MyDD :: ARG: Clinton Leading in All Early States

ARG: Clinton Leading in All Early States

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 01:25:13 AM EST

American Research Group has released its latest numbers out of the early states, and from the looks of it Hillary Clinton appears to be in a very strong position just over three months from the point at which voters will begin deciding the presidential nominees. Take a look at the latest numbers (600 LVs in each state, September 26-29, MoE +/- 4.0% for each state poll), to which I have added the latest Pollster.com averages.

	IA		NH		SC
Candidate	ARG	Pollster	ARG	Pollster	ARG	Pollster
Clinton	30 (28)	26.6	41 (37)	36.5	41 (32)	37.6
Obama	24 (23)	20.6	22 (17)	17.9	31 (21)	25.6
Edwards	19 (20)	22.6	10 (14)	12.2	7 (24)	10.2
Richardson	10 (13)	13.0	8 (7)	10.0	5 (2)	1.8

For the sake of conserving space, I have not included information on candidates polling at under 5 percent according to ARG, but for those interested numbers on those candidates are available at the links to the polls above.

Looking at numbers like these, it would be hard to come to any conclusion other than that Clinton is an extremely strong candidate at this juncture -- perhaps even the prohibitive favorite. With this much strength, ducks can begin to fall into line, and garnering more support in these key states, as well as eslewhere, can become easier.

That all said, it's not clear to me that it is in Clinton's best interest to go into Iowa as a strong favorite. The expectations game can be tricky, and even a narrow win when a larger one is expected can subsequently hurt a candidate. At this point, I don't believe that Clinton is as much of a favorite in Iowa as she is nationally (certainly the polling at this juncture in the state is closer than it is nationwide or even in the other early states), so merely winning the state's caucuses by a relatively narrow margin would not likely hurt her (and could indeed propel her to a relatively easy path to the nomination). But if people's expectations of her get much higher and she fails to win decisively in the Hawkeye State, a clear opening may be available for the candidate running second in the caucuses to make a real move in the following nominating contests.

Tags: Iowa Caucuses, Iowa, Democrats, Democratic Primaries, 2008, New Hampshire Primary, New Hampshire, South Carolina Primary, South Carolina, ARG (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

Wow! That's some momentum in those (none / 0)

graphs. I hope it's really going that well. I think if she wins Iowa at all, she wins the whole thing.

by bookgrl on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 01:32:15 AM EST

true--it would be over (none / 0)

if she won Iowa.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 01:36:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

ARG has had Clinton around 30 in IA (none / 0)

most of the year.

I think their voter screen is too loose.

But we'll find out in about three months.

Many things can change the dynamic of the race during that time. Will Obama make a slip that leads to another Clinton-stoked media frenzy about his "inexperience"? Will Richardson figure out that he has potential to win over soft Hillary supporters? Or will he play it safe and not go after Hillary?

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 01:34:55 AM EST

Re: ARG has had Clinton around 30 in IA (none / 0)

ARG uses one of the more stringent likely voter screens. They reject respondents who say they are "probably" going to caucus and only count those who say they are "definitely" going to caucus.

by hwc on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 01:39:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

SC (none / 0)

SC is interesting. What will happen if Edwards calls the quit and the race is down to Obama & Clinton before SC ?
This scenario occurs when Obama Clinton go #1 and #2 in Iowa and Clinton wins NH.

Will SC voters rally alone racial line? African Americans go to Obama and whites go to Clinton? It's actually quite possible based on previous polling data. Obama polls in single digits among whites and Edwards polls in single digits among African Americans. If that is the case, Clinton will probably still edge out a win.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 01:54:50 AM EST

Edwards beating all Republicans in most states (none / 0)

Democratic Candidate vs. Republican Candidate

Survey USA - September 28, 2007
Oregon
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 7.33%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 7.66%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 12.00%

Survey USA - September 27, 2007
Minnesota
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 15.66%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 10.66%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 17.00%

Survey USA - September 26, 2007
Wisconsin
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 5.00%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 7.66%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 8.66%

Ohio (20 electoral votes)
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 3.33%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 7.00%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 9.33%

Iowa (7 electoral votes)
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 7.00%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 9.33%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 15.66%

Missouri (11 electoral votes)
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 3.66%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 5.33%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 13.00%

New Mexico (5 electoral votes)
Average
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 11.33%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 10.00%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 13.00%

Kentucky (8 electoral votes)
Average
Clinton trails the Republicans by an average of 5.00%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 12.33%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 1.33%

Virginia (13 electoral votes)
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 9.33%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 3.66%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 11.33%

Alabama (9 electoral votes)
Average
Clinton trails the Republicans by an average of 8.33%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 23.33%
Edwards trails the Republicans by an average of 5.33%

Kansas (6 electoral votes)
Average
Clinton trails the Republicans by an average of 8.00%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 5.00%
Edwards trails the Republicans by an average of 1.00%

by mrobinsong on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 02:21:22 AM EST

I'm an Edwards supporter, but I'd discount this (none / 0)

The GOP isn't going to nominate an average; they're going to nominate Giuliani or Thompson or Romney or McCain or Huckabee or somebody.

I don't see Freddie or Mitt being a threat in the general: whoever we nominate, we win. But Rudy could be dangerous. And if we toss out states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Alabama where, if we win, we're winning big, what it comes down to is that Hillary actually does slightly better against Rudy than Edwards does. (See Beaudrot's nice display of the numbers here.)

Plus Hillary's been through this before. If there's one Dem I trust to be able to slug it out with Rudy, it's Hillary. I'd much rather have Edwards be President, but I trust Hillary to not let herself be defined by the 2008 version of the Swiftboaters. I'm a lot less confident about either Edwards or Obama.

by RT on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:23:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama leads in a worthless poll (none / 0)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-melber /obama-leads-in-worthless-_b_66539.html

Second, it's very hard to accurately poll the small, unpredictable "universe" of caucus attendees. This poll has a high margin of error at plus or minus seven points, (explained here), and it purports to identify "likely" caucus attendees by asking if they plan to caucus. But this is not like planning to vote. It takes over an hour to attend the caucus -- smack in the middle of Iowa winter -- so schedules and weather make turnout much more unpredictable than regular voting.

Third, no Iowa poll incorporates the defining feature of the Iowa Caucus: The required "viability" minimum of 15% that candidates must reach to have any votes count in a precinct. On caucus night, Iowans first gather into groups for their preferred candidate, and then any groups falling short of 15% must change to support a viable candidate. The final caucus tally refers to those second round totals. That means victory can depend on the second-place preferences of Iowans backing "second-tier" candidates. Field operatives get this dynamic. While the media chases worthless national polls and sloppy slices of state electorates.....

by mrobinsong on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 02:31:15 AM EST

Re: Obama leads in a worthless poll (none / 0)

1. We have seen Clinton generally do very well as "second choice." So, with the 15% hurdle in mind that seems to help her in Iowa.

2. Of the last 12 polls conducted in Iowa, only 3 show Edwards with a lead. One was by only 1% (a tie,) another within the MeE of 5%. That suggests that Edwards is in some trouble, as one would imagine that he would dominate a majority of these last 12 polls if he were actually ahead in the state.

3. ARG throws away results from respondends who are not certain whether they will attend the caucuses or not. Their "likely" voter screen is more severe than other polls.

4. The poll you are referencing in the Huffpo link is the Newsweek poll, while this diary discusses the ARG poll.

by georgep on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 03:01:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa went on the electability issue in '04 (none / 0)

They deemed Kerry to be the most credible Presidential candidate to stand up to George Bush.

Will they do the same this time? Who looks like the most credible Presidential candidate?

by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:19:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa went on the electability issue in '04 (none / 0)

Iowa in 2004 went with "electability" with a crop of largely unknown or uninspiring (Gephardt} candidates. The situation this year is not parallel. All three of the top Democratic contenders are well known.

by InigoMontoya on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:03:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa went on the electability issue in '04 (none / 0)

And unless we'll discover an alternative universe where the other candidates won the nomination we can't discount the possibility he actually was the most electable one. Everybody else could have lost by more for all we know.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:05:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Kerry was the best choice (none / 0)

If he didn't let his campaign get away from him for 1 six week stretch he would have won.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 12:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama leads in a worthless poll (none / 0)

My personal opinion is that ARG polls are next to worthless, but they're not the only one showing Hillary in the lead in Iowa - if you go to pollster.com or RealClearPolitics, their averages of recent polls will show the same thing.

For all the talk about how it's still early, it's not. It's October. The Iowa caucuses are three months away, the voters are much more attached to the candidates they're supporting than they were at this time in 2003, and time's running out to change the dynamic of this race.

If anyone with a decent-sized megaphone wants someone besides Hillary to be the nominee, whether it's SEIU, or any of our not-fond-of-Hillary big-name bloggers, or whoever, now's the time for them to speak up.

by RT on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:29:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Please provide (none / 0)

a link to this statement:

"We have seen Clinton do very well as "second choice". The polling I have seen suggests this is a strength for Obama.

Two of the last four Iowa polls have asked about second choices.

1. LA Times found Obama leading with 25%, Edwards and Clinton were tied with about 20%.

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/200 7-09/32529239.pdf

2. The Newsweek poll
Second Choice Numbers
Obama 24, Clinton 20, Edwards 19, Richardson 9

by fladem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:46:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG: Clinton Leading in All Early States (none / 0)

At this point, I don't believe that Clinton is as much of a favorite in Iowa as she is nationally (certainly the polling at this juncture in the state is closer than it is nationwide or even in the other early states), so merely winning the state's caucuses by a relatively narrow margin would not likely hurt her (and could indeed propel her to a relatively easy path to the nomination).

You're assuming that the non-Iowa primary voters are actually paying attention to the horserace there. They aren't. If someone besides Hillary wins the Iowa caucuses, the vast majority of non-Iowans will think, "Wow, Hillary was way ahead of everyone else and lost!" National polls are driving the CW right now, not Iowa polls.

And the downside of building a campaign based on supposed inevitability is that the expectations become sky-high. You can't have it both ways: i.e. "Hillary's inevitable but you shouldn't expect her to win."

by Will Graham on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:27:38 AM EST

Hillary Clinton is driving the polls right now. (none / 0)

It doesn't matter where you look. States polls or national polls, or head to head vs. Republicans in individual states or at the national level. The fact is that Clinton looks great and her lead looks solid.

She is running a consistantly strong campaign and showing that she is the most credible Presidential candidate in the field.

The question for Edwards or Obama is (and has been for a long time) are they going to do something different to change the race? Obviously, what they have done to date isn't working.

by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:17:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: ARG: Clinton Leading in All Early States (none / 0)

The big problem in your statement: "National polls are driving the CW right now, not Iowa polls"

The Iowa caucus isn't right now, The media will focus more on the iowa polls as soon as the caucus if only a few weeks off.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Ernst on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 11:12:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What's up with South Carolina? (none / 0)

It's interesting that ARG poll numbers in Iowa are really firm, barely varying from month to month. Probably the result of the tighter voter screen there?

And then the South Carolina poll numbers are all over the place. Edwards dropping from 24% to 7% since the last poll. Huh? That can't be right.

And both Clinton and Obama have shifted up roughly ten points there since the last poll. That seems odd to me.

It interesting to watch the continuing height of Edwards' poll numbers in Iowa (not represented in this poll but in the pollster average) compared to, well, everywhere else. It's kind of fascinating actually. Iowa has such a different dynamic --- (not really sure that's a good thing, but it is interesting.) And I actually don't think you can account for it just on his sheer number of visits.

One Million Strong --- Join up

by psericks on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 07:30:34 AM EST

Re: What's up with South Carolina? (none / 0)

It is true that Iowa is different from any other state, although it looks as if Edwards' previous lead has totally evaporated. He was ahead by 7% in polling aggregates, now he is behind by 4%. Still close, but that represents an 11% turnaround of Edwards' Iowa advantage.

As for SC: The previous ARG poll was off, this one is a lot closer to reality, as confirmed by Rasmussen's SC poll from this morning:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_2008_south_carolina _democratic_primary

Clinton 43%, Obama 30%, Edwards 10%

by georgep on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:30:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hmmmmm.. (none / 0)

Singer didn't diary the new Newsweek poll but somehow , find the time to diary ARG??

JaeHood, see here

by dblhelix on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:42:43 AM EST

Re: ARG: Clinton Leading in All Early States (2.00 / 1)

An increasing lead too... looks increasingly over, and that is now the strong CW. Anyone that upsets Clinton, in Iowa, if possible, would be a giant-killer.

by Jerome Armstrong on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:54:22 AM EST

Zogby on POTUS 08 this morning (none / 0)

He said he sees Iowa tightening with Romney still leading but by smaller margains. He said he sees major movement in NH

by dpANDREWS on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 08:57:24 AM EST

Re: ARG: Clinton Leading in All Early States (none / 0)

Well, the big thing that happens if Clinton loses Iowa is that it not only deflates the "inevitability" meme, it inflates the "electability" of the IA winner while reducing the perceived "electability" of Clinton.

You then go into the Sunday talk shows where the theme would be Hillary's "collapse" or "disappointing" performance. Then, if she was leading by 20 in NH and only wins by 5 or less, it looks like she's losing momentum. Throw in a SC win for her primary rival, and by the time you get to 2/5, it's a good bet the national polls have evened out.

by megaplayboy on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 09:18:04 AM EST

Re: ARG: Clinton Leading in All Early States (none / 0)

We've seen a couple of polls now which show that Edwards might be slipping into 3rd in Iowa, bringing it in line with pretty much every other state (he's tied for 2nd in his home state, almost 20 points behind Clinton). Obviously, there's no hope for his candidacy if that continues.

If Clinton does win Iowa, it's game over. Obama would be back in the hunt with a win there, as starting with a low-to-mid 20s base is a better launching point than the low-to-mid teens.

by NC State Dem on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:49:10 AM EST

Re: ARG: Clinton Leading in All Early States (none / 0)

Rasmussen released a South Carolina poll, which shows pretty much the same result as the ARG poll (Democratic side.)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_2008_south_carolina _democratic_primary

Clinton 43%, Obama 30%, Edwards 10%

It looks increasingly that Clinton is gaining in SC and with the aggregate now at 13% she is close to building SC into a firewall state. The key is that Clinton has passed the 40% mark in the state seemingly consistently, which is significant.

by georgep on Mon Oct 01, 2007 at 10:58:53 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.