SUSA's new Iowa poll: CLINTON ahead

The latest wave of SUSA polls are not including Obama and Edwards -- so this is not to be taken as a comparison of electability, but a measure of how good things are for Democrats. For they showing quite exciting results for Hillary Clinton, who leads all Republicans in Missouri, leads all but one who she ties in Ohio, edges Rudy in Kentucky and is even competitive in Alabama. And today comes Iowa!

Full analysis and poll here on

Today, SUSA came out with its new poll from Iowa, which has Clinton ahead against all Republicans:

  • She runs closest to Rudy Giuliani and McCain. She beats them respectively 48%-43% and 49%-44%.
  • Against Thompson and Romney, she leads 50%-42%.
  • It's 51%-41% against Huckabee, 52%-36% against Ron Paul.
  • SUSA did not poll Obama and Edwards, but it did survey a Rudy-Al Gore showdown. Gore wins 51% to 42%.

Link to the poll. Things are not looking rosy for Republicans. Remember Iowa voted for Bush in 2004. Though we should say things are pretty much what they were a month ago: Here's the SUSA poll from Iowa that came out in September. Democrats won all their match-ups then too by comparable margins.

More political news on

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Iowa, John McCain, Romney, Rudy Giuliani, SUSA, Thompson (all tags)



Even worse for Giuliani

There's even worse news in this poll for Rudy.

The poll's sample tilted towards men (51% of the sample) and underrepresent women (49% of the sample). The actual distribution in the 2004 election in Iowa was 54% women and 46% men.

In the SUSA poll, Rudy has an 8% edge among men against Hillary (50% to 42%). Offsetting this is Hillary's 20% advantage among women (55% to 35%).

So, if you adjust the sample to reflect the majority female electorate, Hillary is demolishing Rudy in Iowa. And, this in a state that, historically, has been so chauvinistic it wouldn't elect a female to run a Girl Scout troop.

by hwc 2007-10-21 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Even worse for Giuliani

so much for the naysayers saying hillary is unelectable.  what's their excuse now?

by terrondt 2007-10-21 11:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Even worse for Giuliani

Curiously, it takes two clicks in this diary to go directly to the source.

However, I provided the direct link below. Scroll on down and check out the match up between Giuliani and Gore:

42%     Giuliani
51%     Gore
7%     Undecided rtEmail.aspx?g=2dbaa9be-dfa7-499e-9aa6-e 748067ea7ca

Gore's not even running....Hillary's the electable one alright. lol

by misscee 2007-10-21 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Even worse for Giuliani

What do the Gore numbers have to do with Hillary or anyone else?  I'm missing your point.

by Denny Crane 2007-10-21 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Even worse for Giuliani

that he's more electable than Hillary and he's not even running, going by the diarist'z "logic."

by misscee 2007-10-22 12:46PM | 0 recs
nice try

Iowans have elected three different women as lieutenant governors, one woman as attorney general and one woman as secretary of agriculture.

The current Iowa Senate has 6 women (out of 50 total). The current Iowa House has 27 women (out of 100 total).

Also, Iowa Democrats have nominated two women for governor and many women for various U.S. House districts.

Not a great record compared to most other states, admittedly. But your attempt to smear Iowans as unwilling to elect women to any office is inaccurate.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-21 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Even worse for Giuliani

I agree with hwc - and I think that Giuliani has more electability issues than the media is willing to admit.

Its funny because he acts like he's tricking the general electorate with his 9-1-1 mayoral voodoo, whereas really its the Republicans that are being fooled into thinking they have a winner.

Apparently the "I had to take my wife's call in the middle of a speach BECAUSE OF 9-1-1" strategum is not working in Iowa. Who'da thunk it?

by alipi 2007-10-21 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Even worse for Giuliani

Yes, but let's don't under-estimate him. I remember the same things were being said about Bush in 2000- that he was an idiot, he'd be a horrible President- yet he still got elected.

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-21 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA's new Iowa poll: CLINTON ahead

The way Hillary Clinton is received in Iowa, I don't doubt that she could turn the state blue for us.  It is looking very good.  

by georgep 2007-10-21 11:49AM | 0 recs
not polling other Dem candidates

against GOP candidates is bogus.

If they had, we would in all likelihood see Edwards yet again doing better than Hillary against the Republicans.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-21 12:05PM | 0 recs
especially since they polled Gore

who isn't running and won't run, against Rudy.

by desmoinesdem 2007-10-21 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: not polling other Dem candidates

How do you know this? If Iowa is at all like some other states around the country, Hillary could very well perform better against the GOP than Edwards.

by arkansasdemocrat 2007-10-21 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA's new Iowa poll: CLINTON ahead

This is great news although we have a long way to go.  Rudy is going to put up a nasty fight against anyone, he has already shown that it seems hurling insults is how he reacts to things.  I don't even know why Rudy wants to be President- he always seemed to me the type who would be happy with his 9/11 speaking tours the rest of his life.  I don't know what kind of effort he is really going to put into it, though we know he is going to turn it ugly no matter what.

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-21 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA's new Iowa poll: CLINTON ahead

when did they start doing ron paul head to heads with clinton?

by leewesley 2007-10-21 09:16PM | 0 recs
Complete BS

But what do you expect from the Hillary Hack Pack.
I guess "Centrist Addiction" is just the latest member.

Here is the overwhelming evidence that John Edwards is by far the most electable Democrat...

And here is the Iowa polling that ALL 3 Democrats have been included in. Edwards either doubles or nearly doubles Clinton's lead over the Republicans in every match-up. spx

Survey USA - IA: September 20 - October 4, 2007

Vs. Mitt Romney

Clinton - 50%
Romney - 43%

Obama - 51%
Romney - 41%

Edwards - 54%
Romney - 38%

Clinton leads by 7%, Obama leads by 10%, Edwards leads by 16%

Vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 50%
Thompson - 44%

Obama - 51%
Thompson - 41%

Edwards - 54%
Thompson - 37%

Clinton leads by 6%, Obama leads by 10% Edwards leads by 17%

Vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 50%
Giuliani - 42%

Obama - 50%
Giuliani - 42%

Edwards - 53%
Giuliani - 39%

Clinton leads by 8%, Obama leads by 8%, Edwards leads by 14%


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%

Survey USA - IA: Early May 2007

Vs. Fred Thompson

Clinton - 46%
Thompson - 44%

Obama - 51%
Thompson - 41%

Edwards - 58%
Thompson - 35%

Clinton leads by 2%, Obama leads by 10%, Edwards leads by 23%

Vs. Rudy Giuliani

Clinton - 45%
Giuliani - 48%

Obama - 49%
Giuliani - 44%

Edwards - 54%
Giuliani - 40%

Clinton trails by 3%, Obama leads by 5%, Edwards leads by 14%

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-22 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Complete BS

Just a couple of things to put into your pipeline:

Iowa poll aggregates showing Edwards falling to third:

You have to go all the way back to mid-August to see the last Edwards lead, and that was within the MoE.  

And, as you know, Clinton almost doubles up on Edwards when it comes to head-to-heads with Giuliani, as per RCP.

Plus, Edwards is down to 3.9% chances with Intrade, the major online betting community, which now gives Clinton better than 18 to 1 odds to defeat Edwards for the nomination.

Of course, Chris Bowers GE electability map has not changed, and it currently shows us Democrats actually losing to Giuliani if Edwards were our nominee, not something most of us would want to take a chance on at this juncture.

Think about it:  Edwards does badly against Giuliani overall when all state head-to-heads are aggregated.  That is not a good argument to rally back from being far behind vs. Clinton and Obama, logically.

by georgep 2007-10-22 06:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Complete BS

You are so full of shit and you know it.

I have debunked your idiotic Giuliani argument a million times.

Edwards averages a 6.60% better national average against Giuliani. It is impossible for him to not do a lot better in the general.

Go to my comments on Daily Kos (cannot get on site right now) and one of the first ones you will see will be a recent national general election average.

Have you ever heard of natural closing?

Obviously not.  And with your crackpot theory you can either accept SUSA or ALL national GE polling.  You have to deny one.  They are not compatible in the slightest.  

Why do you keep talking about this when you don't have the slightest clue what the you are talking about?

Please feel free to read my comments to see how many times georgiep has been dead wrong.

I've asked you this before, but your are so full of it, and you lie so frequently that you are forcing me to expose you for the unadulterated hack that you are. 11168/259/13#13

How old are you?

I'm thinking about 7 or 8..9 tops.

It's nice that your momma lets you use the computer.

I'm sorry for showing you to be liar liar pants on fire.

But little georgie, lying is bad.  Very very very bad.

Are you crying?  It's okay georgie peorgie, he's your wassy...georgie want wassy?...georgia like wassy.

georgie, it's okay, you can cry...let it out...I know, I know, getting the smack laid down on you ,must not be fun...I wouldn't know, becuase I don't go around talking about things I make no effort to understand.

NO!...Little georgie lewinsky P the third...put down that box of doo doo!  You already showed me that doo doo.  Twice.  And your hands are going to get covered in doo doo if you keep trying to rearange it like that.

If you act like a child, you'll be treated like one. If you didn't just repeat the same BS without even addressing one thing I brought up, I would gladly discuss this with you. But you show no interest in getting to the bottom of anything.

All you want to do is muddy the waters.

But you Clintonistas never care about reality, or truth, or anything...other than your self-created alliance with a corrupt, out of touch, stand for nothing, unelectable, corporate Liebercrat.

Thanks for leaving no doubt what your true colors are.  Now, whenever I see you spouting your BS, I can refer everyone to this.

Clearly, even trying to discuss things with you is a waste of time.

So from now on, every time you muddy the waters, I'll be waiting.

You and me, my childish buddy / namesake of "Boy", "Of the Jungle", and "Dubya Bush", will become very good friends.

Who knows.  If all goes well, you might end up telling the truth sometime.

by Michael 4 Edwards 2007-10-22 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA's new Iowa poll: CLINTON ahead

Clinton is taking nothing for granted, especially in Iowa: 0,CST-NWS-sweet21.article

Talking to reporters after a campaign event here, Clinton made the point that her mission is not accomplished. "I consider myself someone who is working as hard as I can every day to earn the support of Iowans, and that's what I'm going to keep doing," she said.

"I am well-aware that no one has voted, no one has caucused. We have a long way to go before that happens. I don't take anything for granted, and I am going to keep working as hard as I possibly can."

Clinton alluded to her lead in national polls and her success in landing some key endorsements in discussing the electability factor.

"I've opened up some real distance between me and the Republican nominees at this point in the campaign. ... I think that as this campaign goes forward, people are going to see what I stand for; what I aim to do as president is not what they often hear."
"There has been a lot of accumulated attacks on me going back 15 years. And what I've done in this campaign is to get out and have people form their own opinions of me. And slowly but surely, I think, sort of reverse a lot of the unfounded feelings people had."

by georgep 2007-10-22 06:30AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads