Selzer/DMR/Bloomberg FINAL IOWA POLL: Trump +5, Clinton +3

[Mr. Morden]

[IceSpear]

Lol it's a 3 point lead Shillarys calm down.

So now you know what people look like freaking out about Overtime. Except, you know, this lot know Iowa and it's still important. But it's still IA and no one knows how this BS will turn out.

Nobody has ever freaked out about Overtime. Give me one example.

Wulfric sure seemed excited.

Overtime finds Clinton cratering in Ohio!

[Skye]

Damn, President Trump just one step closer.

Imagine if Rubio actually beats Cruz.

[Mr. Morden]

There's more info here:

http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/r1OvZ1NeDjnY

but not the full crosstabs.  For example, on the livestream, they were talking about how Cruz and Trump were close to even in the 4th congressional district.  Do we have crosstabs anywhere for all of the congressional districts?

[IceSpear]

As a reminder, DMR's final pre-Iowa poll in 2012:

Romney 24
Paul 22
Santorum 15
Gingirch 12
Perry 11
Bachmann 7
Huntsman 2

"Gold standard"

Santorum clearly had the last second momentum. If anyone has momentum this time, it's Trump.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Comparing the 2012 GOP poll numbers to the Democrats' numbers today is like comparing apples and oranges. It's true that anything can happen and that the race shifted quickly between the time of the Republican DMR poll and the actual caucuses last cycle, but there's no discernible momentum in the Dem race at the moment. Bodes well for Hillary, especially since it sounds like she has a built-in delegate advantage.

[Adam Griffin]

As a reminder, DMR's final pre-Iowa poll in 2012:

Romney 24
Paul 22
Santorum 15
Gingirch 12
Perry 11
Bachmann 7
Huntsman 2

"Gold standard"

They weren't far off. They just overestimated Bachmann/Huntsman and underestimated Frothy.

Their numbers were - statistically-speaking - pretty much dead on for everybody but Santorum. The difference between (Romney minus Santorum) in the poll and (Santorum minus Romney) in the final result = the undecided number.

[Matty]

Over 60% of trump supporters in this poll say they have never attended a caucus.

[Adam Griffin]

Bodes well for Hillary, especially since it sounds like she has a built-in delegate advantage.

Yes, I think barring some major screw-up by Selzer or a huge event at the last minute, Clinton wins IA by a comparable number in voters and a slightly larger amount in delegates. Sanders is hurt by the fact that the caucus system penalizes his demographics - who are clustered on college campuses and in urban areas in general - while Clinton benefits from a larger than proportionate share of delegates being allocated to rural counties and caucus sites. Sanders would need to win by 3-5 points in order to eek out a plurality/majority of delegates in all likelihood.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

As a reminder, DMR's final pre-Iowa poll in 2012:

Romney 24
Paul 22
Santorum 15
Gingirch 12
Perry 11
Bachmann 7
Huntsman 2

"Gold standard"

Actually, they do a three day set of polling and it showed Santorum's last minute surge. But the headlines for 2012 presented the three-days worth of data, not the day by day data.

The Clinton enthusiasm number is important. And it'll be a huge test of their organisation.

[Mr. Morden]

Sanders is hurt by the fact that the caucus system penalizes his demographics - who are clustered on college campuses and in urban areas in general - while Clinton benefits from a larger than proportionate share of delegates being allocated to rural counties and caucus sites.

Is it true that, college towns aside, Sanders's support is more concentrated in urban areas than Clinton's support is?  I haven't seen evidence that it is.  See the discussion in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=227529.0

[Matty]

45% OF RESPONDENTS ARE STILL UNSURE OF WHO THEY WILL VOTE FOR.

TRUMP ONLY GETS 7% SECOND CHOICE

[Lief 🗽]

If the Republican caucus were like the Democratic caucus, then Rubio would be right on the edge of massively overperforming or massively underperforming, haha. 15% but with everyone having you as your second choice is very dangerous.

But luckily the Republican caucus is not like that and we'll have PRESIDENT TRUMP.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

As a reminder, DMR's final pre-Iowa poll in 2012:

Romney 24
Paul 22
Santorum 15
Gingirch 12
Perry 11
Bachmann 7
Huntsman 2

"Gold standard"

They weren't far off. They just overestimated Bachmann/Huntsman and underestimated Frothy.

Not to mention 7% legitimately undecided. This year's 2% doesn't give that much hope.

[Holmes]

Sanders is hurt by the fact that the caucus system penalizes his demographics - who are clustered on college campuses and in urban areas in general - while Clinton benefits from a larger than proportionate share of delegates being allocated to rural counties and caucus sites.

Is it true that, college towns aside, Sanders's support is more concentrated in urban areas than Clinton's support is?  I haven't seen evidence that it is.  See the discussion in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=227529.0

I think a better thing to consider rather than "urban center vs. rural/suburban" is the amount of young, college students. In terms of urban centers, can see Clinton being strong in the counties and cities along the Mississippi river (save Dubuque) and in the Des Moines metro area, and maybe Council Bluffs, but Sanders is probably strong in Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Ames...

And who knows, Sanders is probably strong in some random rural areas as well. It'll be interesting to see the map.

[bigedlb]

TRUMPUBLICANS
Trump 28 +6 net change Trump +8
Cruz 23 -2
Rubio 15 +3
Carson 10 -1
Paul 5 nc
Christie 3 nc
Bush 2 -2
Fiorina 2 nc
Huckabee 2 -1
Kasich 2 nc
Santorum 2 +1
Gilmore 0 nc
Not Sure/Uncommitted 5 -1

[Cruzcrew]

40% first time caucusers seems kinda high for the caucuses considering the registration numbers are slit lot lower now than they were in 2012.

[IceSpear]

Selzer: "No discernable direction that O'Malley supporters will go, due to extremely small sample size (15 people)."

lmao 15 people

That did seem kind of low to me, I expected 15 people to be more like 2% support. Turns out he just BARELY rounded to 3.

[Mr. Morden]

fav/unfav % among their own party:

Sanders 82/12% for +70%
Clinton 81/17% for +64%
O’Malley 46/13% for +33%

Carson 72/22% for +50%
Rubio 70/21% for +49%
Cruz 65/28% for +37%
Trump 50/47% for +3%
Kasich 28/27% for +1%
Paul 40/41% for -1%
Christie 40/44% for -4%
Bush 41/53% for -12%

Would you be enthusiastic in your support for this candidate if they became the nominee? (yes/no %)

Clinton 73/26% for +47%
Sanders 69/30% for +39%

Carson 58/40% for +18%
Rubio 58/40% for +18%
Cruz 56/43% for +13%
Trump 44/56% for -12%
Paul 31/63% for -32%
Kasich 23/56% for -33%
Christie 31/65% for -34%
Bush 30/69% for -39%

[Adam Griffin]

Sanders is hurt by the fact that the caucus system penalizes his demographics - who are clustered on college campuses and in urban areas in general - while Clinton benefits from a larger than proportionate share of delegates being allocated to rural counties and caucus sites.

Is it true that, college towns aside, Sanders's support is more concentrated in urban areas than Clinton's support is?  I haven't seen evidence that it is.  See the discussion in this thread:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=227529.0

Looking at the initial numbers in the OP, I'm not convinced what I said isn't true. Relative to population distribution, Sanders will have a larger than average share of his voters in actual urban areas, based largely on the fact that the generational gap appears to be the largest determining factor in the poll (older people tend to stay in rural areas; younger people leave them). Sanders may be doing better in the west than he is in the east, but there are fewer voters overall in the west than in the east.

I'd really need to see what specifically are their defining boundaries for each region, as there are probably suburban and rural areas that get counted as part of "Eastern Cities" and so forth, naturally inflating Clinton's dominance there when compared to my hypothesis. If the 64% of Iowa that is classified as "urban" was actually urban in a real sense, then I'd expect more than 64% of his vote to come from there. Based on that 64% urban definition, however, it's possible that less than 64% of his vote comes from "urban areas". However, in terms of what I'd consider to be urban, I imagine a larger percentage of his vote will come from those places than they comprise as a share of the state's population.

[Mr. Morden]

I wonder if it's ever happened before that the Iowa caucuses are won by a candidate for whom 47% of their own party have an unfavorable opinion of them? 

[RI]

40% first time caucusers seems kinda high for the caucuses considering the registration numbers are slit lot lower now than they were in 2012.

What are you talking about?

[ElectionsGuy]

fav/unfav % among their own party:

Sanders 82/12% for +70%
Clinton 81/17% for +64%
O’Malley 46/13% for +33%

Carson 72/22% for +50%
Rubio 70/21% for +49%
Cruz 65/28% for +37%
Trump 50/47% for +3%
Kasich 28/27% for +1%
Paul 40/41% for -1%
Christie 40/44% for -4%
Bush 41/53% for -12%

Would you be enthusiastic in your support for this candidate if they became the nominee? (yes/no %)

Clinton 73/26% for +47%
Sanders 69/30% for +39%

Carson 58/40% for +18%
Rubio 58/40% for +18%
Cruz 56/43% for +13%
Trump 44/56% for -12%
Paul 31/63% for -32%
Kasich 23/56% for -33%
Christie 31/65% for -34%
Bush 30/69% for -39%

It looks like Clinton is getting better approvals among Democrats than she had. Damn...

[Holmes]

Honestly if Clinton and Trump pull it off here, the subsequent primary and caucus schedule looks so favorable for the both of them (save New Hampshire for Clinton) that it doesn't even matter how favorable or enthusiastic people are for them, they'll very likely be the nominees.

[Phony Moderate]

So they'll be a lot of unenthusiastic Republicans regardless of who is the nominee.