home

The Iowa Bounce Begins: ARG NH Poll

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:14:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

ARG, which actually has a pretty good track record in New Hampshire, shows Obama AND Clinton up strongly from their previous poll:

Clinton 35 (31)
Obama 31 (27)
Edwards 15 (21)
Richardson 5 (5) (1/1 -1/3)

I expect Clinton to drop and Obama to continue to rise in the next days. The next big event is the debate tomorrow. that could change the momentum.

Edwards is toast imo, barring some kind of miracle in the debate. Richardson was toast long ago. Why is he still in the race? Go out gracefully Bill.

McCain (35) up 10 over Romney (25) who is on life support it seems. Huck in third with 12. Rudy is done. cooked. Finished.

< Obama's Broad Appeal In Iowa | Neo-High Broderist Joe Klein Claims Obama As His Own >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Iowa Bounce Begins: ARG NH Poll | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Independents matter most in New Hampshire (2.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Aaron on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:04:11 PM EST
    Much like the other polls I've seen posted here, which showed Clinton ahead in Iowa, these polls do not take into account independents/undeclareds who can vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries in New Hampshire, and there are large numbers of undeclared voters in that state. And does anyone believe that these voters won't turn out to support Barack Obama the way they did in Iowa, if so I suggest you reevaluate.

    New Hampshire focuses on change, independence:Once a GOP stronghold, the state now is under the control of Democrats

    [Of New Hampshire's 850,000 or so registered voters, 44 percent are undeclared. Republicans account for 30 percent of the state's registered voters, and 26 percent are Democrats. Many of those independent voters lean toward one party or the other, but many are true centrists.]  

    I wonder how long this site will continue to try skew the information Hillary Clinton's way.  It didn't help in the lead up to Iowa, and it won't help in New Hampshire either.  I suggest you discard the old political paradigms and start looking at things as they are now.

    Obama 08, do you believe now America?  

    The Poll Included Independents (none / 0) (#14)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:10:40 PM EST
    I'd feel so much better about Obama if his supporters bothered to get the facts right about anything (I'm completely serious).

    From the poll linked by BTD (emphasis mine):

    Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton among men 36% to 28%, with 17% for John Edwards. Among women, Clinton leads Obama 41% to 26%, with 14% for Edwards. Obama has regained the lead among undeclared (independent) voters with 37%, followed by Clinton at 25% and Edwards at 19%.

    So independents were included in the polling sample, which calls them undeclareds (as in they haven't declared a party preference).  Geesh.

    Don't worry, Obama's gong to get his bounce.

    Parent

    Correction noted (none / 0) (#17)
    by Aaron on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:17:11 PM EST
    All I read was this on the page Armando posted.

    The following results are based on nationwide telephone samples of 600 likely Democratic primary voters

    I had to search for the link to find this information.

    Sample Size: 600 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of likely Democratic primary voters living in New Hampshire (407 Democrats and 193 undeclared (independent) voters).

    Sample Dates: January 1-3, 2008




    Parent
    Dude (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    Are you seriously arguing that a NH pollster is not taking into account Independents?

    And, interestingly enough, while Ann Seltzer is a Goddess, she OVERSTATED independent participation in the Iowa Dem Caucus.

    Don;t worry, be happy. Obama will be the next President of the United States.

    Parent

    Good News for Clinton (none / 0) (#1)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    She's still ahead, which means people won't write her off as done.  The Edwards meme isn't working (not that I thought it would).

    It's also good news for Obama because he got a bump, not that that's surprising, but you never know about these things.  And I agree this is probably not the biggest his bump will get.

    The debate is looming very large.  I wonder if Edwards will go after Obama or Clinton or neither.  

    Or both? (none / 0) (#2)
    by BDB on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:17:56 PM EST
    Edwards could go after both, I guess.

    Parent
    Wasn't this poll conducted before the Iowa (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    caucuses?

    Except for last night. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST
    Moreover, the Iowa bounce start before the cuaucuses and runs through the first few days.

    It has a few days to run yet.

    Obama will be up 5 or 6 come Sunday. the can he hold on? Or blow clinton out?

    The debate will determine that I think.

    Parent

    That's funny: "except for last night." (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:28:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Last night was polled (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    as Obama was winning.

