MyDD :: More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +4%, +2%, NH +14%, national +22%, +24%, +29%

More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +4%, +2%, NH +14%, national +22%, +24%, +29%

by georgep, Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:02:38 AM EST

CNN released their latest Iowa poll, with Clinton leading by 2%:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/20/i owa.poll/index.html

Thirty percent of likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers support Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York as the nominee, with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois at 28 percent and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at 26 percent, according to the poll, released Thursday morning.

ARG polls

Clinton leads Iowa by 4%, in NH she surged to a 14% lead in the two ARG polls released today.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_arg_iowa_new_hampshire_1.php

Iowa:

Clinton 29%

Obama 25%

Edwards 18%

Biden 8%

Richardson 8%

Their previous poll showed Obama in the lead by 2%, so this is a 6% turnaround for Clinton.

NH:

Clinton 38%

Obama 14%

Edwards 15%

Richardson 5%

Clinton shows at 14%, and in comparison to last month's poll Clinton has added 3% to her overall lead in NH.

Further:

Two national polls released this morning further the impression that Hillary Clinton has bounced back from a lull, and in a pretty big way. We have seen her New Hampshire polling go somewhat in the right direction again (heading upwards) and the latest Iowa poll from Rasmussen has her in the lead in Iowa (contrasting to previous polls which have shown Obama in the lead.) The national polls are important in two ways:

1. Showing trends of the nation's Democratic voters as a whole in terms of reaction to what they see and hear from the various candidates.

2. The national polls largely reflect on the aggregate polling conducted in the 20 Feb. 5 states, and it is reasonable to assume that should there be split state winners (i.e. say, Obama wins Iowa and South Carolina, Clinton wins Nevada and New Hampshire) the national poll taken right after the Florida primary would be the guiding poll, heading into Feb. 5.

NBC/WSJ poll

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/d ocuments/wsjnbcpoll20071219.pdf

Clinton margin: 22%

Clinton 45%
Obama 23%
Edwards 13%

Second tier:

Biden 4%
Kucinich 4%
Richardson 2%
Dodd 1%

Trend:

Nov. 2007

Clinton 47%
Obama 25%
Edwards 11%

Sept. 2007

Clinton 44%
Obama 23%
Edwards 16%

Ok, this poll suggests that not a thing has changed nationally. That of course goes counter to the impression that has been created by some in the media and on blogs. The margin is exactly the same it has been last month, and at 22% it is quite large.

Battleground poll

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF /BG-33-questionnaire.pdf

Clinton +24%

Clinton 47%
Obama 23%
Edwards 13%

No previous trendline for this poll. Interesting in this poll is that GWU Battleground polled partisan perference by strength of support. With that we get: Clinton/definitely 29% Clinton /probably 16% Clinton /lean 2% Obama/definitely 12% Obama/probably 10% Obama/lean 1% Edwards/definitely 5% Edwards/probably 7% Edwards/lean 1% The strength of "definite" support for Clinton is striking, especially when compared to Obama and Edwards' numbers. One would think that at this point, days before Christmas, Obama and Edwards would have solidified their support base more.

Methodology

THE TARRANCE GROUP and LAKE RESEARCH PARTNERS N = 1,000 Registered “likely” voters Field Dates: December 9-12, 2007 SPLIT SAMPLE A/B

Analysis

Obama supporters showing buyer's remorse? The last two polls in Iowa appear to be moving away from Obama and towards Clinton (yesterday's Rasmussen also showed Clinton in the lead in Iowa) and these latest national polls certainly show a strengthening Clinton position. There was also that CNN poll that showed Clinton surging ahead in New Hampshire to a 12% lead. It looks like a bit of increased scrutiny Obama has seen recently has hurt him somewhat.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards (all tags)

Permalink :: 78 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +5%, n (none / 0)

By 5? Where do you get that number?

by david mizner on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:10:03 AM EST

That's a good number for Edwards imo (none / 0)

I think he is done but the polls are clearly telling me I am wrong.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:11:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

if he is really only (none / 0)

2 percent behind Obama and 4 percent behind Clinton, he will win Iowa on second choices and breadth of support.

But given how hard it is to poll Iowa, we really don't know where things stand, other than that the top three candidates are probably closely bunched together.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:25:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if he is really only (none / 0)

That sounds right to me.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if he is really only (2.00 / 2)

I like that Clinton wins on the issues, however, which is why I think she'll pull it out in the end:

The survey indicates that Iraq is still the top issue for Democrats, with one in three likely Democratic caucus-goers saying the war is the most important issue in their choice for president. Health care follows at 27 percent with the economy 1 point back.

"Clinton is seen as the candidate who is best able to handle the economy, Iraq, and health care -- the top three issues of concern to Democratic caucus-goers -- with her biggest advantage on health care," Holland said.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if he is really only (none / 0)

That's been important for Hillary, keeping her credibility on health care. I thought, given what happened in the nineties, that Edwards would be able to steal her thunder on that issue.

by david mizner on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:45:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Awesome, George -- (2.00 / 1)

and your pointing to the ISSUES and PERFORMANCE is key. I'm about to post a piece on veterans' issues ... look for it.

by susanhu on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if he is really only (none / 0)

I have no doubt she'll be able to "handle" those issues, but the results of her "handling" are not the ones I want.

Competence is not my issue, changing enough to survive the challenges that are facing us--and Clinton doesn't bring enough of it.

by MNPundit on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 03:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary recovery? (none / 0)

Not according to these two new polls:

Obama just tied her-up again in NH at 32%:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/table s/live/2007-12-20-nhpoll.htm?loc=interst itialskip

And is still leading in Iowa at 30%. Thing is John Edwards has caught Hillary in Iowa....he's tied her at 27%:

http://www.strategicvision.biz/political /iowa_poll_122107.htm

I think these polls are too volatile, and keep changing from day to day. Everyone would serve themselves best by just ignoring them until actual voting starts.

btw, nice to see you doing your thing again george...

by rapcetera on Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 02:59:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: if he is really only (none / 0)

DMD, I think if the candidates are closely bunched together in the actual results--and I'm not saying that's what will happen, just "if"--any "bounces" out of Iowa are going to be pretty tepid and as such, I think it hurts Edwards. I think JRE has to win by at least three to capture an "Mo."

If the media narrative on January 4 is, "Iowa <hearts> Huckabee, Democrats Closely Bunched," it pretty much rolls over to New Hampshire for impact.

by InigoMontoya on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:02:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +5%, n (none / 0)

Oops, it was 2%. I read thirty-three instead of thirty. Rectified.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:30:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Iowea +2, George? (none / 0)

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:10:35 AM EST

Re: More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +5%, n (none / 0)

Hillary is only +2 inside the MOE in the CNN poll. I can't find the poll you are referring to. Edit your title unless I read the wrong poll.

"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod

by Jr1886 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:17:26 AM EST

I thought he meant +5 (none / 0)

compared to the last Iowa poll by this outfit.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:26:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thought he meant +5 (none / 0)

but that does not jibe with his listing of the nat'l numbers. I think it is a typo.

by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:29:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I thought he meant +5 (none / 0)

Yes, I read thirty-three for some reason.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:33:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice, let CNN push that all day today (2.00 / 1)

... Before people tune out for the Holiday.

I can feel it in my bones all the way from where I sit far from Iowa. Iowa is going to do what it did last time. It is going to move to what it percieves as the strongest, most experienced candidate, best able to beat the Republicans.

Last time it said Howard we love you but Kerry is the right choice. This time it will be Barack that gets the big kiss off.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:34:32 AM EST

Re: Nice, let CNN push that all day today (2.00 / 1)

I personally think that more than the perception of Clinton as the strongest, most experienced candidate, what will weigh heavier in the end is the perception that Clinton is the best candidate for the issues important to Iowa Democrats, particularly her strong lead on health care, but also the perception that she would be best in regards to dealing with Iraq and, increasingly more and more, the economy (the Battleground poll shows that suddenly almost 60% of REPUBLICANS (the number for Democratic respondents is bound to be higher) believe that we will be seeing a major economic recession in this country over the next 12 months.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:05:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +5%, n (2.00 / 2)

I assume the +5 is an error, but maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, there is some good news in the details of this poll for Hillary.

First, the poll was taken Dec. 14-18, in other words, partly before her Des Moines Register endorsement and partly before her current 5-day swing through Iowa. I would thus expect another slight uptick for her by the end of the week.

Second, she is catching up in second place votes. In this poll they are Edwards (26), Obama (22), and Clinton (21). It's natural that she is a few points behind in second place votes since she is a few points ahead in first place votes (you can't have somebody as both your first and second place choice). And second place votes only come into play in cases where the other candidate isn't viable at 15%. So I think she's doing OK.

Overall, I expect Clinton to overperform on election day due to more support from seniors, good support throughout the state, and a top-notch organization. I would expect Edwards to overperform also due to his strong support in rural areas and his historic relation with caucus goers. Obama might underperform since his vote is likely less spread out throughout the state. If trends continue, it could be a narrow Clinton-Edwards-Obama finish.

by markjay on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:34:56 AM EST

Thoughtful analysis on your part (2.00 / 1)

I think Clinton will prove she has the superior ground game come Jan. 3.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:39:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +5%, n (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you that Clinton will overperform in Iowa due to her particularly strong showing in the one demo group that always shows up to caucus (voters 55 and older.) I am wondering about the second-choice votes, as it is not quite clear where they come from. If some of Clinton's good showing in second-choice votes comes from Obama and Edwards, it is not as meaningful for precincts where Obama and Edwards are viable (which is probably in most.)

Incredibly, aside from "environment," Clinton leads on every issue important to Democrats. If the Iowa caucus is about actual issues, Clinton would win easily.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:47:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton scores another Iowa endorsement too (2.00 / 1)

Iowa Secretary of State Michael Mauro endorsed her today.

From WHOtv:

"Mauro made his announcement Wednesday at an event in Des Moines, according to a Clinton campaign statement. He says the New York senator stands out among the other candidates and doesn't have a "learning curve."

Link:

http://www.whotv.com/global/story.asp?s= 7522878

by dpANDREWS on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:37:40 AM EST

- Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

...George, aren't you the one who says we need to go by trendlines? CNN doesn't have any, so if you want to talk about recovery, you aren't abiding by your own standards of representing movement in the early states.

And if you want to go by polls, the last five all share a similar timeline. So for you to cherry-pick one and call it a recovery seems sort of childish, doesn't it? Edwards was winning one poll, Obama is leading two polls, and Hillary is leading two polls of the last five. Dec 10-18

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:46:03 AM EST

According to many here and the media (2.00 / 1)

Clinton was dead two weeks ago.

I don't buy "recovery" because I don't think she went anywhere. However, I think the important is here is that the media narrative is now dead. They can't flog their campaign in trouble, Obama surging, bs.

This puts some wind in the sails of the Clinton workers and supporters on the ground for the final push. It is a positive.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:53:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: According to many here and the media (2.00 / 1)

I agree, I probably should have put "recovery" in quotes to reflect that I don't think things have gone as dramatically away from and then as dramatically back towards Clinton as was reported by the media. I don't think things have changed that much, they just appear to be moving somewhat back to where they were before. Iowa is clearly knotted up, but I like Hillary's position there because she is strongest with the one demo group that always shows up, rain, ice, sleet, or snow (not shine, probably, on that day in Iowa.) She also leads all candidates on the most important issues, which weighs heavily in the end.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:59:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: According to many here and the media (none / 0)

umm, if Obama surged and Clinton is now coming back, that's a good thing from your perspective, right? the idea that she never went away or never dipped flies in the face of all evidence and actually marginalizing the comeback narrative is politically tone deaf -- whether you think it's true or not, play it up, it's a winner.

by Todd Beeton on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:06:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't disagree with you (2.00 / 1)

My point is that the 2 month media nightmare for Clinton seems to be over.

By the way I counted 3 tough - fairly tough, not killer - columns pointed in Obama's direction. That is a bit different.

The New York Times looks at his 'Present' votes, and the Politico goes at his sensitivity in one, and revisits that old IL questionaire in another.

So the coverage is getting more positive for CLinton and Obama gets to "enjoy" some coverage.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:14:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: According to many here and the media (2.00 / 1)

I agree to an extent. However, I personally believe that while I want to see NH move back into double-digits, I don't want to "live it up" for Iowa. Say, the next 4 polls all show Clinton with a slight lead, I want that fifth poll to show Obama with a 9% pop, because that is what the media (in their desire for a major horserace, which is good for ratings) is going to run with the most. I want the media-created theme for Iowa to be that Obama is ahead in the state and that he is expected to win. In a way the media's desire to create an Obama surge when the race is really as knotted as can possibly be helps Clinton via lowered expectations. That way, if she wins, even with a very close result, it comes unexpected and "Comeback Kid II" will be all over the press. If she loses with a very tight race, the expectation that OBama is ahead in Iowa helps keep a potential bounce out of Iowa for Obama at bay.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:14:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: According to many here and the media (none / 0)

Obama, Edwards, Mrs.Clinton that is the order on January 3rd...Why? Edwards is very strong in the rural areas but that's were he will get most of 2nd choices. This is a fair assessment because the lesser-known candidates are more likely to be inviable in the small towns than in the cities. So, his 2nd choices edge will be negated bc he will get them where he least needed them. Obama is on top w Mrs. clinton in 1rst choices but outperform Mrs. Clinton in 2nd choices so he will come out 1rst. Hillary is the quasi-incumbent in this race so undecided are unlikely to flock to her on eletion day.Worst of all, she is running a distant third in 2nd choices so she is in deep trouble. Anybody, with a better scenario??

"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod

by Jr1886 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:21:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: According to many here and the media (2.00 / 1)

Clinton, Edwards, Obama.

Clinton is ahead on all the issues, and that should make the big difference. She also performs particularly well in the one demographic that can be counted on to show up for caucuses, regardless of weather, the over 55 yrs. of age crowd (which made up almost 60% of Iowa caucus voters last time around.) Edwards is stronger than Obama in rural areas and has some base support that has never left him. Currently those absolutely undecided are most likely to flock to Clinton on their perception that she is the most experienced, most ready to lead, and best on actual issues (health care, Iraq, economy, etc.) IMO, Edwards is the semi-incumbent in Iowa, given that he has camped out in the state for 6 yrs. now.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:48:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

I don't recall having talked with you about this stuff before (as appears implied in your post,) but what the heck:

Clinton leads in the last 2 Iowa polls, Rasmussen and CNN. The Hotline poll showed a tie. That is a major difference from previous to that, where Obama showed large leads in the Quad Times poll and the Strategic Vision polls. That looks like a turnaround to me. Then we have her uptick in national polling, plus the 9% NH poll. As you can see from the RCP averages, Obama's lead in Iowa has been shrinking to now show at 2%. This is obvious movement, which has also been captured by Todd Beeton in yesterday's frontpager regarding New Hampshire:

Clinton Regaining Lead In NH

by Todd Beeton, Wed Dec 19, 2007 at 11:30:09 AM EST

My how quickly things change. Just a week ago the story was Obama and Clinton tied in the Granite state, as the CNN, Mason Dixon and Rasmussen polls in the state taken during or immediately after Barack Obama's Oprah blitz showed a statistical dead heat, with Obama even showing signs of pulling ahead. It's starting to look like that bounce may have been temporary.

Today we see a new CNN/WMUR poll (469 LVs, Dec. 13-17, MOE +- 5%,) which echoes the latest Fox News poll out of the state (500 LVs, Dec. 11-13, MOE +- 4%) suggesting that Clinton is re-asserting herself in New Hampshire.

http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/19/112618/ 87

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:54:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (2.00 / 1)

Yes, it's an uptick from different polling firms, different screens, etc. You can't compare different polling firms and say you have a trend, especially in the clusterf*** state of Iowa. You've ridden me over this before, I would appreciate some consistency.

You want to talk about trends? The last CNN poll was Clinton+3, this one was Clinton+4. There was movement completely within the MoE, it was marginal. There was no serious uptrend from that POLLING FIRM. Again, comparing polls within one polling firm when you can! Instead of treating all the polls like one polling firm.

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:16:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

Baloney. If that works for you, then draw up a diary to reflect your read on things.

It is perfectly fine to compare NEW polling out of a state with polling we HAVE SEEN from the state 2 weeks earlier, even if the polling firms differ, especially this close to D-day. Todd did exactly that in the link I supplied, which talked about the recent CNN and Foxnews polls for New Hampshire as they COMPARE to previous polling we had seen out of New Hampshire.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:21:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (2.00 / 1)

He was comparing them in a "This is poll 1 and this is poll 2" You are comparing it like "This was poll one, two, and three, since then we have poll four and five" You're comparing them as if they are all the same in one big timeline, and they aren't. Todd compared them by distinction, two differrent results from one similar timeline.

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:52:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

Say what? The aggregates are tightening and Obama's lead is vanishing, if it continues like this. It is as tight as a drum, but the 4% aggregate lead Obama had in Iowa is nowgone.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:10:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (2.00 / 1)

What aggregates are you reading? Pollingreport was always lower than RCP, and RCP never got over 3.5. But way to not address my point and brush my response off completely. Thank you for telling me I completely wasted my time trying to convey a message to you.

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:22:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

Whatever. All you have shown me here is that you don't care to reasonably discuss, just be confrontational. I am cool with that, but let's call this chiding what it truly is. I find it silly, so I am glad that we are in agreement that this track is a colossal waste of time.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:39:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

There is not connection between Clinton and the Enquirer story. Nobody draws that connection, and from what I can tell nobody is TELLING Iowa voters about it, either. You seem to be the only one to do that.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:17:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

Conspiracy just posted a new poll. By your strategy, of using all the polls as one polling firm, we could say Clinton fell within the last 20 minutes and now Obama is leading again. OR you can use the trendlines from the SV polling, and say, "wow, Obama lost some of his lead, but he's still leading according to Strategic Vision"

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:18:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

Nice spin. Given that SV had Obama in the lead by 8% in their previous poll just last week, this drop of 5% within just one week shows where the momentum is headed.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:40:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (2.00 / 1)

What the hell george?

OR you can use the trendlines from the SV polling, and say, "wow, Obama lost some of his lead, but he's still leading according to Strategic Vision"

That's exactly what I said. Where's the "Nice Spin" in that? Obama lost 5 points according to SV. He lost some momentum. Again, where's the nice spin? That's exactly what I said.

If you're referring to this:

Conspiracy just posted a new poll. By your strategy, of using all the polls as one polling firm, we could say Clinton fell within the last 20 minutes and now Obama is leading again.

I was mocking how you are using the polls, but you must have missed that, since this poll didn't fit your narrative of Hillary leading, you didn't see I was mocking how you are using all the polls as one timeline as if they are all from the same polling firm.

"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward." - Soren Kierkegaard

by SixthElement on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:56:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: - Iowa +2%, national +22%, +24% (2.00 / 1)

I NEVER said that "Hillary is leading." If that is your problem (and why you chose to bark at me the way you have,) get yourself untangled, because that is NOT AT ALL my narrative. In fact, I made it abundantly clear that I don't EVEN WANT that to be the narrative for Iowa. I WANT polls to be showing a slight Obama lead in Iowa, the expectation that he will win the state going away. If you don't get that, you must not have been reading any of my posts at all.

My narrative in this diary is about momentum and "recovery," not about a lead. A 5% drop to a tie in the poll which I regard as the poll that has been the most Clinton-averse all year long is clearly more proof of my "momentum/recovery" narrative. As is the 6% change in 3 weeks from the previous ARG poll (which showed a 2% Obama lead) to today's poll release, which shows a 4% Clinton lead. I would imagine that with all of these new polls, if Obama holds onto an actual lead in the RCP and pollster.com aggregates, it would be by a razor-sharp margin.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:35:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +2%, n (none / 0)

Apparently new numbers from Strategic Vision will show it even tighter:

Obama 30%
Clinton 27%
Edwards 27%

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/1 2/20/another_iowa_poll_shows_deadlocked_ race.html

by conspiracy on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:16:16 AM EST

It was always the internals. (2.00 / 1)

They have always had Clinton miles ahead on issues and attributes. That's why I've never paid much attention to some of these state polls which are often produced by slightly squirrelly methods with small samples. I'd still call IA too close to call which is basically bad news for Obama. He hasn't closed sale and he's not going judging by the internals. As for the rest, she's going to win them all.

by ottovbvs on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:22:17 AM EST

Re: Mike Lux prediction (none / 0)

Mike Lux is a former Clinton official during the 90's and is most favorable towards Hillary. He is from IA and returns frequently and has written about what is happening on the ground in IA for Open Left. Here is his current prediction for the caucus:

From what I hear from Iowans, and read about the race, my best guess right now is that Obama wins, Edwards is second, and Hillary is third, and that the top three stay pretty close together. But things could change in a heartbeat, there are still a remarkably high number of undecideds, and the caucuses are extremely unpredictable.

On the Republican side, don't be surprised to see Romney win in Iowa. Huckabee's field organization is almost 100% volunteer, and he's starting to take on some water. Romney is perfectly positioned to be this year's comeback kid, and win the nomination

by BDM on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:31:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Lux prediction (none / 0)

Lux does not hate Hillary Clinton, but he would prefer that she lose. I think if he had his druthers it would be Edwards, but he wants to shake things up.

by souvarine on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:38:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Lux prediction (none / 0)

I have not seen any evidence that Mike Lux wants Hillary to lose, on the contrary, I think he supports her candidacy by my reading of his diaries.

by BDM on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:41:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Lux prediction (2.00 / 1)

Regardless of his personal loyalty, Lux is pretty clear here:

I have some real disagreements with some of her stands on issues. I prefer Edwards' message, Obama's ability on the stump, multiple candidates' policy positioning.

by souvarine on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:54:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Lux prediction (none / 0)

I have to agree that Lux does not come across as a Hillary supporter. He seems more neutral with a lean towards Edwards.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:04:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Lux prediction (none / 0)

Do you have a link? I agree with that prediction, in fact, that's the one I just made above.

"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod

by Jr1886 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:39:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Lux prediction (none / 0)

Read his diary on Open Left.

by BDM on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:41:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mike Lux prediction (none / 0)

THANKS

"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod

by Jr1886 on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:44:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More evidence of a Hill recovery - Iowa +2%, n (none / 0)

I'm calling it now. Now one will win Iowa by a significant amount. All the candidates will finish bunched together.

by world dictator on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:33:16 AM EST

Re: Hillary dip's beloe 40% IN RASMUSSEN (none / 0)

Today's daily Rasmussen polling

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Clinton has dipped below the 40% level of support once again but still retains a double digit lead. It's Hillary Clinton 39%, Barack Obama 27% and John Edwards 17%. Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Dennis Kucinich are each supported by 3% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. (see recent daily numbers).

Again a roller coaster of a ride.

Poll's are comming in bunches. It will BE DETERMINED by the ground game in IA

by BDM on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: She must be worried (none / 0)

Taegan Goddard's Political Wire

Clinton to Launch Attack Websites
ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton "has registered the names of two websites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a website with the express purpose of criticizing a rival."

"'Votingpresent.com' and 'Votingpresent.org' are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton websites, such as TheHillaryIKnow.com website, which was launched with much fanfare this week."

"The Clinton campaign intends to use these new websites to paint Obama as cowardly."

by BDM on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 11:45:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's fans whining again. (none / 0)

This is an election. If this is how they snivel at every little tactic god help them against the Republican slime machine.

by ottovbvs on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:32:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

Either someone will finish first by a significant margin, or the top two will be close and someone will be in third place by a significant margin.

That's my call.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:11:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

I agree. From everything you've written about the Iowa caucuses and how they work, someone will be in first by a considerable margin. While the baseline support of each of them may be in the mid to upper twenties, the caucus goers that aren't part of a viable group are going to swing heavily to one or maybe two candidates but not all three.

And every poll we've seen lately that has tracked second choices, Clinton, more than Obama or Edwards, has lagged behind. I'm still sticking by my Edwards, Obama, Clinton finish. If I had to guess, I'd say an 8 point win for Edwards over Obama and Obama by 6 over Clinton.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:07:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

So, then, Edwards by 14% over Clinton? Wow. I think you'll be way off, but we'll see.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

This is not to say that numerically, he'll have a 14% difference to Clinton, but when the delegates are finally tallied from each precinct, yes, I believe, it will be that large.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:46:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

Wishful thinking. We'll see soon, I guess. I think Clinton will pull out a close win based on the basis of being seen as the better of the 3 candidates on basically every single issue important to Iowa Democrats.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:03:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't forget the rural precincts (none / 0)

It's probably most likely that Obama will have the hardest time being viable here than anywhere else in Iowa. In that case, I don't see any way that those caucus goers will go to Clinton. They may go to Edwards or maybe even one of the second tier candidates if it will put one of those second tier candidates over the viability threshold in that precinct.

Since the exchanges have been most heated between Obama and Clinton and also with Obama camp wanting anyone other than Clinton to win Iowa, they will do everything they can to lower her delegate counts. An Edwards win would scare the Obama campaign a lot less than a Clinton win.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:54:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

As for "every poll" we have seen showing the same thing about second choices, that is not correct. Today's CNN poll shows Clinton holding her own quite well when it comes to second choices. She is basically even with Edwards and Obama when first and second choices are tallied up, which goes counter to your argument here.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

Even in CNN's poll she is third in second choices.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:43:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

Not by much. She is even with Obama, and only 5% behind Edwards. However, she leads Edwards by 4% in that poll, so it is a wash. You can't claim that second-choicers are actually MORE important than first-choice votes.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:53:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

They can be in Iowa. Have you even read desmoinesdem's "How the caucus works" diaries?

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

Here's a link that says just this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071217/ts_n m/usa_politics_choice_dc

Also, lastest Rasmussen poll of second choice breakdown is a lot worse than CNN's.

Polls show that among supporters of Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich -- the candidates most likely to fail to meet the threshold in a given precinct -- Edwards was the second choice of 29 percent, Obama 24 percent and Clinton 15 percent in a recent Rasmussen poll.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:01:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

I think George is right. I'm a religious follower of desmoinesdem's diaries and I don't remember her ever saying that second choices are more important than first choices. Second choices don't even matter except among the minority of caucusgoers who support a nonviable candidate.

Let's say you're running for President, and I'm a voter. Would you rather be my first choice or my second choice? For the same reason, everyone would rather lead among first choices instead of second choices.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:20:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't think all three will be close (none / 0)

Maybe I should clarify. When the first choices are as close as they are, the second choices of those that are not viable (and remember that it's possible that in some precincts one of the top tier candidates may not be viable) are what would tip the balance in favor of who wins.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt

by minvis on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: More evidence of a Hill recovery (none / 0)

The biggest evidence of her recovery is coming from NH, where she now is back up to a 7.4% RCP avg lead, up from around 3% a week or so ago. Now it's not back up to firewall numbers from a ways back, but she's at least back in a position where she can lose Iowa and still have a reasonable shot in NH.

I think a few things are in play here. I think you're seeing the Oprah effect wear off a bit. Also Hillary got good press from the Des Moines Register endorsment. Also in Iowa Edwards seems to have some momentum, which could arguably hurt both Hillary and Obama, but will likely hurt Obama a little more.

by Christopher Lib on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 12:26:54 PM EST

Re: evidence of a Hill recovery (none / 0)

I echo the sentiments of the ever prescient Georgep, but I would go much further in noting the obvious: despite all the efforts from the Clinton-hating MSM and their acolytes in the blogosphere, the dynamics of the Democratic Primary Race have changed little if any all year long.

Senator Clinton inaugurated the year with substantial leads nationally in virtually every poll, and she ends the year with substantial leads nationally in virtually every poll.

Senator Clinton has been most formidable in New Hampshire all year--and she ends the year yet most formidable there.

She has been in a give-and-take lead with Senator Obama in South Carolina all year--despite wild swings up and down--the year ends there much the same.

And Iowa, wherein Senator Edwards has lived and canvassed for the years since his Vice-presidential campaign, inaugurated the year in Iowa well ahead. Senator Clinton, then canvassing with her husband--the most popular politician in the world--more than closed the gap. Then Senator Obama, the anointed honey of the MSM and with Oprah Winfrey's clout and megallion coffers, caught wind and temporarily came out ahead. But the year ends in a wash--and give or take a percentage point or two, will likely end up as such, regardless of media fanfare.

To the Obama and Edwards campaigns, Iowa is everything. It simply begins a process.

But therein is the end of precedent--this year is unprecedented. One candidate is the former First Lady of the United States, abetted by Bill Clinton, with enormous institutional advantages, in all of her efforts.

And that holds true regardless of media spin; regardless of MSM and blogosphere anti-Clinton sentiment.

And whereas the MSM and blogosphere and early primary state voters include a heavy dose of anti-Clinton independents and other "leaners," the bedrock core of the Democratic Party, notwithstanding Karl Rove/Roger Ailes/Russert/Williams/Matthews and the remaining hate-the-Clintons talking heads, are not going to abandon the Clintons.

And the Clintons are a tandem. They ran as a tandem in 1992. They withstood the Right-wing onslaught as a tandem throughout Bill's presidential terms. And it is a tandem in which they are running today.

Let the rival campaigns cry foul. Let the blogosphere and MSM have their conniptions.

The hard-core Democrats--not those leaners and indies--want the Clintons back, and badly. And every bit as much as the Obama/Edwards/MSM/blogosphere forces want them to go away.

Which is why, contrary to the MSM/blogopshere spin, the national numbers and NOT the Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina numbers are EVERYTHING.

By February 5, everything before it will have been eclipsed.

Bedrock Democrats--not those indies and leaners--will be voting in droves.

And as the national numbers have shown consistently all year, those bedrock Democrats want the Clintons.

Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina can either join their fellow Democrats in returning the Clintons to power, or be relegated to irrelevance perpertually.

No, the MSM and blogosphere couldn't drive the Clintons from power in the 1990s.

And today, when the MSM and blogosphere are viewed far more skeptically, considering the fact that they both abetted incompetent GWB's rise to power in 2000-their "interpretation" matters not a Fig Newton to the greater masses.

In these closing weeks, those anti-Clinton forces have desperately tried to change the dynamic. They are presently consumed with Iowa, in the hopes that fanfare from that state can change fundamentals in later states.

Not so. Let them live out the last of their illusions. The dynamics haven't changed.

Senator Clinton will win the Democratic nomination. And she will become the first woman President of the United States.

by lambros on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:29:26 PM EST

Re: evidence of a Hill recovery (none / 0)

If this continues, some in the MSM will be pulling their hair out upon seeing how little impact in deciding a presidential race they have anymore. If Oprah can't do that (in a lasting non-temporary way,) then no Matthews, Russert, Rove, Novak or anyone else can.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 02:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Clinton tandem's third term (none / 0)

And the Clintons are a tandem. They ran as a tandem in 1992. They withstood the Right-wing onslaught as a tandem throughout Bill's presidential terms. [....]
The hard-core Democrats--not those leaners and indies--want the Clintons back, and badly. And every bit as much as the Obama/Edwards/MSM/blogosphere forces want them to go away.
Which is why, contrary to the MSM/blogopshere spin, the national numbers and NOT the Iowa/New Hampshire/South Carolina numbers are EVERYTHING.

Right. We're not supposed to talk about it, but Bill and HIllary were a team all along, and they still will be (Bill's health permitting, God willing).

I think we hard-core Democrats want the Clintons back for solid reasons: the good job they did in their first two terms for the economy, foreign relations, etc. The commentators don't have that much of a stake.

I'm a little worried about Iowa because the caucus process doesn't reflect all the voters: only those who turn out to the caucuses. In 1972 McGovern packed the caucuses with kids and the Dems got a nominee that the November voters wouldn't support.

It looks like Obama is doing the same thing -- manipulating the process instead of trusting the actual voters. In Illinois Obama got his state senate seat by manipulating the ballot process -- he got all the other candidates knocked off so he was the ONLY ONE ON THE BALLOT. See
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit ics/obama/chi-0704030881apr04,1,7336556. story?page=1&coll=chi_news_politics_ util&ctrack=6&cset=true

1950democrat.livejournal.com

by 1950democrat on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 09:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

- Iowa +4%, +2%, NH +14%, national +22%, +24% (none / 0)

I think Oprah gave Obama a little bounce and it's back to where it was before- I now think people are taking the polls too literally and that's it pretty much been stable the whole time with Clinton a little ahead.

by reasonwarrior on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 03:17:50 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

Nationally Clinton is definitely surging. The 22% and 24% polls listed above are now followed by a 29% margin poll, the latest Foxnews poll:

Clinton 49%
Oama 20%
Edwards 10%

Trends:

Nov. 14, 2007

Clinton 44%
Oama 23%
Edwards 12%

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/1220 07_release_web.pdf

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 03:41:39 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

I notice Hillary has upticked about 5 points on Intrade in the last day or so.

People talk about the election markets as though they have some mystical power but I remain convinced they simply follow the polls and conventional wisdom, nothing more.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 05:00:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Which is really all that is needed, usually. To be fair, bettors are probably informing themselves about the pros and cons and ins and outs of the candidates and issues at hand much better than the average voter (even the more partisan primary voters) before putting big money on a "horse." Of course, they can't predict sudden scandals surfacing or major gaffes, but overall I believe the predictive record of Intrade has been quite solid when it comes to the political arena. Of course, some of that "bullseye" record comes from many races which weren't even close factoring into the overall picture, but I have read (I'll try to dig it up) that they have a very strong, flawless record in presidential races, which is pretty good, considering how close the last 2 contests have been.

As to the race: The more things change, the more they stay the same. This race has the same flavor it had in August/September at this point, which is fine by me. I like that the race is now seen as knotted up in Iowa (perhaps slightly favoring Obama) because what it does in the expectations game. IMO Clinton will win Iowa, but now, with Obama expected to take the state, it is a pretty good theme for her. The media will probably choose to highlight that one poll that shows Obama ahead over the 3 polls that show a Clinton lead, to keep the "Obama is surging in Iowa" theme going, which is a-ok by me.

by georgep on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 10:05:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BubBye Barry. Thank you for playing. (none / 0)

Try again in 12 or 16 years!

by dpANDREWS on Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 04:52:37 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.