New Iowa Poll

by Chris Bowers, Wed Feb 21, 2007 at 03:20:25 PM EST

It is from Republican firm Strategic Vision, but considering the wave of poorly done and generally useless national polls, I am willing to give anyone props for actually conducting an Iowa or New Hampshire poll (or, even better yet, a Nevada or South Carolina poll). 600 likely Democratic caucus-goers, MoE ± 4, January numbers in parenthesis:

Edwards: 24 (25)
Clinton: 18 (15)
Obama: 18 (17)
Vilsack: 14 (16)
Biden: 5 (4)
Richardson: 3 (1)
Clark: 2 (2)
Dodd: 1 (1)
Kucinich: 1 (1)
Undecided: 14 (15)

Not much movement, for anyone. Clinton did rise from fourth to a tie for second, which is somewhat noticeable, although it was only a move of three points and closed a deficit of two points. Iowa is notoriously difficult to poll, and considering we are still 46.7 weeks from the caucus won't make things any easier. If it had been taken close to the caucuses, the real questions would be who is the most popular second place choice, and whose support is the least concentrated in specific regions. A close race like this could go any which way, because of how crazy Iowa can be.

Anyway, some lessons learned. At this point, even large announcements well covered in the media are not swaying voters this far out. Further, supposed "scandals" surrounding certain candidates don't seem to be making any impact either. Most people are not paying attention, and the true numbers of undecideds is much higher than 14%.

Tags: Iowa, polls, President 2008 (all tags)

Comments

69 Comments

Shadow_head_small
undecided number is huge

I talk to active Iowa Democrats every day, literally. The number of undecideds is way above 15 percent. I would not be surprised it if were more like 50 percent.

As a precinct captain for Kerry, I identified relatively few hard supporters for any candidate in my neighborhood as late as October 2003. A lot of people want to see the candidates several times before making up their minds, and many wait until the last few weeks.

That said, I do sense that Edwards is leading among those who have decided. I never believed those ARG polls showing HRC ahead.

I would like to see polling firms ask Iowans about their second choices. My sense is that HRC is not a second choice for anyone. If she's not your first choice, she's probably your last choice. Edwards, Richardson, Obama and Vilsack seem to be the second choices of the people I am talking to.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-21 03:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: undecided number is huge

That was my opinion of Hillary too.  She's either your first or last choice.  Obama and Edwards are strong second-choices, if not first.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-21 03:28PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Edwards and Obama are competing for same voters

A lot of people seem to be on the fence between these two and in no hurry to decide. They've already ruled out HRC and Vilsack.

I wonder if there would be an opening for Richardson. Word is that he hired an Iowa field director who is very highly regarded here. Some people, like my husband, want to support a governor but are not crazy about Vilsack. My husband was interested in Warner and is now undecided.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-21 03:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: undecided number is huge

Watch out for generalizations, as college English teachers like to say. Edwards is my first choice, Hillary my second.

by Baltimore 2007-02-22 08:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I'm kinda liking Edwards

doing well in these polls, while people get sick of Hillary, and obama and hillary getting in the mud..

by TarHeel 2007-02-21 03:26PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Edwards has hardly campaigned here lately

He was in Dubuque last weekend, but I don't know if that was before or after this poll. He has hardly visited Iowa in recent months, while Clinton and Obama were here with much fanfare. Didn't change the poll results much from December, which is consistent with my anecdotal evidence that Edwards supporters from last time around are sticking with him.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-21 05:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Edwards has hardly campaigned here lately

He was here the 29th of December for his announcement and just 2 weeks ago in Iowa City...

Nice try.

by danIA 2007-02-21 07:05PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

A poll that might actually matter---a primary state poll.

Nice to see Edwards maintain his double digit lead.

by NCDemAmy 2007-02-21 03:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

6 percentage points is not a double-digit lead...

by PsiFighter37 2007-02-21 05:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

McCain is really sinking if Guliani is now 7 points ahead.

by robliberal 2007-02-21 03:38PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

Very early, but I'm glad to see Edwards doing well.

by littafi 2007-02-21 03:39PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Richardson on the rise

He may be sitting at only 3%, but that's certainly a much better place to be than 1%.  I get the feeling that Iowans and people across the nation are looking for a better option than three senators, two which supported the war and one without much experience.  

The problem is perceived legitimacy.  The media only talks about the big three, and voters want to vote for a winner.  As more people hear about Richardson though, I think you'll see his numbers continue to rise, and with that will come press attention and then the legitimacy is takes to be seen as a top tier candidate, which will help him immeasurably in nationwide polls and fundraising efforts.

by NoahPinto 2007-02-21 03:55PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Richardson on the rise

I just posted the new Quinnipiac national poll which may be the first signs that a lot of damage was done to Edwards from the blogger frenzy.

by robliberal 2007-02-21 03:58PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
don't make me laugh

I talk to Democrats all the time. Very few people are even aware of the blogger controversy. You can't tell me that the incident affected large numbers of people nationwide. Probably just a different likely voter screen.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-21 04:11PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I agree desmoinesdem

The blogs are a movement, but still are a small part of the over all voters.

I went to a recent meeting with at least 40, I was the only blogger. The others, I am not sure have any idea of what blogging is.

The the online polls maybe the only ones affected by bloggers. The primaries are going to be interesting, I think Clinton is suffering, and I don't think hollywood speaks well for Obama, they may have money, but not to long ago, many were sick of the celebrities getting involved.

Time will tell.  

by dk2 2007-02-21 05:22PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
people out side of the

blogosphere didn't hear much about it.

certainly not compared to the obama/clinton foodfight.

I'd suspect the Geffen/obam/clinton feud will have more affect on polls than the bloggryyllss

by TarHeel 2007-02-22 03:41AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Richardson on the rise

Honestly, Richardson needs to skip Iowa, win Nevada, and survive NH.  Nothing good can come to him by a 5th place there.

by Adam B 2007-02-21 05:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Richardson on the rise

I don't agree.  Richardson is at his best with retail politics, something the Iowa caucas is all about.  He need momementum and legitimacy, and he won't have another chance to make a first impression.  If NH moves up, it will be there, but until that happens, Iowa is first.  Richardson has hired a respected field operations guy, so clearly he's going to make a play for it.  The plus side is expectations are low, so if he can finish 4th or 3rd, it'll be a big win for his camp.  Finish 5th and you're right, he'll need to come up big in Nevada.

by NoahPinto 2007-02-21 06:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

You might want to look at the internals on that poll, particularly the Republican numbers. Very interesting numbers regarding Republican support for withdrawal:

3. Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)
Yes 48%
No 37%
Undecided 15%

by Dave Sund 2007-02-21 04:02PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
The Georgia numbers from Strategic Vision

Those interested me the most when I saw them a few weeks ago. That state has been trending steady red, yet only 33% of Georgians supported sending additional troops. And the percentage of people who supported denying funding for additional troops was nearly 50/50, 43% saying yes to 49% no.

The Republicans are really in trouble if numbers like that exist in Georgia. We need to understand the significance and be much more assertive in the national dialogue.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-02-21 04:14PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

One Word

Electability

That is John Edwards

by Djneedle83 2007-02-21 04:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

John Edwards=Electability......NOT...he already lost Iowa TWICE.....once to john kerry and then to george bush.........Democrats need to pick NEW candidates and not rehash the losing ones.

by vamonticello 2007-02-21 04:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

John Edwards was not expected to do well in Iowa, yet he came within points of defeating Kerry.  As the VP nominee, he did not control the campaign.  Kerry "lost" Iowa, not Edwards.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-21 04:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
"lost"?

as i recall, not only did kerry win iowa, but he was in 3rd or 4th place in national and NH polls until his decisive win in Iowa (dean in 3rd, gephardt in 4th) vaulted him instantly into front-runner status.  hard to say how he "lost" iowa in that case.  edwards got a little momentum out of his strong 2nd-place showing but it still wasn't enough for him to win any primaries other than SC and NC.

by lorax 2007-02-21 07:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: "lost"?

The voice was speaking of the general election loss of Iowa.

by jallen 2007-02-21 07:41PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

He had a good second place showing in Iowa, Dean's scream and Kerry's surprising win drowned out media coverage of it, so I definitely think Edwards is the favorite to win the primary.

Winning the general election?  I'm dubious about Edward's chances.  The trial lawyer thing I think will hurt him as health care costs will be a huge issue, and people will be dubious of his universal health care plan as a result.  Also, yeah, he failed to win in Iowa or even deliver his home state.  A lot of that is because Kerry didn't make any real effort to campaign in the south, but still, with Edwards trending leftward, I don't see him making additional progress in battleground states.

by NoahPinto 2007-02-21 05:01PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll


but still, with Edwards trending leftward, I don't see him making additional progress in battleground states.

Yeah, that's why Sherrod Brown (a big lefty) lost so bad in Ohio. That message must have zero appeal in swing states.

by adamterando 2007-02-21 05:24PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

Your sarcasm is noted.  Sherrod Brown won because Mike DeWine was a terribly unpopular incumbant with only a 38% approval rating during an election that was a Democratic tidal wave.  We can hope the Republicans nominate an equal deplorable candidate and that conditions are ripe for a Democratic takeover nationwide, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.  No, the parallel doesn't hold up under analysis.  Edwards was part of a ticket that lost Ohio to Bush.  Since then, he's trended leftwards.  

When the Democrats have elected moderates, like Clinton and Carter and Gore, we've won (or in Gore's case, been robbed.)  When liberals have been nominated like Mondale, McGovern or Kerry, we've lost.  Do I think this makes Edwards unelectable? No.  Do I think Richardson would have a much easier time in a general election? Yes.

by NoahPinto 2007-02-21 08:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

The fact remains that Sherrod Brown in a landslide with an unabashedly populist message. Now you can try to explain it away all you want by saying Mike DeWine was unpopular, but if that's the case then your theory still completely falls apart. Mike DeWine was a so-called "moderate". He focused on freaking children's issues for cryin out loud. Can't get much more third-way than that. So according to your logic, being the "moderate", DeWine should have won, or at least should not have lost by 14%. You can't chalk that up to unpopularity. Especially when he had more money and all the tools of incumbency. And yet you refuse to admit that Sherrod's message had anything to do with it.


No, the parallel doesn't hold up under analysis.  Edwards was part of a ticket that lost Ohio to Bush.  Since then, he's trended leftwards.  

Well that's a non-sensical string of sentences if I've ever seen one.


When the Democrats have elected moderates, like Clinton and Carter and Gore, we've won (or in Gore's case, been robbed.)

Brilliant deduction! Amazing depth in your analysis. Do you realize when Gore had his biggest lead in the polls? It was right after "The People vs. the Powerful" speech at the Democratic Convention. Is that third-way DLC moderate rhetoric? I suppose you'll also say that LBJ, FDR, and Truman (Democrats who btw, won by more than 50.1%) were also moderates or only won because of flawed candidates.

by adamterando 2007-02-22 02:44AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

Issue stances aren't everything.  Mike Dewine, moderate or no, was reviled, and this set up a democratic victory.  Brown, regardless of his progressive message, was a superior choice.  Besides, a Senate election and a Presidential election are completely different.  Russ Feingold won his last senate race by 12%, the same year Wisconsin came within 1% of voting for Bush.  On a statewide level, liberal progressives can be elected.  The same has not been proven nationwide.

Regardless, I'm not 'against' Edwards.  I volunteered for him in 2004, I thought he'd be a much stronger candidate than Kerry.  But now, with him trending leftwards and having the baggage of a lost campaign, I no longer see him as the strongest candidate, especially when someone with the experience and regionally strategic benefits of Richardson in the race.

We democrats are thirsting for a victory, and with the war in Iraq going poorly, we may think we're going to run away with the election.  But we need to not mistake the nationwide anti-war sentiment as a giant turn to the left in all areas.  I'm not against liberalism mind you, I think that Republican demonization of the word is a disgrace.  All it means is open to new ideas, which is great.   But winning this election is vitally important, lest several more rightwingers are packed on the Supreme Court.

by NoahPinto 2007-02-22 09:01AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll
Edwards doesn't seem to be to be moving to the left.  To me, it seems like he is running roughly the same campaign that he did 4 years ago, just more sophisticated.
Then again, I'm not going to take someone's ideological argument too seriously when they say that "all [liberalism] means is open to new ideas."
by jallen 2007-02-22 10:29AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

In 2004, he wouldn't have come out with a universal healthcare plan and talked as openly as he does about raising taxes to pay for it.  In 2004, he did not admit he made a mistake on Iraq but was more moderate on the war. In 2004, he avoided the civil union question by saying it should be left up to the states, whereas now he's more openly in favor of them.   Now, in these cases, I think he's making the right move mind you, I'm just noting that they are all leftward moves.  And unlike Richardson who has a long experience with a moderate record, these leftward moves will allow the Republicans to paint him as a dreaded "liberal."

Like it or not, most Americans identify themselves as "conservatives."  The Republican smear machine has made liberal into a dirty word.  That was the frustration I was trying to express by saying liberal meant open to new ideas.  Because all politicians should be open to new ideas to fix the nations problems.  If we always just 'conserved' our values, why we'd be conserving racism and sexism and all manner of prejudices.

The point being this:  Candidates that get painted as liberals lose more often than not.  Democratic moderates fare better.  LBJ followed the Kennedy assassination and Goldwater was seen as an extremist and FDR was in the midst of the great depression - those were mitigating circumstances.  It's just a sad truth that in American politics, it's a race to the center.  Note that a Republican moderate, Giuliani, is currently polling 8% ahead of Edwards in a Quinnipiac poll.  

Since Edwards was on the VP ticket and ran for President in 2004, he has the benefit of being exposed to the voters.  And during this time of Republican struggles, shouldn't he be polling higher than 40%?  Sadly, he isn't, and that, combined with his one term of experience I think just doesn't make him the strongest candidate.

by NoahPinto 2007-02-22 01:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

Your mind is made up and no amount of evidence can convince you otherwise. So whatever.

I suppose you think Kerry actually was a real liberal and too far to the left when he proposed rescinding Bush's tax cuts for those making over 200k a year.

I also suppose you think that Americans are really high information voters and no all of Giuliani's positions on issues and aren't just giving him high marks strictly because of 9/11.

And I also suppose that the reason you keep saying that Democrats only win when they move to the center is because you want democrats to move to the center. So you set up a self-defeating scenario in which you believe that is the only way for Democrats to win.

Whatever, you're a DLC Democrat and that's fine. As long as you support the nominee it doesn't matter.

by adamterando 2007-02-23 02:39AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
he almost won the Iowa caucuses

As a precinct captain for Kerry, I witnessed first-hand the unbelievable swing toward Edwards in the final weeks. It was scary. I remember telling my field organizers, and they told me the same thing was happening everywhere.

I believe that if he would have had another two weeks, Edwards would have won the Iowa caucuses. Kerry had put together a stronger network of precinct captains in the summer and fall of 2003, and I believe that was what won the day for Kerry.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-21 05:48PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: he almost won the Iowa caucuses

though as i recall his support was concentrated in Polk County/DSM, your area.  he was in particular buoyed by the Des Moines Register endorsement.  Kerry ran strong in northern, western, and eastern Iowa, while Edwards won Polk (didn't he?).  Edwards had a stronger media campaign than Kerry but Kerry had a stronger field campaign, which won him more votes outside of DSM.

by lorax 2007-02-21 07:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: he almost won the Iowa caucuses

Edwards won quite a few counties in central and western Iowa. He did a lot better in the smaller cities. He did carry Polk County, but just barely. Kerry crushed him in most of eastern Iowa and in the counties with relatively large cities in western Iowa.

Here are the county by county results from 2004:

http://desmoinesregister.com/extras/poli tics/caucus2004/countyresults.html

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-21 09:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

After 2004, I never want to hear 'presidential candidate' and 'electability' in the same sentence ever again.

by PsiFighter37 2007-02-21 05:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Not me

Electability is a very real issue. You can even look at 2006, when a very high percentage of our female nominees lost in competitive districts. Voters may have questioned their stature in respect to national security, and slightly hesitated to prefer a woman against an incumbent when Iraq was the issue. I've tried to break down those districts and it's hard to discount that men would have fared better as a block.  

Just because Kerry was improperly identified as most electable doesn't mean you throw out electability. You throw out the flawed criteria. Many of us were arguing for more than a year that Edwards was actually the most electable in that cycle against an incumbent, due to more charismatic and therefore pull from the middle and the vital demographic of white women. But I agree with a post from desmoinesdem that Edwards was poorly organized compared to Kerry and Dean and simply couldn't overcome that, once Kerry won Iowa and appeared to be inevitable.

I'm increasingly frustrated when electability is dismissed. It reminds me of the first time I got fitted for golf irons. The new guy screwed up and I was yanking everything 15 yards to the left. A more experienced pro confirmed the lie didn't suit me at all. Instead of rejecting hand fitting I simply made sure a reliable pro did it in the future.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-02-21 07:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Not me

Agreed.  Electability is important.  Why we thought a Massachussets senator with a playboy millionaire image and no record of passing any major legislation would be the most electable candidate, I have no idea.

by NoahPinto 2007-02-21 08:49PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Completely agree

People's reactions to a candidate can be predicted fairly well in advance.

That being said I believe that Obama is more electable than Edwards, and both more electable than Hillary. Obama is the new JFK, or a Democratic Reagan if you will.

by Populism2008 2007-02-21 10:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
You have a high view of the American electorate...

by Cyt 2007-02-22 10:16AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Edwards is interesting

Not tainted by the Kerry defeat because Kerry used him in such a limited role.  He still seems fresh.  But he still seems light.  His personal story, however, is still the best American story of any of the top 2008 contenders in either party.

by dpANDREWS 2007-02-21 05:15PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Edwards is interesting

One thing I miss IS his personal narrative.  The son of an poor millworker who was the first in his family to go to college and make good despite the odds against him.  He has the picture-perfect family and a charismatic, hip wife who has the potential to be everything we want in a first lady.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-21 05:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Edwards is interesting

When he talks about wanting everyone to have the same chance that he had - to make it.  I find that very compelling.  Unlike a lot of wealthy pols trying to maintain the statis quo, he says I want to lift you up too.

by dpANDREWS 2007-02-21 05:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Edwards is interesting

poor?

I thought he was middle class growing up.

by areucrazy 2007-02-21 05:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Edwards is interesting

I don't know about poor, but "the son of a millworker" and "first in his family to go to college" means it was humble.

by jallen 2007-02-21 07:13PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Edwards is interesting

Oh, I don't know about that. Richardson and Vilsack both have great stories - the DLC involvement is an issue though.

by Quinton 2007-02-21 05:25PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Edwards is interesting

I think the writer doesn't count them as major candidates.

by Bob Fenster 2007-02-22 01:31AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
At this point I don't

by dpANDREWS 2007-02-22 09:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clinton and Obama are looking like they will

be crossing each other out. Leaves a good place for Edwards to be.

After Hillary and Barack attack each other enough, people will be sick of it, and will go to Edwards.

I still think he is underestimated and the MSM has alot to do with it.

by dk2 2007-02-21 05:27PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Clinton and Obama are looking like they will

If HRC isn't careful, this whole not apologizing for the war vote is going to dog her for the rest of the pre-primary season. She's already backed herself into a corner. Now at every forum or debate it will come up.

And everyone (except Kucinich) is going to have to catch up to Edwards on health care without looking like they're copying off of him. To me, Edwards really needs to work SC for a while and try to shore up support there. HRC is locking up a lot of African-American votes there right now. How does he get some of those back? A Church blitz? Rural meetings? College tours? All of the above? He's got to do something though so he doesn't get embarrassed down there.  

by adamterando 2007-02-21 05:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Sweet!!!

Nice to see Edwards on top.  Obama and Clinton seem to have been anointed by the media, but it's nice to see that Edwards might actually pull this off.  Still, Edwards in Iowa, Hillary in NH, and then Edwards runs out of money, and it comes down to Obama vs. Clinton.

Oh well. I hope Edwards can pull it off.

by delmoi 2007-02-21 05:29PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Sweet!!!

I'm hopeful that with all the debates the contrast between Edwards and HRC becomes very clear and he wins Iowa and then pulls of NH because of his superior positions. I actually wouldn't be surprised in NH came down to Obama vs. Edwards since the number of black voters is much smaller in NH.

by adamterando 2007-02-21 05:35PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Sweet!!!

If Edwards can win Iowa he'll have the money and with Nevada right after, its pretty good for him. Even if he does win both of those, the question in my mind is will it be enough to carry him past Hillary in NH and SC?

I think at least right now, Obama is in a difficult position. Its very hard to see him winning in any of the first 4 states unless Hillary implodes. I imagine he will have the money to continue even if he doesnt win any of the 4, but no wins would be pretty devastating.

by okamichan13 2007-02-22 12:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

I think because of the front-loading, he or she who wins Iowa, wins the nomination.

by Vox Populi 2007-02-21 05:30PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

It's so tough to read these Iowa polls ... we all have no idea what they really mean. It's interesting that Vilsack is so consistently low in his home state, but he's clearly got a huge organizational edge on the rest of them. Of course, he moved Atrios today to take the firmest stand I've ever seen Mr. Black take against a Democrat not named Lieberman, which can't be good considering the reason.

First rule of Democratic politics: don't fuck with Social Security. Just. Don't.

by BriVT 2007-02-21 06:16PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

Hillary and Obama taking shots at each other will show that Barack is no different than any other politician.

Edwards experience from the last campaign will carryover into victories in both Iowa and Nevada.

The Q poll favorability ratings show that 26% of Americans still don't know enough about him to make a firm opinion on his candidacy.

Edwards has got my vote.

by Djneedle83 2007-02-21 06:44PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

So Obama shouldn't defend himself? Sheeesh.

by Populism2008 2007-02-21 10:33PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

Right, he should refuse to fight fire with fire.

Like Dukakis.

And Kerry.

by Bob Fenster 2007-02-22 01:33AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

Edwards/Obama or Edwards/Richardson will be the democratic ticket in 2008.

Hillary has peaked.... She isn't Bill Clinton

Obama is currently in the honeymoon period. Yes Folks there are about 11 more months until the caucus voters organize.

By December of 2007 John Edwards will have this nomination in the bag.

by Djneedle83 2007-02-21 06:50PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

Edwards gets zero mentions in the AP wire. The AP and Reuters news wire make up most of the national news. Not only that, Edwards doesn't have the fundrasing money that Clinton or Obama have. It's pretty easy for any Dem or Rep to atack his raising taxes idea for healthcare, then there's the blogger controversy, not to mention the failed presidential campaign in 2004.

by bsavage 2007-02-21 08:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

So he gets no news mentions but the blogger controversy (a very insular story) somehow still hurts him? Huh?

So do you condone Democrats attacking his idea to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to pay for health care? If you do, then I know this great Party that has an elephant as a mascot that would love to have you as a member.  

by adamterando 2007-02-22 02:51AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

As I see it (as an Obama supporter) Edwards has his peak right now, his invisibility will make him continue to slide in the poll and so will Hillary when people get to see more of Obama. Realising that it's between Obama and Hillary most of the remaining Edwards supperts will jump ship and support Obama.

Of course we are both biased. I would be perfectly happy with Edwards as our nominee, but I do find Obama more inspiring and his past clearly indicates that he is more progressive than Edwards.

by Populism2008 2007-02-21 10:36PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

But his present indicates he is less progressive than Edwards.

by adamterando 2007-02-22 02:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

If the election was tomorrow this would be a great poll for Edwards. But since it isn't he should be worried.

This poll indicates that his jello has set and unfortunately for him he is in the lead. The only thing he can now hope for is to maintain that lead. The story otherwise will be of his fading hopes. Let's face it the race really wont solidify until late fall early winter and Edwards will be burdened with the Iowa front runner probably until then. So he just may be forced into a must win Iowa. Edwards needs Hillary in the lead or he loses the expectations game and without that bump how does he compete in Super Duper Tuesday? Given that he will need an Obama implosion to make headway.

Obama's jello hasn't set. From what I can see he wont implode, but equally he wont explode. Iowa is just to old for generational politics. I really don't see him making any major mistakes in the Senate at least for the Democratic base. I can see his can't we all just get along taking some hits though.

Hillary's numbers probably reflect her true base support of somewhere around 20% in Iowa. She wont do any worse than that no matter what happens. And this is before the Bill Clinton remember me tour.

Vilsak is headed to single digits and what dwindles away will go to Hillary and possibly Richardson or Clark.

Richardson has a chance to surprise and get a true bounce. We really just don't know how well he will play .

Clark has much the same chance as Richardson.

But then he is my guy and it is hard to be objective. Up until him I can look at the field thinking who would I support if he doesn't get in.

Given that if what I've been hearing in his recent speeches is correct he has the potential to truly break out.

Despite what the current presidential administration says, terrorism is not the biggest threat facing the United States, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark told a Colgate University audience Tuesday.
It's the global economy that threatens to leave us behind, he said.
"Our jobs, our economy . . . are liable to be held hostage in the future to China and, to a lesser extent, to India," he said. "If we don't get our house in order our education system, our health care system, our business climate we can't keep up in the competition of the global marketplace."
It's the global economy that threatens to leave us behind, he said.

Clark is probably the only candidate that can get away with this right now and through the summer. The implication of a post war on terror world with the associated implication that it is a problem that he can deal with is a powerful message to a war weary electorate.

by Judeling 2007-02-21 10:19PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
I don't know about any jello...

...but Hillary's the one who should be worried in Iowa. The ARG polls already have raised expectations for her to do well here, but her problem is that the ARG polls don't screen very tightly for likely caucusgoers. Hillary is quite likely to perform well below expectations on caucus night.

by MeanBoneII 2007-02-21 10:34PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Clark

First mention of the General... which is nice that this poll, for once, doesn't include non-candidates like Clark and Gore.

Clark obviously has a big niche on-line, but I get the sense that his small window of opportunity closed four years ago.  He'd undoubtedly be a better candidate the second time around, but with all the other candidates, I just don't see him getting any traction if he were to declare.

by Bob Fenster 2007-02-22 01:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

The numbers seem about right at least for the 3 heavyweights. Edwards' long term investment in Iowa is worth a lot more than one or two high profile visits from HRC and Obama.

by kundalini 2007-02-22 02:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: New Iowa Poll

For me, the greatest image of the 2004 campaign was a pre-caucus photo of Edwards giving his stump speech to five folks in a tiny Valley Junction living room. Iowa LOVES this guy so I think his #1 rating in this poll is spot on.

Having said this, I think he was lame in his face-off against soon-to-be felon Richard Brian Cheney in the '04 debate and not much better v. Timmah on "Meet The Press" a few weeks back.

As far as Richardson skipping this state, he should ask Flip-Flop McCain how it worked out for him in 2000.

The Obama rally in Ames a few weeks back was amazing stagecraft that would make Herr KKKarl Rove blush. 6,000+ concert goers at a rock star venue ready to flick their Bics. Obama never blew the roof off the joint, but it's early and I like his chances here.

Here's to Hillary imploding, Al jumping in, and Obama accepting the Veep.

by Dubuque Des Moiner 2007-02-22 09:29PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------