Poll: Obama Even With Hillary In NH; Top Three Dems Tied In Iowa, Though Hillary Leads Among Likely Voters

Comments (50)

Tom wrote on December 27, 2007 8:07 PM:

None of that matters.

The Iowa caucuses are not a poll. Edwards has the rural support, organization, and 2nd choice support needed to win, no matter what the polls say.

And once he wins, he'll immediately be the favorite in NH once Obama fades away. And once that happens, it won't be long before he's in the White House.

max wrote on December 27, 2007 8:18 PM:

I disagree, I think if Edwards wins it will hurt Hillary (he will take her support as the established, experienced democrat...Obama's supporters seem to me to be less likely to waiver)

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 8:18 PM:

It is over, Edwards wins Iowa! The superior organization, bad predicted weather, rural counties, and most important the second choicers; means an Iowa win for the most progressive and electable candidate, John Edwards!

Max wrote on December 27, 2007 8:26 PM:

That "very likely" voter screen has a margin of error of 10%, meaning it's statistically...uh...meaningless.

Also, keep in mind that this poll was taken from December 20-26, minus 24-25. All of Mark Blumenthal's (from Pollster.com) caveats for the ARG poll are in full effect here.

Given that Obama experienced a 9 pt drop during the Thanksgiving break, only to recover it immediately afterward, if I were Obama's team, I'd be very pleased with these results. Any poll showing him tied within the MOE could be concealing 5-10 pts for him come Jan 3.

jhm wrote on December 27, 2007 8:35 PM:

Q11. Do you have a second choice in the Democratic caucus for president on January 3rd, or not? (IF YES) Would that be Hillary
Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Barack Obama, Mike Gravel, or Dennis Kucinich? I could repeat the names if you wish. (INCLUDES LEANERS)

This question, apart from reminding everyone of the seemingly underreported importance of a caucusgoer's second choice, points out a methodology of question which orders the potential choices in a consistent order (as opposed to randomizing the order for every respondent) this could have an affect the outcome.

bvd wrote on December 27, 2007 9:00 PM:

Isn't the real story here that a solid majority of the Democratic Party don't want Hillary? She was supposedly the "Inevitable" one. And she still doesn't have anywhere near majority support in her own party. In fact, she's not able to show even a solid 1/3 support.

We're not talking about Howard Dean or Michael Dukakis (or Obama or even John Edwards). We're talking about the best known, most familiar non-incumbant candidate in history - a former First Lady. And her own party shows no sign of wanting her by significant numbers. I think that's more telling than anything in all these polls.

Vote for her if you want but please stop claiming she's "the most electable." She may not even be the most nominatable.

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 9:01 PM:

New Hampshire is close enough that whoever wins Iowa, will take New Hampshire. Then S. C. will fall in place. It is over on Jan. 3rd.

This is even true if Edwards wins. He is only down by 14% in New Hampshire. That will easily flip based on the Iowa momentum. Also, the media narrative will be the underdog beats the giants, and Edwards will get massive free media after an Iowa win. Yep, Jan. 3rd, we will know the next POTUS.

Dan wrote on December 27, 2007 9:03 PM:

There is a SECOND poll of Iowa out tonight from Strategic Vision, that also shows some very tight numbers.

Ben Ross wrote on December 27, 2007 9:07 PM:

Look at Question 64. 22% of Iowa Republicans, and 18% of New Hampshire Republicans, say that they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who had had an extramarital affair than one who hadn't.

It tells you how much all of the issue questions in these polls are worth. People answer them according to who they are backing. Since there are more Republicans in the race who've had affairs, Republicans tell you they'd like to vote for somebody who has had an affair.

dcshungu wrote on December 27, 2007 9:21 PM:

The story here is that despite all the noise, Hillary remains the candidate to beat. She has to be wounded but my internal analysis suggests that this race is where it has always been... You know where that is.

A Treo 750p posting. Eastside Manhattan.

DemAC wrote on December 27, 2007 9:21 PM:

Anonymous wrote: New Hampshire is close enough that whoever wins Iowa, will take New Hampshire. Then S. C. will fall in place. It is over on Jan. 3rd. This is even true if Edwards wins.

Nah, not likely. Edwards has very little money and has an inferior organization compared to the two elephants in the room. Obviously he’d benefit from a win – but to say it’s all over if Edwards wins Iowa – that’s not accurate. john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 9:31 PM:

Breaking out my calculator...looks like better than 50% of Dems prefer Anybody But Clinton

Live by inevitability
Die by inevitability

Eh Greg?

john mccutchen wrote on December 27, 2007 9:34 PM:

There goes Plan B. New Hampshire was Mrs. Bill's "firewall" but the ole firewall's in flames

Anonymous wrote on December 27, 2007 9:36 PM:

en fuego

Burn baby Burn

Pandora wrote on December 27, 2007 10:02 PM:

Hillary would love for Edwards to win IA if she cannot win it. In my opinion the best scenario for Hillary is Edwards-Hillary-Obama.

That will pretty much takes care of Obama and will give Edwards some boost in NH which will end up taking votes from Obama. Edwards has no traction beyond IA and NH. I see some kind of last minute deal between HRC and Edwards camp.

DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 10:12 PM:

Pandora,

I am pretty sure that just as Clinton would prefer Edwards to win if she can't win, Edwards would prefer Obama to win if he can't win. So I don't see much room for a deal between Edwards and Clinton.

Now something like a deal between Edwards and Biden makes a lot more sense for both parties.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 27, 2007 10:13 PM:

Grow up Super Tuesday stands a chance of picking the DEM Nominee. 01/03 will pick the delagates for I-O-FARGING-WA. It is a sign of the end times that I am the rational one.

Stop bogarting the happy pills and share.

Pandora wrote on December 27, 2007 10:22 PM:

DTM,

What do you think Edwards chances are beyond NH?

I think everyone is in it for something. Biden, Richardson probably know that they cannot win the whole thing. Logically they would bet on a person who has the best chance of winning the nomination and therefore chance of winning GE hoping or promise of some sort of cabinet position. Thus, I think deal by Biden and Richardson with HRC or Obama is more likely than deal with Edwards.

DTM wrote on December 27, 2007 10:42 PM:

Pandora,

On Edwards, I think his chances beyond NH depends on what happens in Iowa and NH. For example, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that he will win Iowa and then use the resulting momentum to either win or place a strong second in NH, and then go on to win SC and eventually the nomination.

As for Biden, Richardson, and even Dodd, I wouldn't rule them out quite yet either. Say, for example, Clinton finished a weak third and Biden and strong fourth in Iowa. It is entirely possible that in NH and beyond, many of the experience-oriented voters currently supporting Clinton would switch over to Biden, and if Biden then moved up to a strong third or even second in NH, that could generate enough momentum to make him competitive for the nomination. Of course, that scenario only works if the person or people winning Iowa and NH are not themselves experience-oriented candidates. Hence why a deal with Edwards (or maybe Obama) would make more sense for these particular candidates than a deal with Clinton.

By the way, in general the idea of second-tier candidates trying to get a promise of a cabinet position from first-tier candidates is somewhat farfetched--too many other people who are currently part of the eventual nominee's campaign will be ahead of them in line. And it is not exactly a given that a cabinet position would be better than their current positions anyway. So although people joke about this idea a lot, I don't think it actually explains much behavior.

CalD wrote on December 27, 2007 10:52 PM:

john mccutchen wrote: Breaking out my calculator...looks like better than 50% of Dems prefer Anybody But Clinton

I guess by that same logic, it could be said that somewhere around 75% prefer Anyone but Obama.

Its about the future stupid wrote on December 27, 2007 11:07 PM:

Pandora wrote; What do you think Edwards chances are beyond NH?

They are very good if he win iowa, it would be a boost in NH and even though i haven't seen a poll show this, nevada has a ton of union members in it unite/here and the seiu, this is also a caucus which favors orgainization. Also many union to this point have waited on the sidelines to see what happens in iowa, if edwards wins it you could see a flurry of very big union support come his way with more 527 help.

Michigan and florida are pointless, no delegates, and michigan don't even have but 4 canidates (clinton,dodd,gravel and DK, oh thats right my choice for prez here will be non commited, thats also a choice).

josh wrote on December 27, 2007 11:19 PM:

There is something disconcerting about seeing some Edwards supporters on here prematurely gloating about low turnout and disproportional rural representation.

You're supposed to be Democrats. We're the ones who want people to vote, remember?

Asa wrote on December 27, 2007 11:30 PM:

Greg -- Clinton's lead in the "likeliest" might be 9 points over Obama, but it's only 6 over Edwards -- his support is "unchanged" by the tighter screen. So it's 31-25-22.

stlounick wrote on December 27, 2007 11:32 PM:

The problem Hillary has is that she is viewed more like an incumbent. If voters are not breaking for her (and they have not been), then she has a problem. That's what these polls are confirming--Hillary has a problem.

If Obama had not entered the race and been able to raise the $$ he has and gather in enthusiastic supporters in the numbers he has done, this race would be over. Edwards simply did not have the money-raising ability to hit Hillary hard enough.

Obama and Hillary have enough money to take the decisions in the race into Super Tuesday--and hopefully beyond. I personally would like to see the votes count in EVERY primary. I simply don't believe that Obama or Hillary will give up the race until all of the votes are in.

The saddest thing is that only about 10% of our voters will even participate in the primary.

kozmik wrote on December 28, 2007 12:43 AM:

Keep in mind that if Edwards remains in 3rd place, and then drops out, it's a blow out for Obama as he'll get the vast majority of those supporters.

It's too bad Iowa doesn't have a complete system of ranked choice voting. If they did, Obama would be ahead by 10+ points.

Kefa wrote on December 28, 2007 1:32 AM:

Late Update: The poll also finds that Hillary holds a sizable lead over Obama when the poll is narrowed to people who say they are certain or very likely to participate in the Iowa caucuses: She's leading Obama by nine points, 31%-22%.

That's what really matters.

Jason wrote on December 28, 2007 4:40 AM:

Let's be honest about Iowa. Nobody knows now who will win, even though there will be all sorts of hindsight analysis as to why Candidate X won.

Edwards needs Iowa the most, simply because he doesn't have the organization in NH that the other two have. If he loses Iowa, there's almost no way he wins NH. And if he loses the first two, that is all she wrote simply because the other two candidates would now have Big Mo (with two consecutive wins or a split) and huge resources and field offices in the remaining states.

If Edwards does win Iowa, then NH is a definite maybe. He has almost no field presence but the momentum would really help. And if he does win both Iowa and NH, then Obama is finished and many of his voters start defecting to Edwards. The difference between 2004's Iowa Effect and now is that there are two candidates with incredibly strong field operations who have been in place for 9 months who aren't going to just wilt away. Kerry won Iowa and then went home to his backyard in NH. This time, NH is no Dem's backyard.

If Clinton wins Iowa, she might start a full romp to the nomination simply because Obama winning NH and SC (his best case) doesn't prevent her from a big Feb 5. So she has the most to gain from an Iowa win because then she can't be truly hurt before Feb 5 where she is well-positioned.

Obama winning Iowa really puts the pressure on Clinton in NH. If Obama then takes NH, he takes SC almost for sure. And then Hillary is staring at 0-for-the-big-3 heading into Hyper Tuesday. Obama will have huge Mo and enough resources and free press to fight her in every big state. Her machine-chit system might collapse against a tidal wave of energy, and then it's over.

So to recap:
- Nobody has any idea about Iowa
- Edwards has to win Iowa or it's over for him, but winning Iowa doesn't give him any guarantees about NH - still a tough slog there
- Hillary winning Iowa means Obama can't mortally wound her chances before Feb 5, which in turn makes her extremely hard to beat
- Obama winning Iowa gives him the opportunity to mortally wound her chances 5 days later in NH, which he would then be a slight but distinct favorite to do.

LongTom wrote on December 28, 2007 5:38 AM:

Josh's reference to this LA Times poll left the inference that it was a California poll. Too bad it's not.

Is it possible that Democratic primary voters, like voters in general, are stupid? Hillary's "experience" argument/mantra is so utterly vacuous that it's amazing she has the balls to present it seriously. It's an insult to the public. If McCain is her opponent, will she withdraw in the face of his clearly greater experience? For that matter, why isn't she supporting Biden or Dodd, both far more experienced in every way than she is?

In any case, she is the Dem most likely to lose in November, and Edwards has no chance to win the nomination. He's hamstrung himself by taking Federal funding, and he's kind of the Dem version of Huckabee: a one-term senator unpopular in his home state, but who's figured out a way to energize a double-digit minority of his own party with the Dem version of "that old time religion."

Anonymous wrote on December 28, 2007 5:43 AM:

It is very interesting that early primary voters tend to believe Hillary's claims of "governing experience". As the recent New York Times artcle demonstrates, it is a VERY shallow claiim. If that is what draws voters to her, Hillary is skating on thin ice, the Republicans certainly know it.

In contrast, voters are seeing Obama as "the most honest" and most likely to "bring change to Washington." These are particularly strong credentials in 2008 election, placing Obama is great position to run against the Bush legacy rather than in partnership with it, as in Hillary's case.

Obama on his own merits has integrity, vision, ideas, the capacity to bridge divides, inspire, and lead a large majority of the nation. Hillary is running as Mrs. Bill Clinton, benifiting from good associations that brings, but increasingly encountering the drag of the Clintons' major baggage: dishonesty, a soap-opera-tabloid-quality marriage, a record as First Lady that does not match the rhetoric, and huge obligations to corporate funders that directly conflict with her stated intentions.

The poll trends show, as voters become more familiar with the candidates state-by-state and primaries draw near, Obama gains and Hillary declines.

The detail in the LA Times Bloomberg poll offers much encouragement for Democrats troubled by the prospect of Mrs. Bill Clinton's nomination.

Concerned In Iowa wrote on December 28, 2007 5:53 AM:

Kefa spins: "Hillary holds a sizable lead over Obama when the poll is narrowed to people who say they are certain or very likely to participate in the Iowa caucuses... That's what really matters."

You hope that's what really matters. None on I know is suggesting that previous turnout patterns are a good predictor for 2008. This year has many dynanics that are unique even in Iowa.

And remember, the weather will be a MAJOR determinant of turnout.

random wrote on December 28, 2007 5:56 AM:

Jason said at the beginning of a very long, speculative post: "Let's be honest about Iowa. Nobody knows now who will win"

"Brilliant" insight and analysis, should have stopped while you were ahead.

chastened wrote on December 28, 2007 7:19 AM:

Edwards second in NH and Iowa... what a shock!. Poor Josh is actually going to have type Edwards' name after dissing Edwards all this time. Hah! Josh has been up Hillary's rear end for so long it is good that he will have to eat crow in a couple of weeks.

Lord knows why Josh has been such a Hillary worshiper but it has been pretty sickening. He refuses to put Edwards in his projected winners against opponents column but now maybe he will have to. Poor, poor Josh

Kefa wrote on December 28, 2007 8:18 AM:

Concerned In Iowa ....learn what a spin is....I stated what was written, then said I considered it important.

bvd wrote on December 28, 2007 8:59 AM:

CalD - If Obama & Hillary are this close then Hillary actually has roughly 71% against her. That's not the point. The point is that while Obama's relatively new and not well known to many, everyone - EVERYONE - knows Hillary. She should be doing MUCH better.

If this is the best she can do at this stage she's going to have a VERY hard time in the general election. There are just too many people (not just Repugs) who don't like or don't trust her.

I'll vote for her if she gets the nomination but she's the most widely disliked candidate running in either party. Sorry, but that's the news from the reality-based community.

ed shea wrote on December 28, 2007 9:46 AM:

i don't understand where all this hillary hatred is coming from...i am a big supporter of hers...but the idea of 8 more years of this insane drivel, this mysoginist (yes, women are in many cases far more mysoginist than the most sexist of men) vitriol is almost too much to bear...of course the ultimate irony is that these clinton-bashers only make their bete noir stronger...it nourishes the beast...the clintons have always eaten this stuff for breakfast and become bigger as a result...so keep it up, folks...keep spewing...and watch her grow...

DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 10:07 AM:

In some recent polls, I think we got the answer to the puzzle of why so many people seem to accept the idea that Clinton is the most experienced candidate (when obviously people like Biden, Richardson, and Dodd have a much better claim on that score). Those recent polls strongly suggest that many people effectively view Hillary Clinton as a proxy for Bill Clinton, and are supporting her for that reason. So I suspect that when such people hear Hillary talk about her experience, they are really thinking about the combined experience of Bill and Hillary.

Wowsas wrote on December 28, 2007 10:18 AM:

You know what's funny? For all the talk about how Edwards lacks money and organization (which is certainly true relative to Hillary and Obama), he's still got a ton of cash. He'd be right up there with Rudy in the GOP field, and he's got a ton compared to 2004.

I don't think money holds Edwards back, should he win Iowa. If he starts looking like a viable counterweight to Hillary (and Obama's star fades a tad), I expect the money will flow in.

At some point after Jan. 3, this will shape up to be a Hillary vs. anti-Hillary race. Right now, it looks like the anti-Hillary is Obama, but if Edwards wins Iowa, that would change the dynamic a LOT.

chigger wrote on December 28, 2007 10:20 AM:

I didn't check to see how those polled were chosen for this poll, but one thing that might not be measured in any of these polls is whether the high negatives of certain candidates brings out caucus-goers here in Iowa who wouldn't normally participate, people who might not be a part of the usual polling pool, which could turn the final numbers upside-down.

chigger wrote on December 28, 2007 10:26 AM:

One more thing to consider is whether this is the year when polling land line phones and not cell phones scews polling results, considering how many people have dumped their land lines. It's possible that there could be some real surprises in this selection.

DTM wrote on December 28, 2007 10:45 AM:

Wowsas,

I think you are right about Edwards' ability to compete in the long run if he gets momentum coming out of Iowa and NH.

The only thing I would note is that I actually don't think this necessarily will become a Clinton v. Candidate X contest. For example, I think it is also possible that this could become an Obama v. Edwards contest, or even an Obama or Edwards v. Biden or Richardson contest. Really, almost anything is possible at this point because we don't know who will be perceived as beating or alternatively failing to meet expectations in Iowa and NH, nor do we know where support will flow after whatever happens in Iowa and NH.

Bill wrote on December 28, 2007 11:23 AM:

Has anyone noticed:

1. That TPM seems particularly anti-Obama

2. That these results completely discount the ARG poll from a few days ago that the Clinton clan (and the TPM clan) seemed to put so much value in

What a bunch of hacks.

Bobbi wrote on December 28, 2007 11:25 AM:

How can Hillary believe that she can win anything given that over 50% of the electorate hates her and will vote against her at all costs?

I am a lifelong Democrat who has never voted GOP but would prefer Bloomberg or McCain over Hillary. My sense is that many folks would do just the same.

Marcia L wrote on December 28, 2007 11:27 AM:

Another day, another pro-Hillary anti everyone hit piece form Greg Sargent. Greg, maybe you should work for Fox.

Brian wrote on December 28, 2007 11:31 AM:

Isn't the bigger story here that Obama has wiped out Hillary's massive 20+ point lead in her "bedrock" state in less than 45 days? Wow.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 11:36 AM:

The poll also finds that Hillary holds a sizable lead over Obama when the poll is narrowed to people who say they are certain or very likely to participate in the Iowa caucuses: She's leading Obama by nine points, 31%-22%.

That's what really matters.

Indeed, this is one of the few points on which I can actually agree with something that Kefa wrote. Whether or not Sen Obama takes a lead among poll respondants matters rather little if said respondants do not actually turn out to caucus. There can be no doubt that turn-out will be hugely important, and I am hoping that Sen Obama's supporters in IA will not forget that fact. We need a strong showing to win, and if our supporters are too lazy to participate then we (and our man) will deserve the defeat that we suffer.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 28, 2007 11:41 AM:

At some point after Jan. 3, this will shape up to be a Hillary vs. anti-Hillary race. Right now, it looks like the anti-Hillary is Obama, but if Edwards wins Iowa, that would change the dynamic a LOT.

For what little my opinion is worth, Wowsas, I think that this is exactly right.

David wrote on December 28, 2007 11:56 AM:

Brian wrote on December 28, 2007 11:31 AM:
Isn't the bigger story here that Obama has wiped out Hillary's massive 20+ point lead in her "bedrock" state in less than 45 days? Wow.

Brian, you are absolutely right. NH was supposed to be Hillary's safe state. As voters have gotten to know her, her 20+ point November lead has evaporated and Obama has the big mo. While the unions/special interests may help propel Edwards to victory in Iowa, if Obama takes second and and then wins NH (much more likely), then Hillary is SOL in the first two and bound to lose SC as well. If Obama wins Iowa (highly possible) it looks like he will run the tables.

How anyone can expect Hillary to win with such vocal negatives that high still stumps me.

eric wrote on December 28, 2007 12:35 PM:

"Bill wrote on December 28, 2007 11:23 AM:
Has anyone noticed:

1. That TPM seems particularly anti-Obama

2. That these results completely discount the ARG poll from a few days ago that the Clinton clan (and the TPM clan) seemed to put so much value in

What a bunch of hacks."

I know, I know. They just don't see how great Obama is and how he, and only he, can save us all. It's a once in a generation opportunity to change things, and TPM just doesn't get it!

Michael A wrote on December 28, 2007 12:41 PM:

Greg and wowsas, ditto. It will be interesting to see what happens after the first primaries and what traction the candidates get out of iowa and NH. The sooner the anti-hillary is known, the better shot the anti-hillary will have to win the nomination. Hopefully, it's determined right after new hampshire, whoever that person is.

Ben wrote on December 28, 2007 1:41 PM:

The election is not a poll. At this stage, absolutely anything can happen. All the people declaring victory right now will have egg on their faces when the results come back. I'm pulling for Obama but the true test comes on caucus night. And one caucus by no means determines the election; we've seen this time and time again. All we have here are a bunch of scared partisans trying to reassure themselves that they backed the right horse.

Personally, I just can't wait to see how this shakes out. It's been a long race.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)