New Iowa Poll: Obama Fading Badly

Now we see why the Obama campaign conference call seems to reek of desperation. A new Iowa poll:

Clinton 30 (24)
Edwards 29 (26)

Obama 22 (27)

Uh oh.

< Expectations Game: Obama Campaign Predicts Win In Iowa | DMR Poll And My New Endorsement >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess this means Boren, Nunn et al (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:19:42 PM EST
    will carry out their threat. Be afraid, be very afraid.

    I'm Shaking In My Boots (none / 0) (#4)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:23:49 PM EST
    Or Not.  :-)

    Edwards or Clinton






    Ron Paul

    How much fun would that be?


    Big Dog, Jimmy Carter and Howard Dean, (none / 0) (#7)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    among others, haven't weighed in yet on "Plan B"...they think Plan A is fine and may want to point out that this isn't the year to destroy the Democratic Party with a Fifth Column...talk about going down in the history books...

    Its Clinton 30, Edwards 29 (none / 0) (#2)
    by sammiemorris on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:20:11 PM EST
    you have the numbers reversed, but in any case, its not a big deal.

    Second Choice (none / 0) (#3)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    Edwards is now killing him on second choice.  And even Clinton is beating him.

    Even if this poll isn't accurate, it still hurts him because it gives the impression he's dropping, probably pushing undecideds to Edwards or even Clinton.

    Given how recent the drop appears to be for Obama, I'd say the Bhutto stuff re-raised questions about him (experience, etc.) that he had put away.  His campaign handled that entire episode very badly, IMO.  Much worse than I think President Obama would've handled the actual crisis.

    I also wonder if his attacks about unions and 527s hasn't also hurt him.  Unions love Edwards and a lot of folks in Iowa love unions.

    The Prize (none / 0) (#5)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:29:11 PM EST
    This poll confirms it - Obama is finished.

    It's time to move to the bigger question: who wins Iowa and by how much.

    If Edwards wins by high single digits, it's a good chance that he will take NH.

    If Clinton wins, regardless of the margin, CROWN her!

    Is this poll from InsiderAdvantage (none / 0) (#6)
    by illissius on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:30:51 PM EST
    as suggested from the link's URL? Aren't they the rather shady ones pollster.com (iirc) had an article about a while back?

    It is odd how many times, the pollsters of ill repute seem to have their way-out-of-line results reflected by the pollsters of better repute a week or two later.

    Edwards For America ?? (none / 0) (#8)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    maybe we should root for Edwards.

    I just read this on Taylor Marsh's site

    KURTZ: I had the impression it was a camp reunion when I was out there in Iowa. And it is great, the retail campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire. It is fun to cover and it is real, but it's -- when the votes are counted and we decide who did well -- for example, Hillary Clinton, let's say she doesn't win Iowa. Let's say she gets edged out by 1,000 votes.
    Is the press going to savage her as a loser?

    MILBANK: The press will savage her no matter what, pretty much.

    KURTZ: If she wins?

    MILBANK: Well, obviously if she wins by any great margin -- the press with Hillary Clinton, it's a poisonous relationship. And I visited the various campaigns out there. It's a mutual sort of disregard. And they really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it out there. So...

    KURTZ: And to what extent do you think that is affecting the coverage of Senator Clinton?

    MILBANK: I think it unquestionably is. And I think Obama gets significantly better coverage than Hillary Clinton does, and given an equal performance he'll come out better for it.

    KURTZ: Is this because journalists like Obama better than Hillary or...

    MILBANK: It's more that they dislike Hillary Clinton. There is a long history there, her antagonism towards the press. It's returned in spades. And it is a venomous relationship that I see out there.

    Wouldn't Edwards, atleast, start the campaign with a clean slate ?

    For 15 minutes then haircuts and mansions on my! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:49:45 PM EST
    Think back to 2004 (none / 0) (#11)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:04:23 PM EST
    MoDo wrote columns about Kerry using botox.  Then they bashed Teresa.

    Still, on the whole, did the MSM treat him as bad as they treated Clinton?

    It's an interpretative judgment.

    O/T it looks like Huck has run out of cash.


    The 2nd preferences (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 02:56:44 PM EST
    of the "other" voters overwhelmingly go to Edwards. If this is right, Edwards wins Iowa.

    He should win bigtime with first preferences (none / 0) (#12)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:39:31 PM EST
    given that he's had four years to improve on his last Iowa performance.  Wha' hoppen?

    But...But.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:48:40 PM EST
    Obama has a PowerPoint presentation!

    When your releasing a fricking PowerPoint presentation on why you should win three days out, something has gone seriously wrong with your campaign.  Not an ad, not a great new speech, but a PowerPoint.  It's even sadder that it's coming from such a talented speech giver.  Clinton could use a PowerPoint and maybe get away with it because she's known as a wonk.  Obama is supposed to be the inspiring one.  PowerPoints do not inspire anything but the urge for a nap.


    You're not Your (none / 0) (#16)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:49:08 PM EST

    If Only he had used Keynote instead! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:17:23 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    did Obama's campaign hand out the (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    print out of the Powerpoint in advance?  God, I hate that.

    What outfit (none / 0) (#13)
    by pontificator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:45:45 PM EST
    conducted this poll?

    Insider Advantage (none / 0) (#17)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:59:45 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by pontificator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:01:25 PM EST
    If Obama finishes a distant third, as this poll suggests, then he HAS to win NH or he is in real trouble.

    Bounce and Big Mo vs Big Fall (none / 0) (#20)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:08:14 PM EST
    The IA winner will receive a BIG bounce.

    Edwards wins IA, he not only receives a bounce from the pool of soft supporters, undecideds, and Indies, but even some hard Obama supporters will peel off to join the stop-clinton-candidate.

    Shorter: If Edwards wins by 5 or more points, Obama is done.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#21)
    by pontificator on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    This isn't 2004.  There is no precedent for NH following just five days after Iowa, so it's hard to make absolute predictions about an Iowa bounce.  I think it's quite possible that there won't be much of an Iowa bounce, and that NH will pick its nominee independently., simply because there won't be time for the IA result to truly affect the NH outcome.

    But we'll see.  These things are quite hard to predict, obviously.


    The "Fun" continues. (none / 0) (#23)
    by RedHead on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    you're right.

    it's too early to say there will be a bounce.  But we'll know by the weekend.

    At which point, I'm dying to see how Team Clinton hammers Edwards (if he's the winner).


    That's how I see it (none / 0) (#26)
    by tommyg on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:07:47 PM EST
    Unless Edwards can win by a large margin, there won't be much of a bounce for him in NH.
    Obama voters will probably split evenly and Clinton will have a clear advantage.  From there, she'll be unstoppable.

    "LIve free or die." (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    Wait.. (none / 0) (#14)
    by DA in LA on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 03:48:07 PM EST
    We are actually going to take a poll from over the holiday break seriously?

    I'll pass

    It's probably (none / 0) (#19)
    by RalphB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 04:06:44 PM EST
    wrong but it's all we've got to play with until the DMR poll releases tonight.

    Or until the bowl games start. (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    Yep, Obama is finished in Iowa (none / 0) (#25)
    by tommyg on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    If he even comes in 2nd place, I would be shocked.  This is great news for Clinton.  She's going to be our nominee.

    Edwards has been a very (none / 0) (#27)
    by MarkL on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:37:48 PM EST
    positive influence on the race, IMO, even though I support Hillary. Obama? Ugh. He's run the nastiest campaign and has used the most dishonest smears to attack his opponents. Furthermore, his Kumbayah shtick has been a tremendous distraction.
    Instead of a debate over how best to fight Republicans, Obama has forced us to take a step 15 years backwards and debate whether we should fight Republicans at all. One year ago I almost loathed Hillary, somewhat liked Edwards, and was non-committal about Obama.
    Now I feel slightly better about Edwards, MUCH better about Hillary, and I can't stand the thought of Obama as nominee.

    Totally Agree. (none / 0) (#29)
    by BDB on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:46:27 PM EST
    I'm also a Clinton supporter, but she's benefitted from having Edwards pressuring her to her left.  I didn't necessarily like his corporate democrat attack because I'm not convinced it's true, but I do think those kind of attacks force her to demonstrate why it's not true and that's a good thing.  Clinton is also a smart enough politician that if Edwards' populist language proves popular, I think we can count on her adopting some of it.  Which is also a good thing, IMO.

    I don't think Edwards can beat Clinton for the nomination.  But, honestly, if he does, he'll deserve it.  He'll be a strong nominee because he had to do it the hard way without the hype and money.  And, like Clinton, he brings the added bonus of driving the Village crazy.  He's my second choice, but he's a very strong second choice.  

    I was sure I'd be an Obama supporter, but he's been a disappointment.  All that talent and he hasn't used it to do very much.  He's been more cautious than Clinton and I never like it when a Democrat attacks from the right.  That moves the debate in the wrong direction as far as I'm concerned.  He'll still have my support if he's the nominee - he's not awful or anything - but he hasn't been as impressive as Clinton and Edwards have been, which is surprising to me.


    I suppose it never occurred to y'all (none / 0) (#28)
    by Miss Devore on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 05:44:02 PM EST
    that this is exactly the behavior that Hillary is counting on?

    It's the Caucasian Caucus, mind you.

    Personally, I think it is most important to deny Hillary inevitability.

    And to rail against a ridiculous system.

    Hello (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    and Happy New Year to you.

    Hope all is well with you.


    Careful with the language (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 07:33:39 PM EST
    I understand that I will decide nothing.

    I just call em like I see em.

    And as I see it, Axelrod is blowing it.

    the sports approach (none / 0) (#36)
    by Miss Devore on Mon Dec 31, 2007 at 09:06:09 PM EST
    is deadly.

    in addition to being besides the point.