Edwards overtakes HRC for the lead in new Iowa poll!!!! Richardson closing in on Obama for 3rd

:bounce:

There hadn't been an Iowa poll in a while...this is great news. Most polls have shown Edwards leading in Iowa this year but this firm's poll was one that had HRC leading. Not anymore. Edwards has turned a two point deficit into a five point lead over HRC. Obama lost 6 points to go from having a 15 point lead on Richardson to only a 4 point lead. Could Obama actually finish 4th in his neighboring state? If so, what impact what that have on his chances of winning the nomination?

Note: this was a three day poll and two of the days were after the CNN debate...

July poll

Edwards 27% (+1)
Clinton 22% (-6)
Obama 16% (-6)
Richardson 11% (+4)
Biden 3%

May poll

Clinton 28%
Edwards 26%
Obama 22%
Richardson 7%

==Edwards, Romney lead new KCCI poll
THOMAS BEAUMONT
REGISTER STAFF WRITER

July 26, 2007

Support has slipped in Iowa for Republican presidential candidates John McCain and Rudy Giuliani and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, according to a poll sponsored by KCCI Channel 8.

The survey showed former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards leading among Democrats and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney among Republicans in Iowa, where the 2008 caucuses are scheduled to begin the nominating sequence next year.

Edwards, who has led in most polls in Iowa, had the support of 27 percent of the 400 likely Democratic primary voters surveyed by telephone Monday through Wednesday, followed by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton with 22 percent. Obama had 16 percent, followed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson with 11 percent.

Delaware Sen. Joe Biden was in fifth place with 3 percent, followed by Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio each with 2 percent.==

==In May, Clinton edged Edwards, 28 percent to 26 percent, with Obama at 22 percent. Richardson, who has been aggressively advertising on television in Iowa since last spring, rose from 7 percent in May.==

Read the rest at http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070726/NEWS/70726036/1001/SPORTS

Now it's getting interesting!

That particularly bothers me. We could do a lot worse. There is a fire in the belly of John Edwards that I like.

We could use that, in the days ahead.

I am so disgusted with Clinton and Obama this week that I hope they KO each other

Edwards has crafted an excellent campaign on issues - real, gut issues that real people care about

the cheech and chong act attracts the press, and Edwards' populist positions scare big business. But a groundswell can change all that. He just needs to keep turning on the passion every time he speaks. Hell, MLK didn't have the press, didn't have big business, didn't have shit. Just people who believed in him. Of course he wasn't about to be nominated for president, but he certainly got the attention through his message and his oratory. Edwards can do that if he keeps up the energy.

I'd like to see that "hair" clip on TV - it did get some (free) play on the news the next day. It has a powerful message that is hard to ignore. Maybe he'll run it locally in primary states when closer to the time.

Edwards needs Obama to knock Hillary off here...if she is even close in Iowa he is in trouble...

And Obama, if he flames out in Iowa is definitely gonna be in some trouble.,..

Course with the high MoE it's all within the margin...but there is no doubt Edwards had the only uptrend in the top three...

In the end the race will come down to HRC and the alternative to her. Winning Iowa, especially if Obama finishes 4th, would well position him to do well in Nevada and NH, which in turn would help him in SC. Success in the early states would establish him as the alternative to HRC come Super Tuesday.

Obama has never gained traction in Iowa. That is puzzling since he has the regional advantage there and benefits from media market overlap in part of Iowa. Plus, he does well in NH. I think if anyone is going to knock off HRC for 2nd in Iowa it is going to be Richardson. Richardson was 21 points behind her in the last poll and has cut the deficit to 11...

:9
Edwards is proposing that we increase the Capital Gains taxes
on the super-rich, and that the taxes should be eased on the poor.

See the article in the NY Times Friday, July 27, 2007:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/politics/27edwards.html?_r=1&ref=washington&oref=slogin

:bounce:

But, of course, Obama's slide in this poll of 400 people six months out from the caucus is MUCH more troubling...

...the trend for Obama in Iowa is clear and has been shown in several polls. The last poll in Iowa (ARG) before this had him at 13%, a decline from his peak of 23%.

I don't know why this is happening. He is moving up in NH and was moving up in SC until the CNN debate.

much time has Mr. Edwards spent in Iowa in comparisons to the other candidates? Like maybe the last 2 years?

Since 2005 Edwards has visited Iowa 26 times.
Since 9/2006 Obama has visited Iowa 17 times.
Since 1/2007 Clinton has visited Iowa 11 times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The "he has been to Iowa more" meme does not hold up under scrutiny. What does that have to do with Clinton and Obama both losing 6 points in the past two months in Iowa? Using the "visit theory" they should be rising in Iowa. Why is Obama behind Clinton when he has been to Iowa more? Moreover, looking to Nevada, why is Richardson 4th when he has been to Nevada far more than any other candidate?

Money spent in Iowa

Obama $1.6 million
Clinton $837,863
Edwards $525,027

Field offices in Iowa

Obama 28
Clinton 15 (100 staffers)
Edwards 14 (50 staffers)

Iowa endorsements

Clinton 15 (including recent governor Tom Vilsack)
Obama 5 (including the state treasurer and attorney general)
Edwards 0

I am suprised how much money Sen Obama has spent. 3x that of Edwards.

This country desperately needs somebody who has been OUTSIDE that DC culture of the past few years, it's toxic.

We need somebody who has been outside the ingroup long enough to see a few glimpses about how the rest of us have been living under these monsters.

I wish we could throw out 95% of the assholes who are both in congress and in the white house. The only 5% worth keeping are members of the Black Caucus.

...more proof that money does not buy votes...

==Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have outspent Mr. Edwards here. The Obama campaign has poured $1.6 million into the state since the beginning of the year, and Mr. Obama has been running biographical commercials on television. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign had spent $837,863 in Iowa as of June 30, compared with Mr. Edwards’s $525,027, the most recent federal filings show. Neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Edwards has run commercials on television.==

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/us/politics/22edwards.html?hp

he doesn't have to introduce himself to these voters...don't forget that part.

It isn't as if Obama is an unknown quantity in Iowa. ;) The real story for Obama is not the gap to Edwards but the fact that Richardson is quickly closing in on him (despite being vastly outspent by Obama in Iowa). This is something that all the recent Iowa polls show.

That press coverage in eastern Iowa got him to the point where they knew the black guy with the funny name in one part of the state.

Anyway, congrats to your candidate on this result. I'm happy to see Richardson climb as well. Anything that gets us away from a coronation is fine by me.

My point was that Obama is hardly an unknown quantity in Iowa, especially given the media coverage he has gotten in the past three years. If familiarity was that big of a factor in Iowa polling Obama should be trouncing Richardson.

Thanks. I agree. That is why Obama moving up in NH is good news.

Perhaps the quad-cities market may have heard of Obama prior to his announcement (I dont know beause I dont live there), but I guarantee he wasn't a known quantity in the majority of Eastern Iowa. He wasn't well known buy activists even until his 2004 convention speech...regular dems? Fughetaboutit.

Man, people that talk about Iowa like they know it just crack me up. Spend some time here maybe before you make incorrect assumptions.

Where I am from when there is media market overlap they cover political news on both sides of the river...In the northern part of the state we probably hear more about New York's high-profile senators than we do about our own senators!

Not to knock on my own state, we are one of the more educated per capita.. but we wouldn't let some harvard educated senator from Illinois interfere with our Ag reports!

Ha ha.

Seriously though, Dubuque and the Quad cities (Davenport/Bettendorf on the IA side) MAYBE heard about him on occasion, but his name recog was about that of Richardson when he first started campaigning. If it were for his 04 convention speech even the activists would have been fairly unfamiliar.. and if not for his charisma and way with speech he wouldn't be anywhere near Clinton or Edwards in Iowa right now. All of that is my own speculation of course!

And don't worry, even though I am not an Edwards supporter, I do think he's a force to be reckoned with in Iowa. He's doing quite well from where I'm sitting, county fairs aside.

:toast:

I think Obama cannot be written off in Iowa. He has all the money and tools to make a comeback there. At this time in 2003 Edwards was at 4-5% in Iowa and he wound up finishing second with 32% of the vote when it counted.

Richardson moving up. I would like more attention given to the other candidates. It is early yet.

make me dizzy :crazy:

I just saw a poll today on CNN (national ?) that had Hillary at 39%, Obama at 30%, and Edwards at 11%.

I wonder how anybody can point to one poll and hang their hat on it.

Second, it is hard to compare polls from different firms. The best way to spot trends is to compare the last poll from the firm in question.

The national poll (Hotline I believe, not CNN) you speak of shows my point. The latest Rassmussen poll has Obama at 23% and Edwards up to 15%, with HRC leading. That is an 8 point gap between Edwards and Obama. The other poll shows a 19 point gap. One has to be wrong.

Because if he does any less (assuming, for the sake of discussion, Edwards wins none of the undecided vote) it will not be enough to overhaul JE. Obviously, the undecided voters will split between all the candidates.

When Edwards does poorly in a poll I accept reality, not spin it and concoct fantasies where he will win 80% of the undecided vote and win at the end. :crazy:

They are not good predictors of the final outcome but are good for spotting trends in a campaign. The trend for Richardson, for instance, is clearly up in Iowa. The trend for Obama is down. What is so hard about acknowledging this for you? I have no problem recognizing the trend for Edwards in NH is down.

I have been consistent on polls from the beginning. I do not change my position on polling based on how well my candidate does in a poll. When a poll shows him doing poorly, like recent NH polls I accept it and often post about why I think that is the case and what may happen down the road. It is not rational to dismiss every poll you dislike as invalid while clinging to polls that show your candidate doing well.

i still think hillary will take iowa but i hope edwards does take iowa just to force the media to cover him. i`m really disappointed in the child hillary and obama "he said -she said" shit

The trend is clearly HRC and Obama going down (both lost 6 points), Richardson up, and Edwards stable (he gained 1 point).

Then he'll get annihilated in Nevada (Jan 19) and New Hampshire (Jan 22). Then that'll be the end of his campaign.

Of course, the polls don't open for another 6 months. But he's got some serious issues he needs to address there and South Carolina and Florida (Both Jan 29th). Of those four states, only in SC he polls over the 15% threshold... barely. And that issue needs to be dealt with immediately. Contributors don't like to deal with people they don't think has a shot at being the winner. And money is vital to running a campaign, just ask McCain.

I know Obama fans are desperately hoping Edwards will disappear and this will become a race between HRC and BO but unfortunately that pesky Edwards just won't go away. Edwards is leading in Iowa, tied for 2nd in Nevada (and probably ahead of Obama outright now, given the trends in the last NV poll...), 3rd in SC. Only in NH is he struggling, and he is doing okay in SC but needs to improve. In Florida he is only 5 points behind Obama. He is tied with HRC for the lead in Oklahoma and leads in North Carolina (Edwards leads more states than anyone aside from HRC. Obama and Richardson lead only their home states. No one else leads anywhere).

If he wins Iowa that will catapult him to a win or a 2nd in Nevada (remember, NV is two days before NH. The focus will be on NH and momentum will be key in deciding NV). If Obama finishes 3rd or 4th in Iowa and 3rd, or even 4th (Richardson) in Nevada who do you think will be left viable by NH? Obama should be more worried about early state polling right now than Edwards. If he flops in the first two states he may be a non-factor by NH...look at what happened to Dean after a distant 3rd in Iowa and a weak 2nd in NH...

NV: HRC 39%, BO 17%, JE 12% (Mason-Dixon)
The ARG poll you site is over a month old. And lingering around 15% is a very bad thing.

SC: HRC 43%, BO 28%, JE 13% (Insider Advantage)
SC: HRC 43%, BO 27%, JE 17% (CNN/Opinion Research)
Same story here too. Lingering around 15% is a very bad thing.

FL: HRC 46%, BO 15%, JE 13% (Rasmussen)
Broken record player, anyone?

OK: JE 29%, HRC 29%, BO 13% (Tulsa-World/KOTV/Sooner Poll)
This poll is three months old.

NC: HRC 27%, BO 27%, JE 26% (PPP)
He used to have a 14 point lead in April. And this is his home state. If this isn't an indicator of a dire situation for the Edwards campaign, nothing is.

:hi:

:hi:

People who have visited Iowa say his name and face recognition there is very high.

I would be surprised if HRC or BO could best Edwards in Iowa. The question is how much momentum will Edwards carry after Iowa. With the states jockeying to move up their primaries, the primary season will be more condensed and that momentum could be strong.

Edwards has the money on tap to compete, and he should come away with Iowa in his column. I think he is positioned to win.

not negotiating but taking it away from the power elites running our country---boy, did that strike a nerve, esp. since I had just seen Sicko...It just resonated ....

Good news, but don't get cocky... we need to keep working hard

The past two months have not exactly been the best for the Edwards campaign so this news is more than welcome. :)

I wanted him as President in 2004 (and settled reluctantly for Kerry/Edwards). I want Edwards/whoever in 2008 even more. (Might be good seasoning for Obama as Edwards' VP, setting him up well for either 2012 or 2016.)

When push comes to shove, I think the old "chain of succession" will play out as usual. You all know how it goes: 1) White Protestant male; 2) White Catholic male; 3) White Jewish (or "Other") male; 4) Black (or "Other Minority") male; 5) Female.

We haven't even had a "White Jewish/Other" President yet. Barack Obama might be able to jump one bracket (though I think not quite yet) - but Hillary Clinton is trying to jump two brackets, and that's a lot harder.

28%= He said you have to take the power from insurance companies, they won't give it up. That was music to my ears. I liked Obama until then. Still do. Never liked HRC but she beats any repug.

I don't get much news down here in Oz.

That is probably the chief reason for his rise in Iowa and NH. The ads cannot explain it all, though. Whatever his message is, in addition to his resume (his resume is his main selling point) it is gaining support in Iowa. I think Richardson will catch Obama soon (although Obama may come to life in Iowa down the road). The question is whether Richardson will be able to catch Clinton and Edwards and contend for victory in Iowa. What must be encouraging to the Richardson camp is the fact that both Obama and Clinton lost 6 points in the last two months in this poll. If that slide continues and he gains a few points he could easily find himself in 2nd in Iowa by September.

Btw, if you don't mind, I am curious why you have interest in US politics as an Aussie? I think your interest is great. :toast:

You can view the ads at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQJlVvGV5FM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bujrt9uHw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcpGd626n9w

Hillary was a corporate lawyer.

Edwards is a plaintiff's lawyer. There is an opposite mindset there. He's smart, cute and has great ideas!!


Wouldn't it be great if we had a studmuffin president like Bill Clinton, only a real liberal???

:bounce: :bounce:

Dennis is my No. 1 choice but I'll take Edwards any day as a vast improvement over others.


Yes, I am a lawyer (nonpracticing) and I do NOT play one on TV.

Tired of the same old shit! Republican smears, lies & distortions, I'm happy Edwards is such a fighter as is DK and staying with it..A lot more shit the republicans will throw at progressive Edwards way, the republicans want Edwards out now!

A long road to go..with other Dems as the corporate media darlings...Truly an up hill struggle for Edwards!

but they WOULD vote for Edwards. IMHO, he has national appeal...to all parties, ages, both genders.


HEY MEDIA! PAY SOME POSITIVE ATTENTION TO JOHN EDWARDS!

These are the people who voted twice for The Worst President Ever™, after all.

They are being honest about their opinions. These are three people who I know very well.

After all, they didn't say they would vote for ANY Democrat...just John Edwards.

then I'm glad Edwards is leading.

Just not Hillary....

If I remember right, the Iowa poll was the most accurate, along with Zogby. Research 2000 still had Dean winning down the the end. I'm not discounting this one yet, but I think we should wait for the other polls to come out to see if this is an outlier.

(Edwards has lead in 10 of the last 14 Iowa polls) That increases its significance. Moreover, the trends are clear in this poll. Both HRC and Obama lost 6 points...

I know you are a BO supporter. The last couple of Iowa polls all show the same declining trend for Obama. For instance, the Iowa poll prior to this one had Obama in 3rd at 13% (after a peak of 23%). I don't know why Obama is doing well in NH yet struggling in Iowa but it is clear he is on the decline in Iowa and on pace to fall to 4th soon.

I think supporters of a certain candidate need to recognize that polls that show your candidate doing well are not the only valid polls. ;)

He should move into 3rd soon but can he overtake HRC for 2nd? He has cut the deficit to HRC in this poll from 21 to 11. And what do you think a 4th place finish would mean for Obama's chances of winning the nomination? It is hard to see Obama doing well in Nevada after a 4th in Iowa, and this in turns makes it unlikely that he would do well in NH, which in turn...I am sure you get my drift. Obama is doing well nationally and in NH but if he sputters in the first two states he is toast. That said, there is a long way to go but the Obama candidacy is not as strong as its national numbers and fund-raising success would suggest.

If the top three remain the top three until the caucuses happen Edwards will be the guy picked regardless of poll ranking going in. The Iowans will choose the guy with the best chance to win the general and quite frankly, of the three, that person is Edwards. Why? Because he isn't a woman or a black man. It's that simple. Sexism and racism are alive and well in this country and picking Clinton or Obama would be far too risky. It puts what should be a shoe-in, almost guaranteed win for us in jeopardy of becoming a loss. Hillary in particular would be a disaster for the party, not just for being a woman but also for simply being who she is. Edwards will be the guy.