MyDD :: New IOWA poll: Clinton and Obama - 29; Edwards

New IOWA poll: Clinton and Obama - 29; Edwards - 23

by LeftistAddiction, Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:21:32 AM EST

It is only when we don't get Iowa polls that we realize how much we need them. And today, we are treated with a new poll that has things all tied up, the poll comes from Strategic Vision, a GOP-leaning firm (though that should be all right since these are primary numbers)!

Full poll details and analysis here, at Campaign Diaries.

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are tied at 29%, and Edwards is at 23% -- needless to say, the three remain within the margin of error.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney is now in a statistical tie with Mike Huckabee, 26% to 24%. Giuliani is at 14%, Thompson at 10%, and McCain at 7%.

Link to poll here. First up, these numbers confirm that Huckabee has become a contender for an Iowa win that would likely be fatal to Romney's chances. We had seen a few surveys with similar results, and Huckabee has to be taken very seriously at this point. Mitt Romney will have to find a way to fight back, but his job will be very difficult as Giuliani and Thompson will also likely take aim at him, hoping to bring him down. For the smaller Iowa candidates who are no longer hoping for a win, a Romney loss would be as good as they could possibly hope for, especially if Huckabee -- who does not have much organization anywhere else -- is the one to bring him down.

As for Democrats, well, the story has been the same for months now: Iowa is the only state in which Clinton does not have any kind of lead and, conveniently for Edwards and Obama, it is also the first voting state. At this point Clinton has to be comforted to see she has not fallen down further given predictions of impending doom for her campaign in the state, and the Obama campaign will be very satisfied to see it is now consistently coming ahead of Edwards -- it was not the case until recently. Though all of this is way within the margin of error.

UPDATE with trendline: The last Strategic Vision poll was on November 14th only. It has Clinton up on Obama 29% to 27%, with Edwards at 20% and has Mitt Romney up with a massive lead 30% to 19% on Huckabee.

More news and polls of the day at Campaign Diaries.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Iowa, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee (all tags)

Permalink :: 72 Comments :: Post a Comment

The Big Dog's on his way to Iowa-yep he! (none / 0)

Yep. a 3-way tie. Dead heat! HRC may take Iowa. I'm not conceding Iowa YET. The Big Dog's on his way to Iowa this weekend. That will help HRC out alot. Gotta love the Big Dog!

by lonnette33 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:27:50 AM EST

Re: The Big Dog's on his way to Iowa-yep he! (none / 0)

I don't think he's as loved as you think he is. Yes, compared to Bush, but many Dems realize that he basically governed as a conservative.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:31:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Big Dog's on his way to Iowa-yep he! (none / 0)

You're living in a dream world jgarcia. When you're talking politics, I'd take the Big Dog over Oprah any day. Ha!

by lonnette33 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:42:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

on balance it's a plus for Hillary (none / 0)

Jgarcia is right that many Democrats are not crazy about Bill, who threw progressives under the bus too many times and pushed NAFTA while doing little for the environment.

Hillary's not going to get their votes whether or not Bill campaigns in Iowa.

At the same time, Bill is loved by many Democrats, and his favorables have always, always been higher than Hillary's. So if I'm running her campaign, absolutely I want to bring the Big Dog out to Iowa in the final stretch.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: on balance it's a plus for Hillary (none / 0)

I agree that he's popular and if I were her, it's a no-brainer that I'd bring him in.

However, we had no...ZERO permanent progressive change aside from the two Supreme Court picks (and Breyer ain't that liberal) during his eight years.

However, I'll take that anyday over Bush. But the goalposts have been moved again for us progressives where we are happy when things just don't go as bad, putting aside proactive, positive change.

McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.

by jgarcia on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 02:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New IOWA poll: Clinton and Obama - 29; Edwards (2.00 / 1)

Wow ....

I have said it , Iowa polling is tough and I just find it very surprising how obama's supporters and his allies in the media have just gone bunkers over 1 poll that was favorable to him the last go around and showed Hillary Clinton maintaining her support.

Yet the headline was Hillary Clinton slippin in the poll , her support was at the same 26 number and it was Edwards that obama took support from.

I don't expect to hear anything about this poll in the media anytime soon.

But Hey we would hear about the Zogby online poll on t.v without hearing about the Gallup poll and how useless the zogby online polls are.

I don't know what came over them on msnbc but they finally got around asking Blumenthal and Ann from the dmr poll about Zogby's poll and they basically just threw the poll out of the window.

For all its worth Anne from the Dmr poll also seemed to want to downplay the ABC poll too.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:30:13 AM EST

Re: New IOWA poll: Clinton and Obama - 29; Edwards (none / 0)

Its called momentum and for the moment, Obama's got it!

by aiko on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:34:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nah, it's called trying to engineer (none / 0)

a horse race. Mika Brezinski's brother is working for Obama and her father has endorsed him and she is on MSNBC all morning. She's not very bright and she takes her cues from Joe Scarborough of all people. So when they reported the online poll as valid this morning it was humorous.... almost as humorous as a lot of supposed democrats here and on dkos quoting it as valid.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New IOWA poll: Clinton and Obama - 29; Edwards (none / 0)

The anti-Hillary crowd will jump on anything that can be misinterpreted as bad for Hillary. Yesterday at Daily Kos a diary was actually recomended that used that crummy Zogby poll to call into question Hillary's electability. That's really just sad.

The media pounced on the ABC/WP, and I think you're right they will largely ignore this one because above everything they want a horserace, and Hillary tied in her worse state goes against that goal. If it's essentially a tie between Hillary and Obama, or Hillary and Edwards in the caucuses of Iowa than Hillary has pretty much sealed up the nomination.

by Christopher Lib on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:10:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New IOWA poll: Clinton and Obama - 29; Edwards (none / 0)

One thing is clear above all other things, the pundits in the media village look at politics as sport and entertainment and more than anything, they love the excitement, glamor and ratings a close election offers.

And they'll do whatever it takes, to make elections more interesting for themselves.

From Campaign 2000, MSNBC with Brian Williams.

HOWARD FINEMAN (9/21/00): I don't think the media was going to allow, just by its nature, the next seven weeks, the last seven or eight weeks of the campaign, to be all about Al Gore's relentless, triumphant march to the presidency. We want a race, I suppose. If we have a bias of any kind, it's that we like to see a contest and we like to see it down to the end if we can.

It's Deja Vu...all over again...

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman

by holden caulfield on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New IOWA poll: Clinton and Obama - 29; Edwards (none / 0)

"The anti-Hillary crowd will jump on anything that can be misinterpreted as bad for Hillary."

Or maybe we just don't like her?

Democrats Against Hillary

by wahoopaul on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has the mo (2.00 / 1)

Just like in the ABC/WaPo poll -- where Hillary was 26 in the summer and 26 now -- this
new poll -- 29 last time, 29 now -- is confirming the story that Hillary is flatlining in Iowa.

Both of these polls have Obama moving up.

by horizonr on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Internals (2.00 / 1)

I can't wait to see the internals of this poll. Given the internals from the Wash Post/ABC poll it'll be interesting to see how they comport with this new poll.

by Obama08 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:31:04 AM EST

Re: Internals (none / 0)

Does strategic vision come with internals ? , I don't think so.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:32:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

really? because i was hoping for the same.

can't believe i'm such a geek that i'm waiting for the internals on a poll! alas....

in any case, the bottom line on Iowa right now is:

-will it turn into a 2-way Hillary-Obama race? Edwards is just barely hanging on as a top tier Iowa guy, but if he drops into the teens I suspect his support will evaporate beyond a hard-core. I noticed that Strategic Vision's poll last Jan had Edwards on top at 25% and Obama 2nd in the high teens, Hillary 3rd at 13% (I think it was, not in front of me). So, basically, Edwards has been static/slight decline over the last year while Obama and Hillary have more or less doubled their support.

-if Edwards does fall off, will that help Obama?

-it's still basically a toss-up race, which in terms of politics as sport is fun. In terms of Dems beating up on each other to the benefit of Republicans, though, it's not so much fun.

by CalDem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Internals (none / 0)

just checked. the SV poll last Jan had Obama at 17% and HIllary at 15%. So Hillary has doubled her support and Obama gone up by 2/3, with Edwards in a slight decline.

Given that the advantages of the Hillary and Obama machines (and cash advantages) are just about to kick in, Edwards' static position during a period where the playing field has been relatively even has got to worry him: basically he's gained no support over his base, so it would seem he has no place to go but down. Can he hold on as a strong 3rd in the mid 20s?

by CalDem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:45:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: STRATEGIC VISION (2.00 / 1)

This poll show's Hillary plateuing and Obama and Edwards rising since their last poll.

The important question is who has the greatest support for 2nd choices?

What is the un-decided number in this poll?

by BDM on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:48:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They don't do internals (none / 0)

by fladem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:57:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

pretty big margin of error (none / 0)

I would say that the 6 points between Edwards and the other two is significant. It also seems like Clinton has some momentum again and Obama is slowing. Of course it could all change by next week.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:54:02 AM EST

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (2.00 / 1)

How do you see Clinton momentum when her numbers are the same from their last poll"

Poll; 11/14/07

Clinton 29
Obama 27
Edwards 20

Poll NOV. 23-25

Clinton 29
Obama 29
Edwards 23

I read these number's as Clinton plateuing and Obama AND EDWARD'S RISING.

by BDM on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:00:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (none / 0)

because I am not looking at only this poll.

ABO... Anybody but Obama. I LIKE the democratic party.

by MollieBradford on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:07:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (2.00 / 2)

You have to compare poll's done by the same polling organization's because methodologies are different for each organization.

This race is a tie, but it appears from all of the recent poll's that Obama IS HAVING A STEADY RISE AND cLINTON IS STAGNATING.

by BDM on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:53:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (none / 0)

Just like you she was slipping in the abc post poll when her numbers remained at 26% in both polls.

Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.

by lori on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:10:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (none / 0)

I would say it's significant her support is staying pretty constant at a time when supposedly she's in freefall. Yes Obama and to some extent Edwards may have had upticks, but it doesn't seem to have come at the expense of Hillary's support. Hillary's support refuses to drop bellow 25 in any of these Iowa polls. Most of her support is hard support that will not change.

by Christopher Lib on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (none / 0)

Clinton was said to be BEHIND Obama by 4%, based on one poll showing so. This poll shows an exact tie, which is much more in line with other polls we had seen. Clinton appears to be in a strong position, Edwards seems to lag a bit behind the 2, and considering that we are hearing that Clinton's support is spread-out throughout the state while Obama's seems much more concentrated to several precincts, a poll tie should give her the slight upper hand overall.

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (2.00 / 1)

Nice spin george.

However, she is way behind in 2nd choices and that is very important in Iowa's caucuses.

Momentum is on Obama's side and Clinton has stagnated in these polls.

by BDM on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:50:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (none / 0)

Who's hearing that? I haven't heard anything. Got some quotes you could deal?

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:05:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If he actually produces (none / 0)

data for his statement, it will be the first time....

by fladem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

Nice non-substantive comment. Quite trollish as it aims at inflaming.

The "data" comes in form of numerous statements made by a respected poster from Iowa who is quite familiar with the Iowa caucuses. Pay a little attention next time.

One comment I saw (there were several others) from desmoinesdem:

http://desmoinesdem.mydd.com/comments/20 07/11/26/82943/312/78#78

don't have access to Edwards' internals (none / 0)

All I can tell you is about the voter contacts I've made in a precinct full of empty nesters. Right now I know about more Richardson supporters and leaners than Obama. That doesn't mean Obama will not be viable here, but I do think he will fall short in more precincts than either Hillary or Edwards.

Find out what firefighters really think of Rudy Giuliani
by desmoinesdem on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 10:52:48 AM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:53:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

it's not trollish to ask you to substantiate your claims.

by bruh21 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:06:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

That is not what was done, as you well know.

Anyone reading here knows desmoinesdem's comments, and they have been very clear over these last 2 months: Obama not very strong across the state, all precincts, Hillary much more so (also Edwards.)

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:37:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

again its not trollish to ask you to substantiate your claims. thats all i said. i dont care about the history between teh two of you or whatever else you are trying to bring up.

by bruh21 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

Anyone reading here knows desmoinesdem's comments

Ummm, no? I don't see desmoinesdem's comments very often. Most of her blogs are the "Edwards diary" blogs and I don't bother to read those. Reading here doesn't mean someone reads everything.

And no. One persons experiences ammount to a perspective. Desmoinesdem's perspective is that Edwards and Hillary have more support throughout her precinct than Obama or Richardson.

First, that is not Iowa as a whole. She is a precinct captain and that makes the majority of her phone calls within her precinct. So her perception of the precinct isn't necesarily reflective of Iowa as a whole. I doubt Desmoinesdem has traveled the state, or for that matter, scientifically polled the state as a whole giving her an idea of each and ever precinct.

Second, a bloggers comments do not ammount to proof, or documented evidence towards your claim. You need something much more formal if you're going to turn this into a "I'm right and you're wrong" debacle.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:49:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

to clarify what I have said (none / 0)

I do believe that Hillary and Edwards will be viable in more of Iowa's 1,800 or so precincts than Obama will be.

That is based not only on my voter contacts in my precinct, but also on my conversations with field organizers and volunteers who have canvassed in other parts of the state.

Nate Willems had a front-page post not long ago describing his impressions after making voter contacts in a rural area of eastern Iowa:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/2/2165 7/4792

I have been helping my local Edwards organizers make ID calls and knock on doors in some rural Eastern Iowa precincts. I do get the sense that, particularly outside of the urban counties, the race is increasingly becoming a contest between Clinton and Edwards.

In making calls through a list of rural Democrats who are consistent primary voters, but who lack a history of attending a caucus, my anecdotal notes show that Clinton is significantly stronger than any other candidate. Accordingly, it does seem that she would benefit from a larger turnout.

Amongst rural Democrats with a record of attending their caucus, my notes show a very competitive race between Edwards and Clinton with Obama distinctly behind. I cannot overemphasize, however, the extreme fluidity of the situation. Quite simply, Iowa Democrats are not in a hurry to make up their minds. Most have narrowed down their choices, like a high school football star narrowing down his list of scholarship offers, but at least are only willing to express two or three candidates that are still in the running for their support.

Now, there are absolutely parts of Iowa (whole counties, in fact) where Obama may be stronger than Clinton or Edwards or both. I was just talking to a field organizer in a different county today, and he told me that where he is, Obama and Edwards are the main competitors, with Clinton far behind.

In the next week or so I am going to publish a diary which contains county-level results from the 2004 caucuses. Glancing down those, you will see how different the "political culture" can be from county to county, even in a seemingly homogeneous state like Iowa.

Bottom line, though, is that I think Obama will fall short of 15 percent in more precincts than Hillary and Edwards, unless he substantially improves his share of the vote among voters over 50.

Right now Obama seems to have a clear lead among Iowans under 45, but many precincts have few people in that age bracket.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:44:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

The "data" comes in form of numerous statements made by a respected poster from Iowa who is quite familiar with the Iowa caucuses. Pay a little attention next time.

I'll say it again. Comments from a blogger, respected or not, do not ammount to data. David Yepsin has higher standing in Iowa, and he predicted Dean to win in '04. Wrong, so how does someone who takes a precinct view, on a blog, have a better standing than him?

Yes, that was what was done. Somebody asked for data to your claims and you can't provide it. Data is cold hard facts. Comments from a blogger are not facts.

Sorry if I'm pounding the issue here, but first today, we have lonnette saying that predictions = endorsements and campaigning, and here you are saying comments from a blogger = data and cold hard facts. Seriously, what the hell is going on around here?

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:55:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

Data? I said: "and considering that we are hearing that Clinton's support is spread-out throughout the state while Obama's seems much more concentrated to several precincts, a poll tie should give her the slight upper hand overall."

A similar sentiment to desmoinesdem's was also voiced by Mike Lux over at openleft as for his perception of Obama's support not being as broad-based (across the state.) Why would what these fine bloggers have to say directly from within Iowa not have just as much, perhaps even more, value than what you read elsewhere? It is not that I made an absolute definite, I cleary qualified with "we are hearing" and "seems much more concentrated."

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:44:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

And, to repeat what you said: What the hell is going on around here? You have made NUMEROUS claims in the past that have zero support from "cold hard data," represent just your personal opinion, not even backed up by any reports from "the ground." Your comments here are a crock, if I ever saw one.

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

If people ask for a source, I'm more than happy to give it, if it is relative to a point. Contrary to you, who calls it trollish behavior.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

Geez, man, more of this stuff? You state "If people ask for a source," then you write "contrary to you, who calls it trollish behavior." The nonsensical approach contained in your post becomes clear when one looks at the statement I responded to from a poster who shows up here once in a blue moon:

"If he actually produces (none / 0)

data for his statement, it will be the first time....

In what alternative universe is that a simple request for data? Maybe you can point to the "cold hard data" to verify that opinion of yours.

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:58:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

I interpretted it as the first time we see data showing the broadness and concentration of support in Iowa.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

Get over it Jeremiah! You're being petty.

by lonnette33 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 04:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (none / 0)

These peop are not going to listen so you are wasting your time. I made a simple statement- support your assertion, and the reaction is expected like I told them to eat their own babies.

by bruh21 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:53:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If he actually produces (1.00 / 2)

Also ignor lonette, along with mollie and a few others she's a bit crazy.

by bruh21 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:54:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (2.00 / 1)

Desmoinesdem has stated so numerous times (that Obama's support is not as spread-out as either Edwards' or Clinton's.) She is an obvious Edwards supporter, so for her to make the statement that she is seeing Clinton strength throughout the state with that not being the case for Obama means something here. I trust that she is correct in her observations on that one.

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:46:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (none / 0)

She is not the only one in Iowa, nor does she have eyes all over Iowa.

by iamready on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:23:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (none / 0)

One precinct doesn't necessarily represent them all. And that isn't any formal statement or information. That's a comment from a blogger in Iowa.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:43:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Strategic Vision Poll's (none / 0)

When did georgep say that? Read his comment Jeremiah.

by lonnette33 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 05:00:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I addressed this upthread (none / 0)

I wasn't just talking about my own precinct.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:46:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary takes nose dive at Intrade (2.00 / 1)

Hillary was trading at $70 to win in Iowa just two weeks ago. Obama was at $18.

Today they are both trading at $47.

Someone made dough betting on Obama!

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/tradi ng/t_index.jsp?selConID=483463

by aiko on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:23:45 PM EST

Re: Hillary takes nose dive at Intrade (none / 0)

You are wrong. Please don't spread nonsense.

What you are referring to with your numbers are the OVERALL NOMINATION NUMBERS, the whole enchilada. Those were indeed at Clinton 70% and Obama at 18%. Today? Clinton 69%, Obama 19%. Big whoop.

A 50% margin over Obama when it comes to winning the Democratic nomination as of today is gigantic, any way you try to spin it.

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary takes nose dive at Intrade (2.00 / 3)

I am not lying. I may not know how to argue interminably like you do but I happen to know how to read the intrade markets.

Hillary is down by 23 points in two weeks. She and Obama are tied at 47. He was at 17 in early November.

Look it up.

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/tradi ng/t_index.jsp?selConID=483463

by aiko on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

apples and oranges (none / 0)

you're comparing national trading vs. Iowa trading. George is right; Clinton remains with a huge lead in the natioanl winner trading. RE: Iowa, Obama and Hillary are both trading at 47. This follows with the ST poll out today. They are tied.

And, as you place so much value in the Iowa trading numbers I assume you also believe the national trading numbers too...you do right?

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/tradi ng/t_index.jsp?selConID=483463

by SF Bay on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: apples and oranges (2.00 / 1)

This is out of control.

This diary is about IOWA.

My intrade comments are about IOWA.

I could care less about national numbers.

Hillary has taken a nose dive among those who are betting on who will win IOWA. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IOWA.

She was at $80 two weeks ago and now she is at $47 dollars, tied with Obama who is also at $47

by aiko on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:34:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Im checking intrade to confirm what you said (2.00 / 2)

Obama in Iowa:
Beginning of November: $18
November 20th: $22
Today: It has gone from $36 up to $47

Clinton in Iow:
Beginning of November: $70
November 20th: $61
Today: From $50 up to $53 and down to $47 now

Aiko is not lying. http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contr actSearch/

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Im checking intrade to confirm what you said (2.00 / 1)

I did not say "lying," I said "wrong," as the the nomination numbers were exactly that (70% vs. 18%,) and I have not kept track of all the state's numbers. The fact that the nomination numbers are rock-solid for Clinton (still almost 50% difference,) shows that unlike posters here most bettors don't believe that a close race in Iowa (win or lose) will effect the overall nomination race to the extent some here seem to claim.

by georgep on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 03:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It has been shown (none / 0)

the evidence you have cited was wrong.

A decent person would begin by apologizing.

by fladem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 06:13:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Im checking intrade to confirm what you said (none / 0)

Right, because Iowa has no effect on what comes after it. The nomination numbers are reflective of the national poll numbers. Hillary and Giulliani dominate. Problem is, Giulliani doesn't lead in any of the early states, how is he supposed to win the nomination? It doesn't make any sense. Same logic can be used to show that Iowa has the ability to change the dynamics of the entire primary after it.

So when Aiko starts talking about Iowa, and you say he's wrong when he's right, because you looked at the wrong numbers, he's still wrong. Nice logic. You can check the history of the state numbers, you don't have to keep track of specific states to see where they were at certain points in time. Jackass move, really. Aiko was right, you criticized him because you misread something. Simple and honest mistake. The real problem here is you can't accept that.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:09:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Im checking intrade to confirm what you said (none / 0)

I said that I mistook the numbers for the overall nomination numbers, as they apparently matched exactly. As you said, a simple and honest mistake. Where do you see that "I can't accept that"? I did right in my post.

The real problem here, and the only thing I took exception to, was your made-up remark about the "lying" which is a term I never used when addressing the issue. I used the term "wrong." There is a big difference between accusing someone to be a liar (intent to deceive) and telling someone they are "wrong" or "mistaken" (having misread something.) What you did here was a cheap poster attack based on an actual lie on your part, namely that at any point I supposedly accused the poster of "lying" which is of course untrue. I would say that if you make stuff up to further your own attacks, that is indeed a problem.

by georgep on Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 11:58:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Intrade can be misleading (none / 0)

because when a bunch of obama fans BELIEVE the media hype that he has better chance to win and buy futures - his numbers go up.

Much moreo solid are professionl oddsmakers numbers from the betting houses setting the numbers -ie the line -for real betting. tTheir record in recent elections have been devastatingly accurate.

note the headline of the piece.

from the online gaambling analysis site -
Gambling nine one one:

-------

Hillary Clinton Holds Firm With Oddsmakers

November 25, 2007

2008 US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has held firm with online oddsmakers while holding off the likes of Barack Obama.

The best odds on Hillary at press time November 25, 2007 could be found at BodogLife where she was surprisingly still an even favorite compared to the peak 1/3 odds found elsewhere.

Rudy Giuliani had the next shortest odds at Bodog: 9/4.

Barack Obama continued to be a long shot when compared to Clinton's favorite status. At BodogLife he was listed with odds of 5/1 and this was fairly consistent among the various online gambling websites.

Romney is tending to dip down to 8/1 odds of becoming the next US President across the board. Romney and Obama are both listed with 6/1 odds at British bookmaker William Hill.

John Edwards has the better odds. He tends to be listed anywhere between 15/1 and 20/1 odds depending on where you look.

___

Lets translate that for you -

Depending on the betting house, the oddsmakers say that its:

between 6 to 18 times more likely that Hillary will become President than Obama.

between 15 to 60 times more likely that Hillary becomes President than John Edwards.

Please remember, the lower numbers produced above came because one online gambling site had what the analyst in the piece called "surprisingly" set the odds for Hillary to win the White House to be ONLY even money.

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman

by holden caulfield on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:28:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by the way these are odds to win the white house (none / 0)

if you think youre right ..bet..

i did, i bet 2gs 10 months ago - if im right...ill make a lil...

if youe right-

youll make KILLING!!

lucky you...

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman

by holden caulfield on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:34:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My View on this new poll (none / 0)

Although the Clinton supporters are currently dancing in the street because Obama is not ahead on this poll , you need to remember oe thing , and it is that Obama support among 'second choices" has always been broader then Hillary's.

This means that if things are tight among "first choice voters " , but Obama is murdering Hillary by double digits among "second choices" which every other polls have shown , then Obama will win this.

Both , the CBS and the ABC Iowa poll internals have shown Hillary finishing in third place among second choices , so if you're an Hillary fan , you should hope for Hillary to be ahead by at least 5% so that she could fend off the second choices...

Logic says that if things are even among first choice voters , whoever can get more second choices will eventually win.

As long as Obama keeps the lead among second choices , all he has to do is not let Clinton pull away too far so that the second choices voters could sweep him through the finish lie.

by Prodigy on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:47:47 PM EST

Iowa is very close (none / 0)

and based on past experience, will not break, if it all, until the last week.

My assumption all along has been it will break away from Hillary (who I view as essentially an incumbent) - but who the hell knows.

by fladem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:07:24 PM EST

Re: Iowa is very close (none / 0)

I believe that's accurate. I suppose people could go conservative, and think she's the safer bet, but it's equally possible that as someone they have known for a decade and half they should have made up their minds by now. This shouldn't even be close. To me the real battle will utlimately in this race come down to whether any one candidate can consolidate the non Clinton vote.

by bruh21 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:27:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Iowa is very close (none / 0)

I agree 100% with you when you stated that the undecided will break AWAY from Hillary , not toward her.

Look at her approval ratings in Iowa....It's actually lower then Obama and Edwards which does not parallel with her national numbers.

The undecided is really whats scares the shit out of the Clintons...Not only that , but also the second choices who are already breaking away from them.

I strongly believe that the "second choices" are currently telling us where "the undecideds" will go which is they will most likely break toward Obama and Edwards.

This is why Hillary is trying to bloody Obama ad hope that he's so bloody that the undecided will find him unattractive....Right now , Hillary would rather Edwards wins Iowa then Obama.

by Prodigy on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:49:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This, to me, is the key phrase (none / 0)

"It should not even be close".

The think to watch for is the development of a dynamic similar to the one that emerged between Dean and Gephardt in '04.

The other bug unknown is Bill's ability to influence the race late.

by fladem on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 01:48:03 PM EST

Re: This, to me, is the key phrase (none / 0)

I think it will be minimal- they used several of their techniques earlier in the race, and the law of diminishing return applies. As one friend said- they can't really use some of their arguments over the long term because things like gender or Clinton's showing up as a limited shelf life.

by bruh21 on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New IOWA poll: Clinton and Obama - 29; Edwards (none / 0)

I think you are right that Edwards could benefit from a Clinton/Obama slugfest.

by aiko on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:37:35 PM EST

Re: New IOWA poll: (none / 0)

These are good numbers for Hillary. For Iowa to even begin to affect her, she has to completely tank with a huge loss- showing her tied at first is not going to do it. She doesn't have to win this state, only a strong showing and that looks like it will happen- for goodness sake, she is leading everywhere else. Edwards was dumb, when they asked him why he was not attacking Obama, he said because they agreed on most things- so why would people vote for him- he's finished- at any rate, Obama can win Iowa and it won't matter much though I'm not sure he will considering his many of his base will mostly be hung over from parties and the last thing they will be thinking about is spending several hours somewhere on the 3rd.

by reasonwarrior on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:29:45 PM EST

Re: New IOWA poll: iNTRATRADE (none / 0)

Intratrade close today in IA

CLINTON 47 OBAMA 49.9

First time the trader's have Obama AHEAD IN iOWA

by BDM on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 09:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New IOWA poll: iNTRATRADE (none / 0)

Very nice.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:03:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New IOWA poll: iNTRATRADE (none / 0)

Truthfully, that is a bit eye-opening. He might really end up winning the state and that's okay. It will be interesting to see what effect Oprah will have- who knows- it might be work really well to his advantage- it's tricky- or no boost at all- it will be interesting to see the result- it might determine celebrity stumping in the future- there's no refuting she is incredibly popular and a big draw- we'll see- it'll be fascinating to see if a huge celebrity can really effect things. Bill is a former President, so it's not the same.

by reasonwarrior on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 11:38:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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.