New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary 24%

This InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion poll of the Iowa Democratic caucus was conducted Dec. 16-17. The margin of error on the first two questions is 3%; on the second two questions is less than 4%.  Both polls weighted for age and gender.

Likely voters Edwards 29.8%, Hillary 26.4%, Obama 24.3%

Highly Likely voters Obama 26.6%, Edwards 26.0%, Hillary 23.8%

2nd Choice Likely Voters Edwards 42.3%, Obama 29.4%, Hillary 28.2%

2nd Choice Highly Likely Edwards 41.9%, Obama 31.1%, Hillary 27.7%

heres the link http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/In siderAdvantage_Majority_Opinion_Democrat ic_Iowa_caucus_poll.html

Tags: clinton, Edwards, obama (all tags)

Comments

58 Comments

Selective date pull

You selectively pulled data allmiview. You should add all the numbers to the diary or add a detailed explanation to the numbers you chose.

by lonnette33 2007-12-18 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Selective date pull

The numbers he posted are among likely caucus goers.  

If you want to go by likely democratic voters, then the results are different, however, with the fact that Iowa uses the caucus system, you go by the likely caucus goer numbers.  

by SixthElement 2007-12-18 01:04PM | 0 recs
Interesting 2nd choice numbers

I noticed that Edwards is far outpacing both Obama and Clinton as second choices of the second tier candidate supporters.

by minvis 2007-12-18 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Interesting 2nd choice numbers

That's only relevant if you're interested in figuring out who is most likely to win.

by jedreport 2007-12-18 06:06PM | 0 recs
Thank you!

Thanks for changing it allimview.

by lonnette33 2007-12-18 01:10PM | 0 recs
This poll has BIG turnout projection problems

With this poll the 18-44 age segment is only 12%

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primari es/pages/epolls/IA/

In 2004, however, this group represented 32% of Iowa caucus goers.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primari es/pages/epolls/IA/

So this new poll underestimates the likely 18-44 turnout by OVER 50%!!!

With Obama in the race we will probably see an increase in the 18-44 turnout.

He's still leading.

by General Sherman 2007-12-18 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: The poll is weighted

They show you the raw numbers in each age group and for each gender but then those are weighted to reflect the 2004 percentages you note.  That's how the percentages for each candidate are determined.

by minvis 2007-12-18 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: The poll is weighted

Is the poll weighted??...

by Prodigy 2007-12-18 02:02PM | 0 recs
Re: The poll is weighted

Yes.  It says at the top and you can also tell from the raw numbers that it had to have been weighted.

by minvis 2007-12-18 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: This poll has BIG turnout projection problems

Wrong, the poll was corrected for these discrepancies from 2004.

by Progressive America 2007-12-18 01:56PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

The poll between likely Democratic voters and Highly Likely Caucus voters are very different screens.  When talking about Iowa, and referencing poll numbers, you refer the likely caucus goer numbers.  

by SixthElement 2007-12-18 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

Your topic title is misleading; the poll shows that Edwards is ahead and then Clinton.

by American1989 2007-12-18 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

What the hell just happened?  Everyone knows Iowa is a caucus right?  Just because you don't like the Likely caucus goer numbers doesn't mean those aren't the number you use.  

Likely voters and likely caucus goers are very different.  

by SixthElement 2007-12-18 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

A dead heat; surprise surprise!

by American1989 2007-12-18 01:30PM | 0 recs
I'm really liking my chances

Hopefully me and desmoinesdem are right... this poll likely confirms that. yay!

by KainIIIC 2007-12-18 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll:

I think Edwards will take the state by the high 30s. Obama and Clinton will fight for second, but Obama will win out. This just gut at this point based on 2004.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 01:37PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll:

If the rest of the polling we get from this week confirms that, I would agree with that notion.  That's what I was thinking.  he just has a strong Second place choices, that could give him the big win.  

by SixthElement 2007-12-18 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll:

The numbers, 2004 and the series of diaries on IA are what are in total forming my gut. I agree, however, that these numbers need confirmtation but only if they are of actual likely caucus goers. Anything depending on bumper crops of new voters are suspect to me. The other minor factor is the feverency of support for Edwards that's developing.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 01:50PM | 0 recs
I'm just waiting

for georgep to take out his national polling numbers and charts and say "all polling indicates hillary is going to be the nominee, while edwards has trending down"

just waiting...

by KainIIIC 2007-12-18 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm just waiting

Ah yes.....I sense it will arrive shortly.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2007-12-18 02:02PM | 0 recs
Poll is Terrible News for Obama

This is a fascinating poll. I urge everyone to look at the internals. It is poorly done in that it doesn't seem that they weighted the results at all, but they are still fascinating.

HRC leads massively among those over 65, and among women.

Edwards does fairly well among that demographic as well.

Obama finishes a fairly distant third.

If these are the results two weeks from Thursday, Barack Obama will finish third in the Iowa caucuses. Between Edwards and Clinton, it's a pick 'em.

Again, the top line results don't appear to be weighted at all, but the internals tell the tale.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-18 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll is Terrible News for Obama

Actually, the poll was weighted. They more than doubled the younger age group to weight it for turnout from 2004.

by Progressive America 2007-12-18 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll is Terrible News for Obama

I missed that. But, even so...the numbers don't look so good for Barry.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-18 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll is Terrible News for Obama

Well that makes it worse for Obama actually.

I'm very happy with these numbers for Edwards. If the caucus comes out like this, then he will blow out the competition, especially with those second choices. I think he's peaking at the right time. No wonder the Hillary camp is saying they expect Edwards could win. Their internals must be saying the same thing.

by Progressive America 2007-12-18 02:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll is Terrible News for Obama

Thank you, Raleigh, North Carolina.

by truthteller2007 2007-12-18 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Poll is Terrible News for Obama

The top line is the raw numbers, the final percentages are weighted to account for the relatively small numbers of voters under 45 and overly large numbers of older voters sampled.  That is why the percentages for each candidate doesn't show Edwards and Clinton totally trouncing Obama.

by minvis 2007-12-18 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

You're right. But that's among likely voters. The results, with a higher margin of error that the diarist is quoting are "highly likely caucusgoers." How they developed that screen is beyond me.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-18 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

It's almost like they are trying to create models that will fit their narratives? But, no that's not possible. The media would never willingly engage in such behavior.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

You've got to stop making good points, or I'll have to start respecting you again.

by souvarine 2007-12-18 02:28PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

I am consistent in my principles and I try to base my beliefs on facts as I've learned them. Whether you respect me or not is secondary , but thanks.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

Oh, they would never ever do that! LOL

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-12-18 02:33PM | 0 recs
They don't say specifically

But it does say that it was determined from several additional questions asked of the respondents.

by minvis 2007-12-18 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%

The internals scream "BS" to me.  I'll wait for more polls to confirm whether this one is right.  Has InsiderAdvantage ever even polled Iowa before?

by Namtrix 2007-12-18 02:08PM | 0 recs
First one

This is their first poll in Iowa.  They've done several in South Carolina however.

by minvis 2007-12-18 02:26PM | 0 recs
ARG

I don't tend to believe their polls in Iowa.  They're based in New Hampshire and I think they're more accurate there.  Lets face it.  No one really knows how to poll for a caucus very well.

by minvis 2007-12-18 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%

No.  They seem to pull numbers out of their butt.

Why?

by Namtrix 2007-12-18 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

The numbers don't add up.  Look at Obama's support (in both the likely and highly likely samples), and look at his support from the male and female samples.  Note that it's higher than either one, so I suppose there's a huge transgendered base of support for Obama...

Or (a slightly more likely explanation) the poll's total crap, and we should ignore it...

It's also worth pointing out that I can't find a previous Insider Advantage poll on the IA caucus...

by Ramo 2007-12-18 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

The poll is weighted to reflect 2004 demographics. Obama's key demographic, young voters, were underrepresented in the survey (to the tune of half of 2004's turnout). As such, the final weighted numbers boost Obama. The numbers you're looking at under Male and Female were not weighted.

by js noble 2007-12-18 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

Oh, not more BS about how the National Enquirer is a surrogate for the Clinton campaign.

I hate to think that you, too, are going to play the game of spreading the rumor by complaining to everyone in earshot about how unfair a rumor it is.

by Steve M 2007-12-18 02:17PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

This is how Kerry was swiftboated.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

Well, that would be classic media behavior, to "report the controversy" ... over and over again.

However, they haven't gone there yet.  As much as the media worships Drudge, I don't think they're slavish enough to run with an Enquirer headline, but we'll see.

by Steve M 2007-12-18 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

I hope you are right.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: New Iowa Poll: Obama 27%, Edwards 26%, Hillary

Are we sure it's not Drudge's love child???

Now that's a truly frightening thought!

by minvis 2007-12-18 02:44PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the link to the poll

I found the undecided numbers really interesting. Between 7-9% if I'm reading the polls right. Bill Clinton told the Time's Mark Halperin that it was about 10% undecided today at The Page. I wonder what could sway those 10% one way or the other? Events on the ground? That last push by a candidate? A gaffe?

Interesting....

by ademption 2007-12-18 02:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the link to the poll

Did a diary on this- most support amongst all candidates edwards, obama and clinton remains soft. in fact most voters typically make up their mind in the last month, and more likely last few days.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 02:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the link to the poll

Would you please provide a link to the diary that you wrote? I clicked on your name and couldn't find it. I'm interested in reading your thoughts about soft support.

thanks...

by ademption 2007-12-18 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the link to the poll

Here's the discussion I had about when voters make their decision. It's actually info provided by mystery pollster. Implicit in the discussion is the nature of soft support. Looking bac k at it I don't think I provided a link. But, very briefly bowers and for a hot minute, people here discussed that many polls were pushing peo to pick a candidate, but if you looked at it from the angle of not pushing peop, it was suprising how much of all three of the candidates actual numbers included a lot of undecideds or leans, but not strong supporters in this cycle. that plus the analysis about traditional voter behavior patterns left a big question mark to me about how hard all the candidate numbers were. Especially in lieu of analysis by Fla Dem about the impact of IA and NH-- to me that also gave further credence to how hard it would be for most of the year to predict the outcome of the race. I still think either of the three can win the overall race- but IA favors Edwards and that gives him - given the narrative developing- a shot with th eother states. A shot, but no guarantees- clinton could still come back. Obama to me has a slightly less of a chance but still very significant.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 04:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the link to the poll

ok. thanks for responding to my question....

by ademption 2007-12-18 05:56PM | 0 recs
by bruh21 2007-12-18 06:52PM | 0 recs
by bruh21 2007-12-18 06:52PM | 0 recs
Normally I'd just say even ... tight race

Within MOE blah blah blah.

But when I hear weighted my radar goes ping ping ping.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-18 03:10PM | 0 recs
Obama isn't far enough ahead in these polls

He is in trouble in Iowa.  That is why he is attacking Edwards now.  He is trying to peel away any support he can.  He is looking at Edwards supporters and "hoping".

For Obama to score a win in Iowa he needs to be up big. Well outside the MOE.  He needs to be up in the average by 7 to 8% at least.  

Hillary's latest ad says a ton to me.  It came after I made my Iowa prediction.  She is comfortable she has the women, she is going after the men.

I am more confident now than ever that Obama will underperform in Iowa.

by dpANDREWS 2007-12-18 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama isn't far enough ahead in these polls

If Hillary finishes 3rd........she has effectively LOST the race.

by allmiview 2007-12-18 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama isn't far enough ahead in these polls

She can still come back if she wins NH. If she comes in third- it make sit harder not impossible.

by bruh21 2007-12-18 04:12PM | 0 recs
I largely agree with you

except that I do think Obama's gains among women have been real.

But you are right, given his relative weakness among the over-65 voters (and what I hear from volunteers about his weakness among voters outside cities and suburbs), I think Obama will not win Iowa unless poll show him to be way ahead.

by desmoinesdem 2007-12-18 08:40PM | 0 recs
See the front page
Todd has the full scoop on the front page.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/18/194 011/05
by kevin22262 2007-12-18 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: New Wash. Post Poll to be released Wed.

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday showed Obama with 33 percent support of likely Iowa caucusgoers, while Clinton had 29 percent and Edwards 20 percent. The poll found, however, that Edwards' backing might be more dependable because he had more support than Obama and Clinton from people who previously attended a caucus.

by BDM 2007-12-18 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: New Wash. Post Poll to be released Wed.

also... the newness of C and O is wearing off and people may be heading back to Edwards as the date draws near.

by kevin22262 2007-12-18 08:07PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads