Polls: Iowa Tight On Both Sides, But Hillary and Romney Still Ahead In New Hampshire

Comments (23)

DemAC wrote on December 5, 2007 12:45 PM:

Romney looms large in the Republican race. With Hizzoner going down with corruption, Romney increasingly looks like the Man to Beat.

Michael wrote on December 5, 2007 12:45 PM:

There's also a Strategic Vision poll to be released tonight showing Obama leading Clinton and Edwards 32 (!) to 25/25.

Interesting times, to say the least.

Daniel wrote on December 5, 2007 12:48 PM:

Indeed a Strategic Vision poll has Obama up 7%; it also has Huckabee leading Romney by 3%.

John McCutchen wrote on December 5, 2007 12:56 PM:

Ruby Slippers STAT!
http://www.redpills.org/wp-content/img/HillaryWitch.jpg

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 12:56 PM:

The NH numbers in this poll are broadly consistent with the RCP averages (in those averages, Clinton's NH lead has gone from about 20 to about 10 over the last few weeks).

anon wrote on December 5, 2007 12:57 PM:

It appears that Her Majesty was, as the song goes: "ten miles high and falling fast". Marvy!

I'm guessing that Edwards, like Obama, is rising since they are now even. What a difference it would make if it all shook out to be a two candidate race between Obama and Edwards eh?

Jeremy wrote on December 5, 2007 12:58 PM:

Obama's momentum is showing that the more voters learn about him the more they like him as a presidential candidate. That bodes very well, hopefully, for him in the general election because he's already much better liked than Clinton. The trend is just the opposite for Clinton which does not bode well given that she begins with higher negatives.

anon wrote on December 5, 2007 12:58 PM:

By "they" I mean Clinton and Edwards

John McCutchen wrote on December 5, 2007 1:01 PM:

Further confirming my suspicion, expressed here yesterday, that recent flailings by Hillary, Mr. Hillary and Mark Penn among others evidences a serious collapse in Clinton's internal poll numbers nationally.

Bet a Whitewater lot on it

DemAC wrote on December 5, 2007 1:02 PM:

Daniel,
Nobody can tell of course which one is most off the mark, but numbers in this Zogby corresponds nicely with the ABC/WaPo poll. So my money, at the moment, is on Romney.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 1:03 PM:

Assuming that is true, that would be Obama +3, Clinton -4, Edwards +2 from the last Strategic Vision poll taken 11/23-11/25.

That might suggest Clinton's "fun" new negative strategy is not working out so well, even if the goal is not winning but rather a murder-suicide.

DemAC wrote on December 5, 2007 1:08 PM:

DTM,
Assuming of course that the poll you like (SV) is correct and the poll you don’t like (Zogby) is not.

MGM wrote on December 5, 2007 1:12 PM:

Hillary's strategy, I believe, is this: (1) Win Iowa if it is possible, but (2) if it is not possible, let Edwards take Iowa and Obama come in third. Edwards, she believes, won't be a challenge in New Hampshire. Obama will be stillborn, and Hillary will sail to the nomination.

Michael wrote on December 5, 2007 1:16 PM:

DemAC

Of course we could play the "my poll is better than your poll!" game, but, of course, there's good reason to trust either poll.

Over a broad range of polls, very consistently over the last 2 weeks, we've seen evidence of an Obama rise in Iowa in addition to a Clinton fall. We've also seen of late a stream of negative press from Hillary, including an embarassing cartoon on the front page (!) of the Des Moines Register this morning.

So, of course, the poll that shows the race stagnating at 27/24 between the two (Obama and Clinton) _could_ be right. On the other hand, the 32-25-25 is totally consistent with the trends of recent polls and makes sense given the trends of the cmapaigns themselves.

DemAC wrote on December 5, 2007 1:23 PM:

"When you see a bad poll, you say 'that’s a lousy poll, don’t pay any attention to that.' But with more favorable numbers, it's: 'Wow, look at that! This is huge!'"

US Senator John McCain, quoted by The Politico.

:-)

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 1:32 PM:

DemAC,

For what it is worth, I have no problem with the latest Zogby poll. But since the last Zogby poll was taken 11/06, comparing those two polls won't give us quite the same information as comparing these last two Strategic Vision polls.

Of course for overall trends, I still recommend looking at places like realclearpolitics and pollster.

dcshungu wrote on December 5, 2007 1:40 PM:

Hillary does have has some reason for concern in New Hampshire, though — her support has gone from 38% in New Hampshire back in late September, down to 32% now.

LOL. Eric, in view of the well established that polls always tighten the closer the election date, I would say that Clinton is doing extremely well in NH with an 11 point lead. And I notice how her being "ahead" in IA is not being called a "lead", whereas the same margin last week was heralded everywhere as Obama taking the "lead." I would say that at this point, it is the other candidates, particularly Obama, who need to start getting worried. As for "electability", below are fresh GE numbers from Quinnipiac U for FL, OH and PA.

These are very good numbers for Hillary all around, meanng that she very much remains the candidate to beat, and that she would be the strongest GE candidate for the Dems.

General Election Match-ups:

* Florida (n=1,124)

Clinton 48%, Giuliani 41%
Giuliani 45%, Obama 37%
Giuliani 43%, Edwards 39%

Clinton 47%, McCain 40%
Clinton 50%, ROmney 36%
Clinton 50%, Huckabee 35%

* Ohio (n=1,178)

Clinton 45%, Giuliani 41%
Obama 42%, Giuliani 38%
Edwards 45%, Giuliani 38%

Clinton 44%, McCain 42%
Clinton 47%, Romney 37%
Clinton 45%, Huckabee 38%

* Pennsylvania (n=1,092)

Clinton 44%, Giuliani 44%
Obama 41%, Giuliani 41%
Giuliani 44%, Edwards 40%

Clinton 43%, McCain 43%
Clinton 49%, Romney 37%
Clinton 48%, Huckabee 37%

dcshungu wrote on December 5, 2007 1:44 PM:

"...in view of the well established fact that polls always tighten the closer the election date,.."

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 1:55 PM:

Actually, in December 2003 and early January 2004, Dean's lead over Kerry in NH was increasing, not decreasing. In fact, in an ARG tracking poll, Clark actually took over second place from Kerry in early January.

Of course it is true that Kerry began surging in NH polls about 2 1/2 weeks before the primary, and after winning Iowa, Kerry's numbers took off and he ended up with a double-digit win. I have a feeling that is not what dcshungu meant, however.

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 2:18 PM:

Last time I checked, the year was 2007 and there were no candidates named Kerry or Dean...

Kefa wrote on December 5, 2007 2:22 PM:

Don't get your hopes too high, HRC is gonna be in for the long haul, Edwards to gonna be gone soon and Obama is gonna have to be a man and fight his own fight and we'll see if he can beat the Lady. I think not.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 2:31 PM:

Anonymous at 2:18,

Sure. My point is just that it is not in fact "well established" that primary polls always tighten at this stage.

Generally, I think looking at the dynamics of past races is useful because it tells us what COULD happen, which turns out to be a wide range different things. But those past races cannot tell us what WILL happen--to find that out we will just have to wait.

chelser wrote on December 5, 2007 3:54 PM:

funny how polls are different, eh?

Ron Paul's
Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):

Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 38-7-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 30-15-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 29-15-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 39-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 37-6-1
Ron Paul v. Tom Tancredo 42-1-0
Ron Paul v. Duncan Hunter 41-2-0

Post a comment

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