Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

by Chris Bowers, Wed May 23, 2007 at 09:48:44 AM EDT

Iowa, the state which decided it all back in 2004, is getting really, really interesting right now. With four polls conducted in Heaven in the last week, trends completely different from the national picture are emerging:

Democratic Iowa Polling, 5/12-5/20

Poll	Edwards	Obama	Clinton	Richardson
Strategic Vision	29	24	16	9
Research 2000	26	22	28	7
DM Register	29	23	21	10
Zogby	26	22	24	6
Mean	27.50	22.75	22.25	8.00

This is as tight as a glove. Any of the three top candidates could win if the caucus was held tomorrow, depending on where their support is and who leads in the second place choices. The Des Moines Register poll indicated that Obama narrowly led that category, with 25% (Edwards was the second choice of 22%, and Clinton 19%). Also, Richardson is clearly becoming a player in Iowa now, too. While there is no clear indication from whom he is drawing support, he clearly is gaining. Further, the trends on Clinton and Edwards are extremely difficult to track, while it seems that Obama and Richardson are both moving slowly upward. Yet further, I don't know why Richardson, Edwards and Obama have consistent numbers, while Clinton's numbers fit a wide range.

Nationally, given that YouGov recently demonstrated a disproportionately high number of basically undecided leaners are currently in Clinton's camp, if the Iowa caucuses were held tomorrow, right now I actually believe that Obama is close enough to catch Clinton nationally if she were to finish third in the caucuses. Note that I don't think he is currently close enough to take the national lead in that scenario, just that I think he is close enough to tie her. It is hard to imagine almost any of those leaners sticking with her after a third place finish. Given this, assuming New Hampshire is the next state after Iowa, almost everything would then rest on the outcome in the Granite State, where Clinton currently holds a sizable, 13-14 point advantage. In other words, Clinton is still the favorite, but only as long as she maintains her lead in New Hampshire. If that changes, so will her status as frontrunner.

Republican Iowa Polling, 5/12-5/20

Poll	Romney	McCain	Giuliani	Thompson
Strategic Vision	20	16	18	10
Research 2000	16	18	17	9
DM Register	30	18	17	7*
Zogby	19	18	18	9
Mean	21.25	17.50	17.50	8.25

* = Tommy Thompson

On the Republican side, by far the most striking features are that Romney now leads, and that no matter who is included in a poll, and no matter who conducts a poll, both Giuliani and McCain are stuck in an extremely narrow range of 16-18%. Thus, Romney's lead is probably based on a large Anybody But McCain and Giuliani sentiment among Republican Iowa caucus goers. Notice, for example, that his lead is largest when both Fred Thompson and Newt Gingrich and not included in the poll. This seems to signal an extremely fluid race where Fred Thompson can make a huge impact. However, if Fred Thompson decides not to run, given Romney's big bucks, insider love, corresponding lead in New Hampshire, the Republican nomination might be his to lose.

The Iowa caucuses might be a weird and barely democratic way to choose a president, but right now it is the most interesting aspect of the 2008 horserace, bar none.

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

Comments

66 Comments

Sort by

permalink

I've thought for some time that Obama...

...could survive a second-place showing in Iowa better than Clinton, because Democrats' primary concern about her is whether she can ultimately win, and nothing would reinforce that concern more than losing.

If she ends up fighting with Richardson for third place...

Of course, a lot depends on the media story lines coming out of Iowa. Last time, there seemed to be room for two main media themes: 1) Kerry comes back from the dead and 2) Dean implodes.

I suspect this time the two themes will be: 1) Edwards wins in a blowout and 2) Hillary flops.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-23 09:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Outlier

Removing the outlier poll...
*Poll Ed. Ob. Cl. Rich. SV 29 24 16 9 DMR 29 23 21 10 Zogby 26 22 24 6 Mean 28 23 20 8

by Robert P 2007-05-23 12:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

I agree with several thing said above.

Edwards must win Iowa.

Clinton must stay in first place in NH and then win in NH.

But, what does that say about Obama? If Obama loses Iowa and loses New Hampshire, then doesn't that pretty much lose it for him?

Nevada is in the middle, I don't see him winning Nevada, which means after 3 primaries he would have no wins and be in real trouble, right?

So, once again, we are right back where we started. Iowa and NH deciding it all.

by Robert P 2007-05-23 12:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I agree with several thing said above.

Could not have said it better myself.

by Double B 2007-05-23 01:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I agree with several thing said above.

I think that Obama might be able to make a come back in SC and then hope for the best going into Feb 5. He'll likely have plenty of money to slug it out.

by Quinton 2007-05-23 01:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I agree with several thing said above.

Obama could win Iowa and all this is pointless. BUT. Let's say he loses Iowa. He loses Nevada. He loses NH. He's not going to have plenty of money left. His consultants will have had him running non-stop ads in Nevada and NH to get a win or a place.

AND. Let's say one of the other candidates wins two of the first three (Edwards: Iowa, NV; or, Clinton: NV, NH), they will be blowing a HUGE wad to win SC and "clinch" the nomination before Super-de-Duper Tuesday. That makes it even harder for Obama to be heard.

No, he has to shock and awe in either Iowa, NV, or NH.

p.s. A new poll out today showing that Edwards is ahead in FL, which will be right after SC.

by Robert P 2007-05-24 10:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I agree with several thing said above.

If Edwards wins Iowa and Hillary only just managed to pull off a win in NH she'd be severely wounded heading into NV, which ought break for Edwards and then the big mo would be with Edwards heading into SC and Feb 5.

by Quinton 2007-05-23 02:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

I have to disagree...

I don't see any of the top 3 getting out until Feb 5. There are simply too many delegates on the table, and should someone run the table with the first four, I still think there will be an anti-front runner candidate. (if Edwards/Obama runs the table, I see Hilary sticking around to try and grab NY, IL, and CA... If Clinton runs the table, I see Obama as sticking around to see if the Dems really wants to go with Hilary.)

by Benstrader 2007-05-23 02:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I have to disagree...

I don't think anyone will get out, Edwards didn't "get out" last time, but he didn't win either.

by Robert P 2007-05-24 07:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Outlier

My take is that Edwards has a slight lead, Obama & Clinton are tied and Richardson is trailing which is not a new result. What has been
shaken up?

It appears that Clinton has screwed up her Iowa campaign and if so she will lose some support which I think is likely will move to Obama & Richardson. In other words I think Edwards may have peaked. If my guesses are correct the next set of polls will show Edwards & Obama tied and Clinton and Richardson tied.

If you are a prison warden keeping your job depends on the good behavior of others. If you are running for president getting the job depends on other people screwing up.

by JSN 2007-05-23 07:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I've thought for some time that Obama...

Hopefully. A worry would be Hillary flopping and Richardson beating expectations. I don't want the story coming out of Iowa to be:

1) Hillary flopped
2) Richardson is surging

Hillary and Richardson are both very similar on the issues. Both are neoliberals. I'm not sure if their positions on the war will scramble how people at large will view them or not. My concern is that if that was the story coming out of Iowa that a bunch of her supporters would jump to Richardson so he placed second or third in NH and then he went rolling into NV, which could be a good state for him and then into SC to place as well. The media stories of the big mo would be huge. Hopefully this doesn't happen.

by Quinton 2007-05-23 02:11PM | 0 recs

permalink

I've mentioned this before...

but the expectations for Edwards need to be ramped down in Iowa somehow. He's already the assumed winner...and the caucuses place a premium on the media "expectations" game. If Obama finished a close second (and Hillary third or fourth), he's be the story, not Edwards.

Don't know how you solve this (maybe fall behind in the polls this fall?) but it's a problem.

by rashomon 2007-05-23 10:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I've mentioned this before...

I completely disagree with that. How many people nationwide do you think are following the Iowa polls that closely? How many do you think are going to be following the Iowa polls over Christmas and New Year's? If people see an Edwards win then that will be the topic of conversation, especially if he's still third in the national polls. A win by Edwards would be THE story of the caucuses.

by Double B 2007-05-23 10:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Right. And caucus rules make it likely...

...that Edwards will overperform his poll numbers in Iowa, which the less-engaged person will look at simply a surge in support when push came to shove.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-23 10:20AM | 0 recs

permalink

we solve it by giving him a landslide :-)

Seriously, I think only hard-core junkies know that Edwards is favored in Iowa. With Clinton and Obama getting at least twice as much MSM coverage as Edwards, I still think he would get a boost out of winning Iowa.

I agree with you that if Obama is a very close second and Clinton is a distant third, then that would be a big story. Obama can survive second place in Iowa and would be helped if he can make it very close. He'll have the volunteer army behind him, so it will be interesting.

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-23 10:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: we solve it by giving him a landslide :-)

Great hypothetical question: Can Obama survive 2nd in Iowa? Yes, but only if Edwards wins. If Clinton wins Iowa and Edwards is 3rd then the race is over.

by Double B 2007-05-23 10:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: we solve it by giving him a landslide :-)

If Edwards is third in Iowa he is out and it's Clinton vs. Obama.

It then becomes the pro-Hilary vote vs. (the pro-Obama vote + the anti-Hillary vote). Obama would then be well positioned to take the nomination.

by Sam I Am 2007-05-23 12:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: we solve it by giving him a landslide :-)

Clinton benefits if either Obama or Edwards is out of the race. She picks up most of the votes of the other and her margin actually increases. The best scenario for her would be a Clinton Obama race.

by robliberal 2007-05-23 12:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: we solve it by giving him a landslide :-)

Hillary benefits the most currently based on static polls. But if Edwards or Obama drop out due to poor showings in the early states then whichever of the two of them remains in the race and did well in the early states will get a natural boost from the free media from having performed well and possibly from an endorsement from the one that dropped out (plus endorsements from minor candidates that also drop out).

by Quinton 2007-05-23 01:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: we solve it by giving him a landslide :-)

Where's Obama going to stop the bleeding? An Iowa win by Clinton should be enough to put over the top in New Hampshire. Obama would only have 7 days to turn around all of the momentum that Clinton would have. She's the establishment candidate. If she wins NH as well, the route is on.

by Double B 2007-05-23 01:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: I've mentioned this before...

As an aside, if Edwards loses Iowa--even by a point--he's done.

by Double B 2007-05-23 10:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

you may be right

if Edwards loses Iowa by a point to Clinton, he is probably done.

If he loses by a point to Obama, I'm not sure, especially if Clinton were a distant third in Iowa and if Edwards recovered to do very well in Nevada going into New Hampshire.

If he loses by a point to Richardson, the whole game will be blown wide open.

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-23 11:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: you may be right

That's an awfully thin needle he'll have to thread if he loses in Iowa to Obama. I just don't see him getting the push that he would need to be competitive in NH and then down the line.

The best scenario for Obama is just that: Obama, Edwards, Clinton.

by Double B 2007-05-23 11:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

guess I'll have to work harder

to make sure he doesn't lose to Obama, then!

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-23 11:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: you may be right

If Edwards can win Iowa and score a win or close second in NH that would set him up well to take first in NV and place first or second in SC.

I think he'd do best in SC under those circumstances (under any circumstances really) if Obama and Clinton are both still in the race.

by Quinton 2007-05-23 01:57PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: you may be right

I just dont see much chance for Edwards to win SC or NV at this point. He might finish second in NV but if Obama remains in the race I think Edwards could end up 3rd in SC. His best shot is Iowa which might give him enough momentum to finish 2nd in NH behind Clinton. If Edwards could come in 2nd in NH it would improve his chances in SC somewhat but it still would be a hard fight.

by robliberal 2007-05-23 02:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: you may be right

In NV union endorsements that I expect to go to Edwards and the grassroots efforts that go along with that will shake up the numbers. Strong field organising efforts really pay off in a more complicated election process like a caucus, which NV will be having. Union field organisers are pretty damn fantastic so they're support would be a big boost. I also expect Edwards to go over very well in the rural areas of NV whereas the other democrats won't particularly appeal.

He's going to get a bump in support from the free media coming from a win in Iowa immediately before the NV caucus too. Those two wins and the free media give him the big mo going into NH. As does the story that's going to be pushed that Edwards is the candidate that can win the western states for the democrats. If he takes first or second in NH after that he's looking pretty good for SC and Feb 5. There's also issues of other candidates dropping out and who they endorse too.

by Quinton 2007-05-23 04:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Somehow I don't think Edwards' strategy...

...will be to fall behind in Iowa this fall :)

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-23 10:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

If Clinton finishes second in Iowa

I'll never be able to show my face around here again.

I'll bet anyone (not for money, just for bragging rights) that Clinton finishes third or fourth in Iowa. If she finishes first or second, I lose. I just don't think there are enough people who both like her and think she can win.

Although it is close, I think Edwards is favored to win narrowly here. My biggest concern is not Edwards losing Iowa, but some huge shocker on the GOP side that sucks up all the media oxygen (e.g. dark horse conservative beats Rudy McRomney).

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-23 10:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

I thought the GOP caucus was one week later...

...than the Democratic one in Iowa?

Of course, the schedule is all very subject to change, now.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-23 10:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

I think at this point any of the 3 has a shot at winning. The spread between the 3 may end up only a few points.

A few interesting possible scenarios.

1. If Obama wins that will likely be the end of the Edwards campaign. Even if she came in third that also would be a big plus for Clinton as it would make it a two person race between her and Obama. Based on a number of polls Clinton's margin actually increases with Obama or Edwards out of the race. If Obama finished off Edwards that makes it easier for Clinton. In states such as SC the Edwards base consists of conservative older voters who would more likely vote for Clinton over Obama.

2. If Obama stumbles in Iowa and comes in third that makes it harder for him in the states afterward where Clinton has a large lead. It also would give Edwards the momentum to take the race to at least 3 to 4 more states. Edwards may be in a position in some states to overtake Obama which would make it a two person race. If Edwards finished Obama that makes it easier for Clinton although I think a two person race with Edwards would be much harder for Clinton than a two person race with Obama.

by robliberal 2007-05-23 10:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

I can't envision any scenario where Edwards loses Iowa and wins the nomination. He's put all his eggs in the Iowa basket (wisely). He HAS to win.

by Double B 2007-05-23 10:24AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Hillary would love to run a 2 person race with Edwards as she would have the blak vote all behind her,in addition to the "non-populist" support, the"spin" that Hillary fears Edwards more than Obama is beneath you Rob.

by nevadadem 2007-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Is this the Barak Obama for President website? Why don't you just call it like it is? Spin is spin but the issues are solid and so is the performance in debates. Of course Edwards is ahead in Iowa-he hasn't really had a job and he basically moved there- at least when he wasn't overseeing the building of his 28,000 square foot house! Obama may win (see what happened to us with a similar candidate in Massachusetts-talk pretty but faltered when he took over-governor is one thing but leader of the free world?) but by demonizing Hillary Clinton you are hurting the process and our party. All of you who are out of control with your hatred need to stop and think about what happens when/if she wins the primary- If she is our candidate your slander will make it much more difficult to win - Shame, shame-Get a grip-no one on our side is evil-we are all on the same side- try to look at it through the filter of our children's future-not your own personal sporting event.

by Menemshasunset 2007-05-23 10:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

2007 events in first 4 states.

Iowa Nevada New Hampshire South Carolina

Obama 13 2 11 6
Edwards 15 5 17 13
Clinton 18 4 17 11
Richardson 9 14 20 8
Dodd 17 7 27 11
Biden 15 4 10 7
Kucinich 4 4 17 2
Gravel 0 3 4 1

John Edwards moved into Iowa? Oh really?

by jallen 2007-05-23 10:32AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Edwards didnt start campaigning in Iowa in 07...Edwards made multuple visits in Iowa in 2004,05,06.During that time, Obama and Hillary were very busy being senators and working to pass law.Edwards decided to quit the senate to campaign full time in Iowa.

by JaeHood 2007-05-23 11:03AM | 0 recs

permalink

And Iowans aren't going to hold that against him.

Obama and Clinton are now spending just as much time in Iowa as Edwards is, which undercuts the theory that it's not as important to them as it is to Edwards.

by MeanBoneII 2007-05-23 11:25AM | 0 recs

permalink

It means that Edwards has a jumpstart

and these numbers reflect that. Obama has not been very much in Iowa and is yet to roll out his campaign.

In my biased opinion Obama has the momentum here.

by Populism2008 2007-05-23 01:10PM | 0 recs

permalink

Iowa means more to Edwards...

Because he has the lead there (and has for sometime). You and I can dismiss it all we want, but the expectations game matters. Look at Edwards in 2004. When he surprised everyone and took second in Iowa, that propelled him to win South Carolina and into the VP slot.

by Benstrader 2007-05-23 02:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

this only represents 2007-

by Menemshasunset 2007-05-23 12:59PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

A lot of the netroots was anti-Kerry in 2004 so it is not a new phenomenon. Unfortunately there is prejudice on the left as well as the right. I personally want to see a Democrat win in 2008 and have contributed to Clinton, Edwards, and Obama.

by robliberal 2007-05-23 10:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Whose side are you on , exactly?

I'm sorry, who's slandering who? I make that at least two hits on Edwards and one on Deval Patrick (and by proxy on Obama, because he is "similar" -- which I ain't gonna touch).

But I'm glad you're in such good control of your hatred (and when I say that, you can be sure I'm thinking of our children's future... well, of your children's, anyway).

by bruorton 2007-05-23 11:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Whose side are you on , exactly?

You may be right and I'm sorry if I offended your candidate-Just a small sample of how to spin- any one of these candidates can look bad or good depending upon who is looking at it- They are all patriotic, intelligent Americans- Unlike the Republican team-they believe in science, human rights, civil rights etc. That is my point- Hillary is not a demon- she has been in public service since she was a little girl=and an activist at that- Don't use Republican tactics on Democrats-please.

by Menemshasunset 2007-05-23 01:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

If she's our candidate it will make much more difficult to win, so lets stop her from becoming the candidate.

by nevadadem 2007-05-23 01:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Oh please Chris, please make it an Obama for President website. Pleeeze.

by aiko 2007-05-23 10:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

CLINTON INFLATED POLL THEORY REDUX 3.0

I sense (yet) another Inflated Clinton Poll Theory coming from Chris. Here we go (yet) again.

Sigh.

by ChicagoDude 2007-05-23 11:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: CLINTON INFLATED POLL THEORY REDUX 3.0

LOL. I'm looking forward to it myself.

by Double B 2007-05-23 01:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

any wonder why the Hillary skipping Iowa trial baloon came out today, I don't think they will dare do that because it is not tenable for the "national frontrunner" to skip the first state. She would look completely unelectable by doing so, would finishing 3rd or 4th after going all out be worse? I don't know.

by nevadadem 2007-05-23 01:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Since 1972 there have been a lot of nominees in both parties who did not win Iowa.

by robliberal 2007-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Bill in 1992 doesn't count...

by nevadadem 2007-05-23 01:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

I was not talking about Bill Clinton in 1992. There have been almost as many who did not win Iowa as those who did.

by robliberal 2007-05-23 01:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

But I think not winning Iowa is different than skipping Iowa all together. Who has won the presidency who skipped Iowa?

Anyway, I would say that this idea was even floated at all shows that her strategy to create an aura of inevitability has failed.

by Benstrader 2007-05-23 01:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Let's look into that in more detail shall we:

Below is a list of all seriously contested Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries since 1972 on both sides.

Democrats Iowa NH Nominee
1972 Muskie Muskie McGovern
1976 Carter Carter Carter
1984 Mondale Hart Mondale
1988 Gephardt Dukakis Dukakis
1992 Harkin Tsongas Clinton
2000 Gore Gore Gore
2004 Kerry Kerry Kerry

Republicans Iowa NH Nominee
1976 Ford Ford Ford
1980 Bush I Reagan Reagan
1988 Dole Bush I Bush I
1996 Dole Buchanan Dole
2000 Bush II McCain Bush II

So we have 12 instances of seriously contested nominations since 1972. In 10 of those instances, the eventual nominee won either Iowa or New Hampshire. One of the exceptions was 1992 when Iowa wasn't really contested (Harkin was governor of the state). The other is way back in 1972 with Muskie who was, similar to Gore in 2000, the clear front-runner. McGovern surpassed expectations in both Iowa and NH and Muskie's campaign fell apart.

It's certainly possible to win the nomination without winning Iowa or NH, but that's an awfully tough road to climb and would require some serious help and breaks along the way.

by Double B 2007-05-23 03:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Carter did not win in 1976, he came in 2nd.

by robliberal 2007-05-23 06:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

He came in 2nd to Uncommitted, not any actual person. I don't think that really changes the analysis, do you?

by Double B 2007-05-23 07:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

He came in 2nd to Uncommitted, not any actual person. I don't think that really changes the analysis, do you?

by Double B 2007-05-23 07:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Carter came in a distant 2nd in 1976, Dukakis came in a distant third in 1988, Bush came in a distant third in 1988.
Ronald Reagan even came in second in Iowa.

1976
"Uncommitted" (37%) defeated Jimmy Carter* (28%) Birch Bayh (13%), Fred R. Harris (10%), Morris Udall (6%), Sargent Shriver (3%) and Henry M. Jackson (1%)

1980- George H. W. Bush (32%) defeated Ronald Reagan* (30%), Howard Baker (15%), John Connally (9%), Phil Crane (7%), John B. Anderson (4%) and Bob Dole (2%)

1988 - Dick Gephardt (31%) defeated Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%) and Bruce Babbitt (6%)

1988- Bob Dole (37%) defeated Pat Robertson (25%), George H. W. Bush* (19%), Jack Kemp (11%) and Pete DuPont (7%)

by robliberal 2007-05-23 07:42PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Clark tried this exact strategy in 2004. He was a clear 2nd in New Hampshire before the Iowa caucuses. Kerry got the win and the very next poll showed him down to third place behind Kerry (who jumped 3rd to 1st) and Dean. He was done before he ever had a real chance to compete. I don't see any scenario where a candidate can just bypass Iowa, unless an Iowa politician is involved in the Presidential race (like 1992).

by Double B 2007-05-23 03:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

Why do you guys love edwards so much?

by ND1979 2007-05-23 01:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

What's not to love? He's clearly both the most progressive democratic candidate in the race and also the strongest candidate for the general election.

by Quinton 2007-05-23 04:17PM | 0 recs

permalink

Have you heard of California?

I'm from California and like many, many, many, many other people in States who have moved their Primary up I am very excited that we will finally have a real say in picking the candidate. The idea that what Iowa or NH or Nevada does will influence me in any way is preposterous. If anything, a loss in one of those States could be a motivating force in the new States to come out in greater numbers and turn the tide. There seems to be a lot of old dynamics being applied to a totally new situation.

by dougdilg 2007-05-23 01:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Have you heard of California?

Howard Dean almost led every state until he lost the first one.

by nevadadem 2007-05-23 01:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Have you heard of California?

Well said.

by aiko 2007-05-23 01:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Have you heard of California?

Howard Dean spent all of his money in Iowa and came out broke. With the money Clinton and Obama have, I see them lasting a lot longer than Dean if they do not win Iowa. (I think Edwards, wisely, should put a great majority of his money in Iowa)

by Benstrader 2007-05-23 01:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Wave Of New Iowa Polls Shakes Things Up

also New hmapshire polls that show Hillary ahead are extremely flawed because the norm is for independants playing a huge role in atleast one of the parties primaries. It helps Romney and Obama if most of the independants end up choosing the dem side to make thier mark on the 2008 race.

by nevadadem 2007-05-23 01:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

the only variation over these 4 polls...

is how well Clinton/other does.

Obama gets 22-24.
Edwards gets 26-29.
Clinton gets... 16-28?!?

Clinton is the only unpredictable thing here.

by msnook 2007-06-06 01:09AM | 0 recs