It is actually possible that last week's Strategic Vision poll showing Clinton with 16% in Iowa was out of whack.  That was a low that we have not seen in any other poll.  This Iowa poll is more in line with the other Iowa poll we had seen come out of Iowa last weeks (from Research 2000):

http://www.kcci.com/download/2007/0517/1 3341581.pdf

It showed very similar numbers, except for Obama's numbers being a bit better.

... the different polls may well have different screens. ARG has likely voters / caucus goers, not registers voters, so how they screen for likely voters / caucus goers will result in different numbers.

On Iowa, I think the Des Moines Register has a good record on screening for likely caucus attenders, so I'd put more weight on their poll. NH and SC are primaries, and primaries with a bit of a tradition of going early and being decisive ... NH for Democrats, SC for Republicans ... so perhaps ARG's likely voter screen should be given more weight in NH and SC.

I'd like to see the rural / urban cross tabs in SC, since the main SC event on the Edwards front since the previous ARG poll was the launch of his rural economic recovery program in rural SC.

... that Chris Bowers recommends, its interesting to note that prior to this poll, 80% of ARG's polls had Hillary leading in Iowa, and 7% of everyone else's polls had Hillary leading in Iowa.

So ARG's likely caucus attender screen seems to be particularly favorable to Hillary in Iowa.

Rec'd for following the Poll Diary guidelines :)

but these Iowa numbers look way off to me. I don't believe Clinton is ahead, and I don't believe Obama is that far back.

But hey, if she wants to raise expectations about winning Iowa, I guess more power to her.

You know, I did not argue about the Desmoines Register poll which was touted here like "the second coming."  To me it was just another poll to add to the averages, which is really what counts.   That poll actually looked like an outlier, showing something that NO OTHER POLL post-debate showed, namely Clinton in third position in Iowa.  Yet, it is just accepted as "right" instead of questioned, without ANY other poll confirming the numbers or rankings.  

Just my theory -- but I thing Edwards has levelled off in Iowa.  He's been working that state for a long time, running ads, mailing 85,000 DVD's, etc. etc.  Iowans know him well and many like him and support him.  But until two and a half weeks ago, Hillary had not focused "heavily" on Iowa.  That has changed.  Two weeks ago, she opened ten or 12 Iowa field offices and I heard (no link because a friend in Iowa told me), that volunteers were lining up to help at all the new field offices.

Don't discount the Vilsacks, especially Christie who knows Iowa women very well.

Hillary's got it going on.  Yahoooo!!!

Those polls looks fishy...Edwards doing that terribly in Iowa????...I would like to see some data on the south coralina poll because i just can't believe Obama is doing so badly there, specially when you have 50% of the electaroate being black in SC...Does Edwards overtake Obama in black votes??...

Oh god. That's such b.s. Explain exactly how a voting record can show a record of following. She absolutely does not have to follow Obama. She's served for 6 years (as well as had 8 years' executive experience in the White House) and he's served for one third of one term.

As for making her own decision on how to vote on the Iraq supplemental, once again you are mistaken. She apparently had made enough of a decision to vote and release a clearly worded statement about it on top of rededicating herself to deauthorizing the war.

Sunsetting the authorization is infinitely a better solution to ending the war than trying to cut off funds since it makes the responsibility for proving continued involvement's worth incumbent upon the president. So while you have clearly already made up your mind on other people's talking points, I find it rather elucidating that conveniently forget her leadership with Senator Byrd.

"She could not even come up with her own health plan" (rssrai)

Are you serious?  Have you seen the video of her speech this past Thursday?  It's on her website.

Oh gee, here is the link.  

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/31.a spx

It's edited for brevity but touches on the main proposals.  You can't watch that video without realizing who the expert on healthcare is.  She understands exactly what is wrong with the system and she has all the research, facts and figures to back it up.

Now this healthcare proposal(s) is part of her 21st Century Domestic Agenda.  Here is the link:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

You may never like Hillary or want her to be the nominee but at least try to be informed.

Do you only follow one candidate, ie: the one you like?

LOL.   Now THAT makes a ton of sense.    

WOW.  

Earth to nevadadem

Earth to nevadadem

yeah quit Iowa ---- so  should Romney according to this shit poll, forget he's winning all the other polls, ARG is a fraud.

He had his moment in the sun back in February when he had the fawmning press coverage.  Now he just another candidate.  Edwards is fighting harder.  Clinton us running smarter.  And guys like Dodd and Richardson are crowding in for some ink and face time on tv as well.

The impression I continue to get as I read the blogs is that the anti-Hillary folks react as though Hillary is sitting on a sofa somewhere eating bon bons and watching the soaps while she waits for someone to bring her the keys to the Oval Office.  Those who actually follow her campaign closely, and I really do, realize she has a strong base - a really strong base almost right across the country and she is a relentless campaigner with a campaign team that is second to none.  

Yes, Iowa has been John Edwards' territory for a very long time but he was the only Dem campaigning there.  Now things have changed.  Hillary's Iowa operation is up and running and Hillary has two back to back weekends of campaigning there coming up, after spending this long weekend there as well.  This weekend, she told one audience in Iowa "I will be spending so much time in Iowa over the next few months that I will be able to caucus for myself."  And she means it.  She is not going to cede Iowa to Edwards.  He might still win Iowa but he's got a tremendous battle on his hands.

Hillary has institutional support that, if I were to list all the names, there wouldn't be room in this text box and it just keeps coming in.  

Women are playing a major role in her campaign and in her polling numbers.  I also think Hillary is going to get some union backing.  It's too early to know for sure, but she, and especially Bill Clinton, are respected by the unions.  Of course, this is also John Edwards territory and he is hoping for union endorsements and he might outdo Hillary on that one.  It's just not a given for him.  

In NH large rallies are detrimental to the retail politics one must engage in in that state.  She had some big crowds of 7,000, 5,000, but in NH that is the last thing you want to do.  Small townhall settings are what moves folks from soft support into the strong support column.

I also have yet to see a report in which DEMOCRATS voiced disappointment with Clinton when she speaks to Democratic issue groups, but I have seen that sentiment expressed numerous times from Democrats when Obama speaks to rank-and-file Democrats.  His crowd performance is decidedly mixed at this point.

Does anyone knows why they arent providing us with the breakdown??...This poll looks so ridiculous that it makes you sick to your stomach.

The South Carolina poll is very extreme here..We all know that Obama and Hillary is battling for the black vote in SC and the fight is 50-50 right now, and the black vote is half of the democratic electorate in SC...If Obama is indeed polling so badly by polling 11% but receiving at least half of the black votes, he would have to poll around the 10% among white voters, and i just dont believe that..

I think Nevadadem is right, this poll has to be a huge fraud..I wont go say that the Hillary folks are paying them, but WOW, how can you even put out such BS results??..The guy that polled those states should be ashame of himself..He needs to check his data.

If i was him and got those results, i wouldnt release them to the public, and just revamp my polling data and re-poll.

1. Caucus goers are made up to the tune of almost 60% of folks 55 and over.  Clinton is the strongest candidate in that age group, so the caucus system plays into her hands.

2. Richardson/Biden/Kucinich/Dodd support is NOT necessarily anti-Hillary support.  If their votes fall away and are subject to a revote many of the current Richardson/Biden/Dodd (not sure about Kucinich) will probably jump over to Clinton.