Let me preface my extended comment by saying that I think it's clear that Obama has momentum in IA right now.
However, this poll is worthless without full crosstabs. The Edwards' numbers are suspect, which prompted me to read the article in full. At the end of it:
Results are weighted so that the sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for results based on 1,408 registered Iowa voters. Results based on smaller subgroups are subject to larger margins of sampling error.
Mmmmkay ... well the CPS is collected by the Census Dept for BLS. Too lazy to navigate DOL's site for IA-specific demographics, so I went to the state of Iowa's site instead at iowadatacenter.org.
According to the census data, 40% of Iowa's population is 45+ ... this means the poll results were weighted so that 60% of caucus participants are under 45? Well, according to the 2004 entrance poll, it was 32%.
This poll is worthless because the turnout model is beyond unrealistic. I don't believe Edwards is a distant third. Can't comment on Obama vs Clinton. The only thing it tells us -- which I think we already know -- is that Obama does well with under 45.
I agree about Edwards, but I do think he is in third.
I should add that data collected for BLS should be specifically for the employed, so the weighting would exclude children. However, retirees wouldn't be in the data, either. I'm certain the overall skew does not reflect a realistic turnout model for a Democratic caucus.
