ARG Polls Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina
by Chris Bowers, Wed May 02, 2007 at 10:03:50 AM EDT
New polls of the early states are out from ARG. The New Hampshire numbers are really, really strange, but the Iowa and South Carolina numbers look reasonable:
600 "likely voters / caucus goers", MoE 4
Clearly, the big "winner" after the first debate was anyone but Clinton, Obama and Edwards. In Iowa, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson went from a combined 5% in March to a combined 15% in late April, while Clinton, Edwards and Obama dropped from 83% to 69%. Overall, that is a 24% swing between the two groups. The field made smaller gains in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but they were gains none the less. Also, Richardson has not been able to establish himself as "along in the second tier," where right now he clearly shares company with Biden. I didn't list Gravel because he did not reach 1% anywhere. That might be a reasonable benchmark for debate attendance: a candidate must have 1% both nationally and in the state where the debate is being held.
But there is something very strange about the New Hampshire poll. Obama is supposedly a distant third in New Hampshire now? He is doing better in Iowa than New Hampshire? Edwards is further ahead of Obama in New Hampshire than he is in Iowa? That all seems very unlikely to me. Unfortunately, there have been precious few Iowa and New Hampshire polls over the last month, so right now we have no other results to which we can compare these numbers. Since ARG has proven consistently wacky, I am going to assume the New Hampshire poll is an outlier until other polls appear to confirm it.
600 "likely voters / caucus goers", MoE 4
| Candidate | IA, 4/30 | IA, 3/22 | NH, 4/30 | NH, 3/22 | SC, 4/30 | SC, 2/27 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinton | 23 | 34 | 37 | 36 | 36 | 36 |
| Edwards | 27 | 33 | 26 | 20 | 18 | 20 |
| Obama | 19 | 16 | 14 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| Biden | 6 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Richardson | 5 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Kucinich | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Dodd | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Other / Unsure | 16 | 12 | 15 | 13 | 13 | 14 |
Clearly, the big "winner" after the first debate was anyone but Clinton, Obama and Edwards. In Iowa, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson went from a combined 5% in March to a combined 15% in late April, while Clinton, Edwards and Obama dropped from 83% to 69%. Overall, that is a 24% swing between the two groups. The field made smaller gains in New Hampshire and South Carolina, but they were gains none the less. Also, Richardson has not been able to establish himself as "along in the second tier," where right now he clearly shares company with Biden. I didn't list Gravel because he did not reach 1% anywhere. That might be a reasonable benchmark for debate attendance: a candidate must have 1% both nationally and in the state where the debate is being held.
But there is something very strange about the New Hampshire poll. Obama is supposedly a distant third in New Hampshire now? He is doing better in Iowa than New Hampshire? Edwards is further ahead of Obama in New Hampshire than he is in Iowa? That all seems very unlikely to me. Unfortunately, there have been precious few Iowa and New Hampshire polls over the last month, so right now we have no other results to which we can compare these numbers. Since ARG has proven consistently wacky, I am going to assume the New Hampshire poll is an outlier until other polls appear to confirm it.
Tags: Democrats, Iowa, New Hampshire, polls, President 2008, South Carolina (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
53 Comments