Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

As silver spring ably diaried, Zogby has a new poll that shows Clinton with a solid lead in Iowa. I paused before posting this yesterday since Zogby's polling partner on this one was the wingnut "news" site Newsmax but while I'm still puzzled as to why they'd be underwriting a poll of Democrats in the first place, Zogby's release of the results today and the fact that Pollster has added it to its list of Iowa polls, lends it credibility.

The poll was a telephone survey of 503 likely Democratic caucus goers in Iowa (8/17 - 8/19.) Results are as follows.

                   August     May
Hillary Clinton    30         24
John Edwards       23         26
Barack Obama       19         22
Bill Richardson    10         6
Joe Biden          3          4
Others             2          2
Not Sure           13         16
Now, Iowa is notoriously hard to poll, so what significance does this poll have if any? Well, for one, the trendlines are excellent for Clinton. Not only does Hillary achieve 9 point swings over Edwards and Obama since the May Zogby poll, but Pollster's average currently has Clinton slightly ahead of Edwards 26.8 to 25.4 and her trendline is up while Obama's and Edwards's are down. In addition, looking more closely at Pollster, this is the first non-ARG poll to have Clinton at 30 or higher and the first non-ARG poll to have her in the lead since May. Chris Bowers has more:
This moves the six-poll simple mean in the state to Clinton 26.2%, Edwards 24.8%, Obama 19.5%, and Richardson 11.2%. If the two "tighter screens," from the University of Iowa and ABC News / WaPo are included in the average, it slightly shifts to Edwards 25.7%, Clinton 25.3%, Obama 19.2%, Richardson 11.7%. So, no matter which way you look at it, Clinton is making up ground on Edwards in Iowa, and right now is at least in a statistical tie with him in the state.
Another reason this poll is notable: it's the first poll of Iowa Democrats since both Obama and Clinton have gone up on the air in Iowa. Check both ads out below.

Obama's ad, What If..., went on the air on Aug. 8:


Clinton's ad, Invisible, went on the air on Aug. 14:


If the new Zogby poll does signal a real shift in sentiment among Iowa Democrats toward Clinton, it would seem to be fair to say that it's at least in part due to the effectiveness of Clinton's ad. And if we accept this premise, looking at the two ads might give us a clue as to why, according to Pollster, Clinton is rising while Obama is falling.

I personally think Obama's ad is quite moving and is an excellent intro ad for him (something Clinton has the luxury of not needing) as it accentuates his experience and makes him look presidential. Frankly I would have thought it would drive his numbers up although it is more of a general election ad than a primary campaign ad. But what it also does is call for unity while Clinton's ad picks a fight with Bush, which is an essential difference in the styles of the two campaigns. If Obama doesn't win the nomination I think it will be due in part to something I've been sensing about the Democratic electorate. No matter how many people might say they are sick of partisan bickering, you gotta think that after impeachment, after the 2000 election debacle, after the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq, after John Kerry was swiftboated and after almost 7 years of this disaster of a president, the last thing Democrats want is to unite with Republicans. Did you notice how many Republicans who had previously enabled the partisan and divisive Bush administration and re-election were suddenly calling on the Democrats to unite the country after the November elections? Why didn't they hold their own party to the same standard? Why don't they expect the same of Bush? David Brooks has repeatedly attributed Obama's phenomenal fundraising and the crowds he draws to the general mood in the country that people do want to "turn the page," as Obama would say, and heal after 8 years of division. And if that's really the case, Obama will likely win the nomination. But are Democrats really in a forgive and forget place right now or do they really just want to go to battle and win?

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, John Edwards, zogby poll (all tags)

Comments

106 Comments

I don't believe it.

From anecdotal evidence alone on the blogs, the people in Iowa are leaning Edwards, Obama, Richardson, Clinton, in that order or they're undecided. So I think this poll is crap. Sorry.

by cosbo 2007-08-21 04:03PM | 0 recs
Milk just shot out my nose!!!

And the inside money is on the Cubs winning the World Series!

LOL!

Yeah right.

Thanks for the chuckle.  That oder makes a lot of sense.  

Sheesh.

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-21 04:09PM | 0 recs
I just put 200 on them...

first place and all...and if they do win the World Series, LOOK OUT...

by iamready 2007-08-21 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Milk just shot out my nose!!!

Yeah, you're right. When was the last time a mediocre team from the NL Central caught fire at the end of the season and ended up winning the World Series?

oh, wait...

by Max Fletcher 2007-08-21 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Milk just shot out my nose!!!

Good one Max. --

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Milk just shot out my nose!!!

Wait a minute dp you mean the Cubs aren't going to win the World Series this year?  As a life long Cub Fan it has got to happen next year cause it will be 100 years since they were World Series Champions. Its not a gut feeling -- its gotta happen.  We got rid of the Billy Goat.  Its our time.  No wise cracks please.  My house of worship is Wrigley Field.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't believe it.
Like the WaPo/ABC poll 3 weeks ago, this is a telephone poll of "likely" caucus attendees - but there are no details for "likely."
OTOH - the Peter Hart poll 3 weeks ago with Edwards leading Hillary by 8% - but NOT mentioned by the MSM - consisted of "past" and "likely" attendees.
by annefrank 2007-08-21 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't believe it.

The blogs certainly don't represent Iowa caucus voters.  Clinton looks to be ahead in Iowa, but only slightly.  She is doing well, but needs to keep at it.  One vote at a time.

by georgep 2007-08-21 04:42PM | 0 recs
Amazing, Todd

opines that Obama will win.

I don't know why I bother to read these anymore.  A bit predicatable.  The conclusion is set, the facts just fit as need be.

by TomP 2007-08-21 05:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Amazing, Todd

Did you actually read what he wrote? because that's not really what he said at all

by Max Fletcher 2007-08-21 08:02PM | 0 recs
I guess Todd has

a stake in the two person democratic primary.

Where is the EDWARDS video Todd?

by dk2 2007-08-21 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess Todd has

Didn't Todd say that Edwards DOESN'T HAVE an ad in Iowa yet?  So I guess that's why there's not one posted.

by jgarcia 2007-08-21 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: I guess Todd has

I believe this one from MAY 7th will do!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SuQRbUHy SU

by dk2 2007-08-21 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

maybe the national press coverage before Sunday's debate had an effect. Obama had been getting hammered while Hillary recieved almost glowing coverage. The focus groups showed Obama crushed her on Sunday so we'll see what effect that has.

by nevadadem 2007-08-21 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I thought the MSM praised Obama for his performance. I'm not sure what news you're watching. CNN and MSNBC gave him top marks on the debate (for the first time).

But this is not the first time Obama has topped a focus group poll. The SC debate, Obama topped that, but Clinton got top marks from the MSM.

by RJEvans 2007-08-21 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

nevadadem was referring to the pre-debate coverage where Obama was gettign slammed, not the post-debate coverage.

by Todd Beeton 2007-08-21 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Obama didn't crush anyone.  He was awful and the media took pity on him--period end of story.

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

You are reading too much into one poll. The conclusion you have drawn from two TV ads is just pure speculation.

by areyouready 2007-08-21 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

sure it's speculation. I'm pretty clear about that. whether this poll is more accurate than others, the general consensus seems to be that she's trending up in Iowa. I certainly can't say for sure it's due to the ad but I think it's interesting to think about, if it is, why that might be.

by Todd Beeton 2007-08-21 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I think you're on to something Todd.  Also, people keep posting that frame from the beginning of the Hillary ad, and I have to say it's quite captivating.  She looks maternal in that image and that is something completely unique for a presidential candidate campaign ad.

by bookgrl 2007-08-21 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Also, people keep posting that frame from the beginning of the Hillary ad, and I have to say it's quite captivating.  She looks maternal in that image and that is something completely unique for a presidential candidate campaign ad.

The Clinton campaign must have figured out how to specify that frame as the thumbnail for the video.

Of course, the ad moves from grandmother to mother (Clinton), to daughter in the next frame -- the smiling young woman that, I think, is the most powerful image of the entire advertisement. That smile captures the whole women's "thing" that Hillary has workin'. The women's "thing" is something that goes rigth over the heads of the punditry class. Sure, they might talk about polling data and the women's vote, but I don't think they can fathom the unspoken emotional pull of "wanting to see a woman President in my lifetime" or "wanting my daughter to know that she can grow up to be President".

by hwc 2007-08-21 05:35PM | 0 recs
Yes

I think she is.

Heck she even won the corn thingy this weekend.   You would have thought the Obamamaniacs would have Freep'd that thing.

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-21 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

also I won't go after Zogby without evidence but Iowa polling is often in the eye of the beholder and likely voter screen. The right wing has an entire cottage industry that makes a fortune off of Hillary Clinton, every GOP leaning site has been pushing Hillary adnauseam. NewsMax's involvement is very suspect. The Demmoines register poll has the best track record polling Iowa, I wonder when they will do another poll.

by nevadadem 2007-08-21 04:09PM | 0 recs
the likely voter screen is key

I think that the main reason Iowa is hard to poll is that it's so hard to know who will show up on a cold night in January.

What was the estimated turnout in Zogby's projection? Because some pollsters are naming a third or more of the Democrats they survey as likely caucus goers. We know turnout will probably be below 20 percent.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-21 04:12PM | 0 recs
You should know..

you live in the state.  I don't believe this poll.  But the diarist makes some points.  This is coming down to real change and moving on, or gridlock of bickering, here on out.

by iamready 2007-08-21 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: the likely voter screen is key

This Zogby poll is only "likely" caucus attendees.

by annefrank 2007-08-21 04:20PM | 0 recs
what percent are "likely"?

If a pollster called 1200 Iowa Democrats and determined that 400 of them are likely caucus-goers, I know right away that they included way too many in that category.

Unless they are only surveying the universe of Democrats who have attended caucuses in the past. Then a large number would be likely to attend again.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-21 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: what percent are "likely"?

Only the Peter Hart poll includes "past" caucus attendees.

by annefrank 2007-08-21 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: the likely voter screen is key

Don't you think that the campaigns already know who is going to show up for these caucuses because they have made sure their people will be there.

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:36PM | 0 recs
Edwards supporters are firm

Several other candidates have been running tv ads in Iowa this summer, but not Edwards. Nevertheless, he is holding steady.

Clinton is on the air and played her trump card (Bill's visit) early. I still think she will fall behind when undecideds start making up their minds, but I take nothing for granted.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-21 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards supporters are firm
Well - don't forget - Hillary has Murdoch's machine working 24/7 smearing Edwards.
She didn't sell her $oul for nuttin!  Besides a dent in our democracy, it's difficult to know what Hillary has promised Murdoch in return - but we do know she doesn't oppose more media consolidation.
The Hillary-Murdoch merger is a win-win for Hillary and Murdoch - and a lose-lose for democracy and transparency in government.
by annefrank 2007-08-21 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards supporters are firm

That's right. She did not sell her soul for nothing. The Devil will come out and play when the time comes.

by RJEvans 2007-08-21 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards supporters are firm

Hillary's devil has been playing since Edwards entered the race.

by annefrank 2007-08-21 06:05PM | 0 recs
by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-21 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

To answer the question.

No.

It's a three way tie.

by BlueDiamond 2007-08-21 04:22PM | 0 recs
Your last graf

is politics 101.

David Axelrod has ruined the Obama campaign.

He must be canned for Obama to have a chance.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-21 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Your last graf

So still no room for Hillary to simply be the better candidate at this time, eh?

by bookgrl 2007-08-21 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Your last graf

She is the better candidate than Obama at this time. But do you REALLY think that is unrelated to the campaign she is running and Obama is running?

I have stated in unequivocal terms that to date she has clearly run the best campaign, and more power to her.

That does not mean she is the best candidate.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-21 04:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Your last graf

Right.  I'm arguing that maybe she is the better candidate at this time.  So, maybe he wouldn't be doing as poorly if not for Axelrod, but I still doubt he'd be winning.

by bookgrl 2007-08-21 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Your last graf

Book Girl -- It is not Obama's time.  We cannot afford a 2 year Senator any more than we could have afforded Bush the part time Governor. People want Hillary and Bill as a two-fer. When we get Hillary we also bring back the competent people who enabled us to create 22 million new jobs and balance the budget.  Remember when Bill Clinton became President he had to fix the recession that he was left with by Bush 41. Hillary can fix this nation and make us whole again.  But she will never get respect from this kiss-up media. In fact nobody will like her but the people.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:44PM | 0 recs
What makes a "better" candidate?

If it's not giving interviews or rarely in physical contact with the common folk - while aligning oneself with a media mogul whose empire attacks opponents - then Hillary's your girl.

by annefrank 2007-08-21 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Your last graf

Book Girl -- She's the best.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Your last graf

I agree. Moustache Axelrod is a non starter.

by areyouready 2007-08-21 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Your last graf

Somehow I knew you'ld be on this.  

Picking a fight with Bush in a Democratic primary is a no brainer.

There is no way in hell, at this time, in this climate, a candidate can run an "I like Ike" campaign. Obama's strategy is nuts. I'll vote for him if he is the nominee, but it will be with gritted teeth and lots of anxiousness.

by molly bloom 2007-08-21 05:12PM | 0 recs
If the voters want a fight, give 'em a fight!

Right on!!!

Is Helen Keller running Obama's campaign?  Any idiot can see that, of all the fucking years, it's THIS year that Democrats WANT a fight.  When one party is in the fightin' mood, they nominate the candidate who wants to give them that fight.

WTF is Obama, his crew and the Obamaniacs thinking???

His current strategy was perfect for 2000, not 2008.  Is he and his campaign aware of all the "stuff" that has happened in the last six years?

by jgarcia 2007-08-21 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: If the voters want a fight, give 'em a fight!

Any idiot can see that, of all the fucking years, it's THIS year that Democrats WANT a fight.

And they're sure to get a fighter in Hillary, who courageously opposed President Bush and the Iraq War back in Oct. 2002, right?

Remember: The best way to predict future behavior is to examine past behavior.  Who took a stand back when it counted, and who caved under pressure?  

by Will Graham 2007-08-21 06:16PM | 0 recs
Re: If the voters want a fight, give 'em a fight!

Obama did not have the intelligence given to Congress, so to say he made a "judgment" as he says, is wrong, because he had no information to make a judgment on. I don't see how a State Senator has the same intelligence and national security clearance as a Senator of the United States Congress.

by RJEvans 2007-08-21 06:33PM | 0 recs
Re: If the voters want a fight, give 'em a fight!

So Obama was able to make the right decision even without the benefit of a national security clearance or classified intelligence.  Isn't this exactly what we want in a president: Someone with good instincts and good judgment?

What the hell value is lots of experience if your judgment sucks?  Joe Biden and Chris Dodd each have more "experience" than Clinton, Obama and Edwards combined, but I won't vote for them because they've proven that they both have horrible judgment when it comes to matters of war.

I reluctantly voted for Kerry and Edwards in 2004, despite the fact that they went right along with Pres. Bush and the Iraq War, but as a Democrat I don't want to be represented again by someone who made the wrong call on the most important vote since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

by Will Graham 2007-08-21 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: If the voters want a fight, give 'em a fight!

How do you know Obama made the right decision? For all we know, if someone else was President we could of been in an out of Iraq with minimal cost.

And don't worry about horrible judment. Obama has proven on the campaign trail that he has horrible judment and management. All you have to do it open your eyes and see.

by RJEvans 2007-08-23 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Your last graf

Was it he who came up with the "fear" theme that Mrs. Obama's been raving about?  "Run you own house" is at best of arguably  strategic brilliance.  

by Kap 2007-08-22 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Correction: This was Obama's third in a series of Iowa TV ads. He initially hit the airwaves with the first ad over the July 4th holiday, presumably to blunt the impact of the Hill and Bill Show's premier in Iowa.

I don't know his ad schedule, but I think he's been on the air with ads since July 4th in the state.

by hwc 2007-08-21 04:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

yep, but this was the first since BOTH of them were up on the air.

by Todd Beeton 2007-08-21 04:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

true dat

by hwc 2007-08-21 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

What type of BS comment is that? Of course we should  of had a surge months, or years ago. You want to win this war? So what if she does not want to say "sorry" for her vote. We are in Iraq and no apology is going to change that. No apology is going to bring our troops home any earlier. It sounds like you're trying to find an excuse to dislike her.

by RJEvans 2007-08-21 04:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

good point. she's picking fights with Republicans while sending these dog whistle messages to conservatives to make them more accepting of her. Hell, even the WSJ ed page praised her. She is running this really interesting stealth general election campaign. but on the surface, she's appealing to partisan Democrats who want to beat Republicans asses.

by Todd Beeton 2007-08-21 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

That makes her the best campaigner so far.

Axelrod stinks. Obama needs to can him.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-21 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

In fairness to Axelrod, he specializes in airbrushed feel-good campaigns about nothing for candidates with little political experience. He did exceptionally well with this kind of fuzzy "can't we all just get along" campaign for Patrick Deval in Massachusetts.

The difference is that there is no "commander in chief threshold" in a gubenatorial race.

The Obama campaign would be kicking ass and taking names in a governor's race. But, once he's past the politics of hope, a fancy speech at a convention, and attacking the war from the comfort of a statehouse race in an ultra-lefty university district, he has nothing in his gun. No track record. No national experience.

by hwc 2007-08-21 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

attacking the war from the comfort of a statehouse race in an ultra-lefty university district

Hillary is the senator from New York!  Not exactly a red state stronghold.  And even though she faced no risk whatsoever of losing her re-election bid (in 4 years) she still voted the wrong way.  If she didn't have the guts to stand up for liberals and progressives back then, under those favorable circumstances, what exactly makes you think she'll fight for you as president?

by Will Graham 2007-08-21 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

either that or the GOP is doing everything they can to ensure Hillary's nomination. Hillary say's she will take the battle to the GOP but on the issues moves ever closer and closer to thier positions while Rove and the gop play thier game. Frankly it all seems like a set up dreamed up in Carville and Matalin's bed.

by nevadadem 2007-08-21 05:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I agree with you Nevadadem except for the last bit. I don't put too much stock on Zogby polls either.

by 12345 2007-08-21 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

My last line was in jest.

by nevadadem 2007-08-21 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

This Rovian thing you are on is ridiculous.   Frankly, the statements you have been making in that regard seem quite desperate.   Rove does not want Clinton (she is now even ahead in KY, AL and VA as per Survey USA for crying out loud) and is making his dislike known.  The last thing they want is Clinton, so they are trying (obviously without success) to plant seeds of doubt.  They are partially succeeding with the Chicken Little's, but it is not working with nearly enough people, so it won't make a difference.  

Read Taylor Marsh's piece on this:

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view .php?id=26090  

by georgep 2007-08-21 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Exactly!  Well-put.  Btw, I'll repeat a post I made yesterday and I am sure you'll agree:

When Rove says "X", the opposite of X is usually true.

Clinton has been thoroughly vetted. They've got nothing on her that wasn't dregged up ten years ago. The public doesn't care about that shit any more. She has nowhere to go but 'up' in terms of people's feelings towards her. Therefore she's a danger, and thus does Rove attack her to try sowing the seeds of "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt".

by jgarcia 2007-08-21 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Of course what Rove leaves out of his statement is "because we've been targeting Hillary for the last 15 years".   He motivates not only her base, but the millions who are just fed up with it, as the GOP should have learned when they broke a tradition that had stood for over 150 years by losing House seats in the 6th year of a Presidency (1998).  If Obama's the candidate and they can spend 527 money to educate voters on the efficacy of his community organizing or his slumlord lawyering, they could make Swiftboat seem like the good old days.

by Kap 2007-08-22 11:01AM | 0 recs
Yep...too bad it makes her look like a

wishywashy hypocrite. I can just imagine the ads from these statements in the coming months.

by cosbo 2007-08-21 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

The key to Hillary Clinton is that she is a totally non-ideological hyper-partisan.

It's like a throw-back to partisan politics in the 1880s and 1890s. When the two parties were both laissez-faire doctrinaries but partisan mud-slinging was at it's highest levels in American history.

Very frustrating. It may win her the nomination and general election, but it does nothing to advance a progressive agenda in this country. It's more likely to be a repeat of Bill's presidency where we lose the house and senate in 2010.

by adamterando 2007-08-21 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Adam, needless to say, I basically disagree with virtually everything you just wrote.  

by georgep 2007-08-21 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Have you read this?

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/gr een-hillary

by adamterando 2007-08-21 06:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I think Hillary and Bill were ideological (which I think is a good thing) until they lost the health care debate and then lost the house and senate. After that it was all survival. Which was fine, but it also meant talking about school uniforms in 1996 instead of important stuff.

And I don't think Hillary has recovered ever since then. I think she'd make a fine, competent president. But also a cautious president. And I don't think she'd take the bold steps necessary to roll back the corporate power that has accumulated so dramatically over the past 30 years. She certainly doesn't seem to have any desire to, considering her who she keeps company with.

I also don't see her really working to expand the labor movement (as much as a president can) which will be key to not only reining in corporate power, but also to further any progressive agenda.

by adamterando 2007-08-21 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Well, that is your personal opinion.  After reading a lot about her positions and passions, mine differs dramatically from yours.  

by georgep 2007-08-22 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Clinton's ad picks a fight with Bush, which is an essential difference in the styles of the two campaigns.

I think you may be missing the real impact of the Clinton ad. It addresses the voters, in a personal way, on three issues that poll off the top of the charts:

a) Families struggling to afford healthcare

b) Mothers struggling to find childcare

c) Veterans struggling to get VA services

This ad is targeted at real problems facing real people and offering Clinton as a sympathetic leader who can address these specific problems with compassionate, competent government that cares.

It is not a abstract philosophy ad, nor is it primarily an attack ad.

The reason I point this out is that the core concept of the Clinton vision is identifying and solving the problems that middle class American families encounter. It's a campaign of specifics, not the abstract.

by hwc 2007-08-21 05:01PM | 0 recs
pretty good, almost Bushlike really...

in that she talks about these things, but doesn't have a healthcare plan, doesn't have a poverty plan for those "struggling mothers" trying to find childcare, and went in front of  vet audience and talk about the surge working....talk about sayin' one thing and...

by cosbo 2007-08-21 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: pretty good, almost Bushlike really...

exactly my thoughts. it's interesting how hollow it all is when you look behind the curtains

by bruh21 2007-08-21 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: pretty good, almost Bushlike really...

Forget Bushlike. Bill Clinton wrote the book on this kind of campaign.

American middle-class voters don't give a damn about grand plans. Or ideology. They care about a President who understands the things they worry about. Getting out of a never-ending war that is killing their sons and daughters. Paying for health care. Educating their childred. Protecting the environment for their children. Finding a job. Paying the mortgage.

This isn't rocket science. It's pretty easy to listen to voters (and poll relentlessly) to find out what's on their minds. It's no surprise that the three specific issues in Clinton's add are three of the highest polling concerns in the country. Doh!

American middle-class voters aren't stupid. They don't expect a President to wave a magic wand and solve all of the world's problems. In fact, middle-class American voters are relatively cautious in terms of pace of change. They just want a President who understands their struggles and tries to chip away, a little bit every day, and make some progress.

by hwc 2007-08-21 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: pretty good, almost Bushlike really...

Getting out of a never-ending war that is killing their sons and daughters.

And Hillary Clinton, who eagerly voted for the war in Oct. 2002 and wholeheartedly supported it up until she started running for the Democratic nomination is just the person to do this, right?

If Hillary didn't want the war she would have voted against it when she had the chance.

by Will Graham 2007-08-21 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: pretty good, almost Bushlike really...

They care about a President who understands the things they worry about. Getting out of a never-ending war that is killing their sons and daughters. Paying for health care. Educating their childred. Protecting the environment for their children. Finding a job. Paying the mortgage.

It sounds like you're describing EDWARDS. Hillary is just mouthing off on these issues. Edwards' got the plans. Yes. The plans matter. After 8 years of a president with absolutely no thought of what's actually good for Americans and exploiting his power to the utmost, saying one thing doing another, annoucing programs and then not funding them, I'm not taking none of that from any democratic candidate. Show me the white papers.  I'll judge how good you will be for me and my family then.

by cosbo 2007-08-21 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Clinton has been trending up in Iowa for quite some time.  It is no surprise she is doing very well there.  Some here had predicted that this was going to happen, so we should not be surprised about this.    But, rather then focus on Obama, I think this is a 1-2 battle between Clinton and Edwards.  Obama is pretty far behind.  Until that changes, Iowa is a bit of a reach for him.   The pollster.com graph shows the tale:

Obama has been trending down for quite some time, as is obvious from the graph's timeline.   Iowa is just a poor fit for Obama.   Iowa is going to be between Edwards and Clinton in the end.

Todd, I think there are many issues for people to make a candidate decision on.  I agree that the Democratic party is much more partisan than Obama understands or cares to realize, hurting his overall chances.  But I disagree that he would win if he were more partisan.  There are many other problems with his candidacy that a sharper partisan tilt won't "fix" readily.    

by georgep 2007-08-21 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

George, have you been watching intrade?  She's got over a 20 point spread on Giuliani to win the presidency, and over a 30 point spread on Obama!

by bookgrl 2007-08-21 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

If you look at the Democratic nomination, she is now leading Obama with almost 50%, which is incredible.  Her numbers went on another strong uptick AFTER the Sunday morning debate.

Intrade Real Time Quotes      (See More Data )

Clinton 66.9%, Obama 18.9%, Edwards 9%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html

by georgep 2007-08-21 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?
Yes, I meant by 30 points to be the next president:
Hillary Clinton 42.7
Rudy Giuliani 19.9
Barack Obama 10.5
by bookgrl 2007-08-21 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I had not checked those numbers lately.  That is pretty strong stuff for sure.  

by georgep 2007-08-22 05:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

The #1 problem with Obama's candidacy is that there is a person named Hillary Clinton in the race. Otherwise, I think he's run a great campaign.

Anyways, this has been said a billion times already but I'm going to repeat it. There are still four months left, and a lot can happen.  

by Korha 2007-08-21 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I agree hwc.  Hillary's ad is all about women and family.  She nails Bush with the invisible mantra, but the main point is to reach out to women of all ages.  In this ad, she is a grandmother, mother, daughter, sister, friend, or mentor, whatever your age, you can relate.

by Kingstongirl 2007-08-21 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

kingstongirl:

You and I are on exactly the same page regarding this ad....and I'm not even a woman.

This has always been the Clinton approach. Find out what middle class voters are worried about and present competent, compassionate "I feel your pain" answers. It's all about a government that listens.

Now target the approach at the people who really run America's families, women. Who just happen to have been "invisible" as far as the Presidency is concerned for 230 years. Old white dudes telling them what they can and cannot do with abortion. Telling them about childcare. Telling them about healthcare for their kids and elderly parents.

I can't know exactly how Clinton's message resonates, but I have a pretty good idea.

by hwc 2007-08-21 05:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

how good is zogby?

by bruh21 2007-08-21 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

he ain't worth a shit.  the absolute worst pollster in the bidness.

by jgarcia 2007-08-21 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

thats what I remembered from 2006. his numbers were seemingly always off from others. but i was trying to figure out how good he is at polling presidential races because maybe they are a different animal

by bruh21 2007-08-21 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

How good is Karl Rove??????????

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:56PM | 0 recs
Clinton has too many ties to pollsters

I don't think any are an exact look at the candidates.

Not to rely on polls any more than the weather man, they are only good the closer to the time.

I don't rely on a weatherman (hardly at all) but I dang sure don't rely on them more than 48 hours out.

The same goes for polls, 4-5 months out?

Please - spin the polls any why you want, but I want real odds and they aren't happening now.

by dk2 2007-08-21 05:39PM | 0 recs
Teresa Vilmain

Teresa Vilmain (former General Election Strategist for the DNC), heads up Hillary's campaign in Iowa.  When Hillary brought Vilmain onboard I was more convinced than ever that Hillary would do very well in Iowa and possibly even win it.

Just google Teresa Vilmain to find out what a powerhouse she is.  There isn't a Democratic candidate who wouldn't kill to have her on his team.  

by samueldem 2007-08-21 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

You know, the one thing that hasn't been said about the Clinton ad is the one thing that I think is most important and speaks VOLUMES about the Democratic electorate.

What was Howard Dean's message in 2003? Be the leaders that you want. You have the power to make change happen.

What is Hillary Clinton's message in 2007? You're invisible. You're all invisible. I'm the solution to your problem. I'm the only one who has any power to win.

This message, which is really a message of victimhood, has been around in every political party and movement since the dawn of time. The reason why? It works. The sad truth is that while some people respond to messages of empowerment, a lot more people respond to messages of victimhood.

Marketing experts know this, and I'm sure Ms. Clinton has plenty of corporate marketing types working for her campaign that came up with this ad.

I was never a big Dean person, (disclosure, backed Kerry all the way in 2004) but his basic message is FAR more consistent with the direction I'd like to see our party go in than what I'm seeing in this Clinton ad. For Democrats to embrace a narrative of victimhood would be a huge step backwards, both for the grassroots, the netroots, and for citizen activism generally.

Probably exactly what Ms. Clinton wants.

by astrodem 2007-08-21 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

This is a sentiment usually expressed by right-wingers, the "victimhood" canard.   If you WERE correct (you are not) then Edwards entire campaign could not exist.  We would have no efforts to DO BETTER as a society to care for the most vulnerable.  It would be "everybody on his/her own, basta."     It is absolutely true that during the years of the Bush/Cheney administration many people have fallen through the cracks, are now worse off than ever and don't know where the money for their cancer medicine or food will come from.  They have indeed been rendered invisible by the politicians, and we need to do everything in our power to give them the tools to provide a better life for themselves.   It has NOTHING to do with victimhood, EVERYTHING to do with doing better in giving people a chance to earn a decent paycheck by increasing the minimum wage (Clinton proposed indexing it to grow with inflation every year,) giving people a way to pay for medicines to help them stay alive, etc.

The right-wing themes expressed in your post about "victimhood" don't really fit on a progressive blog.    

by georgep 2007-08-22 04:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Clinton is ahead in Iowa as she is in other parts of the country for one reason.  The Clintons were the first ones to be attacked by Rove's Right Wing Attack Machine.  She is mad as hell and she isn't going to take it anymore and neither are the Democrats.  Its payback time and we are in it to win it.  Sorry Obama its not time to kiss and make up with these incompetent and arrogant fools who have taken this nation to a new low, both in Foreign Policy and Policy.  It is a complete mess. The Republicans continue to kiss the rings of these incompetents while the media fiddles as Rome burns.  Hillary however, is out there everyday earning votes from grateful Democrats -- sometimes it takes a girl to clean up Washington.  Love ya Darlin

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I don't know about you guys but I really resented Michelle Obama's comment -- You can't run the White House until you get your own house in order.  Seems I heard she had some marital problems but stayed with Barak.  People with Glass Houses shouldn't throw stones.

by changehorses08 2007-08-21 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

That comment really didn't register as an attack on clinton with me, not with all the Republicans offering the contrast what "not having your house in order" really means.

by Ernst 2007-08-22 12:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I would have agreed with you but the end of the statement is "before you can RUN the White House."  She looks like a very angry lady.

by changehorses08 2007-08-22 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

However, her husband is not competing with those candidates and he is with Hillary.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-22 10:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Huh?  Did you even read Michelle Obama's speech?  If you did you would instantly realize she was talking about her own family and not launching some kind of cryptic dogwhistle attack on Hillary--despite the feverish imaginings of Drudge et al.

by Will Graham 2007-08-22 03:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

In the speech I saw that was the end of Mrs. Obama's statement.  Whatever she meant--she comes across strident and unfriendly.  Basically turns people off.  

by changehorses08 2007-08-22 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I heard what she said today on AOL.  At no time did she speak of her own family.  She said you need to get your own house in order before you can run the white house.  She meant Hillary. Keep defending Obama (the underdog) who has more money and less to show for it than any other candidate.  And if he ends up running as an Independent to split the Democrats and a Republican gets in because of it, will you still defend him?  

by changehorses08 2007-08-22 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

Edwards supporter here so I'm not really invested one way or the other on Clinton vs Obama.

But I think the relative effectiveness of Hillary's ad over Obama's ad is explained by what they tell authors: Show, Don't Tell.

Obama's campaign is about Telling us that he's a uniter.  I experience that a LOT more than him actually Doing things that are, uh... uniter-ish.

Clinton's ad Shows her caring.  It kinda got me on a gut level.  She displayed an empathetic understanding in those words.  It went deeper than Obama's ad.

by tunesmith 2007-08-21 11:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?
Your point about the adds is a very good one, both politically and historically. All great presidents have been polarizing figures, especially FDR, as Paul Krugman pointed out last January http://select.nytimes.com/2007/01/26/opi nion/26krugman.html
Here's the money quote from what I believe was FDR's speech at Madison Square Garden before the 1936 election:
""We had to struggle," he declared in 1936, "with the old enemies of peace -- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. ... Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred."
 We need a leader like FDR, someone who really understands the fundamental political dynamics of the country. For most politicians there's little benefit--and considerable risk and cost--in reaching across party lines. Do it too often or on the "wrong" issues (i.e. anything of truly national importance) and you're likely to get a primary challenge. Anyone who ignores this, who is trying to campaign for bridging unbridgeable gaps,  is practicing High Broderism, not effective democratic politics.
by Reference Librarian 2007-08-22 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

georgep,

I'm sorry you disagree, but everyone who I have asked who has seen this ad says it's about victimhood. Transparently so.  

While you are absolutely right that many people have fallen throuigh the cracks during the Bush years, the answer to that problem should be to assert our own power, not place all our faith in a  great leader who solves all our problems for us.

Look, I'm not the one who's propping up rightwing narratives...Hillary is. This was her ad, not mine. And for the record, this wouldn't exactly be the first time she's been caught reinforcing rightwing themes herself.

by astrodem 2007-08-22 07:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

I'm from Iowa.

Trust me when I tell you we don't select our candidate until late December or after.

This poll is less than worthless.  Just ask Howard Dean.

by Hawkeye Dem 2007-08-22 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

The contrast between ads is so remarkably on target.  Hillary's among us,  doing the work; Obama's high above the masses, resting on the laurels of a 2 year old speech.  

by Kap 2007-08-22 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Is Clinton Really Ahead In Iowa?

amen! well said! that's why polls show that the lower you go down the economic/education ladder, the more support Hillary has and the less and less suppot Obama has. She's the candidate of those who actually NEED real POLICIES.

by Hill08 2007-08-22 11:29AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


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