New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18, Richardson 13

Dailykos is touting a new IA poll on their frontpage.  Take it with a grain of salt...



Edwards 30
Clinton 22
Obama   18
Richardson 13
Biden 5

The "ONE Poll--Iowa" was conducted on August 2 and 3, 2007, and has an overall margin of error of ±4.3%.

Iowa polls are all the map, I am not sure how legitimate this poll is... There are basically two different sets of pictures emerging from these polls. The first set is that all three frontrunners are bunched together at around 27, 28 points. The second set is that Edwards is still ahead, Clinton is in a solid second place and Richardson is closing in on Obama's third place... Interesting!

NYT has a diary debunking Hillarys 'high negativity' myth.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ 08/16/more-on-rove-vs-clinton/



When Karl Rove said yesterday that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's unfavorable rating was in the "high 40s," he may have been looking at an old poll. And when he said no one had been elected with negatives as high as hers, he had apparently forgotten some recent history.

The most recent CBS News poll, conducted from Aug. 8 to Aug. 12, showed Mrs. Clinton's unfavorable rating at 39 percent. That number has been falling bit by bit since its high mark of 46 percent in April. That 46 percent was the highest negative rating measured by The New York Times and CBS News since the two news organizations began polling about Mrs. Clinton in 1992.
Over the last few months as her negative ratings have fallen, her positive ratings have fluctuated, with the most recent poll showing that 41 percent of voters have a favorable view of her.
So, contrary to what Mr. Rove said on Rush Limbaugh's radio program, her unfavorable rating is about 10 points lower than where he thought it was and her favorables are higher than her unfavorables, although barely.

His point was this: "There's nobody who has ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position."
In fact, Mrs. Clinton's husband was in that very position and did win. And Mrs. Clinton's numbers are better than his were at this point in his first campaign for the White House.
In April 1992, only 26 percent of voters had a favorable view of Bill Clinton, while 40 percent viewed him unfavorably, according to a Times/CBS poll. By June 1992, his favorables had plunged further, so that only 16 percent had a favorable opinion, with 40 percent still unfavorable.

After Mr. Clinton won the nomination and after his convention, his favorable rating began to rise. By October 1992, his ratings had become about even, with 34 percent favorable and 35 percent unfavorable.

The situation is a little different for Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton's closest competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination, whom voters view as more "likeable" than Mrs. Clinton.

In the CBS poll, 36 percent of voters have a positive view of Mr. Obama while 20 percent have a negative view.
So while his negatives are lower than hers, so are his positives.
But the two sets of numbers are not directly comparable because Mr. Obama is not as well known as Mrs. Clinton.
Asked about Mr. Obama, 27 percent of voters said they were undecided about whether they feel positively or negatively toward him, and 17 percent said they had not heard enough about him to say.

Asked about Mrs. Clinton, 19 percent said they were undecided about how they feel, and just 1 percent said they had not heard enough about her to judge.


Tags: Hillary Edwards Obama (all tags)

Comments

56 Comments

peter hart is on CSPAN

all the time and is a mark penn style pollster.

but you're right a single poll is hard to interpret

by TarHeel 2007-08-16 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: peter hart is on CSPAN

No, Hart does not work for or with Mark Penn, unless I've missed something. Or did you mean something else by "penn-style"?

His firm is one of the major Democratic firms and is not affiliated with any campaign.

by desmoulins 2007-08-16 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: peter hart is on CSPAN

What do you mean by a Mark Peen "style" pollster?

by DoIT 2007-08-16 05:02PM | 0 recs
Re: peter hart is on CSPAN

Mark Penn

Doh!

by DoIT 2007-08-16 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

I respect ONE a lot - but this polls methods are poor...they didn't break out leaners...the poll was mostly conducted so ONE had material to take to the campaigns about how important poverty issues are.

by CardBoard 2007-08-16 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

are you saying the race is much more closer than that , i tend to believe that too.

by lori 2007-08-16 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

yes - I think it is basically tied.  This weekend will be a big deal in IA at the fair.  And if you have seen Michelle Obama lately she is lighting it up introducing Barack - this is only a short clip but check it out. http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??g=d9f89ce3-95e7-4114-9c99-b691d34c90bd&f=34&fg=rss

by CardBoard 2007-08-16 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

I caught a bit of M.O. on MSNBC. I was kind of surprised. She reminds me of 'icebergslim', very feisty. Chris was sort of grasping for air as he played the clip. I'm not sure her style will work out well in IA and NH. She should be dispatched to SC.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

It looked like the crowd was into it... I think Oprah should have weekly five minute catch ups with Michelle on the show - she plays really well with most everybody... I've never heard a negative word - other than some Wal-MArt conspiracies.

by CardBoard 2007-08-16 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

LOL. I can assure you that sort of style is actually pretty scary to many voters.... Of course it plays well among Obama's followers.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 03:41PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

That's right, I forgot you expert opinion and years of running campaigns and KNOWING what voters want.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-08-16 03:44PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

yes voters really hate women who say it like it is - wait, isn't that who you think Hillary is?  Or is just Black women that you don't think they like?

by CardBoard 2007-08-16 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

I don't like it when Clinton's voice sounded shrill... Fortunately she has improved a lot in that department.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

M. Obama's voice was not shrill at all...that is annoying.  It was angry about playing up fear - I want to see her call out Rudy.

by CardBoard 2007-08-16 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

what has this to do with Rudy? I only caught the clip for 1 min.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

Rudy is the chief fear peddler out of the R's - he is trying to scare his way to the nomination

by CardBoard 2007-08-16 06:14PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

The crowd responded to her, if you paid attention to the clip.

by iamready 2007-08-16 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll
Of course the crowd loved it. I'm sure your husband also loves you. It's the same reason.
I just don't feel her style is very effective to average voters, especially in IA and NH. But this is just my personal opinion of course.
by areyouready 2007-08-16 03:51PM | 0 recs
I saw Michelle Obama

a couple of weeks ago at a women's event/fundraiser for Polk County Democrats. She did great, and the crowd responded well to her. I don't find her voice shrill at all.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-16 04:08PM | 0 recs
Dont think so

in most of these polls when the leaners are removed, Edwards % goes up.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll

I agree. This looks like Edwards' internal poll. LOL. They first ask a couple of poverty related questions, only the last question is about presidential race.

LOL.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

You should update it with marc atlantic online piece that suggests that according to 2 close rethug associates of rove , he was attacking her because he felt she was being successful at rehabilitating her image in recent months.

it will be a good read

by lori 2007-08-16 02:57PM | 0 recs
she's got nothing but good press

obama and edwards have gotten good press even when she flip flops on Nukes vs. Iran no one covers it.

by TarHeel 2007-08-16 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: she's got nothing but good press

you are just a hater. she is running a winning campaign and she is going to win running a campaign , its not her fault her campaign gets an A+ , everyone likes a winner.

by lori 2007-08-16 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: she's got nothing but good press

Any body that disagrees with Hillary's campaign is a hater. Rovian at it;s best

by BDM 2007-08-16 05:19PM | 0 recs
Re: she's got nothing but good press

I love how Lori and Areyouready tout how great any poll showing SHE-WHO-MUST-NOT-BE-NAMED as a fantastic poll, at the same time deriding anyone who dares question it.... Yet, when the poll shows someone other than SHE-WHO-MUST-NOT-BE-NAMED in the lead, it suddenly should be taken with a grain of salt... what hypocrites.

by yitbos96bb 2007-08-16 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: she's got nothing but good press

Yeah, it's pretty transparent.

by Steve M 2007-08-16 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: she's got nothing but good press

I have never said any poll should be taken with a grain of salt , frankly I dont care too much for polls because they are inconsistent . I believe Edwards is in the lead in Iowa but not by that much , case  in point another poll taken within the same time frame shows a much closer race . i.e. washington/abc poll.

by lori 2007-08-16 04:03PM | 0 recs
Re: she's got nothing but good press

ABC POLL SHOWS eDWARDS 28 oBAMA 27 AND CLINYON 22

aFTER ADHUSTMENTS MADE FOR THEIR TIGHTER VOYER SCREEN(SEE NYSTERY POLLSTER)

by BDM 2007-08-16 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

I read that, will add perhaps later. But I'm not going to psycho-analyze Karl Rove like many knee-jerk liberals. They fear Karl Rove, which is kind of funny. How can you win with such deep fear?

by areyouready 2007-08-16 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

you don't have to , its not really important anyway , yeah its shocking how many people on this blog pick their candidates from a position of weakness i.e. fear of karl rove . Hey don't vote for a particular candidate because of what rove thinks.

by lori 2007-08-16 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

If I'm a Democratic candidate and Karl Rove appears appears on the Rush Limbaugh Show, I'd be worried if the two of them don't attack me!

Speaking of Karl Rove, maybe he should focus his public comments on explaining his role in the firing of the US Attornies, rather than commenting on the Presidential race.

by hwc 2007-08-16 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

I can never understand the fear towards Karl Rove among many liberals.

This guy is way overrated. He almost blew Bush's 2000 election depiste apparent polling advantage before elections. Kerry was a very weak candidate, George W. managed to squeak out a win in war time. He blew big time in 2006 election arguing polls did not matter and he had some sort of magic formula before election.

It's actually quite hilarious. Democrats lose a lot precisely because many are pretty weak. They are usually focused on fantasy stuff such as 'likeability'. BTW, I just checked George W.'s likeability numbers in 2000. He has a huge advantage over Gore, but still lost; In 2004, his negativity is around 45-47 in the end, but still won.

Clintons are the only two candidates who have shown strength in recent history.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

He blew big time in 2006 election arguing polls did not matter and he had some sort of magic formula before election.

Rove was counting on more success with his minority voter suppression efforts. That's why all the US Attornies who didn't play ball and bring voter fraud charges against Democratic groups right before the election were fired two months after the election.

by hwc 2007-08-16 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

Wrong is JA WAS AT 50 AND THAT IS ABOUT WHAT HE GOT IN THE VOTE

by BDM 2007-08-16 05:24PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

hE NEVER GOT MORE THAN 50# OF THE VOTE

by BDM 2007-08-16 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

wHY DIDN'Y hILLARY RUN IN 2004 IF SHE US SO GOOD, tHEN WE WOULD HAVE GOT RID OF bUSH EARLIER.

by BDM 2007-08-16 05:32PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Edwards 30, Clinton 22, Obama 18,

Hillary had made a commitment to the voters of New York to serve her entire 6 year term, starting in 2000.

Obama made the same commitment to the voters of Illinois.

by hwc 2007-08-16 05:46PM | 0 recs
The "leaners" argument

that somehow this poll is more favorable to Edwards because leaners are included, just doesn't jive. In most of the Iowa polls, when leaners are taken out, Edwards % rises.

by okamichan13 2007-08-16 04:02PM | 0 recs
as usual, the undecided number is too low

They pushed leaners way too hard.

I think that 40 to 50 percent of caucus-goers are still undecided. Even if you include leaners, I would be shocked if the undecided figure is below 25 percent. A lot of people haven't been paying close attention yet, but they tell me they plan to read up on the candidates this fall.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-16 04:10PM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton's unfavorables not comparable

In 1992 most people were just starting to hear about Bill when the Gennifer Flowers story hit.

So his unfavorable number in spring or early summer 1992 is not really comparable to Hillary's numbers now, when Americans have had 15 years to form an opinion about her.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-16 04:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton's unfavorables not comparable

I don't believe we should take advice from a so-called 'pro' who has yet to back a winning presidential candidate...

You'll probably continue that losing streak...

by areyouready 2007-08-16 04:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton's unfavorables not comparable

So NY Yankees fans are more credible baseball experts, I suppose.

by DPW 2007-08-16 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton's unfavorables not comparable

You're really a piece of work.

Not so long ago this blog attracted a lot of us who got fed up with dK because here there was a greater degree of thougthfulness and civility. I'm not sure why you think you need to attack everyone but I do know it can't help your candidate. Just ask yourself if Sen Clinton would want you to speak that way to fellow democrats? If you're so confident you'll win the nomination, then start winning people over instead of pushing people away.

by desmoulins 2007-08-16 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton's unfavorables not comparable

To be clear, my comment was directed at "areyouready" not the comment just above it. (And for the record, yes Yankees fans are more knowledgeable!)

by desmoulins 2007-08-16 04:50PM | 0 recs
Case Closed

So while his negatives are lower than hers, so are his positives.

This says it all!

by DoIT 2007-08-16 05:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Case Closed

The truth is positive/negative numbers do not correlate to real votes in the end. If that's the case, George W. would have won in a landslide in 2000.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

The above link, you can find Bush's favorables history in 2000. They are mostly in high 50s, low 60s, far far higher than Obama's, which seldom crosses 50. I'm kind of shocked that press is still calling him Mr. likeable. LOL.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Case Closed

You'll also notice that a lot of people have either never heard of or are still undecided about Obama, but his net favorability ratings are usually high.

As for Bush, he was up against an incumbent vice president with decades of experience who was running to succeed a popular, successful two-term president.  By any logical measure, Al Gore should have won in a landslide -- which is why whenever someone tells me Bush stole Florida, I reply "Florida shouldn't have been close enough for him to steal".  But alas, it was the "likable but inexperienced" George Bush who won the election.

Historically, Americans have often favored the "likable but inexperienced" candidates in presidential elections (1960, 1976, 1980, 1992, 2000).  Not always by a landslide, but it gives them the edge.  Do you really think Kennedy would have won without his charm and charisma?

by Namtrix 2007-08-16 05:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Case Closed

Obama is no Kennedy, my friend. LOL. If you compare his 'likability' number with Bush's at roughly the same time, Bush had quite an edge. I'd advise him to quit calling 'to know me is to love me first'.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Case Closed

You apparently missed my point since I wasn't comparing Obama to Kennedy.

But anyway, onto your point about Bush -- he was much more well-known than Obama is right now and the country has changed drastically since then so you can't really compare the two.  But like I said before, Obama's "net" numbers are still good.

by Namtrix 2007-08-16 06:51PM | 0 recs
edwards

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/08/john_edwards_long_slow_slide.h tml


But while Edwards built what was thought to be a formidable lead in Iowa, the one-time Hawkeye State frontrunner has recently seen his steady support slowly erode. A poll conducted last October, by the Democratic firm Harstad Strategic Research (which now polls for rival Senator Barack Obama), showed Edwards leading by 20 points, at 36%, to Hillary Clinton's 16% and Obama's 13%. In early April, Edwards' RCP Average led the field at 31.3%. His average now trails Clinton's, at 24% to her 26.3%.

The former Senator's poll numbers wouldn't be a problem, many analysts say, if Edwards were plotting his campaign differently. Edwards' strategy "certainly seems to be putting all the chips in Iowa," national political analyst Rhodes Cook said. For him to be successful, and even to survive until the February 5th Super Duper Tuesday, "he needs to win it."

Edwards' campaign disputes the notion that he may be slipping in Iowa. "John Edwards is strong in Iowa right now because this election, more than ever, is about voters wanting to go in a new direction," campaign spokeswoman Colleen Murray said.

Without the overwhelming bank accounts Clinton and Obama boast, Edwards is unable to run a national campaign like the two front-runners. "He's made a strategic choice that the best way to vault himself to serious consideration is to win Iowa," Covington said. For Edwards, said Adelstein, "it's all dependent on that bounce out of Iowa."

Reports suggest that Edwards, instead of expanding his campaign, is zeroing in on Iowa more so than he has in the past. He recently shifted campaign staff from Nevada, another state with early caucuses, to Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, condensing his operations. That, says Adelstein, is a problem. "As the map narrows for a candidate, it's the tell-tale sign that they're in trouble."

Even if Edwards does win Iowa, the condensed primary calendar could take its toll. With other contests likely to follow so soon and in such rapid succession, momentum gained in Iowa may not mean as much this year as it has in previous cycles. "The danger is it's kind of an all-or-nothing thing," said Rhodes Cook. "The term 'all,' in this case, may mean you live to fight another day."

The pressure of winning Iowa may be getting to Edwards. At a recent appearance in Creston, Iowa, Edwards suggested that, because of his positions, an unnamed "they" are out to get him. "I'm out there speaking up for universal health care, ending this war in Iraq, speaking up for the poor. They want to shut me up."

"If we don't stand up to these people, if we don't fight them, and if we don't beat them, they're going to continue to control this country," Edwards said.

Other campaigns say they smell blood in the water. "Our ID calls in Iowa have shown a pretty clear and steady erosion in Edwards' support over the past several weeks," said a staffer for a rival campaign. "Their flailing and almost palpable sense of desperation over the past few weeks, I think, confirms that."

Edwards' rhetoric relating to his opponents has been sharper as well. At a recent debate sponsored by the AFL-CIO, Edwards took a barely veiled jab at former President Bill Clinton, and by extension his wife, standing just a few steps to Edwards' side, for supporting NAFTA. At a forum with liberal bloggers, Edwards criticized Clinton's refusal to return contributions from lobbyists.

by areyouready 2007-08-16 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: edwards

Just adnit it Edwards is ahead in IA

by BDM 2007-08-16 05:28PM | 0 recs
that trash talk might fly in New York

but Iowans are not going to take their cue from some staffer's blind quote.

Edwards remembers how Kerry seemed dead in the water two months before the caucus. He is not going to panic. He's got his game plan for winning Iowa.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-16 10:49PM | 0 recs
Its inevitable«

the rest of us should just pack it in and go home.

by mihan 2007-08-16 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll:

Polls lately have been topsy-turvy.  I wish they would stabilize to give us an firm idea of who is where.  Obama winning Iowa would be the only threat to Hillary.  I'm not worried about Edwards winning it.

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-16 07:49PM | 0 recs
don't expect stability

This state is hard to poll.

A huge number of people will make up their minds in the final weeks. Right now what matters more is not who is a few points ahead, but who has room to gain more support.

Dean or Gephardt led every poll in Iowa for at least six months, but the bulk of the undecided voters had already ruled them out.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-16 10:47PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads