Poll: Obama, Huckabee Lead In Iowa

Comments (45)

In your heart, you know she is THE one! wrote on December 12, 2007 10:20 PM:

Is America ready for a Muslim president?

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 10:55 PM:

I have to admit I am somewhat disarmed by the combination of crazy internet rumors and Matrix lingo.

But anyway, and not that it should matter, but Obama is not a Muslim.

In your spleen, you know Islam is THE two? wrote on December 12, 2007 11:05 PM:

Is America ready for a she president!

Well, it makes just as much sense as the other way...

- HolyRomanUmpire

Teddy wrote on December 12, 2007 11:11 PM:

Will the Clinton supporters please halt these bigoted attacks?

Kae wrote on December 12, 2007 11:31 PM:

Is America ready for a Muslim president?

Perhaps, but for better or worse, there are no major Muslim candidates running, so the point is moot for this election.

Daniel wrote on December 12, 2007 11:55 PM:

A third NH poll was released tonight from Suffolk, and it has Clinton sliding a bit but holding to a clear lead (in contrast to the two polls from this morning that had a tie or Obama leading).

Dan wrote on December 12, 2007 11:58 PM:

Also, could we say for the record that:

(1) Of course Obama is NOT a Muslim and this bigoted campaign is ridiculous.

(2) If a candidate was Muslim, I would be more than happy to support him/her. And while there is no chance the country would vote for him/her, I still would love to support a Muslim candidate! So let's stop the "Muslim is an insult" game as well.

Richard wrote on December 13, 2007 12:13 AM:

I think a better framed question would be: Is America ready for its first Black Vice President?

Its Obamas smartest choice along with the eight year training he would get to be President.

CornBred wrote on December 13, 2007 12:32 AM:

It's almost uncanny how the smear attacks just keep pushing Obama's numbers up. That's how America works.

"He's a Muslim", his Iowa numbers go up.

"Bill Clinton is more black than Obama", SC numbers up.

Ask Obama is he's "ever sold drugs", New Hampshire poll numbers go up.

So just keep the smears flowing Clintonites and Republicans, because the Obama campaign really appreciates it.

The ironic thing is same thing happened for Bill Clinton in '92, but Hillary's team is too stupid to realize it. Remember these: "Draft dodger", numbers up. "Bimbo eruptions", numbers up. "Did not inhale", numbers up.

anon wrote on December 13, 2007 12:35 AM:

It has all happened as could easily have been predicted. The only unknown is the result.

Anyone could see that this clash between the centrist money-grubbers was inevitable. Now that Her Majesty is in free fall in the polls in Iowa she will no longer have the option of remaining above the fray. The Hillary camp has been champing at the bit to go after Obama and now that he has inched into the lead they have their excuse. Obama, of course, will have no choice but to protect his lead by fighting back. It will inevitably get ugly because the two of them each have such obscene amounts of money that they can both effectively destroy the other and they will.

With a tad of luck, the voters will become so disgusted with both centrist options that they will actually start listening to John Edwards who is the only viable true Democrat (aka liberal) candidate in the race. Many want Hillary because she's a woman. Many other want Obama primarily because he is black. That's understandable. But it is only understandable if her gender or his race actually made some difference other than a symbolic one but neither factor means anything. Why? Because both Hillary and Obama have staked out mealy mouthed centrist positions on most every important issue. In other words, they have portrayed themselves and taken positions casting them as moderates which is another way of saying they are for business as usual as much as possible. So if you are satisfied if only the race or gender of the President is different, but the policies are those of any middle of the road, typical pol then you'll be happy with either Obama or Clinton.

But if you're a Democrat who's tired of the same old capitulation and accomodation of the special interests and the rich then think about supporting Edwards for President. He has the most liberal views on every question and he promises to actually fight for and deliver long overdue solutions to the health care crisis and poverty in America. That is real change and not mere symbolism.

I pray the result of the ugliness between Barack and Hillary is Edwards wins in Iowa and then picks up enough steam to wipe them both out. My fingers are crossed.

NCSteve wrote on December 13, 2007 12:42 AM:

A statistically insignificant bump here and a statistically insignificant bump there and next thing you know you're winning.

anon, as long as you're praying, ask God for a pony and a tricycle, too.

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 1:36 AM:

This tends to reinforce my suspicion that Obama may have topped out in Iowa over the last week or so. I think he's gotten all he's going to get from attacking Clinton at this point. It looks to me like he needs a piece of John Edwards to win it.

Steve wrote on December 13, 2007 1:40 AM:

"But anyway, and not that it should matter, but Obama is not a Muslim."

Actually, it does matter. Electing a Muslim president would be a terrible mistake for our country. Not only does it fail to represent the faith of the vast majority of Americans, but it sends the dead wrong message to the rest of the world. And not only that, but Islam is an inherently violent religion and I would not trust a Muslim with that sort of responsibility and I don't think a majority of Americans would either.

PacificDrummer wrote on December 13, 2007 1:47 AM:

Steve - That is one of the most ignorant things you could possibly say. There's something called separation of church and state, so his religion shouldn't matter anyway. And to say that Islam is an inherently violent religion is just plain wrong. Extremist Shi'as interpret the lesser jihad (the spread of Islam) to mean they should kill Christians. Islam is no more inherently violent than Christianity or any other religion.

CalD wrote on December 13, 2007 2:28 AM:

Who's a muslim? Giuliani?

Jason wrote on December 13, 2007 3:51 AM:

Steve, almost all religions are inherently violent. And Islam may not represent the faith of the majority of Americans, but it doesn't really matter if the President has different imaginary friends from everyone else. All that matters is having a President who doesn't take orders from the voices in his head.

c wrote on December 13, 2007 4:30 AM:

Steve that's idiotic in so many ways I don't know where to start. What does "represent the faith" even mean, and where in the Constitution is it even suggested that a President ought to reflect the religion of the populace? Certainly neither JFK nor Richard Nixon would have qualified.

How much time have you spent living in majority Muslim countries? Most Muslims understand their faith as a matter of submission to God, piety, decency and restraint.

There are also, sadly, more than enough intolerant whackos to go around and all the Abrahamic religions have their share.

But inherently violent? Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate
The Muslim world actually looks pretty good.

DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 5:06 AM:

CalD wrote: Who's a muslim? Giuliani?

Nah, Huckabee it is. DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 5:13 AM:

CalD wrote: This tends to reinforce my suspicion that Obama may have topped out in Iowa over the last week or so. I think he's gotten all he's going to get from attacking Clinton at this point. It looks to me like he needs a piece of John Edwards to win it.

Perhaps Edwards is willing to give Obama some voters and maybe a pound of his flesh too? Edwards sure has done yeoman’s work for Obama in stepping up the attacks on Clinton. Edwards was around in 2004 and benefited greatly from the Dean/Gephardt murder/suicide pact, so he must have known for sure that his attacks could only help Obama. DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:39 AM:

CalD,

Obama's numbers in the RCP averages have continued on their steady upward trend.

Incidentally, although Clinton's attacks seem to have accelerated the pace at which Obama has been increasing his share, Obama's numbers started going up long before Clinton started attacking him. As far as I can tell, in each state that upward trend really started with Obama beginning his active advertisement campaign.

So, it appears to me that a lot of Obama's support actually comes from voters learning more about Obama and deciding they would like to vote for him. Amazingly enough, that may have nothing in particular to do with Clinton.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 6:46 AM:

DemAC,

Clinton's peak lead over Edwards in the RCP Iowa average was about ten points. That is now down to about six points. Overall, Edwards had been more or less in a steady decline in Iowa up to the point he stepped up his attacks on Clinton, and now he has recovered a bit and apparently stabilized.

So while it is true Obama arguably benefited more than Edwards (although as I noted to CalD, Obama was going up in the Iowa polls long before Edwards stepped up his attacks on Clinton and Clinton responded by attacking Obama), it is not at all clear that Edwards did not benefit at all.

DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 6:46 AM:

DTM wrote: Obama's numbers started going up long before Clinton started attacking him.

But the increase for Obama coincides nicely in time with Edwards escalating his attacks on Clinton, thus doing Obama’s negative work for him. Something Edwards must have realized at the time given his extensive experience in 2004. DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 7:05 AM:

Steve,

The President is not Preacher in Chief, and not only does the Constitution not give the President any role to play in the religious life of Americans, but it specifically prohibits any religious test for public office.

As for Islam, there is no such thing as the "inherent" qualities of a religion. Holding aside the possibility of divine participation, a religion is otherwise a manmade institution, and it has whatever qualities the adherents give to it.

So if certain Muslims want their version of Islam to be supportive of violence, it will be supportive of violence, and if certain other Muslims do not want their version of Islam to be supportive of violence, it will not be supportive of violence. As others have noted, Christianity works just like this too (see, for example, the Crusades and the Inquisition).

As for whether or not the American people would accept a Muslim candidate for President, I have learned that asking such questions in the abstract is not a great idea. If there was such a candidate, presumably that candidate would have other qualities which could make them attractive to the electorate.

So even granting for the sake of argument that such a candidate being a Muslim would be a problem for some people, the real question would be whether any effect arising from that concern would be significant enough to override that candidate's otherwise appealing qualities. And again, that is really not a question we can answer in the abstract.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 7:18 AM:

DemAC,

No, your timeline is incorrect.

Edwards stepped up his attacks on Clinton at the end of October, and it is true that around that time Clinton's numbers started going down both in the early states and nationwide (although I am not sure in this case that correlation is causation).

However, Obama's upward trend in NH began in the middle of September, and indeed for about a month and a half both he and Clinton were on upward trends in NH.

Obama's upward trend in Iowa began even earlier, around the beginning of August, and again both he and Clinton were on upward trends in Iowa for almost three months.

As I suggested before to CalD, as far as I can tell the most notable proximate event for the beginning of Obama's upward trends in Iowa and NH (and now SC) was the beginning of his widespread advertising campaigns in those states. Note, by the way, that would explain why his upward trends have not all begun at the same time--they are apparently being started by something state-specific (like advertising), as opposed to something national (like Edwards attacking Clinton in debates and in press releases).

Of course if you only followed the national press, you would get the impression that everything important is always about the drama going on between the campaigns. But as this evidence suggests, sometimes important things are going on that do not actually directly involve the other campaigns at all. Specifically, in this case apparently Obama has been steadily building support by providing more information about himself to voters in the form of advertising, and that has nothing in particular to do with Clinton or Edwards.

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 7:19 AM:

Richard said: "I think a better framed question would be: Is America ready for its first Black Vice President?"

If you are assuming Obama would run on a Hillary ticket, you must be crazy. Why would he ever do that. If Hillary is nominated, he should quietly campaign for her in Illinois like a good Democrat, watch her campaign go down in flames, and challenged the incumbent Republican in 2012.

Many Democrats and independents will NEVER vote for Hillary. It doesn't matter who her running mate is. Why is that so hard for Hillary Lovers to grasp. Most of the nation when they see and hear Hillary don't like her and don't want her for president.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 7:21 AM:

DemAC,

Oh, but I did want to note that I agree that Edwards had to expect that Obama would benefit at least as much as he would when he went after Clinton more aggressively. I assume that was a calculated risk, with Edwards believing that he has a better chance at winning Iowa in a contest with just Obama than in a three-way contest with both Obama and Clinton.

Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 13, 2007 7:26 AM:

CalD wrote: This tends to reinforce my suspicion that Obama may have topped out in Iowa over the last week or so. I think he's gotten all he's going to get from attacking Clinton at this point."

Abosolute fantansy and Clintonesque propoganda. Hillary is in a huge slide in Iowa, NH, SC, NV, and it's beginning in CA. In part, its because when voters pay attention, Hillary loses support. She's in a panic and her mean machine has only three gears: 1. Arrogant and inevitable, 2. Attack Attack Attack, 3. Whisper Whisper Whisper.

Obama has substance, inspiration, and leadership. His gains are real and lasting.

DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 7:28 AM:

Many Democrats and independents will NEVER vote for Hillary. It doesn't matter who her running mate is. Why is that so hard for Hillary Lovers to grasp.

Simply because it isn’t true. The rabid few that hate any candidate so much that they rather stay home on Election Day to simmer in their own hate and resentment are, just that, a rabid few and not many at all.

It is rather common among political extremists and mentally unbalanced people to believe that their own skewed view of the world are shared by “the masses”. Sometimes they unfortunately react rather aggressively when confronted with the disappointing reality that the vast majority of voters are gentle, normal people.

random wrote on December 13, 2007 7:33 AM:

DemAC said: "The rabid few that hate any candidate so much that they rather stay home on Election Day to simmer in their own hate and resentment are, just that, a rabid few and not many at all. "

Hillary's attack dogs just don't get it. Look at not just the poll numbers but the trends. When Americans see her, they don't want her. Call it "hate," it certainly is total rejection. Mrs. Bill isn't qualified to be President and voters are recognizing that fact in BIG numbers. Mean and nasty won't win her the election.

DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 7:33 AM:

DTM,
I take your word for the timeline, you usually are very knowledgeable.

Regarding the attacks, and considering the experience in 2004 such a gamble on Edwards’s part seems to indicate not a very good judgment. But perhaps he was truly desperate and saw no other way out. But he must have realized that the person most likely to benefit was Obama.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 7:35 AM:

A few quick numbers from RCP:

Back at the end of July, Obama was at about 17 in Iowa. When Clinton peaked in Iowa in late October, Obama had already increased his share to about 23, a gain of about 6 (since then he is up another 7 points to about 30).

Similarly, in mid-September in NH, Obama was just over 17. By the time of Clinton's peak in late October, Obama had already increased his share to a little over 22, a gain of about 5 (since then he is up a little less than 5 points to about 27).

So in both cases, the amount Obama gained before Clinton started heading down is roughly equivalent to the amount he has gained since Clinton started heading down. But it is also true that the pace at which he has been gaining has accelerated since Clinton started going down.

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 7:36 AM:

DemAC said: It is rather common among political extremists and mentally unbalanced people to believe that their own skewed view of the world are shared by “the masses”.

Did your therapist explain that to you, DemAC? Do you also understand the "suspension of reality."

Hillary and her supporters can't argue on substance so they attack and see any one who disagrees as "the enemy", a "Hillary Hater." It's called PARANOIA.

DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 7:38 AM:

random,
There is nothing in any polls to substantiate your strange claims. Perhaps you should read a poll sheet or two before you try to draw conclusions from what you don’t understand?

DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 7:41 AM:

It's called PARANOIA.

To believe that most voters are gentle, normal people?

I don’t think so. :-)

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 7:45 AM:

DemAC,

Well, sometimes taking risks is in fact indicative of good judgment. It all depends on whether or not sticking with the status quo is likely to result in the outcome you want, and whether you have better options.

In this case, the status quo for Edwards was certainly not very promising: he was in a negative trend in Iowa, and both Clinton and Obama were in positive trends. As a result, first Clinton and then Obama had passed him in the Iowa polls. Finishing third in Iowa pretty much would end his candidacy.

So obviously he had to do something. I am not really sure what his options would have been, but it could well be that attacking Clinton was his best bet, risky as it might be.

And notably, Edwards pretty carefully kept his attacks relevant, staying away from the equivalents of Kindergate. And perhaps this is just his good luck, but Clinton responded not by attacking him, but rather by attacking Obama. In any event, as I noted since then his numbers stabilized and Clinton's went down.

So was all that risky? Sure. But bad judgment? In the end, it is hard to argue Edwards did not end up better off than where he was before, so this appears to be a risk that paid off.

DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 7:58 AM:

Whether or not there is polling data to support random's thesis depends a bit on what he or she meant by "qualified".

On the one hand, it is true that the polls indicate that Democrats see Clinton as having the experience to be President. On the other hand, Democrats (like voters in general), also rank attributes like honesty and ethics as important qualifications for the Presidency. On those issues, there are indeed polls indicating that Clinton has a problem insofar as she is perceived as less honest and ethical than her rivals.

And personally, I also think it is reasonable to hypothesize that Clinton's aggressively negative (AKA "mean and nasty") campaign is not going to help her on those issues. But of course it is somewhat difficult to actually reverse your own bad numbers on such attributes (what would an effective ad promoting your honesty and ethics look like?), so Clinton may reasonably have calculated her best approach is just to drive up Obama's negatives on honesty and ethics and hope her other more positive attributes carry her to the nomination.

The problem for Clinton is that it doesn't seem to be working. None of the various lines of attack she has tried on Obama appear to have blunted his rising support. Meanwhile, she is still losing support, particularly among women, and again I think it is reasonable to hypothesize her aggressively negative campaign is contributing to those losses.

So Clinton appears to be in a bind. And personally, I'm not really sure there is a way out.

random wrote on December 13, 2007 8:18 AM:

DTM, thanks. You always advance the discussion by giving credit where it is due, and adding your knowledge and perspective.

I was focusing on the difference betweeen experience as Mrs. Bill, and experience as qualification not related to that. There isn't much.

I was also intrigued by the recent NYT poll that found: ""nearly as many of Mrs. Clinton’s backers say they are supporting her because of her husband as say they are supporting her because of her own experience." Once it dawns on voters that Hillary is not Bill, it seems, they go on to other candidates. The most recent WashPo/ABC poll notes that erroding base phenomenon: "49 percent of Clinton's supporters back her 'strongly,' down from 57 percent last month and under 50 percent for the first time in the campaign."

When voters look at Hillary closely, the other candidates look better.

DemAC wrote on December 13, 2007 8:37 AM:

random wrote: When voters look at Hillary closely, the other candidates look better.

That’s one of your misconceptions. You read things into the polls that aren’t there. The earlier the polls, the more likely that a great part of the sample did not know anything, or at least very little, about any other candidate than Hillary Clinton, save maybe, just maybe, John Edwards. As the voters discover other candidates there will of course be realignment. I’ll give you that some realignment of course might be discontent with a particular candidate, in this case Clinton. But what you misconstrue as some sort of exodus from Hillary Clinton is merely the fact that other candidates have started to make their presence felt. Suddenly there is number of choices that simply weren’t visible earlier. DTM wrote on December 13, 2007 8:42 AM:

random,

There does indeed seem to be little doubt that Senator Clinton's high scores for experience are largely dependent on people attributing to her some share of the credit for Bill Clinton's Presidency.

But I am not quite as convinced that this effect is likely to disappear. You might be right, of course, but there are other reasons why people might be shifting their preferences to other people (meaning reasons unrelated to whether people credit Senator Clinton with a share of Bill's Presidency). Indeed, I really think people are shifting in part not just because they like Clinton less, but also because they like other candidates more as they get more information.

But in any event, this is an ongoing process, so we shall see.

Kefa wrote on December 13, 2007 8:47 AM:

Get used to this kind of abuse.....The VRWC will be coming either if Obama heads the ticket or if it's HRC/BO.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 13, 2007 9:21 AM:

In the battle between Ms Right-of-Center and Mr Now-Running-to-the-Right-of-Her-Royal-Crownship, America loses.

Above I read Racism and Sexism and Selective Memories/Revisionist History. Congradulations . . . We are now a watered down version of the Republican Party.

Richard wrote on December 13, 2007 9:36 AM:

All the parlor games and armchair political strategists aside. Clinton will be the next President (like her or not).

The democrats are experiencing a similar dilemma that the republicans are having. Their hearts are with Huckabee but their pragmatic id is with Guiliani. So it goes with Obama and Clinton.

We are emerging from a devastating eight years of the "nice guy" who screwed up everything. Now people are desperate for a brand that has a record of success (please research brand before attacking). Clinton will get votes from people who dislike her yet still vote for her, just like Nixon.

DRinOH wrote on December 13, 2007 9:36 AM:

Can anyone tell me why this poll isn't up on the poll tracker? I mean, other than the fact that Eric Kleefield works here. I know Str. Vis. is a republican polling org, but they've put their numbers up on the poll tracker before.

Anonymous wrote on December 13, 2007 9:37 AM:

In fact, they have their Georgia poll up there right now, not that anyone gives a shit about Georgia.

votenic wrote on December 13, 2007 5:09 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Post a comment

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