I’ve arrived at the Democratic Caucus for Des Moines Precinct #19, at Monroe Elementary School, in the Beaverdale neighborhood of the city, with my friend Mike Klosterman, a registered voter here. The room is already overpacked, and an adjoining precinct meeting in the same school has 500 people still in line. Everyone seems to be blown away by the attendance.
By total coincidence, this precinct is being worked by Jackie Norris, Obama’s state director (along with her husband, John, who ran Kerry’s 2004 Caucus campaign). But there are plenty of Edwards and HRC staffers here as well.
They’re doing the preliminary announcements right now, but people are still outside the door signing in. It’s pretty cool.

I’m blogging from the Polk County Convention Center, where the Results/Media center for the Iowa Caucuses has been established, and am getting used to the pre-chaos. Upon arriving in Des Moines earlier today, there were few if any signs that the whole hep political world was focused on this cold and windy city–other than, of course, the Ron Paul billboards and yard signs that you see across the country in that campaign’s odd tribute to the politics of the pre-electronic age.
Lunching with friends at Palmer’s, a popular near-downtown deli, I saw not a single political bumper sticker in the vast and packed parking lot. But sure enough, a bunch of cameras soon entered, and there amongst us was Ron Paul himself, surrounded by an entourage that appeared largely pre-voting age.
Here at the PCCC, I’ve seen Biden and Richardson wander in, presumably to do interviews, but the crowds are mainly media types warming up for the big event in a few hours. I saw one foreign TV reporter announce that there was a sense of electricity here in the convention center, which gave me a good laugh since I was at that moment searching in vain for a power outlet for my PC.
The few non-campaign-worker Iowans I’ve talked to since arriving have generally suggested that among Democrats, Edwards and Obama have had the Big Mo of late. But the more animated talk was about the ulltra-saturation level of ads and especially calls from all the campaigns. Politically-involved Iowans often approach Caucus Night with a mixed sense of relief and sadness, recognizing that the massive attention the state’s been receiving is about to evaporate for a long time. Today there doesn’t seem to be much sadness that the Circus is about to strike its tents and leave town.
If turnout tonight doesn’t meet the very high expectations most observers have set, I suspect campaign overkill may be to blame.
The closest I’ve come to an inside tip so far was from a local pol who noted that Obama is going to be holding his Caucus Night party at the same Hyvee Hall digs where Howard Dean’s infamous “Scream” took place four years ago. The acoustics, she said, are so atrocious there that Obama might be vulnerable to the same kind of incident if he tries to get heard in the room.
I’ll probably check in next from an actual precinct Caucus, assuming my wireless card cooperates.

Well, after what seems to have been an interminable period of time, the appointed day is finally here, and at least some actual voters will begin to have a say about the 2008 presidential nominations. And according to most expectations, that say will be concluded within about a month (a month and two days, to be exact).
In Iowa today, the weather will be clear, windy, and reasonably mild by that state’s winter standards, with high temperatures reaching 30 degrees this afternoon as the campaigns go through their final paces. The actual Caucuses begin at 7:00 p.m. CST, and results should begin pouring in by 8:00.
I’ll have a later dispatch from Des Moines, but for now, suggest you read Chuck Todd’s summary of what the MSM is going to say tonight based on the most likely scenarios in both parties. The most intriguing issue may turn out to be how a “victory” is defined on the Democratic side, as opposed to a “tie.”

Pollster.com‘s Mark Blumenthal muses soberly, and at length on what the Iowa polls do and do not show.
The Wall St. Journal is getting a little nervous about the ‘populist’ tone of some of the candidates in Iowa.
WSJ’s Amy Chozick reports on the Dems’ surge in rural IA.
In addition to the DMR poll, Open Left‘s Chris Bowers sees increasing signs pointing toward an IA win for Obama
WaPo‘s Dan Balz says the Dems’ contest in IA is a battle over tone, as well as issues and direction.
John Zogby believes that there is a good chance of a three-way tie in the Dem caucuses.
The Politico‘s Roger Simon argues that media buzz may doom 3rd, or even 2nd place candidates.
ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper debunks the myth that IA Dems don’t vote for women.
Larry J. Sabato has a bit of a raspberry for the whole Iowa thing.

The AP‘s Ron Fournier has an enjoyable account of the latest act in the Mike Huckabee circus. Fournier, one of the few msm reporters who has not been snowed under by the Arkansas Governor’s much-noted wit, charm and bogus populism, nails Huckabee for a press conference he called to show reporters an ad he was withdrawing because it was too negative in attacking Romney.
Presumably, Iowans were supposed to respond, “Ah, how humble, how decent. But gee whiz, Huck’s ad had a point.” A dubious tactic at best. As Fournier says:

Iowans have a reputation for punishing politicians who go negative. The question is whether voters, particularly evangelicals who make up his political base, will believe Huckabee had the political equivalent of a deathbed conversion.
Or will they think he’s treating them like rubes — appealing to their sense of fair play while being foul?

Fournier wasn’t having any of it. Conceding that Huckabee is “an immensely talented communicator,” Fournier calls him a “flawed candidate,” “mistake-prone” and “thin-skined and rash.”
Towards the end of his article, Fournier notes something unique about Huckabee’s campaign:

He has a paltry political organization in a state that values the ground game, according to an informal survey of GOP county chairs and co-chairs. “I haven’t seen much of a sign of him or his people,” said Jim Conklin, chairman of the Linn County GOP.

What is interesting here is that Huckabee is leading in the latest polls and may just win the Iowa caucuses with a comparatively limp ground game, a highly counter-intuitive strategy. If he pulls it off, however, it doesn’t mean anybody can do it. As Ed noted in his 12/28 post “Somehow or other, Huckabee’s managed to come up with the jack for a respectable TV campaign of his own.” And not every candidate has Huckabee’s talent and grit for guerrilla politics. But if he wins, it will prove that Iowa can indeed be had without much of a ground game — at least on the Republican side.

The Des Moines Register poll of Democrats discussed in the staff post earlier today really just confirmed what’s been fairly obvious for a while: if the turnout is large and wide, Barack Obama will probably win. If it’s not, anything could happen. With time pretty much gone for any late trends (and the Register poll certainly confirmed my belief that the Bhutto assassination didn’t change anything), the shape of the playing field will likely determine the victor.
I know the numbers in the Register poll concerning participation by self-identified independents and first-time Caucus-goers are unprecedented, and therefore a bit hard to believe. But throughout 2007, all the signs pointed to exceptional interest in the Democratic as opposed to the Republican competition in Iowa. Given the state’s status as a purple state in general elections, a high turnout would be good news for Democrats regardless of the nominee.
In any event, all the speculation will soon be moot. I’ll be headed to Iowa soon to watch the Caucuses up close, and will make every effort to semi-live-blog from there on Caucus night.

The final Des Moines Register Poll Democratic results are great news for Barack Obama. The LV percentage results: Obama 32; Clinton 25; Edwards 24; Richardson 6; Biden 4; Dodd 2; Kucinich 1; Gravel less than 1. Part of the good news is that the final DMR poll before the Iowa caucuses has a perfect track record in ranking the order that candidates finished in the caucuses for both 2004 and 2000. In addition, Obama’s margin was double the m.o.e (3.5%) for the poll.
The cautionary note for Obama is that the percentage of first-time Iowa caucus-goers and self-identified Independents is much higher in the ’07 DMR sample. Historically, first-time caucus-goers have not shown up at the caucuses in impressive percentages. As Pollster.com‘s Mark Blumenthal puts it “this Register sample predicts a very different set of caucus participants than in years past” (As always, Blumenthal’s analysis is required reading for poll junkies.) The only thing to add is that there is a bit more of a lag between the final DMR poll and the caucuses this year than in ’04, when the poll was released the day before the caucus.

I’m not sure I can remember the last time David Broder of the Washington Post broke a major political story. But it’s certainly appropriate that he was the first out of the gate with the news of a bipartisan cabal of Former Big Names who appear to be coalescing around a third-party presidential run by Michael Bloomberg next year.
In case you missed it, Bloomberg’s attending a meeting next Sunday, hosted by former sorta-Democratic Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, to discuss “bipartisan” options for 2008. Other past or present Democrats billed as part of the cabal include Chuck Robb, Alan Dixon and my old boss Sam Nunn. The two more surprising Democratic names on the attendance list are Gary Hart and Bob Graham. The one sitting elected official on the list is soon-to-retire Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel, with fellow GOPers John Danforth, Bill Brock, Jim Leach and Christine Todd Whitman.
According to Broder, the meeting is intended to send a signal to presidential candidates of both parties to immediately announce support for a National Unity Government or risk a Bloomberg run. So it should be understood as positioning Bloomberg and his wallet to offer the American people a High Broderist bipartisan option next November.
I pretty much agree with Digby’s take on the objective case for High Broderism, most obviously its fatuous assumption that the two parties are equally responsible for polarization and gridlock. I do not, however, share the popular progressive netroots view that big majorities of voters actually like polarization and want a lot more of it, or the corresponding theory that a Broderist option is so politically puny that Democrats should, as Digby puts it, “tune out” and ignore it. The massive and persistent wrong-track numbers represent something beyond a coalition of those who hate Republicans and those who are mad at Democrats for not fighting them enough. There are those who out of conviction, ignorance or simple fatigue might vote for a reasonable-sounding third option, and the billion smackers that Bloomberg is alleged to be willing to spend will buy you a whole lot of credibility.
In the end, a serious Bloomberg run may not materialize. And if it does, history suggests he wouldn’t come close to winning, and would hurt the Republican more than the Democratic ticket (third parties generally get more votes from major parties in decline, such as Democrats in 1968 and Republicans in 1992). But Democrats shouldn’t’ just laugh it all off, even if they justifiably laugh at Broder and his confederates.

Jane Norman of the Des Moines Register Washington, D.C. bureau reports on the growing controversy about nonprofit issue ads being run in Iowa in the closing days of the presidential campaign. There’s no real shockers here — the article spotlights accusations against the Edwards, Clinton and Huckabee campaigns for abusing federal election law prohibiting issue-focused groups and candidate campaigns from coordinating activities. Norman notes that the Federal Election Commission found “widespread illegal conduct” by 527s in ’04 and quotes Fred Wertheimer, head of the Democracy 21 reform group: “it appears that 527 groups are blatantly and arrogantly at it again in the current presidential race.”
Don’t hold your breath expecting fines or penalties. Allegations of law-breaking are usually difficult to prove, and it would be hard to find a campaign that didn’t get a little too cozy with a 527 at some point. The hunch here is that the ads in question have been targeted for criticism because they are effective. You can see the pro-Edwards ad here and the pro-Huckabee ad here. A host of Iowa campaign ads can be viewed here.
In a close race — and it looks close for both Dems and Republicans in Iowa, any small or large factor can be credited with making the difference between a win or a loss. Among the most recent polls, the MSNBC-McClatchy/Mason Dixon poll conducted 12/26-28 has Romney and Huckabee in a stat tie in the GOP race. Ditto for Edwards, Obama and Clinton in the Democratic contest, echoing the results of other recent the polls cited by TDS yesterday.
The much-anticipated Des Moines Register poll, regarded by many as the ‘mother of Iowa polls’ just before the caucuses, will be reported in tomorrow’s edition of The Register, but the results will be circulating on the internet later this evening. Among others, The Baltimore Sun‘s political blog “The Swamp” plans to post results tonight.

Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny report on the ground game in their Sunday New York Times article “Candidates Digging for a Deeper Pool of Iowa Voters.” See also Scott Helman’s report “Ground game is key for Democrats,” focusing primarily on the front-runners campaigns in The Boston Globe.
Also in the NYT, Patrick Healy’s piece, “Iowa Saturated by Political Ads” discusses ad spending of the candidates and 527’s and notes that candidates are expected to triple the amount spent in 2004. And Jeff Zeleny also co-authors with David D. Kirkpatrick a round-up of the candidates’ messages on the last weekend before the launch of primary season. See also Todd Beeton’s MyDD post “Romney v. McCain: The New Hampshire Ad Wars.” As this week’s guests on Meet the Press, Huckabee and Obama get the functional equivalent of a huge free ad, a nice edge — if they do well.
A just-released Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll, conducted 12/26-29, reported by John Whitesides has Clinton with 31, Obama 27 and Edwards with 24 percent of likely caucus goers. Biden and Richardson were at 5 percent, while Dodd and Kucinich had 1 percent. On the GOP side, it’s Huckabee 29, Romney 28 and McCain at 11. Thompson, Giuliani and Paul each got 8 percent. Both parties had 6 percent undecided. Clinton had a big lead in percentage of her supporters who described their support as “very strong” (76 percent), compared to 65 percent for Edwards and 56 percent for Obama. However, Edwards was the most popular “second choice” with 30 percent, compared to 25 percent for Obama and 12 percent for Clinton.
Another poll of likely caucus goers, conducted by the American Research Group 12/26-28, has Clinton at 31 and Obama and Edwards at 24, with the rest of the Dems in single digits, according to Alexander Mooney of CNN’s Political Ticker. But the ARG poll has Romney ahead of Huckabee 32-23 percent, with McCain trailing at 11 percent. Mooney reports on yet another poll, a Quad City Times poll conducted by Research 2000 (released Friday), that has Huckabee 34 percent, Romney 27 and Thompson 11 percent. The Quad City poll has Edwards and Obama tied at at 29 percent, with Clinton at 28 percent.