Strategic Vision: Most Iowa GOPers Favor Complete Withdrawal

The latest survey of likely Iowa caucus-goers from Republican polling outfit Strategic Vision was released this afternoon and the results may just shock you, because they certainly shocked me. Take a look at the fifth question (600 GOP LVs, May 18-20, MoE +/- 4%):

Do you favor a withdrawal of all United States military from Iraq within the next six months? (Republicans Only)

Yes54 percent
No37 percent
Undecided9 percent

Certainly there's an extent to which these results are reflective of the fact that Strategic Vision did not give respondents a chance to choose other alternatives, like withdrawing some troops over this time period or aiming to withdraw all American forces in six months or a year or two years. Still, the results are fairly clear: A fairly substantial majority of likely Iowa caucus-goers favor the full withdrawal of American military forces from Iraq within the next six months. This majority is safe from the margin of error and, to repeat, these numbers come from a Republican poll.

For those interested, the poll also showed that likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers favor this tough line on Iraq by an even wider margin, 81 percent to 5 percent. This would certainly seem to upend the notion that a Democratic presidential candidate would have something to lose by going out too far on the issue of Iraq.

And because I'm sure you're at least wondering...

If the 2008 Democratic presidential caucus were held today between, Joeseph Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Barack Obama, and Bill Richardson, for whom would you vote? (Democrats Only; Names Rotated)

John Edwards29 percent
Barack Obama24 percent
Hillary Clinton16 percent
Bill Richardson9 percent
Joe Biden3 percent
Chris Dodd2 percent
Dennis Kucinich1 percent
Undecided16 percent

Tags: 2008, Iowa, Iowa Caucuses, Iraq, Republican Primaries, Republicans (all tags)

Comments

22 Comments

wow

even pro hillary poll diarists can't spin her Iowa numbers now, for the "inevetable" fruntunner to be doing this bad in Iowa, and please don't bring up 1992 which wasn't contested.

by nevadadem 2007-05-22 06:19PM | 0 recs
The more people see Hillary the less

they like her.

That is the conclusion you have to draw from this. Iowa has had a lot of visits by the frontrunners.

Finally some hope. The Democratic Party might survive in 2008 after all.

by Populism2008 2007-05-23 03:36AM | 0 recs
Another poll showing

Obama in second in Iowa, and Richardson around 10%. Interesting. It's still early though.

by jj32 2007-05-22 06:26PM | 0 recs
*ahhh.*

Very good Obama numbers.

by jforshaw 2007-05-22 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: *ahhh.*

It is really early, but if Obama can get a respectable second in Iowa, with a significant gap between him and Hillary in third, I like his chances against Edwards down the wire in NH and SC

by thenew 2007-05-22 07:51PM | 0 recs
Astounding

Makes today's capitulation by the Democrats on Iraq all the more depressing.

In light of this, I think Iowa (and the rest of the country) are going to make change one of the biggest themes of this campaign, giving Edwards and Obama a big leg up on the field.

And I'm sure this poll caught the eye of Chuck Hagel... He better get in there or he will kick himself as Ron Paul comes out of Iowa on top...

by Benstrader 2007-05-22 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Astounding

yeah Obama should this opening to pound Hillary on the war, Edwards has the right position now too, but looks a bit disengenous talking about couragous votes after his 2002 co-sponser thing.

by nevadadem 2007-05-22 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Astounding

Yeah and Obama looks real great by funding every appropriations for the war since he got into the senate.

No word today about the caving in to the Repubs.  I thought he was getting Repubs to join the Dems, not the other way around.  He certainly is effective getting 16 Repubs in a very peculiar way.  First have the Dems vote with Repubs to give Bush everything he wants.  

Obama said the other day

"Tomorrow, I expect cloture votes on two other proposals. One is the Reid-Feingold plan, which would begin a withdrawal of troops in 120 days and end all combat operations on April 1. The other is Senator Levin's proposal, which would create standards and benchmarks for additional funding."

"I will support both, not because I believe either is the best answer, but because I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the President and my Republican colleagues that it's long past time to change course."

"Meanwhile, I'll continue to press for my own plan, and work to find the 16 votes in the Senate to pass it with a veto-proof majority and bring our troops home quickly, safely and responsibly."


How is that plan working?   We don't even have the Dems on side.  

Obama was right 5 years ago and wrong ever since.  Edwards voted against $87B appropriations while in the senate in 2003 in.  

October 17, 2003
Foreign Affairs

Senator John Edwards, D-NC
October 17, 2003

I will vote against the president's request for $87 billion for Iraq. The troops in Iraq deserve our absolute support, but this president does not deserve our blind trust. I believe we have a responsibility to support our troops in Iraq. I believe we have a responsibility to help rebuild Iraq.

But our troops will not be safe and this mission will not succeed until this president does three things: first, put forward a credible plan for the rebuilding and self-governing of Iraq; second, engage our allies in a meaningful way; third, take steps to assure the American people that the rebuilding of Iraq will not be exploited as a means to give insider sweetheart deals to Bush's friends.

It is clear to me that President Bush is not going to change direction unless someone stands up to him and says 'no.' For that reason, I plan to vote against the president's request for $87 billion for Iraq.

President Bush has ignored the warnings and advice from our allies and members of Congress, including leaders in his own party. Because of his unwillingness to engage and listen to others, he has failed to create the kind of international coalition that can succeed in Iraq, the American people are called on to shoulder more and more of the financial burden of this mission, and too many Americans have lost their lives.

Obama hasn't voted against funding the war yet.  

I don't think Obama has a whole lot of credibility any more.  Edwards is speaking up. Obama is silent.

by pioneer111 2007-05-22 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Astounding

I prefer Obama's record of opposing the war but recognizing that once we went in we had some responsibility to the Iraqi people and that our troops should be funded as long as they're commanded to stay there.

Arguing about how aggressive Congress should be in using the power of the purse to end the war is a needed and constructive debate.

Using troop funding from the 109th Congress--when progessives had no power to bring the troops home--as a wedge issue is not.

by eskimo 2007-05-22 10:34PM | 0 recs
Obama takes responsibility and is cleaning

up the mess caused by Edwards and Hillary among others.

Edwards is good at shouting from the sidelines. But what is he doing while on the pitch?

by Populism2008 2007-05-23 03:38AM | 0 recs
Obama takes responsibility and is cleaning

up the mess caused by Edwards and Hillary among others.

Edwards is good at shouting from the sidelines. But what is he doing while on the pitch?

by Populism2008 2007-05-23 03:40AM | 0 recs
Obama takes responsibility to do nothing

How is he cleaning it up?  By voting for every funding bill Bush ever wanted.  Staying silent on the capitulation of Democrats.

Doesn't impress me at all.  A while back, I was considering Obama but lately he is not even my second choice.  He talks pretty, but doesn't do anything that is tough.  And even in 2002, who did he convince?  Exactly when has he ever shown any real leadership?

Edwards has been around the country helping workers organize, he has been to New Orleans to highlight their challenges, he is speaking out when Obama is wimping out.

by pioneer111 2007-05-23 12:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Strategic Vision: Most Iowa

I personally liked these results:


4. Are you satisfied with the current field of announced Republican presidential candidates for 2008? (Republicans only)
Yes 29%
No 51%
Undecided 20%

7. Are you satisfied with the current field of announced Democratic presidential candidates for 2008? (Democrats only)
Yes 65%
No 19%
Undecided 16%

by jallen 2007-05-22 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Strategic Vision: Most Iowa

Katty Kay was on The Chris Mathews Show this week talking about how BOTH Republicans and Democrats were dissatisfied with their candidates. Of course, the fact that she got it half right is better than usual for anyone on that bastion of penthouse reporting and conventional wisdom.

Considering Gore, Warner, Feingold, Bayh, Spitzer, and Schweitzer aren't running, 19% is amazingly low.

by Benstrader 2007-05-22 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Strategic Vision: Most Iowa GOPers Favor Compl

It is in the interests of both Edwards and Obama to have HRC finish third.  She is probably the candidate most able to overcome a slow start in Iowa, so it is best to try to sink her ship quickly if possible.  To supporters of either candidate, I suggest that effort is better spent on tag-teaming an attack on Hillary Clinton rather than on going after each other.

The opposite is probably true for Hillary Clinton.  Her campaign is better off focusing on only one and trying to knock down either Obama or Edwards, but not both.  This is especially true if she can make one look weak and lure the other into attacking the weakened campaign, while her campaign shifts into a "stay above the fray" mode.

by Anthony de Jesus 2007-05-22 06:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Strategic Vision: Most Iowa GOPers Favor Compl

In fact, with HRC's operation, I think they might relish their position. Get Obama and Edwards going after each other, tear each other down, and she fills the void.

Edwards and Obama would be well served to compliment each other and attack the 'insiders.' Especially after today's events, their anti Iraq stance should further seperate them from the pack, especially in Iowa.

by Benstrader 2007-05-22 06:42PM | 0 recs
Obama doesn;t have to go negative

just simply compare the 2002 speaches in an ad that's it.

by nevadadem 2007-05-22 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama doesn;t have to go negative

How long will his supporters believe that one speech sets him up for life.  He has not done anything else that he can brag about.

He is a total political panderer.

And I don't see that any in the senate think his plan is particularly great.

by pioneer111 2007-05-23 12:18PM | 0 recs
Hillary 4th???

You know what would hurt Hillary... if she came in 4th in Iowa.  That could kill momentum, give Obama or Edwards a win in NH, O or E a win in SC and then... watch out.

by jgkojak 2007-05-22 07:53PM | 0 recs
If she came in 4th in Iowa...

...she wouldn't even make it to Feb. 5. I'm not entirely sure she'll make it that far when she comes in 3rd, either. But I'm hoping she does -- she'll siphon off more votes from Obama than from Edwards.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-22 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: If she came in 4th in Iowa...

Every single one of the big 3 will make it to Feb 5. They've already more money now then the frontrunner normally has around that time. By January their campaign warchests are going to be big enough to be able to stay afloat for months.

by Ernst 2007-05-23 01:41AM | 0 recs
BTW, regarding Strategic Vision polls

One of the questions they asked throughout 2006 was, "Do you expect a terrorist attack on US soil within the next 6 months?"

I have never been so astounded by a poll percentage in my life. I mentioned that here and on many sites. The percentage saying Yes was wild high to begin with and only got more ridiculous. Approaching the election it was always something like 82% Yes, 10% Undecided and 8% No.

I would have loved to bet against the clueless goofs at any odds and taken my chances. Talk about no grasp of probability. Right now all of them lost, since it is more than 6 months post election.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-05-23 02:18AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads