Edwards Proposes Two-Year Waiting Period For Drug Advertising | Home | Obama Talks About Social Security In New Iowa Ad »
Poll: Romney Dominating Iowa GOP, Edwards Down And Obama Up With Dems
A new poll from the University of Iowa shows Mitt Romney continuing to dominate the Republican field in the first caucus, while the Democratic race is a close one between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Romney leads the GOP with 36.2%, with the others way behind: Rudy Giuliani 13.1%, Mike Huckabee 12.8%, Fred Thompson 11.4%, and John McCain 6%.
Among Dems, Clinton has 28.9%, with Obama at 26.6% and John Edwards with 20%. Bill Richardson is in a distant fourth place with 7.2%, followed by Joe Biden at 5.3%. Hillary leads among women with 33%, followed by Obama at 26.5% and Edwards' 16.8%. Among Men, Obama leads with 26.7%, with Edwards at 25% and Clinton with 22.5%.
The poll represents a six-point decline for Edwards since August, while Hillary has climbed four points and Obama has shot up by seven points.
Marc Ambinder raises questions about the University of Iowa voter screen, in my opinion a good point.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/the_new_university_of_iowa_pol.php
October 29, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the big stories of the week-end was fiscal conservatives starting to rally against Mike Huckabee.
October 29, 2007 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The vote breakdowns are interesting: we have heard some men complaining that women are voting for Hillary because she is famale. It is just as likely that some men are voting for Obama because Hillary is female.
It is an interesting thought experiment to judge how the vote would go if both candidates were the same gender.
October 29, 2007 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
All polls have their own methodology, so the real benefit here is to compare the trend over a period of time (assuming they've used the same methodology throughout).
What we can say is Obama (significantly) and Clinton are both trending up (significantly), at (presumably) Edwards' expense. That being said, this race remains very tight.
Ambinder's critique only matters if they've implemented a new methodology since August, which I don't believe is the case.
Don't let the media fool you, this race ain't over yet.
October 29, 2007 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never let it be said that I only denounced the methodology of polls that were bad for my candidate. This one is especally wobbly, even by the low standards of caucus polling.
The truth is that between the ever-changing dynamic of the date game, the fact that so few people attend that a small change in attendence patterns can have a disproportionate effect and the arcane nature of the delegate distribution and the voting rules, no one knows, or can know, wtf will actually happen at the caucuses and all Iowa caucus polls are about as meaningful as some random couplet of meaningful sounding gibberish from Nostradamus. But to the horse race obsessed MSM even gibberish is better than no data to report at all. (Because, horrors, the alternative would be to get into substance.)
October 29, 2007 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just a casual reminder: polling at this stage simply is not strongly predictive of the final outcome, and they won't be until mere days before the caucus. Among the implications are that not only Edwards but also Richardson and Biden (and probably Dodd too) could potentially bypass one or both of Clinton and Obama, just as Kerry and Edwards moved up with a very late surge in the last couple weeks before the 2004 caucus to pass Dean and Gephardt.
In short: it is going to be interesting.
October 29, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink