New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

I haven't been able to find the numbers posted online yet, but I'm hearing that KCCI released its latest round of polling on the Iowa Democratic caucuses (which it teases here) during its 5:00 PM nightly news program (an hour ago), and the topline numbers look like this (along with the Pollster.com average from the state):

CandidateKCCI Poll (May)Pollster Average
Edwards27 (26)27.8
Clinton22 (28)23.8
Obama16 (22)17.1
Richardson11 (7)12.5
Biden3 (2)N/A
Dodd2 (2)N/A
Kucinich2 (2)N/A
Gravel1 (1)N/A
Undecided16 (10)N/A

Presumably, this poll was conducted by Research 2000, which conducted KCCI's last poll back in May and has done other prior polls for the television station as well. Also, other candidates were presumably included in this poll whose numbers I have not yet been able to see.

Anyway, I'll post the rest of the numbers, as well as some analysis, when the fuller results are put online. But for now, what do you think?

Update (Chris Bowers): Hey everyone! Wassup!? I thought I'd stop by to offer some analysis on this poll, especially since Jonathan was clever enough to acquire the results before pretty much anyone else. First, I think poll is really interesting because it shows that Edwards has anything but collapsed in Iowa, ala his recent struggles in New Hampshire. Very good news for his campaign. Second, the poll also seems to confirm a possible trend where, despite the overwhelming attention paid to them nationally, Clinton and Obama are, at best, stagnant in Iowa. Obama in particular seems to be trending down in the state. Ah, those fiesty Iowans, not taking their cues from the rest of the nation. I'm sure the Obama campaign has Iowa numbers too--I wonder if a slight dip in Iowa is behind the "escalated" attacks on Clinton? Third, this makes the five-poll moving average in Iowa (simpler than the Pollster.com method, and excluding the Richardson internal poll) Edwards 26.8%, Clinton 22.6%, Obama 17.0%, and Richardson 8.6%. Obama is closer to Richardson than he is to Edwards in the state. That actually isn't good news for Edwards either, since he might very well not only need to win Iowa, but need someone else to knock off Clinton for second place. With bad news for Obama actually being bad news for Edwards, we thus come full circle, making this poll not actually great news for anyone. Even Richardson isn't gaining that fast. At this rate, he will take the lead by 2015.

Update 2 (Jonathan):CNN now has some more data from the poll, from which I have updated the chart above. Still nothing on the KCCI website, as best I can tell, but I will pass along the official poll release as soon as it comes out.

Update 3 (Jonathan): Lots and lots more data from KCRG's website. In short, the margin of error for this poll, like the MoE for other polling in Iowa by Research 2000 is really high. I don't know why they are so loath to invest the money in interviewing a couple hundred more likely caucus goers to get more precise numbers, but that's just me. (Sample sizes of 195 Democrats, 179 Republicans 179, and 226 Independents and other lead to very high margins of error for the caucus polling, though slightly less so for the broader samples.)

Feel free to look through yourself, but a few things stuck out to me. Democrats lead every single head-to-head permutation including Clinton, Edwards, and Obama and Giuliani, McCain, Romney and Thompson by 4 points at a minimum. George W. Bush's approval rating in the state is just 27 percent (including just 55 percent of Republicans), and Iowans trust Congressional Democrats over the President on Iraq by a 22-point margin (43 percent to 21 percent). A sizable proportion of Iowans (45 percent, including 49 percent of Independents) support Congress opening impeachment proceedings against President Bush, and an even larger proportion (54 percent, including 63 percent of Independents) support opening up impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney.

Final Update (Jonathan): Should have added this before. The poll was in the field July 23-25 and was of "likely voters", though the LV screen has not been posted, nor has the MoE for the subgroups of Democratic and Republican caucus goers.

Tags: 2008, Democratic primaries, Democrats, Iowa, Iowa Caucuses (all tags)

Comments

116 Comments

I do think Edwards is leading, but

the undecided number is way too low in this poll, as in every Iowa poll I've seen.

I think as many as half of caucus-goers are undecided. There's no way it's only 16 percent.

Where's that "Bubba bounce" we were supposed to be seeing for Clinton in Iowa?

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 03:04PM | 0 recs
HAHAHA!

I  like the "where's that Bubba bounce"...hahahahah...good one...I like desmoinedem eventhough she's an extrem Edwards partisan, she's the only Edwards partisan that i respect.

Anyway,when was this poll taken??...I would hope this is a post debate poll?

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 03:20PM | 0 recs
I guess I'll take a backhanded compliment

from an Obama supporter over the "I'm so sick of your personal poll crap" that I've been getting from the Clintonistas lately.

For what it's worth, I agree with Chris that it may not be good for Edwards if Obama's support is dropping in Iowa. My ideal scenario is Edwards winning Iowa with Hillary in third or fourth place.

Keep in mind that the undecideds pushed Kerry and Edwards (who polled in single digits in Iowa for most of 2003) past Dean and Gephardt, who were polling in the 20s most of the year.

So while I think Edwards is well positioned now, he needs to stay among those undecideds are considering if he wants to win Iowa.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess I'll take a backhanded compliment
Edwards speaking to Creston voters-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fz0Tqaon kY
by annefrank 2007-07-26 04:46PM | 0 recs
well yeah

that's how polls work. If they kept asking people if they were absolutely sure they'd made up their minds, the numbers would be like 9-7-5. They just ask who you'd vote for... usually you have to volunteer undecided.

This poll suggests that Edwards' strength in Iowa is fairly immune to his national troubles (though I think much of his national decline had already happened by May, when the last poll came out)

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-26 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: well yeah

You may be right on this one....The Hillary camp went for the kill by running Bill Clinton down the throat of Iowan...I guess Iowan rejected this B.S PR move....I'm glad that Iowan will not buy into this stupid "inevitable " theme.

All the hillary supporters were expecting big Bubba bounce, and eventhough Obama numbers has slipped, im glad Hillary is slipping with him...The idea is to make sure Hillary doesnt win Iowa.

If you're an Obama supporter,NH will be the biggest test...Right now, Obama is trending up in NH and i believe by that tiem, the black vote will get behind Obama in SC...Now that Hillary is viciously attacking Obama, the black vote will get very partisan.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: well yeah

I've been very confident on my choice for president up until recently. Things are very unpredictable at the current moment.

by BarackObamaHomeboy 2007-07-26 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: well yeah

The really notable element from this poll (aside from the six point drop for both Obama and Clinton) is the six point increase in the undecideds.  Such a large increase may suggest that some of the drop in Obama and Clinton's support has not translated into another candidate ( I not quite ready to believe that there has been statistically significant migration to Richardson between the polling outfits polls because the three plus jump is well within the poll's margin of error, I'd like to see recent polls showing similar up ticks before I agree that some of Clinton or Obama's Iowa supporters have switched to Richardson), but that those individuals are soft support and are having second thoughts.

by True Independent 2007-07-26 11:36PM | 0 recs
Somebody Should Place a Call to the MSM

If these numbers are accurate, then somebody better place a call to the NYT, USAToday, WaPo, ABC, CBS and NBC.

When Bill Clinton campaigns with Hillary Clinton in Iowa, Hillary Clinton actually LOSES support.  Are you listening MSM?  Time to turn your meme around...180 degrees.  

Actually, when I watched their joint appearances in Iowa, I thought they would actually hurt Hillary Clinton's standing there. The charisma contrast was not helpful to Hillary Clinton.  Yipes.  It also did not help that Bill appeared to be bored (or was bored?) when listening to Hillary speak.

And when Bill uttered the line about "if I were not married to her..." at every stop...well...let's just say that the Clinton campaign made a big mistake allowing him to use that line at every stop.  IMHO, far too many people can respond to that line with an internal thought:  darn right he should no longer be married to her...because she should have left him after the first, second or third act of infidelity.  That line conjured up unpleasant memories, and the Clinton campaign made a big mistake allowing it to be repeated.

by Demo37 2007-07-26 03:26PM | 0 recs
Good point

I remember dozens of Hillbotocrats dancing in the street because Bubba was coming to Iowa and save the day for Hillary.

My guess is whenever Iowan sees Billy boy, they remind themselves of the Lewiskey fisaco and dont want this man back in the white house chasing young interns.

I hope Hillary brings Bubba to NH and SC and everywhere..hahahahaha.

I know ,i know Obama is not better, but you have got to understand that Bubba is the poseidon of all endorsement and he wasnt able to pick up points for hillary....That is an horrible sign.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 03:39PM | 0 recs
WAIT A MINUTE

Wasnt Bubba in NH campaigning for Hillary a few weeks ago??..Then Obama started trending up?...Am i correct??....Bubba was indeed in NH, then the post-Bubba NH polls showed Obama closing the 15-20 points gap.

Tell Hillary she has to use Bubba more...I hope Bubba makes  more trip on behalf of hillary across the country.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: WAIT A MINUTE

I don't think anybody but the Hillary people are thrilled about Bill being back in the White House.

If it happens, I hope he's learned to keep his pants on.

That was embarrassing.

by Bush Bites 2007-07-26 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Good point

Problem:  Obama has lost a ton of points in this poll.  The "great one" is looking very weak, and fading.  And, he was in Iowa the same weekend the Clintons were.   You better hope that this poll is full of it (very high MoE,) because if this one is correct, Clinton is well positioned in second place while Obama is dropping away.

by georgep 2007-07-26 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Good point

I see that you forgot to mentioned that Hillary slipped??...Typical Hillary supporter..hahahaaha.

You also seem to disregard that Hillary trotted their biggest weapon in Iowa last month and they still couldnt topple Edwards in Iowa...Hillary can no longer use Bill in Iowa because they do not like cheaters...Live with it.

..Obama slipped 5-6 points and Hillary trending down by 6 points,so they are basicly in the same position they were a few months ago,so i dont know why you have it in your mind that some how,Hillary has gained on Obama...Lets remember this was a "post-debate" poll..this means she did not receive any boost from the debate.

The idea is to keep Hillary from winning Iowa and let the media savage her.

Remember, she's the one pushing the inevitable them

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Somebody Should Place a Call to the MSM

Do you think Bill's presence reinforced the dynasty meme?

by annefrank 2007-07-26 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I do think Edwards is leading, but

Dont worry..Now that Hillary has decided to take out the knife and go after Obama, i expect the black vote to get partisan..Obama will win SC.

Im glad Hillary is trending down along with Obama...I like Edwards and wouldnt mind him winning the nomination...I just hate Hillary's guts..I dont want her anywhere near the white house.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I do think Edwards is leading, but

You really think Obama could win SC??

by annefrank 2007-07-26 04:49PM | 0 recs
by annefrank 2007-07-26 04:52PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

its nowhere to be seen.

by scanman1722 2007-07-26 03:05PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

Obama is stagnating or losing ground in Iowa, I don't know how he can improve his standing there.
He needs to decide whether to go negative or not...   It may turn out that Obama just isn't going to catch on in Iowa, but in New Hampshire...  

His recent debate performance might help him in New Hampshire, and his getting tough... might also help him in New Hampshire.

I don't understand how Richardson is gaining... Presumably people have seen either his TV commercials (pretty good) or his debate performances (ranging from acceptable to horribly horrendous).

Anyways, I think we may see some future warring between the two media darlings, which can only help John Edwards in Iowa [I'm an Edwards supporter].

-Zen Blade

by Zen Blade 2007-07-26 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

Richardson is gaining because he's come out for removal of all U.S. troops from Iraq with no residual force.  Whatever else you may think of him, it has resonated with a number of Democrats and put him a solid 4th in most polls.

by Double B 2007-07-26 03:23PM | 0 recs
the Richardson leaners I know

are attracted to his resume and experience--a lot of people like governors anyway, and he's a rare governor with foreign policy experience.

I disagree with Chris on one point--if large numbers of undecideds continue to tell me they are considering Richardson or leaning his way, it's very possible that he could leapfrog Obama and Clinton into second place in the final weeks.

A large number of people make up their minds in the last few weeks.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: the Richardson leaners I know

I was impressed by his last debate performance and am reconsidering him.

by Bush Bites 2007-07-26 03:56PM | 0 recs
On the Leapfrog

Having observed and studied what happened in Iowa VERY closely back in 2004, I completely agree with you. Richardson has the potential to actually leapfrog both Clinton and Obama  (FWIW, at this juncture, I do not see Obama winning the Iowa caucuses.)

If there is a scheduled debate in Iowa in late 2007 or early 2008, Richardson's performance in that debate will greatly factor into whether he has any chance of a leapfrog.  

In addition, in the very unlikely event that Richardson gets the endorsement of the Des Moines Register in January of 2008, that would substantially enhance his chances of the leapfrog.  I believe, however, that Edwards should be favored to win that endorsement.  You will recall that Edwards got it in 2004.  

To be clear, I do not presently favor Richardson at all.  His performances in the debates have been awful, occasionally rising to mediocre.  And to be polite, so far, the more I learn about Richardson, the less I...well...let's just leave it at that.  You can only reference the winter DNC speech so many times.  :)

by Demo37 2007-07-26 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: On the Leapfrog

I think it's a bit of a leap to expect the DSM is going for Edwards just because of '04, as he's a much different candidate.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-26 04:14PM | 0 recs
Not Suggesting Certainty

I would never state that Edwards IS going to get the Register endorsement.  

All things considered, at this juncture, I would simply state that I think Edwards has the best chance of getting it.  The prior 2004 endorsement is but a small piece of that determination.

Another way to think about it is this:  as of today, if you had to bet on who will get the Register endorsement...who would you choose?

by Demo37 2007-07-26 04:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Suggesting Certainty

I don't have a clue, I am without much knowledge about their current deciders.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-26 04:41PM | 0 recs
my hunch is Edwards or Richardson

The current Register editorial board is strongly interested in universal health care (some advocate single-payer), and I suspect that the Edwards health care plan will improve his chances of getting a repeat endorsement.

On the other hand, the Register could decide to play it "safe" and not endorse any of the front-runners, in much the same way that they endorsed Edwards in 2004. That inclination, combined with Richardson's experience, could tip the scales toward him.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 04:51PM | 0 recs
Agreed

I agree with your analysis.

by Demo37 2007-07-26 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

I would like to see a state my state comparison or anlaysis of the level of undecideds. Are they all high?

by bruh21 2007-07-26 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

it's debatable whether the WW3 between Obama and Hillary helps or hurts Edwards. I thought it hurt him becuase it re-inforces the "two person race" that's been killing him but if this battle royale continues Edwards will try to "rise above it all" and admonish both Clinton and Obama for letting the race get this negative this quickly.....

by nevadadem 2007-07-26 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

i think it will help him because i think obama is coming out on top of this and that is of course good for edwards because he, like people have said, is dropping in iowa and iowa is where edwards needs to win.

by scanman1722 2007-07-26 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

i'm not sure if he's gonna be able to "rise above it all" because he's in a position where he needs to distinguish himself from Clinton in order to pull ahead, as is Obama. It's clear that neither one is running for VP this time around, and either one is going to rise, someone has to fall

by Max Fletcher 2007-07-26 03:31PM | 0 recs
It seems like

he is distinquishing himself by focusing on the issues.

by okamichan13 2007-07-26 06:45PM | 0 recs
If 2004

is any guide, the focus on the two way race at the top helps Edwards in Iowa.

In '04 Dean and Gephardt went after each other, and finished 3rd and 4th in Iowa.

by fladem 2007-07-27 05:18AM | 0 recs
looks okay for me

As long as Hillary maintains a close second, she's almost unstoppable. The key strategy for her is to not let Obama take the chance.

Looks like Obama's 'voter registration' ads are just not appealing...

by areyouready 2007-07-26 03:10PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

huh? look stop making shit up.

by bruh21 2007-07-26 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

seriously. i HATE hillary apologists.

by scanman1722 2007-07-26 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

he doesn't rep other hrc supporters. i support edwards, but even for hrc supporters this particular poster is extreme.

by bruh21 2007-07-26 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

what did this particular comment tick you off. I apologize if I offended you. What seriously, I don't get it.

by areyouready 2007-07-26 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

I am surprised.  What did he make up?  A close second is all Clinton would need in Iowa, and this poll would give that to her.  What is "made up"?   Maybe the dig about "ad registration," but I don't see the real problem here.  Can you explain?

by georgep 2007-07-26 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

neither you or he has any real idea of what the impact of iowa will or will not be. saying you do is making shit up.

by bruh21 2007-07-26 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

I have seen you try several times.  Does that mean you are full of it as well?   Come on, we are all guessing here as for the impact, including yourself.   I just believe the impact will be light, as Edwards has been running ahead all along.  If he wins there is no "story" like Kerry overtaking Dean at the last minute.  Even a 15 percent bounce out of Iowa (which I personally consider too high, but let's say) would not take care of Edwards current problems in states like New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida, South Carolina.  

 Now, if he wins with a huge margin (say, 17 points, 20 points) that is one thing.   I just don't see the same political reporters who know already today that Edwards is ahead in Iowa get that excited if indeed he wins by less than 10 points.  The poll today puts the margin at 6%, which, considering the low sample size and high margin of error is not really that much of a lead.   I suspect we will be seeing 3, 4 polls coming out of Iowa back to back now, so we'll have a clearer picture in a month or so.    A sample size of 500 or close to that would be good to get a better read.  

by georgep 2007-07-26 06:38PM | 0 recs
I agree that we need more polls

to get a sense of the current state of play in Iowa.

But what gives me hope, more than Edwards' current lead in the polling average, is the number of undecided people who have told me they are not considering Clinton but are considering Edwards.

If large numbers of undecided voters were telling me they were not considering Edwards, I would be very worried about other candidates overtaking him late in the race.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

tell you what- go find the posts where I specifically say that I know what will happen after Iowa. Then, when you can find that post that says specifically that- you may talk. Otherwise, you are full of shit.

by bruh21 2007-07-26 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

with the name ID and visit by Bill the fact that she's at 22% in any dem caucus or primary survey say's quite alot, now Obama has finally been able to bet to the left of her in the primary race which has been his biggest problem to date. Her instinct was to take the shot to bolster her "experience meme" with the media by calling Obama naive, the problem is that the issue makes Hillary look like the conservatie establishment candiate which it what's she's been fighting against,Obama needed a way to come at her from the left and he's making the most of it.

by nevadadem 2007-07-26 03:17PM | 0 recs
couldnt agree more

this was his chance to really show people why he is different and how hillary is more of the same. hopefully this pans out for him. i personally think he should run the "bush-cheney lite" ad.

by scanman1722 2007-07-26 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

Obama is coming out far the worst.  We have seen how many times he has been to Iowa.  Yet, he gets only 16%?   That is very low.  Richardson could actually beat Obama in Iowa, from the looks of it.   His national average is 25%.  In Iowa he gets 16%, almost 10% below his national average.   Very bad.  I would imagine that Obama has internal poll numbers showing him in the mid-teens, he obviously knows that in Iowa he has his work cut out for him.  

Not a good week for Obama, frankly.   He has fallen way back in South Carolina (the 3 latest polls all show the exact same picture,)  he is falling back in Iowa, Florida looks abysmal.  

by georgep 2007-07-26 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: looks okay for me

Of course the same could be said about Senator Clinton.  Falling back in Iowa, losing ground in New Hampshire, losing ground in the national poll average as well.

by True Independent 2007-07-26 11:43PM | 0 recs
where's Bubba bounce??

Bill Clinton, one of the biggest weapon in Hillary's arsenal wasnt able to move her polling numbers?

Hillary also send DVD on monday....when was this poll taken?

Obama has only ran small ad buy there...I expect him to pick up the pace by the end of next month.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: where's Bubba bounce??

what is he going to say in those ads?

Community organization work? voter registration work?

Hope? Change?

Bush Cheney lite?

by areyouready 2007-07-26 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: where's Bubba bounce??

And Hillary married into her career.

Big deal.

by Bush Bites 2007-07-26 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: where's Bubba bounce??

There's a reason Gore didn't want to be associated with Bubba.

Everyone views it as a mistake, but I'm not so sure.

In fact, that might have been one of the few things Gore did right.

by Bush Bites 2007-07-26 03:59PM | 0 recs
I've always thought Gore did that right

Gore won many states extremely narrowly: FL, WA, OR, MN, WI, IA, suggesting he committed resources wisely and didn't "waste" too much time or money in states he won comfortably. In most of those I don't think Bill would have helped him. In fact, I think Bill would have hurt in several, including FL and perhaps PA, which Gore ended up winning fairly comfortably.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 04:08PM | 0 recs
That comment

really shows that you don't know primary history very well.

But it repeats what the media guys say, so I can't blame you.

Iowa and NH will completely remake this race.  

by fladem 2007-07-27 05:28AM | 0 recs
did any guy watch Obama's clip

Just watched Obama's clip on CNN. It's horrible. He was shouting. He said he would look into the eyes of those dictators. Wow. Bold. This alone has probably killed his chance in general election.

It's just awful. Look into the eyes of dictators?

by areyouready 2007-07-26 03:21PM | 0 recs
answer the question

Please,answer this?...Where's the Bubba bounce??

I'd rather Edwards win Iowa then Hillary...Obama has to stay close to her in Iowa but must make a move in NH....South Carolina is his firewall...This is his real make or break state.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: answer the question

You know, if SOUTH CAROLINA is Obama's firewall state:

then he really has nothing to worry about for the nomination.  It is a dance in the park.  

by georgep 2007-07-26 06:20PM | 0 recs
what are you smoking?

staring down dictators and defending our way of life versus theirs doesnt seem like something the right can attack him on.

by scanman1722 2007-07-26 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: did any guy watch Obama's clip

oh please. Wolfson looked like he had been pinched. Obama was his straight-up bold self.

by rosebowl 2007-07-26 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: did any guy watch Obama's clip
If you are referring to the clip of him campaigning (the genesis of Bush Lite) than I must disagree. (sorry if there is a different clip on CNN your talking about).
First of all he isn't yelling at all, he's campaigning with gusto. He was at an outdoor event speaking over raucous applause. And secondly, people like a little anger this time around. I know that your more centrist than many of us and may not harbor the seething anger and hatred towards the Bush administration that I personally do- but I gotta tell ya, the Dems are pissed.
And seriously how is saying your not intimidated by dictators hurt him in the general? I think theres a huge opportunity to look tougher than Guiliani or Thompson (aint gonna be hard to look tougher than Mitt). He can run to the right on personality perception and run to the left on policy. How is this not strategically sound?
by leewesley 2007-07-26 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

the other thing about Iowa polling ------in a caucus a huge overvote by college students who get organized to show up for Obama can make a big difference, I wonder if they are getting polled enough though land lines anecdotally I know about 15 younger voters who support Obama none have a landline, if it becomes a "cause" for them to show up on jan 14th I wouldn't want to be the other candidates.

by nevadadem 2007-07-26 03:39PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

If the caucus is held during finals week, or between semesters (both distinct possibilities) there may not be much of a college vote at all.

by Chris Bowers 2007-07-26 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

Is there no absentee caucus system? (I doubt there is) If so, I don't see how the caucus' results are truly representative...

by ctnewbie18 2007-07-26 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

very very true. there is a difference between people my age supporting a candidate and actually going and taking the hours and hours the caucus requires.

by scanman1722 2007-07-26 03:44PM | 0 recs
good point

good point...but then I think Obama will have to work really hard during the fall semester to egt contact info and organize them anyway, how many college students he gets to show up for the caucus will make or break his Iowa campaign, such a small % of registered voters show up that any major increase by a particular group would really shake things up.

by nevadadem 2007-07-26 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

Actually, a huge overvote by the college crowd won't do much for Obama at all, as it will be concentrated in a few precincts. If Obama overwhelmingly carries the student vote in those precincts, he'll add only a few delegates.

by clarkent 2007-07-26 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

those students might not necessary caucus where their college are located...What about caucusing at the location where their parents home are located??...Im pretty sure that the students that attends college in Des moine, probably lives all across the state...No?

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll

the popular vote is still counted isn't it? Iowa is about the media bump not the delegates, if Obama gets more votes counted than anyone else he will easily spin it as having won the state.

by nevadadem 2007-07-26 04:01PM | 0 recs
Obama won't have more votes counted

You are wrong on every point you make there; I'd suggest you research the proportional delegate manner in which the delegates are awarded in IA, and how each precinct relates to the previous general election total for Dems. If I can be allowed to school you for a moment, read Hugh Winebrenner's "The Iowa Precinct Caucuses" and the sourcebook by James Davis on "US Presidential primaries and the caucus convention system." ...or just wait to experience the system, as Deaniacs did last time.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-26 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll

The final popular vote in Iowa was relatively close in 2004. I can't remember the final percentages, but they were something like 4% that separated Kerry in first place from Dean in third place. However, the totals that are traditionally reported are the percentages of delegates.

by clarkent 2007-07-26 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll

Of course, the media really wanted to trash Howard Dean in 2004.  The media spins results however they choose.  Bill Clinton lost NH in 1992 but the media treated it like a victory because he had beaten low expectations.

by RickD 2007-07-27 03:06AM | 0 recs
they are packed into fewer precincts

so they are not able to help a candidate as much as they could in a primary.

To repeat a point I made earlier this year (link is http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/6/14159 /44432):

three of the four counties where it required the most caucusgoers to elect a state delegate had large student populations: Johnson (University of Iowa), Poweshiek (Grinnell College) and Story (Iowa State University). The other county in the top four was Jefferson County, home to Maharishi University and a large contingent of progressives and Greens (not only Dean, but even Kucinich did better than Kerry and Edwards in that county).
You can add this to your list of reasons why Dean's perfect storm failed in Iowa.

Look at the 2004 Iowa caucus results by county: several of Dean's strongest counties happened to be those where the caucus-goer/state delegate ratio was the highest.

Like I said in my first diary on the caucuses, you don't want pockets of deep support in Iowa. Dean turned out hundreds of supporters in crowded precincts, but it didn't translate into as many delegates as he needed.

If I were Barack Obama, this aspect of the caucus system would worry me greatly.


by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 04:12PM | 0 recs
you are wrong there

College student turnout in 2004 was quite high. The problem for Dean was that the students were packed into a relatively small number of precincts.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 04:52PM | 0 recs
see my comment slightly upthread

Turnout was very high in several counties that have large student populations. In Johnson County, where the U of Iowa is, there were more than 80 caucus-goers per state delegate allocated by the county. That same ratio was also very high in several other counties with colleges or universities.

In most of the other counties there were fewer than 50 caucus-goers per state delegate allocated by the county.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 05:48PM | 0 recs
number of caucus

attendees does not translate into the final result.

A candidate with concentrated strength will fall below the 15% threshold in some precincts, and as a result will get fewer votes than the polling would suggest he should get.

A candidate who is under 20% in the polls will lose about 5% of their support as a result of the 15% requirement.  Candidates who poll in the high 20's will see the reverse effect:  they will perform better than the polling as supporters who fall under 15% move to other candidates.

I will try and look at some past numbers to prove this out.

by fladem 2007-07-27 05:25AM | 0 recs
Can anyone give Edwards credit!

I do

He is still very under- rated in the polls. The voters will come out - everyone hold onto your seats - it's going to be a suprising ride for some of you. IMO.

by dk2 2007-07-26 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

There's no way to spin it. If this poll is representative of the state, Obama is sin trouble. I'm not sure that's the case. I feel like the Obama campaign thinks they're doing well in Iowa, but I have no facts to back that statement up. In case, if Obama is only 5 points ahead of Richardson in Iowa the campaign needs a new strategy there. Especially when you consider that this poll was probably taking after Obama started airing TV ads in the state.

The only good news in the poll for the Obama campaign is that Hillary is trending down at the same rate as Obama.

ps. I'd like to see Biden's numbers in the state. I wouldn't be surprised to see him reach the 5-10% range.

by ctnewbie18 2007-07-26 03:41PM | 0 recs
I agree

i agree its not good news for Obama but im happy that Hillary used her biggest weapon in Iowa and she's still trending down...Obama is only running ads lightly...I expect him to pick up the pace some more.

Obama has to stay close to Hillary and right now, there not far apart..About 5%...The plan is to make Edwards spend a lot of money so that he wont have any more money left for NH and SC..Then, its going to be between Hillary and Obama in NH...That is if Edwards cant improve his NH poll numbers.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

I'd wait for a second poll to confirm this poll and the trendlines. But you're right. Obama needs to win Iowa badly :)

by rosebowl 2007-07-26 03:52PM | 0 recs
if Hillary really has 22%

she's the one in trouble, sure an Obama win in Iowa would be tremendous but he's really hoping Hillary doesn't win because his state is going to be New Hampshire, the indies who alaways show up are going to pick him over Hillary and the yahoo's on the gop side, the goal in Iowa unless Edwards collapses there due to his poor national numbers is to stay competitive with Hillary.

by nevadadem 2007-07-26 03:58PM | 0 recs
Obama needs an early win

And he doesn't have one based on #'s.

Iowa is Edwards country.  

Hillary has NH, SC, NV, and FL.

The last great speech Obama will give in this campaign is his concession and withdrawl speech after SC.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-26 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama needs an early win

Don't be so sure, you guys were predicting Edwards demise and that Clinton would be surging in Iowa. Well it has not happened yet.

by BDM 2007-07-26 11:51PM | 0 recs
I wrote a diary on this a few weeks ago

I see a lot of upside potential for Biden in Iowa. Although at this point I don't see him cracking the top three, he could cause problems for one or more of the other candidates:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/9/83057 /54400

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

So much for the widely purported demise of Edwards; thanks for the analysis Bowers.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-07-26 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

To be perfectly honest, I don't want Edwards collapse at all. Strategically speaking, His very existence is very good for Hillary' opportunity.I never want a 2-man/woman race. Richardson's strength in IA is also very encouraging. You get a sense what these 'undecideds' are falling for, they may have reservation about Hillary, but they' definitely not shopping for Obama's 'hope'.

Just imagine if he closes the gap with Obama in the next couple national polls due to this dust-up, I'm wondering how Obama campaign is going to react?

Call Edwards a Bush-Cheney lite?

by areyouready 2007-07-26 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

riiight.

by bruh21 2007-07-26 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

obama will never go negative on Edwards- he knows hes the running mate if Edwards' Iowa bounce is bigger than expected. Frankly I dont think the majority of Clinton supporters like her for policy reasons as much as sentimentality reasons. I think this makes her the most vulnerable to get votes siphoned. If she loses any remnant of the change candidacy its just a matter of time. Although i am biased.

by leewesley 2007-07-26 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

30% of Iowan's made their decision the last week of the campaign in 2004.

I believe we still have a long way to go before the caucus takes place.

To date, Edwards has solid support in IA.

by BDM 2007-07-26 07:16PM | 0 recs
these

these other candidates' different strength & weakness in different early states sort of prevents a single 'anti-Hillary' force, which could possibly ride on early momentum to beat her.

Edwards is very weak in NH.

by areyouready 2007-07-26 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: these

admittedly yes he is, but he doesn't need to do that well, hillary just needs to do badly

by leewesley 2007-07-26 04:22PM | 0 recs
Well, good. I'm glad Edwards

is hanging tough in Iowa.  If Hillary falters, he's my second choice.  Richardson is the guy to keep your eye on because he is quickly moving up in Iowa and New Hampshire.  How does he look in Nevada?

by bookgrl 2007-07-26 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, good. I'm glad Edwards

Nevada isn't being polled as heavily as Iowa, New Hampshire, and SC.  The latest poll (American Research, June/07) I've been able to find shows Richardson with 6%, Clinton 40%, and Edwards and Obama at 16%, with 15% undecided.  MOE 4%.

Nevada is make or break for Gov. Richardson.  If he doesn't win he might as well quit.

Personally, I'd prefer he run against Domenici in 2008.  Richardson has the best chance to send good ol' Pete packing.

by ATinNM 2007-07-27 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

i still cant get an answer on when the poll was conducted...If this poll is a pre-debate poll, then it's pretty much meaningless because things could change after the debate.

If its a post-debate poll, then it is great news for Edwards.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 04:19PM | 0 recs
check the update n/t

by okamichan13 2007-07-26 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

The grassroots can't allow the Hillary camp to spin a Iowa loss as a win for her campaign. No comeback kid rhetoric in 2008.

There is no doubt Edwards is going to win Iowa by double-digits.

by Djneedle83 2007-07-26 04:26PM | 0 recs
I think he will, but

I wouldn't go so far as to say there is "no doubt" about this outcome.

An Edwards victory by 10-15 percent over the second place candidate is quite possible, though.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

Hillary is a good candidate, but we need to the end the Clinton/Bush era in this country.

The main stream media will freak out if Edwards wins Iowa.

All the political pundits will be clueless when this happens. They know Edwards is winning Iowa as of today, but they all expect Hillary to win Iowa caucus.

by Djneedle83 2007-07-26 04:34PM | 0 recs
or at least they expect Hillary to be second

I think Hillary could ride out second place in Iowa. If she places third despite the Vilsacks and all her money and establishment endorsements, though, there will be trouble for her.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-26 04:55PM | 0 recs
AMEN TO THAT

I would gladly caucus for Edwards just to knock off Hillary...I still believe Obama will win Iowa or finish a close second place, then win in NH and SC.

I just cant stand Hillary...She think the nomination belongs to her and she's arrogant

Between the Hillbotocrats and Hillary, i cant decide who i dislike the most.

Im glad this stupid HILL/BILL, 2 for 1 crap didn't play well in Iowa....No one wants to see Bubba back in the white and embarrass democrats again.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 05:11PM | 0 recs
Jaehood

Yes we know you despise Hillary.  It is evident every time you discuss her.  Just don't let it eat you up dear.  And perhaps a little anger management would help your nervous system, especially if you feel the urge to kick a dog or something if and when she wins this thing.

by Regan 2007-07-26 06:12PM | 0 recs
Great news for Edwards

His campaign seemed distracted and off course, but he had a good debate and now this shows he i still strong in Iowa.

I wonder how Hillary feels about this.  Big push over the 4th yet Edweards has always been expected to win Iowa.  

Obama has to be feelin' it.  Where is he going to break through early?  Anywhere?  Nowhere?

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-26 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Great news for Edwards

Not necessarily bad news for Hillary. As a supporter, I have two big fears for her chance in IA.

The first fear is that Obama will somehow overtake her, but it looks like voters in that state are not shopping for 'hope', they're more interested in experience and resume(look at Richardson's strength).

The second fear is that if she somehow maintains a small lead in many IA polls before caucauses, media will paint any narrow loss as a huge blow. IA is extremely close, so sitting in second place instead of first is definitely not bad. You want media to paint a narrative that Edwards is leading in Iowa, not Hillary.

You don't want Edwards to collapse in IA due to his nation wide meltdown. Since it's difficult to predict where those supporters will go if he collapses. Since the race is close, if any of these supporters go to Obama camp, that will tip the scale.

So I'm happy for a close second place in any IA poll.

by areyouready 2007-07-26 05:04PM | 0 recs
Big Problem for Hillary

Hillary and his camp have been pushing this "INEVITABLE" meme for months now, and if they do not win Iowa, you better believe the media will savage her...Im confident the MSM will be all over her....

She's clearly the fronrunner and she has Bill Clinton who campaign for her in Iowa, but yet, she's sitting in second place.

My guess is Obama will try to move to her left and duplicate Edwards's strategy...Now that Hillary has clearly stated she's for COWBOY diplomacy, she cant move to Obama's left.

Obama needs to keep on hitting her hard to the left an chip away at her.

by JaeHood 2007-07-26 05:16PM | 0 recs
One problem w/ your thinking

If Obama wins they savage her for sure.

If she finished third they savage her for sure.

If she finishes second to Edwards its not that big a deal.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-26 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Great news for Edwards

The clinton supporters must feel a little shocked with this poll. I know that Georgep was predicting the collapse of Edwards in IA and were thinking that she would surge in IA with the next group of polls.

They were basing this on all of the national polls and Iowan's donot let the national polls dictate their choice.

Caveat, it is still early and this is just one poll and things will change. Early polls had Gephardt ahead and then Dean and then a fight back and forth between both of them. Kerry and Edwards were down in the polls at this point in time.

by BDM 2007-07-26 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

I'm still a skeptic of polls at this point but as an Obama supporter I think Edwaards support has held up well in Iowa.  At the same time Obama is doing very well in New Hampshire.  Frankly, I'd rather be doing well in Iowa.  Timing is everything and I like the dymamics of how Edwards is doing in Iowa.  New Hampshire is just a less distinctive place than many years ago and it seems more poised to follow Iowa's lead.  My guess is that if caucus turnout shows little growth from 2004 it is good for Edwards but if it grows at a rate like from the 2000 to 2004 cycle a lot of those new folks will be with Obama.

by howardpark 2007-07-26 05:28PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

I predict:

For Iowa,
Edwards
Clinton
Richardson or Obama
(Edwards over Hillary in high single digit or low double digit)

For New Hampshire:
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
(Clinton over Obama in double digits)

I also predict, based on what I just saw today, that Obama will continue to rant and rave over Hillary being Bush/Cheney lite.  I hope so.  It will be his lasting legacy as he recognizes defeat.  I think his campaign team have been so focused on presenting Obama as the 8th Wonder of the World and so focused on raising money that they have strategized Obama into a box.  On the one hand, they are great marketers.  On the other hand they are politically inept.  Meanwhile, Hillary is now reaching the 1,000,000 mark in numbers of supporters; she is leading almost all of the polls by good margins; and she has all the cash she needs.

I see no perils for Hillary over the next few months.  Bumps in the road?  Sure.  But I wouldn't want her to have too smooth a ride either.

by Regan 2007-07-26 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

Hi, guys.  I'm new to posting but have been lurking on the site for sometime.

Can someone give me the background on why Jerome has so much disdain for Obama?

Jerome's a great blogger, but he seems to be way over the top (to the point of being ridiculous) when it comes to Obama.  Just wondering why.

by JR Hawks 2007-07-26 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

Ya got me. Though I haven't been around that long, maybe a year ago Obama insulted Armstrong's mother or something. My problem is that Armstrong uses his clout as a front-page poster largely to take cheap shots at Obama. I'd be totally fine if he came right out and said, "I support Edwards" or "I support Clinton/Richardson/Dodd", and used his clout to promote them. But the cheap shots get real old real fast.

by This Machine Kills Fascists 2007-07-26 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

I felt that Chris Bowers was much more even handed and really tended to be fair in his analysis of all of the candidates, even though I think he supported Edwards.

Armstrong does not even pretend to be objective and his extreme bias against Obama has clouded his judgement with regard to his analysis of political events.

by BDM 2007-07-26 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

Jerome is a "anybody but obama" guy..Meaning he's for whoever can beat or bashes Obama, which is fine by me,but the problem is, he wont admit that...I would love him to be sincere here and at least ackowledge that...I dont think it's a big deal..Its just that some people arent aware of his extreme bias against Obama.

Look at me,I'm very anti-clintons and i admit that...I hate the Clintons because they pushed NAFTA down our throat and millions of american lost their jobs and i just dont like Bill Clinton because he fucked up Al Gore's career with his sexcapade and i blame him for handing Bush the presidency...If Bill had kept his pants up,Gore would be the president right right

My main point is that i make sure everyone knows that i just do not like the Clintons, but with Jerome, it seems like he wont disclose his bias and i just feel it'll be best for him to at least admit that so that no one gets fool and take him for a neutral party....

I also believe it will be a huge load off his back and he will be freed up to attack Obama and not worry about people like me complaining of him acting like an objective,fair and balanced voice of this blogs...There's nothing fair about him when it comes to Obama.

Is anyone surprised he has come down on Hillary's side here??..Not shocking but some folks could take that as "the entire blogs are against Obama in this war"

Would you believe O'relley if he tells you he's objective when it comes to democrats??...Even O'reilley have stated he just cant stand liberal democrats....Let's all disclose our bias.

by JaeHood 2007-07-27 12:22AM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

why do people create fake postings like this?

by bruh21 2007-07-27 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

The current group has got to be voted out of power. I was surprised when Kerry lost in 2004, as it looked impossible for Bush to retain office.

I don't understand that Clinton, Edwards, or Obama would be infinitely preferable to the weak field the Republicans are fielding - yet, the most loyal and enthusiastic Democrats act like their personal candidate is the savior and the other two are not acceptable. Please show a little fraternity and do not give away another election.

by shann 2007-07-27 03:11AM | 0 recs
Richardson rising

I see Richardson as continuing to gain strength as he has the clearest position of the candidates on the number one issue in the campaign:  what the U.S. should do in Iraq.  Just look at his poll numbers.  He went up in the poll the most of the top four candidates in both absolute and percentage terms.

Richardson understands our troops are the targets of all sides in civil war and advocates a complete withdrawal.  

Until the U.S. President directs that our troops to leave there will be no fundamental progress among the Iraqis toward national reconciliation.  By keeping our troops in Iraq we've permitted a dangerous dependency to develop.   Americans are dying in attempting to provide security that should be the sole responsibilities of the Iraqis.  

Think Richardson is out on his own advocating for a complete withdrawal simply to pander to the anti-war vote and his plan doesn't make any sense?  This is what Sandy Berger, Clinton's National Security Advisor, stated recently:  

"A clear US commitment to a complete, irreversible withdrawal from Iraq may now be the only way to develop a regional concert of powers that could work with Iraqis to try to stabilise the country and cauterise the conflict.

The continuing US and British occupation is a roadblock to that co-operation. The galvanising impact of a decision to depart unequivocally can be the last best chance at preventing the conflict from boiling over beyond Iraq to the whole region. How we design and implement our departure is our last significant remaining leverage.

There is no guarantee that this will work, but geopolitical self-interest may encourage wary co-operation from Iraq's neighbours. Iran does not need to invade Iraq to have influence there. The Saudis and Jordanians do not have the military capability to invade. The Syrians are not interested and, in spite of some sabre-rattling, the Turks do not need more Kurds to try to pacify. Focusing on ending the occupation and bringing order in its wake may be the best chance left to end our involvement while keeping the civil war contained to Iraq."

You can read the full commentary at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9e27ded6-38b4-11 dc-bca9-0000779fd2ac.html

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-27 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll Puts Edwards in the Lead

by Stephen Cassidy 2007-07-27 10:17AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


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