by Todd Beeton, Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:12:05 AM EST
Zogby International has released its latest polling out of Iowa (514 LVs, Nov. 29-Dec. 1, MOE 4.4%) and New Hampshire (502 LVs, Dec. 1-3, MOE 4.5%) and they show a more stable race in those early states than we've seen in recent polls.
This Iowa poll has got to be music to the Clinton team's ears as Clinton remains in a statistically insignificant lead and Obama shows no upward momentum whatsoever. In addition, the internals look good for her as well, especially this:
Since last month, however, Clinton was able to solidify her standing among some likely caucus-goers by increasing the number of people who said she would be their second choice.
Last month, Obama and Edwards were much more preferred as a second choice among those candidates who appear to be unviable under Democratic caucus rules. Clinton appears to be gaining ground among those who might consider experience to be an important factor in choosing a nominee - she wins the lion's share of support among those who make Biden their first choice, and she does well among those who would first choose New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
Clinton also leads among women while Obama leads among men and independents.
The Zogby New Hampshire poll confirms what we've seen in other recent polls out of the state, namely that Clinton drops to the mid-30s, Obama is stable in the low 20s and Edwards rises to the mid to upper teens. Significantly for Edwards, he cuts Obama's lead over him to just 5%. The biggest beneficiary of Clinton's fall though is Undecideds who surged 7% since September.
Interestingly, two upcoming polls, the new Strategic Vision Iowa poll and the new Washington Post New Hampshire Poll, appear poised to somewhat contradict Zogby's findings. Political Wire got advance looks.
Political Wire got an advance look at a new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa that shows Sen. Barack Obama expanding his lead in the first caucus state with 32% support, followed by John Edwards and Sen. Hillary Clinton tied for second at 25%.
And in New Hampshire:
Political Wire has seen early results from a new New Hampshire poll that shows Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead stabilizing after losing ground to Sen. Barack Obama in recent months.
If we're to take anything away from these contradictory polling results it's that the race for the first two states is still extremely volatile on the Democratic side. This point is made even clearer by Zogby's New Hampshire results, which not only show Undecideds rising but also show:
About half of those supporting Clinton and Obama here say their support is rock solid and will not change, the poll shows. Among Obama supporters, the other half (50%) said their support is strong but that they could change their minds before Election Day. For Clinton, 44% said their support is strong but they could change their minds.
Edwards supporters are more likely to change their minds before the primary than are Obama and Clinton supporters, the survey shows. Nearly two out of three 62% of Edwards backers said it is either somewhat or very likely they could change their minds, while 52% of Obama supporters and 47% of Clinton backers said the same thing.
by Todd Beeton, Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:25:35 PM EST
A new Zogby poll out of Iowa (502 LVs, Nov. 6, MOE 4.5%) shows a tightening race in this crucial state. While Clinton was ahead outside of the margin of error in a few polls in September and October, this poll shows a return to the 3-way race dynamic and once again has Obama, not Edwards, gaining at Clinton's expense.
The most significant thing about this poll is that it takes into account 2nd choices and re-calculates the standings once the 2nd choice picks of those supporting candidates with less than 15% are factored in.
From the analysis:
...the race tightens dramatically when second choices are factored into the mix a critical wrinkle in the Iowa caucuses. In the caucuses, a first round of balloting is conducted, and those candidates who do not win at least 15% support are ruled unviable and supporters are directed to a second choice among those who remained viable before a second round of balloting is conducted. Zogby polling shows Edwards makes big strides as a secondchoice candidate, jumping six percent.
Candidate
1st Choice Only
1st & 2nd Choice Combined
Clinton
28
30
Obama
25
29
Edwards
21
27
Not Sure
12
15
As you can see, looking at the Iowa caucus this way, which actually reflects the reality of the caucus, it truly is a 3-way tie, with Edwards making the most gains once 2nd choices are factored in. In fact, Edwards wins the 2nd choice sweepstakes among Richardson supporters and Biden supporters, the two strongest likely "unviable" candidates. Winning their supporters' 2nd choice spot is key.
Interestingly, among the candidates, Clinton's support is firmest.
Asked about the likelihood they could change their minds before January, just 39% of Clinton backers said it is likely, compared to 50% of Obama supporters and 51% of Edwards supporters.
While the question clearly refers to the likelihood of voters' support for a candidate to budge, time will tell if this enthusiasm for Clinton will translate to actual turnout. A Clinton win in Iowa hinges on bringing new voters out to the caucuses and if the devotion for her found in this poll equates to the likelihood to caucus, that bodes very well for Clinton.
by Todd Beeton, Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:56:48 PM EDT
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?
by Todd Beeton, Tue Jul 24, 2007 at 03:07:42 PM EDT
Chris Bowers found some interesting results in the latest Zogby poll yesterday. The poll is titled a Report Card On Prejudice In America and judges not only people's own prejudices but also their impression of the prejudices of their fellow Americans. One of the hilarious conclusions of the poll:
[Respondents] think most Americans believe...Republicans are most responsible for many of the world's ills.
The breakdown of the ills and the extent to which people believe Americans hold the different parties accountable for them are as follows:
War: 62% blamed Republicans vs. 14% Democrats Global Warming: 56% blamed Republicans vs. 10% Democrats Prejudice: 52% blamed Republicans vs. 22% for Democrats Poverty: 49% held Republicans accountable; 29% Democrats Corruption: 47% blamed Republicans vs. 31% Democrats Crime: On this issue, respondents reversed the trend, with 42% blaming Democrats vs. 23% Republicans
I doubt we can draw from this that people actually blame the Republican Party for problems such as global warming and prejudice (although some might beg to differ) but rather I think it reflects people's general sense that the Democratic Party represents the solution to the biggest crises facing our country and the Republican Party, part of the problem.
when it comes to judging the president versus congressional Democrats on the issue of Iraq, the public stands with Congress. Fifty-five percent said they trust congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trust Bush. (Eleven percent of all respondents and 17 percent of independents said they trust "neither.")
This in a poll in which congressional Democrats get just 35% approval on Iraq. As with most polls, this one reveals great disappointment with the Democrats but relative to Bush and the Republicans, it's no contest.
Which brings me to a larger question: does this sound like an electorate clamoring for bi-partisanship? If anything, these results show a decided partisan bias and would certainly contradict those that have for months maintained that November's election was a vote not for Democrats but for bi-partisanship. Well, people may want the partisan bickering to stop but it's not because they want Democrats to work WITH Republicans. They've seen what that's gotten us. No, these results point to an electorate that wants Republicans out of the way. Or as Bowers says:
Bush has destroyed the Republican brand, and so we are going to win a lot of elections in the next few years. As such, progressives have to start thinking a lot more about how Democrats can govern in a progressive fashion, and work to make that happen. The short-term crisis of stopping conservative Republican governance has already been partially averted, and will soon be averted entirely. Progressive focus needs to turn towards governance.
jeromearmstrong Our Polarized and Money-Driven Congress: Created Over 25 Years By Republicans (and Quickly Imitated by Democrats http://bit.ly/ewXlXI #bblue
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------