What would a Sunday be without a poll? Throw in a graphic so I don't have to bother with 'pre' tags and it makes for a wonderful political junkie moment. McClatchy puts up the poll details as well. Since it's a MOE of 5-6% for these polls, they are not that reliable an indicator for the sub-groups, but it's still interesting to see, so thanks go to McClatchy & Mason Dixon for following Pollster.com's earlier request. Let's go state by state:

Iowa: For Democrats, Bill Clinton's favorables are highest, lol, Edwards & Obama come up next. Clinton relies heavily upon voters about 50 years of age, Obama younger, with Clinton & Edwards doing better among Unions than Omama. Only 11% of Democrats are undecided. Obama/Clinton/Edwards are about tied in being the second choice of those who support Richardson/Biden/Dodd/Kucinich. Obama is the 'change' candidate, Clinton is the 'experience' candidate, Edwards the 'honest' candidate. Healthcare is as big an issue as Iraq (this is new but plausible). Edwards the lead among those that call for getting out of Iraq immediately, Clinton's ran the most negative campaign. Among Republicans, Bush's favorables are still the highest, but it's all Huckabee. High 30's to 40's across the board among the sup-groups. Thompson is in 3rd-- he'll be the one, good lobbyist that he is, that will carry water for attacking Huckabee in Iowa. Only 7% among the GOP voters rank 'who can win' as critical. Only 57% among the GOP are hardliners on illegal immigration-- they are just the loudest.

New Hampshire: Obama gets the highest favorable rating, and Clinton's lead is just 3 percent. The assumption is that if this is a two-person race in Nh -if Edwards doesn't win Iowa- that it's going to help Obama; that it really is in Clinton's best interest, if she can't, that Edwards wins in Iowa. This poll shows just the opposite-- that in NH, Edwards voters flock more heavily to Clinton in a two-way race. But if it's Obama that loses out in Iowa, Edwards benefits more than Clinton. Obama is strongest among Independents, which could matter a lot, depending on the GOP race. Obama has a much stronger anti-iraq vote in NH than he does in Iowa. Among Republicans, NH is going to be Romney's firewall, but if evangelicals and social conservatives, their 'values' voters, there peel away to Huckabee following Iowa, that's a big problem for Romney. There's a similar thing at work between Giuliani and McCain among the struggle for neocons. This could turn into a 4-way race that anyone could win. The media is already painting NH as the real Republican contest, and if Romney starts to lower expectation in Iowa, it will be. Can Thompson place 3rd in Iowa and 6th in NH and still compete in South Carolina?

Nevada (& Michigan): In some ways, Nevada is Clinton's firewall, and she's lead strongly there from the beginning, but the lead is lowered in this poll to 8% over Obama. It's plausible that Iowa doesn't matter as much as NH does this time. Is 3 days enough time for a narrative to maximize in the media before the NH results are out? Probably not, especially in comparison to the 11 days following NH before Nevada votes. Edwards or Obama may slip in a very slight win in Iowa, but it won't matter in the narrative if Clinton wins NH. After NH, if Clinton win there, we have 11 days to watch the media sit on it, and a win by Clinton in Michigan to pass the time (and boost her delegate count). If Huckabee wins in Michigan, Romney is finished. Republicans are pretty much ignoring Nevada, though Giuliani is ahead there now, and a win there would not give him a boost heading into South Carolina & Florida.

South Carolina (& Florida): For Dems, South Carolina is the closest to a re-enactment of Iowa among the early states, and a 3-way race, but Edwards has a real weakness among black voters. Iraq is not as important an issue in SC, and issues aside, SC appears to really boil down to favoring whomever has the most momentum heading into the state. For Republicans, South Carolina is going to be as important a state as it was in 2000, maybe even moreso It's on the same day of the Nevada caucus, which probably lessens the latter's day-after storyline in the media. If Huckabee finishes off Romney in MI the week previously, he could finish off Thompson in SC. Florida is 3 days after South Carolina, and it's Giuliani's firewall state. As for Florida and the Democrats, let me just posit that Clinton is losing IA, NH, and SC to Obama (or Edwards). What's to stop her from making Florida a big deal instead of South Carolina? That would be ruthless politics, as it would also signal that she's also defying the DNC's stupid reaction to Florida. There's no way in hell that Florida's going to be denied delegates at the convention. The other candidates already made a stupid mistake in ceding MI (and it's delegate count) to Clinton. Heading into December 4th, with just default wins in MI & FL, and NV, Clinton could be ahead on the all-important delegate count, despite losing contests in IA, NH, and SC.

OK, time to go put up the Christmas tree. I know there's a lot of high-running emotions out there among the candidate supporters, but the name-calling is something that won't be tolerated. I'm happy to not be sidelined this time around by having to work for one candidate or the other, and I really don't think much of bloggers whom have an opinion, but are afraid of speaking out because they want to seem 'above it all' or don't want to piss off one clan or the other. I don't back down from it, and have participated in enough hard-hitting Democratic primaries to have learned that even though it seems we are enemies one day, to see as allies the next. Give it another month or two, and we'll all be on the same team. Till then...

Update [2007-12-9 14:42:24 by Jerome Armstrong]: Noting that "in June, the Mason-Dixon poll had Hillary losing by 9 points in June, so this actually shows Hillary's margin up by 12 points from their last poll", among other supportive numbers, Mark Penn blogs that nothing much has changed.