GOP Winning Hearts And Minds

As the Iowa primary nears and a last round of polling tells us next to nothing, here's one poll that actually is meaningful, from Rassmussen:

The number of Americans who consider themselves to be Republicans jumped nearly two percentage points in December to 34.2%. That’s the largest market share for the Republican brand in nearly two years, since January 2006 (see history from January 2004 to present).

At the same time, the number of Democrats fell to 36.3%. That’s down a point compared to a month ago. During 2007, the number of Democrats has ranged from a low of 35.9% in July to a high of 37.8% in February.

In May, the GOP hit a four-year low at 30.8% as the immigration debate turned off many GOP faithful to the party's leadership, and before the positive effects of the Surge were evident.

Dems, who have enjoyed a positive gap in the mid-four to high-six percent range for the last couple years, are feeling the squeeze just as primary season begins -- the worst possible timing. Combine the success in the War on Terror with the incredible ineptness of the Pelosi-Reid leadership, and the plummeting numbers are not surprising.

Iowa Polls Show ... Nothing

As the Iowa caucuses draw near, the news is full of the latest polls -- Huckabee's falling, Edwards is strong, Thompson is ... is whatever the most recent results of a few hundred phone calls across the frozen fields says it is.

And it's all pretty much meaningless, mostly because only about six percent of Iowans actually participate in the caucuses. A poll of party regulars could be meaningful, but nearly all the polls are drawn from random samples of Iowa registered voters, most of whom will be busy doing something other than caucusing this Thursday evening.

John Fund has broken down all this in an excellent WSJ Opinion Journal article today, What's the matter with Iowa? In it, he lays down these faults with the caucus process:

• They occur during a brief, fixed window at night, so those who work odd hours or have to care for kids or home-bound loved ones can't make it.
  
  
• There are no absentee ballots, so the sick, disabled, elderly and busy are hugely underrepresented.
  
  
• The rules of the Democratic caucus require participants to publicly stand with others who support their particular candidate -- this is no secret ballot.
  
  
• To further complicate things, if less than 15% stand for a Dem candidate at a caucus, they have to pick another candidate to stand with, resulting in yelling, cajoling, and results that are anything but representative of a primary or an election.
  
  
• "Entrance" polls that are reported Thursday night under-represent rural communities and the candidates, like Thompson and Edwards, who are stronger there.
  
  
• There is no process of screening caucus participants for residency, so results could be skewed by over-zealous campaign workers.

In short, polls on Iowa voter preference are virtually meaningless, and the results of the caucuses are not representative of much other than a candidate's organizing abilities -- and this year, his commitment to campaigning there.

Yet it is the first test of any sort for the 2008 election, so the media cover it from border to border, from morning to night, the pollsters call and call and call again, in search of tea leaves to read, the candidates pour their hearts and purses it it ... and we political junkies wait anxiously for the results, cloudy, faulty, skewed and weird as they may be.

Clinton "Plants" Her Foot In It

It may seem a small offense, just more fodder for a media so in wracked by its howling news addiction that it covers the comments of a tip-stiffed waitress, or it may be a deep emotional offense to caucusing Iowans, but it is nonetheless yet another gaffe for the struggling "unbeatbable" Hillary.

Reports the Grinnell College Scarlet and Black:

After her speech [in Newton, IO], Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.

Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.

But the source of the question was no coincidence—at this event “they wanted a question from a college student,” Gallo-Chasanoff said. She also noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped before hand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message.

Planting a question in the audience is a political strategy as old as politics and audiences. I've done it myself at public hearings from time to time, but always subtly -- more of an encouragement than an instruction.

Hillary's people, as becomes them, were more heavy-handed, recruiting and directing. And that's something at offends the spirit of the caucuses, according to the Fox:

In a state where the caucus is held sacred and the impromptu and candid style of the town hall meeting is held dear, Clinton’s planted question may come as a great offense to Iowans. ...

The campaign's admission that it planted the question may be another blow to the New York senator's image as a trustworthy politician.

Trustworthy? Who would possibly still think Clinton is trustworthy, especially given the next bit of lying from her staff. Here's a statement to Fox:

"On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum,” [campaign spokesliar Mo] Elliethee said.

“However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.” (my emphasis)

But here's what Gallo-Chasanoff told the Grinnell paper:

But the source of the question was no coincidence—at this event “they wanted a question from a college student,” Gallo-Chasanoff said. She also noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped before hand.

It is classic HRC: Have the staff plant a question, then have the staff lie about the process, while all the w hile she's at the washstand, washing her hands of the entire matter with a sotto voce "Out damned spot!"

The whole affair isn't playing well in Iowa, as comments to the Des Moines Register's piece on the micro-scandal make clear:

Please, please Iowa caucus goers don't do this to the country and the world. The Democrats have a fine field of candidates who have a reasonable chance to retake the White House. Let's now blow it on one candidate who has such huge character flaws, dishonesty and an "It's owed me" mentality.

...

Let me get this straight; a Clinton staffer admitted "a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum...." but then they claim Hellary had no idea?
For crissakes how long can this broad go along having it both ways?

...

This really doesn't surprise me . Hillary and Bill have been phonies for along time . The voters need to see through it.

And this gem:

Heil Clintler!

hat-tip: memeorandum