Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa

by Jonathan Singer, Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 05:54:16 PM EST

Newsweek has conducted what appears to be their first polling on the Iowa caucuses, and their numbers out of the Democratic race look like this (along with the Pollster.com average out of the state:

1,215 Iowa RVs, September 26-27, MoE +/- 3 percent (7 percent for likely Ds)

Likely Ds
1st Choice		Likely Ds
2nd Choice		Pollster.com
Average
Obama282420.6
Clinton242026.6
Edwards221922.6
Richardson10913
Biden56N/A
Kucinich11N/A
Dodd11N/A
Gravel00N/A
Undecided9N/AN/A

A few things to note about this poll other than the fact that this is the first time that Newsweek has polled this race. First, the numbers quoted above include leaners. Second, the number of likely Democratic caucusgoers polled is not listed as best I can tell, but from an estimate based on the reported margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points for likely Democratic caucus-goers I'd imagine these numbers reflect about 200 respondents, which would yield a bit over 300,000 Democratic caucus participants -- a significantly larger number than the roughly 122,000 Democratic pcaucus participants in 2004. Finally, I'd note one more time that the margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points is quite high as far as these things come.

That all said, this poll does at least include second choices, which most recent polls have not. What's more, it shows a fairly close (within the margin of error) three-way race between Clinton, Obama and Edwards in the state, which I'd at least intuit to be the case. And at the least it gives us a bit to talk about on this lazy Saturday afternoon.




Tags: Iowa Caucuses, Iowa, Democrats, Democratic Primaries, 2008 (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 36 Comments :: Post a Comment


Gingrich not running (none / 0)

Newt Gingrich is not running. That's something worth noting. Despite his high unfavorables he would have been the most skilled and unpredictable of the Repug candidates. I'm glad he is staying out.


by cmpnwtr on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 06:00:40 PM EST

Re: Gingrich not running (none / 0)

I was a little afraid of his candidacy and I am glad he changed his mind.  Gingrich is out and Larry Craig cannot seem to go.  Thank God I am a Democrat.  


by changehorses08 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:31:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Related Note (none / 0)

On a related note, Survey USA issued a head to head poll today for Washington State; Obama outperforms the other Dems against the Repugs:

http://surveyusa.com/2008H2HWA0907.htm


by True Independent on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 06:08:24 PM EST

20% Obama (none / 0)

Obama has not moved in the polls since last February.  Obama's people are using his vast campaign war chest to organize their own polls to tell us how much we want him. Its so much easier then trying to convince Americans that he is the best candidate.  


by changehorses08 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:34:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (2.00 / 3)

Polls that show Obama anywhere close to being in the lead are not permitted here. Please delete this lest the Obama folks' demoralization doesn't set in. This is an official directive from the democratic party establishment. Comply or else...


by NewNoir on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 06:10:00 PM EST

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

I liked that.


by win on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 01:10:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

I regret that Newt isn't running. He would have been murder for the other Repub candidates.


by JoJoGunne on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 06:31:47 PM EST

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (2.00 / 0)

I think we all know that Iowa is tricky to poll and we all know that there is a 3 way tie. But, 7% of MoE is too high and I doubt the credibility of this poll based on that margin.


by American1989 on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 06:48:21 PM EST

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

I guess we could say Obama polls at 21%-35%, Clinton polls at 17%-31%, and Edwards at 15%-29%, with all of them intersecting at 21%-29% Kind of odd, eh?


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 06:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

I doubt the poll too.  


by changehorses08 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:36:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

Can we know acknowledge Chris Dodd to be nothing more than a vanity candidate in the election solely to sell his book?


by Piuma on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 07:04:44 PM EST

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

Yes. One of many. I don't think Alan Keyes even has a book. Just vanity.


by JoJoGunne on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 07:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (2.00 / 2)

I was wondering why Bill would go on the attack agianst Obama , it looks like they don't beleive thier own inevitability bullshit. Now if the media would stop doing the Clinton's bidding...


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:10:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

You keep assuming they believe it is inevitable.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton got asked a question (none / 0)

Transcript of Bloomberg TV interview:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/09/interview_with_bill_clinton.ht ml

MR. HUNT: Let me ask you one question about the Democrats. I'm not going to pull an ambush blind quote with you. This is from Hillary Clinton's autobiography. She's writing about you, circa 1992. And I quote, "he was initially dismissed as an outsider - handsome, and articulate - but at the age of 46, too young and inexperienced for the job," end quote. Sounds a bit like the critique of Barack Obama today, doesn't it?

PRES. CLINTON: Yes, but there is a difference. I was the senior governor in America. I had been head of any number of national organizations that were related to the major issue of the day, which is how to restore America's economic strength. And the issue abroad, except for Bosnia, which was the terrible problem at the time, was how to build a post-Cold War world, how to put things together? We didn't have the terror threat. We didn't have the troops in Iraq. We didn't have the Afghan issue hanging fire.

And so, by the time I ran, I was - in terms of experience - was closer to Senator Obama, I suppose, in 1988 when I came within a day of announcing, because most of the governors were for me and I had been a governor for six years. And I really didn't think I knew enough, and had served enough and done enough to run.

That doesn't mean that he shouldn't. That's his decision. But I think in terms of the experience relevant to that moment, I had more experience than anybody else running that year, including President Bush on the experience relevant to the American people then, which was how are we going to solve our domestic problems and get the country moving again.

And that's why I finally concluded that I could do it, and that I was interested enough in foreign affairs and committed enough to do it that I could learn what I needed to learn. In this election, I think it is more relevant that Hillary is on the Armed Service Committee, the only New York senator ever to serve there, the only senator of either party asked by the Pentagon to be on their commission to reorganize the military for the 21st century, and has responsibilities for helping to deal with the holes in our domestic homeland defense after 9/11 in New York, plus, all the invaluable experience of healthcare and education and all the domestic issues.

So I think what America needs in a president changes from time to time. And I think now, when we need to immediately restore our standing in the world, when we need to build alliance very quickly, but we have to understand what has to be done to rebuild the American military and to disengage in Iraq and rebuild our efforts in Afghanistan without making it worse than it is, and do all these domestic things, her experience is more relevant and more compelling.


by hwc on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:39:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton got asked a question (none / 0)

It was a way for him to hit Obama ON experience. He wove in 1988.

The reason he didn't run in 1988 is what his personal secretary talked about was the many affairs that he was having at the time and it would be exsposed in the press. By waiting for a later time supposedly his adulterous behaviour would be old news and not so recent.


by BDM on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

nevadadem I missed you.  Fact is a State Senator with 2 years in the Senate hasn't got enough experience to be President. Clinton is only saying what Democrats all over the country are saying.  


by changehorses08 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:39:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Dodd as "Vanity" candidate (none / 0)

That's deplorable, unless you think the Constitution is a "vanity" document. Dodd is trying to raise consciousness regarding our nation's most important set of fundamental principles. The Constitution was the "Big Idea", way before Darth Cheney, William the Bloody, and the rest of the a-hole neo-cons decided try to turn the American Dream into the American Nightmare.

Call his candidacy what you will, but if truly it is "vanity", then I need to go look for another country to live in.


by res on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:47:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

The "take away" from this poll is that Obama is the prohibitive favorite in Iowa and that just finishing second would give Clinton a bump going into New Hampshire three days later. Nobody expects her to do well against Obama's organizational machine (31 field offices) and Edwards' six years of non-stop campaigning in the state.


by hwc on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 08:48:53 PM EST

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

Nice spin.

The expectations for Hillary are so high that a loss will be hufge headlines and will result in a major bumb for the winner.

I have not seen any news organization putting high expectations in Iowa for any candidate and low balling for Clinton. They put pressure on Edwards by saying if he loses Iowa the race is over.

tHE cLINTON SUPPORTER'S ON THIS BLOG KEEP TALKING ABOUT HER SURGING IN iOWA AND PREDICTING HER TO WIN IA.


by BDM on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 11:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrats have Chosen Hillary (none / 0)

I never talk about Hillary surging in Iowa.  I talk about her doing well with Single and Married Women, White Men, Blacks, Hispanics, younger voters and Seniors all over the country in poll after poll.  


by changehorses08 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:43:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I really did laugh out loud (none / 0)

Hwc, that is unworthy of you. Hillary has Bill and the Vilsacks calling in every favor they've done for anyone in the past 15 years, and she has Teresa Vilmain and much other organizational talent. So obviously it would be beyond shocking for Obama to finish better than Hillary in Iowa.

As for this poll, we all know that turnout is unlikely to exceed 150,000 people. I would argue that if the caucuses are held on January 4 we may not even crack 125,000. If 200,000 people showed up I would be amazed. 300,000 is simply not going to happen.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 12:36:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really did laugh out loud (none / 0)

desmoindem:

Putting aside the spin room stuff for a moment: the flaw in this poll is that they including "probably will" along with "definitely will" in the likely caucus sample. When ARG does their screen, they ask the same question but only include "definitely will" in their final sample.

Let's face it, if you aren't saying you will definitely vote in the caucus today, you ain't digging the car out of the snow and voting in January. "Probably will" is a pretty lukewarm commitment to something that's as big a pain in the ass as a caucus.

The most interesting crosstab is the strength of support. That, along with age and geographic distribution, would be what I'm looking at to try to get some handle on the race. But, at the end of the day, it's impossible to poll the Iowa caucus. It's all about who can turn their voters out where.


by hwc on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:01:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I really did laugh out loud (none / 0)

HWC -- exactly.  One of the media pundits said you cannot tell who will turn out for the Iowa caucuses even a week in advance let along 3 months.      


by changehorses08 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:50:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You have got to be kidding me... (none / 0)

I can't see straight from the spin in that post...


by fladem on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:15:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

Internal polling by Obama's camp revealed this abrupt change.  Hence his wife swing for the fences with her statement a day ot two ago to say IA is a "must win."  It's akin to have a horse in the stretch drive deciding whether of not to "push him to the limits."

I doubt it will work, though.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:02:33 PM EST

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

Obama was a flavor of the month back in January.  Now however, he has lost his flavor and has to depend on hopelessly flawed polls to have any hope of victory.  


by changehorses08 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:46:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

What would be of value is to know whom was whose second choice. When Zogby started releasing that cross-tab in Jan of '03, it was obvious that Gephardt supporters had Edwards/Kerry as their second choice, and not Dean. Here, what would be most valuable to know, is whom are the second choices of Richardson/Biden. If any of the top three benefits the most from that division, they'd likely win.


by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:05:56 PM EST

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

Jerome:

The second choice question on this poll is essentially useless because the vast majority of "second choices" are being expressed by supporters of the three top-tier candidates (Clinton, Edwards, Obama) who will be viable in all the precints. So, we are looking at "second choice" preferences from voters who will casting "first choice" votes in the caucuses.

You are correct. The intersting second choice opinions would be from the supporters of the vanity candidates who won't achieve viability in the caucus precints. However, the margin of error on that sample would be astronomic because the raw numbers are so small.


by hwc on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 09:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton and Edwards will be viable in most (none / 0)

if not all precincts.

I think Obama will fall short of 15 percent in quite a few precincts. I do not think he has significantly improved his standing among the over-50 crowd. I also think that the Clintons are going to be seeding nonstop "Obama is inexperienced" stories in the media for the next three months.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 12:38:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton and Edwards will be viable in most (none / 0)

To be honest, Obama doesn't deserve any support among the over 50 crowd. Blowing off that AARP debate in Iowa is the most brain-dead political move of the year. For a candidate who claims Iowa is everything, I just don't understand it.

I guess he really is B-Rock, and showing up with Usher at the concert...er, I mean rally...in Atlanta was more important than winning the Iowa caucus.

He's also blowing off some big Democratic Party fundraiser in Iowa in a couple of weeks that the rest of the candidates are attending. Go figure.


by hwc on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:06:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton and Edwards will be viable in most (2.00 / 1)

I think you might be surprised at the age of some of Obama's most loyal supporters both on this site and in the electorate at large.


by Shaun Appleby on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 04:55:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome (none / 0)

See the table below, based on 2004 exit polling. The reason Edwards broke 30 was his strength among second choces.

This is significant data. Note Edwards picks up 7 points based on his lead with people's second choice. Dean underperforms based on his weakness with the same group.

Iowa 2004 Clark Dean Edwards Kerry Gephardt Kuchinich Holy Joe
First Choice 2 22 25 36 11 5 0
Second Choice nt 11 31 28 10 nt nt
Final result 0 18 32 36 11 1 0

by fladem on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 11:20:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (2.00 / 1)

With the caveats mentioned in the post it's easier to just say that this poll is worthless. Waaay too loose likely voter screen. Completely useless poll, not worth even mentioning on the frontpage unless to just say newsweek came out with a meaningless poll.


by Quinton on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 10:25:35 PM EST

Re: Newsweek Poll: Obama Leading in Iowa (none / 0)

I disagree the poll is meaningless.  The results are meaningless but coverage on websites like The Huffington Post and MSNBC are priceless.  This sounds like it came straight out of Bush's playbook.  If you're losing make up a poll which says you're winning.  


by changehorses08 on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 02:55:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Who is beating Republicans? (none / 0)

Democratic Candidate vs. Republican Candidate

Survey USA - September 28, 2007
Oregon
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 7.33%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 7.66%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 12.00%

Survey USA - September 27, 2007
Minnesota  
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 15.66%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 10.66%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 17.00%

Survey USA - September 26, 2007
Wisconsin
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 5.00%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 7.66%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 8.66%

Ohio (20 electoral votes)
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 3.33%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 7.00%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 9.33%

Iowa (7 electoral votes)
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 7.00%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 9.33%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 15.66%

Missouri (11 electoral votes)
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 3.66%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 5.33%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 13.00%

New Mexico (5 electoral votes)
Average
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 11.33%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 10.00%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 13.00%

Kentucky (8 electoral votes)
Average
Clinton trails the Republicans by an average of 5.00%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 12.33%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 1.33%

Virginia (13 electoral votes)
Averages
Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 9.33%
Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 3.66%
Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 11.33%

Alabama (9 electoral votes)
Average
Clinton trails the Republicans by an average of 8.33%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 23.33%
Edwards trails the Republicans by an average of 5.33%

Kansas (6 electoral votes)
Average
Clinton trails the Republicans by an average of 8.00%
Obama trails the Republicans by an average of 5.00%
Edwards trails the Republicans by an average of 1.00%

http://johnedwards.com/action/contribute mygrassroots?page_id=MjgxOTc
My Page


by mrobinsong on Sun Sep 30, 2007 at 06:42:46 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.

Login
Username:

Password: