IA POLL: Dead heat between Hillary (22%), Edwards (21%), and Obama (18%); undecided (27%)

From NBC's Mark Murray
A new Mason-Dixon poll shows that Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all in a dead heat in Iowa. But the actual leader in the survey is someone who isn't even running -- and isn't even a person: It's "undecided".

In the poll -- which was taken of 400 likely Democratic caucus-goers from June 13-16, and which has a margin of error of +/- 5% -- Clinton is at 22%, Edwards is at 21%, and Obama is at 18%. Richardson comes in fourth at 6%, and Biden gets 4%; no other Dem gets more than 2%. But a whopping 27% say they are undecided.

On the Republican side, Romney has the clear lead at 25% (even over "undecided," which checks in at 21%). He's followed by Thompson at 17%, Giuliani at 15%, Huckabee at 7%, and McCain and Brownback at 6% each.

With the caveat that the caucuses are seven months away, the big winners in this Iowa poll are Romney (who's leading the GOP pack) and Clinton and Obama (who both seem to have a clear shot at taking this contest). The losers? Edwards (who needs to be ahead in Iowa) and McCain (who finishes tied for fifth with Brownback).

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/19/230049.aspx

:shrug:

Hillary will have enough money to stay in it until we get to Florida and CA, but it will be too little too late by then...I honestly think people will break away from her at the end, deciding she is not electable, similar to what happened to Dean/Kerry in 2004.

... the most politically backward state in the entire Confederacy block.

SC began flying the Confederate battle flag on its statehouse in the early 1960s, as the civil rights movement swept across the South, and didn't remove the flag from the statehouse until 2000 -- at which point it was simply relocated to a somewhat less conspicuous flagpole nearby. SC didn't remove the ban on interracial marriage from its Constitution until 1998, and that fact really reflects SC attitudes: Bob Jones University in Greenville didn't end its campus ban on interracial dating until 2000.

because he will then likely win NH. Edwards likely can't win NH even with a win in Iowa.

nt

I feel like a kid in a candy store. I don't know who to get behind. I like them all.

The only difference is I feel like a kid in the produce section...I know all of them are good for me, but I am not really energized about any of them yet.

Although not nearly as much as I would like to due to circumstance. It is one of the joys of being in Iowa.

I hope to catch Bill Clinton when he makes a swing through Iowa soon, as I haven't seen/heard any Clinton campaign speeches in person.

But +/-5% MoE is pretty large...

It's really annoying the way the rest of us aren't given a fair chance to vote on our choice of candidate by people who call races prematurely. You know, like Bush called it for Bush in 2000?

I am making a prediction based on the current political dynamic...not ordaining some outcome

If you don't like it you are free to ignore it!

This is nothing earth shattering for polls have shown this in the past. Interestingly, despite being from neighboring Illinois and sharing a media market with part if Iowa, no poll has ever shown Obama leading in Iowa.

If this poll reflects how it actually turned out, it is hard to see how Edwards moves on...

Unfortunately for him I think he needs to win big in Iowa...

It'll be interesting to see how Hillary campaigning with the Big Dawg affects things next week...

I was wondering how Bill's visit would affect the polls in Iowa. I have to say, I didn't expect anything like this one today.

I don't agree, though, that he needs to win big. One benefit of the corporate media's HRC-Obama obsession is it has really lowered expectations for Edwards. If he manages to win Iowa it will come as a surprise to many people who were told there was a two-way race. It would be like Kerry coming out of nowhere to win when it was supposed to be a Dean-Clark-Gephardt (if he won Iowa) battle for the nomination.

If...8 months from now...not now...but 8 months froom now...Edwards does not win Iowa, in my opinion, he will be very close to folding his tent...

He needs momentum from Iowa to overtake Hillary in Nevada, New Hampshire and possibly Florida, not to mention the boost she may get from early California voting, and Obama in SC...

...in hell Edwards would win in NH with New Englanders in the race. YMMV.

How is he doing?

I guess it would be more appropriate to say "northeasterner"

the candidates are so close together so we can have a real choice.

Someone who has the right message and the means to communicate it.
GORE 2008

Not sure, but I think I remember hearing that somewhere.

HRC had instant name ID and Obama is from the neighboring state so that pretty much eliminated his chances of having a big lead in Iowa.

Obama being from Illinois has absolutely no bearing on his numbers. It was practically an Obama blackout until 5-6 months ago here in Iowa. On the other hand Edwards has been here for what, 5 years now? His name recognition in Iowa is up there with Clinton's, and well above that of Obama's.

Edwards has a lot of organization in Iowa, and I think that will be the key to him holding on here to remain in the top 3. I think that the MOE is playing tricks in this particular poll and would wager that Edwards is still leading Iowa.

Which is a good thing for Edwards, because I too believe that if Edwards doesnt win Iowa his chances are minimal of gaining any traction anywhere else.

I live closer to Maryland and Pennsylvania (and I live in NC) than Obama lives to Iowa.

Kos has a different perspective

She decided to stay? I can't keep up

One of the reasons her numbers have gone up there is because she is adv idly campaigning there.

questioned whether they should skip Iowa. Geesh. You guys have Obama-fixation.

Her campaign manager is Patti Solis Doyle; the memo was written by Mike Henry.

The recommendation to pull out of Iowa was in a memorandum written by Mike Henry, Mrs. Clinton’s deputy campaign manager. He made a case that Iowa would consume too much time and money that could be better invested elsewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/us/politics/24strategy.html?ex=1182398400&en=25957d7730332be4&ei=5070

She was not the one who had to apologize this week, I wonder who that was?

Can you cite any evidence that Obama was behind this memo in question.

Actually, "story" is that this memo was leaked by Hill's own campaign - those who did not want her to skip Iowa and knew that making the idea public would make skipping the state impossible.

as a matter of fact, I think she's been in Iowa every weekend (except perhaps one) since the memo was leaked - she says she plans to be in Iowa so much that she can caucus for herself. :)

"With the caveat that the caucuses are seven months away, the big winners in this Iowa poll are Romney (who's leading the GOP pack) and Clinton and Obama (who both seem to have a clear shot at taking this contest). The losers? Edwards (who needs to be ahead in Iowa) and McCain (who finishes tied for fifth with Brownback)."

After a dozen or so polls in late May and the 1st half of June, the trend is consistently down for Edwards. I don't see that changing, especially when you are consistently apologizing that most of the votes you made in the Senate were wrong. The only record he really has to stand on is a record of mistakes, IMO.

Clinton is picking up steam, as is Richardson, and Obama is holding his own and picking up steam as his name recognition increases.

By November, I think this will become a three person race between Clinton, Obama, and Richardson (unless Clark or Gore enter the picture).

I think this is an anomaly. Edwards will win Iowa. I am positive of that.

Call me back in December when polls mean something.