NEW POLLS: IA, NH, SC (Hillary up in all three, Obama second in IA and NH, Edwards second in SC)

[jefferson_dem]

Iowa:
Clinton 28%
Obama 23%
Edwards 20%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/iadem8-709.html

New Hampshire:
Clinton 37%
Obama 17%
Edwards 14%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/nhdem8-709.html

South Carolina:
Clinton 32%
Edwards 24%
Obama 21%
http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/scdem8-707.html

[Adelante]

1. That's news out of South Carolina, for sure

Good news for Edwards.

[jefferson_dem]

3. It is...but if Edwards doesn't win IA, he might not make it to SC.

n/t

[wyldwolf]

2. Iowa... a TIME poll today has it Edwards-Clinton-Obama

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1657478,00.html

Edited for better link

[jefferson_dem]

4. Saw that. Polling likely caucus goers in IA is as challenging as it gets...

Still, it's fun to watch the numbers.

[flpoljunkie]

8. In Time poll, 35% of respondents trusted Obama to take on special interests compared to Edwards' 25%

Clinton came in at 19% on this question.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1657478,00.html

For Edwards, the poll has some less welcome news as well. So far, at least, his attempts to portray himself as the real change agent in the race — the one who wants to slam the door on lobbyists and other "Washington insiders" — isn't paying off. Obama beats him by 35% to 25% on the question of who "will take on special interests in Washington." (Clinton trailed with 19%.) Iowa Democrats seem to like Edwards more for who he is than for what he says; they call him the "most likable" and the one who best understands their concerns, but his toss-out-the-insiders message hasn't stuck.

[wyldwolf]

9. Strongest Leadership: Clinton holds a commanding lead over Edwards and Obama, 36% - 23% - 20%

[Colobo]

5. Shit is up for grabs... it's gonna be fun.

[jefferson_dem]

6. I can't make sense of these numbers. Obama's support falls off a cliff in NH and SC

but he picks up eight points in IA. :wtf:?

[Colobo]

7. I think things in the 3 states are probably much closer than what the polls reflect.

[jobycom]

12. Caucus versus primary

Caucuses tend to attract the activists and wonks and political geeks. They are often won by the people with strong organizations and the strongest activists. The Iowa poll is of likely caucus voters, the others, I believe, are primary voters. What it means is that Obama's organization is able to rally the troops amongst the specialists in Iowa, whereas the primary voters aren't as impressed.

I would guess that it has to do with his "attacks" on Clinton and her foreign policy. Caucus goers will be motivated by Obama's feisty attacks and by his stronger message on peace and diplomacy. Primary voters are a much broader range of voters, closer to what you'd get in a general.

It means Obama is appealing to a specialist audience, but is losing support with the general audience. That's not fatal, by any means. He has a strong base, and his message is somewhat new. Marketers use a bell curve to describe acceptance patterns of new products or ideas. That's why staying on message is so important in a campaign. Inexperienced campaigners change their message and strategy based on temporary poll numbers, and this prevents them from getting the bell curve effect, where more and more people understand and accept the message. Obama needs to keep plugging his message, and letting it sink in. He's polling second, mostly, to Clinton, but she seems to have stalled. Maybe she's peaked, or maybe everything is in stasis and she'll start picking up supporters as other candidates drop out. Obama is poised well to take up her slack if she falls, and to make a grab for supporters of other candidates if she doesn't.

Just my analysis. Not necessarily indicative of what I want to happen or even expect to happen. Not necessarily not, either.

[rinsd]

15. ARG has been all over the place. Look at their past results in the last 2 months.

I love Hillary but there is no way she is up 20 pts in NH.

[BeyondGeography]

10. Polls are all over the map

Edwards' support in Iowa varies from 20% to 29% from ARG to Time, to take just one example. We're still too far out to put much stock in any of it.

[Adelante]

11. Especially Iowa

There's no telling until it's done.

[jobycom]

13. That's bad news for Edwards, though not all bad.

He's polling second by eight points to a Yankee in the state where he was born, in the region he claims he can deliver for the Democrats. He's off the map in New Hampshire. He's showing respectable, but still third, in the one caucus--and a caucus state should be his strongest venue.

Still, he's not losing his core support, so he's still poised to make a surge. He's hanging tough. Clinton clearly has the advantage, but it's still a three way race. A couple of weeks ago I thought Edwards would fall out, but he's stopped the fall and even recovered a little. Still plenty of time left.

[TeamJordan23]

14. But DMC has been telling me all week that Obama is falling to 4th in Iowa.

:shrug:

I don't know who to believe now.

[Cameron27]

16. Ha, good one TJ

I thought this was interesting, it seems to be a strategy used by a few Edwards supporters here:

The Edwards-Clinton Mutual Sustainability Pact

John Edwards remains strong in Iowa, per a new Time Magazine poll.

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have a mutual interest in seeing each other's candidacy prosper over the next four months.

Edwards wants Clinton's national poll ratings to rise, rise, rise. That way, if/when he beats her in Iowa, he will have slain a giant. Also, the thinking in Edwards land is that if Clinton rises, the press will conclude that Barack Obama is falling.

Clinton wants Edwards to keep his lead in Iowa and remain competitive nationally. Some of her advisers figure that Edwards and Obama are competing for largely overlapping pool of undecided voters.

Edwards also fires at Obama from his left and provides voters with a nice contrast, in the minds of the Clinton campaign, in terms of policy. It's probably true that some Clinton advisers are comfortable, right now, with John Edwards's being seen as the boldest candidate, policy-wise. Better Edwards than Obama.

Defeating Edwards in Iowa -- something the Clinton campaign believes is doable but not absolutely vital -- could clinch the nomination for Clinton if and only if Edwards remains strong enough to be...beaten.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_edwardsclinton_mutual_sust.php

I love primary politics lol.