« Poll: Obama, Romney Ahead In Iowa | Home | McCain Campaign: He Did Not Intend To Exclude Non-Christians »
Poll: Hillary, Romney Ahead In Three Key States
A new round of polling from American Research Group finds Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney leading in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Curiously enough, this is the first poll ever to show Romney ahead in South Carolina, a state where he usually has trouble registering, though the result is within the margin of error.
IowaDemocrats:
Clinton 30
Obama 24
Edwards 19
Richarson 10Republicans:
Romney 22
Giuliani 21
Thompson 16
McCain 11New Hampshire
Democrats:
Clinton 41
Obama 22
Edwards 10
Richardson 8Republicans:
Romney 24
Giuliani 20
McCain 20
Thompson 8South Carolina
Democrats:
Clinton 41
Obama 30%
Edwards 7
Richardson 5Republicans:
Romney 26
Giuliani 23
McCain 15
Thompson 10
The margins of error in these polls are all ±4%.
Advertisement
The candidate that needs to really be worried is Edwards...at this rate, he'll be out after the 3 early states, especially since he is apparently broke.
Obama must take at least one of the early three or his millions won't mean much.
TPM has heard you and has provided the requested MOE, which makes it clear that, according to this poll, HRC is the clear front-runner in IA, NH, and SC. Juggernaut!
September 30, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the margin of error, Kleefeld.
Dschunga, there is nothing at all clear about Hillary being the front runner, not one single thing. She is in decline in each and every one of these pollsa and Obama is climbing.
September 30, 2007 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
One wonderful thing about polls is that people can always see in each whatever they choose to see...state of denial.
It is true that Obama surged (and has stalled), and Edwards has tanked with time. But the undeniable fact is that HRC is the front-runner in the 3 early states at this point or I am mis-reading this poll.
September 30, 2007 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama can pull up those New Hampshire numbers. The Iowa numbers look good, even if Hillary's still clearly in the lead. He's within reach of the presumptive heir to the Democratic throne. I'm worried that they're focusing too much in Iowa, and neglecting the other early states. This may not be true, but that's the story the numbers are telling.
September 30, 2007 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Watch out for Richardson. Strong fundraising numbers by him and he could replace Edwards as #3. He's the biggest wild card and is, at this point, the only candidate who can come out of a strong Iowa performance with momentum. The other three candidates all have much to lose in IA with poor showings, but little to gain by winning (unless its a landslide).
September 30, 2007 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to question the Romney poll results in South Carolina. His lead has dropped somewhat in Iowa and New Hampshire and he has not done anything noteworthy that would turn it around in South Carolina where the last poll I saw showed him with eight percent.
Doesn't make sense
October 1, 2007 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
For some reason ARG consistently polls Clinton higher and Edwards lower in Iowa as compared to other polls. See these links for some discussion:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_effect_of_arg_polling_on_i.php
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/more_on_arg_and_iowa.php
October 1, 2007 6:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad that my choice will be Republican Mitt Romney and Repub-Lite Hillary. This is why I will sit the presidential election out. Do I really have a choice? Both support NAFTA-like trade policies. Both support attacking Iran at all-costs.
What's the difference?
October 1, 2007 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
TheBus wrote on October 1, 2007 8:03 AM:
It's too bad that my choice will be Republican Mitt Romney and Repub-Lite Hillary. This is why I will sit the presidential election out. Do I really have a choice? Both support NAFTA-like trade policies. Both support attacking Iran at all-costs.
What's the difference?
What is the old saw about those who ignore history are condemend to repeat it? In 2000, just 7 years ago, enough people thought, just as you apparently do, what's the difference between Al Gore and G.W. Bush? These people voted for Ralph Nader and this resulted in perhaps the worst presidency in history and certainly in modern times. Are you seriously contending that Al Gore would have made the same choices as Bush? Do you seriously believe that Hillary Clinton will make the same decisions as Mitt Romney? Just having a Democratic president will result in vastly different Supreme Court nominees, to prove one point. I mean who would you rather have on the Supreme Court - Stephen Breyer or John Roberts; Ruth Ginsberg or Samuel Alito? It might help to actually think before you write.
October 1, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink