UPDATE: As I predicted, they chose Clinton. I had a feeling they would go with the choice of most of the Des Moines business elite.-desmoinesdem

The speculation is swirling and the rumor mill is working at full force today as the Des Moines Register is set to endorse a candidate in their Sunday edition–which will likely be revealed later tonight.

As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post notes here it is a pretty big deal.  Jeff Zeleny, Register alum and now New York Times reporter, describes the effort of some campaigns to win the endorsement here.

Here’s a sample of some of what’s being said right now.  Ben Smith at the Politico says:

“But I hesitate to predict: Newspaper endorsements are notoriously neurotic, and driven by internal dynamics and the writers’ image of themselves as much as by anything easily predictable.”

I’m not sure how true that is at the Register, but I’ve been trying to work sources in the newsroom and all I know is that the Democrats have been fighting hard for the endorsement.

Marc Ambinder says the endorsement will drop soon:

“….probably in the early evening… and no one knows who… although all the campaigns have guesses, and at least one of them has an office pool.”

I know most of the campaigns will have folks down at Register HQ trying to get the first early copy and report back as soon as they can.

And finally, the biggest gossip so far, comes from the Hotline:

“Buzz is that the odds are with Barack Obama…

The paper’s support for John Edwards in 2004 catapulted him to a second place caucus finish. This year, though, he competes for the nod with a ‘fresher’ face in Obama.

Obama’s anti-war position could be the deal sealer. Edwards supported the 2002 Iraq war resolution, but has since said the vote was a mistake.”

They’re the only ones predicting so far…at least that I can find.  So, consider that a bold prediction.

I won’t make any predictions or offer any odds.  But how about you guys?  Who do you think will get the endorsement?  All I’ll guess is that it will be one of the top tier candidates: Clinton, Edwards, or Obama.  Vote below the fold.

How concerned are Iowans about caucus voting?  Like we’ve been talking about over this past week, there has been stupid controversy about college students participating in the Iowa caucuses.  The answer is: YES, as a student in Iowa you can caucus.  Now, the other part of the controversy has been about out-of-state campaign volunteers and staffers who come into Iowa and whether or not they should participate.

Let’s get things clear first.  Iowa law says that if you’ve been a resident for at least 10 days, you can register to vote in Iowa.  That’s the law.  To me, the spirit of the law then, as it would impact the caucuses, is that those who are truly committed to this state and their livelihood here–not simply because of a campaign, but because of school, work, and family–should be one’s caucusing.

Yet somehow, among all of this, the campaigns and the media seem to think that there is going to be a massive influx of volunteers and staffers who are going to do irreparable harm to the caucuses and basically cheat so that one candidate can win.  That’s like thinking that Dennis Kucinich really did see a UFO, and is, in fact, an extraterrestrial himself.

And KCCI here in Des Moines isn’t helping the matter.  Their story, headlined “Iowans Concerned About Caucus Voting: Out-Of State Operatives Flooding Iowa,” is mind-boggling simply because they don’t note a single ordinary Iowan who is concerned about out-of-staters voting.  It is merely an argument between campaigns that has blown up into a political worthless and quite petty tiff that just makes the campaigns look downright juvenile.

There really isn’t any concern among Iowa voters, or the campaigns.  Some candidates just wanted to gain traction and media attention by having other candidates sign their pledge.

Memo to the campaigns: Skip the hysterics, focus on the mobilization of Iowa voters, and play it fair.  It is just that simple.

Cross-posted at Political Forecast.

Well, now that we’re less than three weeks out from the Iowa Precinct Caucuses, it is time for me to make a tough decision: Who am I going to caucus for?

After watching the debates, attending events, reading the profiles, and listening to my friends I decided that it was time to face the tough decision.  Our field of Democratic candidates is an amazing spectrum of leadership, experience, and real desire for change.  I would be proud to call any of these candidates our nominee.

Why did I hold off so long in making my decision?  There were numerous reasons, but the primary one was that I wanted to make sure I was going to remain unbiased for as long as possible in my coverage of the candidates and to maintain a level of openness on both Political Forecast and Bleeding Heartland.  But the time has truly come to pick a candidate.  And for me, the candidate of choice is John Edwards.

A new Research 2000 poll for the Quad-City Times shows Barack Obama with a 9-point lead over Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.  Here are the overall results (500 likely caucus-goers with a margin of error of +/- 4.5%):

Barack Obama 33%

Hillary Clinton 24%

John Edwards 24%

Bill Richardson 9%

Joe Biden 3%

Chris Dodd 1%

Dennis Kucinich 1%

It is still clearly a three-person race, with the slight advantage to Obama.  To me, this is the key result from the poll:

“The poll also indicated an unsettled electorate, with 23 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of Republicans saying they were likely or very likely to change their minds before the caucuses. Only a third of Democrats, 33 percent, and just more than a quarter of Republicans, 27 percent, said they were not at all likely to change their minds. The rest, 44 percent on the Democratic side and 39 percent on the Republican side, said they are not very likely to change.”

The race is still quite fluid and second choices are definitely going to matter come caucus night when some candidate preference groups won’t be able to get viability.

You can get the full PDF of the results from Research 2000 here.  They’re usually a pretty reliable polling firm when it comes to general election or primary polling, but I don’t know where they’re at in terms of accuracy for polling the caucuses.

Does this mean Edwards can still win the Iowa caucuses?  I think so.  And Mike Lux at Open Left says we should keep our eyes on him.

UPDATE (11 AM): I got the email to supporters announcing the endorsement about 45 minutes ago.  The full text is below the fold.

– – – – –

The word on the street is that Hillary Clinton is going to be receiving the endorsement of central Iowa Congressman Leonard Boswell.  He is supposed to be doing it sometime today after Clinton tapes an appearance on IPTV’s Iowa Press.

To me, the endorsement won’t matter much to many Democrats.  While Boswell has done a lot for Iowans in his years representing Iowa, he doesn’t have the kind of youth and leadership potential that folks like Bruce Braley have.  He’s an elderly man, and a very conservative Democrat.  And for those committed caucus-goers, I don’t think this endorsement will change anything or mean that much.

What have you heard?  And do you think the endorsement matters?

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

When I talk to friends or family from other parts of the country, they always want to know how I think the candidates are doing in Iowa.

This diary is about why that’s a tough question to answer.

First, I’ll discuss why opinion polls can’t necessarily tell us who would win the caucuses if they were held tonight.

Then I’ll explain why it can even be difficult for active volunteers to gauge who is ahead in their own neighborhoods.

Finally, I will go over the unscientific methods we foot-soldiers in Iowa use to figure out where our candidates stand.

Before you analyze another Iowa poll, read this post by Mark Blumenthal about his efforts to obtain more information from pollsters about their likely voter screens and the demographic makeup of their respondents in Iowa. (Hat tip to DemFromCT.) Blumenthal notes:

So why did we go to all this trouble? As should be obvious now, the differences in the way pollsters measure “likely caucus goers” in Iowa are huge, not just in how narrowly they define the electorate but in the kinds of voters pollsters select as “likely caucus goers.” But these issues are not unique to Iowa. In 2004, 21 states held Democratic primary elections with single digit turnouts (as a percentage of adults), and only New Hampshire had a turnout that topped 20%. Over the next year months, results from hundreds of polls will be released, polls that will set expectations and drive media coverage, and yet those of us that consume the data will know very little about how tightly the pollsters screen and the kinds of voters they select. If we want to be educated poll consumers, we are going to need to do something to change that. We need to push toward greater routine disclosure of methodological details.

Really, everyone, click the link and read the whole thing. Thanks to Blumenthal of pollster.com for embarking on his “Disclosure Project.”  

I’m sitting in front of my TV trying to examine what the cable networks are saying about the debate.  The first network showing coverage was Fox News and their pundits were generally annoying and conservative; essentially, they weren’t worth their time.  But when they got to their focus group/panel of undecided caucus-goers done by Frank Luntz, they said that John Edwards won the debate.

I’m going to argue that John Edwards did indeed win the debate.  He articulated a coherent message that blamed corruption, greed, and entrenched interests for the problems America faces.  He also clearly told viewers that the only way to enact the policies and proposals that the candidates have promised is to elect a president that will unite America to stand up and fight back against these people.  His criticisms were constant, his answers honest, and his leadership potential was clear.  He told us how he is fighting for the middle class, and how he’s the candidate to truly enact change.

I’m always impressed with Obama’s rhetoric on the stump and during rallies, but I can’t seem to be impressed with his debating skills.  Maybe I’m just missing something.  And Hillary Clinton seemed like she was just there to give canned responses.  But I do have to admit they were honest and presidential sounding.  Joe Biden came to the debate with heart and passion, and even managed to keep his answers succinct.  Chris Dodd was presidential and brought the experience necessary to lead.  I was surprised how the speaking time was pretty equally divided, but amazed that Bill Richardson got the most time.  His answers and policies were good, but he seemed like he just had a list of issues and was rattling them off.

All in all, however, I’d be proud to have any of these candidates to be my presidential nominee.

In my mind, the debate was timid enough to declare any candidate a winner for the right reasons.  We want you to tell us who your winner was and why.

In about 8 minutes, the Des Moines Register’s Democratic Debate will start.  I’ll be doing what I can to live blog it–after the debate is over, I’ll move most of it to below the feed.

And if you’re interested, the Dodd Campaign will again be doing their talk clock:

Let’s go below the fold to read the re-cap…

Today at 11 AM Central Time, any and all comments to the Federal Election Commission on their pending decision regarding presidential primary matching funds on contributions received through ActBlue are due.

Multiple organizations are vocally opposing this ban, as it effectively disregards ActBlue’s nature as a grassroots fundraising system and largely violates the meaning of matching funds through public funding.  As the netroots’ own Adam Bonin wrote in his letter to the FEC on behalf of DailyKos and BlogPAC:

Obviously, while ActBlue is a “political committee” in the strictest sense of the term, in reality it does not act as such.  ActBlue is a conduit for individual contributor preferences, to track and aggregate small-dollar contributors.  It asserts no control over the recipients of its funds; the site’s only criteria is that the recipient be a Democrat. It fulfills FECA’s anticorruption goals by reporting contributors’ names, addresses, employers, and occupations to campaign, which in turn provide that information to the Commission as is legally required.

This is a clear a case as any of reformers accomplishing via technology what law alone cannot do: leveling the playing field between moneyed interests and small-dollar contributors by allowing anyone to become a “bundler”, and to allow such contributors to have visual, real-time confirmation of their impact upon the process.  In the same way that the public financing system itself is designed to encourage and magnify the impact of small-dollar contributions, ActBlue facilitates those contributions occurring in the first place.

If you’re at all interested in supporting the Edwards campaign’s position–which isn’t a tacit endorsement, but an affirmation of your belief in grassroots fundraising–please make sure to submit your comments.  You can see more by reading desmoinesdem’s earlier post here.

You can do that in a variety of ways:

– Visit JohnEdwards.com and send a comment through our simple form.

– Write an E-mail to Mary Dove, the FEC Commission Secretary at mdove@fec.gov

– Fax your comments to the Secretary at (202) 208-3333 and to FEC’s Office of General Counsel at (202) 219-3923

– Sign the letter from Public Campaign

Sorry tonight’s post is late and the past couple of days have been missing.  Remember way back when, when you had to write research papers and prepare for finals?  Welcome to my life at this point.

Anyway, tomorrow is the final Democratic debate of the season as the Des Moines Register hosts the debate in IPTV studios in Johnston.  Today’s Republican debate was criticized as being pretty tame and uninteresting, so I’m wondering if the Democratic affair will be just the same?

And what will the Republicans think about the questions posed by Carolyn Washburn after it was revealed that she violated Register policies and participated in the 2006 Democratic gubernatorial primary here in Iowa?

The blogosphere has been ablaze this week after Register columnist David Yepsen’s piece about trying to preserve the sanctity of the Iowa Caucuses by essentially banning out-of-state students attending school in Iowa from coming back to Iowa to caucus.

First of all, I think desmoinesdem is right with her post here calling for Yepsen to apologize to Obama.  As Obama’s been the most vocal of the Democrats calling for students to come back and caucus, he’s been the brunt of Yepsen’s attacks.  Instead, the Obama campaign has been busy fighting with the good progressive ally Paul Krugman instead of David Yepsen who often will smack down truly progressive ideas without indulging them fully or honestly.  So, while the Obama campaign may desperately want the Register’s endorsement, challenging his assertions and his problematic claims against students may do even more to boost your campaign than the endorsement.  But that’s another story entirely.

But secondly, I felt it was my place to respond as a college student (admittedly from Iowa) with many, many friends from outside of Iowa who plan on staying in the state to caucus.  These students spend at least nine months of the year here in the state and have the choice to register to vote here as Iowans.  When you spend 3/4 of your year in a state where you pay income tax on any jobs you might have and pay the local sales tax it seems quite clear to me that you ought to have a say in the elections the state holds, no matter who the candidates are.  The Iowa Democratic Party agrees.  From a statement released this afternoon by IDP Chair Scott Brennan:

“In running the First in the Nation Caucuses, the Iowa Democratic Party follows the Iowa Code in determining the eligibility of potential caucus goers. According to the Iowa Code, all college students who are at least 18 years old are eligible to vote and, therefore, eligible to caucus.

Any student who attends an Iowa college or university may participate in the Iowa caucuses provided they are 18 by November 4, 2008, and are a registered Democrat in the precinct in which they wish to caucus.

The Iowa Democratic Party encourages all eligible caucus goers to attend their precinct caucuses on January 3rd to strengthen the Democratic Party and declare their presidential preference.”

It is really just that simple.  And like others before me have said, David Yepsen is just being elitist in this column and implying tactics that are shady when in fact they’re completely legitimate and legal.

What is even worse is that some presidential campaigns are still agreeing with the rhetoric calling for all out-of-staters to stay away from the caucuses.  While Clinton’s campaign has been back-tracking, they still can’t offer a full answer on whether students from outside Iowa should caucus.  Chris Dodd’s campaign is the one that started the pledge, and both Biden and Richardson have tacitly or overtly signed on and offered rhetoric in support of the policy.  This is absurd to me, and I hope that the campaigns are questioned about this in tomorrow’s Register Democratic debate.  But I doubt it will come up.

And, just to rub it in David Yepsen’s face, here is the Drake student newspaper’s article on how students can sign-up to stay overnight in the Olmsted Center–Drake’s student union–and caucus on January 3rd.

College students in Iowa, stand up and have your voices heard!

A draft opinion out of the Federal Election Commission suggests that money contributed to Democratic candidates through the ActBlue clearinghouse may not be eligible for public matching funds, because ActBlue is registered as a PAC.

However, ActBlue does not function like an ordinary PAC–it’s just a convenient way for individual donors to direct online contributions to different candidates.

This issue came up because John Edwards’ presidential campaign has opted into the public financing system for the primaries. He has raised more than $4 million on ActBlue. Some of that would not be matchable anyway (because only the first $250 from each donor can receive public matching funds), but a significant amount should be eligible for the matching funds.

For background on this issue, read this post by Kos.

Adam Bonin, an attorney who covers regulatory issues at Daily Kos, is sending this letter to the FEC on behalf of Kos and BlogPAC.

Neither Kos nor Adam B supports Edwards, but as Adam notes,

This isn’t about supporting the Edwards campaign — I’ve made my feelings clear on that subject.  It’s about protecting ActBlue and the public financing system, and pushing for a legal regime which respects technological innovation.  Please join us in this fight — you only have until noon on Thursday to submit comments.

I encourage you to read Adam’s whole post–it’s quite informative.

The Edwards campaign is making it easy for citizens to submit comments to the FEC on this issue. Check out this diary by Tracy Joan, who works for the campaign.

The non-profit group Public Campaign is urging people to contact the FEC as well. After the jump, I’ve posted the full text of an e-mail I received this morning from Public Campaign. Or, you can click here and go to the Public Campaign website, where you can add your name to the letter they are sending to the FEC.

Did anyone watch? Did anything interesting happen?

Let us know what you thought.

In his column for the Des Moines Register on Tuesday, David Yepsen repeated assertions he made on his blog not long ago, implying that the Obama campaign is somehow not playing fair because they are encouraging students at Iowa colleges to return to campus for the January 3 caucuses.

As I’ve written before, the right of students at Iowa colleges to caucus is well-established.

Mike Connery goes into more detail about why Yepsen is wrong here. He notes that several rival campaigns have jumped at the chance to imply Obama is cheating in Iowa. I am proud that the Edwards campaign is NOT among those.

The Iowa caucuses should never have been scheduled so early, while colleges are on winter break. I encourage all of the campaigns to identify their student supporters. Why shouldn’t students come back to their campuses for caucus night?

I’m disappointed that the Register would seem to endorse the idea that it is illegitimate for students enrolled at Iowa colleges to caucus.

The Edwards campaign announced today that they have opened 10 new field offices in Iowa in recent weeks. I have updated my diary on Where the Iowa field offices are accordingly.

As of today, 42 Iowa counties have at least one field office for a Democratic presidential candidate. The current tally of Iowa field offices is:

Barack Obama 37 (includes two in Des Moines)

Hillary Clinton 34 (includes two in Dubuque and two in Cedar Rapids)

John Edwards 25

Bill Richardson 16

Chris Dodd 13

Joe Biden 9 (with possibly two more to be added)

Click the link if you want more detailed information.

Tonight’s gonna be an open thread, simply because I’m exhausted from a weekend of paper writing.

What’s on your mind?  What will the big political stories in Iowa and elsewhere be this week?

The Des Moines Register ran an interesting piece today about the network of conservative Christian home-schoolers who are going to volunteer countless hours for Huckabee in the coming weeks: Home-schoolers propel Huckabee

I have secular progressive friends who are home-schoolers, but they seem divided among several candidates, and I don’t think they are contributing significantly to any Democratic campaign the way conservatives are to Huckabee.

I spend a little time on non-political blogs related to mothering/parenting (not posting as “desmoinesdem”). I noticed support for Huckabee on a few of those blogs back in the spring and summer. For instance, see this Christian home-schooler’s blog Making Home. It’s full of Bible interpretation and marriage tips for Christian wives and mothers, with a constant link to a pro-Huckabee site on the right side of the screen.

By the way, you may recall that Making Home is the blog where I was banned from commenting after only a few months. I had to laugh–I’ve hardly ever been troll-rated in several years at Daily Kos and MyDD.

Tonight’s topic: What the hell is Fred Thompson thinking?

I just don’t get this.  Thompson is a former member of the United States Senate and he honestly thinks that the National Intelligence Estimate is something to be “suspicious” of?  Sure, so it may have said something different two years ago than it does today.  But I’m pretty sure with our long-term presence in Iraq that even Thompson can admit our intelligence gathering options have to have gotten a bit better in that area, particularly in terms of getting first-hand information.

Then again, maybe I’m just naive.

Obama supporter “worldtrippers” put up this fun diary at Daily Kos yesterday comparing the top three candidates’ caucus-training videos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

Click the link to read the diary and view all three videos, which are embedded there.

What do you think? Do you agree with worldtrippers’ analysis?

Today’s topic: What will be the headline story on January 4th?

Imagine it is 8 AM on Friday, January 4th.  Last night were the Iowa precinct caucuses.  What is the headline going to be on the Des Moines Register’s front page?  What will the morning shows and cable networks be talking about?  Will the news coverage have a focus on the Democratic results or the Republican results?

These are all important questions going into the caucuses.  For the Democrats, our presumed front-runners all could easily win the Iowa Caucuses.  That means they all could meet expectations.  And in the news business, your story isn’t newsworthy unless you’re doing worse or better than expectations–or you’ve turned them on their head.

On the Republican side, the story and expectations for the past few months have been that Mitt Romney is going to win the Iowa Caucuses for the Republicans.  Now that Mike Huckabee has surged into the lead, we’ve seen the change in tales coming out of Iowa.

But as Marc Ambinder speculates here this could be a gift or blessing in disguise to Mitt Romney.  If Huckabee’s surge is soft or just heightened by favorable coverage up until this week, a potential tanking and resurgence on caucus day for Mitt Romney entirely changes the story in Iowa (again) and makes Republicans the dominant story out of Iowa.

What does that do to Democrats?  I’m not sure.  I’ve only really paid particular to attention to one caucus and the momentum coming out of it for Kerry pushed him to strong victory in New Hampshire.  And Bush had no opponent, so I can’t gauge the Republicans.

So here’s my question: What will the story be on January 4, 2008?  Will it be an expectations met story?  Or will it be a topsy-turvy story of surprising results from Democrats or Republicans?

Long before it was “popular”, John Edwards was calling for a New Strategy for Iran (and the War on Terror in general)

Long before the NIE Report, threw water on the GOP's fiery rhetoric about the looming dangers of Iran, Edwards was saying we must learn the lessons of the Iraq War — NOT Repeat them in Iran!

Long before the cynical Rumsfeld Memos were leaked (proving Edwards right), John Edwards was busy “reframing” the Global War on Terror, calling it “a 'bumper sticker' slogan Bush had used to justify everything …”

Did Edwards get Media Attention and fanfare for his insightful and stateman-like leadership — NO, but he DID help to change the national conversation!

So Much so, that insiders in NIE (National Intelligence Estimate), seem to have taken his advice that: “We've got to stand up to Bush and Cheney and the Neocons …”

It is still a tight race on the Democratic side between Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, while on the Republican side Mike Huckabee has surged past Mitt Romney to take a commanding lead in Iowa according to the latest Newsweek Iowa Caucus polling released this afternoon.

Here are the Democratic results among likely caucus-goers, with all Democrats polled in parentheses (Republicans are below the fold):

Barack Obama 35% (29%)

Hillary Clinton 29% (30%)

John Edwards 18% (21%)

Bill Richardson 9% (11%)

Joe Biden 4% (2%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Chris Dodd * (*)

Other candidate 0% (0%)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Only 395 were identified as likely caucus-goers, meaning that the margin of error among those likely caucus-goers is +/-6%.  If you take the MOE for all 673 polled, it is still +/-5%.  Clearly, Obama comes across as the front-runner from the looks of the polls, with Edwards still hanging out.  I’d say that the polling doesn’t accurately reflect Edwards’ stance all that much and we all know that his 2004 infrastructure is still largely in place giving him quite the advantage in that arena.

A couple of things to take from the results.  First of all, it looks like contrary to popular belief Barack Obama may be doing better with those who are already more likely to attend their precinct caucus.  Thus, expanding the universe of potential caucus-goers for Obama might actually be more detrimental.  Same goes for Joe Biden.  However, when you include all of those Democrats polled Clinton, Edwards, and Richardson all gain.  To me that means: a) Obama has more committed supporters ready to say they’re going to caucus, or b) Obama’s support in the so-called “expansion universe” of potential caucus-goers isn’t as strong as the conventional wisdom says.  These are both assumptions on my part and there is always room for other interpretation, but that’s what I’m seeing here.

The second specific point about the poll was that they polled second choices as well, which Bleeding Heartland reader RF noted earlier this week in a comment.  These totals are going to add to more than 100%, but here are the net first/second choice support totals for the candidates, with likely caucus-goers as the first number and all Democrats polled in parentheses:

Barack Obama 55% (50%)

Hillary Clinton 50% (51)

John Edwards 45% (44%)

Bill Richardson 16% (17%)

Joe Biden 11% (8%)

Chris Dodd 2% (1%)

Dennis Kucinich * (1%)

Other candidate * (*)

Undecided 5% (6%)

Again, to me this confirms that the race in Iowa is still a strong three-way race between Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.  The gap in first/second choice support is only 10% among likely caucus-goers (and 7% among the rest of Democrats) while there is a 17% gap among likely’s in first choice and 9% among all Democrats.  Things are still tightly wound among Iowa Democrats.

You can see the full poll results here in PDF form courtesy of Newsweek.  Their story on the poll is here.

cross-posted at MyDD and Daily Kos

I decided to write this diary when I learned that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton each have more than 30 field offices in Iowa.

After January 3, we will see whether campaigns with the most field offices did better in the counties where rivals had field organizers and volunteers working without the visibility of an office.

More information than you probably wanted to know is after the jump.

I have listed the counties in descending order, based on the number of state delegates they will assign on the Democratic side. I took the numbers from this post by Drew Miller, who calculated how many state delegates each Iowa county would contribute to the 2,500 total. [UPDATE: I corrected the delegate totals for a few counties after hearing from Drew Miller.]

I also give the 2004 caucus results for each county. Those numbers come from this table on the Des Moines Register’s website. The results reflect the percentage of county delegates assigned to the various presidential candidates (not the percentage of raw votes each one received in the county).  

Exactly four weeks from today over 150,000 Iowa Democrats will gather in areas across the state to voice their support for their chosen candidate in a field of eight Democrats, six of them seen as serious contenders and candidates.

Today’s topic will be polling.  It seems like there is going to be a new poll for almost every day until we get to January 3rd when one man or woman will finally emerge as a winner.  But a lot of questions remain.  Which polls do you trust?  Which polls do you toss aside like garbage?  Which polls more accurately predict Iowans voting habits than others?  Are the polling outlets partisan?

These are all good questions.  In addition to asking ordinary Iowa bloggers their thoughts about the polls, it is always good to check out the fine folks over at Pollster.com and read their analysis of all of the polls released in the lead up to the caucuses.  Specifically, if you’re interested in tracking the trends and compiled (or specific) poll results, their specific page on the Iowa Democratic Caucuses is quite worthwhile.

But if you ask me, the most reliable and accurate polling done in Iowa is usually done by Selzer and Co., the folks who do the Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll.  You can find the poll’s homepage here on the Register’s site.  Past articles about the most recent polling highlight things like methodology and other information garnered from the polling.

One of the most intriguing results I’ve noticed from the last poll (and Yepsen noticed it too) is that about half of Democrats and over 60% of Republicans say they could still be persuaded to change their mind.  Coincidently enough, I’m probably one of those people.  I’ve got two candidates that I support but every day that I think I’ve picked one I feel like I might go back towards the other.  So I’m pretty sure that once I pick one candidate I could easily be persuaded to go back to another.

To me, that is emblematic of Iowans’ fickle-ness, which definitely isn’t a bad thing.  It means that many of us are still listening and haven’t isolated ourselves off for one particular candidate already.  While that makes the individual campaigns’ jobs harder it means that negative ads, events, and issues still matter.

And truly, if polling isn’t telling the accurate story (or so you think), get out there and work harder for the candidate or issue you’re caucusing for.  I know it is the holiday season but as Iowans we’re privileged to have this role of first-in-the-nation.  And by God let’s use it.

Ok, so this isn’t exactly a timely post for my “daily” caucus countdown feature, but this will be a quick post with more detailed ones to come over time.

Who are you caucusing for?  And why (as simply put as possible, please)?  Finally, if for some reason your candidate isn’t viable, who would your second choice be?

I asked this question over at my site and I’m hoping that a broader audience here at BH will give me a greater idea and provoke some good discussion.

John Deeth posted an update on legislative endorsements, along with a helpful chart showing which candidates Iowa Democratic legislators endorsed in 2004, and which counties the legislators represent.

The latest tally is Clinton 19, Obama 18, Biden 14, Edwards 10, Dodd 3 and Richardson 1. 

Deeth's chart also shows who has yet to endorse, and who those legislators backed (if anyone) four years ago. 

I listened to most of the NPR debate this afternoon. Although I am usually more interested in hearing the candidates debate domestic policy, I thought it was good for NPR to go in depth on a few foreign-policy issues. The questions were solid and substantive, and the candidates had to go beyond their usual sound-bite answers on Iran, China and immigration policy.

It’s too bad Richardson couldn’t make it because of a funeral he was attending, because the format probably would have suited him. I have heard him answer questions on immigration, and he makes a strong case on that issue.

I thought Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd all did pretty well.

If you listened to the debate, what did you think?

Mark Halperin’s post-debate scorecard is here:

http://thepage.time.com/excerp…

I’m going to try and start a new feature that will bring about a daily post specifically about the Iowa Precinct Caucuses, which are now only 30 days away.

As a history primer, I recommend checking out Hugh Winebrenner’s quick piece on the the history of the caucuses that he wrote for IowaPolitics.com.

And how do you caucus?  First of all, check out desmoinesdem’s post series (parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) on how the caucuses work.  Secondly, check out the IDP’s FAQs on the caucuses.

And finally, some of the campaigns and groups have started making videos on how to caucus.  Check them out below the fold.

Let me know if you have thoughts on more daily features and things you want to see in the comments.

Come on, Steve King, jump in against Tom Harkin! You are clearly thinking about it:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007…

Harkin would trounce King. We wouldn't pick up the 5th CD, but almost any other Republican would be an improvement on King. Getting that bigot out of Congress would take his megaphone away.

In related news, I saw a Rathje bumper sticker in Des Moines the other day. That's a first.

The old saying goes:

“The only things Inevitable in Life, are Death and Taxes!”

These are both unpleasant subjects, and since political candidates can’t really do a lot about one, this diary will be exploring the other — Taxes.

John Edwards has based his campaign on hard hitting messages about the need for “Economic Parity” in our Country — this Diary will be taking a serious look at what Edwards will do about Taxes.

The Senator often says “I do not wanting to live in a Country made up of the Super-Rich and Everybody Else!”  

That’s not the America we all grew up in. Each year achieving the American Dream becomes more and more difficult. What are working people to do, in this society of Haves and Have-Nots?

Is John’s tough Campaign Rhetoric just Talk, or does he actually have the Plans to Back it up?

Turn the page, to see where the “Rhetoric meet Reality” when it comes to that annual April Ritual, most hard-working American love to hate — spelled I.R.S.

Dear Iowa (And America),

I am sitting here on my computer in thinking of you. It may sound ridiculous because I’m only 14, but I care more about you and everything you do than anything else in the world. You are not an average state but I can’t change who you are and that’s why you’re so important to me. You see, you have a very important decision to make by January 3rd about a very special someone. I can beg with you and plead with you but in the end it’s up to you. You are getting tremendous pressure from all sides but let me just make a plea to you to pick the right special someone. I am talking of course about the next President of the United States.

Give me a chance.

I just got a robocall paid for by “Common Sense Issues,” whatever that is. It was a brief survey with questions intended to generate interest in Mike Huckabee. The voice said the phone number at the end of the call too fast for me to catch it. The voice referred me to this website, “Trust Huckabee”:

http://www.trusthuckabee.com

These were the questions, as closely as I can remember them. I may have missed some–I didn’t have a pen and paper handy–but I sat down at the computer within a minute of the call ending, so my memory is fresh.

Do you plan to participate in the Republican caucus on January 3?

Do you plan to participate in the Democratic caucus on January 3?

On the issue of abortion, do you consider yourself pro-life?

Do you believe that a marriage should be between one man and one woman?

[I can’t remember the wording, but it was something about Bill Clinton praising Mike Huckabee saying everyone likes him, followed by a question about whether that makes me want to learn more about Mike Huckabee.]

Does the fact that Mike Huckabee raised his state’s education rating from 49th to [can’t remember, some number in the 20s] make you interested in learning more about Mike Huckabee?

Does the fact that for the last 19 years there has been either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House concern you? [I think that was the question–it may have been: does the possibility of having either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for 27 years concern you?]

Those are all the questions I can remember. The voice was talking very fast at the end, encouraging me to go to www.trusthuckabee.com, saying the call was paid for by Common Sense Issues and giving a phone number with a 719 area code. (I couldn’t catch the whole number, and I don’t have caller ID.)

I don’t know if I would have gotten more questions if I had answered some of the robocall questions differently (e.g. if I had said yes, I identify as pro-life). Probably the questions would have been the same no matter what I said, though.

I am not an expert on campaign finance law. I noticed this disclaimer on the Trust Huckabee website:

Trust Huckabee is a grassroots independent organization committed to educating voters to support Governor Mike Huckabee for the Republican Nomination for President of the United States. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Since the robocall did not explicitly ask me to caucus for Huckabee, I assume there is no potential FEC problem. But I also saw this on the Trust Huckabee website:

Governor Huckabee can win the Iowa Caucuses if you commit yourself to attending your Precinct Caucus and become a Precinct Captain. It is all about numbers and organization. We have the numbers, we have the names, we need to build the organization.

Join Now!

Can an independent group recruit precinct captains for Huckabee’s presidential campaign? Do FEC disclosure requirements come into play here? Any election lawyers in the house?

UPDATE: Daily Kos user “omegajew” got the same call and reminded me that there was an anti-gay marriage question in there, so I added that to the list above. I can’t remember the exact wording, but what I wrote is a decent paraphrase.

Almost every day there’s a new Iowa poll released, and I haven’t been able to keep up with them all. If you are a poll junkie, I recommend checking MyDD and Open Left frequently, because the front-pagers and diarists there never miss a chance to analyze a new Iowa poll.

Several polls released during the last week, including the latest from the Des Moines Register, show the top three candidates bunched closely together (typically within the margin of error), with Obama leading, Clinton in second and Edwards in third place.

Obama supporters are triumphant to see him taking the lead in the Real Clear Politics five-poll averages for Iowa. However, there is good news for all of the top-tier candidates in these polls.

Obviously, Obama has to be happy with his overall lead in Iowa, which is small but has been found in several polls. His favorability rating seems high, and he seems to be tied with Hillary, or even leading a bit, among women.

A cautionary note for Obama is that he has blowout leads among voters under 35 (in the Des Moines Register poll, a 48-19-17 lead in this age group). Not only are younger voters historically less likely to caucus, they are also virtually absent from many precincts. We have very few residents under age 40 in my precinct, for instance.

Depending on the survey, it also seems that Obama is trailing Clinton and Edwards among rural and small-town voters, who punch above their weight when the state delegates are tallied. Obama would clearly be better off if Iowa had a primary.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has to be concerned that her overall support has slipped slightly, and she may no longer be leading Obama among women voters.

Most worrying for Clinton, several surveys have shown that she trails Edwards and Obama among second choices, and the Des Moines Register poll indicates that her unfavorable rating among Iowa Democrats is about 30 percent.

On the other hand, Clinton still seems to have a slight lead among older voters, and her support may be more evenly spread across the state than Obama’s. If she can bring out large numbers of new women voters, Iowa is still winnable for her. Remember that Obama has not yet faced much scrutiny in the media, but that will change now that he is leading in Iowa.

As an Edwards supporter, I am satisfied with the recent Iowa polls. He is within touch of the lead, and often leads among Iowans who have caucused before. The Des Moines Register poll assumes that one-third of caucus-goers on January 3 will have never caucused before, but I do not believe there will be that many newcomers.

Several polls indicate that Edwards leads among second choices as well, which could help him pick up as much as 5 to 10 percent on January 3.

I anticipate that on caucus night, the precinct captains for Clinton and Obama will be focused on keeping the main rival’s delegate count down, and will not be trying to undermine Edwards in the same way.

Richardson and Biden don’t seem to be surging or dropping considerably in Iowa. I still sense that both candidates have room to gain support as undecided voters make up their minds. Frankly, as an Edwards supporter I would like to see Richardson and Biden stay below the threshold in as many precincts as possible.

What do you think?

The Yepsenity of the day is causing a stir on the political blogs. Yepsen published this post about the so-called “Illinois caucus”:

Barack Obama’s campaign is telling Iowa college students they can caucus for him even if they aren’t from Iowa.

His campaign offers that advice in a brochure being distributed on college campuses in the state.  A spokesman said it’s legal and that 50,000 of the fliers are being distributed.

The brochure says: “If you are not from Iowa, you can come back for the Iowa caucus and caucus in your college neighborhood.”

Given that lots of students in Iowa’s colleges and universities are from Obama’s neighboring home state of Illinois, the effort could net him thousands of additional votes on caucus night.

[…]

Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for Obama’s campaign, said “we have no intention of doing something here that is in any way illegal or that will raise questions about the credibility of the caucuses.”  He said election laws allow students to register and vote where they go to college and that means they can caucus in those precincts as well.

That’s fine but these are the Iowa caucuses.  Asking people who are “not from Iowa” to participate in them changes the nature of the event.

I think Yepsen is wrong and owes the Obama campaign an apology. Students from other states who attend colleges in Iowa can choose to vote either in their home states or in Iowa. That is well-established.

The Obama brochure is aimed at students attending schools in Iowa. It urges them to come “back” and caucus in their neighborhoods. Clearly they are not trying to bring in thousands of students who are neither from Iowa nor attending school in Iowa.

If the caucuses were on January 21 instead of January 3, this wouldn’t even be an issue. Many students from other states caucused in Iowa City, Ames, and other college towns in 2004. There is nothing unfair about that.

I would hope that all the campaigns are trying to identify college students supporting them and trying to encourage those students to come back to campus to caucus, if their home towns are outside Iowa.

Mike Allen picked up the story for Politico, quoting staffers for other campaigns who tried to imply that Obama is cheating:

A Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign official said: “We are not courting out-of-staters. The Iowa caucus ought to be for Iowans.”

And a Clinton spokesman leveled a thinly-veiled accusation at Obama later in the day.

“We are not systematically trying to manipulate the Iowa caucuses with out-of-state people,” Mo Elleithee said.

“We don’t have literature recruiting out-of-state college students. We didn’t bus in folks from out of state to the [Democratic party’s Jefferson-Jackson dinner]. We didn’t bring in out-of-state activists to the Heartland Forum.”

In fact, Clinton is counting on the support of some out-of-state students attending Iowa universities. Sarah Sunderman of Iowa State University, who was announced in a news release as a leader of the “Hill Yea” Students Leaders for Hillary, told the Des Moines Register in October that “she will drive back early from her home in Minnesota to take part in the Jan. 3 caucuses.”

Chris Dodd for President Iowa State Director Julie Andreeff Jensen said in a statement on Saturday:

“I was deeply disappointed to read today about the Obama campaign’s attempt to recruit thousands of out-of-state residents to come to Iowa for the caucuses. … ‘New Politics’ shouldn’t be about scheming to evade either the spirit or the letter of the rules that guide the process. That may be the way politics is played in Chicago, but not in Iowa.”

I see no evidence Obama’s campaign is trying to get volunteers from other states to come here for a short time and then caucus on January 3.

Julie Andreeff Jensen worked on John Kerry’s campaign in Iowa before the last caucuses. She must be aware that there were college students from other states who caucused for Kerry.

Shame on the Clinton staffer who accused Obama of trying to “manipulate” the caucuses. It is totally legitimate to encourage your own supporters to come back to their college campuses for caucus night.

If Obama wins the caucuses, Hillary’s going to have to come up with a better excuse.

I'm going to have to catch the rerun later on C-SPAN. If you saw the candidates speak, let us know what you thought.

Noneed4thneed is posting his thoughts at Century of the Common Iowan:

http://commoniowan.blogspot.com/

UPDATE: If you’ve seen the Brown and Black forum, share your thoughts here as well.

Ben Smith of Politico broke this story, but Josh Marshall's team at Talking Points Memo is doing the most follow-up. (By the way, Josh should get the Pulitzer next year for his coverage of the Bush administration's abuse of power in firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.)

Anyway, click the link. It turns out the NYPD didn't just drive Rudy to visit his girlfriend, and didn't just drive Rudy's girlfriend when he wasn't around, they also sometimes drove her friends and family in a city-owned car. 

Also, New York City cops sometimes walked her dog.

No way can Rudy's campaign last another month. 

UPDATE: Take a minute and fourteen seconds out of your life to watch this video.

Sorry, I don't have a link for this story–I just heard about it from someone who teaches at Drake University in Des Moines. Apparently a faculty member in the political science department was able to convince Drake administrators to open the Olmsted Center on the night of January 3, when the dormitories will still be closed.

So if students want to come to Des Moines to caucus and then camp out in Olmsted with their sleeping bags, they will have a warm and safe place to stay.

Of course, Drake students from other parts of Iowa may prefer to caucus in their home towns, and Drake students from far away may have friends in the Des Moines area to stay with.

But kudos to the Drake administration for giving students who want to participate in the caucuses another option. 

Students out there, who besides Obama has significant support in the Drake student body? I'm curious about Republicans as well as Democrats. 

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register ran this story on Saturday about efforts to get college students to caucus:

http://www.desmoinesregister.c…

Well, I thought Rudy Giuliani’s campaign would go down in flames because of his connections to the federally indicted Bernie Kerik, or because he blew off attending the Iraq Study Group meetings in order to give $100,000 speeches.

But little did I know that the mayor billed city agencies for his security detail during daytime visits to his mistress and allowed said mistress to use the New York Police Department as her “personal taxi service”.

The guy is more brazen and corrupt than I ever imagined.

Anyone think his campaign can last until January 3?

UPDATE: Keep an eye on Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo blog. His crew are digging into various aspects of this story, and he is posting frequent updates:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

I didn't watch the debate, but the consensus on the liberal blogs seems to be that Huckabee did very well.

I have been saying for months that we are in a world of hurt if Republicans nominate Huckabee, particularly if we end up having to run Hillary against him.

Anyone out there watch the debate? What did you thnk? 

UPDATE: Over at Daily Kos, grannyhelen posted these hilarious YouTubes of a woman in CNN’s focus group of undecided Republican voters saying that after watching the debate, she leans toward John Edwards:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…