    Parent
    If voters decided on the basis of (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    debates, would W be president?  I think not.

    Parent
    Gore was wooden. Bush was human. (none / 0) (#10)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    Kerry was longwinded and difficult to relate to.

    Plus, George cheated against Kerry.  

    I was actually amazed how poor Gore was during those debates.  He only won one, lost another and tied a the third.

    Parent

    I was thinking of 04. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:38:16 PM EST
    I thought Bush was so lousy it didn't matter who his oppoenent was in the debates.

    Parent
    Racing backwards (none / 0) (#4)
    by kidneystones on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:21:57 PM EST
    I sincerely hope you're wrong about Edwards, BTD. I don't care for Obama. I found his speech dull and his message of unity profoundly disappointing.

    Wow (none / 0) (#11)
    by DA in LA on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    My wife was blown away.  I think he is a great orator and not much else.  But, that's really all it takes...

    Parent
    His bounce should get higher (none / 0) (#8)
    by Maryb2004 on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    although I see the debate as a risk for him even without taking Hillary and her strategy into account.  Speeches are where he shines.  In debates he's only adequate and sometimes he turns into an Al Gore-like creature who can't give a brief, easily understood answer.  

    Why Richardson is in (none / 0) (#16)
    by jarober on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    Perhaps Richardson knows some electoral history: Only two sitting US Senators have ever been elected President.  Sure, if both parties nominate a Senator that won't matter.  Otherwise, it probably does matter.
    Rudy is Toast (none / 0) (#18)
    by tworivers on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM EST
    What is Norman "Bomb Iran" Podhoretz going to do with himself now?

    this is slightly OT, but (none / 0) (#19)
    by tworivers on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:22:28 PM EST
    In an earlier thread, people were discussing the possibility of a McCain vs. Obama matchup in the GE and speculating that McCain would hammer away at Obama's lack of experience.  This seems to me a likely scenario in the event that McCain and Obama were to go head-to-head.  Given both his experience and the press's love affair with him/view of him as a "maverick", McCain could make for a difficult adversary for Obama.  

    That said, I think Obama could head off criticism  about lack of experience with the proper choice of running mate.  But who would that be?  Richardson is experienced, but has come off extremely badly in every debate I've seen. Biden has some very smart foreign policy ideas, but is also prone to droning on windily and/or putting his foot in his mouth.

       

    Don't focus on defenses (none / 0) (#22)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:50:25 PM EST
    Don't focus on defenses; they are secondary to offenses. For instance, continually pointing out that John McCain could have gone to the opening of The Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland, back when Roosevelt was helping pull us out of the Great Depression, how McCain has said he would like having troops in Iraq for a million years, how he could cavalierly chuckle and sing about bombing a country on false pretenses (it's the cavalierness, not the idea of bombing, to emphasize), etc.

    (Unlike George W. Bush with his smear campaigns and swiftboaters, we stick with facts.)

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#23)
    by tworivers on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:57:54 PM EST
    that McCain's advanced age could definitely be used against him in such a contest.  71 is no spring chicken.

    Likewise, his defense of the Iraq War (and  willingness to keep troops there unto eternity) is pretty damning in and of itself and could be used quite effectively against him in a general election.

    Parent

    I'm thinking it will be Grandpa Fred. (none / 0) (#25)
    by MarkL on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 09:28:35 PM EST
    I just can't see McCain winning---Republican hatred of him is too deep. Romney is clearly out of the running now. That leaves Huckabee or Grandpa. I'll go with Gramps.

    Parent
    toast in Iowa (none / 0) (#20)
    by shaharazade on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:27:07 PM EST
    the only toast i see in Iowa is the old guard. The visuals of Hillary with the ever creepy Madeline on one side and a weary looking Big Dog on the other tells it all. The positives that have come from this far out way the negatives. Whats left is manageable.  

    This means ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by chemoelectric on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 05:43:09 PM EST
    This means that Richardson wants to be vice president.

    Trickery, think you're slick huh Armando (none / 0) (#24)
    by Aaron on Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 06:59:45 PM EST
    I just realized that this is an old poll, not one that's been produced since Obama's victory, so this is nothing more than old outdated information being presented as something current which is not.  Nice trick Armando, I fell for it.

    The Iowa Bounce Begins: ARG NH Poll | 25 comments (25 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment