Iowa: Edwards 32%, Clinton 24%, Obama 22%, Richardson 13% (Time)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==Edwards Leads in Iowa
In Iowa, a new Time magazine poll shows John Edwards leading the Democratic presidential race with 32%, followed by Sen. Hillary Clinton at 24%, Sen. Barack Obama at 22% and Gov. Bill Richardson at 13%.

Complete poll results are available.==

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/08/30/edwards_leads_in_iowa.html

This is apparently the first Time poll in Iowa so we can't look for trends.

[SteppingRazor]

1. Iowa's pretty much a must-win for Edwards, no? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. No

If he finishes a strong 2nd, Clinton wins and Obama is 3rd or 4th in Iowa and Edwards follows IA with a 2nd in NV, with Obama 3rd or 4th, it will be Edwards who emerges as the alternative to HRC heading into NH. I don't buy the notion that JE must win Iowa, although he must win or finish 2nd. Of course, BO can't afford 3rd or 4th either. Only HRC could.

[SteppingRazor]

15. Yeah, but that's expecting Edwards to pull out a win or second place in NV, SC or NH, but...

he's been polling reliably in third place in all three states.

And how can Obama come in fourth in any of these contests? (Unless you're counting on a Gore campaign?)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. False. He has been 2nd (t) in some NV polls and is moving up

So is Richardson. Obama is slipping and barely ahead of the duo. In some polls JE has tied him. Right now 4th is likely for Obama. There aren't many NV polls but the trends are clear: JE and BR rising, BO falling. Clinton stable and far ahead of the pack.

As to NH, the latest poll has him just 3 points behind BO for 2nd. In that poll BO is falling like a rock (-14).

SC? The latest poll has him 2nd and up 8 points, with BO falling like a rock (-12).

[SteppingRazor]

28. Look, I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation here. Don't insult my intelligence.

I'm looking at the same polls. Edwards hasn't been second in Nevada since the April Mason-Dixon, and that included Al Gore in the mix. The last four polls in Nevada actually have Obama on the rise, from 12 to 16 to 17 to 19, while Edwards has remained about the same at 13, 16, 12, 15, respectively:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_democratic_caucus-236.html

And, yes, the latest poll in NH only has Obama ahead of Edwards by three, but the poll before that has him at 22 -- a 5 point drop, not a 14 point drop:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html

And that drop doesn't constitute a trend, as he gained in the poll before that. The only truly shocking change is that latest SC poll, in which Edwards goes from the 13 points he has been at for three straight polls, all the way up to 24 points. That is a huge difference. I'm not sure what to attribute it to, but I'd like to see another state poll before allowing that it's more than an outlier.

I'll allow that a 4th place finish behind Richardson is possible for Obama in any of these states -- as it is for Edwards as well. But it's impossible to make the case for either of them that the situation is likely. And in any case, the whole discussion may be simply academic -- Hillary Clinton has a double-digit lead in every early state except Iowa.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. I am looking at them.

==Edwards hasn't been second in Nevada since the April Mason-Dixon==

He was 2nd in mid-June, the third most recent poll. You aren't looking at trends. Look at polls from the same firm.

Research 2000 (mid-August, previous poll was in March)

HRC 33% (+1)
BO 19% (-1)
JE 15% (+4)
BR 11% (+9)

Mason-Dixon (mid-June, previous May 2)

HRC 39% (+2)
BO 17% (+5)
JE 12% (-1)
BR 7% (+1)

ARG (mid-June, December 06')

HRC 40% (+3)
JE 16% (+8)
BO 16% (+4)
BR 6%

These are the only firms that have taken multiple polls in NV. Two have Edwards gaining on Obama--in one he has already caught him--while the other has him within 5. Richardson also showed great improvement in the most recent poll.

[Yukari Yakumo]

71. Bullshit.

As much as you try to take everything out of context, you can't avoid the big picture.

The last time Edwards was in second is when he was tied with Obama. However, Hillary totally clobbered them both in that poll. (HRC 40%, JE 16%, BO 16%) When it's a blowout, second place almost doesn't matter.

Before that, it's MD's late April/early May poll. Again same story, Hillary blew them out. (HRC 37%, JE 13%, BO 12%) And it included Gore, who takes votes away proprotionally. So the real number would be HRC 42%, JE 15%, BO 14%.

Mason Dixon has Edwards losing ground to Obama. In late April, Obama was a point behind Edwards. In mid-June, Obama is 5 points ahead.

[jefferson_dem]

42. Baloney.

1. Obama is not "slipping" or "falling" in NV. The latests polls have him consistently 4-5 up on Edwards, with the only noticeable trend for Obama being a positive one. http://www.pollster.com/08-NV-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

2. Obama's numbers in NH have fluctuated but Edwards have been consistent -- in the mid-teens or lower. To say Edwards competes for second in NH puts you in a group of...one (that's you and nobody else). http://www.pollster.com/08-NH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

3. The ARG SC result is a total aberration from every other recent poll there, which should lead any observer with at least a modicum of objectivity to say "let's wait and see if it's confirmed with future samples." http://www.pollster.com/08-SC-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

4. I notice you conveniently forget to note the IA ARG numbers which show Edwards in huge trouble.
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. lol! You were touting ARG just last month

I knew Team Obama, which was promoting ARG's polls last month, would now claim ARG is invalid. Par for the course...

I addressed NV in my last post.

As to NH, you need to read what I said. The latest poll had JE within 3 points of Obama after trailing him by 17 last month. No big deal, right? :crazy:

The SC poll was one you guys were promoting bigtime last month since it had BO taking the lead. I believe you actually post a thread on the ARG NH poll that had Obama reach a tie with HRC. Team Obama can continue to go in denial whenever polls show something they do not like but the reality-based community notes them.

As to #4, maybe I was busy and decided to post the 2 most interesting polls, especially since we had another IA poll to look at? This i s also ironic. Last time the ARG poll that was dismissed by Team Obama was the IA poll while the NH and SC were trumpeted from every rooftop. Now it is the exact opposite...

[jefferson_dem]

53. You had another IA poll to look at...

OK. :rofl:

Whatever cherry-picking of results we want to do, the reality is that ARG is all over the place now and they always have been. They come across as a bit dodgy for my tastes. Perhaps I said that last month...as i said about Strategic Vision, which you misrepresented.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. In case you weren't aware, Time came out with a IA poll today

Were you whining about ARG when they showed Obama leading in SC and tied for the lead in NH? I recall a lot of hype from Team Obama about those polls.

[jefferson_dem]

61. Whatever. Questioning the validity of a firm's poll results does not amount to whining.

Not like it matters anyway. You'll simply misrepresent tomorrow whatever i say today, as you did with my comments on the Strategic Vision poll.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

64. Obama fans have a history of doing this--even when they loved the same firm in the past

I didn't misrepresent your comment. I don't write down everything you say. I just remembered the general BO fan acceptance of the Iowa SV poll and assumed you, since you are a typical BO fan, likely were among those who accepted its validity.

[rucky]

4. How are his numbers in South Carolina? n/t

[AndyA]

5. Last I heard, (this morning), Edwards is ahead in South Carolina. n/m

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. Iowa, NV, and NH will all influence SC

Thus far JE has been a distant 3rd in SC but how he does in the first three states will greatly influence his performance in SC. Plus, if Florida is allowed to have a voice SC loses much of its importance.

The notion promoted by Giuliani and Obama fans that the early states will have no impact and they will be saved by a later state is flawed.

[SteppingRazor]

9. Actually, Edwards is doing well in SC in the latest ARG poll. n/t

[SteppingRazor]

8. OK. He's more or less tied with Obama for second...

with Hillary about 8 points ahead.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. He was 13 points Obama last month, now he is ahead. He also gained on HRC

There was a 20 point swing in favor of Edwards vis-a-vis Obama and he gained 5 points on Clinton.

[SteppingRazor]

34. OK. And in that very poll you're talking about.

Edwards is up on Obama by 3 points in a poll with a margin of error of 4. So, remind me again how I was wrong when I said they're more or less tied?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. You apparently think trends don't matter. A 20 point swing in a month is a big deal nt

[SteppingRazor]

56. I do think trends matter. but that's not a trend.

That's a one-poll leap. If further polls show that this leap is legitimate, then I think the whole calculus of SC is thrown off, and a lot of people have to start asking why.

But given that the three previous polls have Edwards at 13, and then this one poll shows him at 24, isn't there a good chance that it's on outlier?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

57. There was no talk of outliers regarding ARG last month. I wonder why?

What is different between this month's batch of ARG polls and last month's?

I agree. We need to see if it holds up in other polls. However, it should be noted SC polls have not been nearly as consistent as NH and IA polls. Perhaps it is ARG with the correct methodology? SC polls are influenced a lot by the racial composition of the people polled.

[SteppingRazor]

59. Not a clue. Maybe it is ARG. I would certainly concede that the latest ARG in Iowa...

while keeping Obama at pretty much the same place he is in other Iowa polls (21-24 percent), has a bizarre decrease of 9 points for Edwards, which is made even more strange given the recent Time poll. In any case, like you said, trends matter. Where I think we have a disagreement is on what the trends are. Nevada's polls show an upward trend for Obama, as did SC's until the latest ARG, as do Iowa's (all of this per http://www.realclearpolitics.com/). So, while we both agree trends matter, I look at the upward tick of Obama in the polls through July-August (however slight, admittedly), and see something completely different than you do. I have no idea why that is. I'm just looking at the raw numbers. And as I said earlier, the points probably moot given the double-digit lead Hillary has in every one of these states except Iowa.

Of course, if Obama or Edwards can pull off a win in Iowa, it obviously could change things down the line.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

67. I agree. We disagree on what the rends are. If BO or JE win IA that would be huge nt

[itsrobert]

3. but, but, but the corporate media told me that Clinton has caught up to Edwards

in Iowa and Edwards was losing ground.

JUST NOW on CSPAN, Walter Mondale just said Edwards is back in the pack. Seems to be the meme of the DNC/DLC.

[SaveElmer]

7. Isn't Time part of the corporate media?

Or is it only so when they report news you don't like?

[itsrobert]

10. Sometimes, the corporate media throws

a little bone out to try to pretend they are non-partisan. That's all this is.

[SteppingRazor]

12. So, basically, as far as you're concerned, no matter what they do, the media is always wrong? n/t

[jobycom]

24. Not agreeing with itsrobert here, but that's often a valid assumption.

:)

Though if anyone wants my honest opinion, I've been expecting the media to promote Edwards for a while now. It has less to do with how they want the election to turn out than with how much attention a contested election generates. If Clinton runs away with the nomination, they won't get as much bang for the bucks they spend on political coverage. So they manipulate the stories to create a story. With Obama falling so quickly, they are losing their audience. If Edwards is back in the race, then you've got a multitude of stories to push--Edwards versus Clinton, Edwards versus Obama for second, all three in a tightly contested race. All kinds of stuff. Plus, they love Edwards. He's white, has pretty hair, and has all kinds of intriguing stories about his family. A media outlet's dream.

Again, not commenting on Edwards himself or on who the media prefers, just saying this is SOP for the commercial media.

[jobycom]

11. Looking at the actual TIME numbers, they are tied.

The 32 - 24 lead in the OP is in a hypothetical between the top three contenders only. In a poll including the whole field, the lead becomes 29-24, with 5 point MoE. The poll also includes "leaners."

Take how you will. Good sign for Edwards, no doubt, any way it's analyzed.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. Good point. Btw that hypo is of the top 4. It includes Richardson nt

[jobycom]

14. Correct. Sorry, and thanks for the correction. nt

[itsrobert]

16. Actually this is better news for Edwards

Looks like Edwards fills the vacuum when all the lesser candidates are weeded out. As the primaries move along Edwards will pick up more and more voters. I'm sure Clinton's plan is to try to keep Biden, DK, and Richardson, etc in as much as possible to keep the voters from rallying around Edwards.

[jobycom]

18. Hope springs eternal.

:rofl: Seriously, that's a valid point, though the poll doesn't analyze (as far as I saw) how many supporters of the other candidates said they would switch and how many became undecided in the hypothetical.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. Hey, that is what the poll suggests

;)

[mzmolly]

29. Yes indeed.

Go Johnny go! ;)

[LaPera]

17. Edwards will win the presidency...Edwards not only has to fight off Dems for the nominations,

but republicans as well who want Edwards gone. However, John Edwards has character, an astute skilled charismatic politician, extremely intelligent and a fighter...along with Edwards' outstanding progressive platform!

[obnoxiousdrunk]

21. LoL ! good one there ...

[FreeStateDemocrat]

23. Especially with Wes Clark as his VP, Edwards will score a big win with coat tails.

[Radical Activist]

19. When the frontrunner finishes third in Iowa it will be the end of her campaign.

Just like Dean.

[Lindsey]

22. EDWARDS is THE one!!!!!!!!!!!!! N/T

[YOY]

26. I like it but I don't trust Time magazine

Not in the least.

[Adelante]

27. Richardson's still moving on up

Good for the Gov.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. He's been at 11-13% in Iowa all summer. He seems to actually have stalled there nt

[Adelante]

37. He was at 11% last I saw nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. Yes, when you are at 11% and stuck there that is not moving up nt

[Adelante]

51. It turns out he is still at 11%

from the full polling results

[rndmprsn]

30. Looks good...edwards will probably win Iowa

giving him momentum into NH, etc...nice to hear that they are not taken in 100% in Iowa by the CLOBAMA media monster.

[NewHampster]

32. Ahh but Hillary leads in all other polls in all states

She leads the average in Iowa and NH. The only one Edwards leads is the Time poll.

Real Clear Politics http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. That is false. Edwards leads in several IA polls

HRC and JE have been trading the lead for months in IA. The pollster.com average now gives HRC a 2 point edge but this Time poll, a Strategic Vision poll from last week, and a Hart poll early this month all showed Edwards leading. HRC led in ARG and Zogby.

[ChiciB1]

35. There's A WHOLE BUNCHA People Around Me Who Will Be Voting

for Edwards in the Primary. Several were die-hard Clintonites and have now switched.

I have said this before, but it just may be the BIG surprise to many out there that Edwards will be THE ONE!!! I just had to pay a very large bill for my son, but I'm getting ready to DONATE again to his campaign, even if I go broke trying! At least I know I did what I could!

Go, Johnny, Go!

[AnotherGreenWorld]

36. Looks like investing in a hedgefund that foreclosed on the homes

of victims of hurricane Katrina finally is paying off politically. Before this it was merely paying off financially.

[jillan]

38. Here's an article from Iowa about that

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070830/OPINION01/708300365/1035/RSS03

Yepsen seems to be the head political analyst over there.

[Debi]

60. Um, his nickname here in Iowa is 'The Overrated One'

but he's probably the most read and the one who gets the most face-time with Tweety :shrug:

[WCGreen]

39. I'm glad they targeted caucus goer's, as they call them....

That's the only way to judge if the poll is valid...

[Debi]

62. Weird, though.

Out of the 125,000 or so caucus-goers from 2004, I have yet to receive a polling call for the Democrats (I attended my first caucus here in Iowa in 1996 and am a faithful attendee for off-year and presidential caucuses - my husband has been involved in Iowa politics for over 40-years and he has not received a single polling call either). Maybe our opinion isn't important?

[WCGreen]

68. I am a frequent dem voter and I have never been polled...

I have a history stretching back to 1976...

Honestly, they take age ranges and geographical ranges and male to female ratios in order to get a good feel for the over all mood...

[Debi]

70. Oh, I'm sure

It's just that the republican pollsters have no trouble finding me! Just got a call Monday night - "How likely are you that you will vote in the republican Iowa Caucuses? (snicker..we don't VOTE but, whatever) "Very likely, Mostly likely, Somewhat likely?" Me: "Um, are there any other choices?" caller: "Not very likely?" me: "Yes, that's a good one". Caller: "Thank you ma'am, that's all the questions I have for you tonight". :rofl:

[WCGreen]

74. Boy they don't even take the time to screen before they call...

Probably a campaign internal poll...

No legit polling company would start with that question...

[usregimechange]

40. Wow, that is a significant lead.

[provis99]

41. cant' stand Time Magazine

But their polling is scientific and accurate Iowa only matters though, in that it will direct more funding to the winner than they would otherwise get. The big donors like to go with a winner, hoping to buy influence. May also serve to narrow down the field as the minor candidates drop out.

[Adelante]

43. Reading the full polling results and MOE - it's more like a statistical tie at the top

Iowa Democratic Caucus-Goers Candidate Choice,
with Leaners

(%)
John Edwards 29

Hillary Clinton 24

Barack Obama 22

Bill Richardson 11

Joe Biden 5

Chris Dodd 1

Dennis Kucinich 2

Mike Gravel *

Other *

Uncommitted/ No
Answer/ Don't know 6


The margin of error for the entire sample is approximately +/- 5 percentage points. The margin of error is higher for subgroups. Surveys are subject to other error sources as well, including sampling coverage error, recording error, and respondent error.

http://www.srbi.com/time_poll_arc42.html

[saracat]

44. Isn't it odd that if Edwards is leading it is a "statistical tie" but if it were Hillary

you would say "definitive " leader. Sheesh.Edwards is going to win IOWA. He has worked very hard there and they like him!

[Adelante]

49. I would say "definitive leader"?

The MOE is five points, for Christ's sake, Clinton is within the MOE with Edwards. That's all I'm pointing out. The OP says Edwards was at 32% and I did think that would have been impressive. However, it turned out not to be the case once you click through the link to the polling data. Maybe you think it's not worth remarking on, but I did. Get off my back, please.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

55. .. nt

[Name removed]

52. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejanocrat]

58. This suggests Edwards would win Iowa and finish a very strong second in New Hampshire, too:

If you believe Chris Bowers's polling analysis (which Hillary supporters were recently touting), Edwards is currently in the position to finish a very strong second in New Hampshire after winning Iowa.

Bowers has calculated the Iowa caucus's effect on the New Hampshire primary results as follows -

1st in Iowa = + 14.5 in NH
2nd in Iowa = + 3.2 in NH
3rd in Iowa = - 3.5 in NH
4th in Iowa = - 4.4 in NH

Times Magazine's most recent Iowa poll shows Edwards winning Iowa:

29% John Edwards
24% Hillary Clinton
22% Barack Obama
11% Bill Richardson

By Bowers's analysis, applied to the most recent poll in New Hampshire, shows Edwards finishing a very strong second in New Hampshire:

40% (37% from ARG NH poll + 3.2% for 2nd place in Iowa) Hillary Clinton
29% (14% from ARG NH poll + 14.5% for 1st place in Iowa) John Edwards
13% (17% from ARG NH poll - 3.5% for 3rd place in Iowa) Barack Obama
3% (7% from ARG NH poll - 4.4% for 4th place in Iowa) Bill Richardson

[Debi]

63. Bowers hates IA/NH

So I wouldn't really trust the information.

[jefferson_dem]

65. ...and he adores Edwards too...

Grain. Of. Salt.

[Debi]

66. I didn't know that part

His hatred of my state (and the process we choose for Presidential preference) is enough for me not to read him.

[Tejanocrat]

75. I think he's a HRC partisan.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

69. At least Iowa isn't fulled by the Clinton/Carville/McAulliffe B.S.

and are picking the candidate from the top tier who actually is espousing progressive values.
It blows my mind that the most pro-war, corporate candidate is leading nationally in the supposedly progressive party.
She deserves to be dwarfed by all the others. Kucinich and Gravel would be getting ten times her totals if people were informed.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

72. when is the vote?

that is what I want to know.

[brentspeak]

73. That's not going to make the Beltway and the Corporate Media happy

But it does make me happy. :)

Edwards 2008

:kick:

[usregimechange]

76. Weeee

[AJ9000]

77. good lord I hope it's true, Edwards will produce a win in the 08 general.

[democratelsucio]

78. glad someone mentions richardson

[aggiesal]

79. No trends, but I'm willing to bet that ...

this gets no play in the MSM.
Hillary has already locked up the nomination, remember!

Gore is my pick, followed by Edwards, then Kucinich.

[Counciltucky]

80. Is this of all Iowa Dems or all who are planning to caucus?

That is an important designation.

I'm Iowan, and I plan on supporting Edwards -- his presence in Iowa is definitely impressive. And I see Biden finishing ahead of Richardson for 4th. I've heard a lot more support for Biden than for Richardson.

[Seabiscuit]

81. What a total waste of time it is to bicker over what this or that poll means.

This isn't just some stupid horse race, folks, it's about the ISSUES!

[smoogatz]

82. Good.

I'd like to see the top-tier candidates stay tightly bunched through the first round of primaries. This business of the big frontrunner being determined before states like CA, FL, NY, TX and OH (you know, states with actual people in them) get to vote is just absurd.