Two New Iowa Polls, Two Different Results

As we've seen so many times before, two new polls released out of Iowa today tell two entirely different stories. The Research 2000 poll (500 LVs, 12/10-13, MOE 4.5%) has Obama up 9% over Clinton while the latest Diageo/Hotline poll (569 LVs, 12/7-12, MOE 4%) shows Obama and Clinton tied for first.

Diageo/ HotlineResearch 2000 (Nov.)RCP 5-poll Ave.
Obama2733 (25)29.8
Clinton2724 (27)26.8
Edwards2224 (21)21.8
Richardson89 (10)7.7
Biden53 (4)4.3
Dodd11 (1)
Kucinich11 (1)
Undecided85 (11)

One thing both polls agree on is that, technically, Iowa is still a statistical tie. One aspect of both polls that demonstrates the momentum Obama has generated in the state though is on the crucial second choice question. Obama is clearly eating into Edwards's traditional lead on this measure, even besting Edwards in the R2000 poll.

Diageo/ HotlineResearch 2000

Both polls also asked about experience versus new ideas/direction and the results are surprising. In the Diageo/Hotline poll, voters say they value "new direction" over "experience" 50% to 25% yet Clinton, the "experienced" candidate, ties Obama, the "new direction" candidate, overall. In the Research 2000 poll on the other hand, voters say they value "experience" over "new ideas" 43% to 35% yet here Obama is 9% up. The reason seems to be that Obama is eroding concerns about his lack of experience as 36% of those who consider experience the most important issue when voting support him (vs. 46% for Clinton.) Both polls still find Clinton with credibility as a candidate who would bring a "new direction" or "new ideas;" her advantage over Obama on experience is still much greater than his advantage over her on new direction yet he is either tied with her or beating her among all voters. It's not that people's minds are changing about who has the most experience, it's just that Obama's lack of experience is becoming less and less of a problem for him.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Democratic Iowa caucus, diageo/hotline polls, Research 2000 (all tags)



Sidebar: Wexler Wants Hearings

The charges are too serious to ignore. There is credible evidence that the Vice President abused the power of his office, and not only brought us into an unneccesary war but violated the civil liberties and privacy of American citizens. It is the constitutional duty of Congress to hold impeachment hearings 68&eurl=http://www.wexlerforcongress .com/cheney/


Hello, I am Congressman Robert Wexler.

It is the duty of Congress to investigate the actions of Vice President Cheney and the Bush Administration. Our Constitution mandates that the House of Representatives hold Presidents and Vice-Presidents accountable when they commit High Crimes.

Serious and substantive allegations have been made against Dick Cheney that relate to the precise powers of the Vice-Presidency and executive branch - namely War and Peace - safeguarding the civil liberties of Americans - and protecting the safety of our covert agents. It is Congress's constitutional role to inquire -- to determine the truth.

It is time for the House Judiciary Committee to hold impeachment hearings for Vice President Cheney. We have an obligation to ask questions -- to determine whether in fact the Vice President purposefully manipulated intelligence, bringing us into war;

...whether he knowingly ordered the illegal use of torture;

...whether he knowingly exposed covert agents for political purposes;

...whether he obstructed federal investigations.

These charges are too serious to ignore. Hearings will put the evidence on the table, and the facts alone will determine the outcome. We owe it to history to investigate and record the many abuses of this Administration. We cannot allow the unlawful actions of President Bush and Vice President Cheney to be become precedent for future administrations.

I have heard from thousands of concerned citizens throughout the nation who understand the importance of these hearings, both for today and for history.

Accountability and the rule of law are not partisan; they are American. They supercede politics and strategy. We must hold all of our leaders accountable. No exceptions.

Join this effort by signing up at Together, we can make a powerful statement in support of truth and accountability.

I was serving in Congress and on the Judiciary Committee for the ridiculous and politically motivated impeachment hearings of President Clinton. During that witch hunt Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Ken Starr wasted a year and a half on investigations and hearings about President Clinton's personal relations. However, this attempted coup d'etat by Republicans against President Clinton was not and should not be the standard of impeachment that was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution.

First, impeachment hearings are only proper when significant allegations exist that the President or Vice-President, or others civil officers, committed actions - within their official duties - that constitute 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors.' The allegations against Clinton - involving a personal affair - never reached this threshold. The serious charges against Cheney involve alleged crimes that are central to his duties of Vice-President; namely war and peace, the widespread violations of civil liberties, and the security of the United States and our covert agents.

Unlike the show trial put on by Republicans against President Clinton, a proper impeachment hearing would involve a fair and objective presentation of the facts without hyperbole or political gamesmanship. The hard evidence that is presented at the hearings will be judged fully both by Congress and the American people. The evidence alone will determine the outcome, and if it is determined that Vice President Cheney committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" he should be properly impeached and put on trial before the Senate.

After the Democratic Party regained control of Congress, many - myself included - thought that it might be possible to meet President Bush half-way on the large issues facing our nation. Unfortunately, Bush has been nothing more than an ideological obstacle. He has vetoed stem cell research. He has vetoed efforts to bring our troops home from Iraq. He vetoed children's health care. So, the idea that we are somehow inhibiting Congress from passing our agenda by holding impeachment hearings - unfortunately - is a false argument.

Instead, I believe that we can both live up to our Constitutional obligation by holding hearings and pass a Democratic agenda. If President Bush perceives that the Democratic Congress is weak and unwilling to aggressively push our agenda - he will continue to veto legislation, such as children's health care - that is supported by a majority of Americans. The only way to move a progressive Democratic agenda is by acting through strength and following through on our core principles. A Congress willing to stand up to the abuses of the Bush Administration through impeachment hearings will demonstrate a strength of will that will more likely convince Bush to accommodate on issues such as Iraq, health care, and energy and environmental issues.

by dearreader 2007-12-14 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Sidebar: Wexler Wants Hearings

why did this get troll rated?

by jello 2007-12-15 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Two New Iowa Polls, Two Different Results

ah...why not post this separate?

It is important..but unless you can provide a connection for your lengthy copy and paste...
...and how this plays into this poll?

Meanwhile..back at the topic..
regarding this poll...

No democratic Candidate is running for re-election as President or running as a former Vice-President.
No Democratic Candidate is running against an incumbent Republican President or former Republican Vice-President..

All fancy models are not relevant next year.

by nogo war 2007-12-14 01:03PM | 0 recs
I have no idea what the post above was for

But anyways, I just wanted to highlight something that desmoinesdem highlighted in an earlier thread about the Research 2000 poll and how that largely favors Obama:

Breakdown of the Research2000 poll:
18-29: (16%)
30-44: (31%)
45-59: (30%)
60+: (23%)

Exit poll of 2004:
17-29 (17%)
30-44 (15%)
45-64 (41%)
65 and Older (27%)

Now while the dynamics may change, it's clear that this poll is strongly skewed toward the 30-44 age group, the group that is Obama's best group (contrary to popular opinion) by almost double, while it skews MUCH less 45-64, the groups that Edwards and Clinton have a significant advantage against Obama currently. This should just be taken into account.

by KainIIIC 2007-12-14 01:07PM | 0 recs
you beat me to that

Thanks for posting.

Some commenter at Iowa Independent posted a link to a new Iowa State University poll (released today), but it's not clear when that was in the field: inton-now-leads-iowa-after-last-debate

Top line is Clinton 31, Edwards 24, Obama 20.

Bottom line is that these pollsters are surveying different universes. Which universe will show up on January 3? I still like Edwards' chances.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-14 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: you beat me to that

It's a complete dead-heat in Iowa at this point; All candidates are spending lots of money, Edwards may have recieved a bit of a boost from the last debate (and Obama certainly was not hurt), but it really is a dead-even 3-way race. It all depends on what universe actually comes and turns out like you said.

The Edwards group I go to canvass with in Dubuque often jokingly remarks about the "invisible Hillary supporter", they supposedly exist but are no where to be seen. There are obviously issues about Obama being able to turn out his group of people (people under the age of 45), and just how much of them are likely to sweet to a 3rd-tier or to Edwards. And there are questions about whether or not Edwards really has the most committed, activist, reliable base to turnout, and whether his great organization will be able to turn this thing around for him.

This should be a good next 3 weeks, and I wish you luck desmoinesdem!

by KainIIIC 2007-12-14 01:26PM | 0 recs
everyone needs to focus

on turning out supporters, and I don't know which campaign will do the best job at that.

Obama's additional challenge is that he needs to improve his standing among older voters if he wants to win. There are many precincts that simply don't have a lot of caucus-goers under age 45.

Obama would definitely be better served by a primary, when it wouldn't matter how his supporters were distributed across the state.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-14 01:54PM | 0 recs
All old polls

I think the 'citizen journalist' who wrote that Huliq article was a little lax on the research.

by IVR Polls 2007-12-14 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: you beat me to that

This poll was released Dec 3rd, before the debate.

In the field: Nov 6-18. By way of comparison, the DMR poll was in the field Nov 25-28.

by dblhelix 2007-12-14 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: you beat me to that

DesmoineDem - This poll is an old poll that was released weeks ago + this poll took more then one week to be completed.

by Prodigy 2007-12-14 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Two New Iowa Polls, Two Different Results

The fact that people are not as concerned about experience is exactly why Hillary has moved on to electability....

by aiko 2007-12-14 01:28PM | 0 recs
Please just stop

using the phrase "statistical tie". Being just inside the margin of error does not mean any kind of tie. Using this language suggests that the possibilities approximate 50/50 instead of 19/1.

MOE is one of the most misused things in political discourse today. It doesn't measure the quality of the poll or the actual substance of the question you are polling. That is given a same sized random sample a totally unfair blatant push-poll has the same MOE as the most well constructed poll possible.

BTW I don't know why all these comments seem to have attached themselves to the wrong post.

by Bruce Webb 2007-12-15 08:21AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads