Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Taking into account all polls conducted after April 1st, here are the polling averages for all early states according to the current, most likely primary calendar. The averages for national polls are derived from my high-end and low-end polling averages, and include the two new national polls released today:
  • Iowa, January 7th: Edwards 26.5%, Clinton 23.5%, Obama 20.5%, Richardson 5.5%, Biden 5.0%. (two polls)
  • New Hampshire, January 15th: Clinton 35.3%, Edwards 23.7%, Obama 20.3% (three polls, one only asked on the top three)
  • Nevada, January 19th: Clinton 36.0%, Obama 16.5%, Edwards 14.0%, Richardson 5.5% (two polls, one included Gore)
  • South Carolina, January 22nd: Clinton 30.9%, Obama 27.3%, Edwards 18.0% (seven polls, one including Gore)
  • Florida, January 29th: Clinton 39.0%, Obama 17.8%, Edwards 13.2% (five polls, one including Gore, one including only the top three)
  • Michigan, January 29th: Clinton 33.5%, Obama 24.5%, Edwards 18.0% (two polls)
  • National, February 5th. High-end average, six polls: Clinton 39.3%, Obama 27.2%, Edwards 15.2%. Low-end average, seven polls: Clinton 37.0%, Obama 25.9%, Edwards 13.9%
Now, a couple of thoughts on these numbers:
  • Clinton has not been this high in the national polling averages since late February. However, it should be noted that her late February lead was larger than her current edge, because Obama has also risen during that time period.

  • Florida looks like a pretty nice firewall for Clinton right now. Even if she is shut out of Iowa and New Hampshire, she can retreat to Florida (and, possibly, Nevada) as a means of generating momentum for February 5th. Then again, right not she looks pretty good in New Hampshire, so that isn't a huge worry. Still, it is nice to have what seems to be a "Plan B" available.

  • The low African-American populations in Iowa and New Hampshire are bad for Obama and Clinton, and good for Edwards. His strong Iowa and New Hampshire positions, combined with his lower national poll and monetary standings, make his current position is the most difficult to figure out.
    ,br>
  • Richardson and Biden have passed 5% in Iowa, which seems significant to me. Richardson is now on the radar in two early states, Iowa and Nevada. Dodd might get some traction now that he is running some ads, but we will have to see

  • Memo to pollsters: I don't think we need anymore South Carolina polls for a while. Can we start seeing some more Iowa and New Hampshire polls, please? Still, it is interesting that South Carolina is the only "split" state, in that Clinton leads in five of the seven polls, and Obama leads in two of them.

  • My reasoning behind the calendar goes like this. With Florida moving to January 29th, Michigan's threat to join any state moving insider February 5th will cause them to move to January 29th. Further, South Carolina has threatened to move up in response to Florida's move, and January 22nd is the most likely option. Also, Iowa said they would move to January 7th after the Florida decision. That makes me guess that New Hampshire moves up to January 15th, in between Iowa and South Carolina. It should be noted that this is all obviously subject to change.

  • These are the current standings, but what factors are the best predictors of future success? Barring unusual events like the Elizabeth Edwards announcement or some sort of gaffe, rising name ID, labor support, netroots support, staff quality (which means media and field quality) and available monetary resources all come to mind as engines that could alter the campaign between now and Iowa. I'll leave you to decide who those varying engines favor. It also remains to be seen how much the national standings will change after Iowa.
For my money, the most exciting development of late in the 2008 campaign is how all three top-tier Democrats have gained on both Giuliani and McCain. In fact, of the six matchups between the well-known candidates, Democrats now lead in five. The only one where we trail is Clinton vs. Giuliani, and that is only by 46.0%--45.0%. This reinforces my belief that the progressive movement is driving this intense early campaign coverage, which will, gradually over time, allow Clinton, Edwards and Obama to all comfortably surpass anyone Republicans throw up against us. By November of 2007, I don't expect Democrats to be worried about "electability," because at that point all of our candidates will look like winners. And Iraq will only keep getting worse.

Tags: Democrats, polls, President 2008, Primary Elections (all tags)

Comments

59 Comments

As the states play musical chairs

... do people who understand this better than I see any state leapfrogging in surprise fashion ---so that a state-ful of voters will go to the polls not having been campaigned in hardly at all?

by ShagBark 2007-05-16 10:49AM | 0 recs
If Iowa goes to January 7

that is very bad news for Obama.

The major universities in Iowa will be out of session then (returning the week of January 21).

Are students going to come back from winter break two weeks early to caucus for Obama? Don't think so.

I would not be surprised if Richardson breaks through here. I hear a lot of people talking about him. Dean was just starting to surge in the Iowa polls around this time in 2003.

I don't know what to think about Biden. Clearly he is making a play for Iowa, spending a fair amount of time here. I have identified one Biden leaner in my precinct, but I haven't started working the precinct hard yet--there may be more.

It seems to me that he and Dodd would have trouble reaching that 15 percent threshold, but who knows? Edwards didn't look like he was going to get there either at this point in 2003.

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-16 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

I think Edwards has to like where he stands right now - ahead of the pack in Iowa, and with a small enough deficit in NH that he'll win that if he wins IA.

Anyways, it's still about 8 months to go. I'll start paying serious attention to these polls towards the end of 2007 - and really only the Iowa polls at that.

by PsiFighter37 2007-05-16 10:56AM | 0 recs
Be nice...

if we could get a recent NH poll to examine your assumptions...IIRC, the last poll showing Edwards ahead of Obama was actually in the field the same day that Edwards had several events across the state.  I think those kind of things are really skewing the early state polling (i.e. who was there most recently?) because the numbers are so fluid.

by rashomon 2007-05-16 11:22AM | 0 recs
electability will always be a concern for some

A lot of people I talk to feel that any Democrat except for Clinton could beat any Republican.

So I don't expect those on the fence between Edwards, Obama and Richardson to decide based on electability. But I do think that some who might be sympathetic to Clinton will decide she has too much baggage.

by desmoinesdem 2007-05-16 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: electability will always be a concern for some

While I generally agree with the idea that HRC is the least electable, I don't think she's "unelectable."  Agree that electability is very important to many voters.  Many blog readers last cycle didn't seem to understand this, in my view.

Question is, to what extent are these doubtful leading edge high info Iowa voters representative of similar voters in other states?

I don't doubt that this sentiment is out there everywhere - but how prevalent is it?  Will it remain confined to an insignificant subset of primary voters, or will it grow?

I think a narrowing of HRC's lead would seed this thought.  But without this narrowing, the thought might not take root widely.  

Could the bandwagon effect of early wins in IA and NH be less this cycle?  

by Andmoreagain 2007-05-16 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: electability will always be a concern for some

To answer your last question . . . no.

by Double B 2007-05-16 11:16AM | 0 recs
Florida firewall?

how can one say Florida is a firewall when the state at this point is so in flux. If no one campaigns inn the state and no delegates are awarded  what does it mean?

by nevadadem 2007-05-16 11:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Florida firewall?

Just a thought... 'someone' will 'win' and that person will have won the biggest early state. And the media will say so over and over and over...

God damn Florida!

by LandStander 2007-05-16 12:47PM | 0 recs
Obama does seem to be going

for Iowa although as the other post mentioned he's not visited it much.

Check out his spending in relation to the others:

http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Ar ticle=95925

It would be interesting to see the stats for the other states as well.

by okamichan13 2007-05-16 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama does seem to be going

That's the thing about Iowa: candidates can't afford not to go all out there. It's too risky, and once they go all out, they can't claim that they, uh, didn't go all out.

When Edwards is up at the podium pumping his first, no one will able to say the others didn't go all out. Nor is anyone gonna care that Edwards spent the most time there. Winning is winning.

What I can't figure out is Nevada.

by david mizner 2007-05-16 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama does seem to be going

A well stated post.

Unless your hoping for something unforseen or something historic, if you don't go all out in Iowa you're not really running for the nomination.

by Double B 2007-05-16 11:48AM | 0 recs
Agreed

a 3rd in Iowa would really hurt him.

I cant figure out Nevada either. I know that Edwards opened up his office there but has hardly visisted.

Either they are gifting it to Hillary, dont value its importance compared to other states, or possibly waiting for the union endorsements to come in.

by okamichan13 2007-05-16 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

also Hillary's biggest pericieved weakness is "electability" or to put it better she's not a "change" candidate. A firewall can not stop the perceptions created by a weak Iowa and New Hamphire showing when the alternatives are not "out of the mainstream of the party" how will Hillaryt survive the media shitstorm caused by losing the first 2 states after 3 years of "frontrunner" status? I just don't see it.

by nevadadem 2007-05-16 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Edwards is picking up the 2004 John Kerry playbook and using it step-by-step.  Win Iowa.  Use that to win NH and then let Big Mo do the rest.

There is no firewall anywhere for anybody.  After January 7, everything changes in terms of press coverage, money, etc.  If the same person wins both Iowa and NH, that person will be the nominee.  Iowa and NH run the show and the rest of the country gets to live with that decision.

by Double B 2007-05-16 11:14AM | 0 recs
Perhaps...

but Kerry had only one well funded (Dean) candidate to kill off after Iowa.  If Edwards won Iowa, there's still two candidates with plenty of money to hang around.  Not a small factor, IMHO.

by rashomon 2007-05-16 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

If someone other than Edwards steals NH then yes, it could get interesting.  But if Edwards takes both it's over.

Voters chose Kerry last year in just about every primary after NH and yet did anyone actually LIKE Kerry?  Momentum and press coverage are a powerful thing.

by Double B 2007-05-16 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

"But if Edwards takes both it's over."

Not that I expect that to happen, but what do you base "it is over" comment on?  Our last president, Bill Clinton, did not win these early states, and it was anything but over for him.  

by georgep 2007-05-16 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

Clinton is positioned to take losses if she has to because she is well positioned in other states. Edwards has to win Iowa, Obama has to place well somewhere preferably Iowa or New Hampshire.

by robliberal 2007-05-16 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

1992's a poor comparison.  Harkin won Iowa (as governor) making it a virtual non-competition that year.  

More importantly, it's just a completely different game now than in 1992.  Different media environment in so many ways.  The compacted primary schedule.  

by Double B 2007-05-16 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

You say only Iowa and NH matter, but then you argue that things have changed because it is a compacted primary schedule. Don't you think those states that are compacting the schedule might have some impact? Tradition be damned, the media WILL spend countless hours talking about Nevada and South Carolina - and, unfortunately, Florida.

by LandStander 2007-05-16 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

How are those states going to have an impact?  As mentioned above, Florida could have zero impact if the Party just ignores it.  Who's going to have the time to compete in those states when they are on the heels of New Hampshire?

I could see Hillary raising a ton of money and running ads in South Carolina or wherever in December while actually campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, but resources are finite and the first two primaries count more than the others.

by Double B 2007-05-16 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

Get real.  Florida "zero impact"?  With the importance and the delegate count the state has?   Not speaking of the fact that the Democrats want to wrestle Florida away from the GOP.   Suuuure, the Democratic party will punish Florida in an unprecedented way, awarding zero delegates, thereby creating a ton of negative press and hurting our chances in this state.

If you REALLY believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.  :-)
   

by georgep 2007-05-16 02:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

Define impact.  I'm defining it as an actual voice in who the nominee will be.  Not some semi-coronation of the choices made in Iowa and New Hampshire.

But there's not going to be any campaigning there.  Some fundraising and soundbites for sure, but the meat of the process is in Iowa and New Hampshire.

by Double B 2007-05-16 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

"How are those states going to have an impact?"

I don't understand - what makes them different than NH and Iowa? They are all early states - the media will pay attention to all four - excessive, ridiculous attention.

And if someone came to me and said "Obama lost New Hampshire, but won South Carolina and Nevada" I would say "Well, thank god, I could give a fuck about NH, but Obama won in the South and West, so that means something to me".

And if early is all we are talking about - Nevada is earlier than NH. What makes NH and Iowa special besides a tradition (which is no longer a tradition).

by LandStander 2007-05-16 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

I think "no longer the tradition" is what we will be looking at to some extent for 2008. The bigger states want to have some impact in both parties and they are determined they will do so in 2008.

by robliberal 2007-05-16 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

"What makes them different?"

They're first that's what makes them different.  In late December and early January, why is the press going to be paying attention to Florida?  They're all going to be hanging out in Iowa freezing their asses off.  After Iowa they'll head to New Hampshire.  By the time New Hampshire ends, the field will be narrowed.  More importantly, if you don't win Iowa or New Hampshire you're done anyway.  Why spend resources in Florida when you don't need to.  If you're still in it after New Hampshire, free media and campaign donors will start to really open up.

Let's look at 2004 as an example.  On January 16, Kerry was polling 12% in New Hampshire and was in third behind Dean at 32% and Clark at 23%.  After his win in Iowa, polling on January 22 had Kerry at 31%, Dean at 23%, and Clark at 16%.  The only thing that had changed in those 6 days was Kerry's Iowa victory.  Going first matters more than anything else.  Florida doesn't matter because by the time we get to Florida we'll probably have a nominee.

I think we're on the same page here actually.  In a perfect world, I would move New Hampshire and Iowa to June primaries for the rest of time.  They do a disservice to the Democratic Party.  And I like the fact Florida and some other states have decided to move up to matter more.  I think that will begin a process towards changing this system (hopefully by 2012).  But the reality is that Iowa and New Hampshire by virtue of going first (not tradition so much), have an inordinate say in who the nominee will be.

by Double B 2007-05-16 06:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Perhaps...

But Nevada is before Hew Hampshire, yet you give it no weight. Maybe it shouldn't get weight, I really don't know, but it seems like it should and will.

Agreed about Florida and everything thereafter - (stupid Florida, get to the back of the line where you belong!) - but what if a candidate loses Iowa and wins Nevada - what then?

by LandStander 2007-05-16 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Today's Iowa poll throws Iowa up for grabs again.  It is a virtual tie between all 3 candidates.  That is bad news for Edwards, who looked like he was somewhat ahead in IA.  Now it is down to a virtual tie?   That "strategy" seems extremely risky, very low yield.  Right now he can't count even on Iowa by any means, and he is far behind in NH, NV, FL, MI, SC, etc.    

by georgep 2007-05-16 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

What do you recommend he do?  Go to South Carolina?  It's too late by that time.  It's the right strategy for him.  He's been there before (in 2004) and knows the state better than the other two major candidates.

Frankly it should be the strategy of every non-major candidate as well.  Richardson might be hoping for Nevada, but I think it's too late by then if someone sweeps Iowa/NH.

by Double B 2007-05-16 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

There are no good strategies I can think of for Edwards at this point. He has invested a lot more in Iowa than any other candidate and is now only within the MOE. If he wins Iowa by only 1, 2, 3 points over Clinton and if Obama finishes only a few points behind as well there may not be any bounce effect at all.

The nighmare situation would be if the headlines the next day say that Edwards Tied With Clinton in Iowa. With Clinton's lead in NH and other states that would give Edwards very little if any momentum and it would give Obama an opening in NH  and SC against Edwards. Edwards needs a very solid win in Iowa to get much bounce.

by robliberal 2007-05-16 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

I disagree.  A win for him in Iowa would be huge.  He'll still be third in national polls at that time and winning Iowa will look like an upset.  (I understand that it might not be an upset, but the press will treat it like such to the average viewer).  It'll help his press coverage and make him at least viable in NH.  At worst, a win in Iowa allows him to continue past NH.  

by Double B 2007-05-16 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Uh, Rob, the Zogby poll is virtually unchanged for several months, especially for Edwards. Even if you trust Zogby's methodology.

by clarkent 2007-05-16 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Edwards needs a solid win in Iowa. If Clinton and/or Obama finish 1, 2, 3 points behind it is not a very convincing showing for Edwards. It will take tremendous momentum to overcome the leads in other states which is why I have doubts that Iowa will be as large a factor in 2008 as it has been in the past.

by robliberal 2007-05-16 01:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Once again George you're a great spinster.

So Zogby's poll today that shows EXACTLY the same margin between the top three as the last time he polled Iowa is somehow a DIFFERENT result and shows that this is bad news for Edwards? Do tell.

by adamterando 2007-05-16 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

The Iowa polls are tighter than a drum.  This Zogby poll pushes the aggregate between Edwards and Clinton even lower.  Edwards is way behind in every other state, including New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, Florida (4 of the first 5 states.)   Wouldn't you feel better about Iowa if Edwards were ahead by a decent margin, say, at least 10 points, instead of by a smidgen?   A tie can easily turn into a close loss.  Then what?

 

by georgep 2007-05-16 02:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

If there is only a few points spread the media may report a narrow Edwards win in Iowa as a failure to meet expectations and report it as a surprising win for Clinton and possibly even Obama. That would create a blood in the water scenario in NH and afterwards which will make it even more difficult.

by robliberal 2007-05-16 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

I doubt it.  If a candidate that hasn't had the free media presence of Obama and Clinton wins the first state, I think it'll draw a lot of attention of voters in other states.

by jallen 2007-05-16 03:31PM | 0 recs
Virtual tie

does not equal a tie.  Sorry, not quite up for for grabs yet.

by okamichan13 2007-05-16 05:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Some of the things I think about when I have nothing better to do:

WIll Clinton's poll numbers and connections convince big unions to stay neutral instead of endorse Edwards?

One of the things I didn't quite anticipate was the trickiness of going after Clinton, given her husband and her gender and the ambivalence of the base about attacks on fellow Dems. And neither Obama and Edwards is known for going negative. But someone has to: she refuses to accept responsibilitty for the war, she wants the authority to torture, she's a new Democrat. She's a centrist running to lead an increasingly progressive party. How are the other candidates going to compare and contrast?

And speaking of policy differences, I'm amused by the contradictions that emerge in these discussions. I say Edwards is a great general election candidate, and people answer: he won't be once people understands his policies. I say people won't like Hillary once they know her policies, and people answer: they know her policies and still like her. Well, both can't be true either votes knows the policies of the candidates. or they don't.

by david mizner 2007-05-16 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Edwards would be an excellent general election candidate.  He would have been in 2004 as well.  Obama and Clinton would be good candidates as well.  That probably means Iowa is going to vote for Biden.

by Double B 2007-05-16 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Funny.  My main beef with Edwards is that in 2004, he promised over and over that "the south is my backyard, and I can beat George Bush in my backyard."  He tried to portray his potential electability in the south part of his strengths.  And then, put on the ticket, he failed to carry a single southern state.  It was humiliating.  The arguments about Edwards' southern appeal hold less water now that we have actual evidence to judge them with.

by gsteff 2007-05-16 02:41PM | 0 recs
Nonsense

No one votes for VP. It is the most overrated position I can think of. It's worth 3-4 points in the home state, which is exactly what Edwards provided, if you look at the North Carolina partisan index swing from 2000 to 2004.

Edwards would be a terrific general election nominee, although he would lose his home state.

Also, there's no way electability won't matter in November 2007. A second term midterm is significantly more favorable than an open race for the presidency. We won't receive the same enormous percentage of independents in 2008. Plus, since we hold congress a little bit of the gleam and benefit of a doubt is forfeited.

Not to mention the obvious: a woman or black as the nominee is Never-never land and electability will be an ongoing topic until election day, if either Hillary or Obama are nominated. That's only natural.

by Gary Kilbride 2007-05-16 04:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

a general subtle change v/s more of the same theme should be enough for Obama, exept for pointing out the Iraq war vote Obama should not "go after Hillary" it wouldn't work nor should it, he should simply say at this time I'd be a better nominee and abetter president because I can best unite the country around a democratic adgenda, Hillary has nothing tangable to go after, people have to reject her on intangables, should we have a Clinton or a Bush on the ticket every year? Can Hillary really get anything done with all the baggadge she has? does Hillary represent change? thiers areason she has 35% of the vote in polls despite "dominating" the race.

by nevadadem 2007-05-16 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Incredible.  "There is a reason she has 35% in polls" makes you look uninformed.  Hers are excellent numbers in a divided 8-man field.  But leave it to you to turn it around into the opposite.  If her 35% to 40% in polls in an 8-man field is bad, what then is 22%, 24% Obama gets?  Or the 13% Edwards commands?

by georgep 2007-05-16 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

If the Zogby Iowa poll is not an outlier it presents a new problem for Edwards. Some of the voters who do not have Clinton as a first choice may be moving from Edwards to Obama which could create a situation where Obama could top Edwards. That would particularly be bad for Edwards since that is his only strong state. If the Iowa race tightens as much as the Zogby is showing today there will be no clear winner which will not help Edwards as much if he comes out on top.

by robliberal 2007-05-16 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Rob for the first time I completely agree with your take on a poll. Edwards could lose support especially to Obama in Iowa, he's been running in the state virtually non-stop since 2004 it's hard to see Edwards picking up mush more iowa support than he already has but organization means so much there. Obama's Iowa numbers in that one poll are fantastic, if he ever pulls out the state Edwards is done and Obama would be in my opinion very hard to stop.

by nevadadem 2007-05-16 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Well, the flip side is that Clinton is tied with Edwards, and if she can have a strong showing there (or even win) and remain as strong as she is in the other states, she will be very hard to stop.   In fact, I believe that she will be hard to stop as it is, but if she continues to show strong in IA, this thing could be over quickly.

by georgep 2007-05-16 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

George If Hillary wins Iowa she will be the nominee, unless it's just narrowly over Obama in which New Hmapshire becomes huge. I think Obama may start picking off some Edwards voters in Iowa as his base there grows and Hillary will not like to face the Obama wins Iowa scenerio going into independant dominated New Hampshire.

by nevadadem 2007-05-16 11:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

All three within the margin of error which is 4.4%

Un-decideds are 16%

by BDM 2007-05-16 12:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Hunh?

Zogby 'salways had the race bunched up like that. Nothing's changed.

by david mizner 2007-05-16 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Remember this poll shows 16% UN-DECIDED

Which is what these polls should show this far out from the Caucus.

I keep waiting for the Desmoines Register poll to come out.

Nobody has talked about a scenario of Obama winning IA with Edwards second and Clinton 3rd.

If this happens, I predict the boost he gets will propell him to win NH and then win SC.

by BDM 2007-05-16 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Clinton 3rd, I like the sound of that. And it seems squarly in the realm of reason.

And my take on NH - that 20+% undecided? If they were going for Clinton they would have done so already. That is Edwards or Obama's for the taking.

by LandStander 2007-05-16 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition
Obama is a more natural fit in NH than
Edwards is considering wealthy independants play a huge part in the primary.
by nevadadem 2007-05-16 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Yeah, I would assume that too - what a ridiculous state to hold the first primary! Third richest state in the nation! Bah!

by LandStander 2007-05-16 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

HRC IS going to be the nominee! Edwards has basically been living in Iowa and his lead is down to nothing in the polls. Even if HRC finishes 2nd in NH and SC, she will still rebound easily. Who expects her to lose NY, Fla, or California? Really now?

by ND1979 2007-05-16 01:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Ny is her home state answer no-one expects her to lose there

Fla at this point is meaningless until we know what's going on there

Calif ---Obama's down 8 points in some polls how did Howard Deans big lead hold up after Iowa and NH decided 04, if Hillary tanks early she looks like an unelectable loser making all polling prior to those defeats irrelevant.

by nevadadem 2007-05-16 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

Edwards has spent as much time in IA as the other two.

His lead in the Zogby poll is the same as it was last month. I don't how that's "down" to anything.

by adamterando 2007-05-16 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition

The point the poster made is correct.  Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa since 2001.  Since then he has been in this state probably close to 4 times the amount of times any other candidate has.  One would expect him to lead by a wide margin there, considering the infrastructure he had built in 2003/2004.   He is ahead by less than 5% in the aggregate.  Since this is the only state he actually looks decent in as of now (aside from NC, which also close) he has to be worried that Iowa does not fall away from him.  5% is not much of a lead, and he does not have any fallback and firewall states like Clinton.  

by georgep 2007-05-16 02:45PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads