In Iowa, IWR Yes vote candidates lead 'No' vote candidates 52 to 29

[NewYorkerfromMass]

So for the one issue voters here's how IWR votes currently pan out in Iowa:

YES on IWR..........................NO on IWR

Gephardt 27 percent
.........................................Dean ....... 20 percent
Kerry .... 15 percent
Lieberman 5 percent
.........................................Clark??? ...... 4 percent
Edwards .. 5 percent
.........................................Kucinich ..... 3 percent
.........................................Moseley Braun 1 percent
.........................................Sharpton ... 1 percent
TOTALS: 52 percent.............................29 percent

So, assuming Iowa is indicative of the nation as a 'swing state' Dems must win, what does this indicate re: sentiments on the IWR for the general election?

For those who want to counter with NH- all I know is Dean's last poll was at 38% there to Kerry's 24. The rest of the candidates were all at 5 or below. Also, I am really not sure where Clark is on all this, and he's not even competeing in Iowa.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

1. No. There were many people in Iowa that opposed this war.

They are looking towards domestic issues and trust Gehphart, being from the midwest like they are.

[Scott Lee]

2. Agree. I wouldn't read pro-IWR sentiment into that on face value

.

[Cocoa]

3. not pro-IWR

just not anti-IWR enough that it's an issue.

Like myself, I was anti-IWR but I'm leaning toward Gephardt.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. So it's not an issue for you

and so it's not an issue for Dem voters? maybe.

[HFishbine]

17. Forget Speculation

His facts are wrong.
---------------

Gephardt: 22% (not the 27% you "report")
Dean: 21% (not the 20% you "report")
Kerry: 9% (not the 15% you "report")

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=748

Instead of trying to extrapoloate Iowans' desire for a pro-war or anit-war candidate from numbers pulled out of the sky, why not just consult a real poll?

The Iowa Poll shows 39 percent of likely caucus participants believe the only Democratic candidate who can defeat Bush is one who opposed the war from the beginning. But another 29 percent say it will take a candidate who supported the war to win the presidency next year. The remaining 32 percent are unsure.

The poll also shows 61 percent of likely caucus participants were mostly or strongly opposed to the war from the beginning, and anti-war sentiment among this group has grown even more in recent weeks.

Even among the 38 percent who initially favored the war to at least some degree, more than half now say they look with less favor on the conflict.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/21906001.html

[Gephard]

5. Interesting

[NewYorkerfromMass]

6. I thought so.

The point of this exercise is to look ahead at the general election, where the candidates will have to appeal outside the peculiarities of the Democratic electorate.

[Hep]

7. Iowa is certainly not indicative of the country

Maybe the midwest, but that's it.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. It's a state we need to win. eom

[Hep]

22. You changing subjects?

I thought we were talking about the primary.

[HFishbine]

19. Indicitive or not

Iowans are thinking the exact opposite of what the poster tries to manufacture. Despite his recognition of Iowa being a state we need to win, he would rather post junk in support of his candidate instead of looking at what Iowans really think.
----------

First of all, the polling data is pulled out of thin air. It really stacks up like this in Iowa:

Gephardt: 22% (not the 27% you "report")
Dean: 21% (not the 20% you "report")
Kerry: 9% (not the 15% you "report")

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=748

Instead of trying to extrapoloate Iowans' desire for a pro-war or anit-war candidate from numbers pulled out of the sky, why not just consult a real poll?

The Iowa Poll shows 39 percent of likely caucus participants believe the only Democratic candidate who can defeat Bush is one who opposed the war from the beginning. But another 29 percent say it will take a candidate who supported the war to win the presidency next year. The remaining 32 percent are unsure.

The poll also shows 61 percent of likely caucus participants were mostly or strongly opposed to the war from the beginning, and anti-war sentiment among this group has grown even more in recent weeks.

Even among the 38 percent who initially favored the war to at least some degree, more than half now say they look with less favor on the conflict.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/21906001.html

[ThomWV]

8. Acronyms

And then there are those millions of us out here who don't have the first clue what IWR stands for. People who use acronyms as if they were really words should be put into forced communications classes.

[Melinda]

9. IWR -- "Iraq War Resolution"

[NewYorkerfromMass]

11. For those who think 'yes' on IWR is a disqualifier

think again.

[Hep]

12. Gee, uh

thanks for driving the point home. I couldn't figure out your post until you said that.

His IWR vote cost him my support. Everyone else is entitled to their position. But nice kick though. At least it was more subtle than most vanity kicks.

[quinnox]

13. The IWR vote is not as important as reading DU would lead

one to believe.

There was a recent poll that showed around 25% of Dems wanted a candidate that voted 'Yes', around 30% wanted a candidate that voted 'No', and the majority said it didn't matter.

[Guaranteed]

14. If any of the candidates who voted yes had the chance

to go back and change their votes, they would.

At least, I sure hope they would.

[rucky]

15. Bush Tax Cuts: Complete Rollback Also Not an Issue

Gep & Dean - the two frontrunners are both calling for a complete rollback of the Bush Cuts. Guess that's not a dealbreaker, either.

[HFishbine]

16. Dude

Are you still posting this schlock even after I shot it down yesterday?
------
Your quasi-scientific analysis is disgraceful. (A dead give-away is your lack of a source.)

First of all, you seem to pull your polling date out of thin air. It really stacks up like this in Iowa:

Gephardt: 22% (not the 27% you "report")
Dean: 21% (not the 20% you "report")
Kerry: 9% (not the 15% you "report")

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=748

Instead of trying to extrapoloate Iowans' desire for a pro-war or anit-war candidate from numbers pulled out of the sky, why not just consult a real poll?

The Iowa Poll shows 39 percent of likely caucus participants believe the only Democratic candidate who can defeat Bush is one who opposed the war from the beginning. But another 29 percent say it will take a candidate who supported the war to win the presidency next year. The remaining 32 percent are unsure.

The poll also shows 61 percent of likely caucus participants were mostly or strongly opposed to the war from the beginning, and anti-war sentiment among this group has grown even more in recent weeks.

Even among the 38 percent who initially favored the war to at least some degree, more than half now say they look with less favor on the conflict.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/21906001.html

[Hep]

18. Ouch

n/t

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. You know what the big problem with your arguement is?

It's only about what Democrats think.

[HFishbine]

21. One word

credibility.

[RetroLounge]

23. What? No links? No backup? No Documentation?

Do you just pull (poll) numbers outta your ass?

That explains the smell...

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. here

http://desmoinesregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/22685215.html

[Ficus]

24. Sorry - this is silly

people in Iowa decide on more than one issue.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. Of course. But this proves 'Yes' on IWR is NOT a disqualifier

in fact it may even help. Additionally, what does this bode for the general? Where less liberal, more hawkish voters await?

BTW here's a link where I got the numbers http://www.boston.com/news/politics/polls/articles/2003/11/09/iowa_poll_says_gephardt_edges_ahead_of_dean/