ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll of Democratic Iowa voters (500 LVs, Nov. 14-18, MOE 4.5%) shows Obama rising and Edwards falling -- although both within the margin of error -- while Hillary Clinton remains fixed at the same level of 4 months ago.

Nov.JulyRCP 6-poll Ave.Obama302724.8Clinton262627.2Edwards222621.8Richardson111110.3Biden424.2Kucinich22Dodd11No Opinion34

A central dynamic at play here appears to be the rising importance of a "new direction" (up 6%) and a corresponding decline in the importance of "strength and experience" (down 6%) among caucus goers. From ABC's analysis:

Most Democratic likely voters in Iowa, 55 percent, say they're more interested in a "new direction and new ideas" than in strength and experience, compared with 49 percent in July -- a help to Obama, who holds a substantial lead among "new direction" voters.

In addition, Obama leads on several important issues including Iraq, Iran and immigration and key qualities such as most honest and trustworthy, most willing to speak his mind and the ever important "understands your problems," which he leads Clinton by 10 points.

Where Clinton has given up some ground to Obama in a few categories, she gains in one very important demographic: older voters. This is where Edwards seems to have taken his biggest hit.

Perhaps the largest change in any individual groups has been at Edwards' expense - a drop in support among older voters in Iowa, which had been his best group. Among those age 65 and over, just 18 percent now support him, down from 36 percent in July. Among seniors - another normally high-turnout group - Clinton now leads.

The internals of this poll are all very good for Obama, which is in stark contrast to the CBS/NYTimes poll from last week in which things looked to be going John Edwards's way. Clearly, depending on the polling differences (ABC/Wapo poll included leaners, hence the low "no opinion" as opposed to CBS/NYT, which had a large number of "Undecided" voters) and sampling methodologies, the results in these polls are fluctuating wildly. I'm not inclined to take this as a sure sign of an Obama surge only because The ABC/WaPo methodology does seem to favor him -- the July poll is one of only three Iowa polls this year (including this new one) to have Obama ahead, albeit by only a point.

Update [2007-11-19 19:30:49 by Jerome Armstrong]: Chiming in, it's great that the pollsters are now adding whether the voters attended the 2004 caucuses or not, here's the results of that:

                        Clinton    Obama     Edwards  Richardson
Attended previous caucus:   21        27        26       11
First time:                 34        35        14       11
I would tend to bank more on those that caucused in '04, and in that scenario, what this poll really shows is the importance of whomever the second choice of Richardson supporters happens to be on Jan 3rd.

Tags: 2008 Presidential election, Barack Obama, Democratic Iowa caucus, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

107 Comments

This is good news

I have long been for Hillary (broken in-between by a brief period of support for Edwards), but I am currently reading Mark Penn's book called, "Microtrends."

This Penn guy and his book are disturbing.  To say this man is stuck in the 1990s is kind.  He is still emphatically behhind the "Third Way" movement and is an ardent free-trader and detests the Left.

Is this a man we want in the WH being HRC's KKKarl Rove?

I sent Obama some money today and I guess now I am leaning to him.  I'm not sold, yet.  Ideally, Edwards fits with my issues the most, but he isn't viable financially in the GE.

by jgarcia 2007-11-19 01:38PM | 0 recs
Mark Penn blah blah blah

Sheesh.  That is so lame.  Who in the world thinks like that?  I don't like Mark Penn so I don't like Clinton?

By the way Bush could have learned from Bill CLinton.  After the election James Carville didn't get an office down the hall.  He got a thank you and was gone.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 01:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Penn blah blah blah

well, it wouldn't matter but for Penn being her "other brain" with A TON of influence.  She speaks to him every single morning, first thing...even over Bill.

And if you don't think he has influence over policies once a president he advises gets in, read this:

Penn is being the V-chip, school uniforms, and flag burning shit that the Clintons has championed.  Also, the violent video games thingy was a Penn initiative.

He would be an effective "half-president" if she wins.  I don't like that, I am sorry.

by jgarcia 2007-11-19 02:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Penn blah blah blah

All candidates are influenced.

You think Obama isn't influenced by Axlerod or the 150 current or former lobbyists working for his campaign?

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Penn blah blah blah

You're spinning.  Penn's influence with Hillary is the stuff of legends.  They are attached at the hip.  She does not dare fart until she clears it with him.

Her presidency, sadly, would probably consist of everything that's in his book.  

I recommend reading the book.  It's amazing.  It's like reading the true agenda of these two behind the curtain.  Even her statement o drivers licenses could have been predicted based on what PENN wrote in that book.  He'd be a co-president.  And he's a conservative.

I will probably write a diary about his book when I am finished and juxtapose his writings and OPINIONS (often 100% wrong, btw) with her campaign stances.

by jgarcia 2007-11-19 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Penn blah blah blah

Please do.  I share your concern.  I have been looking at Barston-Marstellar's overseas clients list with growing apprehension.  Benazir Bhutto?  You bet.  I would like to read that book.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-19 04:05PM | 0 recs
I am sick of the nonsense

Every candidate... every single one ... has a campaign manger, a pollster, advisors, etc.   Is Edwards going to move his into the White HOuse?  SHould I be attacking Obama saying Axlerod will set policy?

Of course not.

Your claims are unfounded and offensive.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:41PM | 0 recs
you must be reading impaired.

I referred to the Clinton/Penn special relationship in the previous post.  Almost all other consultant/candidate relationships are NOT like this one.  This one with Penn and Hillary is very Bush and Rove.

Axelrod has nowhere near the influence and power of Penn.  Not even close.  Hil's relationship with Penn is pretty extreme and not at all common.  That's why it's scary.  Because we are NOT electing Mark Penn.  But because of his toxic influence, more people need to find out about him and that he is NO FRIEND to progressives.  In fact, he is an ENEMY of the progressive movement.  And, by extension, I am afraid, so might Hillary be.

by jgarcia 2007-11-19 04:50PM | 0 recs
If YOU knew anything about Clinton

You know that Penn doesn't have the most influence in the campaign (no, not talking Bill here either, although maybe does- but that would push Penn to third or fourth).

Penn may be second.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:53PM | 0 recs
by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-19 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Mark Penn blah blah blah

No, Carville didn't get a seat down the hall, he got a show on CNN.

Garcia's right, the biggest thing that's wrong with Clinton is her team. Even Rove doesn't spit venom like Howard Wolfson.

by davefordemocracy 2007-11-19 04:51PM | 0 recs
Re: This is good news

your right...microtargetting is terrible for the body politic - it leads to voter blindness.  It is taking campaigns too far.

by CardBoard 2007-11-19 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: This is good news

The Obama campaign is also micro-targeting. The campaign uses Strategic Telemetry in DC.

by dblhelix 2007-11-19 02:20PM | 0 recs
Need more numbers

I am sure there will no shortage of numbers in the coming days so we will see.  The differences you point out are stunning.

Still these numbers would not surprise me.   Clinton took shot after shot for two full weeks from Democrats, Republicans and the media.  I can't believe that it didn't have an effect.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 01:48PM | 0 recs
3 moves within the MOE

however, Hillary cannot let Obama win Iowa so there will be a nuclear war between the two

by TarHeel 2007-11-19 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: 3 moves within the MOE

Good point.  Plus the internals are bad for HRC, her second choice numbers are particularly bad.

by MassEyesandEars 2007-11-19 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: 3 moves within the MOE

The second choice numbers are disastrous.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-19 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Second choices

Agreed. WaPo says that among Edwards supporters 43% say Obama's their second choice and among supporters of all candidates outside the top three, 34% say Obama's their second choice, 28% say Edwards and only 15% say Hillary.

On top of that, Obama leads Hillary among women 32%-31%. Let me repeat, OBAMA LEADS AMONG IOWA WOMEN.

Obama also leads on Iraq. 26% say he will handle Iraq better. Only 23% say Hillary. Edwards and Richardson each get 15%.  

Oh yeah; sorry about the excessive caps. Just a little excited.

by davefordemocracy 2007-11-19 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: 3 moves within the MOE

Remind me to use Obama's showing is disastrous and "is collapsing" in future poll writeups that show a differing picture.  I have refrained from using such hyperbole for the most part, but will take that suit out of the closet, since it seems to be ok again to use those terms.   :-)

by georgep 2007-11-19 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: 3 moves within the MOE

Sure, George.  I had never seen those second choice figures before.  What do you make of that.  Maybe I should stick to foreign policy, eh?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-19 08:49PM | 0 recs
I don't think so

Three reasons:

1) She has life after Iowa

2) She has an intestest in keeping the election clean.  She doesn't want fellow Democrats (see Edwards) helping to write Giuliani's attack ads.

3) Democratic caucus and primary voters don't like it.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 02:58PM | 0 recs
I know hardball

says what Edwards is tapping into would be the GOP playbook but don't pretend the GOP wasn't going to go after fundraising scandals, honesty , etc...

by TarHeel 2007-11-19 04:04PM | 0 recs
what did she lie about again?

I am not clear on that Hannity talking point.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think so

of course she has life after Iowa. the question is does she have life after NH?

by aiko 2007-11-19 04:05PM | 0 recs
One more interesting point

This poll started in the 14th, one full day before the debate.  So no respondants on the 14 th saw the debates or the post debate spin.  It is likely the same could be said for respondants, at least on the east coast on the 15th.

I wonder if the pollster saw a swing one way or another starting on the 16th.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 01:52PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

I hope and pray that if Edwards loses Iowa he promptly endorses Obama and hits the pavement hard for him in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

by Vox Populi 2007-11-19 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

You realize I'm a hard core Edwards supporter, right?

by Vox Populi 2007-11-19 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

GARBAGE!

by bluedavid 2007-11-19 03:05PM | 0 recs
To quote Wayne

"Yeah and monkey's may fly out my butt!"

It doesn't happen that way.  

Plus I think Edwards stay in through SC.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: To quote Wayne

Edwards needs to make a decision.  If he doesn't win Iowa, there is nowhere he can mount a comeback.  If he wants to change the system and stop a Clinton corronation, he would need to immediately endorse Obama, which I think he might do.

by Vox Populi 2007-11-19 04:23PM | 0 recs
Look at history, think politically

If Edwards loses his political future is totally uncertain.

You may be an Edwards supporter but you can't honestly believe he is a combo knight in shining armour / Mother Theresa ... he is pol.   He will think about his future.  This is a campaign for Edwards not some "quest."

He will think about his support and how he can leverage that going forward.   Backing the loser of the nomination isn't a good thing to do with the chips you have left.

He will wait for a clear nominee and talk to them about how he can offer his suport and what he gets in return (no, often they - the losers - are not looking for a post themselves, but spots for their supporters and simply future consideration).

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Look at history, think politically

If Edwards loses the nomination, I think he's leaving politics altogether.  He doesn't care about backing a winner, he cares about choosing the best candidate to carry forth his ideas, and that candidate is Barack Obama, not Hillary Clinton.

by Vox Populi 2007-11-19 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Look at history, think politically

True enough. Edwards won't fold until sometime after the Palmetto primary. I can't even picture it then.

by davefordemocracy 2007-11-19 05:31PM | 0 recs
Clinton is completely flatlined in Iowa

Which might explain her thinly veiled attacks on Obama today re "on-the-job training."

As if she's ever been president or is some kind of economic expert.

The pathetic economic fear card she was trying to play today against Obama is a classic
back-against-the-wall desperation tactic -- and no different than the national security
fear card that Giuliani will play against any Democrat in the general.

The country is ready for -- and deserves much better than -- anything that Giuliani
or Clinton can offer them.

by horizonr 2007-11-19 01:54PM | 0 recs
Dean lead in the polls too

You act like she is the once presumptive winner who has fade to third.

I don't think she is doning that badly, I'll wait for more numbers.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:34PM | 0 recs
Know what else?

Barack Obama Logo

by horizonr 2007-11-19 01:57PM | 0 recs
Howard Dean lead in the polls too

LOL!  Just thought I throw that nugget in there.  It seems to be a popular retort whenever a new poll comes out showing CLinton up.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Howard Dean lead in the polls too

Yeah, it always reminds me of the Nelson Muntz "ha ha" from The Simpsons.

Fun to throw it back in you know who's face, isn't it?

by Bush Bites 2007-11-19 02:44PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

That's a great poll for Obama.  It's going to be a fascinating battle the next six weeks and election on Jan. 3.

by markjay 2007-11-19 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

The only polls that matter in Iowa are the DM Register polls. yepsen and the boys know how to poll caucus goers. Rasmussen, WaPo and the rest are grasping at straws.

That said, I can't remember what the last DM poll said.

by ThinkingDem 2007-11-19 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

last DM poll had HRC ahead

by sepulvedaj3 2007-11-19 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

The Last Des Moines Register Poll was in the beginning of October and it had Hillary up. The sample was only 399 but it fits into the trend line pretty tightly.

In case anyone's curious:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb cs.dll/section?category=iowapoll07

by davefordemocracy 2007-11-19 05:43PM | 0 recs
once use lose honestly and trustworthyness

nothing else matters.

by nevadadem 2007-11-19 02:18PM | 0 recs
51% is plenty

51% wins

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:10PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

because people are leaning towards Obama but he hasn't closed the deal and ABCWAPO pushes leaners.

by alarabi7 2007-11-19 02:20PM | 0 recs
The real significant finding

here is the collapse of Hillary's significant lead on the question of who can win in November.

Hillary leads by only 14 on that question - a question she has usually led by 20 or more.  

I would watch the responses to this question: this is the issue that catapulted Edwards and Kerry to the front in Iowa last time.  

by fladem 2007-11-19 02:26PM | 0 recs
Only 14? Ouch!

Only 14.  And the first two days of this poll were pre-LV debate.

I think Clinton will be fine.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: The real significant finding

14% is still very large.   Keep in mind that this poll was a major outlier in July.  If their methodology is as off today as it was back then, we may see results again (especially in the internals) more in line of what we have seen from all the other polls so far over the last 2 months.

by georgep 2007-11-19 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

This is going to be between Obama and Edwards. And to tell you the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if Richardson sneaks in at the end and beats Hillary. Watch out for Iowa guys.

by Progressive America 2007-11-19 02:26PM | 0 recs
I've been saying all year

Hillary would finish no better than third in Iowa. I stand by the prediction.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-19 05:26PM | 0 recs
2nd choice of Edwards & Richardson

This is going to be a two person race at the end of the day.  Edwards is fading.  

Watch Richardson will he heart Clinton again before this is all over?

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: 2nd choice of Edwards & Richardson

I posted it above, but it bears repeating:

WaPo says that among Edwards supporters, 43% say Obama's their second choice.

Among supporters of all candidates outside the top three, 34% say Obama's their second choice, 28% say Edwards and only 15% say Hillary.

by davefordemocracy 2007-11-19 05:50PM | 0 recs
I think Obama and Huckabee are

going to win Iowa going away and Huck might get the nomination as well. Then we'll have 2 likeable good guys to choose from in the general election. One of those guys ofcourse is nuts.

by nevadadem 2007-11-19 02:34PM | 0 recs
Which one? n/t

by antiHyde 2007-11-19 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

Iowa is over. Obama gained 5% points in just a few days from the polls last week in Iowa. He's clearly moving to a big win in Iowa.

by hwc 2007-11-19 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

then Hillary should pull out of the state like Rudy and mcCain.

by nevadadem 2007-11-19 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

No. She'll stick it out and finish a distant third, maybe fourth. Then, she'll go on and we'll see how the rest of the primaries shake out.

I'm not surprised that Obama is running away with Iowa. I've said all along that Iowa Democrats will not vote for a woman.

by hwc 2007-11-19 02:48PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

if Hillary loses it's because they won't vote for a woman, so I guess I should be ashamed for not supporting Liddy Dole in 2000 and so should you!

by nevadadem 2007-11-19 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

hey let me just pose this question to you

what if another poll comes out a couple of days from now and shows Hillary in the lead again , I wonder which tune you will be singing then.

Based on 1 poll a lot of people seem to be getting ahead of themselves and writing the swan song for Hillary Clinton .

Discounting the fact that just thursday/friday last week 3 or 4 polls show her still in the lead. Also forgetting the fact that her full court press in Iowa is just beginning.

I have seen this type of scenario play out over and over again , another poll will come out next week showing Clinton in the lead and then another round of discussion will start.

Its hard to poll Iowa and hanging everything on 1 poll will not be a wise thing to do.

That said If we go by this poll , her internals have gotten worse and it can't be good news to her campaign.

She probably would look to cutting deals with Richardson , Biden and Dodd a la 2004 . That can put her over the top. Its clear she has her base of support in the 26% range and all she has to do is push that a couple of percentage up and if she makes deals with Richardson , Dodd and Biden it would probably help her.

by lori 2007-11-19 03:08PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

I agree.

by rapcetera 2007-11-19 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

Read my comment below, lori.  This polling firms Iowa poll was the worst outlier last time around (in July.)  When all other polls showed Obama at 16%, 17%, 19%, at best 21%, this particular one had Obama actually WINNING at 27%.   I believe you are absolutely right, this is probably just as much of an outlier as their last effort was back then.  The next few polls will probably show a different picture.  I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if so.  

by georgep 2007-11-19 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

What an absolutely sexist comment.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-11-19 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

Iowa Democrats have voted for many women, of course, but it says something about you that sexism is your go-to excuse.  At least you're not letting the facts get in your way.

by Steve M 2007-11-19 03:54PM | 0 recs
4th? That is overly optimistic.

Dennis is on the move.   Flynt endorsed.   Kucinich is moving up!

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:11PM | 0 recs
Question:

Do you really believe the undecided vote in Iowa right now is less than 5%?

Or might this poll be a fun exercise in pushing people to make a quick decision to get a pollster off the phone?

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 02:59PM | 0 recs
for once I agree with you

The undecided vote is at MINIMUM 25 percent.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-19 05:27PM | 0 recs
Re: for once I agree with you

Really? You're so knowledgeable about Iowa. 25%? How many of those will eventually show up at the caucuses?

by Coral 2007-11-19 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

This is good for Obama, and he will certainly hype it, but this has happened before, and I will need to see two in a row to really believe it, although I'm not saying it's not true, but we've seen this before where he quickly settled back to third.  It's a close race, regardless, and has been for awhile, except perhaps in the beginning where Edwards lead seemed to be pretty solid.

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-19 02:40PM | 0 recs
Older voters - DesmOineDem

I've been warning desmoinedeam for a while now that i'm noticing Obama's Iowa audiences getting older in compare to 2 months ago when it was just way too young with lots of high schoolers and college kids.

The good news is , Obama does not have to lead among the 60+ year old demo...All he has to do show growth because he has no way but UP to go amongs this block sinse his numbers were always extremely low for a top tier candidate.

I'll make this prediction:

If the polls are still showing a close waste on caucus night , Obama wins hands down and here's why:
I have no doubt in my mind Obama has at least a 3-4% hidden votes that consist of moderate republicans and cell phone college/high school kids who are not being polled.

The Obama people have always stated that they consider the youth and republican hidden vote as icing on the cake and all they have to do is keep this thing close and hope the HIDDEN VOTE PUSH THEM OVER THE TOP.

HILLARY HAS NO CROSS-OVER APPEAL + SHE'S IN THIRD PLACE AMONG SECOND CHOICES WHICH IS A KILLER FOR HER.

I EXPECT HER TO GO IN FULL, FORCE ATTACK-MODE.

ONE LAST NUGGET , RICHARDSON AND OBAMA ARE BOTH DOING BETTER THEN HILLARY AMONG IMMIGRATION VOTERS....THIS MEANS THAT THEIR PRO DRIVER LICENSES POSITION IS FINE AMONG DEMOCRATS.

by Prodigy 2007-11-19 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Older voters - DesmOineDem

that's why you need BOTH edwards and Obama.

Hillary can go nuclear on one, with one to survive and win

by TarHeel 2007-11-19 02:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Older voters - DesmOineDem

Obama-Edwards or Edwards-Obama.  Either would make a tidal wave election.

by antiHyde 2007-11-19 04:18PM | 0 recs
you are a Republican troll

You have to be.  I mean you spout that stuff with nothing to back it up.  No numbers.  Just one sentence of "opinion."

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: you are a Republican troll

Because I don't bow down and kiss the feet of the all-conquering Hillary, I'm a Republican troll?  I've mentioned these tickets to real voters, not political junkies, and received extremely positive results. The consensus seems to be that a Southern white man running with a Northern black man has a HUGE unity symbolism.

Also, the voters, all blue-collar union men dislike Hillary. The black men will vote for her, but the white men would prefer Ron Paul (because of immigration). And, yes, the sample is all male, all 40+ years of age, all non-Latino. I 'm not a pollster. I talk to people I know.

by antiHyde 2007-11-19 05:07PM | 0 recs
I know few union men ...

I predict Clinton will hold her own with the rank and file.  Look at her record in the Senate.  Look at what she has done in NY.  She will be fine with unions.  

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 05:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Older voters - DesmOineDem

older voters who actually meet Obama love him. My theory has always been the more people Obama can personally meet, the better he does. If Hillary was your candidate you probabaly have been for her the whole time which is why thhier campaign is wisely focusing on women who haven't caucused before who say they are for her. Undecideds don't look like a good pool of voters for ehr.

by nevadadem 2007-11-19 02:50PM | 0 recs
I think Edwards will pick up a lot

on second choices, and that his support continues to be more evenly spread across the state than Obama's.

I don't expect Hillary to go into attack mode. She will focus on mobilizing new voters and lowering expectations for her performance in Iowa.

She is fortunate that there are only four days between Iowa and NH.

by desmoinesdem 2007-11-19 05:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Older voters - DesmOineDem

Good post, Prodigy, but I urge caution on two points. First, there aren't a lot of empirical numbers to back up the cell phone thing. It matters a lot more to campaigns who are getting out the vote than it does to pollsters of likely voters. You are right about the older voters though, any positive movement by Barack is huge.

Second, sad but true, the Bradley effect says white candidates will pick up an extra 3-5% beyond what the polls give them. There is positive evidence that this effect is fading or gone, but it's never been tested in a race like this (I don't know what Jesse Jackson did in IA). It gives ironic credence to the poster who says 51% is not enough. Obama supporters cannot be satisfied with a slim lead, they've got to keep pushing till the end.

by davefordemocracy 2007-11-19 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

No way Obama can win the general election. A name like Barak Hussein Obama, brought up in Indonesia,with a Muslim Father. He could not even carry New York city. In some ways it shows a disrepect for what we in the city had to go through. Guaranteed Republican win.

by maxstar 2007-11-19 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

this comment is despicable, and i say that not only as an offended american, but as an offended new yorker.

by bluedavid 2007-11-19 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

Born on the Upper East Side and not only offended but am guessing you're wrong.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-19 03:22PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

why don't you just crawl back into your hole.

by rapcetera 2007-11-19 03:57PM | 0 recs
It is an issue. Republicans have raised it already

Nelson on MSNBC, Fox News.  They played the card when he drew close early in May.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

It is sad but true.  All political factors need to be weighed in a campaign.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:38PM | 0 recs
fact check

Just for clarification:

1. His Father was an agnostic (not a muslim) who died in 1987.

2. He wasn't brought up in Indonesia. He spent 4 years there, from age 6 to 10. While there he attended a Muslim school for 2 years and a Catholic school for 2 years. Neither school taught religious based classes.

3. Obama was technically brought up in Hawaii.

Open your heart and mind. Realize that we live in a global village.  I think Americans are beginning to realize that. His middle name Hussein will actually buy us credibility and leverage when negotiating with middle eastern countries.  

"Want to catch Osama? then Elect Obama"

America will be trusted and respected again.

Now crawl back into your little myopic hole....

by rapcetera 2007-11-19 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: fact check

These are some of the reasons Barack is beating Clinton on how he would handle Iraq and Iran.

by davefordemocracy 2007-11-19 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re:

Terrible comment.  Maxstar is most likely a Republican troll.  We will see those critters in the upcoming months more and more, unfortunately.  

by georgep 2007-11-19 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

This was a good comentary released by Rasmussen-
----------

But, while it’s fun to speculate about what will happen in Iowa, far less attention has been paid to the importance of the Iowa caucuses this year.

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Iowa becomes extremely important in one of two circumstances—a victory by Hillary Clinton or a double-digit loss for Clinton.

A victory, even a narrow victory, in Iowa would effectively wrap up the nomination for Clinton. Polls everywhere outside of Iowa show the frontrunner with substantial leads and the headlines from an Iowa victory would do nothing to change those dynamics. If anything, an Iowa victory would further boost her lead in other states and add to the perception of inevitability.

At the other extreme, a double-digit loss for Clinton would be devastating for her campaign and radically alter the race. That’s what happened four years ago when Howard Dean lost to John Kerry by eighteen-percentage points in Iowa. Instantly, Kerry took Dean’s place as the frontrunner.

At the moment, it’s difficult to envision such a lopsided defeat for Clinton partly because of a key difference between her campaign and Howard Dean’s. Dean, even while he was the frontrunner, was the second choice candidate for hardly anybody. Clinton, on the other hand, is the second choice for many in Iowa and New Hampshire. But, with seven weeks to go and a caucus in the midst of the holiday season, there’s plenty of time for surprises.

That leads to the final scenario, a narrow loss by Clinton. Polls show this as quite possible. The latest Rasmussen Reports Iowa poll, like most other polls, shows Clinton with a very narrow lead. However, she draws more support than any other candidate from people who have never participated in a caucus before. Among those with caucus experience, Edwards attracts 27%, Clinton 25%, and Obama 23%. Among voters who are “certain” they will show up and participate in the caucus, the three leading candidates are tied at 26% each.

So, what happens if Clinton loses by a point or two? Or three or four? It’s impossible to know for sure because the Internet and other new media outlets are re-writing the rules of Presidential politics. But, it seems unlikely that a narrow Clinton loss would radically shake up the race. Partly that’s because of the new media saturation coverage. In times past, candidates like Jimmy Carter could be introduced to the nation following a victory in Iowa. Today, challengers like Obama and Edwards have long-since been introduced to the politically active segment of the population.

Most likely, a victory by Obama or Edwards would add some support to their candidacy in other states, but nothing on the magnitude of the bounce Kerry enjoyed in 2004. It might, depending upon the specific results, narrow the field to a single serious challenger. But, ultimately, a narrow loss for Clinton in Iowa would simply maintain the status quo. Clinton would be a somewhat more vulnerable frontrunner but still the frontrunner. The winner in Iowa would have an opening to challenge the former First Lady, but would have to find a way to capitalize. The importance of New Hampshire would grow.

So, when all is said and done, Iowa remains a must-win state for Obama and Edwards. They cannot win the nomination without first winning in Iowa.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-19 03:26PM | 0 recs
This is absolutely correct

Hillary wins Iowa: She wins the nomination.
Hillary loses big in Iowa: Obama wins the nomination (I don't see how Edwards can win Iowa or the nom; Obama is the stronger anti-Clinton at this point).
Hillary loses by a little in Iowa: Then things get interesting.  It's fairly unclear what happens in that scenerio, given Clinton's huge lead everywhere else in the country.  Does she collapse enough to lose?  Or do 20 point leads merely turn into 10 point ones?

Here's a poll that says that, of people who's first choice is somebody other than the top three (IE, people who support "non-viable" canidates who get eliminated, but get to pick again), thier second choice is Edwards at 30%, Obama 27%, and Clinton only 14%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_1 11307.pdf

That, combined with current trends (Clinton in first and rising, Obama in second but rising faster than Clinton, and Edwards in third and falling):

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

Means a scenerio where Obama beats Clinton by a few points, with Edwards a few points behind, seems highly likely.  And then we find out how much of a hit that narrow Iowa loss hurts Clinton nationwide.

by Geotpf 2007-11-20 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

now Rasmussen is doing post Hillary Iowa loss spin, wonder who he want's to see win.

by nevadadem 2007-11-19 04:19PM | 0 recs
Ras has Clinton winning ...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_2008__1/2008_pr esidential_election/iowa/democratic_iowa _caucus

His poll was done in the same period as this one.

Who is right?

ABC?  Or Rasmussen?

Who ya trust?  Me?   Neither.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:44PM | 0 recs
by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Rasmussen out in the same period

This poll is from a few days ago...was widely reported.

Stop acting as if this runs
 contrary to the ABC poll.

by General Sherman 2007-11-19 04:58PM | 0 recs
Let be clear ... lets have YOU be clear

Rasmussen has a poll taken on the 12th at ... at the apex of the post NH debate  / anti CLinton uproar, with a HUGE sample .. over 1000 respondants.

And YOU say that it is not relevent to a poll that started just 2 days later with far fewer respondants?

You say they are not in the same period ... just 2 days apart?

Reality has to play here.

Question, if another poll comes out 4 days from now, from another polling org with a totally different result from this one, is this ABC poll meaningless?   Outdated?    I'd argue no.  Polls need to be looked at objectively and collectively with multiple recent polls being taken together to try and give us a picture.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 05:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Let be clear ... lets have YOU be clear

Obama is tied with Hillary among women!!!!   Big!!!

by General Sherman 2007-11-19 05:22PM | 0 recs
Hey if it helps you sleep to believe that ...

Then by all means rock on.

And John Edward is winning in the southern states 'cause he "talks like this".

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-19 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Hey if it helps you sleep to believe that ...

Uh...according on the new poll Obama and Hillary are indeed tied among women.

You're an idiot.

by General Sherman 2007-11-19 05:56PM | 0 recs
Hmmm...

Uh...according on the new poll Obama and Hillary are indeed tied among women.

You're an idiot.

by General Sherman 2007-11-19 05:58PM | 0 recs
Yes

BooYahKahGrandma

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-11-19 05:10PM | 0 recs
Experience will out

This ABC poll clearly shows that the difference in the numbers is due to the shift from experience to new ideas. Unfortunately for Obama and Edwards the real world is going to be dominating the news over the next seven weeks. In case you haven't heard everybody expects at least a major economic slow down this quarter. With a long string of retail sales stories and food bank shortages and further stock market volatility, expect "its the economy stupid" the sequel. I am pretty certain that by caucus time "Change Back" will be stronger then just "Change".

by Judeling 2007-11-19 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience will out

I don't know too many people that vote for someone they don't trust. her honesty numbers are collapsing in the state.

by nevadadem 2007-11-19 05:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience will out

you wish. I don't think so. The Economy will be just fine.

by rapcetera 2007-11-19 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience will out

This makes no sense...stop fooling yourself.

by General Sherman 2007-11-19 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience will out

Economy tanks, and some trendlines aren't good (dollar tanking, price of oil, continued housing market meltdown, etc.) and trade will become an even larger issue in the election and that won't bode well for Hillary or Barack in voting for the Peru trade deal. That situation would benefit Edwards, not Hillary.

by Quinton 2007-11-19 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience will out

Any poll that I have seen gives Clinton particularly strong leads over Obama and Edwards when the question has to do with the economy, with Clinton leading her rivals by some 30%+.   There is a strong perception amongst the electorate that Clinton would be our best candidate when it comes to dealing with the economy.   If the primary turns on and is about a bad, worrysome economy, that should help Clinton quite a bit moving forwards.

by georgep 2007-11-19 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Experience will out
I agree that trade may indeed become a larger issue. And indeed Edwards may gain a bit because of it. But we are talking about Iowa and NAFTA was a positive for the Iowa economy so don't think it will play as badly for Clinton as it may in other places. Mexico is one of the largest importers of Iowa products.CAFTA was the big one in the MidWest. Immigration is probably a bigger issue in Iowa than trade.
But that is actually secondary. If I am correct and the News cycles are going to be filled with stories that feed economic insecurity experience will come back as a major factor. The Clinton cleaning up after a Bush line will have greater resonance. The general sense of unease the feeds the hope and change lines is replaced with the personal unease that feeds the reassuring experience line.
by Judeling 2007-11-19 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: ABC News/WaPo Iowa Poll: Obama Rising

I was not aware of what Jonathan mentioned in this diary, namely that the ABC Iowa poll appears to favor Obama in their methodology, and has also done so in July.  I looked back at the polling data.  They had Obama ahead in July when no other poll did.  In fact, the July version of this poll was a gross outlier when compared to every other poll sandwiched around it in July, 7-poll deep on either side.  

Check it out here:

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

Around the same time ABC released their Iowa poll in July, with Obama showing at a full 27% of support, other polling firms showed a vastly different picture:  Research 2000, Zogby, Strategic Vision, Hart/McLaughlin, ARG and TIME showed Obama much lower, generally below 20%, during the same or close to the same timeframe.  Upon further review, that previous disconnect between the ABC Iowa poll and the other polls makes me question this poll as for relevance.

Of course, if other polls come out and confirm a trend, that would be another thing.  We have to wait for the next poll or two to give us a clearer picture, especially the next DMR poll.  

by georgep 2007-11-19 08:12PM | 0 recs
Well this is the danger

of looking too much into any one poll. Methodologies differ. Frankly I don't think you can push leaners in Primary or Caucus polls, which is what this ABC/WP did. Very few people who are leaners on Iowa Caucus day are going to vote. In a general election poll pushing leaners makes a little more sense, but not as much in a situation with much smaller turnout.

by Christopher Lib 2007-11-20 06:45AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads