IA-Quinnipiac: D: Clinton 52% Sanders 33%; R: Walker 18% Carson 10% Trump 10%

[Mr. Morden]

Quinnipiac poll of Iowa, conducted June 20-29:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2258

Walker 18%
Carson 10%
Trump 10%
Cruz 9%
Paul 9%
Bush 8%
Rubio 7%
Huckabee 5%
Perry 4%
Santorum 4%
Fiorina 3%
Jindal 3%
Kasich 2%
Christie 1%
Graham 1%
Pataki 0%

UPDATE:

Early numbers from the Democratic side:

http://time.com/3943994/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa/

Clinton 52%
Sanders 33%

[Mr. Morden]

So latest polls have Trump at ~10% in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  That's good enough to be tied for 2nd in IA and alone in 2nd in NH.

[Mr. Morden]

Which candidate would you *NOT* support under any circumstances?

Trump 28%
Bush 24%
Christie 18%
Graham 12%
Huckabee 11%
Paul 11%
Cruz 9%
Santorum 8%
Perry 7%
Pataki 6%
Kasich 5%
Carson 4%
Fiorina 4%
Jindal 4%
Rubio 4%
Walker 4%

I won't bother listing everyone's favorable #s, but Trump is 42% favorable / 47% unfavorable…not as far underwater as Christie or Graham, but still not good.

[Mr. Morden]

No numbers for the Dems?

I'm assuming they'll release those tomorrow.

[Mr. Morden]

Time says the Democratic numbers are:

http://time.com/3943994/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa/

Clinton 52%
Sanders 33%
and then everyone else.

Full results should be out at the top of the hour.

[Mr. Morden]

Full Democratic numbers:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2259

Clinton 52%
Sanders 33%
Biden 7%
O'Malley 3%
Webb 1%
Chafee 0%

[Mr. Morden]

Among voters describing themselves as "very liberal", Sanders leads 47%-43%.  Clinton leads among all other groups.

Are there any candidates you would definitely *NOT* support?

Biden 7%
Chafee 7%
Webb 7%
Clinton 6%
O'Malley 4%
Sanders 4%
no one 59%
don't know 16%

fav/unfav % among Democrats:

Clinton 85/10% for +75%
Biden 80/12% for +68%
Sanders 66/8% for +58%
O'Malley 24/5% for +19%
Webb 18/6% for +12%
Chafee 10/8% for +2%

[Mr. Morden]

Polling was more sparse in 1999, but according to this source:

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/21/dmr.gore/index.html

the Des Moines Register had a poll in late June 1999, and on the Democratic side, it was:

Gore 64%
Bradley 24%

but by October the gap had narrowed down to as little as 3 points, at least in one poll.  Of course, Gore ended up rallying in the end, to win by 63%-37%.

So yeah, there's the potential for more wild swings one way or the other over the next six months.

[Mr. Morden]

Of course, one important element of Gore's comeback in 2000 was the fact that he went negative on Bradley:

link

Will Clinton follow suit, or will she ignore Sanders indefinitely?

[Mr. Morden]

What other Democratic candidates will still be in the race by the time Iowa votes, besides Clinton and Sanders?  Any of them?  Wonder if Clinton and/or Sanders tries to cut a deal with any of Chafee/O'Malley/Webb for their supporters in precincts where they're not viable, a la the Edwards/Kucinich deal from 2004:

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/elec04.prez.edwards.kucinich/

[Mr. Morden]

Granted, one of those two will win Iowa, but O'Malley and Webb are going to get a decent percentage.

But because of how the caucuses work, getting ~5-10% support statewide means that you really end up getting ~1-2%.  You need 15% viability in a given precinct to reach viability, for your support to count.  Otherwise, your supporters have to reallocate to someone else.  That's why Richardson got 2%, Biden 1%, and Dodd 0% in 2008.  Many of their supporters had to reallocate to Edwards/Obama/Clinton.  2016 could be the same, with only Clinton and Sanders getting any support greater than a rounding error.