MyDD :: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll

New Newsweek, Iowa Poll

by iamready, Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:35:17 PM EST

New Newsweek Poll has Obama emerging. Taken December 4-5. MOE 3%. The race is still close and fluid, but it is appearing, by polls that it is becoming a two-person race.

I was surprised noone put this poll up, since many love polls over here.

Obama 29, Clinton 30, Edwards 21

Obama 35, Clinton 29, Edwards 18: Among Likely to Caucus

Obama 40, Clinton 27: Among Probably Will Caucus

However, Barack Obama has gained some ground, moving to within a point of Hillary Clinton among all Democratic voters (29 percent vs. 30 percent), with John Edwards in third place at 21 percent. Among those most likely to attend the caucuses, Obama has moved substantially ahead of Clinton, 35 percent to 29 percent, while Edwards falls back a bit, to 18 percent. Obama also gets more support from those who say they will "probably" attend a Democratic caucus (40 percent vs. 27 percent for Clinton). While the Illinois senator's lead among Democratic caucus-goers in this poll is not large enough to be statistically significant, things seem to be trending his way, Hugick said. "It's evolving into a two-person race, with Edwards hanging on," he said.

What does it mean?

That Barack Obama has the momentum and Clinton does not. It also appears that John Edwards is stagnate.

Iowa is a funny state to call at this time, but the polls are pointing in direction of Barack Obama.

The close duel between Obama and Clinton depends a great deal on the way their competing strengths are perceived, the survey shows. Obama is much more likely than Clinton to be viewed as the candidate best able to bring about change (42 percent vs. 28 percent for Clinton) and as more personally likable (41 percent vs. 18 percent). Clinton, however, is viewed far more as the candidate with the right experience for the job (48 percent vs. 15 percent for Obama) and as the person most likely to defeat the GOP nominee (36 percent vs. 27 percent).
One potential trouble sign for Hillary, however, is that in contrast to the 2004 Iowa caucuses, when John Kerry leaped into the lead on the basis of his electability, only about one quarter (23 percent) of likely Democratic caucus-goers say they are inclined to support a candidate with the best chance of defeating the GOP nominee.

This Electablity argument should be moot. All three of the top candidates are electable. This cycle is NOT ABOUT ELECTABILITY, but change. And noone is going into caucus because of electability, all three top candidates can win against the GOP.

Also, another poll was released by Insider Advantage for South Carolina.

Obama 26, Clinton 24, Edwards 15, Biden 10

I know many are wondering what effect Oprah Winfrey will have in Columbia on Sunday. Well, to sell out an 18K arena in less than 2 days and move to an 80K arena, speaks volumes. Also, this event is rumored to be televised on local channels in Columbia.

And we know Hillary is sending Bill to South Carolina tomorrow to stiffle the Oprah effect, but Bill is one Oprah, too late.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, 2008 Elections, Iowa (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

The problem with your analysis is that those who are probably to caucus, who inflate that poll, are young voters, who Obama is relying on.

Obama is the Dean of 2008.

"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."

by ThinkingDem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:41:33 PM EST

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

This is not my analysis but Newsweek. And how do you know that they will not return from college, or that he only needs a small percentage to do so? That is the anamoly that no one knows. And of course, we don't know what the Obama Campaign's plan is to get them back, do we?

by iamready on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Young people will not matter, because every four years we say young people will turn out in record numbers and drive so and so to victory, and every four years, they never, ever do.

Obama may grow with women, but if he's relying on kids, he's dead in the water.

"What do Barack Obama and David Koresh have in common? Too god damn much."

by ThinkingDem on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:55:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Obama has a clear edge among young people, but his campaign is far from relying on them. I realize that people like to think that, but it's not true.

"Well Hillary, I looking forward to you advising me as well." - Barack Obama

by General Sherman on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:16:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

kerry won the youth vote in 2004. they came out in higher numbers than ever before. this myth that the youth didn't turn out was a media lie.

I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong

by jello on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 03:17:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

I was surprised noone put this poll up, since many love polls over here.

- Actually it has been diaries and frontpaged

If you move down the frontpage , its under the title " goodbye willard " and if you look at the side diaries and scroll down , it has also been diaried (another poll from WTF department from Iowa , I think is the title ).

However they are not clearly headlined or titled the way yours is.

So you can decide to leave it up if you want.

When I speak I have a southern drawl.. When you come down here Stop and say hello I'm an American from south of the Mason Dixon line

by lori on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:43:32 PM EST

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Leave it up. I scrolled past that. But, thanks.

by iamready on Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Keep in mind this is the second poll that has Obama over 30% and opening up a +5% lead over Clinton.

When the republican outfit , strategic vision released their poll numbers which showed Obama over 30% , i disregarded the number until another poll confirms it and it looks like newsweek as done just that.

something tells me Jerome and all the Hillary supporters won't like this poll at a;l.

by Prodigy on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:19:08 AM EST

I find it highly unlikely (none / 0)

That Obama's support is double Edwards' among more likely caucus-goers. That contradicts the findings of most other polls as well as what volunteers and field organizers are finding--Edwards tends to do better among Iowans who have caucused before.

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

by desmoinesdem on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 09:38:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Keep in mind (none / 0)

That it defies other polling, not to mention logic, that says Clinton and Edwards have the top support among caucus regulars and older voters more likely to caucus.

Obama is relying on a lot younger first time caucus goers. But hey, cherry any poll or any number you want. Have fun. Just realize that it may be totally wrong.

by dpANDREWS on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:00:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

framecop, (none / 0)

a valium would do wonders for you right now.

by iamready on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:09:11 AM EST

LLOLL!! (none / 0)

Zing! You're almost as Good as the Obama Oppo team with your comebacks. ;-)

A valium indeed is what s/he needs.

by rapcetera on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:40:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Let me preface my extended comment by saying that I think it's clear that Obama has momentum in IA right now.

However, this poll is worthless without full crosstabs. The Edwards' numbers are suspect, which prompted me to read the article in full. At the end of it:

Results are weighted so that the sample demographics match Census Current Population Survey parameters for gender, age, education, race, region, and population density. The overall margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for results based on 1,408 registered Iowa voters. Results based on smaller subgroups are subject to larger margins of sampling error.

Mmmmkay ... well the CPS is collected by the Census Dept for BLS. Too lazy to navigate DOL's site for IA-specific demographics, so I went to the state of Iowa's site instead at iowadatacenter.org.

According to the census data, 40% of Iowa's population is 45+ ... this means the poll results were weighted so that 60% of caucus participants are under 45? Well, according to the 2004 entrance poll, it was 32%.

This poll is worthless because the turnout model is beyond unrealistic. I don't believe Edwards is a distant third. Can't comment on Obama vs Clinton. The only thing it tells us -- which I think we already know -- is that Obama does well with under 45.

by dblhelix on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:15:09 AM EST

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

I agree about Edwards, but I do think he is in third.

by iamready on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:19:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

I should add that data collected for BLS should be specifically for the employed, so the weighting would exclude children. However, retirees wouldn't be in the data, either. I'm certain the overall skew does not reflect a realistic turnout model for a Democratic caucus.

by dblhelix on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 01:19:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

For people who used to claim hatred for polls, you sure seem to put them up alot.

NY TIMES ENDORSEMENT: "Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.... She would be a strong commander in chief."

by reasonwarrior on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:55:07 AM EST

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

We sure were treated to a lot of them. I wait with bated breath for georgep's take on the latest round of polls.

Hopefully, we'll see less of such analysis. And yes, I am an amateur, which means I do it out of love (ama.) And no, I won't get a clue. I guess the select few got tired of calling the amateurs Naderites and pinos.

If I had a post graduate degree I would analyze that.

Dare to be free.

by misscee on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:20:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Umm, I don't remember all of that. I just don't rely too much into them, until now. It is 3 weeks til caucus, so you can see the movement. Great NPR audio on Edwards support worrying and possibly moving to Obama, they want to WIN.

Audio

by iamready on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:48:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

Frankly, you have shit like THIS to worry about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNUOwLiz5 b0

Edwards supporters aren't your enemy. These people are.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Sun Dec 16, 2007 at 02:34:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Haha! (none / 0)

"Bill is one Oprah too late"

Nice quote.

by rapcetera on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:35:54 AM EST

Re: New Newsweek, Iowa Poll (none / 0)

did i miss the andrew young diary?

I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong

by jello on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 07:17:02 AM EST

People need to put their feet back in solid ground (none / 0)

This election is about who has the best chance to win. It is about electability. I am not going some throwaway protest vote. I want a candidate who can deliver the White House and sign Democratic legislation into law.

Clinton is the best candidate to do that.

Furthermore, you are completely out of touch with reality of you don't think Clinton would be a 180 degree change from Bush. You would have to be as crazy as a Nadarite. Healthcare, a womens right to choose, fiscal responsibility, the environment, diplomacy, on and on Clinton is 180 degrees from Bush.

I am sick of unrealistic starry eyed dreamers who pretend it doesn't matter who we nominate, that if their candidate wins the world changes overnight and we all have a Coke and a smile together. It isn't that easy. The Republicans are not goig to go away without a bloddy knock down drag out fight.

by dpANDREWS on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 12:57:35 PM EST

Re:Amen! (none / 0)

Amen!

All I will say is Obama cannot win the General election. All the passion, screaming, yelling, crying, jumping up & down by the Liberal Elites supporting Obama will not be enough to win even ONE SWING state!

We are nominating the person with the LEAST EXPERIENCE compared to ALL the Democratic & ALL the Republican candidates for 2008!

If Obama was a Republican, the SAME Progressives supporting Obama today would be Ridiculing & criticzing Obama as Not Ready & Not Fit to be President.

How do I know ? How can I make that statement?
Because these same " Progressive/Liberal Activists" ridiculed, criticized & yelled at then Republican 2000 candidate named Gov. George W. Bush as being unfit & no experience.

What's worst is then 2000 candidate Gov. Bush has MORE EXPERIENCE than 2008 candidate Obama.

Talk about Hypocrisy & a disaster waiting to happen.

Some democrat are about to REPEAT the same disaster all over again!

You can kiss ALL these so called " Purple Swing States" GOODBYE if Obama is the nominee.

And if BIllionaire Michale Bloomberg decides to run as an Independent, You will witness millions of Moderate White Democrats cross over to BLoomberg.

Now is not the time to make history at the expense of losing the general election!

by labanman on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 02:24:41 PM EST

Re:Amen! (none / 0)

OH, please. How do you know? Many on here say Hillary can't win and Edwards can't win for flip/flopping from his whole senate record.

Nobody knows. So, take a valium and chill.

by iamready on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 04:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Amen! (none / 0)

Chill, eh?

When John Paul Stevens and Ruth Ginsberg are replaced by a Republican president and then they proceed to strip away almost 60 years of civl rights progress, well at least we'll be able to say we made progress by nominating somebody who broke a barrier right?

Clinton or Obama will lose by a landlside. We thought Bush couldn't possibly be re-elected in '04 and yet he won electoral and popular votes. We need somebody who can win red states. Jena, LA happened just two years ago and they are calling Hillary a b**ch at campaign rallies. Why do people think either of these pick up new states?

Perhaps you don't care about Brown, or Griswold, or Miranda, or Roe, or Lawrence. Some of us do care about these court cases and we know that we can't take any chances with this election.

People who claim this cycle isn't about electability are kidding themselves.

by sinclair on Sat Dec 08, 2007 at 05:55:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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.