Slog - Comments on Speaking of John Edwards and Early Polls in Iowa... http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls Following up on the recent Slog discussion, Jenny Durkan, the Washington State Chair for the John Edwards for President campaign, is calling my attention to this new poll, which finds John Edwards leading in Iowa. (Unlike this poll, which I mentioned in my Stranger column this week. It found Edwards losing ground in Iowa and statistically tied with Hillary Clinton.) Both polls were conducted around the same time. The poll I cited has a smaller margin of error (+/- 3.5), contacted more likely caucus voters (787), and was conducted over the course of six days (July 29 - August 5).... Copyright 2008 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:30:16 -0800 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:59:44 -0800 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Comment by RonK, Seattle The poll Durkan cites consists of 15 Q's on poverty (Edwards signature issue) followed by one Q on presidential preference ... producing the desired effect, but not one to be taken seriously by horserace enthusiasts.

]]> RonK, Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785335 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785335 2008 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:36:59 -0800 Comment by Levislade So basically, they're both completely irrelevant to whom Iowa voters might be backing today, August 17th.

]]> Levislade http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785337 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785337 2008 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:38:08 -0800 Comment by Cato the Younger Younger Interesting numbers. But we are still HOW far away from a vote being cast? There can be some huge changes coming up.

But I still contend all of this worry about who is electable etc. is simply going to hurt the Democrats in the long run. Voter burn-out leading to no one wanting or caring to vote come 2008. I am a political junkie but am sick of the whole lot of the candidates at this point. They need to "disappear" until December and give us all a break!

]]> Cato the Younger Younger http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785338 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785338 2008 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:38:53 -0800 Comment by Will in Seattle It's so funny that we have all these campaigns that my friends are working for - in fact two of my friends are behind the Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama campaigns and they're engaged to each other.

But it's great to have so many good candidates.

Gore/Obama 08 for me.

The only "unelectables" are on the Red Bushie side ...

]]> Will in Seattle http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785377 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785377 2008 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:29:45 -0800 Comment by S The poll I cited has a smaller margin of error (+/- 3.5), contacted more likely caucus voters (787), and was conducted over [a longer period of time].

Isn't a lot of that redundant? I assume that the reason one poll has a smaller margin of error is because of obvious factors like polling size and time.

]]> S http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785564 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785564 2008 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 14:13:25 -0800 Comment by Mike of Renton @5 Yes, it is redundant, though the period of time has nothing to do with it. The margin of error is determined applying some formula (which I'm not motivated enough to look up) to the size of the sample.

]]> Mike of Renton http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785736 http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/speaking_of_john_edwards_and_iowa_polls#c785736 2008 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:59:44 -0800