New IA poll: Clinton 27%, Obama 22%, Edwards 22%

A new IA poll has just been released:
http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/augu st/080807UItopline.pdf

No trend line.



Clinton 27%
Obama 22%
Edwards 22%

Looks like Edwards is in deep hole.

Tags: Edwards, Hillary Clinton, obama (all tags)

Comments

62 Comments

Mixed News

That is a bad poll for Edwards, though he does lead in the most likely. This is both good and bad news for HRC and Obama. Because HRC is running 13 points less well in Iowa than the country, while Obama runs exactly as well in Iowa as the country.  For Edwards, he has to win Iowa and that looks less and less likely. Early doesn't help him because he already ran the race once, so he has no real building room.

by Democraticavenger 2007-08-08 01:00PM | 0 recs
large difference

between most likely and less likely

by TarHeel 2007-08-08 01:03PM | 0 recs
also the polling date

started  4 or 5 days before Hillary's lobbyist comment but after obama's foreign policy statement

by TarHeel 2007-08-08 01:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Mixed News

I get slammed by Edwards people all the time for saying this but it's worth repeating, his supporters, especially the more liberal ones should seriously consider supporting Obama if they care about Hillary not becoming the nominee, Edwards is not winning the nomination, the media has decided that this is a two persoan race and frankly so have the donors both big and small. The fact that the AFL_CIO is not endorsing him say's it all, if they thought he had a realistic shot of becoming the nominee it would be a no brainer.

by nevadadem 2007-08-08 01:11PM | 0 recs
it's too early to worry about this yet

however,

I'd seriously recommend they do a "change Washington tour" together in NH and Ia.

seriously , they could draw large crowds and beat up HIllary.

Dodd is apparently going on CNN today to beat up on Obama again!

by TarHeel 2007-08-08 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Mixed News

I don't trust Obama on a number of issues like trade, environment, choice, and the ability to fight to get progressive things enacted when there is serious resistance.

by Quinton 2007-08-08 01:27PM | 0 recs
My second choice is Gore then Clinton

by jsamuel 2007-08-08 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Mixed News

Where is it bad news for Clinton that in Iowa she is running 13% behind her national numbers?  Iowa was Edwards' to lose, it was practically his home state.  I don't think you can make that statement in a realistic way.   So, if she moves ahead in Iowa by, say, 15% in the aggregate, yet is still below her national polling number, that is considered bad news for her?   Seems like a lot of spin here.  

by georgep 2007-08-08 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Mixed News

George, what's her best share been up till now in iowa?

by Ernst 2007-08-08 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Mixed News

She was behind Edwards until last week, after which both the RCP and pollster.com aggregates moved her into a lead.  After today's poll that lead should consolidate.  If the next Zogby shows Clinton ahead in Iowa as well, the race will shift to an obvious Clinton lead in Iowa.

by georgep 2007-08-08 04:22PM | 0 recs
agree

not really bad news for Clinton. The only thing bad about it for Clinton is while she is running away with the lead in national polls, in Iowa it's fairly close. If anything, I think this poll is good news for Clinton, good news for Obama, and bad news for Edwards.

by jj32 2007-08-08 01:22PM | 0 recs
Stick a fork in Edwards

Listen, I think he was done the minute Obama got in and stole a lot of oxygen -- mostly from Edwards.

Lets be real, if you are an '04 candidate, and ran as the VP on the ticket in '04 and the best you can muster in polling is distant 3rd. you are toast.

Edwards officially has "Jomentum"

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-08 01:32PM | 0 recs
Kinda of ironic

that you bring in lieberman

Cause lieberman was the frontrunner and it's only a matter of time before people here about lobbyists and secret government that Hillary advocates

by TarHeel 2007-08-08 01:36PM | 0 recs
Not to be mean but...

You know, John Edwards is a fine candidate and theres nothing wrong with supporting him.

But your inability to believe that Clinton is winning and is likely to win, though not inevitable, is amazing.

You literally seem to live in a state of denial. A lot of these things that you feel REAAAAAALLLLY strongly about average Americans don't care that much about and don't vote based on those issues primarily.

This isn't a "mainstream media" conspirarcy or the whole world being ignorant of your critisms of Clinton. Some people just have an honest to God difference of opinion on political issues.

So how about you try persuading people outside of his populist niche why Edwards is a good candidate instead of praying that this is all a horrible nightmare.

I'm not trying to bash you I'm just sayin...

by world dictator 2007-08-08 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Kinda of ironic

For a guy whose only interest is to bring 'jock strap' into a political discussion, you are as credible as your candidate.

No wonder everybody believes he is a phoney. His supporters just reflect this.

by areyouready 2007-08-08 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Kinda of ironic

Yeah, Tar and Feather doesn't have much credibility.

by DoIT 2007-08-08 02:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Kinda of ironic

Yeah, you and areyouready are just dripping with credibility.

by DPW 2007-08-08 07:24PM | 0 recs
That spin is old and using it is weak

"Cause lieberman was the frontrunner"

Yes, we all know that in the spring of '03 Jomemtum actually lead in a few polls.  How is that different from August of '08?  Lets be real and count the ways:

1) August is later in summer and isn't in the spring.  Add to this the fact that this race started earlier and has recieved more early coverage.

2)Debates and Forums - how many had been held when Jomentum was still in the lead?  One?  None?  We have had would seems like dozens already (5? 6?) and the make up of this race hasn't changed much, with the exception of Clinton moving up in Iowa.

3)I am not going to google the polls because it would be a waste of time, but if I recall properly, Jomentum had the "lead" (early lead) with support in the teens and the pack was actually fairly bunched up with Kerry, Gephardt, and I think one other recieving double digit or near double digit support as well.  Jomentum was hardly running away with it.  Clinton on the other hand may be.  She continually beats Obama by double digits nationally and in many delegate rich states her total surpasses that of Obama and Edwards combined.

4)Going along with item number 3, the race in '03 was in flux for a long time (which allowed Dean to come from nowhere and lead for awhile) because the two candidates Democrats wanted to run - Clinton and Gore - sat out.  The field was basically starting with only 2nd teir candidates.   That is certainly not the case in '08

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-09 01:00AM | 0 recs
Re: That spin is old and using it is weak

Lieberman "led" a ho-hum field with 22% and 23% support.  Incredible that his performance in 2003 (very rarely was he even in the 20s at all) is compared to Clinton.   Shows how nonsensical the comparison really is when a guy who got to 22% and 23% in the polls twice and thereby "led" those polls because "none of the above" was the true winner is now equated to Hillary Clinton and her performance.    

by georgep 2007-08-09 05:29AM | 0 recs
New IA poll: Clinton 27%,

Hillary!!!

by samueldem 2007-08-08 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Clinton 27%,

Speaking to the choir brother.

Amen!

by DoIT 2007-08-08 01:20PM | 0 recs
I try to stay away from" are you ready"

but thiers no trash is this diary, just the poll which merits comment. Edwards seems to do better under certail ways of polling the caucus participants, like demmoines reg poll, for Obama it's great news as it's another poll that shows him right in the mix even after the national press pounding he's taken, for Edwards's he'd better hope that this is an aberation.

by nevadadem 2007-08-08 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re:

So, what you really are saying that this poll is bad news for Clinton?   Sure.

by georgep 2007-08-08 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re:

where did I say that?

by nevadadem 2007-08-08 01:12PM | 0 recs
Not the whole story...

Actually this diary doesn't tell the whole story.  If you actually follow the link Clinton is losing to Edwards in the category "most likely caucus goers."  She very much excels in the category "less likely caucus goers."  

Most importantly, if you go a little bit further a full two thirds of these voters said that they are very-likely or somewhat-likely to change their preference.  A full two thirds essentially say that their support is soft.

by Obama08 2007-08-08 01:20PM | 0 recs
Poor Edwards he is sinking fast

You know, it is sad to watch someone you once respected turn into the worst type of pandering politician. He must have lost his way.

by DoIT 2007-08-08 01:19PM | 0 recs
My analysis

This poll isn't a major gain or blow to any candidate. It shows the race is tight.

Clinton

It's good for Hillary because it shows that her celing in Iowa is high. A lot higher than I think any of us imagined. The fact that she can win Iowa with good turnout is great particularly since a good ground game is one of her strengths.

Edwards

I actually don't think this is horrible news for Edwards. He's up among most likely voters which is good. However he's only up by 1.2% which is bad. First because thats basically a statistical tie and second because no one wants to be up by only 1.2%, particularly when your campaign is based on Iowa. Also of particular concern is when all voters are taken into account he's in 3rd, statistically tied with 2nd. If Edwards finishes third in Iowa he's screwed. I highlu doubt he will unless Clinton finishes first and Obama turns out young voters to finish second.

The place where Edwards is really hurt is the fact that he could win Iowa and still be harmed. If the top three candidates finish this closely no one is going to get a big push from Iowa because they'll all "win" it. Edwards needs to win and he needs to win by a decent margin. Not by a lot but a decent margin.

Obama

The bad news for Obama is that it shows that the poll that had him in the lead might have been an outlier. Realistically even that poll was a statistical tie but it gave Obama good press and perception because he was "leading" in Iowa. In this poll among likely caucus goers he's in third by 5-6%.

I think an interesting and potentially worry thing for the Obama campaign is that this poll seems to indicate that all of these young Obama supporters who were going to go to their first causus do not exist. Well not so much that they don't exist but that this demographic is not his alone. In fact Clinton leads among less likely caucus goers.

by world dictator 2007-08-08 01:21PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

It is actually a statistical tie still.  

Clinton  26.8
Obama    22.3
Edwards  22.1

MoE +/- 4.9%

by Obama08 2007-08-08 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

Typically we don't call 5% down a statistical tie even when it's within the margin of error. But your point is noted.

by world dictator 2007-08-08 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

Exactly...The MOE is very large so this is basicly a tie race.

This is great news for Obama since most poll constantly showed him in third place.

The Iowa ads are starting to pay off.

I'm happy we wont have to hear those hilltocrats telling us how richardson is ready to overtake Obama in Iowa...Yeah right

Yeah right..Richardson made headway because of his little funny ads that made Iowans laught but that was about it...Th instant Obama started running ads, it was over for him.

I'm hearing that Clinton is expected to launch ad buy in Iowa this month to counter Obama's recent buys.

The good news for Obama is that everyone knows Hillary so i dont think there's too much just could say while Obama has so much room to grow.

Those little ads that present himself to iowans is really working.

Edwards is still the favorite but if one more poll shows he's basicly tie with everyone , then i'll agree that this may not be good for him.

Edwards probably saw his internals and he knew that he had to get at Hillary to protect his lead.

The good news is that the lobbyst attacks are working according to Rasmussen...Edwards needs to keep hitting her and paint her as the lobbyist favorite girl.

by JaeHood 2007-08-08 01:55PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

Yes, everything is fine in Obamaland. Polls don't matter. Hell, the truth doesn't even matter here. All that matters is Barack. Let us sing his praises.

by DoIT 2007-08-08 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

Wasn't you one of the Hilltocrats that kept telling me how richardson was surging and could soon overtake barack?

Let's wait until the new des moines registry...This poll is stating the race is a tie and i suspect the new des moine will also show a close race with all 3 candidates within the Moe.

This is good news for Barack since a lot of people says he had 2 of the worst weeks a politicians could have.

Barack can not afford any more of those and he needs to be laser sharp...If he's asked a question that is a trap , just do not answer it...Sometimes , they are a lot of coward journalists that will try to do just that like the AP reporter who distorted what he said.

The good news is with still have 4 months left and in 2 months, this shit would be all forgotten.

by JaeHood 2007-08-08 03:11PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

It's pretty sad that you;re calling a race where Obama is behind by 5 points a tie. Within the margin of error is much different than a tie. It's especially sad when  you were repping the fact that Obama was "leading" even though it was by 1%.

You don't have to like the other candidates but do the rest of us a favor and spare us your denial.

by world dictator 2007-08-08 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

"Wasn't you one of the Hilltocrats that kept telling me how richardson was surging and could soon overtake barack?"

No, that would not be me.

"Barack can not afford any more of those"

I agree and so funny that you would now finally admit it. During the time you claimed that he was doing and saying just the right things. Glad to see that you are coming around on this. It makes me want to have respect for you.

by DoIT 2007-08-08 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

LOL

by lonnette33 2007-08-08 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

Actually you are absolutely right on Clinton's growth potential. Although the sub-group MoE is huge, Clinton is leading among 'less likely' category by 33 to Obama's 25 to Edwards' 10.

This is great news. So much so for lack of enthusiasm of Clinton supporters.

If Clinton pulls it off in Iowa, it's pretty much over.

by areyouready 2007-08-08 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

Her lead within less likely voters doesn't necessarily suggest huge enthusiasm, it could also suggest that voters who are paying less attention and are less likely to vote support her.

Further, you look at the question of whether people could change their minds and nearly two thirds think that they are very or somewhat likely to change their minds.

by Obama08 2007-08-08 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

Of course, it's too early. This poll is pretty much a tie. But she has a much firmer foundation in Iowa than I originally thought. I'm glad for that.

by areyouready 2007-08-08 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

I agree that the race in Iowa is pretty much a tie.  This is good for Clinton and Obama and bad for Edwards.

by Obama08 2007-08-08 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re:If She wins, its over

People seem to be forgetting that this is a MUST win for Edwards & Obama.

A win for either one keeps their campaign going.

A Win for Clinton in Iowa & this thing is over!

by fightingLadyinblue 2007-08-08 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re:If She wins, its over

Not just a win, but a 2nd place would be very good for Clinton as well.   But, I think Iowans will be going for Clinton in the end.  The internals of that last Iowa poll were showing Clinton clearly ahead on the most important metrics.   Can't wait for the next Zogby.  I bet it'll show a lead for Clinton as well.  

by georgep 2007-08-08 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

Yeah, if Clinton wins Iowa, 'it is pretty much over'.

If Clinton wins Iowa, 'it is pretty much over' for the Democratic Party's White House chances in '08.

by John Poet 2007-08-09 03:07AM | 0 recs
Re: My analysis

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Good one!

by Nedsdag 2007-08-09 05:38AM | 0 recs
Clinton is competing everwhere

And she is gaining acceptance everywhere.

This is just more evidence.

If you average the last 5 polls or so she has to be up.

I believe in the last 4 she is up in 3 and tied in 1.

This just has to crush to competition.  Their only hope was for another candidate to win early and gain some mo.  That in itself was a longshot what with her doing well in Florida.  Now that she is competing in Iowa, they have to be distraught.

by dpANDREWS 2007-08-08 01:23PM | 0 recs
Call Big Tent Democrat

Where is the Big Tent Democrat, here's the most quote of day from our famous poll analyst, Chris.

Amazing!! I just keep on laughing.


Some of you might remember an old hobby horse of mine, The Inflated Clinton Poll Theory. The original hypothesis that led to the theory was that Hillary Clinton drawing disproportionate support in national and early state polls from Democrats who were less likely to vote. In the end, I concluded that thesis was incorrect, and instead argued that Clinton's support was only overstated by the degree to which different polling firms would push undecideds to make a choice. However, a new Iowa poll suggests that, at least in Iowa, the Inflated Clinton Poll Theory might actually be valid:

Can somebody recommend Christ Bower to either Obama or Edwards' campaign as new strategist?
LOL. Unbelievable.

by areyouready 2007-08-08 01:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Call Big Tent Democrat

right?

by BigBoyBlue 2007-08-08 02:13PM | 0 recs
Perspective on 'Less Likely'

The 'less likely' caucus goer is probably one who is newly registered or has an intermittent/dormant caucus participation history.

One thing I've found interesting on this blog is the constant chat about turning out students or new black voters in other states due to the 'excitement' factor. Yet, when it comes to Hillary, a 'less likely' voter is one that's equated with "not paying much attention".

Talk about missing the obvious -- don't you think that there are going to be some women participating, even for the first time, because Hillary is running?

ARG's president was interviewed back when they first started polling IA. His observations:


Edwards is a factor in Iowa in that the people who participated in the caucus four years ago, he`s running with those--that group of people.  In other words, he`s running even with Clinton.  It`s Hillary Clinton`s ability to sort of flood the zone with new voters and with these women, and I don`t think if she`s not in the race, I don`t think they would go out and vote.

CARLSON:  Yes.  And finally, that`s--that`s one point I want to ask you about, new voters.  You point out that when you ask Iowa caucus-goers who have actually been to previous caucuses who they`re going to vote for, the race is pretty tight.

BENNETT:  Yes.

CARLSON:  But when you open it up to people who say they will go, for instance, for the first time, Hillary Clinton just takes it away.

New voters like Hillary, is that right?

BENNETT:  Well, it`s these women who have decided that they`re going to go participate.  And if she can keep that up, if she can--if she can excite that base and turn it out, it`s going to be very difficult to stop her.  

This may explain why ARG appears biased in favor of HRC in IA polling -- perhaps they include more first-time female caucus participants.

It's anyone's guess how many students, or black voters in SC, or women in IA may participate for the first time due to the "excitement" factor. Theorizing that HRC's support from first-time participants comes from voters not paying attention or 'low-info,' rather than motivated or inspired may just be wishful thinking.

by dblhelix 2007-08-08 02:41PM | 0 recs
Valid poll?

Either I am  reading their polls completely wrong, or there is little validity to their polling.

The same outfit polled Iowa voters in March (3/19-3/30), and in both the March and August polls they report a bizarre likely-voter number. In March they said that 298 of the surveyed 1290 registered voters (23%) were most likely to vote in the Democratic caucuses. For August (7/29-8/5) they report that 319 of 907 (35%) registered voters will most likely participate in the Democratic caucus.

Of the 907 registered voters surveyed in August, 318 were registered Dems and another 151 were no-party but leaning Democrat (optimistic but perhaps believable numbers). But from this sample of 907 registered voters, 319 were listed as most likely caucus goers. How can that be?

Including the less likely caucus goers, they sampled 425 going to the Dem caucus, but only registered Dems can participate in the caucus. I just can't follow how this is really a legitimate group of people with much probability of going to the caucuses. Or am I reading this poll completely wrong?

If you want to follow the trend lines (3/19-3/31) for only the most likely caucus goer:

Edwards 26 (34)
Clinton 25 (29)
Obama   19 (19)

I can believe that we have a close race with the three top-tier candidates, and the recent ABC poll was close to this (Obama 27, Edwards 26, Clinton 26). But the likely voter models are pretty iffy, especially this far out. I think it is hard to say  who is out front and by what margin.

If you can believe the trend in the University of Iowa polls, it would appear that Edwards is slipping, which is consistent with some other polls in Iowa and matches my impression talking to Democratic activists in the state.

by tomcat 2007-08-08 04:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?

If you look at the mystery pollster today in which they asked the ABC director to do a more tighter screen and it came out Edwards 28, Obama 27 and Clinton 23.

The mystery pollster said that their numbers indicated a caucus attendance of 260,000 attendee's and 122,000 attendees attended the 2004 caucus. They thus went back to their data and adjusted for a tighter screen which I believe would be an attendance of 130,000 atendee's.

by BDM 2007-08-08 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?

A more restrictive likely voter definition, winnowing down to half that turnout, or about what it was in 2004, does not make a statistically significant difference in the estimate -- Edwards, 28 percent; Obama, 27 percent; and Clinton, 23 percent, all within sampling tolerances given the relatively small sample size. The more inclusive definition was used for more reliable subgroup analysis.

This from the myster pollster.

by BDM 2007-08-08 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?
That mystery pollster is the worst example I have seen yet for credibility. You guys are getting desperate quoting these mystery posters to buck you up.
Desperate I tell ya.
by DoIT 2007-08-08 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?

can you elaborate on mystery pollster's credibility issue? I only occasionaly check his site. He seems to be all over the map... I know very little about his analysis & polling history.

by areyouready 2007-08-08 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?

No I can't and that is the point. The mystery pollster has no credibility.

by DoIT 2007-08-08 04:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?

Actually mystery pollster has a great deal of credibility.  You can read him at pollster.com.  George quotes him all the time.  Read up on him, he is worth reading.

by Obama08 2007-08-08 05:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?

As one Clinton supporter speaking to another, I find the Mystery Pollster very well-informed and interesting to read.

by markjay 2007-08-08 05:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?

Well then maybe I am wrong. It's been known to happen from time to time.

by DoIT 2007-08-08 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Valid poll?

Meanwhile, in the real world, once this poll is picked up by RCP and pollster.com, Clinton moves up in the polling aggregates to solidify her Iowa lead.  Wanna bet that Zogby (which showed an exact tie between Edwards and Clinton last time) will also show Clinton in the lead?  

Also, since BDM is a big INTRADE fan, reviewing INTRADE on Iowa:

Iowa:  Clinton 40%, Edwards 25%, Obama 20%.  

Nationally (nomination):  Clinton 55.5%, Obama 29.5%, Edwards 7.2%   (Clinton leads by 26% with INTRADE bettors on winning the Democratic nomination)

by georgep 2007-08-08 06:09PM | 0 recs
like I've been saying

most of these polls are calling way too many people "likely" caucus-goers.

If even 150,000 people show up to caucus, I'll be shocked.

Don't get me wrong--I would love to see 260,000 people turn out. But it's not going to happen. A lot of people say they're going to come caucus, but they find an excuse to stay home on a cold weeknight.

by desmoinesdem 2007-08-08 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: like I've been saying

Especially the younguns, which is why I am heartened that Clinton does best with the senior crowd, you know, the demogroup that reliably shows up to the tune of making up 60% of caucus goers.  

by georgep 2007-08-08 06:11PM | 0 recs
Re: like I've been saying

I agree IA polls are all over the map. Nobody is pull away anyway. I just want IA results to be diluted to 0.

by areyouready 2007-08-08 06:20PM | 0 recs
Most likely? Less likel;y?

What is the actual finding of this poll?

I think you really can't write this diary with that headline and be honest about it.

If you are going to use a screen, then use it. If you are not then don't.

All of all the sucky polls, this one strikes me as among the worst.

by Big Tent Democrat 2007-08-08 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: New IA poll: Clinton 27%,

YES!!!  I am thrilled!  I knew all that Obama coverage was coming back to haunt him.  He is not going to be able to recover- it's Hillary- in the bag!

by reasonwarrior 2007-08-08 10:32PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads