Final Des Moines Register Poll: Trump up, Dems close
But EVERYTHING depends on turnout.
The Des Moines Register just released its final pre-caucus polling.
Trump is up, but its close enough that everything will depend on turnout, as the Register analysis shows:
Donald Trump has muscled ahead in Iowa, regaining his lead on the brink of the first votes being cast in the 2016 presidential race.
Trump stands at 28 percent, while rival Ted Cruz has slid to 23 percent. But there’s still a strong case for Cruz in this race — he’s more popular and respected than Trump, the final Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll shows.
“The drill-down shows, if anything, stronger alignment with Cruz than Trump, except for the horse race,” said J. Ann Selzer, the pollster for the Iowa Poll.
This could be important:
Among first-time caucusgoers, Trump has a 16-point lead. But the universe of experienced caucusgoers is bigger, where Cruz has a 3-point lead.
Here is the rest of the field. Looks like Jeb, at 2, will have some decisions to make.
The Register has detailed analyses of the support and factors by candidate.
I may add to this post later, when I have time. Wanted to get the results up as soon as possible.
Among the Democrats, it’s almost a dead heat, but Sanders has the younger, more motivated vote.
.@HillaryClinton maintains slim lead over @BernieSanders in final #IowaPoll before caucuses: https://t.co/zD8DltDIbJ pic.twitter.com/DzAexDi5Vy
— Des Moines Register (@DMRegister) January 30, 2016
UPDATES: Some more analysis from the polling by people who had more time tonight than I did:
DMR/Selzer:
Full field: Trump 28 Cruz 23
Head-to-head: Cruz 53 Trump 35You always prefer to be in the lead but Cruz is well positioned.
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) January 31, 2016
DMR/Bloomberg Poll trends (Oct, Dec, Jan, Final):
Trump net fav: +22, +19, +9, +3
% Trump vote: 19, 21, 22, 28
% new voters: 17, 24, 29, 40— Adrian Gray (@adrian_gray) January 31, 2016
Multiple Internal campaign & super PAC tracking polls have Rubio above DMR (& thus CW) 15%. He’s winning expectations game before 1st caucus
— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) January 31, 2016
Sad
Can someone please tell her about the DMR poll? She seems nice and I really think she needs to be eased into Mondayhttps://t.co/GrQNbUuQZU
— Colin Diersing (@cdiersing) January 31, 2016
About the Ted Cruz mailer and the Secretary of State chewing him out, turns out he’s a Trump supporter:
LOL IA Secretary of State #Trump2016 supporter attempts to smear @tedcruz #ShockedNotShocked https://t.co/Qie3zW4ZSo
— Sen. Frank Niceley (@SenFrankNiceley) January 31, 2016
Well of course Iowa's SOS went after Cruz https://t.co/u4BcpV6S3v #CornLobby
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 31, 2016
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
And then there is this from Bloomberg Politics:
“The billionaire real estate mogul leads Cruz among those who say they definitely plan to attend, 30 percent to 26 percent. With the less committed—those who say they’ll probably attend—Trump also beats Cruz, 27 percent to 21 percent.
“Trump is leading with both the inner core of the caucus universe and the fringe—that’s what any candidate would want,” said longtime Iowa pollster J. Ann Selzer, who oversaw the survey for the news organizations.”
RealClearPolitics polster Sean Trende says J. Ann Selzer has a record of calling em right.
Things not looking good for establishment.
“Things not looking good for establishment.”
Since when is Ted Cruz “the establishment”?
Since he started taking big money from Club for growth, NY investment banks, and the Koch brothers.
Since November, approximately.
Just as I predicted two days ago when Cruz switchex to attacking Rubio Cruz has given up on winning and was doing a rear guard action to make sure he holds on to 2nd place.
Des Moines register poll finally comes around to match other polls.
“Des Moines register poll finally comes around to match other polls.”
Actually no. They continue to under poll trump compared to all the other polls. They were off by 10% in their final 2012 poll as well. One might get the idea they are biased…
I think you are correct. They are biased. It is a Bloomberg poll after all. They skew their poll to try and lead opinion in a certain direction. It isn’t working so they had to move closer to the truth or face complete humiliation on Monday.
Also note that this poll is from 1/26 to 1/29. So only 25% of this poll is post debate. The debate undoutedly improved Trump and Rubio and real time percentages are probably far worse for Cruz which is exactly why he started attacking Rubio in an attempt to hold on to second place. Just as I said 2 days ago.
Des Moines register poll out tonight Trump increases by 7% and Cruz has lost 8% for a total swing in favor of Trump of 15%.
Let’s see how the Cruzbots spin this news.
Sarah’s endorsement was, perhaps, a turning point.
Caucuses are tricky. When it’s clear that Rubio, Yeb!, Kasich, et al aren’t winning their supporters can shift to other candidates, right? Who will gain more, I wonder.
The real questions in Iowa is how Trump voters react in two distinct scenarios in their local precinct:
1. In precincts where they are less than 15% and “not viable,” do they leave or caucus with others, and if so, for whom?
2. IF Trump is viable on the first round, how good are they at convincing others to join them for the succeeding rounds.
– –
If his Iowa supporters are as rude, arrogant, and nasty as his internet supporters are, they won’t be winning many converts.
The fact that you are a democrat is showing. The republican caucus rules are very different and more simple than the democrat rules. You are quoting the DEMOCRATrules. We have always known you werexa Hillary/Bernie supporter that fears Trump the most.
The real questions in Iowa is how Cruz voters react in two distinct scenarios in their local precinct:
1. In precincts where they are less than 15% and “not viable,” do they leave or caucus with others, and if so, for whom?
2. IF Cruz is viable on the first round, how good are they at convincing others to join them for the succeeding rounds.
– –
If his Iowa supporters are as rude, arrogant, and nasty as his internet supporters are, they won’t be winning many converts
And I like Cruz. But you have just put up meaningless gibberish.
Who do YOU support?
The GOP caucus is just a simple secret ballot vote done x at each precinct. There is no 15% rule and rounds of preaching and cajoling. Those complications are only applicable to the democrat party Iowa caucus.
Here from CNN
The GOP process is the simpler one.
Caucus meetings begin with the Pledge of Allegiance and then activists get straight to the main event — selecting their presidential candidates in a binding vote.
Each campaign gets the chance to have a representative make a final pitch to any wavering voters before a secret ballot. Some caucus sites might use a printed ballot paper. Others just go with a candidate’s name on a scrap of paper.
Raw totals of votes are tallied by local party officials and sent to Iowa GOP headquarters, where a running count is kept.
I think Republicans also use the caucuses as the first step in selecting delegates, and probably 15%, or some oher number, is the threshhold to send anybody to the next higher level, and theer is some re-arranging, but, not that long after Iowa became important, the Republicans in Iowa instituted a “straw poll” taken early in the caucus process, and it is that that gets reported.
(It didn’t get reported so accurately or quickly in 2012 – the whole result got reported before they had finished counting the votes)
With the Democrats, they look at how many supported each candidate in the selection of delegates to the next level, but this sometimes hard to measure, because it may not always be clear who or what a delegate selecting group is.
I’ve said it before and I’m SURE before this election season is out that I will have to say it again:
A poll with a “Margin of Error” (MOE) of greater than 2.9% is at best unreliable, and likely worthless in terms of any prediction. A minor disruption in turnout will cause it to be inaccurate.
Even in small primary, a sample size of less than 1,000 LIKELY voters is almost worthless, other than a “rah-rah this is the result we wanted” sort of statement.
I’ll be impressed when we see a poll with a MOE +/- 1% or less.
True enough. Consider the source, consistently the outlier with trump always low.
When all the polls show the same leader it is a good indicator. It is also Iowa. Nothing would really surprise me.
These “pollsters” were off by 10% in the 2012 caucus. There record is much poorer than the hype about them, IMO.
Y’all might get used to the idea that neither Trump nor Cruz will win the nomination.
A true believer in the power of the GOPe.
I’ve made like 500 posts against the GOPe and none in support, nor am I a registered Republican.
I’m talking about the split of support, the fact that Iowa is only the first of a long primary season, the fact that a plurality of voters is neither Republican nor Democrat, but unaffiliated, and the fact that when one dumps cold water and hot water into a pot, the result is warm water.
I’d suggest you not be such an ass of a true believer yourself, but would not remove your sole asset.
“I’d suggest you not be such an ass of a true believer yourself, but would not remove your sole asset.”
You’re predicting that someone other than Cruz or Trump is going to win the nomination due to GOPe engineering. Given the current state of the election as reflected in the polls that implies a true belief in the ability of the GOPe.
I did not say you were a GOPe supporter. I would say that to predict someone other than Trump or Cruz at this point requires ignorance or belief. Since I know you are not ignorant, it would seem to be belief.
We will see soon enough who the “ass” is.
How does a simple observation like “Y’all might get used to the idea that neither Trump nor Cruz will win the nomination” end up with eight down-votes?
It’s actually a very plausible scenario our Henry has put forth, if you stop frenetically down-twinkling long enough to actually think about it.
“It’s actually a very plausible scenario our Henry has put forth…”
Then please Amy, you or Henry explain what the plausible scenario might be. I’m more than happy to be educated.
Just saying it because you dislike trump or cruz or both does not make it so.
Remember, it needs to be plausible, no claims of space aliens kidnapping Donald and Ted prior to the election will be allowed.
I ask knowing full well no answer will appear from either of you.
He lays it out above. Still your busy little downtwinkling fingers for a moment and go back and read it.
Let me pass along a viral witticism: Bill consoled Hillary today. He reminded her that Nelson Mandela had to spend 26 years in prison before he became president.
LOL, I like it.
I’m curious to see an exit poll asking if Beck helped or hurt Cruz.
Frankly, I think Beck is using drugs. Cruz should stay as far away from that batshit crazy as possible.
While I’m here…
“I drove a few liberal friends to see the movie 13 Hours. And to get the point across I left them there.”
How will this story which has been slowly gaining momentum today affect Cruz?
http://journal.ijreview.com/2016/01/252498-said-undecided-iowan-received-controversial-mailer-ted-cruz/
Iowa SoS response:
http://oskynews.org/?p=76426
That is an interesting question. It might affect a few undecideds to go against Cruz.
Count me in that group. As a long-time registered Independent, I’ve been firmly in the undecided camp since last summer…frankly because I’ve learned over past decades that inevitably the campaign process illuminates the flaws of candidates as truth about them percolates into the public view. And this mailer has done exactly that for my view of Cruz. His ethical failure of using blatant lies in the mailing was enough to change my opinion of him, but Cruz’ response, when asked about the mailer, sealed my rejection of him:
(from WaPo article: “Cruz mailer, inspired by political scientists, is condemned by Iowa secretary of state”
By David Weigel January 30 at 9:07 PM)
“‘I will apologize to nobody for using every tool we can to encourage Iowa voters to come out and vote,’ Cruz told reporters in Sioux City, Iowa. He pointed to a statement from one of his supporters here, former Iowa secretary of state Matt Schultz, who said the mailers are ‘common practice’ and are modeled after 2014 mailers put out by the Iowa Republican Party.”
Sorry, but lies don’t become truth just because a state party uses them frequently or if they happen to be effective. In short, I’m most disappointed in Cruz’ flaunting of his faith, then admitting he completely endorses the use of lies in campaign material.
At least it’s made my process easier, just one less candidate to consider moving forward.
The mailer and Cruz’s response does play into the theme not often spoken that Cruz will say anything and do anything to “win”. Like he tells donors in New York something different from what he tells voters in Iowa. It plays into the theme that Cruz is inauthentic and not likable.
“His ethical failure of using blatant lies in the mailing was enough to change my opinion of him”
What were the lies? As far as I can tell there is no lie involved, just a use of the publically available information to target voters and “shame” them into getting out to vote.
You might find it to be a disgusting tactic but that does not make it a lie.
The SOS is anti-Cruz and everything the SOS says at this point is suspect, subject to being entirely political.
The entire mailer seems to say or strongly imply that failing to caucus is a violation of law, and that is the lie.
“seems”
Which is an opinion, not a lie. Perhaps your read into it what you want?
I disagree I think intentionally misleading in a document that fraudulently portrays itself as an offic8al government dicument taken as a whole is false and misleading. The kind of cobduct prohibited in various kinds of advertising. In short a lie.
Further the New Yorker is now reporting that the voter records reported on the mailers are not the actual real voting records but just made up information that is false and publicly portrays specific voters in a false light in public and to their neighbors. In short another lie.
At first I didn’t think this mailer thing would be a big deal but now it may be changing. If this story continues to grow it is going to pull Cruz off message and may be pissing off more than a few voters. Cruz’s response to this so far isn’t going to work.
I agree that “blatant lie” is hyperbole, but it’s understandable hyperbole for someone who is offended by the mailer.
I think this is more of a “Clinton lie”, well expect for the making up of the numbers.The kind of stretching of the truth that a person defends by stretching the truth and arguing what the meaning of is.
The SOS is anti-Cruz and everything the SOS says at this point is suspect, subject to being entirely political.
So which part of his letter suspect?
The statement: “There is no such thing as an election violation related to frequency of voting. “?
The statement: ‘The Iowa Secretary of State’s Office never “grades” voters.’?
The statement: ” Nor does the Secretary of State maintain records related to Iowa Caucus participation.”?
The statement: “Caucuses are organized and directed by the state political parties, not the Secretary of State, nor local elections officials.”?
The statement: ‘Also, the Iowa Secretary of State does not “distribute” voter records. They are available for purchase for political purposes only, under Iowa Code.”’?
“…portrays itself as an offic8al government dicument ”
While I do like portraying government documents as “dicuments”, the fact that it clearly says “Paid for by Cruz for President” probably ought to have some meaning to those with an IQ above 1.
While it might be a despicable tactic, it doesn’t appear to violate any law.
The SOS has no business making any pronouncement after wading into the political scene in the way he has.
That’s really bad. I hope they at least made up the names of the “neighbors” as well. And maybe if so, it was obvious that they were made up names.
According to New Yorker article the neighbirs names are real. Just what tgey say about them is made up.
“How will this story which has been slowly gaining momentum today affect Cruz?”
That was a Trump supporter who pulled that stunt. See the Professor’s updates.
How will the TRUTH of this story, that it was a dishonest dirty trick by Trump, affect The Donald?
The Cruz campaign sent the mailer out. Cruz does not deny his campaign sent out the mailer.
So not sure what you are talking about.
1) If you had bothered to read the IJR article, or the NYT or the WaPo article , Cruz’s campaign admitted they distributed the mailer in short order.
2) Later Cruz came out and said he was not going to apologize for the mailer. Implicit in that statement is Cruz sending out the mailer.
3) If you actually read Professor Jacobson’s update you would realize that the Cruz campaign distribution of the mailer was never questioned in the update. The only thing questioned was the SoS denunciation of the mailer.
So now a question:
What kind of nitwit makes a bogus accusation in bold?
Miller, apparently you suffer from reading comprehension.
Cruz put the mailer out, admitted it and will not apologize for it.
The SOS who commented on it is a anti-Cruz dude.
The NYT and WaPo have picked up on it and Rand Paul is the first candidate to comment ( other then Cruz or rather his staff, which admitted sending it out ). It certainly will be fodder for the Sunday morning shows.
I usually ignore flyers and phone calls. I figure these guys are running for office and are just doing what they have to do. There are some flyers, though, that annoy me so much that I change my lukewarm support of a candidate and chose one of his opponents.
PS:
It is interesting that some Cruz supporters are willing to throw the SoS under the bus instead of admitting that he is just trying to ensure the integrity of the vote. Nevermind that it is his job.
Once again I send out a new post instead of a reply.
At least it is right below.
Sorry about that Gary.
I think you’ll find the SOS is anti-Cruz and I doubt this is about “the integrity of the vote”.
Hmmm… from what I see, liberals seem to have a higher favorablity of bernie… they probably will refuse to vote for hillary (if she makes the nomination) just because of her past deeds under bush (voting for the iraq war, etc.) …chances are pretty good Hillary will just barely… and I mean barely beat bernie…
but in the general election… she’ll lose to Trump. (not sure about Ted Cruz tho… he seems a lot like Romney tho)
there’s way too much to use against her (bernie… is trying to do the honorable thing by not using any of such against her… and that’s why he’s losing to her at the moment)
…I suppose there is a lesson somewhere in that…
in that I think bernie is making the classical mistake romney made on obama …by trying to be political correct, he lost the general election partially because of that.
….something that I assure you Trump won’t do to Hillary.
at the end of the election the greatest sight will be to see hillary totally crushed… have an epic meltdown… and to top it off… I for one, would love to see her sent to the mideast to deal with the muslims… or indicted/thrown in prison… or executed.
but I suppose the chances of the last two above… (prison/execution) are very very very very very small… her losing the election will be nice tho.
Reuters 5 day rolling average. Trump 41.5% and Cruz 12.7%