New Iowa Polls

Zogby starts his tracking poll today. His first finding, Clinton 31, Obama 27, Edwards 24.

When the second choices of the potentially unviable second tier candidates are taken into account, "the result is Clinton 35.8%, Obama 33.4%, Edwards 30.8%."

I'll be honest. I do not trust Zogby at all. I believe he manipulates his polls. So I leave it up to you folks whether you believe this result.

In a different poll, Mason Dixon finds: Edwards 24, Clinton 23, Obama 22 and RICHARDSON 12. The fact is that these numbers are not in line with any other polls. The numbers are, except for the Richardson number (which is a real outlier), much LOWER for ALL of the candidates. But who knows? Maybe this is the one that got it right. Additionally, Mason Dixon sees second choices leading to a significant Edwards victory. When the potential nonviable support is allocated, the result is Edwards 33, Clinton 26, Obama 26.

What do we make of all this? I believe we are where we were, Edwards surging, Clinton moving up, Obama fading. We'll see what happens from here.

One last thing, Romney is going to win Iowa and, imo, the GOP nomination. Mason Dixon join ARG as having Romney in the lead and Zogby has him in a tie. It is going to be a big MO night for Romney who may end up the biggest story of the night.

< Guantanamo Down to 275 Detainees | What If Edwards Wins Iowa? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama / Edwards numbers inverted (none / 0) (#1)
    by Coral on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:00:57 AM EST
    At the Zogby site, it's Clinton 31, Obama 27, Edwards 24.


    Thanks (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    You are right.

    Willy Crucifies Huck (none / 0) (#3)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:29:28 AM EST
    I want to see the talking heads deal with this one.

    All the talking heads said going negative in Iowa would backfire ala Dean-Gephardt.

    All the talking heads said Iowa will punish candidates who negative brand during the holidays.

    All the talking heads raved about the brilliance of the baby-jesus commercial.

    Hell, Willard would even cut a Christmas ad for his web site.

    now, in overcoming a double-digit deficit, Willy can claim the title of comeback-kid.  And he did it by ignoring all the talking heads.  He did it even though he screwed up on MTP, his MLK statements, and his planned parenthood lies.

    It will be interesting to see the beltway backlash when McCain goes down - via another negative campaign, no less.

    Lastly, to the extend Democrats feared Clinton would hurt the down ticket, candidate Willard will  elevate those concerns.

    Forget 3rd parties.  We may have a 4-way race: clinton, Willy, Bloomie, and ron paul.  CSPAN callers were furious with their own Wurlitzer for hammering Huck and for snubbing Paul.

    Slick Willie (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:50:30 AM EST
    I think it would be very appropriate for Dems to take over and use Slick Willy for the Mittster.  

    Especially with his brylcreem hair (none / 0) (#6)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:54:52 AM EST
    considering his speaking/lying style and his hair helmet, "Slick Willy" would be the new "Felix"

    He does remind me of (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:24:47 AM EST
    the proverbial crooked used car salesmen. Anyone remember the question about Nixon- would you buy a used car from that man?

    Would you buy one from Willie Mitt?


    527 Ad (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:28:56 AM EST
    There's a great 527 ad or YouTube viral video in the idea that Mitt Romney is nothing but a used car salesman (and a bad one).  Something to keep in mind if he's the nominee.

    You must admit he has a "Presidential" (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    head of white hair, a big asset; but, then again, he lloks so much like his father, which always reminds me of Dad's "I was brainwashed" admission.  I know Mitt's weaknesses as a condidate, but what are his strengths from a Republican voter's viewpoint?

    Mitt's Strengths (none / 0) (#11)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:48:33 AM EST
    1. White
    2. Looks presidential - the hair, those shoulders, the gender-card playing BS
    3. Rich
    4. Not Huckabee
    5. Not Paul
    6. Not McCain
    7. Doesn't have Guiliani's interesting private life and is even more willing to pander on abortion and social issues

    Shorter Version:

    Mitt's main strength is that the Republican field is very weak.


    Not at all. (none / 0) (#12)
    by RedHead on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:53:02 AM EST
    He's close to being a "greaser."

    Keith Olbermann has "presidential" looks, Slick Willy looks manufactured.  Remember there was that internal memo that complained that his hair was too perfect.   It doesn't look organic.  It looks like one of Burt Reynolds' bad mops cira 1978.


    I'm thinking perhaps how one (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:09:22 PM EST
    views Mitt's hair style may depend on one's age.  

    I Don't Believe Zogby Either (none / 0) (#4)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 09:49:43 AM EST
    Frankly, both of these polls seem off to me.  But it's so close and they're polling over the holidays so who knows?

    I honestly don't want the Huckabee phenomenon to be over so soon.  I want to see the Republicans rip each other to shreds.  They've worked so hard for this split, they deserve to have it last.

    The Huckster (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 11:07:24 AM EST
    has no organization - but he DOES have church ladies.  He may come out OK in Iowa.  A second for him doesn't kill him.  

    Interesting Pollster Graphs (none / 0) (#13)
    by BDB on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 12:04:14 PM EST
    Via DailyKos, pollster.com has put up graphs showing trend lines, poll averages and sensitive movements.  It's unclear how accurate the sensitive stuff is, particularly since the most recent polls are from some of the least reliable pollsters.  But FWIW - here you go.  If the sensitive trend is at all accurate, a very big if, I'd say it's great news for Edwards, good news for Clinton, and worrisome news for Obama.  

    Romney? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Kewalo on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:50:21 PM EST
    No kidding? I think the Huckster is going to take IA. I guess we'll see on Fri.

    This sure is fun!