New Poll: Edwards Ties Hillary And Obama In Iowa
Check out these numbers from a Research 2000 poll of likely Iowa caucus goers for Lee Enterprises newspapers that was released today:
Edwards 29%Obama 29%
Clinton 28%
Richardson 7%
Anybody's race.
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee leads with 34%, and Mitt Romney is in second with 27%, while Fred Thompson trails in third with 11%. John McCain, who's hoping for a surprise third-place finish, is within striking distance of Thompson with eight percent, though Rudy and Ron Paul also have eight percent apiece.
The news in this poll, though, is clearly on the Democratic side: The race is as close as it could possibly be.
Comments (78)
Pandora wrote on December 28, 2007 2:04 PM:The race on democratic side may be close but this poll shows Obama lost 5 points and both Edwards & Clinton gain 5,4 points respectively compared to the same poll taken last week. Furthermore, this poll is discounting Bhutto news and Obama/Axlerod snafus etc. Overall the trendlines from other polls do favor Edwards at expense of Obama.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 2:08 PM:Indeed, a close race, just as everyone expected. I guess we will see how it pans out in a few days.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on December 28, 2007 2:09 PM:Well, if this tracks with other polling, it explains a lot of the recent shifting in the race. The tracking from the previous poll doesn't really hint who Edwards is "taking" support from; my guess would be Obama.
And, thus, the hits back and forth between the two, avoiding Clinton, who's put out a LOT of ads over the last little while. One wonders what her internal tracking is like, and why she's buying all that on-air time the day before. As an Obama supporter, I'm not sure if it worries or cheers me that he's avoided dumping money into Iowa TV ads on the level that Clinton and Edwards (the latter on a lessor scale) have.
I think Obama has peaked and I don't think he'll win Iowa. I think Clinton is going to get the nomination anyway. It's very sad that this is the best the dems have to offer, you'd think that after 8 years they could gather up some better candidates.
NCSteve wrote on December 28, 2007 2:14 PM:Ouija boards and magic 8-Balls. There is simply no way to poll this thing meaningfully and especially not during a week when people are travelling and students are out of town.
rg wrote on December 28, 2007 2:21 PM:This is so close - I used to feel fairly excited that we had several good options to pick from. But as things played out I just liked Obama more and more and became convinced that he could capture the independents and moderate republicans that we need in the general election. I think about Kerry and (as much as I love Al Gore) about how the last 2 elections we were fighting with such charisma challenged candidates. I think Hillary would be number 3 in that vain. But we have a chance for a real leader - who can back up his likeability and charisma with a first rate mind and track record of good judgment. I just hope his supporters have the edge on excitement, show up and win over on the second choice for a decidedly strong first place in Iowa.
Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 2:24 PM:You forgot fortune tellers ncsteve. We will have to wait and see. The polls right now are meaningless. The only thing that is not in dispute is that we have a horse race. Clinton II isn't inevitable, which is a good thing for democracy.
Juanito Crandello wrote on December 28, 2007 2:24 PM:Henry is at Agincourt, and he's ready.
Tom wrote on December 28, 2007 2:25 PM:If it's this close throughout Iowa, Edwards will win for sure.
He has the organization, rural support, and 2nd choice support to win as long as it's close across the state.
Edwards LEADs rhe Poll.
WTF - can't they ever say he is Leading - what is the matter with these dam reporter.
dcshungu wrote on December 28, 2007 2:32 PM:Obama's surgelet peaked a couple of weeks ago, and it seems to me that he's even lost a little bit of ground. Edwards has the organization, Clinton has the rank and file Dems and is beefing up her organization, and Obama has the college kids and most people who cannot be counted on to show up for the caucuses...
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 2:32 PM:One thing that I notice is that Pollster.com's IA trendlines for all three of the top democrats have positive slopes. In other words, everyone is picking up speed as the caucus draws near, so it is no wonder that the race is so close.
Incidentally, the headline does not say "Edwards is leading" because Edwards is not leading. He is tied for first, which is what the headline says. I can hardly see how this is to be reckoned as some sort of failure on the reporter's part that he wrote a headline which accurately reflects the substance of the story.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 2:34 PM:Edwards has the organization, Clinton has the rank and file Dems and is beefing up her organization, and Obama has the college kids and most people who cannot be counted on to show up for the caucuses...
That sounds about right to my ear. For an Obama supporter like myself, we have to be hoping (perhaps against hope) for a high turnout. The more people who show up, the better we do. If this comes down to just the every-four-years-reliable caucus goers, then I think that Obama will not win (although I would be hard pressed at this point to predict whether Clinton or Edwards would be the winner). In other words, if we do not turn out our people, we will deserve the loss we suffer.
framecop wrote on December 28, 2007 2:36 PM:You ever notice how Edwards always does better in statewide polls by independent groups like Research 2000, Strategic Vision, and InsiderAdvantage, than he does in big money television media's polls (ABC/WAPO, NBS/WSJ, CNN/Gallup)?
Gee, I wonder why. I wonder why he does better in polls that aren't created for the very television media companies that ignore or insult him on a regular basis.
The television media is BIASED in its coverage, so why would its polls be any less BIASED?
framecop wrote on December 28, 2007 2:41 PM:Well, if these numbers are true, Edwards is going to win Iowa by over 15%, because he's going to get overwhelming proportions of support in Iowa's smaller rural precincts.
Those areas hold a disproportionate amount of weight in the "caucuses."
People need to understand that these POLL NUMBERS that you see are "statewide" support. That would matter more if Iowa was a PRIMARY. It's not. It's a caucus.
The winner will win based on support in each precinct, with the rural areas having more significance than they would if it was a primary.
The bad news for Clinton and Obama is that Edwards has the most support in rural areas, and there will be some places where ONLY HE WILL BE VIABLE. Some of those sites won't even have 30 caucusgoers.
The news is even worse for Clinton and Obama, because if Edwards is tied with them "STATEWIDE", then they don't really have an advantage over him anywhere.
Edwards could win this thing going away.
NCSteve wrote on December 28, 2007 2:46 PM:The television media is BIASED in its coverage, so why would its polls be any less BIASED?
Because people who produce biased polls ultimately cause their employers to look stupid, which is the only thing more unforgivable than not towing the party line.
House effect is "bias" in the statistical sense but, except for Fox's polling which is clearly engineered to pump up Bush's approval ratings, and, of course, push polls which aren't actually polls at all, I don't think polling companies intentionally skew their results. Its like saying companies intentionally manufacture defective products because the consumers like 'em that way.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 2:52 PM:The bad news for Clinton and Obama is that Edwards has the most support in rural areas, and there will be some places where ONLY HE WILL BE VIABLE. Some of those sites won't even have 30 caucusgoers.The news is even worse for Clinton and Obama, because if Edwards is tied with them "STATEWIDE", then they don't really have an advantage over him anywhere.
Edwards could win this thing going away.
I think that the above strikes me as essentially sound, as far as it goes. Framecop certainly makes a good point about the difference between a caucus and a primary, and the way that this plays to Edwards' strengths. On the other hand, as other have pointed out, Obama's support is disproportionately young, and thus land-line telephone polls might undercount his support. In other words, it is hard to make too much of these poll results. No candidate should rest easy in light of them. That said, I certainly agree that Edwards could very well win this one neatly, and he will very much deserve the victory if he does.
CalD wrote on December 28, 2007 2:59 PM:Interesting. A Research 2000 poll done two weeks ago in Iowa (12/10-13 for the Quad-City Times, 500 LVs) came in at:
Obama 33
Clinton 24
Edwards 24
So relative to the last one, Obama is down 4 points and Clinton and Edwards are up 4 and 5 points respectively in this new one. In terms of candidate shares that's tickling the edge of significance for both polls. In terms of margins however, Senator Obama seems to have misplaced a 9-point lead somewhere.
gqmartinez wrote on December 28, 2007 3:00 PM:NCSteve,
It's amazing how little people know about statistical sampling and modeling. But, the big differences in the poll results seem to me to be predominately to turnout models. Rasmussen had data that resulted in anything from a 10 pt Obama lead to a 6 point Hillary lead depending on the turnout model. What seems to be consistent in most models I've seen is that the "tightest" models (definitely likely to vote) favor Hillary and Edwards over Obama.
Also, I suspect that the holidays could be skewing the results. I don't think internals would be much more predictive at this point. However, all the campaigns have turnout targets and the question is who has identified enough caucus goers and can get them to the poll. Now it becomes about the ground-game and I think it favors Edwards at this point.
framecop wrote on December 28, 2007 3:02 PM:NCSteve wrote on December 28, 2007 2:46 PM:Because ultimately cause their employers to look stupid, which is the only thing more unforgivable than not towing the party line.
House effect is "bias" in the statistical sense but, except for Fox's polling which is clearly engineered to pump up Bush's approval ratings, and, of course, push polls which aren't actually polls at all, I don't think polling companies intentionally skew their results. Its like saying companies intentionally manufacture defective products because the consumers like 'em that way.
And I supposed people who produced biased "COVERAGE" don't look stupid?
The only people who look stupid to me is people who don't realize that if you control the message (where most people get it on television), then it's pretty difficult for you to "look stupid" if you are the ones telling people what to think about skewed polls.
Television coverage influences poll numbers because most people get their information from the television. If you keep telling people Clinton and Obama are leading, and going to win, people vote for them when they are polled, because they want to support "a winner."
That's the real reason why Edwards is only "STEADILY" gaining in Iowa instead of rocketing up there. Edwards has been fighting against the media every step of the way, as it has propped up the "frontrunners" all year long, and sought to marginalize him.
For him to be where he is right now, is making other campaigns pull their hair out, right along with the corporate media.
I expect the television media to overreach soon and try to bring him down with the National Enquirer smear, if he solidifies a lead in Iowa polls between now and Thursday.
Just watch. I'll be right, as usual...LOL.
Need I remind everyone that this is another one of these Krazy Khristmas Polls?
(And same goes for the LAT poll).
Talking about an Edwards "lead" or "surge" right now, given the "Dark Side of the Moon" effect and the Margin of Error, is just plain goofy.
The race has been and remains too close to call, the trendlines for Edwards and Obama have both been good for about the last month. But lets not overanalyze people.
Jim D wrote on December 28, 2007 3:22 PM:And for full disclosure, I'm for either Obama or Edwards. I went ballistic over the ARG poll and bought every word Mystery Pollster said. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander... just because my boys are doing well in this and the LAT poll doesn't make them any more valid. All polls right now are bound to be screwy, so I intend to ignore them.
mcc wrote on December 28, 2007 3:30 PM:and especially not during a week when people are travelling and students are out of town.
So, here's what I want to know: Let's say that it actually is the case that Obama's numbers drop substantially when students leave town. That by itself is very interesting. Should we expect those students will have returned to town by the actual caucus, and if so, why?
DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 3:31 PM:I certainly think it is possible we are still seeing a holiday effect, and that we will continue to do so right up until the caucus.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 3:42 PM:Let's say that it actually is the case that Obama's numbers drop substantially when students leave town... Should we expect those students will have returned to town by the actual caucus, and if so, why?
I think that it would implausible to predict that they will all return to town for the actual caucus, but it is not crazy to suggest that more of them will be back by then than will be back by two days after Christmas itself. That is to say, I expect that at least some measure of actual caucus-going support for Obama was missing from this poll, although I would be chary of specifying exactly how much.
Donald from Hawaii wrote on December 28, 2007 4:06 PM:vena: "It's very sad that this is the best the dems have to offer, you'd think that after 8 years they could gather up some better candidates."
Well, now, you certainly sound like an eminent authority on the subject. Why, pray tell, didn't you announce your own candidacy?
This is an outstanding field. As most people who've seen my posts could tell you, I'm not a fan of Barack Obama -- but even he is far, far and away a better candidate than anything the GOP has to offer.
I will, without any hesitation whatsoever, vote for any of these Democrats come the general election, and I'll be proud to do so.
phil james wrote on December 28, 2007 4:09 PM:Edwards/Obama would be a killer ticket. Hillary...thanks for your participation. Buh Bye.
DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 5:05 PM:It is a lot more than college students who tend to be travelling during the holidays. Again, pollster has a great analysis of all this.
Amber wrote on December 28, 2007 5:41 PM:Here's a game: read through the posts and see if you can identify which ones are from Hillary's staff.
As usual, the first comments posted are from Hillary's campaign staffers who sit and monitor the blogs like CNN's and TPM. Hillary plants questions in true George W. Bush fashion, is secretive like Cheney, and has her people lie and exaggerate over and over again like Karl Rove in hopes that soon people will believe it.
The Clintons are master spinners but nasty and dishonest. The Clinton camp would much rather see Edwards win than Obama. If Obama wins, they know that they will end up in a sure tailspin (even more than now) to crash and burn.
Like Chris Matthews said in his 2008 predictions, they can't afford to let Obama win at all and think that they can beat Edwards. The Clintons are scared because that inevitable garbage materialized as garbage.
It would really be something to see both Edwards and Obama take down the Clinton monster. Hillary Clinton will never be president, and Bill the egotistical wannabe first lady should put that veiled dream to rest.
Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 5:48 PM:I think dcshunga and vena are the same Hillary cheerleaders. I agree with that Edwards isn't given his due. He's in the lead for goodness sake. The news that isn't touched upon nearly enough is that Hillary has dipped so much while John Edwards and Barack Obama have taken off. I don't think either one of them has peaked.
nogo war wrote on December 28, 2007 6:04 PM:This is a cross from a stunning diary over at MyDD. In it the person breaks down each county candidate vote in 2004...
for how it went in 2004
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/27/203128/96
draw your own conclusions...
Mr. Unite Us wrote on December 28, 2007 6:52 PM:Actually the Clinton camp politicized Bhutto death, when the pushed the notion that her death would help Hillary Clinton.
Axelrod was asked what he thought about those claims.
I agree with his response.
The MSM is at fault for reporting the response but not the question.
Between the goofy calculus that weighs rural districts more heavily than urban or suburban, and the simple fact that Iowans simply do not reflect the democratic party and keep getting it wrong, it seems clear that it's time to have some other, bluer state lead the way in the primaries.
Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 7:36 PM:Great, so now the Clinton inevitable meme is back again.
Well, I'm resigned to vote for a loser in the general again.
Before you Hillarybots screw over America again, could you please get over yourselves? Just this once?
yesterday gone wrote on December 28, 2007 7:40 PM:One thing that I notice is that Pollster.com's IA trendlines for all three of the top democrats have positive slopes.
hey, gore is beating biden and richardson.
bryan wrote on December 28, 2007 7:42 PM:everyone seems to forget that these polls show DEMOCRATS that are likely to vote. The caucus and alot of the primaries are open to all voters so, the real decision will be made by independent voters which seem to favor Obama!
liam wrote on December 28, 2007 8:40 PM:Polls can not measure and predict what will happen in a public caucus setting. Peer pressure, not wanting to be out of step with your neighbors, and sales pressure to switch, or if your first choice does not make the cut, to cast your second choice for some one else. Even your boss might be in attendance. How many people want to be seen as voting against their boss. Iowa is the stupidest voting system ever devised. A vote should always be a personal and private act. Iowa is the exact opposite.
Ignore the polls. They tell you nothing reliable. Let it play out, and then try to end the Iowa caucus system. It is undemocratic and a complete violation of voter privacy rights. No wonder so few actually come out to caucus. Most people do not want to be exposed to that public exposure of their political choices.
Polls often fulfill their own prophecies. If a candidate goes up, then it's a surge, a surging candidate is a winner, Vote for the Winner!
We have to be very careful in this election, especially when polls are clearly manipulated by commercials flooding the airwaves. I was particularly shocked by Edwards who I thought was a straight forward man until his recent ads. I have researched his history and since found out a lot and think you should all know. Wow!
I hope you all could see what I did. Please, let's open our eyes to the reality of John Edwards. He has made millions upon millions of dollars from the "greed" of the very same corporations he now condemns, through his hedge fund management. He lives one of the most posh lives of any candidate, from his multi-million dollar home to his haircuts. He blindly supported this awful Iraq war when he could have opposed it. Now that he is running for president that is all bad? Are we so used to being manipulated and lied to by the Republicans, that we Democrats now can't even see when one of our own is doing it to us. He uses his soft-spoken southern voice, heavy with emotionally laden language to lull us into believing his closing arguments in this campaign.
I beg you Democrats, please let's not be fooled again.
We need to unite behind a candidate who has not shifted, maneuvered or squirmed out of crucial positions over the years, and who does not have to convince us that NOW what he believes is really what he believes, that NOW his positions have changed for real, not because they will get him votes.
The only electable candidate who personifies the real shift we are looking for from this type of politics is Barack Obama. No explanations needed, just, as his campaign says, change we can believe in .
I pray Edwards doesn't win. He had his chance in 2004 and failed. He doesn't have the money or organization to keep going beyond NH, which he will lose.
All he's doing is hurting Obama and paving the way for a Hillary victory in the end, and that will be a disaster.
We finally have a likable, dynamic candidate without baggage in Obama, yet once again, we will blow it with a tired, calculating "centrist" Democrat in Hillary. Once again we'll have a candidate afraid to speak her mind. Once again no one will know what we stand for, thanks to Hillary's platform, written by the DLC. It's so frustrating to watch it all slip through our fingers, once again.
Matt Ahrens wrote on December 28, 2007 10:50 PM:The more people caucus, the better Obama will do. Registered Dem voters are at an all time record in Iowa. My money is on Obama. Ideally, Hillary would take second by a wide margin and Edwards can gracefully bow out, endorse Obama, and be the VP nominee again.
nerdoff wrote on December 28, 2007 11:05 PM:Hillary is a Republican. So was Bill. Democrats be true to your principles!
pacpallez wrote on December 28, 2007 11:13 PM:The first woman to run for president!!!! The first african-american to run for president!!!! Hillary said what? Obama was endorsed by who? Blah bl-blah blah blah bl-blah blah blah Hillary. Blah bl-blah Obama. The Bhutto assassination helps Hillary. The good weather forcast may help Obama by bringing the college kids in their flip-flops to the caucuses. Blah and blah-blah. And the winner is.....JE. Poor Chis Matthews. What is he going to talk about next Thursday? Maybe he can bring Ann Coulter back for another go at the Edwards family.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 11:34 PM:So I remember that a week ago so many of the Clinton people were crowing about the ARG poll that showed Sen Clinton so far ahead. When we Obama and Edwards folks pointed out the improbability of such a result, we were pooh-poohed as engaging in sour grapes. So, does this new poll mean that we were not simply bitter partisans?
Goldspinner wrote on December 28, 2007 11:49 PM:waka waka,
"he had his chance in 2004..."
Obviously, you forgot about those slightly decrepit voting machines in Ohio.
bob 10001,
Quit whining about Edward's personal spending habits; it sounds like you're downright envious. How much money did the Clintons rake in for their speeches and "consulting" during the past few years? Why is Michelle Obama's employer and paycheck off-limits for discussion? At least Edwards actually pushed a broom and punched a time clock a few times in his life.
yagottabekiddinme wrote on December 29, 2007 1:36 AM:Waka Waka,
What are you smoking? Have you not happened to notice that Obama is a centrist too? Have you failed to notice that there's absolutely no difference between his positions and Hillary's positions? And as for a candidate without baggage, please explain what baggage Edwards has. The only hint of baggage is the BS story put out by either Hillary or Obama's people about a "love child" which is preposterous and obviously false. Edwards is the only chance we have of nominating a candidate who is NOT a centrist and NOT beholden to the corporate wing of the Democratic Party.
dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 6:10 AM:
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 11:34 PM:
So I remember that a week ago so many of the Clinton people were crowing about the ARG poll that showed Sen Clinton so far ahead. When we Obama and Edwards folks pointed out the improbability of such a result, we were pooh-poohed as engaging in sour grapes. So, does this new poll mean that we were not simply bitter partisans?
I do not recall any "smart" Clinton supporters crowing about that poll. I certainly did not, despite being invited to do so by one 'Michael A', which was consistent with my oft-expressed position that no one has got a clue about where the race stands in IA. It is a toss up, but I like Clinton's changes there now because she has regained the overall momentum, following a near disastrous month during which Obama had threatened her supremacy. Nowhere are these dynamics expressed more accurately than in the INTRADE Presidential Markets charts on the right. They've been able to pick up overall momentum changes faster than the aggregated polls!
Edwards is the only chance we have of nominating a candidate who is NOT a centrist...That would be a problem in the general election because elections are won at the center of the American political divide, where most people live. That is where you will find the 20% of so-called 'swinger voters' who usual determine the outcome of elections. They have been turned off by 'conservatism' as practiced during the past 8 years by Bush and Rove and a ready to vote for a Dem. Thus, the worst thing we could do is to nominate someone who would run as a lefty because, guess what, the swing voters despise them too! awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 9:55 AM:
INTRADE is indeed quickest to pick up on apparent momentum shifts, i.e., noise.
dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 10:12 AM:awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 9:55 AM:INTRADE is indeed quickest to pick up on apparent momentum shifts, i.e., noise.
LOL. An inadvertently astute observation. If you have not yet noticed, it is precisely this "noise" that has been driving this election so far! The "noisy" chattering class gets on the tube and beats on a candidate so relentlessly that it alters the "narrative" sufficiently to begin swaying opinions, as reflected in opinion polls. Because it accurately gauges and picks changes in the "noise" level, INTRADE is remarkably sensitive to election dynamics. Based on just on the "noise" level, I had predicted a couple of weeks ago that Clinton had weathered the assault on her by the MSM, which had started after the Philly debate. Momentarily caught off guard, her camp began making uncharacteristic mistakes, which just helped to feed the frenzy. But they recovered their poise about two weeks ago, and MSM got bored with the same narrative, so once again, Clinton has begun to reassert her supremacy. From now until the end, her camp just needs to keep hammering at the "experience" thing. It is where Obama is vulnerable because, deep down, people know this to be true (it is why those who support him resort to admiring his "mystique" rather than making a case based on his record of achievements, which is non-existent, or thin, at best).
Liam wrote on December 29, 2007 10:28 AM:I am rooting for Obama, but will support who ever gets the nomination. I notice that Hillary has adopted a new low key, and more solemn stump speech. It suits her, and she is coming across much better. I think that will help her in the closing days.
Let us have a good honest contest, stay out of the mud holes, and let us all rally around the eventual nominee. The Supreme Court is at stake. Keep that in mind, for if the Republicans win, you can kiss your personal freedoms good by.
larry wrote on December 29, 2007 11:24 AM:I like edwards, but i am concerned that he effectively took himself out of serious contention with accepting public money, and that if he wins the nomination, he will not have any money available to run a serious campaign.
YIPES
is this true?
if so, it should get a lot more coverage.
Michael A wrote on December 29, 2007 12:35 PM:Yep, larry it is true.
awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 12:49 PM:Thank you, dcshungu.
Would someone who is not a zealot care to comment?
waka waka wrote on December 29, 2007 12:54 PM:Edwards is not a "centrist" now because his only "in" in this election is to be the hard-core populist. He changes his stripes to fit the circumstances almost as readily as Hillary. He would be eaten alive in the general election.
Don't get me started on Hillary.
Obama is the only one who could bring out independents and disaffected GOPers to vote Democratic in droves. They'll NEVER vote for Hillary. That is a given. Edwards is too vulnerable with his mansion and haircuts.
Personally, Edwards' luxurious lifestyle doesn't bother me. A man who worked his way up has the right to spend his money as he chooses. Having a nice house does not preclude him from genuinely caring about the poor.
NEvertheless, until Edwards admits his lifestyle and argues exactly what I just did, he will remain vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. Trying to wish the fact of his lifestyle away will only make things worse. He needs to stop hiding from them.
Obama is a candidate with incredible political talents. He has so far been impervious to the type of Rovian tactics that have worked so effectively against Democrats in the past. Hillary and Mark Penn, using these same risible tactics, don't know how to take him on and it shows. The GOP will have the same problem. He will glide right past them to the White House, bringing a flood of new Democrats along with him.
You can't say that about Hillary and Edwards. They are wedded to the same, tired politics as usual. Obama is not. He has the potential to reshape the political battlefield on progressive terms for generations to come.
Think about it people! We're all on the same side here.
Alma Evans wrote on December 29, 2007 1:00 PM:Yea!!!! Go Edwards! Just the fact that now even TPM Election Central has spoken his name after all these months and he is ahead is remarkable. Once again the MSM and TPM for that matter, are way behind what the people really want.
Ron wrote on December 29, 2007 1:58 PM:New ARG poll just out shows CLinton 31%, Edwards and Obama at 24%. All polls polling regularly showing Obama losing, Clinton gaining, and Edwards also gaining. Clinton up 3.3 on realclearpolitics average.
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 29, 2007 2:04 PM:dcshungu wrote; That would be a problem in the general election because elections are won at the center of the American political divide, where most people live. That is where you will find the 20% of so-called 'swinger voters' who usual determine the outcome of elections.
While that is true, the 20% you are talking about tend to be moderate on social issues (god,guns and gays) which hill and obama are way to the left on, the 20% you talk about are liberal on economics, they want a populist economic structure. Just look at the 2006 election for senators, populist canidates won their elections in red states (montana, virginia, missouri and ohio) only one canidate took the middle of the road economic policy and he got crushed in tenn, who happens to be a dlc clinton backer harold ford. Edwards is the only one that can play to them voters.
DTM wrote on December 29, 2007 3:12 PM:Ron,
Actually, relative to the last ARG poll, that is Clinton -3, Edwards +4, Obama +5.
But I think the extreme volatility in these ARG polls is just proof of the general problem with holiday polls.
dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 3:15 PM:New Iowa Poll Gives Leads to Clinton, Romney A new American Research Group poll in Iowa continues to be an outlier among the various public surveys that have been released this week. On Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads with 31%, followed by John Edwards and Barack Obama at 24% each.
Could ARG be picking up something that other polls aren't? With Hillary getting stronger and the narrative having changed just in time for the Jan 3 IA caucus, I wonder... Also, could it be that after toying with the idea of supporting another candidate, Hillary core of early supporters is retuning "home"? I wonder...
awrbb wrote on December 29, 2007 12:49 PM:Thank you, dcshungu.
Would someone who is not a zealot care to comment?
What ever your definition of "zealot", please apply it to yourself and see how it fits... otherwise, just address my thesis regarding INTRADE's uncanny ability to pick up changes in dynamics faster than most other measures. What we are seeing in the INTRADE charts eerily reflects what anyone who has been following this race closely can "sense": Clinton is getting stronger, recovering some, if not most, of the steam that she'd lost; Obama has stalled and might even be losing a bit of ground; Edwards seems to be a lot more competitive in IA (I won't be that surprised if he wins there because of his superior organization). On the Repub side, Giuliani has nose-dived, McCain is rapidly picking up steam, after meteoric rise Huckabee appears to have peaked (he might even have lost some ground), Romney remains steady and might still prevail. That is just from reading the INTRADE charts (go to their web site for a closer look and "analysis"). Now, have you figured out who is the real "zealot"?
waka waka wrote on December 29, 2007 12:54 PM:Obama is the only one who could bring out independents and disaffected GOPers to vote Democratic in droves. They'll NEVER vote for Hillary. That is a given. Edwards is too vulnerable with his mansion and haircuts.
That is pure fantasy; you are also sounding quite desperate. Obama would be the weakest nominee that the Dems could field in the GE. He is untested, has a razor thin resume, and would have a hard time winning in Dixie or in most purple states in 2008 America. He would be the easiest candidate for the Repubs to smear because he's been thus far handled with kids' gloves by the MSM. All the Repubs will need to do is to detail Obama's thin resume and it would give people pause: Just ~3 years ago he was an obscure state senator whose only claim to fame was his rousing speech at the 2004 Dem convention. His running for POTUS is like trying to go from Junior High to CEO of America and leader of the free world?! That ought to give YOU pause! The surest way for the Dems to lose this election is for them to nominate Obama. The rhetorical "snow job" and artifices that have folks like this "waka waka" person going gaga won't work on the general public. They'll see right through it and it would be too late to renominate the one candidate that the Repubs fear the most: Hillary Clinton. Fortunately, I believe that she would win this thing outright and would go on to become the first ever female POTUS.
Meg Whitman wrote on December 29, 2007 4:05 PM:That's two polls in a row that have Hillary in third. She is losing whatever momentum she supposedly had according to all of those ARG poll watchers from earlier in the week.
Moreover, she has dropped 20+ points in NH and is about to fall back to second in SC as well. Wow...can you say collossal collapse?
Bill G wrote on December 29, 2007 4:07 PM:Marc Penn must be stuffing his face with nervousness right now. He is about to become the next Bob Shrum. Maybe he should lay off the food and start snorting his favorite word.
Susan Miller wrote on December 29, 2007 4:09 PM:It is just a matter of time before Bill's sex addiction rears it's ugly head (no pun intended) and the country is dragged into more of a distraction. My sense is that the press has laid off for the primaries but will start reporting about Belinda Stronach and all of the other Bimbo eruptions that have been occurring since he left office. What will be most interesting is if they start reporting on Hillary's gal escapades.
Caitlin Kennedy wrote on December 29, 2007 4:11 PM:She is so toast and I can't tell you how happy I am. This country needs to move on and Obama, Edwards or Bloomberg will be just fine.
Stacey Johns wrote on December 29, 2007 4:13 PM:How has Edwards "tied" Hillary? According to the numbers he is tied with Obama and Hillary has lost that big lead she had earlier this week. Am I missing something?
Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 4:18 PM:I hope that polarizing bitch gets crushed in Iowa, NH MI, SC and everywhere else. She is no better than Bush and voted for Iraq and Iran. Maybe Karl Rove is working for her now.
Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 4:37 PM:Meg Whitman wrote on December 29, 2007 4:05 PM:That's two polls in a row that have Hillary in third. She is losing whatever momentum she supposedly had according to all of those ARG poll watchers from earlier in the week.
Moreover, she has dropped 20+ points in NH and is about to fall back to second in SC as well. Wow...can you say collossal collapse?
With every candidate, Dem or Repub, taking aim at her, frightening amounts of resources being dumped in attack ads, and the noise machine going into over-drive about a Clinton collapse, the tightening of the race in the early was inevitable. However, it seems that the so-called collapse was greatly exaggerated. Also, the notion that Clinton is in 3rd place in IA shows a lack of perspective on polling in IA. No one knows who is ahead there but she has picked up momentum just when it counts most, while Obama appears to have lost it...
dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 4:48 PM:My sense is that the press has laid off for the primaries but will start reporting about Belinda Stronach and all of the other Bimbo eruptions that have been occurring since he left office. What will be most interesting is if they start reporting on Hillary's gal escapades.
What business is it of yours who Bill has been screwing, anyway? It is time that the American public and the press show some maturity about sex and sexuality. It is something (getting laid) that most spend an inordinate amount of pursuing but then claim to get "shocked" when they find out that someone else had been doing the same thing! Learn from those hated French people by how mature they have treated Sarkhozy's dumping of his wife and escapades with a model. It is no one's business as long as he attends to the ship of state!
"Hillary's gal escapades"...that says it all right there. A really sad commentary...
dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 4:54 PM:Stacey Johns wrote on December 29, 2007 4:13 PM:How has Edwards "tied" Hillary? According to the numbers he is tied with Obama and Hillary has lost that big lead she had earlier this week. Am I missing something?
Yes, Stacey, you missed by a mile. Aim again and maybe you'll get closer. Hint: there are many polling organizations out there so you must start by comparing oranges and oranges, and then realize that no one has really had a "big lead" in IA for a while now, except maybe for Edwards early on...
dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 4:59 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 4:18 PM:I hope that polarizing bitch gets crushed in Iowa, NH MI, SC and everywhere else. She is no better than Bush and voted for Iraq and Iran. Maybe Karl Rove is working for her now.
It seems that this is the night of the left-wing nut cases. Sensing that Clinton has regained the Big Mo and getting desperate, they are out in full force...
It was almost a pleasure coming out into these fora when the "boy wonder" was enjoying his "surgelet." LOL. Heck, I almost wish it would continue...
johnd wrote on December 29, 2007 5:11 PM:one wonders how well edwards would be polling if nearly every news organization and a good percentage of Democrats posting on blogs hadn't consistently described and treated his candidacy as a long shot or even a no chance.
I can understand the big media doing this since Republicans are most against Edwards being he polls best in the general. But is the Kos matching fed funds gripe with Edwards the reason so many Dems write him off?
Susan Miller wrote on December 29, 2007 6:21 PM:dcshungu wrote on December 29, 2007 4:48 PM:
My sense is that the press has laid off for the primaries but will start reporting about Belinda Stronach and all of the other Bimbo eruptions that have been occurring since he left office. What will be most interesting is if they start reporting on Hillary's gal escapades.
What business is it of yours who Bill has been screwing, anyway?
WHAT BUSINESS IS IT? When he's getting blown by an intern and then getting thrown in front of my children lying about it on TV it is my business and everyone's business not to mention a huge distraction from where is head should be focused. Everyone knows it is only a matter of time before he gets caught publicly once again sticking his dick somewhere it shouldn't. What does "President" Hillary do then? Moreover, what does the country do? Enough is enough. Time to move on from this drama machine called the Clintons. The country deserves better.
Stacey wrote on December 29, 2007 6:23 PM:dcshungu : you represent exactly what is wrong with Hillary and her minions you smug little arrogant condescending bitch. The country deserves better than you and your calculating, shrill icon.
David wrote on December 29, 2007 6:26 PM:Catfight!
It is so nice to see the Clinton jerks get what they deserve. 4 days ago they were gloating about a clearly outlier poll. In just the last few days, Hillary has lost the lead in Iowa (after supposedly being up by 14), lost her 20 point lead in NH, lost her 30 point lead in SC and clearly lost her momentum. This is desperation time for Hillaryland. They have changed their message 19 times in just the last week; cannot decide whether to use Bill or not, and made major faux pas in their politicizing of Bhutto's death. Good riddance you creepy, obnoxious people. She is going down and everyone on the ground in Iowa and NH knows it.
C'mon y'all. Hillary has had a lot of tea with the spouses of world leaders and led a remarkable policy initiative on health care. She is highly experienced.
Bobbi Shea wrote on December 29, 2007 6:33 PM:Re: Hillary's "gal escapades" -
So is she going to come out or not before November? I think it will help her with the gay community and it might make her seem more real and less calculating.
Anonymous wrote on December 29, 2007 6:36 PM:Now this is awesome. Can you say triangulation? When are they going to shut him up? Where's Belinda Stronach these days?
BILL: HILL MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE THAN GOP
Posted: Saturday, December 29, 2007 5:43 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton
From NBC/NJ's Mike Memoli
DOVER, NH -- Campaigning here for his wife, Bill Clinton made an appeal to the state's thrifty sensibility, saying that she "is more conservative than the Republicans" when it comes to fiscal policy.
Speaking at a crowded ceramics manufacturer here in Dover, where people who couldn't get inside clamored for a view from a sole window, the former president outlined the four main reasons voters should support his wife on primary day. One of them was fiscal responsibility, which Clinton said was a family trait. "Unless you think I'm telling you my speech instead of hers, let me remind you of something," he said. "My dearly departed father-in-law, her daddy, who died in my first term, never bought a car until the day he died that he couldn't pay cash for. We have a depression mentality about that, maybe we shouldn't, but we're tight."
Meanwhile, the government is borrowing money not for long-term growth, but for short term needs, Clinton said. "And that's why you have no trade enforcement," he said. America's biggest creditors also are the nations with the biggest trade surpluses. "Guess what else?" he prodded the crowd. "Our tenth-biggest banker is Mexico. Mexico! We borrow money from Mexico, a country with a per-capita income of less than one tenth ours to pay for my tax cut?" He said it was no wonder than that "there are so many illegal immigrants trying to get into this country to make a living. Maybe they think they'll get a tax cut."
As the crowd laughed, he said that if Mexico spent money investing in schools and manufacturing instead of loaning it to America, "there might be a lot less illegal immigration, cause people can make a living in their own country."
Turning back to fiscal issues, he noted that the value of the dollar has decreased as creditors are "putting their money someplace where they think they can get a better deal." And the nation, he said, is digging into a deeper whole. "In this one area, I have to tell you, Hillary is more conservative than the Republicans," he concluded. "She wants to get back to fiscal responsibility, so we will be in control of our economic destiny again."
The Dover stop was Clinton's second event of the day, not including two unannounced retail stops at diners in Manchester and Derry. In Nashua this morning, Clinton rallied supporters who were preparing to canvass in the neighborhood. He pitched his wife's electability, noting the support of Ted Strickland, governor of the pivotal general election state of Ohio.
Clinton also made an appeal on experience, noting the uncertainty facing America. "You have to have a leader that is strong and commanding and convincing enough, first to win, second to work with other people, and third to deal with the unexpected," he said. "There is better than a 50% chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency, something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign... And you need a president that you trust to deal with something that we will not discuss in this campaign, and to continue to do what you hire the president to do. And I said it before I will say it again, I think on this score she is the best of all
I never write anything in these forums; I don't even know how to do that blue box when you're quoting people:
(imagine a blue box here)
Susan Miller said, "What will be most interesting is if they start reporting on Hillary's gal escapades."
Maybe you guys know her and she's being very wry. Otherwise, she's an idiot. I wish I knew which.
Paul Sutton wrote on December 29, 2007 7:31 PM:All I can say is this race is at least threeway: Clinton, Obama, and Edwards.
And I can say that the media portrays it as a Clinton - Obama race and rarely mentions Edwards. I believe that is because the media is owned and manipulated by the very corporations that own it.
We are still in Iraq because corporate interests profit from our presence there.
We don't have national health care cause corporate interests don't want us to.
We ignore global warming because corporate interests want us to.
John Edwards is a threat to this status quo.
Hilary Clinton is the status quo.
Barack Obama will naively compromise with corporate power and the status quo won't change a bit.
I hope Edwards is playing the unfair Iowa caucuses in ways our democratic majorities don't seem to know how to use their advantage in the house and senate. I want someone smart and effective. Edwards is the only one that seems to be fighting smart. Clinton is using republican tricks and obama is trying to come across as a Kennedy. Give me Edwards.
