There is a terrible poll on NH Senate from ARG:

Sununu 52 (41)
Shaheen 41 (46)

http://americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/ senate08/

One initial observation: There's been a steady implosion of Richardson's summer bloc of 10%. Obama dropping 3 pts could be attributed to a general wearing-off of the Oprah effect, and the wide play that Bill Clinton's Charlie Rose interview received. Clinton's bump is probably Des Moines Register endorsement related. Edwards is benefiting from his status as the leading second choice candidate, as people peel off of Richardson and Obama.

It's the damnednest thing: less than two weeks out from Election Day and no one on the Dem side is running any negative television ads. I really didn't expect this to be the case.

the last 4 NH polls cannot be reconciled.

Rassmussen had it 31-28-18, which is close the the USA today poll.

ARG and UNH show between a 12 and 14 point lead for Clinton.  

The Iowa polling is easier to reconcile - and shows a very close race.

The most interesting thing to me that is happened in the last week has been McCain's explosion. ARG had McCain at 20 in Iowa yesterday - the SV poll tends to refute that.

McCain scares the hell out me.  I do not think Hillary can beat him.

Rose colored glasses? lol

Iowa doesn't dislike Hillary, she's been leading there for months.  Edwards is still not leading Iowa, and Independent voters in New Hampshire are not going to flock to him.

Hillary doesn't have to win Iowa to stay in the game, she just can't come in third. Obama has to either win or get second place and follow it up with a win in New Hampshire.  If there is an Edwards miracle, and he finishes first in both Iowa and New Hampshire, he might just sweep the early contests and be competitive in the Feb. 5 states.

Another day, another poll, another dollar, another pundit seeking meaning in the meaningless shifts that occur within the M.O.E.

Edwards is now within the margin of a reasonable Iowa bump in New Hampshire.   (14 points in both this Gallup and the latest Rasmussen).  

Iowa presumably has one more zig left before the caucuses but as it stands right now,  I'd assume that Edwards will win there (narrowly) because of his stronger positives, higher second place prefernces,  and much better distribution of support in the rural areas.    A dead heat in statewide turnout would likely end up with Obama coming in third in percentage of delegates which is all that ultimately gets reported in the media.

Edwards bump (unless the margin of victory is microscopic) will probably be even bigger then average because he has been written off by so many pundits and will be seen as an upset.

It would be helpful to know what the sample size was.  I'm so skeptical of most polls these days and I know first hand that it's incredably to get good contacts/responses in Iowa & NH.

I don't have anything other than second & third hand knowledge of Iowa.  Iowa is the most important contest.

Based on talking to about 200 Dem. & independent voters as an Obama canvasser, in NH, last weekend back into the summer, I sense that the electorate in NH is really at the decision point.  I believe Obama is on the verge of closing the sale but there could be a mini "Dated Barack, Married Hillary" effect, just as voters flirted with, but turned away from, Howard Dean and Wesley Clark four years ago.  I don't believe enough voters yet see Obama as the next President.  A win in Iowa would cast Obama in that role, I'm sure there won't be any scream from Barack.  Older voters bring up experience, a lot.  Some really like Obama but think that "he will get his turn later."  Everyone thinks he is younger than his age. I wish Obama's campaign would have more substance in its "literature" -- it's there, Barack has the beef.

Hillary's strengths & weaknesses are well known.  She is seen as both a great champion and a nasty fighter.  I think she needs to go sharply positive at the end -- her team has planted doubts about Obama, especially with older voters.  She is not the candidate of change but she is seen by many as a candidate of change.  Most voters do not see huge issue differences in the Dem. field, to them any Democrat is OK and

Hillary seems to be the default choice.  But if there is any momentum out of Iowa, Obama will be like a prairie wind and blow the field away. A strong second just might do.  Amond second-choicers I think Obama does better with Edwards voters and Hillary does better with Richardson voters.  I want to believe it will be an Obama win, but I'm from Missouri originally and I haven't been shown yet.

NH independants are going to have to decide which election they want to participate in. If you look at the numbers Democrats are solid for Clinton, it's the independants who are giving Obama traction. Their problem is will they want to use their vote for Obama, McCain or Romney. Interesting dilemma. The solidity of the democratic vote is also why with the possible exception of SC which also has its "special" factors Clinton is going to sweep the board outside the first two or three states and she probably wins at least one of the first three. Which is why Obama doesn't have a winning strategy. The only people who believe he does are his supporters. The press pretend he does but they are trying to sell something.        

Re independents in NH. I think most will vote in the NH democratic primary reason because, given the present trend line, they get more bang for the buck. It looks like the generic Democratic candidate wins in November. What would you rather do? Help chose the likley winner or the likely loser? It's not nanotechnology to figure this out, and NH voters are among the savviest in the world. I bet NH independents vote overwhelmingly democratic.

The DMR endorsement and the Newsweek cover for Edwards have helped slow the Obama momentum in Iowa, turning the huge-universe sample into a three-way tie.  This is largely an Iowa phenomenon, Obama's momentum in New Hampshire continues unabatted.  

As I've been saying for weeks, the results in Iowa depend more on campaign strategy and precinct captain training than polls ... Obama and Edwards have the strength and organization to push Hillary into third place if they don't care which one comes out on top (by trading spare votes across the board.) My guess is that team Edwards is confident enough in their rural organization to offer an arrangement to Obama, but Obama has to fear an Edwards win, so he's likely to roll the dice.  It's a risk, though, because any Hillary win raps up the nomination.

Richardson slamming Hillary on Iraq yesterday is potentially huge news ... I doubt that there's a reciprocity agreement between their campaigns now.  Hillary could very well be on her own in Iowa, which is not good ... Biden and Dodd should be looking to Edwards for vote trading relationships.  Kucinich had one in 2004, but his lack of precinct captains made it impossible for Edwards to full capitalize on it.

I'm predicting a surprisingly comfortable win for Edwards, with around 35 percent of delegates, with Obama and Hillary in a fierce fight for number two.  The Edwards people in 2004 were disappointed that they didn't do more to deprive Kerry of oxygen and let Dean fall too hard ... don't be too surprised if there's a last minute Edwards-Clinton deal that seals a first place win for Edwards while pushing Obama to #3 (which helps both campaigns short and long run.)

I think it all comes down to organization. My sources in IA rate the Obama and Edwards organization better than Clinton. The reason is that their organizations have been in many counties far earlier than Clinton and she has been late to the game in bringing in new people and opening up new offices.

The Obama AND eDWARDS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE GOTTEN THE TOP PEOPLE IN MANY OF THESE RURAL COUNTIES AND HAVE ESTABLISHED THE NECESSARY relationships that matter in bringing out their caucus supporter's.

Clinton has under-estimated the importance of organization in IA and she appears panicky in now trying to visit all 99 counties. It was only a few weeks ago that they decided to move their whole HQ'S top people to Iowa.

If Iowan's want  change they will go to Obama OR EDWARDS. iT APPEARS FROM POLLING, THAT iOWAN'S VALUE cHANGE OVER EXPERIENCE AND LIKEABILITY AND TRUTH TELLING OVER POLICIY POSITIONS.

We shall see.

It's going to be Edwards and Romney in the general election matchup. This was my prediction in Janurary and I'm taking it all the way to the bank.

Edwards will win Iowa and use the bump to win a tough race in New Hampshire. Then he will win a tight battle in South Carolina.

Huckabee will win Iowa and Romney will win New Hampshire. Then Romney will win Michigan. Game Over for Huckabee. Mccain is hanging on, but the independent vote in New  Hampshire will reside mostly on the Democrats side.

The rural vote will be key for Edwards winning Iowa and the lack of the college vote will hurt Obama big-time.

On the Democratic side, these polls show a continued tightening of the race.  Iowa, as we have all been saying, is a three person toss up.

The more interesting poll though is NH.  Obama and Clinton are tied, but Edwards continues to be in the upper teens.  The Edwards campaign is contacting supporters throughout New England (such as me) in an attempt to get as much ground support as possible between now and January 8th.  If Edwards can punch into the low 20's prior to Iowa, we will have a three person race where any of the candidates (after winning Iowa) will have a legitimate chance at winning in New Hampshire.  

The Clinton campaign may still want Edwards to win Iowa, but she needs to finish second in Iowa or she is going to be in serious trouble.

On the Republican side, we see the two person race in Iowa continues, while Thompson may have punched through into 3rd.  However, I would not count out McCain as several polls have seen him going up (including this one).  A 3rd place Thompson victory is likely a moot point.  BUT, a 3rd place McCain victory would be significant given his strength in NH, and the fact that he may soon become the default "sanity" candidate for the Republican party.  Over the past week I've been saying that I think McCain is now the silent favorite for the nomination.

A Huckabee win in Iowa (possible) coupled with McCain sneaking into 3rd would be great news for John McCain, and horrible news for everyone else.    Huckabee MUST keep his numbers in other states higher--we are seeing him skyrocket in numerous states, but will he come back to Earth before those states have the primary elections?  All of the recent polls tell us one thing:  Huckabee has a huge spotlight on him.  And what the media has been seeing as of late is NOT pretty.

-Zen Blade

If Edwards and Huckabee win Iowa (as I expect) New Hampshire is going to be very critical.

For the Dems - Whoever comes in third in Iowa (whether Obama or Clinton) will be fighting for viability and will have no chance of recovering in New Hampshire.    The second place finisher in Iowa may manage to hold on in New Hampshire and then survive into February 5.  If Edwards wins Iowa the Nevada Unions who have been holding out will quickly throw him their support and he will have a very strong chance there (Nevada) as well as in South Carolina where he will pick up the anti vote (either anti hillary or anti obama depending on who survived Iowa and New Hampshire).

For the Repugs -  McCain will overtake Romney and win New Hampshire which will set off a brutal South Carolina battle.    The interesting phenomena will be how many "independents" in New Hampshire break towards McCain to stop Huckabee but end up abandoning Obama.

Was to think that he didn't need older voters, women voters, and union voters to win.  It is going to come back to haunt him on Jan. 3.

Voter's want change and trustworthiness as well as likeability. I grew up in Minnesota and those are the most important values tha mid-westerner's will take to the polls.

Orders have come from the top of the campaign here that nobody is to predict that Hillary Clinton will win Iowa.

That may be part of the "expectations" game that all campaigns play.

Or it may be because the campaign no longer is really sure that Clinton will win.

In interviews with top Clinton staffers, who did not wish to be quoted directly, I was told that Clinton could survive a second-place finish in Iowa and that the state was not do-or-die for her.

Gordon Fischer, the former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party who is now backing Obama, says that attitude represents an "evolution."

"The strong pitch made to me and others not that long ago was that we had to be for Hillary, because Hillary was going to be the inevitable winner," Fischer told me. "They have come a long way if they now think Iowa is just survivable."

Technically speaking, all the Democratic campaigns probably can survive a loss in Iowa on Jan. 3.

After all, the New Hampshire primary is only five days later. Why drop out before then?

But no campaign is underestimating the importance of Iowa.

I tend to look at all these polls from the bottom up.
Strength of support plays a bit more importance.
So ...

Iowa
Clinton seems to have a solid floor of support at around 28%.
Edwards seems to have 25% locked up.
Obama is harder to read as his numbers have shown the most volatility but I estimate it at 23%.
Richardson has a 4% floor with Biden a close 3%. Kucinich and Dodd at a combined 1% floor. This leaves about 19% in real play going into the last week.
I think it is clear that as it stands today this 19% is mostly not-Clinton. The question is just how many of this pool will caucus. My guess is that about a quarter will in the end show up. I also feel that they will probably go 60%-40% Edwards-Obama.
So going into the caucus I see it Clinton 31.5% Edwards 31.5% Obama 28% Richardson 4.5% Biden 3.5% Dodd .5% Kucinich .5%

The interesting question is how the threshold reallocation will go. I am of the opinion that Clinton is not hurt as much by second choice votes as many do. I expect she will get most of the Biden and half of the Richardson second choices. (Richardson's antiwar vote will go to Obama and Edwards, his Resume vote will go to Clinton). So throwing in the the Dodd Kucinich vote the initial reallocation gives Clinton a +4.5% Edwards a +2.5% Obama +1% and Other/uncommitted 2%. Edwards gains from any Clinton reallocation and Obama from any Edwards reallocation. This probably works out to a net shift of 1% from Clinton to Obama. So before any Obama reallocation I see it Clinton 35% Edwards 33.5% Obama 29.5% Other 2%. Here is where I diverge from most. Obama will be hurt by reallocation much like Dean did. I assume around a 3% hit on Obama's numbers. Now the Edwards people here will assume that most of that goes to him. I however feel the reallocation will be much more even. Edwards would gain the most if this happened mainly in the more Urban precincts, but that is where Obama is least likely to be subject to reallocations. The Edwards people will argue that the rural reallocation will go significantly in his favor. I again disagree. Gender will be a powerful factor and this cycle that hurts Edwards where it helped last time. Edwards will gain more from Obama then Clinton will, but not that much.
So I see Iowa:
Clinton 36%
Edwards 35%
Obama   27%
Other    2%

Which translates to NH
Clinton 40%
Obama   25%
Edwards 25%
Other   10%

As well as the strongest candidate.

But the hell with the rest of it.  I;m voting for him in the NY primary.

The rest of the horse race is essentially media bull shit.  I read it, but it has nothing to do with policy issues.