LATimes Iowa Poll: Clinton Leads

The LATimes just released Iowa and NH polls. While the NH poll shows good news for Obama, I am firmly in the camp that any NH poll PRIOR to the Iowa caucus means little. Couple that with today's developments regarding the Bhutto assassination, not to be found in this poll, and frankly, I think Hillary Clinton has to feel pretty good today. The Iowa results:

In Iowa, Clinton is backed by 29% of Democratic voters, compared with 26% for Obama and 25% for Edwards -- negligible differences because they are within the poll's margin of error. But when the survey focused more narrowly on voters who said they are certain or very likely to actually participate in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton's edge was more pronounced: 31% of likely caucus-goers support Clinton, while Obama's support drops to 22%. Edwards' support was unchanged.

I have believed Obama would narrowly win in Iowa. In light of recent polls and today's developments, I must say I am much less confident of such a result. Indeed, Clinton seems a slight favorite today, 7 days out from the Iowa caucuses.

< Edwards Talks to Musharraf About Bhutto Assassination | The Theory Of Change Referendum >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    andrea mitchell today (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:11:55 PM EST
    on Hardball was really strong in her belief that the Bhutto assassination helps Hillary. She went on and on about how it shows Hillary really does have experience from being first lady. I'm looking for a clip or transcript.

    I saw that. (none / 0) (#6)
    by RenaRF on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:40:21 PM EST
    I'm sure Hardball will post the entire transcript tonight.  When I heard Mitchell, though, her opinion seemed to stem from the fact that Clinton knew Bhutto and had met her when she (Clinton) traveled to Pakistan in 1994 in her capacity as First Lady.

    I don't know that I think it really amounts to a hill of beans, though.  I also am skeptical that most Americans even heard of Bhutto before today and I'm not sure the complexities and nuances of the importance of Pakistan and Bhutto's role in it are going to be something Joe Normal decides is a critical issue.

    Just my $.02.


    Poll is +/- 4 points (none / 0) (#2)
    by joejoejoe on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 07:38:10 PM EST
    It's a dead heat. It's all about turnout, 2nd choices, and ground game at this point. The big lie coming out of Iowa will be "Candidate X has momentum, Candidate Y has suffered a setback, and Candidate Z is collapsing" when all 3 candidates get support in the 30s.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 08:11:27 PM EST
    But Obama is now between 18 and 26 among LVs.

    Clinton is between 35 and 27 among LVs.

    Clinton's lead over OBAMA is outside the MOE in the LATimes poll.


    Obama runs even with Clinton in two key states (none / 0) (#4)
    by joejoejoe on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:23:01 PM EST
    That's the LA Times headline, not mine.

    If Clinton wins in Iowa it's going to be trouble for Obama but if Obama wins NH it's a race. If Edwards wins I'm not sure how things play out. I'm not sweating poll numbers a week before the Iowa caucus or the LA Times voter screen. The second choice figures should worry BOTH Clinton and Obama.

    Do you have a second choice in the Democratic caucus for president on January 3rd, or not?
    - - - - LV Dems
    Clinton 16 17
    Edwards 23 24
    Obama 18 20

    And 27% of likely Iowa voters say they might change their mind in the next week. In '04 Zogby had Kerry at 24% and Gephardt at 19% a week out from the caucus. They finished at 37% and 11% in the delegate counts. LV screens and second choice options are hard to poll. I'm confident in Obama's ground game in Iowa and that he's run the kind of campaign that is more likely to attract undecideds and late breakers. If Obama doesn't turn out his voters he'll lose. I won't be sorry about it. It will just add to the long list of candidates I supported in my life who didn't win.

    More polls at Pollster.com where the aggregate polling numbers have it 28.7% Clinton, 28.6% Obama -- which is why I called it a dead heat in my first comment.


    If Obama loses Iowa (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:56:39 PM EST
    he ain't winning NH.

    As for the LATimes headline, it was a crappy one frankly.

    If they believe in their poll, then the lede is clinton up 6.

    Now all poll stink, but if THEY think it, then do not write a story on it.


    New Hampshire (none / 0) (#9)
    by joejoejoe on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:12:52 PM EST
    If Clinton doubles up on Iowa and NH then it's over.

    If Edwards wins Iowa, or Clinton by only 1 or 2 points then Obama has a chance in NH because Edwards southern charm plays less well in crabby New England. Obama can pull independents in NH (Jan. 8) so he's got at least a wild hare of a chance even with an Iowa loss. Any scenario with a horserace coming out of NH favors Clinton heavily.

    One thing I can't figure at all is how Michigan (Jan. 15) and Florida (Jan. 29) will play in the press. There are no delegates at stake in the Democratic race but the press will still cover the results. Edwards and Obama aren't even on the MI ballot.

    I'm in FL and I'm not sure if I should vote or not because I was very opposed to the FL Dems moving the primary date against DNC rules and I don't want to endorse the FL Dems corrupt process by supporting their beauty contest. But that is probably cutting off my nose to spite my face or something so I'll just vote. I'm leaning Obama ;).


    What's the MOE in Iowa? (none / 0) (#5)
    by RenaRF on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:36:32 PM EST
    I still consider that pretty close.  I keep hearing about today's events, but I have to wonder - will it really resonate with the average voter?  I'm inclined to think not so much, considering many had never heard of Bhutto before today.  Furthermore, I think the news coverage is going to shift to the upcoming caucuses and away from Pakistan provided nothing explosive occurs there over the next couple of days.

    Experience on terrorism? (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 09:58:01 PM EST
    If this election is really going to turn on what terrorists in foreign countries do, then Giuliani or McCain win.
    Maybe if Hillary released all the Clinton presidential records and she was a hawk on terrorism all those years, then things will be different.  Being a cynic, I don't think that that's the way things were.  Maybe that's why no one is releasing any records of the actual 1993-2001 years.

    I agree on that. (none / 0) (#10)
    by RenaRF on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 10:16:29 PM EST
    It seems to me that McCain and Giuliani (and Hunter, but who's thinking about him?) would be salivating at a juicy bit of terrorism regardless of where it occurred.  It's the perfect excuse for them to stoke the flames of fear to try to bolster their efforts at the Presidency.

    Imagine my disappointment (though certainly not surprise) to find that Hillary Clinton was the one giving the doom-and-gloom "dangerous world we live in" speech.



    Rudy has experience with terrorism other than (none / 0) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 07:13:10 AM EST
    observing it?

    If THAT is the criteria... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by RenaRF on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:32:20 PM EST
    ...then I also have experience with terrorism given that I witnessed the Pentagon fireball.

    Good point!


    When do you announce? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:38:36 PM EST