MyDD :: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What It's Worth

Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What It's Worth

by Jonathan Singer, Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 05:08:44 PM EST

Zogby has some new numbers out of Iowa and New Hampshire, for those interested.

	Iowa	New Hampshire
Hillary Clinton	24	27
John Edwards	24	13
Barack Obama	18	23

Aside from Tom Vilsack, who pulls in 9 percent support in Iowa -- down 7 points since Zogby's previous poll, which was conducted in January -- no candidate outside of Clinton, Edwards and Obama even reaches 5 percent support in either New Hampshire or Iowa. These numbers can and no doubt will continue to move around. But any second-tier candidate trying to break out of the pack still has work to do.

Update (Chris): Using the "hard" support numbers posted by Tom Rinaldo in the comments, we can see just how wide-open this campaign actually is:

Iowa
Clinton: 9.4
Edwards: 6.5
Obama: 4.5

New Hampshire
Clinton: 9.5
Obama: 2.1
Edwards: 2.0

With roughly 75-80% either undecided or open to switching in Iowa, and roughly 80-85% either undecided or open to switching in New Hampshire, things are wide, wide, wide open.

Tags: Iowa, New Hampshire, 2008, Primaries (all tags)

Permalink :: 56 Comments :: Post a Comment

Vilsack and Hillary are (none / 0)

sharing support? one goes up the other goes down

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 05:22:11 PM EST

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

Gotta go on the record and say I am rooting for Obama. I really like the idea of a black president. a young black president!

by aiko on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 05:38:52 PM EST

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (3.00 / 0)

Yeah, he's my favorite so far, though there are others I like, too. (The politics selector on www.selectsmart.com confirmed my suspicion that Obama is my best choice so far.) I have to admit that the field is pretty good for Democrats this election. We've got some bad ones, but all told, it ain't too bad, which is not something I can say for the Republicans. I feel sorry for those saps this time around.

by nanoboy on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 05:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Black President (none / 0)

LOTS of us love the idea of a Black President but basing who you will vote for on race? Think about it.

A WOMAN President is a wonderful idea too but I wouldn't vote for Hillary because the idea is good.

by NCDemAmy on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 06:26:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Black President (none / 0)

See I disagree. I trust that Obama, HRC, Edwards and Richardson would all be pretty good presidents. (some better, some worse, depending on world and nat'l events)

Race and gender are damn good reasons to pick a nominee.

We have had too many white boys imho. Time for a change. (and too many clintons) Time for a change.

by aiko on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 06:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

and too many clinton staffers (none / 0)

by aiko on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 06:51:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Here he comes... (none / 0)

...walking down the street...

by Master Jack on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 05:49:33 PM EST

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

Well it looks like Clinton's boost has come at the expense of other candidates than Obama, he is steady in both states. He has conceded the lead to her in New Hampshire but I guess she was always going to have a big bounce there. Not great news for Edwards in New Hampshire, is it?

He sure seems to be strong with young voters. I can imagine a voter registration drive among students as part of his activist support.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 06:01:17 PM EST

might not help much in Iowa (none / 0)

Students are concentrated in a relatively small number of precincts, which means that Obama could pack the halls but not win very many extra delegates.

I really need to write the diary I've been planning on how the Iowa caucuses work. I think the system will work to the advantage of Edwards and Vilsack rather than Clinton and Obama.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 06:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's still a year away (3.00 / 1)

A bit surprising that Obama is doing better in traditionally more conservative NH than IA. Have they turned against the war that much in the Granite State? In any case, it's just under a year before Iowa, and so much can and will happen between now and then to make the current numbers little more than "interesting". And this is Zogby, of course.

Some things are almost a given, though. The war will continue to fail miserably, troops will continue to die and be horribly injured, public opposition to it will continue to grow, the administration's malfeasance and incompetence on cooking the pre-war intel and running the war will become clearer, and anyone who supported the war and failed to stand up to the administration will look worse and worse. This can only hurt Hillary and help Obama.

by kovie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 06:31:24 PM EST

if it's about issues (none / 0)

it's about the war. NH is following the rest of New England in absolute abhorrence.

But to tell the truth, that would be something that would hurt Hill, not Edwards. I have no idea why NH is swinging hard for Obama (and IA for Edwards) in statistically significant ways, unless it's because Edwards made an impression in 04 (as I remember everyone but Kerry, Dean and Clark gave NH up for lost?) But that's not a great guess.

Any good theories?

by sdedeo on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 07:27:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"and IA for Edwards"

Edwards was leading in IA and now Hillary has pulled even and Obama is also up from last poll so trend wise Edwards is losing ground in IA to both Hillary and Obama.

Edwards drop in NH was enough for Zogby to say that it was turning into a two person race, Clinton and Obama.

With the Democrats so similar, I don't think it is about issues, more about character. Who is the most genuine, who can be trusted to do what the say, who will be the most effective in getting things done.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 07:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (3.00 / 1)

I think that Edwards' focus on domestic issues at a time when the #1 issue is the war, along with his vote for the war and unwillingness to call for its end, are hurting him. In fact, the only way I see him winning is if Hillary & Obama destroy each other, which I think they're both too smart for, so I just can't see him winning in '08. I think he'd be better served by running for NC governor or the senate again--Liddy Dole has GOT to go.

I'm increasingly liking Obama for '08, unless Clark or Gore enter, or Richardson or someone else make a strong impression on me. Like many I wish he had more national experience and didn't try so hard to please people or bash his own party, but of the pack, right now he impresses me the most in terms of raw intelligence, openness and policy stances. It's no accident that he's playing up the Lincoln angle since there are similarities beyond both being from Illinois.

by kovie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:46:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"I think that Edwards' focus on domestic issues at a time when the #1 issue is the war, along with his vote for the war and unwillingness to call for its end, are hurting him."

Health Care is No. 3 after Oil/Terrorism and Deficit/Debt as threats to US national security.

All are bankrupting us to a large degree.

However, I think Edwards problem is he's representing kind of old politics and folks are rejecting that or more correctly looking for a fresh approach.

He has less experience than Hillary and less charisma and fresh approach than Obama and I think that is showing in the polls numbers as he is steadily declining No. 3.

by BrionLutz on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 10:56:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (3.00 / 1)

Heh, I agree with your belief that Edwards is at a disadvantage compared to Hillary and Obama, but not at all for these reasons.

First, he has the same experience as Hillary does now, like her having completed a single term in the senate. Of course, in '08 she will have an additional two years, but that's almost like splitting hairs. One or two more terms, now that's different.

Second, I think he has more than enough charisma to spare, certainly more so than Hillary, and while not quite at Obama or Bill Clinton levels, he can hold his own. There's a reason that he was smeared as the "Breck Girl".

Third, he absolutely represents a fresh approach to politics, or perhaps more accurately he's trying to revive a political approach that the party abandoned years ago, progressive populism that was targetted at its actual historical base, working and middle class as well as rural people, and not Hillary's yuppie base. I think that this is commendable on many levels.

However, while I think that this approach is key to putting and keeping the party in the majority for years to come, I don't think that it's the winning strategy in '08--not by itself at least. I admire his sticking to these important issues, which he's been focused on for quite some time.

But until our involvement in the Iraq war is resolved satisfactorily (to the extent possible given how horrible all potential approaches are), this is and will continue to be the #1 issue in the '08 election. And his vote for the war, and still unsatisfactory remarks on it, are going to hurt him a lot, I think, in '08. There's still time for him to turn this around, but not much.

Plus I'm not sure that he can beat McCain or Giuliani, one of whom I believe will be the GOP candidate in '08. Hillary will have her own problems with both. I think Obama can beat both, if he shows himself to be as tough as he is smart.

by kovie on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 11:31:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"First, he has the same experience as Hillary does now"

No one matches Hillary's eight years in the White House.

"I think he has more than enough charisma to spare."

He was a fresh face in '04, he seems kind of tired now, almost going through the motions, like it was his 100th jury trial.

"I think Obama can beat both, if he shows himself to be as tough as he is smart."

I'm with you there...I think it's Obama's time...Ameica wants a change.

by BrionLutz on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 12:20:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

No one matches Hillary's eight years in the White House.

Um, as First Lady? She didn't actually run the place, did she? And that whole health care fiasco went down pretty well, no? And need I mention that Bush's daddy was VP for 8 years and then Prez for 4 and look at how that helped.

I disagree about Edwards looking or being tired. If anything he's more appealing this time around since he's come out swinging about domestic issues, and I like that. If it were just about domestic issues I'd probably support him, but since Iraq is the big issue and he's been on the wrong side of that, I can't. Not unless he convices me otherwise--or wins the nomination.

Obama also comes with problems, but between the three I like him the most, mostly over Iraq. But also on his willingness to take stands. As to how far he'll go in standing behind them, that remains to be seen.

We've got a long way to go till Iowa.

by kovie on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 05:54:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"Um, as First Lady? She didn't actually run the place, did she?"

According to Fox News she did which she will be pointing out to Fox News as they attack her "experience".

Hillary Clinton had eight years in the White House learning how to run the executive branch.

If we are basing our election purely on the person with the most experience, no one can match her other than an ex-president.

by BrionLutz on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 10:45:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (3.00 / 1)

Sorry, I have to disagree with every point you make in the above comment. Being First Lady in no way meaningfully and substantially qualifies someone to be president. It might make one better prepared to handle the technical details of being president, e.g. managing state dinners, dealing with high-powered staff and leaders, etc.

But she did not "run" the west wing, and her one big project there was a miserable failure. I do not discount the usefulness of her experience as First Lady, but it simply does not translate into the ability and experience to be president. Clinton's top staffers are far more qualified in that regard--and I don't see Stephanopolous, Myers or Panetta running for president.

I look far more to her senate record in this regard--which is why I don't support her or think that she's up to or deserving of the job.

by kovie on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 04:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"Being First Lady in no way meaningfully and substantially qualifies someone to be president."

Depends on the first lady. Hillary Clinton was not a stay at home and bake cookies first lady. She was involved, she knows the organizational and operational pitfalls of running a presidency. She knows the decision making process. She knows what kind of people work in which jobs.

She can definitely run on her unique White House experience.

by BrionLutz on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 05:16:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

No first lady has stayed at home and baked cookies to my knowledge. They all have public profiles and duties. And to the extent that any of them come to develop an intimate knowledge of the workings of the west wing, it is through conversation with their husbands and interaction with west wing staff--something that every first lady has benefitted from, not just Hillary. In that sense, Laura is as qualified to be president as Hillary.

And I was never comfortable with Hillary having a west wing office and duties--which she did a pretty poor job there, at that. Plus, clearly, experience with running the country is not the best qualification for being president, or else Bush would be a great one. Of all the reasons for why Hillary might be a good president, having been a politically hands-on first lady is about the least convincing one I've heard--especially given that she generally sucked at it.

by kovie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 03:07:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"No first lady has stayed at home and baked cookies to my knowledge."

Bess Truman told'em to kiss off.

Hillary Clinton was probably the most substantively involved first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. She was actively involved in policy and running the White House.

She took the heat for being the "co-president" so she certainly gets the credit.

by BrionLutz on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 03:38:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

Eleanor Roosevelt as president I wouldn't have had a problem with. She would probably have been a better president than Bess's hubbie.

And my point wasn't so much Hillary's lack of substantive involvement (although, what the hell is an unelected, unappointed and unpaid direct relative of the president doing being "involved in policy and running the White House"?), as it was lack of successful or impressive involvement. Bush had a lot more "substantive involvement" in being "involved in policy and running" an executive branch (as governor) when he ran for president (let alone for his 2nd term), and in what way did that qualify him to be an effective president?

Clearly, on-paper credentials and experience (of the sort one sees on so many resumes) are of dubious worth when not backed up by a solid record of meaningful achievement and success. And please refer me to any such things on the part of Hillary.

by kovie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 05:44:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"Eleanor Roosevelt as president I wouldn't have had a problem with."

That's nice but irrelevant to the fact that Hillary Clinton was probably more involved in nuts and bolts running the White House than Eleanor Roosevelt.

That is experience that Clinton can rightly say she has that all others lack.

by BrionLutz on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 06:43:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"Probably" doesn't quite cut it for me. My understanding is that ER was very involved in aiding her husband's administration, even if she wasn't necessarily involved in running things. And to the extent that Hillary was involved in such things, you need to provide specifics.

And I have to once again question the propriety, wisdom, ethics and perhaps even legality of allowing an unelected, unappointed, unpaid direct relative of the president to run the executive branch. In my book this is nepotism, which is illegal in most companies and one of the many improprieties that we are constantly criticizing the present administration of engaging in.

If anything, this disqualifies Hillary from being in ANY elected office, as it gave her an unfair and perhaps even illegal advantage over other, far more qualified candidates (who weren't political carpetbaggers).

I should note that I lived in NYC in 2000, and while I voted for Hillary in the general election (only because she was technically a Democrat), I supported Mark Green in the primary, and would do so again if "I knew then what I know now".

Hillary is a disgrace to her party and country. And stop being her sockpuppet, which everyone can clearly see that you are. If this is what passes for her PR campaign, Obama will destroy her--and let's hope that he does.

She is not qualified to pick her own wardrobe, let alone be president.

by kovie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 08:33:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

""Probably" doesn't quite cut it for me."

Guess you will have to live with it since comparing the involvement of Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton in White House operations is not an exact science.

We do know Hillary was intimately involved in running the White House and that experience is valuable and certainly a skill set she has that others do not.

"If anything, this disqualifies Hillary from being in ANY elected office, as it gave her an unfair and perhaps even illegal advantage over other, far more qualified candidates (who weren't political carpetbaggers)."

That makes no sense. If you don't like Hillary Clinton, that is certainly your choice, but such tortured reasoning above, claiming she has too much experience, is meaningless.

by BrionLutz on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 08:41:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

You know exactly what I meant, and that it was neither tortured nor meaningless. I view her experience "running" things in the White House as disqualifying in both ethical terms, because as the wife of the president in a powerful position that was completely out of the official chain of command she was excessively powerful and unaccountable, which to me qualifies her more for emperor than president, and in practical terms, because as an unofficial White House official she happened to have done a horrible job.

My dislike and distrust of Hillary and belief in her unsuitability to be president is not personal (comment about her awful wardrobe which has only recently become tolerable notwithstanding), but rather practical and with ample basis in fact, based on her record as first lady and senator. She is, I will admit, a fairly skilled politician (but who wouldn't be with the master as one's husband)--but in the worst sense of the word, meaning scheming, disengenuous, slippery and unaccountable.

She would certainly be a much better president than Bush. But that's not saying much. I am not yet ready to write her off completely, especially given that she may well win the nomination and presidency and we may well be stuck with her. But she's got her work more than cut out for her if she expects to convince me and most of the liberal blogosphere (i.e. that small faction of the electorate that has a brain and knows how to use it and hasn't completely sold out to the corporate world or gone batshit insane).

by kovie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:41:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"I view her experience "running" things in the White House as disqualifying in both ethical terms, because as the wife of the president in a powerful position that was completely out of the official chain of command she was excessively powerful and unaccountable..."

No more than any Presidential appointee. Their power derives from the President as he sees fit.

"...which to me qualifies her more for emperor than president, and in practical terms, because as an unofficial White House official she happened to have done a horrible job."

She certainly tackled the hardest reform ever, health care, and her failure to get it done was as much the Democratic Congress as hers...they paid with the jobs...not regaining the majority until 2006.

The bottom line is she has huge White House experience and it is an advantage for her.

by BrionLutz on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 01:47:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

You clearly don't know what you're talking about here. Her health care initiative was a joke from the start, conducted in secret without consultation with industry experts and members of the then-Democratically controlled congress, and then forced upon congress in a take it or leave it manner. Political solutions are generally not imposed upon congress, but rather worked out in concert with it. Hillary and Bill made the mistake of forgetting this, and paid for it dearly.

This initiative was both technically untenable and politically unviable, and was basically Bill's attempt to give his wife something to do. If she was as smart as everyone seems to think that she is, she would have realize that it was a fool's mission and either refused to do it, or require that it be done very differently. Instead she plunged ahead on an exercize in vanity, and it failed. And we're not talking about some idealistic 24 year old with a fresh new degree in poly sci, but a supposedly brilliant and politically seasoned woman in her mid-40's.

So your "years of experience" argument fails utterly, since it doesn't indicate meaningful results. The number of years of experience on has is meaningless if it's not QUALITY experience. You get no points for effort in politics. And I just don't see that in Hillary. She's still making the same boneheaded mistakes as a senator as she did as west wing first lady. By your reasoning, Rice or Gonzales would make great candidates for president given their years of experience in the administration. And of course Bush deserves a third term.

It's all about quality, not quantity. I agree that from a PR point of view, the "years of experience" motif is certainly viable, because there is no lack of stupid voters who fall for that crap. But from a substantial point of view--i.e. what did she actually do and learn from those years in the white house--it is not, as her record clearly shows. Hopefully, enough voters will realize this and vote for someone else. And, given how badly they've been burned in recent years by hollow politicians who are "all hat, no cattle", I have some hope that they will.

by kovie on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 06:29:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"Her health care initiative was a joke from the start, conducted in secret without consultation with industry experts and members of the then-Democratically controlled congress, and then forced upon congress in a take it or leave it manner."

Actually very similar to Edward's current proposal,just all the dotted i's and crossed t's.

In a way, a health care plan has to be take it or leave it or you don't really make any progress. The problem was Democratic Congress all wanted to get in their little pork pie twist...their failure to pass the Clinton health care plan was why Republicans gained the Congress the following election.

"So your "years of experience" argument fails..."

Nope...it's always there...she definitely has it...how much weight one gives it is another matter. A lot of factors at work.

I support Obama, I think his eight years at state level and four years at Federal level are plenty.

by BrionLutz on Mon Feb 12, 2007 at 07:46:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

One of her many mistakes on the health care plan was to not seek out a powerful congressional sponsor and collaborator or two who could both help her push it through congress and provide guidance as to what was and wasn't feasible in terms of the politics of that era. Even if the technical aspects of her plan were superb (which they were not), without pursuing the political aspect of making it happen doomed it from the start.

Unlike the GOP congress of the last 12 years, which basically passed whatever legislation that its corporate sponsors handed it, the then-Democratic congress led by Tip O'Neill did not take well to legislation that was not of its origination or participation being imposed upon it from outside groups. To get anything moved through that congress, one had to work closely with it, according to its unwritten rules. She failed to do that--as did her husband, which to a large extent caused the sorts of deadlocks that allowed the GOP to sweep in.

Perhaps as a senator Hillary has learned the importance of political collaboration (one might even say that she's learned this a bit too well), but as first lady, she didn't have a clue. I suppose that that lesson learned might make her a better candidate. But given the lack of substantive legislation that she has sponsored as senator, one wonders how usefully this lesson has been applied.

Like I said, I do not dispute that she has a certain kind of experience that is relevant to her presidential campaign--just as Bush's experience as governor and working on his father's presidential campaigns gave him a certain special kind of experience when he ran for president. But as with the ultimate uselessness of Bush's experience in making him a better president, I find that Hillary's experience as first lady doesn't really amount to much in terms of making her more likely to be a good president in my mind. I'm looking for successful experience as a marker of a candidate's qualification to be president. And in terms of being both first lady and senator, I just don't see it.

by kovie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:00:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

"One of her many mistakes on the health care plan was to not seek out a powerful congressional sponsor and collaborator or two who could both help her push it through congress"

Oh puleeze...she took on the hardest fight in American politics against the most well funded, most entrenched lobby in the US.

There's a reason US has the most expensive, most ineffective health care system of the developed nations and that reason is the political power of the health insurance and drug companies.

I'm sure there were a many things she'd do differently...and will if elected.

But the bottom line is she has the experience of trying to do it at the national level. She has the experience of eight years in the White House. That is a huge plus for her.

I'm for Obama but I still recognize that Hillary has experience that is hugely valuable to anyone running for president.

by BrionLutz on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 01:51:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

Yeah, she took them on...and failed miserably. That just proves that she didn't know what the hell she was doing. You might give A's for effort, but I don't. Trying doesn't cut it for me. She "tried" to do the right thing on the war too, didn't she? I have no idea why you're making more of her experience and abilities than is warranted by the facts. A lot of people spent a lot of years in the Clinton white house. Some of them actually got a lot done, some of them good things. Hillary was not one of them. I challenge you to come up with one actual accomplishment that qualfies her to be president.

Look, I realize that you're not going to budge on this for reasons that only you know, but don't think for a moment that continuing to say that her experience means that she's fit to be president makes it so, because by this logic Bush is fit for a third term and Trent Lott should have been president years ago. Which makes me wonder why you're for Obama since he's got far less national experience than her (or whether you even are for him, since you've spent this whole time singing her praises). You sound like a mouthpiece for the DLC spouting empty talking points.

by kovie on Tue Feb 13, 2007 at 04:48:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More about character than issues. (none / 0)

Hillary is swinging through NH this weekend and Obama is announcing his candidacy, so that will keep them in the news and I think help them pull farther ahead of Edwards in the polls in NH anyway.

by Kingstongirl on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 11:12:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

I love how strong all 3 candidates are...but why am I terrified that all 3 are/were senators?

by agpc on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 07:31:13 PM EST

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

I like Obama loads (he's my neighbor -- South Side Pride!) but I share your worries a little and am kind of hoping for a "dark horse" -- someone progressive who's been in the political trenches for a decade or more. (Like Dean, I was going to say, but I guess we know how that worked out.)

by sdedeo on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 07:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dark Horse? (none / 0)

You may, er, want to reconsider the unfortunate use of this obviously charged term when it comes to Obama.

Just a friendly warning... :-)

by kovie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:54:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah, my husband prefers governors too (none / 0)

He was interested in Warner--now is looking at Richardson but still undecided.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 07:48:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

Probably for the same reason I am relieved they aren't governers.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 07:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

The candidate I feel most drawn towards is a former senator, but generally I agree that governors are a better bet. Why are you glad the three front runners are not Govs?

by Quinton on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 08:31:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

Personally I feel the conventional wisdom on this, that executive experience, essentially managing the status quo, as governer better equips a candidate for the presidency has to be balanced against the notional qualities of a legislator which speak to proposing or advocating changes to law which are needed to maintain relevancy in a dynamic society.

Bottom line is I am hoping for dramatic changes in US domestic and foreign policy rather than incremental ones and I believe a legislator would be more inclined to do that.

by Shaun Appleby on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:15:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

Interesting perspective; thanks for your insight, which makes a lot of sense to me.

by joyful alternative on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 01:22:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling, For What (none / 0)

I agree. The two govs- Vilsack and Richardson, are too conservative for me.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:12:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Support is soft as Jell-O" (3.00 / 2)

You note that the second tier candidates have a lot of work to accomplish but the circumstances seem pretty favorable to that being possible to accomplish. Zogby made a point of calling the frontrunners support as soft as Jell-O in his subject header for the story and went on to say:

"Asked if they were likely to change their support over the course of the next 11 months, 61% of Clinton's supporters in Iowa and 65% of her supporters in New Hampshire said they might. Support from Edwards was softer - 73% of Iowans and 85% of New Hampshire voters who back him now said they could change their minds.

By comparison, Obama's numbers were jelly-like: 75% of Iowans and 91% of New Hampshire voters said that while they support the Illinois senator now, they could change their minds before they actually cast a vote that counts."

Almost a full year out, this race is still very wide open.

Blogging at http://www.aleftturnforclark.com

by Tom Rinaldo on Fri Feb 09, 2007 at 09:55:55 PM EST

Re: "Support is soft as Jell-O" (3.00 / 1)

I always believe in following the money. I don't care how many lawyers Edwards knows, but he is going to get his ass kicked by Obama and Clinton. This is a two person race. As for me I'm a supporter of Hillary Clinton, and I don't really like Jello!

by bsavage on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 12:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

kovie wrote: (none / 0)

"First, he(Edwards) has the same experience as Hillary does now, like her having completed a single term in the senate. Of course, in '08 she will have an additional two years, but that's almost like splitting hairs. One or two more terms, now that's different."

Correction: Hillary Clinton has spent 35 years in politics - and has the record to show for it. You cannot discount the work she did as First Lady for 12 years in Arkansas and for 8 years in the Whitehouse, especially regarding educational programs and work for children, both in the U.S. and around the world. It all counts.

by marycontrary on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 06:18:19 AM EST

Re: kovie wrote: (none / 0)

Seems to me that counting her experience as First Lady for 20 years in the context in which Kovie was speaking is an opinion, not a correction, and a questionable one at that.

by Shaun Appleby on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 07:31:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: kovie wrote: (none / 0)

Doesn't Arkansas still have one of the lowest student testing levels in the country? And what exactly did she accomplish as US first lady?

Hillary is certainly a very intelligent, impressive and accomplished person, but not on the political stage. I have yet to be shown one significant political accomplishment of hers. Her health care "initiative" was such a disaster that it makes one wonder about her sanity. I've worked in the field and to believe that one can come up with a viable transformative plan in 100 days was grounds for being institutionalized.

I also question her character and strength, both of which are clearly vital to be an effective president. She talks a good game (at least to those who aren't really paying attenting), but what personal or political SUBSTANCE does she bring to the equation? None that I can see. And the next 10 years will require MASSIVE amounts of it to undo all of the Bush disasters (which she has done little to help avoid, instead actually helping it along).

I liked both of the Clintons when he was president, and voted for him twice. But in retrospect, I find that both were highly overrated, and successful more at image management than meaningful lasting acheivement. Without Clinton, there would have been no Bush. Nice legacy there.

The country needs to move on from the 26+ year Bush-Clinton-Bush era. Badly.

by kovie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling (none / 0)

Hillary's legislative experience is similar to that of Edwards, but her political experience exceeds his. She has had to deal with the Far Right and now the Left for years and her ability to stand up to whomever and whatever is established.

by Kingstongirl on Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 11:20:23 AM EST

Re: Zogby Iowa and New Hampshire Polling (none / 0)

You call what Senator Pandery has been doing "standing up"? Only in theory...

by kovie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:43:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Astroturfing so early on? (3.00 / 1)

I find it interesting that so many devoted Hillary fans appear to be coming out of the woodwork here. Do I detect signs of some coordinated astroturfing?

If this is the best that she's got, Obama will demolish her campaign. Politically (and I believe in most ways), he's much, much smarter than her.

by kovie on Sun Feb 11, 2007 at 10:57:34 PM 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.