LA Times: Clinton Leads In IA, NH & SC

A new LA Times/Bloomberg Poll of 3,211 Democrats and Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina (whose full results will be released shortly) shows Clinton with clear leads in the early states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Iowa:

Clinton     28
Edwards     23
Obama       19
Richardson  10

New Hampshire:

Clinton     35
Obama       16
Edwards     16
Richardson:  8

South Carolina:

Clinton     45
Obama       27
Edwards      7
Richardson   1

More on this later but what jumps out at me beyond Clinton's leads is that Edwards seems to be surging in New Hampshire at Obama's expense (this appears to be their first early state poll so there are no trend lines and this could be an outlier, but this is something to look for in subsequent New Hampshire polls.)

Update [2007-9-11 18:15:10 by Todd Beeton]: The full results are HERE (pdf.)

A sidenote: 54% of South Carolina Democratic voters are certain of whom they'll vote for as compared to 46% of New Hampshire Democrats and 41% of Iowa Democrats. In all three states, Obama is the top 2nd choice pick.

Update [2007-9-11 19:12:9 by Jonathan Singer]: I do just want to add that the "likely" voter screen for the LA Times and Bloomberg is a bit loose. Doing some back of the napkin math, the likely voter model used here would include more than 870,000 Democratic caucus participants -- which is a bit more than the 122,000 or so that participated in the last Democratic caucus. While there may be more excitement this time around than there was in 2004, there isn't that much more excitement. So what does that mean? A lot of the folks the Times and Bloomberg are deeming "likely" voters or caucus goers are in fact unlikely to participate come January. Most in fact. As such, while these numbers might be good gauges of the general sentiments of these states, I'm not certain how good of gauges they are of the sentiments of those who are actually going to play a large role in selecting the next Democratic nominee.



Display:


very nice (none / 0)

Very encouraging, still lots of work to do though!


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:06:13 PM EST

Interesting... (none / 0)

that Edwards is pulling a "7" in South Carolina.  But that's probably because he's been spending close to no time there recently.

It does seem like Edwards and Obama are similarly positioned in IA and NH, at least at the moment.  Whoever wins Iowa (if not Clinton) will undoubtedly get some bounce into New Hampshire...but it's still hard to see how Edwards can win South Carolina.  If Obama appears to be done, wouldn't Black voters (almost 50%) go to Clinton?

It goes without saying, of course, that Obama is the better funded challenger.  Who will likely outraise Hillary for the 3rd straight quarter.

My counter-CW theory is that it's good for Obama to have a strong Edwards in the race...in a three-way race, the everyone's second choice (Obama) can do very well once things get bloody.


by rashomon on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:25:55 PM EST

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

Edwards going into Iowa in 2nd or 3rd is actually better for him so that if he does win it, he'll get an appreciable 'come from behind' bounce in NH. But yeah, I don't think he has a shot in SC even with a bounce, so it could be a 2 way race into Feb 5th.


by Todd Beeton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:33:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (2.00 / 0)

In South Carolina he has no shot is what you just wrote Todd?

Because you do not believe in bounces?

My gawd, tell me you did not write that.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

I don't think that's what he wrote. He said that he doesn't think Edwards has a shot in SC "even with a bounce." So, he believes in bounces but also thinks there are bounces have limited potential. That's pretty reasonable, wouldn't you say.

Edwards will have a tough time in SC because he is unlikely to get much of the AA vote.


by DPW on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (2.00 / 1)

no, I just wonder if it will be big enough to overcome Clinton and Obama's strength in the state. Kerry's bounce in 2004 wasn't big enough to overcome Edwards's home court advantage in SC. that advantage against Clinton and Obama shows no signs of life, so if Clinton or Obama finishes a strong 2nd in IA & NH, Edwards would likely lose SC. but I concede saying he has 'no shot' may have been overstating it.


by Todd Beeton on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:50:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

The 2 man race part really perplexed me frankly.

If Edwards wins Iowa, the odd man out will be Obama it seemst to me and that gives Edwards a shot in South Carolina.

I thought your best point was actually that Edwards moved up in NH according to this poll (BTW, I believe these polls are meaningless in any real sense) which means an Iowa bounce could give him a win in NH.

Will Nevada matter is a REAL question imo.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:55:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

"I thought your best point was actually that Edwards moved up in NH according to this poll (BTW, I believe these polls are meaningless in any real sense) which means an Iowa bounce could give him a win in NH."

But it is not really true.  Edwards was close to 15% in the aggregate in SC, so a 16% showing is hardly "moving up."  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:15:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My reaction (none / 0)

was the same as your regarding Edwards.  The average bounce out of NH is 14.5 points, so it is vital that Edwards get to the high teens or low 20's. This is the first poll in a while that suggests Edwards might be making progress.

The toughest thing to read about this race is the impact of a loss for Clinton in Iowa.  My guess is the press will read it as a disaster for her, and she will lose support.  If so Edwards and Clinton might be neck and neck in New Hampshire.

For Obama there is only one question: where does he win?


by fladem on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:33:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

People have looked at Obama as a fresh face and now they are disappointed.  He is not presidential material.  Sometimes maybe its good to have a long election cycle to see who can withstand the scrutiny, the issues the events and everything else which accompanies a campaign.  Hillary has the right stuff for the long haul.  Obama is fading, Edwards is getting a second look.  And Biden comes out this race a more respected elder statesman.


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:52:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

Look at 2004.

Howard Dean was the anti war- grass roots favorite. (John Edwards fits this role.)

John Edwards was the freshface candidate- rising star. (Barack Obama fits this role.).  

Dick Gephardt was the labor candidate- (John Edwards fits this role.).

John Kerry- was the safe candidate. (Hillary Clintons fits this role.).

In 2004- The ideal Democratic Presidential candidates based on experience and electability was Wesley Clark/Bob Graham.

Both were Southerners, Both had foriegn policy and national security experience. Both were respected elder statesman.

Biden and Richardson  fits the Wesley Clark/Bob Graham role.  


by nkpolitics on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:32:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

I totally agree.  I have been impressed with Biden.  Once again, its the media who sets the agenda and Biden was old news to them.  I have a friend on the Biden Campaign.  What I didn't know about Biden is he lost his wife and a child in a car accident 6 weeks after he became a senator.  He wanted to resign but the Democratic Party asked him to stay with it. He also has a son who is either in Iraq or going to Iraq.  He doesn't talk about these things because he feels they are private.  But it shows he is a standup guy.  

I remain hopeful that if Hillary is the candidate she will choose Wesley Clark to be her running made and that she makes Biden Secretary of State.  

Bob Graham and Wesley Clark are two of the finest men.  We missed something really wonderful in 2004.  


by changehorses08 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:26:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

"Edwards going into Iowa in 2nd or 3rd is actually better for him . . ."

Are you such an Edwards supporter that you've lost your objectivity?

Edwards has never been popular in NH. In 2004, Edwards finished a surprising second in Iowa, had tremendous momentum going into NH and finished fourth at 12%.  He got only 26,000 votes out of 219,000 votes cast.  After being the 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and with tremendous name recognition in the state, today Edwards is polling just in the mid teens in New Hampshire.  

If Edwards finishes anything other than first in Iowa it's over for him, and Edwards knows that. NH will not rescue his campaign.  


Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."
by Stephen Cassidy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:55:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Choosing to misremember history (none / 0)

is not the same thing as studying it.

Edwards did not get momentum coming out of Iowa because our moronic press corps could only focus on Dean's scream.

Remember- there are two stories out of Iowa.

Last time, those stories SHOULD have been Kerry wins and Edwards shows surprising strength and momentum.

Instead, they were, Kerry wins and Dean is a nut.


by DrFrankLives on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:20:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Choosing to misanalyze history (none / 0)

Oh yeah I forgot Edwards was actually popular in NH in 2004, gaining strength and momentum from Iowa but the only thing on the minds of NH voters come the election was Howard Dean's scream.  That's why Edwards went from 2nd place in Iowa to a 4th place finish in NH.  Dean's scream also explains why Edwards is stuck in the 14-16% range in NH today.

I'm not choosing to misremember anything.  It's your analysis that is flawed.  

For everyone looking at the polls the message is clear, Edwards is in trouble.  If Edwards doesn't win in Iowa, his campaign is over.  The media will label him a failure.  There will be recovery in NH - nor in SC.  Remember 2004? Edwards won SC.  Today he's under 10%.  


Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."
by Stephen Cassidy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:36:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Choosing to misanalyze history (none / 0)

Well, he actually was in a tie for third, statistically.  I think Clark beat him by a few hundred votes.  But Kerry blew everyone out of the water in NH.

Why so negative?

Why are Hillary supporters so angry?


by DrFrankLives on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:12:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Choosing to misanalyze history (none / 0)

Why negative?  It's not my intent.  I am responding to being accused of misleading.  

Edwards could win the nomination.  My objection is to this diary is it takes data that is largely negative to Edwards and tries to spin a positive.


Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."
by Stephen Cassidy on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

THE SAMPLE IS A JOKE!

Why are you even speaking of this poll like it's credible?  Just because it exists?


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:32:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

They quote fox, politico, etc. just as long as it says something good for their guy.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:37:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wearing JRE Rose Colored Glasses (none / 0)

See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democrat ic_primary-194.html#polls

Edwards has been at 14-16 points in NH polls since the end of July. He's holding steady third place position in NH, not surging.  

This poll is not good news for Edwards.  His strategy depends upon winning Iowa.  He's pulled most of his staff out of Nevada and basically letting South Carolina go as well.  The poll confirms what other polls have shown - Edwards has slipped into second place in Iowa.


Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."
by Stephen Cassidy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (none / 0)

My guy needs lightning in a bottle I admit, but what is Richardson's plan here?

Catapult his big 4th place finish in Iowa to a 4th place finish in NH followed by a 4tyh place finish in South Carolina?

Of the "serious" candidates, there are exactly 2 whose strategy makes sense to me - Hillary and Edwards - you see a path for their winning.

No one else's campaign makes any sense to me at all.

MY guy needs a miracle but that makes sense. And he is treated as needing that.

But Richardson has no discernible path that I can see and Obama is pissing away every advantage he has had.

Axelrod must go.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

For Richardson, perhaps a 2nd or 3rd place finish in Iowa, followed by a 1st or 2nd place finish in Nevada? That would likely lead to at least a 2nd place finish in New Hampshire, and a strong showing on super tuesday. But is this really realistic? I don't know. I also don't know how Obama can realistically win the nomination without placing 1st or 2nd in Iowa (1st having to be Edwards, not Hillary) - and even a 2nd place finish would likely mean the momentum gap between him and Edwards. And is a 1st place victory in Iowa likely or possible?


by KainIIIC on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has a ton of money (none / 0)

and if he changes tactics can turn this around.

Axelrod must go.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:56:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you know that (none / 0)

isn't going to happen.


by bookgrl on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:00:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Axelrod wouldn't be pushed out... (none / 0)

but he might be pushed aside, a la Kerry in October/November 2004.


by rashomon on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama has a ton of money (none / 0)

Obama's problem is not Axelrod -- its Obama.  He has all this support from very wealthy benefactors and he doesn't know if he wants the job.  That was Kerry's problem too.  Obama needs to stay in the Senate and then figure out what he wants to do with his life.


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

Iowa is critical for all candidates except HRC.


Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."
by Stephen Cassidy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:07:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

You're guy is Dodd right?  Dodd needs multiple lightning strikes.  Dodd is from the Northeast yet he has no traction in NH.  That is not a good sign at all.  

Richardson's challenge is the same faced by all candidates without national name recognition and $40 million plus in the bank.  He has to do well in IA, but not win as is the case with Edwards.  Remember it's all about expectations.  No one assumes today that Richardson will finish above 4th in IA.  If Richardson finishes higher, that creates an opening for him.  He has a strong organization in NV and will benefit from the independent vote in NH.  

Keep in mind too - and this give you hope as well - almost half of the Iowa Democratic caucus voters in 2004 didn't make up their mind on which candidate to support until a month before the election.  

Ultimately, come Feb. 5th I believe the race will be between HRC and one other Dem.  Right now that could be Obama, Edwards or Richardson.


Bill Richardson: "Get out now. Get all our troops out now. It is the only right and responsible choice."
by Stephen Cassidy on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:05:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

What is Dodd's rationale for being in this race. What does he bring to the table.

In 2004
Dean was the Governor- Washington Outsider that became a hero to progressives- Anti War,Universal Health Care, - He was the issues candidate.

Edwards was the Fresh-Face Southern candidate.

Gephardt was the Experienced- Midwestern Candidate

Kerry was the national security candidate- Military Record.

Clark was the charismatic Southern Military General.

Bob Graham was the candidate from a battleground state(Florida)- Executive/Legislative Experience- Governor/Senator- National Security Experience.

Holy Joe was Mr. BiPartisan.

Hillary is the establishment candidate- Former First Lady of the United States. Senator from the Empire State.

Obama is the freshface candidate- Everybody's favorite- Media.

Edwards is the Southern Candidate.

Richardson is the candidate from the battleground state/region-(NM) Southwest. Executive/Legislative Experience.- Foriegn Policy Experience. (UN Ambassador).

Biden is the respected elder statesman with nationa Security/Law and Order credentials. Top Democrat on the Senate Foriegn Relations and Judiciary Committee.

Dodd is a New England Democrat. He is not a leader in Foriegn Policy- Clark/Graham/Biden/Richardson.

Clark was the NATO Allied Supreme Commander
Graham was the Top Democrat Chairman on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Biden is the Top Democrat- Chairman
 on the Senate Foriegn Relations Committee.
Richardson served as Ambassador to the United Nations.


by nkpolitics on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:19:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, you're right. (none / 0)

Sorry Big Tent - but polling - right now - is quite predictive...this aint 04..

The closest historical analogy is the 1984 Dem race.  Which may or may not be good new for Hillary.


by rashomon on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:19:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod must go? (none / 0)

It's not going to make a bit of difference.

OBAMA...WAS...LURED...INTO...THE...RACE to specifically make it more difficult for John Edwards to stop Clinton.

Obama never had a chance, and if you hook Hillary Clinton's team up to a LIE DETECTOR TEST, you find out that's exactly what they think.

They were always worried about John Edwards.

The odds of Edwards stopping Clinton dropped BIG TIME with Obama in the race, because Obama was always going to at least poll 15%, regardless of whether the bulk of the anyone but clinton vote went to him or Edwards.

The goal of the powers that be was to HAVE IT SPLIT.  That's all that mattered.

That's why they were on Hardball PLEADING for Obama to get into the race, with Jonathan Alter saying "HE HAS TO RUN NOW."  After he got in, Matthews sneared, "this has to hurt Edwards the most, doesn't it."

Yeah, like the didn't know.

Some people are so stupid...


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:21:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod must go? (none / 0)

Yeah, like THEY didn't know.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:22:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry my man (none / 0)

I didn't say that "THE CLINTONS" lured Obama into the race.

Do I believe that some people in DC with alterior motives told him that he should consider it?

Do I believe that the media BEGGING HIM TO GET IN influenced his decision, and that those media buffoons knew who Obama getting in would hurt?

Should we assume that the only polls that the media do are the ones that they SHOW THE PUBLIC?  Would they know that someone like Obama entering the race would hurt John Edwards who they already knew was going to be running?

Come on now.  

I'm doing exactly what the media do these days.  SPECULATE.  That's ALL that they do.

Can Bush this?
Can Clinton that?
Will the surge this?
Did Patraeus that?

This is my conspiracy theory.  I accuse the DC ESTABLISHMENT with conspiring to make sure that Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, and as a part of that conspiracy, it includes the media as well as luring someone like Obama into the race.

After all, it's not like "the bigs" don't want Hillary Clinton to win the nomination.

I'm just telling you how they could make it happen.

There is nothing more powerful than the television set when people go there looking for you to feed them information.  When that information is tainted, you get Hillary Clinton's lead growing like it has.

Thanks for nothing, Barack.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:41:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dude (none / 0)

Gee, you are very NAIVE.

The "CORPORATE" media want John Edwards less than they want Hillary Clinton, and HAVE YOU HEARD, "Business loves Hillary."

Who owns the media, genius?

There is a reason that they have been pushing Clinton and funding her for the primaries.

BECAUSE THEY WANT HER NOMINATED.

If she defied logic and won the Presidency, she would do so at the expense of Democrats in Congress, and she would also be much better for corporations than John Edwards would have been.

John Edwards had to be stopped in the primaries.

They are pretty confident that they can stop Clinton in the General.  They weren't going to take that chance with John edwards.

There IS NO COVERAGE of Hsu.  A 20-second soundbite is not a smear.  The smear is when the smear merchants in the media start JOKING about the candidate like they did about Gore "inventing the Internet" or "being the motivation for Love Story", or like when they call John Edwards a "phony" or the "Brek Girl".

Those are signs of hate.  They are doing all they can to make sure Clinton gets the nomination.

Once she does, then they will start on their "CLINTON FATIGUE" campaign, and start wondering what Bill Clinton has been up to.

They create fake scandals about John Edwards because they don't have real ones.  They will have real ones for the Clintons, and they can't wait to use them.

Everything happening now, with the pushing of Clinton, I said would be happening 2 years ago.

Just because people like you can't see it, doesn't mean that I'm going to stop saying it, especially when I was saying it before they started doing it.

I was right then, and I'm still right.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Frankly... (none / 0)

I agree with your arguments here, and have stated before that Edwards would beat Clinton one on one.  But now Obama has so much money that he will be in it long enough even if his results are dismal.  Edwards will be hard pressed to get a breath unless the voters in Iowa are unpersuaded and bring us some sanity.

I think you should write a diary on this.  Many will squawk.  It does not make it any less true.  People are so easily manipulated.  Consolidation of media and power here in America only makes the manipulation more pronounced.  It will only get worse.  That is why, absent a true financial calamity where our values are truly reexamined,  this country's best days may well be in the past.

Looking forward to your diary.


by citizen53 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you were wrong then (none / 0)

If you don't think the media is trying to help Hillary Clinton get NOMINATED, then you are smoking crack.

You didn't see me say anywhere that they are trying to help her get ELECTED.

Can you read?
Can you interpret?

If she did get elected, she'd be the BEST DEMOCRAT FOR BUSINESS, which owns the media, but they want her NOMINATED.


by OE on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 07:44:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry my man (none / 0)

ULTERIOR


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: sorry my man (none / 0)

The Clinton's gave Obama startup money for his race in the Senate.  They told him they would be behind him 100% if he stayed in the Senate for 6 years and then decided to run for higher office.  Obama promised to do that -- but he lied.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:23:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Richardson's strategy (none / 0)

is actually pretty simple: be Gary Hart.  Hart gained 28 points between a second in Iowa and the New Hampshire Primary a week later.  While I think such a bounce would be unlikely for either Edwards or Obama, I could make the case that a Richardson second would completely re-scramble New Hampshire.

Richardson's strategy and campaign fits somewhat with candidates who have been successful in NH.  I can't imagine Richardson actually pulling this off: I see him in interviews and I am amazed at how badly he performs.  But his campaign strategy does make sense to me.


by fladem on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:40:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Axelrod must go? (none / 0)

dem dem -- I totally agree with your assessment. You don't always get what you dream about so you better be prepared to be satisfied with what you do get.  People don't want a dreamer to be President they need a doer.


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:58:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Heh (none / 0)

big tent -- they always fire the manager when a baseball team fails to live up to expectations.  But is it really the manager's fault?  Obama seems threatened by the rest of the people in the debates. Bill Clinton got everything but the kitchen sink tossed at him but when the dust settled he was still standing -- stronger than ever. You need to have endurance and an inner conviction that you are the best person for the job in these times with this hostile take no prisoners media and a skeptical public.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:07:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wearing JRE Rose Colored Glasses (none / 0)

It's amazing to me how so many people automatically think that the NY Times, WaPo, and LA Times are credible news organizations, especially after what the NY Times and WaPo did to Gore in 2000, and how the LA Times always kisses Hillary Clinton's behind.

This is the most clever form of PROPAGANDA I have ever seen...push polls from so-called "credible" newspapers.

Want me to prove it?

I can't, and you can't disprove it either.  You can just ASSUME that it's "honest," even though it's recorded history what they did to Gore, even though it's pretty clear how they are trying to "Gore" John Edwards this time around, and pretty clear that they have been TRYING TO CORONATE HILLARY CLINTON since she entered the race.

So, how do they create a herd mentality for Clinton?  Give her glowing press for 9 months, and then watch the poll numbers grow as the television set indoctrinates people, and then the poll numbers reinforce the image of "winner" and they create a positive feedback that leads to even greater poll numbers.

Some people are so stupid...


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wearing JRE Rose Colored Glasses (none / 0)

Oh boy.  Now you are definitely projecting.    So, tell me, when Clinton wins this thing, what will YOU write?  Will your sour grapes culminate in a crescendo of loathing, self-pity, bashing of "stupid" Democrats?    That gets old very fast, as do your daily diatribes of victimhood.    Edwards has made way too many mistakes when his campaign had no room for any.  End of story.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:33:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Won't get bloody (none / 0)

Obama won't do it.  

Hillary doesn't have to do it.

Richardson, Biden and Dodd won't either.

With the front runners lead solidifying I think you see Gravel disappear from debates soon as well.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Won't get bloody (1.00 / 0)

Obama is just in the way, and was GOADED INTO THE RACE just so that he could be in the way.

They knew without someone young, fresh, and charismatic, John Edwards would have had little problem defeating Hillary Clinton FROM DAY ONE.

Hillary Clinton has built a lead over the months because NO ONE has been able to challenge her.

Without Obama being fooled into the race SOMEONE would have been able to, and she never could have built up steam.

Barack Obama = Hillary Clinton's best friend in 2008

The Clinton campaign should thank Obama for getting in John Edwards' way, since everyone in DC knew that Edwards was going to run, and without Obama, he would have been taken more seriously since he was the party's VP candidate in 2004, as that's how it normally is.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Won't get bloody (2.00 / 1)

"They knew without someone young, fresh, and charismatic, John Edwards would have had little problem defeating Hillary Clinton FROM DAY ONE."

Absolutely hilarious.   Edwards never had a shot OTHER THAN IOWA.  He did not help himself with relatively ho-hum campaigning, but to claim that he would have "no problem" defeating Clinton, who AFTER ALL in 2004 as a non-candidate when included in any poll just blasted the running Edwards away 4 to 1.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is a nice fantasy ... (none / 0)

So the all knowing all powerful Clintons pushed Obama into the race?  

Puh-lease.

Edwards could had little problem dispatching Clinton?  Thats a good one!  Milk flew out my nose when I read that.


by dpANDREWS on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 05:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Won't get bloody (none / 0)

I think the only way Gravel will go is if they tell him the wrong time and place for the next debate.  He has nothing else to do so he will hang on to his 15 minutes of fame as long as he can.


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:10:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting... (none / 0)

Any poll that has Edwards at only 7% in South Carolina is a joke.  


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If Edwards wins Iowa (none / 0)

and finishes a close second in New Hampshire (or even wins it):

And Obama finishes third in both places, Obama is done.

If Hillary finishes third in both places (not gonna happen) then she's done.

But with their money, neither will be so done that he or she will drop out of SC.

Like Dean did, they'll hang around as damaged goods and siphon off votes from the other two.

The question is, do those results bring Edwards up to where Democrats in South Carolina -- who might now be saying "Hillary" because they don't think Edwards can beat her -- will change their mind and realize she is the worst possible nominee for the party not named Gravel or Kucinich?


by DrFrankLives on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:17:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edward's achillies heels (none / 0)

are twofold:

1.  Weakness among independents in New Hampshire.  I have seen private polling that does not have him above 10 among independents (who make up about 40% of the voters) in New Hampshire.  While I do think he is well positioned in Iowa, capitalizing on a win in Iowa will require making significant inroads with independents in NH.  He needs to find a message to let him do this - what he is done thus far is not working with this group.

2.  Weakness among African American voters generally, but in SC specifically.  Bottom line, the only way Edwards can win SC is for Hillary and Obama to split the African American vote.  I don't think he can win a one on one fight against either Hillary or Obama.  The best case for him is a weakened Obama limps into SC.  

All of the big three candidates have significant weaknesses right now.  Hillary's numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire are well below the danger level for a front runner, and I have no idea where Obama actually wins right now.

Anyone who thinks this race is anything but wide open does not understand the primary process.


by fladem on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:48:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If Edwards wins Iowa (none / 0)

Well Dr. Frank -- seems the Democrats don't agree with you nor it seems does the mainstream media.  check out Newsweek.  You are projecting your own feelings on the rest of us.


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:12:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

So let's see (none / 0)

What do we make of all this?

I knosw, IOWA is everything.

Hillary wins, it is over.

Edwards, wins, he has a shot.

Obama needs to fire Axelrod cuz it ain't working.

He needs to win Iowa. And Oprah don't do crap for that.  


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:39:00 PM EST

Oprah throws swell parties with max checks (none / 0)

That ain't all bad.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:58:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama has plenty of money (none / 0)

He needs votes in Iowa.


by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Those will be harder to come by then max checks (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:12:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So let's see (none / 0)

  Iowa bounces are generally limited, 15% perhaps, and that is with candidates of ho-hum caliber (i.e. the Gephardt, Tsongas type of candidate.)  I can't see Clinton losing 20% of her support in New Hampshire to Edwards, 20% of her support in New Hampshire, Nevada's 20% edge, Florida's 20% edge, Michigan's 20% edge, all based on perhaps a decent showing in Iowa?   2004 was a different year with five candidates hovering at around 15 to 20, maybe 25% at times (not unlike the GOP situation this year.)  I think this time is a bit different, we are looking at all 3 candidates stronger than what we saw previously, with major movements as a result of Iowa very limited, IMHO.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:09:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So let's see (none / 0)

"I can't see Clinton losing 20% of her support in New Hampshire to Edwards"

Maybe you're right. But you're forgetting that 60% of NH voters haven't even made up their mind yet. That's where the real "bounce" comes in. Same thing in SC.


by adamterando on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:18:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are multiple reasons why this (none / 0)

is wrong, I think.

First, a little history.  The biggest bounce out of Iowa into New Hampshire is 28 points (1984).

As I have shown before, the bounce out of winning New Hampshire is 25 points nationally - enough to wipe out these leads you are mentioning.  In fact the average swing in National Polling created by New Hampshire is 33 points (the winner goes up 25, the major opponent goes down 8).

So what is different this time?  Well, the argument goes, we have three well known front runners, so there shouldn't be a lot of changes even if Hillary loses New Hampshire.  And she has all of this money, so she would be able to fight back anyway.

The problem with this argument is that it really ignores why voters change their minds after Iowa and New Hampshire. For one thing, a number of candidates drop out, and in this race the loss of either Edwards or Obama would be significant. More broadly, see this discussion by Mystery Pollster for a good starting point in the difference between voter preferences and voter behavior.
http://www.pollster.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb .fcgi/4114.1233812595


by fladem on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:58:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple reasons why this (none / 0)

Thanks for the link. I've basically at this point given up on finding real analysis on this site.


by bruh21 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:09:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple reasons why this (none / 0)

oh- can't open the link


by bruh21 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:10:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Here (none / 0)

is the link to the blog,
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/

The title is of the post is dueling memos and late deciders.  Here is the money paragraph:

"The bottom line: We need to distinguish between voter preferences and their final decisions. The polls we are seeing now measure current preferences, but those early leanings can change. Historically, these exit poll data tell us that roughly half the voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have waited until the last week to make their final decisions. McLaughlin is right: "It is foolhardy for any campaign to suggest that voter positions are already solidified at this stage of the cycle."


by fladem on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:23:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here (none / 0)

OT: As you may know, I'm an Edwards supporter. I used to have a problem with the tauting of the national polls and poorly done, but  the last couple of days, I've realized this is the best thing that could happen for Edwards given his positioning and that of others.

Back on topic: tried to have this soft/hard support discussion here to no avail. Nice to see that there is actually somewhere online that this is being discussed. So much of what goes on here for all candidates is just cheerleading. Again, thanks.


by bruh21 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:28:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here (none / 0)

i've written a diary here raising a rebuttal to the counter arguments. basically i ask questions, and i am not sure of the answers. but maybe you can read it to give me your take


by bruh21 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 02:32:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple reasons why this (none / 0)

by the way i agree- there is no way from what i can tell that either edwards supporters or obama supporters would support clinton if either dropped out.


by bruh21 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:11:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple reasons why this (none / 0)

Perhaps you won't support Hillary but in truth she is everyone's go to candidate.  Bruh -- maybe you find Giuliani more to your liking.  If so, go for it.  I will vote for the Democratic nominee.  It is our best chance to turn this country around.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:16:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are multiple reasons why this (none / 0)

If you notice the race has been static for the last couple of months.  People seem to have made their decision.


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:27:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't see the second choice (none / 0)

numbers in the poll results.  I looked at the pdf, but I do not see them.


by bookgrl on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:41:07 PM EST

Re: I don't see the second choice (none / 0)

It's there. You have to scroll a bit, though.


by DPW on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ok, I see it now... (none / 0)

I just went through to quickly.


by bookgrl on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:47:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't see the second choice (none / 0)

The second choice is pretty even. Neither Obama nor Edwards can challenge Hillary if the race narrows down to two...


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kind of interesting in South Carolina (none / 0)

the latest ARG poll in South Carolina conversely had him surging, this has him faltering. I'd really like to know the methodology (whether they polled mostly past caucus goers, or very likely caucus goers) of this poll, and also the trend-lines to see any past results or trendlines.


by KainIIIC on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:50:20 PM EST

ARG has had better #'s for Edwards (none / 0)

They have had him over 30 in SC a couple of times (not the last time).

http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php


by dpANDREWS on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:00:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kind of interesting in South Carolina (none / 0)

ARG is a joke.  QUIT TAKING ARG SERIOUSLY!!!!!!!  For crying out loud.

ARG's IOWA polls are the equivalent of this Iowa poll.

ARG uses LARGE SAMPLES in Iowa, which always skew results towards Clinton, which is why they had Clinton leading there in December 2006 when other Iowa polls had Edwards leading large there at that time.

ARG has NEVER had Clinton losing in Iowa.

That alone makes ARG a FLUKE polling company.  All of their polls.

Large sample sizes in Iowa ARE INACCURATE!


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kind of interesting in South Carolina (none / 0)

ARG uses LARGE SAMPLES in Iowa, which always skew results towards Clinton, which is why they had Clinton leading there in December 2006 when other Iowa polls had Edwards leading large there at that time.

That's not true. ARG actually uses the tightest screen in Iowa in terms of smallest percentage of initial calls recorded as caucus voters. They stop their survey call immediately unless the person says they are likely to caucus. Then, at the end of the survey call they ask how likely the person is to caucus. Unless the person says they will definitely caucus, the call is rejected from the sample.

The final sample of definite caucus voters mirrors the actual 2004 numbers: 45% first time caucus voters, 55% previous caucus voters.

What ARG has found is the prior caucus voters break slightly for Edwards -- which makes sense. 1 out of 4 2004 caucus voters has already voted for Edwards, none of the 2004 caucus voters has ever voted for any of the other candidates. Offsetting Edwards edge with prior caucus voters is a much stronger edge enjoyed by Clinton among first time "definite" 2008 caucus voters. They are seeing unusually strong support among female first time caucus voters.

The recent poll showing Edwards with a lead in Iowa had a final sample that consisted of 92% prior caucus voters and 8% first time caucus voters -- a sample that is way out of whack with historical Iowa caucus electorates.


by hwc on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IA PO;LL (none / 0)

tHE METHODOLOGY OF THIS POLL SHOWS 870,000 CAUCUS  PARTICIPANTS. MEANS THEIR SCREENING IS WAY TO LOOSE. tHE POLL IS WORTHLESS.


by BDM on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: IA PO;LL (none / 0)

No poll is "worthless". It is possible that this poll is measuring broad support levels among registered voters. Is so, then we would need to consider additional factors:

a) Who has the support of voters most likely to caucus (age 55+)?

b) Who has the broad statewide support necessary for caucus wins (urban, suburban, and rural counties)?

c) Which campaign has the ground game to turn out their voters? Specifically, we would need to consider who is the campaign manager for each canddiate in Iowa. Teresa Vilmain is Clinton's ground game manager.


by hwc on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 12:20:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowa Ground game (none / 0)

There was rumor that Obama had John Norris running his Iowa field, which would have been a big coup, but it was false. Paul Tewes, a DC guy for the past eight years, is running Iowa for Obama.

I've heard Edwards has Nick Baldick running Iowa. Better than Tewes but he doesn't have the Iowa roots that Vilmain has.


by souvarine on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 01:37:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Kind of interesting in South Carolina (none / 0)

I actually think both polls are a joke, i'm just saying that the ARG poll showed him surging and this showed him collapsing... it made no sense, and I don't think either of these polls have much credibility with their methodology.


by KainIIIC on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton rolling, Obama is D.O.N.E. (2.00 / 1)

Edwards is the only one who can hope to catch Hillary and to do that would be a major longshot.  He'd have to win Iowa by a convincing margain and parlay that and his union support into consective wins.  He'd need to gain MAJOR mojo.  If not the crushing weight of Clinton looms on supersuper Tuesday.

Obama simply got exposed.  His campaign is about nothing that is real.  Nothing that you can see or feel or sink your teeth into.  The problem with big talk is that smart voters - and primary voters are smarter than average - ask you to back it up.  Obama is done.  I suspect he'll pour alot of his resources into one of two states and try to pull off a face saving win before he is forced to concede.   He will also be transfering a ton of cash to a Senetorial re-elect committee.

Clinton just needs to continue to run hard and smart and she wins in a landslide.  If I were her I would disengage from Edward and Obama as much as possible, flatter Dodd and Biden and Richardson at every turn and play for the general.

I think we are getting the best possible candidate and I think when we look at Hillary Clinton we are looking at the 44th President of the United States of America.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 06:56:17 PM EST

Re: Clinton rolling, Obama is D.O.N.E. (none / 0)

dp -- From your mouth to God's ears.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:29:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LA Times: Clinton Leads In IA, NH & SC (none / 0)

This isn't the only Iowa poll that has Clinton up by 5.


by BigBoyBlue on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:00:15 PM EST

Big sample size too (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:00:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big sample size too (2.00 / 1)

Big sample sizes out of Iowa always favor Hillary Clinton, and hasn't it already been made clear EARLIER IN THE YEAR that large sample sizes out of Iowa lowers the ACCURACY of the polls there?

Clinton supporters are the Dean supporters of 2008.

Dean supporters thought polls meant everything back in 2004.

Clinton supporters believe the same this time.

They will be wrong in the end, as well.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:03:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

For the 90th time (none / 0)

'07 isn't '03.  

'08 isn't going to be '04.

The fields are the different.

But if you want to argue who the Howard Dean is of '07 I'd say Obama.  He has had the buzz, the press, the internet support and the campus support -- just like Dean.


by dpANDREWS on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the 90th time (none / 0)

But if you want to argue who the Howard Dean is of '07 I'd say Obama.  He has had the buzz, the press, the internet support and the campus support -- just like Dean.

Who did you get that from, me?  Since I have said it a thousand times.

2008 doesn't have to be 2004.

The CONCEPT is still the same.  A week in politics is a lifetime, and poll numbers and buzz can deflate as fast a balloon can pop.

Dean had all of the media and all of the money, just like Clinton.

He didn't have the name.  The media won't turn on Clinton like they did in the end on Dean, but any race can change at any given point.

I know this poll is a joke anyway, because every other poll coming out recently has had Edwards ticking up.  Where was he in the last LA Times poll?  8%?

When the LA Times stops carryng Hillary Clinton's water, then I might take their push polls seriously.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:29:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the 90th time (none / 0)

" know this poll is a joke anyway, because every other poll coming out recently has had Edwards ticking up.  Where was he in the last LA Times poll?  8%?

When the LA Times stops carryng Hillary Clinton's water, then I might take their push polls seriously."

You know, all this conspiracy stuff is way over the top.  Now the LA Times is carrying Hillary Clinton's water?  Has there EVER been a poll that did not show an Edwards lead that you agreed with?  


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:35:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the 90th time (none / 0)

Yes, the ones out of New Hampshire and South Carolina, and the "ARG" South Carolina poll that shows John Edwards in second poll is a load of crap.

You are clueless.  It's not a conspiracy.

Anyone with a brain knows that MEDIA COVERAGE AFFECTS POLL NUMBERS.

And since the media have been SHOVING CLINTON DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS of course the polls are going to reflect that, and I'm going to keep saying it.

What do YOU think the poll numbers mean?

Hillary Clinton has said LESS about every issue than almost every candidate running.  What has she done that people agree with that they would be supporting her?

The answer is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but be pushed by the media.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the 90th time (2.00 / 1)

You're part right, the Clinton campaign has had control of the way the media presents the race since June. And that does affect people's opinions.

But that is what a winning campaign does, or for that matter a successful administration, it uses the media to persuade people to support the candidate. The problem for Edwards and Obama isn't in the media, it is in their failure to manage the media.


by souvarine on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the 90th time (none / 0)

in second place


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:02:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: For the 90th time (none / 0)

To me Obama is the Nader of this race.  


by changehorses08 on Wed Sep 12, 2007 at 03:31:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

what is illogical? (none / 0)

The caucuses don't draw every registered Democrat.  

This sample size is too large to accurately measure the caucus vote.  More than 7 times the size of the total caucus vote!!


by DrFrankLives on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 08:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Leads, but among which voters? (none / 0)

Either the lead sentence is poorly phrased or else this poll doesn't mean a lot.

It says "a poll of XX Dems and Repubs shows a lead for Clinton...".

I'm guessing it's poorly worded, which is pretty awful writing.  Because frankly, I don't care what Republicans think about her, and they won't likely vote in a primary for any Dem.  


Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
by passionateprogressive on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:06:41 PM EST

Mark Waner (none / 0)

If Mark Warner were in the race, Clinton would have had more difficulty. Essentially, all the other candidates are running to the left flank of Clinton, frankly the mainstream segment of the party.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:10:11 PM EST

Re: Mark Waner (none / 0)

Exactly It would have been a toss up between Warner and Clinton for me . Hard choice


When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line
by lori on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Waner (none / 0)

Thanks for making my point for me.

DLCers like Bayh, Vilsack, and Warner would have made it more difficult for Clinton, just like Obama was lured into the race to make it more difficult for someone to stop Clinton.

So, are the DLCers the only ones smart enough to think ahead.

I'm not.

Clearly most people are.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Waner (none / 0)

Thanks for making my point for me.

DLCers like Bayh, Vilsack, and Warner would have made it more difficult for Clinton, just like Obama was lured into the race to make it more difficult for someone to stop Clinton.

So, "do you think" are the DLCers the only ones smart enough to think ahead?

I'm "don't".

Clearly most people "do."

That's what happens when you try to do too much at one time.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:58:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Waner (none / 0)

What happens when you try to do too much at one time is you end up making zero sense, like your post.  Please stop just throwing posts on here and start thinking just a smidgen first.


by frankies on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 09:46:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mark Waner (none / 0)

I still don't get your post, even after the correction.  Can you re-correct, so it makes sense?  I don't think you meant to write "I'm don't," right?


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 11:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Worst Poll Ever. (2.00 / 3)

This assumes over 80% caucus participation out of all registered voters.  It would be EXTREMELY unusual to see even 15% of all registered voters.  This sample size is so bad as to be completely absurd.

This is a serious question:  Do you understand how to read a poll to see if it is valid?


Check out Bleeding Heartland for Iowa's only progressive community-oriented blog.
by Simon Stevenson on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:12:20 PM EST

Re: Worst Poll Ever. (none / 0)

Thank God for Jonathan Singer.  A minor quibble here - the Times never says that those surveyed are "likely" voters, although it is easy to infer that from the post and article.


Check out Bleeding Heartland for Iowa's only progressive community-oriented blog.
by Simon Stevenson on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worst Poll Ever. (none / 0)

No matter how you guys spin it, poll after poll in IA suggest that Clinton is doing better among wider screen, which means she has strong upside potential...


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:19:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, no. (none / 0)

Really all that matters is the folks who show up on Caucus night.  That's where a tighter screen (people who will show) is better than a looser one (people who might not).  Iowa is notoriously hard to poll.


by rashomon on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:23:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worst Poll Ever. (none / 0)

No, it actually means that the media is posting a MISLEADING POLL that does not meet historical standards for Iowa polls.

That's what it means.

You could equally say that a large sample means that she has the best chance of being dissapointed on caucus night.

The fact that such a large sample only gives her a 5% lead must mean that if the poll was done accurately, John Edwads would be winning by 5-10, like he was in the last poll done in Iowa.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worst Poll Ever. (none / 0)

The last poll done is clearly also showing a Clinton lead.

Here are the last 6 polls from Iowa for reference:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus -208.html#polls

Poll Date Sample Clinton Edwards Obama Richardson Spread

RCP Average 08/17 - 09/10 - 26.2 23.6 21.0 11.6 Clinton +2.6

LA Times/Bloomberg 09/06 - 09/10 RV 28 23 19 10 Clinton +5.0

American Res. Group 08/26 - 08/29 600 LV 28 20 23 13 Clinton +5.0

Time 08/22 - 08/25 519 LV 24 29 22 11 Edwards +5.0

Strategic Vision (R) 08/17 - 08/19 600 LV 21 23 22 14 Edwards +1.0

Zogby 08/17 - 08/18 503 LV 30 23 19 10 Clinton +7.0

Univ. of Iowa 07/29 - 08/05 425 LV 27 22 22 9 Clinton +5.0


by georgep on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:33:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Worst Poll Ever. (none / 0)

The University of Iowa poll showed John Edwards leading in the SMALLER SAMPLE among most likely caucus goears.

Hillary Clinton always leads in the LARGER SAMPLE, which is the freaking point that I'm trying to make.

The larger sample sizes mean a lot more caucusgoers than are likely to show up, and are therefore probably LESS ACCURATE than the smaller, more "normal" samples.

The polls done sponsored by Iowans usually show John Edwards winning.  It's no surprise that those done by the major news outlets tend to skew in Clinton's favor just like everything else that the corporate media do.


by OE on Tue Sep 11, 2007 at 07:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]