New Iowa Poll: Clinton and Edwards On The Rise; Obama Dropping

More troubling news for Barack Obama out of Iowa:

The poll, conducted with 500 likely caucus goers from each party on Wednesday and Thursday, showed Edwards and Obama tied with 29 percent to lead Democrats, followed by Clinton with 28 percent. Bill Richardson was fourth with 7 percent. Joe Biden was fifth with 3 percent. Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich both had 1 percent and 2 percent were undecided. . . . Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina, has gained 5 points from the Lee Enterprises poll two weeks ago, while Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, has gained 4 points. Obama, a U.S. senator from Illinois has seen his support drop 4 points. Richardson, the governor of New Mexico, has lost 2 points. The support for Biden, Dodd and Kucinich was unchanged.

The trend is pretty clear now. Obama down, Clinton and Edwards up. This bodes ill for Obama.

< Obama Defends Axelrod's Clinton Remarks | Steve Clemons: Is Axelrod Nuts? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Go read Pollster.com (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by tommyg on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    Trying to come up with trends based on polling right after Christmas is just stupid, sorry to say.

    Yes, the race is close, just as it's ever been.

    the trend is pre and post Christmas (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:06:13 PM EST
    and Pollster really does not know if these polls are weighted.

    I see their point but found it very light on knowledge of what these pollsters are doing.


    Perhaps This Explains (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    All the Bhutto nonsense.  Because, really, Obama and his people are smarter about foreign affairs than the crap they've been spewing the past couple of days about Pakistan.

    polling error (none / 0) (#2)
    by Natal on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:23:11 PM EST
    The differences have been well within the margin of error for some time. It could just mean the error is consistent within the confidence intervals.

    So by that thinking (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    every poll movement of less than 6 points is meaningless.

    Even if it is consistent in every poll.

    Look, MOE does not mean it is likely to be somehwere between that range.

    the most likely result is the number of the poll, then 1 out, then 2 out, etc.

    Polls are likely meaningless, but if they are not, then we must look at the results and not debunk those which we do not like.

    Finally, the absolute results are not what I am focused on but the trends in EVERY POLL in Iowa - which are almost uniformly Clinton and Edwards up, Obama down.


    From the Obama campaign (none / 0) (#4)
    by Aaron on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 12:58:47 PM EST
    [Outside groups are in the process of pouring more than $3.2 million into Iowa to support Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

    A new group, run by John Edwards' former campaign manager, is spending nearly a million dollars of unregulated money to run a so-called "issue" ad in Iowa this week. The ad touts "the Edwards plan" and prominently features a smiling John Edwards -- but the group claims it isn't meant to promote one candidate or another.

    Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's friends from Washington are spending millions on attacks, including a mailing that misleads voters by falsely disparaging Barack's universal health care plan. The mailing carefully uses a quote from another candidate and mimics the design of that candidate's mailings -- apparently with the hope that Iowans offended by the negativity will think it came from someone else.

    The case has never been clearer -- this kind of politics needs to end.]


    [Attack ads and insults, distractions and dishonesty, and millions of dollars from outside groups and undisclosed donors.

    The Washington establishment is throwing everything at us to try and block our path. And these outside attack groups are just another part of the same broken system that turns people off from the political process.

    We chose to do this differently.

    They said we couldn't compete without taking money from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.

    But you proved them wrong when we raised more small donations from more Americans than any other campaign in history -- more than 465,000 donors and counting.

    They said we couldn't be successful if we didn't have the full support of the establishment in Washington.]

    Heh (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    Well, why can't we all just get along?

    I've heard this Rodney King quotation elsewhere... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Aaron on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:29:02 PM EST
    ...around the net, specifically in reference to Obama, and there always seems to be a racial component attached to it.  I don't know if that's how you meant it, but whether you are conscious of it or not, that quote invokes images of racial conflict.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:43:57 PM EST
    I do not agree with you at all on that.

    But KUMBAYA! if you prefer.


    It can't just reflect Obama's (none / 0) (#14)
    by seabos84 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:43:32 PM EST
    stunning, staggering, stupefying


    IF he had a whole bunch of new ideas,

    instead of hot air about new ideas


    The guy is 1 of 100 United States Senators.

    1 or 3 thugs can stop any and all progress for 290 million Americans, BUT

    Obama can't PROPOSE a comprehensive set of potential laws that are

    POOF! Make us all get Along!

    If all this new ideas stuff was bottled up in the legislative ques in DC,

    I'd know what the hell he was talking about.

    EVERY election some pappy odanieal comes out with something NEW! CHANGE!

    One constant this 47 yr. old is seeing in the Obama campaign are older people who are, once again, suspending disbelief AND

    younger people who are new to politics and who are therefore unfamiliar with all kinds of soaring rhetoric and all kinds of NO results.



    It's hard to take even trend lines (none / 0) (#8)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:12:26 PM EST
    seriously since Iowa is so hard to poll.

    But, just to play the game ... things do not look as rosy for Obama as they did a few weeks ago.

    I find myself ambivalent about Iowa.  I really don't want to see Obama come in third.  Even if I'm not enamored with him. On the other hand, I like Edwards but am beginning to feel (well, I've felt it for a long time) that even a big win in Iowa for him (which is doubtful) is a waste.  

    I tend to agree. (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by RenaRF on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:39:19 PM EST
    Especially about ambivalence.  What I would like to see is a serious crack in the Clinton campaign.  I have really avoided campaign-related comments, but I can't stomach Hillary.  I just can't.  And I've tried.

    So ANYTHING that indicates slipping support for her and gaining support for any of her competitors brightens my day a bit.  Yet I still remain ambivalent about her competitors!



    It's no secret (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    that I don't think much of Obama or the campaign he's run. I will frankly be happy if he loses, though the viable alternatives aren't wonderful.

    Edwards has trouble (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:17:30 PM EST
    translating a big win in Iowa int5o more than big mo for NH because he has to play on unequal ground because of the public financing issue.

    This is similar to the split in 2004 on money. all the silly hypocritical talk about money in politics from the likes of Obama and Dean went out the window when it came time to give up an advantage in THEIR RACE.

    It is precisely why I HATE all the silly talk on "campaign finance reform."

    They are all a bunch of lying hypocrites.


    Campaign Finance Reform (none / 0) (#12)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    needs to be discussed and changes need to be made.  But you do it once you've won and you have a chance of getting something through Congress, you don't disarm yourself in the middle of a war just because you believe in ratcheting down an arms race.  You wait until you win.

    Edwards was stupid on that.

    Even if Edwards wins Iowa it's still a 2 person race.  Edwards just solidifies himself as a spoiler for either Clinton or Obama on Super Tuesday.  (And I haven't yet figured out if he takes votes away from Hillary without hurting Obama or takes too many votes away from Obama too in, for instance, my state.)

    If Obama comes in 2nd to Edwards he's fine because the anybody but Hillary message from Iowa leads into NH. He comes in 3d, he has problems.  


    Public Financing (none / 0) (#15)
    by BDB on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    Is the only answer and that requires a constitutional amendment.  Otherwise it's unilateral disarmament and no smart politician should ever agree to that.  In fact, I'd argue that there will be no agreement on public financing until Democrats consistently out raise or at least compete regularly with Republicans.  Until then, Republicans will never agree.  In this regard, the huge amounts the Dems are raking in from all sources is great not only for this election but for starting a process where Republicans might start to think public financing is a good idea.

    The problem is that corporations and interests groups will still want to fight it.  I tend to think lobbyists affect Congress members more than Presidents because House members have to run every two years and a little money can make a big difference.  If a president is popular it's difficult for a single interest group to take him or her down.  Possible, but the playing field is so big it's hard for any interest to be THAT important.  Where they kill us is in the legislature.  Which is why I worry about healthcare and energy policy - I don't worry about the policies proposed by the Big 3 Dems, I worry about Congress and the effect special interest money will have there.


    Deep Sadness (none / 0) (#17)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    A glance at the two frontrunners for the Democratic nomination should deeply sadden any person aware of the great importance of the GOP not retaining the White House.

    Here the Democratic party has a chance to let this election emerge as a referendum on eight years of Republican rule, and it is screwing around with cults of personality.

    The GOP wins in 08, that's it for the Supreme Court, that's just it.  And, say goodbye to any possibility for Health Care reform.  Etc.  Plus, as a parting gift the Iraq debacle not only prolonged, but actually conjoined by new wars of choice.

    What is desperately needed is a Democratic candidate who can not only hold the Blue North and the West Coast, but who can at least contend for a couple of Southern states and most importantly, can outright win some Western states.

    Electoral politics (none / 0) (#18)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    I've never understood why an electoral vote in the South is somehow more valuable than an electoral vote in the Midwest. Winning Missouri (as Claire Mckaskill did) is worth the same was winning Tennessee. Winning Iowa (as Harkin, Vilsack, and Culver did) is worth more than Mississippi. Winning Indiana (as Evan Bayh did) is worth more than Alabama.

    Every candidate has their strengths and weaknesses on a national ticket but somehow the Midwest is consistently overlooked when judging electability.

    There are 38 GOP electoral votes available to turn Dem that are neighboring states of Illinois.


    But New York is a tossup with O (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    and leagues more expensive than Indiana.

    RCP averages (none / 0) (#21)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:31:53 PM EST
    RCP national averages:

    Clinton +1.8% vs. Giuliani
    Obama +5.7% vs. Giuliani
    Edwards +2.7% vs. Giuliani

    I don't have the latest NY polls but 'electability' is bigger than one poll in NY vs. one possible GOP nominee. You can make electability arguments for any candidate on a number of factors but if polling data is your criteria Sen. Clinton is the least electable as she gets beat by McCain in all current scenarios and has a smaller spread against other GOP nominees than both Obama and Edwards.


    I'm never interested in national polls (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:48:11 PM EST
    and I do have a recent New York poll.

    Here are the disturbing matchups:

    What if it was Rudy Giuliani against Democrat Barack Obama?

    46%    Giuliani
    48%    Obama
    6%    Undecided

    What if it was John McCain against Barack Obama?

    43%    McCain
    47%    Obama
    10%    Undecided

    Previous scenarios are worse, and others have been better.

    Never? (none / 0) (#26)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 05:17:27 PM EST
    Thanks for the poll data.

    FYI - NY has 6% of the total available electoral votes. It's obviously key but it's not so key that the other 94% of the electoral votes don't matter.


    Absolutely (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 05:51:17 PM EST
    only individual state polls are interesting to me. National polls are not interesting.

    Fine (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:12:23 PM EST
    I'm not saying electoral votes in the South matter more.  Fine, they need to break the chokehold somewhere --Mizzou, Iowa, Indiana, any or all of them would be freakin great.  

    But instead of concentrating on breaking the chokehold, the Dems dither around with clowns.

    BTW: If these people are such great leaders why haven't they emerged as leaders in the Senate?  Here the Dems control Congress, but you'd never know it, the saga of GOP rule has been slowed down, but continues nonetheless.  



    Most Senators are stubborn egotists (none / 0) (#23)
    by joejoejoe on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:43:41 PM EST
    Sen. Obama tried to translate popular oppositon into pressure on the status quo within the US Senate.

    While on a campaign stop in Waterloo, Obama took the unusual step Sunday of calling on Iowans to pressure Grassley to support the Democrats. "There's at least one senator right here in Iowa who could be helpful if he votes with us to bring this war to a close," Obama said in Waterloo.

    He didn't mention Grassley by name, but he issued a press release the same day that did.

    On Wednesday, when he was asked about the remarks, Grassley said: "It's not senatorial, and if you can't be senatorial, how can you be presidential?"

    "Generally when you're in another state, you don't take pokes at a fellow senator. I would find it very difficult to go into Illinois and tell his constituents to get on him about something," he added.

    Obama has been saying regularly the Senate is 16 votes shy of overturning President Bush's veto of a war spending bill that sets a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

    Sen. Obama got a lot of criticism for being naive and for not taking a "not funding" approach but at least he tried to break out of the old Senate traditions and directly pressure his fellow Senators on their home turf. He's done the same in NH and talked about neighboring Maine as well.

    You can say "So what?" but the same can be said of every strategy that failed over the past 3 years. Saying "I'm a fighter" or "I'm experienced" seems to be far less impressive than directly challenging the status quo.


    That may be (none / 0) (#22)
    by illissius on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:41:43 PM EST
    but Edwards basically shot himself in the foot, the other foot, both arms and the ass by taking public financing, on this front. Getting outspent by a hundred million dollars or more is no way to win an election. The only scenario where this isn't a heavy liability is if the GOP picks McCain (which does seem increasingly likely), but then it'd be throwing away the chance to do the same to them.

    Who would you suggest?


    Who indeed? (none / 0) (#25)
    by glanton on Fri Dec 28, 2007 at 04:54:06 PM EST
    At this point it just seems too late.  Just watch the spectacle unfold.  They've screwed themselves as a Party, it's just a  question of which Republican blight of human skin will reap the rewards.  

    Edwards is indeed drowned in money--Edwards, the most palatable, certainly the most issue-driven of three frontrunning Senators who never impacted legislation in a meaningful way.

    Who is left?  Perhaps if Democratic primary voters and money donors weren't so blinded by their respective cults of personality, they could have gotten behind Richardson or even someone we haven't heard of.  I would imagine lots of competent and decent souls, people with actual track records of leadership and without baggage out the wazoo, were warded off by the economic behemoths Obama and Clinton.