Clinton 16 Obama 29 Edwards 41 None/no one (vol.) 7 No opinion 7 12/17/07

That's true, but the sample size on a poll of only Richardson, Biden, Dodd, or Kucinich supporters must be very small, with a high margin of error.

Who is likely to be the second choice of Edwards supporters?

In '04 he and Kucinich made a second-place deal...

From the NYT: Senator Barack Obama is on the hunt for Iowans who have never participated in the state’s presidential caucuses, including independent voters under 50 and students who will be 18 by the general election. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is searching for Iowans who have skipped the caucuses in the past and who, because of age, sex or other characteristics, seem likely to support her, starting with independent women over 65 and under 30. John Edwards is taking a more traditional approach, working through the official list of Democrats who showed up to choose a candidate in 2004, as his campaign tries to ensure that it has the name of every likely voter who might be on his side when Iowans gather in 1,781 precinct caucuses across the state on Thursday night. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/us/politics/30vote.html?_r=3&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1198955104-KkaLHrBut52rKryh1an3Pw

If Obama is out fighting for the votes of 17 year-olds, that's probably a sign of trouble.

Nah, it's a sign of how ridiculously close this is.

No, I wouldn't call it a sign of trouble. Young voters are more likely to support him. 17-year-olds are allowed to attend caucus if they turn 18 by election day. They're all trying to work their "base" as hard as possible. Hillary is going after senior citizen women.

If Obama or Hillary wins Iowa over the other or over Edwards and its only by a few hundred votes, can they really call it a victory? I think if Obama and Clinton finish one and two, or vice versa, and are separated by a few hundred votes, which is possible, both sides will claim victory in Iowa going into NH. If either camp finishes third, its going to be politically embarrassing going into NH.

Yeah, I'd say that's probably accurate. And in any case, they can call it a victory all they like, but we all know it's the media who decides who the "victors" are.

17-year-olds are allowed to attend caucus if they turn 18 by election day. I know they're allowed to, but will they? The only group of people less likely to show up than college students is probably high school students.

With less than a week to go, I'd be willing to bet we can find three different polls between now and then, each with Obama, Clinton or Edwards leading.

My house has gotten nonstop phone calls all day today. We had to take it off the hook.

I know they're allowed to, but will they? Worth a try :-)

Hey, no argument there.