A competitive high-jumper uses a technique called a "Fosbury Flop": the jumper twists her/his body so that the highest part of the jumper is the part over the bar. The Fosbury flop doesn't allow him/her to jump any higher, just allows her/him to clear a higher bar.
Barack Obama's campaign is similar to that: prior to his presidential run, he may have never been to Iowa. Because of name familiarity, Hillary's numbers were initially much higher. Shortly before the caucus, Obama gave a scintillating speech there, and he won the caucus. He may not visit Iowa again, but it doesn't matter: he's already cleared that hurdle.
Much of what the Obama campaign has done would not show up in polls, such as:
- Registering voters by the thousands. These newly-registered folks are not "likely voters" though, so pollsters are likely to ignore them. And many of the newly-registered voters are students, minorities, poorer folks, and others who pollsters may have trouble finding, even if they DID want to. But Obama has demonstrated that many of these folks will turn out to vote for him.
- Planning and then staffing field offices. He literally has opened, or will open, thousands of these. A list of offices for each state is at AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, DC, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, or WY.
- Recruiting and organizing volunteers. I've gotten several calls and emails requesting my support for various things. Even if pollsters did contact me, I would only count as one voter. My efforts may persuade others though.
- Recruiting historically-underrepresented Americans, for example by visiting the Crow Nation this May. This was done quietly, but I hope he will publicize this in places where it will matter. (Ie. Montana, which has lots of Native Americans, would be a place I would think it would help. Texas not so much.)
- Appealing to individuals who aren't likely to agree with him, like those in the fundamentalist Saddleback Church and viewers on FOX News. Many kossacks were very disappointed with him for doing thse, but he was working to pre-neutralize his opponents' arguments. It's hard to know whether he succeeded at that, since we've already observed an "excitement deficiency" and even in the best of circumstances, it would not have completely deflated them.
All of these techniques wouldn't have affected the polling, or would've had very minor effects. But as we begin our sprint to the final hurdle, I would guess that all of these, and more I undoubtedly forgot, will spring into public view.
Some diarists have recommended (or demanded, or said he "must", or whatever) that the Obama campaign do such-and-such. Others have demanded we be more deferent, and trust that the Obama campaign knows what they're doing. I disagree with both positions: of course there are ways the campaign could improve, but we do have to give them some credit. As has also been frequently pointed out though, we serve nobody by panicking.
How could I write about the Obama campaign without closing with his slogan: Yes we can.