The Iowa Bounce: ARG Has Obama Up 12

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:34:14 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

ARG reflects a big Iowa bounce for Barack Obama:

Obama 38 (31)
Clinton 26 (35)
Edwards 20 (15)
Richardson 3 (5)

ARG claims that this reflected polling on the 4th and 5th. Today is the 5th. I have not heard of polling on Saturday mornings. That said, this is the bounce I expected. this would be Obama's best polling period. It will be interesting to see if Edwards goes up from here. Honestly, I do not see it at all. But I have been wrong before.

Bennett of ARG is predicting that 37% of the primary participants will be Independent. Obama wins them overwhelmingly. He splits Democrats with Hillary. This is where Hillary can do better imo. She needs to win Democrats convincingly. And she needs McCain to do better with Independents. McCain seems to be attracting much less of the Independent vote than Obama is. ARG has McCain in a big lead over Romney in NH based on a large lead among Republicans as well as Independents.

< Congress Passes Funding for 200 More DEA Agents | New Hampshire: CNN/WMUR Poll Has Hillary and Obama Tied >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Iowa Bounce: ARG Has Obama Up 12 | 15 comments (15 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It's hard to imagine how Hillary (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 03:45:01 PM EST

comes back from a loss in NH and SC.

Super Duper Tuesday (none / 0) (#5)
by Jeralyn on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:37:55 PM EST

will be more important. NY, Calif and big states may not care about Iowa and NH and SC.


that would be the strategy, yes (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:50:07 PM EST

But momentum may be king, as before. We shall see.


You may enjoy.. (none / 0) (#10)
by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:57:53 PM EST

if you haven't read Gail Collins in the NY Times today you may want to take a look, Jeralyn.


hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM EST

I amm going to guess that your reading comprehension scores aint that high.


Ugh.. Gail Collins (none / 0) (#12)
by MarkL on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:52:37 PM EST

you can definitely expect objective analysis of a Clinton at the NYT.
NOT!


how helpful (none / 0) (#15)
by Judith on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:11:51 PM EST

not


: Are you aware of how she covered (none / 0) (#16)
by MarkL on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 06:14:07 PM EST

for Huckabee, misrepresenting the Dumond issue?

Well that's pretty obvious (none / 0) (#18)
by sethblink on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 02:28:38 PM EST

Of course a day when 20 states including CA and NY vote is more important than a day when one small state votes, but how can you think that they "may not care" about Iowa and NH?

For every voter in the big states who has planned all along to vote for Obama, there is another that likes the Senator, but doubts his electability. By drawing the biggest crowds ever in whiter-than-white Iowa, getting votes from independents and cross-over republicans, and by winning handily, Obama refuted that objection.

A repeat in New Hampshire means that voters in the big states can vote for or against Obama on his own merits and not on what his candidacy might symbolize. The impact of Iowa and possibly New Hampshire on the big states will be huge.


it will be hard (none / 0) (#2)
by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:05:57 PM EST

Because you are correct that she can try and consolidate the base, but i have a feeling if she doesn't do it in NH it will start to coalesce more strongly around Obama. Lets not kid our selves democrats didn't back Hillary over Obama because he says crisis, they did it because she was the inevitable incumbent.

Problem with having to consolidate support is that she has to do it in three days, keep in mind he beat her among Dems in Iowa (though by smaller margins).

According to a sneak from politico (none / 0) (#4)
by pontificator on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:28:40 PM EST

the CNN/WMUR poll of NH is going to have Obama and Clinton tied at 33 (with Edwards behind at 20). In other words, only a very minimal bounce.

Is the CNN/WMUR poll respected? How accurate was it in 2004, I wonder?

Obama wins NH, SC, IL and likely IL (none / 0) (#6)
by kovie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:43:42 PM EST

and that's pretty much the nomination. I really don't see how Hillary or Edwards changes that. But, of course, you never know.

Purely horse race-wise, the GOP race is going to be a lot more interesting. Most substantively, it will give us a sense of where the GOP is headed over the next 3-5 years or longer. How will the social cons, neocons, corporatists and libertarians keep their fractious coalition together in an extended stint in the minority, and as the country rejects its leaders, policies and even ideology? Will they find a way to keep it together, and if so under which wing's control?

I think that McCain will win NH & NV and Huckabee SC, but Romney still gets the nomination as the corporatist establishment moves in to get its guy the win. But if there's a populist insurgency, McCain & Huckabee might end up #1 & #2, in that order, with that being the ticket in November. Our candidate will trounce either. I do not worry about a McCain/Huckabee ticket. In fact I welcome it. None of their people can beat any of ours. Yes, even Hillary.

But that's just horse race, of course.

well said (none / 0) (#9)
by Jgarza on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 04:54:40 PM EST

but he is going to give you some strange argument on how it that will mean he can't get anything done, because if you win with independents you can't do anything. in Blogoland you can only win with strong partisans. makes no sense to me. but these guys are issue advocates.

BTW cnn wmur
o 33
c 33
e 20

don't know the time frame. big bounce for O on electability in the internals.

Uncle Fred? (none / 0) (#13)
by kovie on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 05:59:44 PM EST

I doubt it, but wouldn't it be fun (to paraphrase Hillary)?

And don't you get it by now that Pubs LIKE weird? I can't think of a Pub president or even nominee since Eisenhower who wasn't weird in some way. Ford was perhaps the exception, and we all know what happened to him. Even Poppy Bush and Dole were weird in their own way.

But whatever Pubs want, I think that the country wants normal again. I.e. someone who seems to be genuinely well-adjusted, nice, at ease, confident, intelligent, responsible, honest, etc. I can't speak for underlying reality but on appearances alone all our top candidates easily beat theirs on normality.

So no matter whom they nominate, it'll be some really weird dudes. My head tells me Romney/Thompson, but my heart tells me McCain/Huckabee.

No matter. They'll all lose.

McCain's "100 years in Iraq" (none / 0) (#17)
by bob h on Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 07:24:43 PM EST

Should not the Democrats be sucking independents from McCain based on his irrational, insane stance on Iraq?