ARG Nat'l: Hillary 39, Obama 19, Undecided 16, Edwards 13...

[SaveElmer]

Hillary's numbers stable, Obama and Edwards both drop...

Another in a string of polls (both national and state), showing Edwards in serious decline...


http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[StudentsMustUniteNow]

1. Wait till Edwards wins Iowa n/t

[durrrty libby]

2. Wait til Santa comes down the chimney

[IA_Seth]

4. And he better..

He has been here for what, 5 years now? He has been campaigning longer than anyone else here, spent more money than anyone else here, and still his numbers are basically tied with the other two front-runners.

If Edwards doesn't blow the doors off of his competition he is dead in the water. I am talking major victory. If he so much as smells of 2nd place his campaign is sunk.

That said, I've begun preparing my eulogy.

[durrrty libby]

5. I'll be happy to contribute............... RIP

Seriously though, what has he done there in all this time?

Is he mowing yards? Doing their laundry? Styling their hair?

[IA_Seth]

6. I won't discount him completely...

He has a LOT of support in Iowa, that is to be sure. He and his wife have made several appearances per year, and due to the length of time his campaign has spent in Iowa he does have quite the machine built.

That said, I don't think Edwards will be able to sustain it. I see a fizzle around October or so, just as the 'normal' people are picking their candidates (all those undecideds - of which I am one).

Of course no one can predict the future, this is all my opinion

[Adelante]

3. Heh, Wes is beating Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel

And in the MOE with Biden and Richardson. Not bad. :)

[Czolgosz]

7. Of course, there isn't a "national primary" but the Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina numbers

are worth following:

IA -- NH -- SC
31%, 34%, 34% -- Clinton
25%, 18%, 30% -- Edwards
11%, 15%, 18% -- Obama

[SaveElmer]

8. Cite your source...

Recent polls have Edwards dropping rapidly in NH and SC...and barely able to avoid a three way tie in Iowa

[Czolgosz]

9. It's the same poll data you cited in the OP (you ought to read that shit before you link it)

Just scroll down to the most recent early caucus/primary state numbers.

You Hillary supporters need to work on pulling up her crushing negative polling numbers in the states where Hillary is campaigning instead of focusing on how she's polling in states where no candidate has an active campaign runing yet and the nominee will be effectively decided before those states have their primary vote.

[SaveElmer]

10. Maybe you ought to read your shit before you reply...

Those polls are two weeks old...the only recent poll from ARG is the national!

Are you saying then that New Hampshire is a state "where no candidate has an active campaign yet."
Edwards is in decline virtually everywhere, and can barely eke out a lead in North Carolina!

[Czolgosz]

11. It's the cite you linked on the page you linked and it's the most recent ARG polling in IA, NH, SC

[SaveElmer]

12. Yes ...two weeks ago...

My subject clearly referred to the national poll that came out today...there have been several polls out in the last several days on New Hampshire for example that show Edwards flirting with 5th in New Hampshire...

[Czolgosz]

13. Iowa: Edwards 29%, Obama 24%, Hillary 16% (Strategic Vision); Edwards 29%, Obama 23%, Hillary 21%

(Des Moines Register); Edwards 26%, Hillary 24%, Obama 22% (Zogby).

I have no complaint with Hillary (in fact, I LOVED her beta version back in the mid-1990s). But now she's a bit too "triangulatey" for me and a bit too corporatist and not populist enough or pacifist enough, but I will totally walk blocks for her if she gets the nomination.

But . . .

She's going to kill our down-ballot general election vote in the South if she wins the nomination. Hillary is the ONLY PERSON ON THE PLANET who could actually get the freepers excited about voting for Rudy McRomney.