Earlier today,
ARG released polls for both Iowa and New Hampshire. March 19-22, 600 likely voters / caucus goers, MoE +/- 4 (1/31-2/1 numbers in parenthesis)
Iowa
Clinton: 34 (35)
Edwards: 33 (18)
Obama: 16 (14)
Biden: 2 (2)
Dodd: 1 (1)
Richardson: 1 (1)
Kucinich: 1 (2)
Gravel: 0 (0)
Other / Unsure: 12 (27)
According to the poll, the big movement came from former Vilsack voters moving to Edwards. However, I don't buy that, because it is not supported by any other Iowa poll. The far, far more likely scenario is that Edwards was never down 17 points to Clinton in Iowa, the previous ARG results were inaccurate, and that this poll just moves ARG results into line with
other Iowa polls. Then again, if Edwards is tied with Clinton in ARG, maybe he has pulled ahead of Clinton in reality. Also, one does have to wonder if
Vilsack's endorsement of Clinton puts Obama at a severe organizational disadvantage in Iowa, since Edwards can use his 2004 structure and now Clinton can use Vilsack's. We will have to wait for other polls to confirm if Obama truly is this far behind in Iowa. Even if he is, he caucuses are still over nine months away, and he has more than enough time to catch up.
New Hampshire
Clinton: 37 (39)
Obama: 23 (19)
Edwards: 20 (13)
Biden: 2 (1)
Richardson: 2 (2)
Dodd: 1 (1)
Kucinich: 1 (1)
Gravel: 0 (0)
Undecided / Other: 13 (24)
As was also the case in the Iowa poll, Clinton actually loses ground despite a large shift outside of the "other / undecided" category (note: I include Clark and all candidates who dropped out in that category). That is not a very good sign for Clinton at all, but I actually expect that trend to slow down, or even stop, not long from now, when Edwards and Obama start reaching media saturation levels. Then again, since both Edwards and Obama are actually receiving more press than Clinton lately--most of it positive press--maybe the trend will only continue.
Also, Edwards is once again the main beneficiary of the shift away from undecided / other. When one looks at early state data in both
Iowa,
New Hampshire, concerns surrounding the somewhat anemic and stagnant national poll showings for Edwards appears far less warranted. He is tied with Clinton in Iowa, and within striking distance of both Obama and Clinton in New Hampshire. If Edwards wins Iowa, he has the potential to sweep the early states. If he pulls an early state sweep, national polls going into Iowa won't really mean all that much.
For some reason, Obama's rise in national polls does not seem to be matched with a corresponding rise in Iowa and New Hampshire polls. Now, this could simply be because there have not been many early state polls, and so there are not enough data points to discern any trend. He is within striking distance in New Hampshire, according to most polls, but that would not be good enough if he finishes in a distant third in Iowa. Obama is in a tricky situation where he is showing strength everywhere, but the only place he is actually leading is online. That is a situation that very much reminds me of Howard Dean, circa late-June / early July of 2003. Compared to Dean, Obama does have the added advantage of three extra months to build his organization.
As a side note, I am not a huge fan of ARG polls, but at least they actually poll early states. Seriously--has any other polling firm conducted both national and early state polls for 2008? I don't think so. Good for ARG.
