home

Iowa State Univ. Poll: Clinton Leads

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:13:10 PM EST
Tags: Iowa 08 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here is news of a poll that not only shows Hillary Clinton leading, but Obama behind Edwards, thus "disproving" my theory that Edwards is done:

Dems: Clinton 31, Edwards 24, Obama 20, Richardson 11.

GOP: Romney 25, Huckabee 22, Giuliani 16, Thompson 9, McCain 8.

Margin of error: 6%

My response? All polls stink are questionable.

< Larry Craig Has Eight New Accusers, Denies All | How Obama Can Win The Nomination >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Iowa State Univ. Poll: Clinton Leads | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Your theory (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:30:34 PM EST
    That JE is finished might still be true.  This is one pol that shoes the complete opposite of what the last 3/4 have shown.  I wouldn't give it much weight until there are other that confirm it.

    Yep (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    More info has trickled out.

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Jgarza on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:43:37 PM EST
    with your theory that Edwards is out.  I just don't completely agree with the reasons why. Going negative is very risky (which makes me wonder why Hillary thinks it's a good idea).  I think Edwards going negative was his last hail Mary.  I think his candidacy has been in decline for a while.  I don't think he is going down because he went negative though.

    I don't see the logic of Hillary coming after Obama as hard as she is now, because it seems like a last ditch hail marry, and her campaign isn't in bad shape.

    Parent

    This is very bad (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    We are agreeing mostly.

    What will people say?

    Parent

    i'm baffled (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jgarza on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:56:50 PM EST
    by her coming after Obama so hard, it helps a create a narrative that she is behind, i think she is putting her national lead and lead in other states at risk.

    Parent
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:58:04 PM EST
    Mark Penn is an idiot.

    Parent
    Or Sydney Schanberg (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 04:00:11 PM EST
    is giving poor counsel.

    Parent
    is he the one (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jgarza on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 04:03:58 PM EST
    that thought it was a good idea to use a kindergarten essay as evidence of Barack scheming to be president since birth.

    Parent
    Quite pleasing Guiliani is so far behind. (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    I guess Bill Clinton's flub in saying he was against the Iraq war from the beginning was not as important as Frank Rich thought it was.

    That poll is out of date already (none / 0) (#3)
    by Geekesque on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:53:34 PM EST
    The ISU Poll, which was compiled through phone interviews between Nov. 6-18, presents a much different picture in the race than other recent polls -- the latest being one by the Des Moines Register on Sunday that showed both Obama and Huckabee in the lead. But while the numbers differ, some common themes have emerged in all the polling

    Link.

    True (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    But all polls are pretty out of date and ridiculous.

    I really believe in narrative when it comes to Iowa.

    And the narrative is 2 person race.

    Parent

    The narrative is true. (none / 0) (#9)
    by Geekesque on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    Here's why:

    Clinton has a hard, unmovable core of support.  She's the quasi-incumbent, so there are people who are going to rally to the party establishment figure.  Also, some women who want to see a woman break the final glass ceiling.

    Obama has the energy, the momentum, the money, the organization, and the numbers.  He's the most viable alternative to Clinton in the field.  Absent a flameout, it's hard to see him imploding in Iowa.

    Edwards has some loyal supporters and a solid, solid organization, but he also suffers from questions of viability ex post Iowa, has lost support since spring, and his biography/personal attributes have no place in the "change vs. experience" theme.  He's not a fresh face, and he doesn't have nearly the track record of Clinton.  

    Parent

    Hey Geek (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:56:33 PM EST
    I kow it is your dkos personna, but there is no reason to be insulting and vicious about a guy just doing his job, Peter Daou.

    Give the facts. Sure.

    But the polls were RELEASED today. Daou works for Clinton. You support someone else.

    The attacks on Daou doing what any campaign operative would do are really BS.

    I would hope that you would try and raise the tone of Obama support (I am a supporter now, weak one of course.)

    FYI, Peter did not send me the info. Saw it on another blog.

    BTW, the numbers are NOt phony, per se, no more so than aLL polls are BS. They just are stale.

    But now all the polls get stale.

    Parent

    Um, how was I vicious? (none / 0) (#25)
    by Geekesque on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:05:11 PM EST
    I certainly didn't mean to slam Daou.

    Parent
    Not here (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:01:59 PM EST
    At dkos.

    I thought you guys were out of line.

    Peter is a friend of mine though so maybe that's why I feel that way.

    Parent

    I have no doubt that Peter was conducting (none / 0) (#31)
    by Geekesque on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 12:34:03 PM EST
    himself honorably and with integrity.

    However, signing up with a pol has its pitfalls, namely that you get asked to be the messenger for that pol.  Just like being someone's press secretary.  

    Anyhow, it's silly season, as Kindergate has shown us.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:14:17 PM EST
    Plus he gave away some Johnny Sunshine by being the prime mover on the attacks on Clinton.

    Take a bow, you called it buddy.

    Axelrod is a GENIUS! Heh.


    Parent

    Well, I wouldn't go that far, but (none / 0) (#15)
    by Geekesque on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    he's looking a lot smarter than he did three months ago.

    Parent
    I was joking (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:57:13 PM EST
    I STILL think he is an idiot.

    Luckily for him, Trippi is a BIGGER idiot.

    Parent

    And Mark Penn is the biggest (none / 0) (#24)
    by Geekesque on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:04:03 PM EST
    idiot of them all.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:02:32 PM EST
    It is a comedy of incompetence.

    Parent
    So, is Obama, or is he not, (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    making progress with women voters?

    OBAMA NYT

    Parent

    All polls are out of date? (none / 0) (#26)
    by along on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:42:05 PM EST
    I would agee if you're saying that they quickly become out of date. But it is not my experience that most polls are released out of date. This poll was released 15 days after its survey ended. The AP/Pew poll came out 8 days after its final survey questions, and that survey lasted 19 days. How many news cycles is that?

    In recent months, I don't remember seeing a poll released more than 5 days after it was concluded. I may be wrong about that, but I don't believe that most polls are out of date upon release. These two seem very nonstandard in that regard.

    Parent

    As you might know I am not a big believer in polls (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 03:12:42 PM EST
    being as accuarate as most folks are.

    But this was instructive:

    Polling Data
    Poll Date Sample
    Obama Clinton Edwards Richardson Biden Spread

    American Res. Group 11/26-11/29 (11/10-14)
    27 (21) 25 (27) 23 (20)

    Des Moines Register 11/25-11/28 (10/1-3)
    28 (22) 25 (29) 23 (23)

    Rasmussen 11/26 - 11/27

    25 (24) 27 (29) 24 (25)

    Strategic Vision (R) 11/23 - 11/25  (11/9-12)

    29 (27)  29 (29) 23 (20)

    If I believed these poll movements were meaningful, I would say that Obama has moved up and Clinton has moved down and Edwards is largely stagnant, but mostly NOTHING MUCH HAPPENED.

    But I am not a believer in polls and DO BELIEVE something BIG happened. I believe that Edwards has decided to not go after Obama, went after Hillary (just as you predicted - Congratulations on a very very fine prediction), and has ostensibly, because of NARRATIVE, a driving force in Iowa, turned this into a two person race.

    Now, Edwards supporters will say that ow Hillary will go after Obama, and she seems to be doing it rather stupdily clumsily and harmfully, for her.

    But I do not see how Edwards gets back in the narrative personally.

    I dunno, but I thought Edwards was VERY PERSONAL against Clinton and I think it is hard to walk away from that.

    But maybe it is just me. Maybe the narrative can change. Not much time for it though.


    Parent

    Does anyone (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    know when this poll was taken, i can't find dates on it?  

    It is very stale (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:55:21 PM EST
    As Geek points out.

    So hard to know what to make of it.

    All polls stink.

    But MY THEORIES are flawless. Heh.

    In any event, I stick by my story, Obama is more likely to be President today than he has EVER been.

    Parent

    I'll just wait for Wonkette, who was so (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    entirely off base in 2004, relying on exit polls.

    Narrative of Obama (none / 0) (#23)
    by RalphB on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    The audacity of hope.  The fierce urgency of now.  The unbridled writing of speeches.  The emptiness of rhetoric.  Fine talking points.  'uh, Present'.  Oprah!
    confidence interval too wide (none / 0) (#27)
    by Natal on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:49:17 PM EST
    With a confidence interval of 6% plus or minus means the sample size was about 300.  Not enough to be truly valid. Probably conducted by a class of students too inexperienced to get valid responses and rates. Professional interviewers are needed.

     

    Only one 'poll' matters... (none / 0) (#30)
    by oldpro on Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 06:13:18 PM EST
    caucus night/election night.

    Iowa State Univ. Poll: Clinton Leads | 30 comments (30 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment