The Politico is re-running a piece from the Daily Iowan by Kelsey Beltramea noting former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee’s strong showing in the latest Iowa University “Hawkeye” poll, conducted 10/17-24. The poll also shows Senators Obama and Clinton in a statistical tie. But before supporters of Obama and the Huckster start slapping the high fives, they should give Mark Blumenthal’s Pollster.com post on the poll a sober read. Blumenthal notes that the poll uses different methodology and he crunches current registration numbers, Iowa Caucus turnout figures in ’04 and ’88, and concludes:

…this poll is sampling a considerably broader population of Iowa adults than has turned out to attend past caucuses….So interpret these results in that context and with great caution. The trends observed by comparing the August an October Hawkeye polls are meaningful – because they used the same methodology for both polls – but apply only to the very broad population of Iowa adults sampled. It helps that the trends in this poll bear a resemblance to what we have seen lately on other Iowa polls, but we advise huge grains of salt before comparing the support for any particular candidate on this survey to that measured by any other survey.

Doesn’t mean Huckabee and Obama aren’t getting some new traction; it’s just that this particular poll has limited value for charting a real trend.

Walter Shapiro doesn’t think so in his Salon article “Is Hillary running away with the race?” Despite Senator Clinton’s fomidable lead in all recent opinion polls, Shapiro observes:

This year, Hillary Clinton’s wide lead has only increased the long-standing temptation to believe in the polls’ predictive power…But a strong case can be made that these polls are not as definitive as they seem — that they are little more than the political version of dream books that use nighttime visions to predict winning lottery numbers.

Pollsters and poll analysts can be forgiven if they think that’s a little overstated. But then there is this reminder:

Since 1975, only twice has the candidate atop the Democratic field in the national Gallup Polls at this point in the campaign cycle gone on to win the nomination. The exceptions were Al Gore in 1999 and Walter Mondale (47 percent in the November 1983 Gallup Poll), who almost lost the nomination to Gary Hart, who was literally an asterisk in the same survey. And in the November 1991 Gallup Poll, a small-state governor named Bill Clinton was running sixth (yes, sixth) in the Democratic horse race, behind Mario Cuomo and such implausible presidential choices as Jerry Brown and Doug Wilder.

Shapiro points out the GOP horse race polls have a better track record, and adds:

There is a glimmer of an argument that, despite their historic inaccuracy, national polls may have greater forecasting power this year because the primary calendar has been scrunched into a single month, with more than 20 states holding primaries on Feb. 5, just 33 days after the Iowa Republican caucuses. “If we’re going to have a national primary, then national polls may matter because they do measure national name ID,” said Karlyn Bowman, a polling analyst at the American Enterprise Institute. “But you could make an equally good argument that Iowa and New Hampshire could change everything.”

Shapiro gives fair vent to both sides of the argument about horse race polls’ predictive merit at this stage, with an edge to the skeptics. It’s a good read for poll-watchers of all stripes.

Terrence McNally has posted an illuminating interview with Drew Westen, author of this year’s influential political strategy book “Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.” McNally’s intro to the Alternet interview notes Kenyan journalist Charles Onyango-Obbo’s incisive summary of Westen’s book:

Westen has studied elections over the years, and found an inconvenient truth: People almost always vote for the candidate who elicits the right feelings, not the one who presents the best arguments

Of course Westen also summarizes his book in several exchanges throughout the interview and provides some alternative responses for Democratic candidates. See also TDS’s posts on Westen’s book here and here.

Open Left’s Matt Stoller riffs on Jeff Zeleny’s Sunday New York Times review of Howard Dean’s performance at the helm of the DNC, and Stoller adds some perceptive insights of his own, including:

The DNC’s fundraising has been horrific, and Dean has completely lost control of the primary calendar. There are some good spots in his record, but in my opinion, the lessons to learn here are about what not to do with a party institution when you gain power. First, let’s go over the good parts. The technology platform that Dean oversaw to handle voter files is terrific; DNC data geeks are cleaning up data, forcing accountability on vendors, and working to ensure that officials will have the ability to make smart political decisions. That’s not a small problem to solve, since keeping lists of who will vote and why they will vote is complicated and had not been solved in twenty five years of fretting by DNC Chairs about technology. Dean has also served as a good moral inspiration to activists. Emphasizing the ability of individuals to get involved, pushing power and funding to the state parties, and branding the 50 state strategy are clearly useful transformative qualities for a party.

Stoller has more to say, pro and con, and his assessment seems balanced enough. Some of the comments responding to Stoller’s blog add perspective, although it would be good to see a response from Dean or someone in the DNC. Now seems like a good time to address internal criticism of Democratic Party institutions, conducted in a constructive spirit and moving towards greater Party unity in the home stretch.

Daniel Gross has a post up today at Slate “CEOs for Clinton: Even the ultra-rich are abandoning the Republicans,” which affirms the trend noted by J. P. Green’s post below, American Prospect’s Paul Waldman and Christopher Hayes at Washington Monthly back in June, among others. Says Gross:

Back in 2000, George W. Bush called his base “the haves, and the have-mores.” But the have-mores are clearly more receptive to Democrats than they were seven years ago. “It’s a much easier pitch drumming up support this cycle from business people, there’s no question,” says Steve Rattner, founder of the private-equity firm Quadrangle Group, who is a longtime Clinton backer. His take: Fed-Up CEOs are reacting to the bungled war in Iraq, poor fiscal and disaster management, and conscious outreach efforts by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

It’s not all CEO’s of course, Gross hastens to add, and he likens the rash of CEO contributions to Democratic candidates to a hedge bet. But the momentum does seem to spell trouble for the GOP — especially when it comes from one of their most reliable constituencies.

In his Pollster.com post, Mark Blumenthal analyses and distills the latest data of the well-regarded Des Moines Register poll. Blumenthal’s post doesn’t provide much in the way of horse-race statistics, but he picks demographic nuggets that provide an informative profile of Iowa Caucus voters.

Eriposte at The Left Coaster takes a stab at answering an interesting question, “Is Hillary Clinton a ‘Corporate Democrat’“? Eriposte concludes that front-runner Clinton is less “corporate” than many Dems might believe, according to her track record. However, Eriposte flags Ari Berman’s Nation article “Hillary Inc.” making the opposite argument persuasively enough. It would be helpful if a smiliar analyis was applied to all of the candidates. For a good gateway link to the AFL-CIO voting ratings of candidates who are senators or congress members according to their votes on labor issues, click here.

From his perch at the Top of the Ticket blog at the L.A. Times, Andrew Malcom flags a fun feature at Beliefnet.com about the presidential candidates’ religious talk:

It’s called the God-o-Meter and it’s billed as “a scientific measure of God-talk in elections.” It’s a joint operation between Beliefnet and Time magazine and it rates candidates on the basis of what they’re saying about religion and the religious communities’ reactions to them.

As you might imagine it’s quite a horse-race in the GOP field, with Huckabee, McCain and Romney leading the pack with a three-way tie at 8 points. Readers may be surprised, however, to learn which Democratic presidential candidates also score an 8 on the God-o-Meter: Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, indicating perhaps that position on the left-right political continuum has little to do with the propensity for God talk. Dodd and Giuliani have the lowest scores, Dodd being the only candidate to refuse to talk about his religious beliefs in detail on principle and Giuliani because, well, “he doesn’t like to either,” according to Malcom.
(For readers seeking clues about their own spiritual direction, Beliefnet also has a 20-question quiz, “Belief-O-Matic,” which ranks the religious faiths and denominations most closely alligned with the test-taker’s beliefs. Despite the flip test name, the questions are thoughtfuil and provocative.)

For your Friday mirthmaking, check out Kos’s jolly take on the new GOP “wide stance” logo and its hidden symbols. Suffice it to say that the designer has not exactly created an artistic triumph of the highest order. Hundreds of comments add to the merriment.

John Harwood has a Wall St. Journal post reporting on a new WSJ-NBC News Poll that many Dems may find surprising:

By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president….That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush’s calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago….In a December 1999 Wall Street Journal-NBC poll, 37% of Republicans said trade deals had helped the U.S. and 31% said they had hurt, while 26% said they made no difference.

Why the change? Harwood has an interesting clue:

In a March 2007 WSJ/NBC poll, before recent scandals involving tainted imports, 54% of Democratic voters said free-trade agreements have hurt the U.S., compared with 21% who said they have helped. While rank-and-file Democrats have long blasted the impact of trade on American jobs, slipping support among Republicans represents a fresh warning sign for free-market conservatives and American companies such as manufacturers and financial firms that benefit from markets opening abroad.

Harwood has more to say about the interesting trends suggested by the new poll. Meanwhile, Dems can be encouraged by yet another indication that they are in solid position to win the support of a healthy chunk of moderate Republicans in November, ’08.