home

ARG Iowa Poll: Clinton With Large Lead

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:01:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Apparently Dick Bennett of ARG does not buy into the record Independent turnout the DMR Gold Standard Poll does. Clinton With a 9 Point Lead:

Clinton 34
Obama 25
Edwards 21

(12/31-1/02)

ARG predicts that only 17% of caucusgoers will be non-Democrats. 83% Democrats - with Clinton beating Obama and Edwards by 38-21 among Dems (DMR has Clinton winning among Dems by 33-27). ARG has Obama winning among the 17% of non-Democrats by 45-21. In 2004, Independents made up 19% and Republicans 1% of caucusgoers.

Someone will be a genius tonight - Ann Seltzer of DMR or Dick Bennett of ARG. John Zogby remains a charlatan no matter what the result is.

< Iowa Independents Flocking To Both Parties? | The Clinton Spin: She's Gonna Win >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    ARG Iowa Poll: Clinton With Large Lead | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:11:51 AM EST
    When the netwroks report on the entrance polls, we will know who won before they report the caucus results because they will certainly tell us the breakdown of cuacusgoers.

    If they report big Indy turnout along the lines the DMR Poll expects, then Obama wins.

    If they do not, Hillary wins.

    We'll know then.

    I would be more confident if the entrance (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:16:00 AM EST
    polls also gleened to whom each Independent is committed and if that is "definite."  Lots of wooing happening inside.

    Parent
    I predict Obama gets (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:21:02 AM EST
    50% of Indies and GOOPERS and 25% of Dems.

    With Indies comprising 28% of the caucus.

    Making Obama's total - 32%, good enough for a win.

    Parent

    I predict that if you are correct there (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:23:13 AM EST
    will be some mini-riots at the caucuses.  The traditional Dem. caucus goers are going to be plenty upset after getting there and standing around for a couple hours to see it go that way.

    Parent
    It will be their fault (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    So to heck with them.

    Parent
    This part is interesting: (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    84% of those saying they support Clinton say their support is definite.
    93% of those saying they support Edwards say their support is definite.
    97% of those saying they support Obama say their support is definite.
    I guess (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    I never know what that finding means.

    Parent
    I know you don't like "internals" (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:07:56 AM EST
    but ARG confirms that the non-affiliated voters will determine this. Without them, Hillary blows everyone else away. In just that group, Obama does the same.

    Parent
    No he confirms the opposite (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:10:22 AM EST
    He is saying Dems will determine this.

    He says, like the DMR poll does, that Hillary wins among Dems. He says, like the DMR poll does, that Obama wins among non-Dems.

    The issue is turnout. Of course, there is a difference in spread among Dems of 11 points as well between the two polls.

    Parent

    Well, that's the same thing put (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:12:12 AM EST
    a different way.

    If independents decide to vote in the Democratic primary in significant numbers, their preference for Obama will put him over the top. ARG thinks they will not, DMR thinks they will.

    Parent

    I see (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    by NOT participating they decide.

    Parent
    yup (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:43:34 AM EST


    Parent
    Query: if the first female Dem. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 10:47:50 AM EST
    Presidential primary candidate was someone other than Hillary Clinton, say a good looking, well-dressed woman from the midwest, first term senator from a midwestern state, with a fabulous wardrobe (not too flashy) and Obama's charm, perhaps educated at Harvard and with a pre-politican career working for a non-profit and teaching law at the Univ. of Chicago, who would you predict to win the nomination?

    That's a joke, right? (none / 0) (#14)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 11:08:44 AM EST
    Since except for Yale and representing midwestern state, that pretty much describes Hillary Clinton.

    Parent
    It does, but she comes with "baggage." (none / 0) (#16)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 02:59:22 PM EST


    Parent
    They All Come With Baggage (none / 0) (#19)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST
    There's no such thing as a virgin politician, particularly at the level of presidential politics.

    Parent
    Obama comes w/less baggage than (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:27:25 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton.  

    Parent
    Experience = Baggage? (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I am characterizing her from the viewpoint (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:41:44 PM EST
    of her detractors.  I'm not one of them.

    Parent
    I Know (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    But couldn't help noticing the irony.

    Parent
    Very observant. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 05:59:14 PM EST
    At the beginning of the primary run, I would have predicted Iowa Dem. caucuses would select any female before any non-Caucasian male.  Looks like I am not that good at predicting.  

    Parent
    how many of these supposed (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:37:30 PM EST
    "independents" had previously voted pretty much democratic? many people claim to be independent, but when questioned further, it turns out to be independent in name only, they generally vote a straight party ticket.

    that would make them democrats in reality, the old "substance v form" issue. DMR runs on the assumption that every respondent claiming to be "independent" is, in fact, a true independent. my guess is that is a wildy incorrect assumption.

    this might also explain the seemingly huge statistical variation on the increase in "independents" at the caucuses, from 2004 to now, as you noted in a prior thread.

    it might also explain why the DMR poll is the only one showing obama the winner, among the democratic candidates.

    I figure many of the "independents" are (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:00:36 PM EST
    young people voting in their first caucus and general election.  Don't have to be 18 until Nov. 08.

    Parent
    you're probably correct. (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    that being the case, can they truly be classified as independents, since they have no actual voting history?

    Parent
    "The Choice of Iowa Democrats" (none / 0) (#20)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 03:24:53 PM EST
    If Obama wins from crossover voters, I see Clinton or Edwards using something along this line.  And you can bet that HRC will try to use stories like this one (from the NYT via Taylor Marsh):

    Cheryl Talbert attended Romney's morning speech to employees of Principal Financial Group in Des Moines and said that as a moderate Republican, she likes him and Arizona Sen. John McCain. But she planned to attend a Democratic caucus, in what she called a ''defensive move'' against a Clinton presidency.

    ''I'm going to vote for Obama, as an anti-Hillary vote,'' she said, ''and I have two friends doing the same thing.''

    I can see it now, Obama won because of Republican voters who crossed over - "they want the Democratic nominee to be someone they can beat and they know they can't beat me."

    Now, personally, I think very few GOP voters who cross over will be motivated in this way, but these stories do provide a possible future spin by Clinton that Obama didn't win the Iowa democratic caucus, but instead the GOP gamed the system and Obama is the stooge who believes he won and can win in November 2008 because of it.  

    The thing that will hurt Clinton's attempt to spin Iowa in her favor should she lose is that the press hates her.  What might help is that the press might love a horse race more than it hates her or at least needs one.  What also might help is if McCain does well and drains independents from Obama in NH (who might not think he needs their votes if he wins Iowa and is anointed the nominee by the press).  

    ARG Iowa Poll: Clinton With Large Lead | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment