I agree totally, bizarre. But we are talking about the DMR, which is very well respected. We'll just have to wait until Thursday night. This we all know for sure, we are looking at 3 man/woman race.

This poll has enormously raised the expectation game for Obama. A loss would have a huge deflationary affect on his campaign. And it's all based on a poll from the DMR predicting a colossal turnout both in total and by independants and Republicans in a democratic caucus. All this despite the fact that there is a hell of a fight going on in the Republican camp which would attract Republicans and Republican leaning indies. It doesn't play in Peoria.

numbers is this:

I think Clinton is somewhere between 28 and 32 (If I look at all of the numbers and not just the two you cite here).

My read is that the real fight is between Edwards and Obama.  If they split evenly, Clinton will win.  If one is to get a marginal advantage over the other, they win Iowa and New Hampshire and will lead nationally going into Nevada.

All along my take has been that Clinton's numbers are low for a front runner, and I don't think she is likely to get north of 32.

I don't think that is going to be enough. In the end, I believe Edwards is going to win as concerns over Obama's experience mount.  

Who knows, though.

but at the same time, as you say, it is unlikely and it is irresponsible to report these numbers they have come up with in some sort of bizarre wishful thinking.

two of the most respected plling firm in the business. How Ironic now Hillary fans find themselve whining and criticizing the polls just because they don't like the results? I can remember as of yesterday, Obama was dead and the DMR last poll was supposed to be the final nail in the coffin. And they were all expecting good news for Hillary. It doesn't surprised me now, they are trying to trash the DMR poll.

Good analysis from Chris Bowers http://openleft.com/frontPage.do. We warned you the Obama fans were out of town for Xmas and they are back.

Well the polls have always been all over the place- if you remember, in maybe sept., Obama jumped to first and then was third in the next one, and that happened again over a month ago- but this DM is very respected.

The real value in the poll for the Obama campaign is it's psychological value- they want the Clinton and Edwards supporters to give up over it, give in to despair, make a half-heart effort to both campaign and caucus- that ensures their victory if you do that.  Surprise results have happened in the past and could happen still here, but surely not if people give up, which is exactly what they want.

Is it just me or does this poll's turnout method imply that the number of first time caucus goers would NOT be democrats? It seems kind of weird that independants and republicans would be motivated to turn out more but not democrats.

Well we'll see if the pollsters at the DMR are really the Iowa poll to trust come Caucus time. I can't see 45% of the Democratic primary vote being non Democrats. Now if they said 30% or so they could have sold me on that, but since Democratic turnout will likely increase as well as independent turnout I don't see how the preportion of non Democrats doubles. I still think anyone can come in first, and anyone can come in third.

It's worth noting that while the DMR's assumptions are striking, they also lead to the result of Obama winning by a LOT.  They don't necessarily have to come 100% true for Obama to be the winner.  (Of course, the usual caveats concerning the structure of the caucus system apply; this is still a statewide poll.)

For example, the DMR poll has Obama behind Clinton by 6 points among Democrats, but ahead by a whopping 24 points among Independents.  Now, let's assume the turnout is just like it was in 2004: 80% Democrats, 20% Independents.  In other words, we will assume Obama has NO ability to turn out extra Democrats beyond what we saw in 2004.  The results of this hypothetical: a statistical tie between Clinton and Obama.

Therefore, any aptitude whatsoever for turning out Independents on Obama's part - even if he can increase their proportion by a mere 5% instead of the 20% the DMR assumes - would give him a lead over Clinton under the same polling methodology.  Of course, given the caucus structure, that doesn't necessarily add up to a win, but it's still worth considering.

I am not buying the Edwards numbers in the DMR poll. They seem way too low in the DMR Register to everything else we have seen recently.   I think you are right, Mark, that projecting that 45% of caucus-goers in the Iowa caucus to be NON-DEMOCRATS is extremely unlikely, downright bizarre.  That assumes that DEMOCRATS will just stay home in droves (given the massive increase of Independents participating projected,) which does not seem to have a basis in reality in this particular cycle.   It is not about the total number projected (we might just see 200,000,) but about the partisan makeup of those participating.  No way virtually HALF of all participants in Democratic caucuses will be NON-Democrats.  That is where the DMR errs, but we'll see soon enough.

This makes the expectations going into the Iowa caucuses clear:  Obama must win the Iowa caucus, and roughly by the 7% suggested by the DMR, or else the expectations will not be fulfilled and he loses tons of support overnight, is most likely going to be hit with a devastating blow overnight.  Second is clearly not enough for Obama anymore.   It is now win or bust.    

Yes, indeed, this wildly out-of-sync DMR poll absolutely stinks of the MSM/Russert/Williams/Matthews anti-Clinton invective.  And that although the DMR endorsed Senator Clinton.

But here is the obvious fact: this poll is indicating that NOT Democrats but rather Independents and Republicans in primaries that need not pay any heed to their own partisans are coallescing for Senator Obama.

As we who support Senator Clinton have long maintained, that is what makes both Iowa and New Hampshire supremely unrepresentative of most all of the remaining, truly Democratic primaries.

It is why Senator Clinton maintains huge leads nationally in virtually all polling, after a full year.  

And why the dynamic for the Democratic nomination simply will not change regardless of what the MSM and their fellow Clinton haters in the blogosphere attempt to do with any results out of either Iowa and New Hampshire.

Iowa and New Hampshire notwithstanding, bedrock Democrats voting in traditional non-cross-over primaries--which are the great bulk of them--are not going to desert the Clintons for a three-year Senate neophyte out of Illinois.

If on January 3 there were a national Democratic primary, Senator Hillary Clinton would be the nominee of her party before nightfall.

Everyone knows this--the MSM and even the most passionate of Clinton haters.

So the matter of how to change that dynamic came down to vaulting into higher significance than ever before both Iowa and New Hampshire--with their scores of cross-over nontraditional voters.  

Only by magnifying those entirely unrepresentative states could the Clinton loathing find some opening, some hope that traditional Democrats would abandon the Clintons.  

And thus fulfill the dream of the MSM, who, like the scores of unrepresentative samples indicated in this bizarre DMR poll, have spent fifteen years doing all they can to turn the country away from the Clintons.

Now, breathe deeply and consider this DMR poll narrative.  It states, uncategorically, that record numbers of independents and Republicans, voting in a Democratic caucus, want the DEMOCRATS to turn away from Senator Hillary Clinton and cast their lot with Senator Barack Obama!

Put another way, supposing we Democrats were to use the same subterfuge against Republicans in a primary of theirs in which the legacy of Ronald Reagan was itself a candidate.

Indeed, scores of Democrats and Independents could indeed show their disapproval of the Reagan legacy, by way of such cross-over voting.  And much fanfare could be made of that fact.

However, in the end, REPUBLICANS in traditional non-cross-over primaries would not then follow suit and disavow the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Which is why the DMR poll, bizarre in its sample, only reveals the absurdity of a Democratic Primary judged by the standards of an Iowa caucus, or even of a cross-over New Hampshire primary for that matter.

Judging from virtually every other polling firm, using traditional methodology, there is a very close race in Iowa among the top three contenders in the Democratic Primary.  

And most all such polling gives an edge to Senator Clinton.  Thus, she does indeed have a very good chance of winning in Iowa.

But if the skewered methdology of the DMR poll is to be considered on its face, then the result on January 3 will still be that a clear majority of DEMOCRATS want Senator Clinton to be their nominee, whereas a clear majority of NON-DEMOCRATS want Senator Obama to be the nominee of the DEMOCRAT PRIMARY.

In the end, regardless of all the anti-Clinton invective spewed forth by the MSM talking-heads before and after January 3 and January 5, Senator Clinton will still become the DEMOCRAT choice for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION.

Sorry, indies and Republicans, we bedrock Democrats still love the Clintons.  So if you yet want your three-year Senate neophyte Barack Obama to represent you, we suggest that the rest of you find your own party in which to nominate him.

The DMR poll can over-represent your significance in Iowa.  But it can do you no good in over-representing you in the selection of a Democratic nominee by the truly DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

The idea that Obama has momentum is also false. Obama only picked up support in their latest poll because they increased the amount of independents and first time caucusgoers dramatically. Edwards, who went up 1%, probably went up much more than that with a lower turnout.

According to a Pollster.com survey of respected Iowa pollsters.

Whatever the polls say, as I've been arguing for a while now, they are MEANINGLESS. It's just sad to see that when an outfit such as ARG reports that Clinton is ahead by 15 points, everyone here takes it as gospel. But now that their candidate isn't looking too hot, the polls are no longer to be trusted.

This will come down to 1) turn out 2) whether all of these new Independents will actually caucus and 3) second choice votes.

I have said this before.

There is an anti-Clinton vote.  Small in the Democrat party and he splits that with Edwards.

Its gets bigger with the independents and it is of course large with Republicans.

I think when some are reached at home and asked to take part in the poll they cast their vote against Clinton and move to the anti Clinton candidate the media has created.  Obama.  But taking a phone poll is an easy thing for a Fox News watching couch potato to do.   Getting out to the caucus or the primary is another thing all together.

You also have the youth vote.  It is easy to wear a t-shirt and follow your friend to a rally.  But again, caucusing on Thurs. night during a holiday is a different story.

I think a lot of folks will be stunned by Obama's performance (not in a good way if you like Obama).