Poll: Edwards Creeping Up On Obama For Second Place

Comments (40)

Kenji wrote on October 23, 2007 2:55 PM:

The Republiscammers are most fearful of Edwards running. and that should be reason enough to support the man.

Geek, Esq. wrote on October 23, 2007 2:56 PM:

That's one poll. Every other poll shows Edwards in the 10-15% range and Obama over 20%.

The plain truth is that Edwards doesn't have the resources, thanks to Trippi's brilliant public financing decision, to build on any early state victories. Iowa's the only state where he's within 30 points of Clinton.

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 2:57 PM:

Anyone who follows Iowa polls, instead of the pointless national polls, obviously knows not to count Edwards out.

AJ wrote on October 23, 2007 3:07 PM:

Go Edwards! He's well positioned in Iowa, if he gets a couple of more union nods he'll be well positioned in NV too.

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 3:10 PM:

well, i've pretty much ruled Obama out, with the last straw being the McClurkin fiasco. Edwards is worth another look.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 3:15 PM:

As long as Edwards is in at least as good a position as Kerry was at this point (which was not very good according to the polls at the time), he certainly cannot be counted out.

gqmartinez wrote on October 23, 2007 3:15 PM:

Is Edwards surging, or is Obama fading? Pollster indicates that Obama is fading. Edwards has had some good press lately with his endorsements so you'd expect a little bump. The question is whether or not it is a real increase or just a press inducing blip.

I speculated back May that Obama would fade to Edwards and still stick by that even if I am off by a month or two.

EricD wrote on October 23, 2007 3:16 PM:

If the race was between Edwards and Clinton, she would not be running away. Obama had basically allowed her to separate herself, when Edwards would make this closer.

Just look at the last debate. Edwards scored more effectively in one night than Obama has in many months, with all his resources.

The Wall Street Journal said today that Obama may be spending $10 million on ads in Iowa in the next two months. Is this an election, or an auction?

Geek, Esq. wrote on October 23, 2007 3:21 PM:

The dip in the Pollster numbers for Obama are accompanied by a rise for the Gore numbers. No doubt that people looking for an alternative to HRC probably threw in with Gore after the Nobel prize.

kjoe wrote on October 23, 2007 3:30 PM:

ok. I get it. It will be Hillary and Rudy, with the footnote that a balck guy ruined whatever chance there was for the only possible scenario under which the democrats can win a presidential election--run a white southern male---except maybe the wife of a white southern male can win if the library remains closed, signaling a continuation of secrecy. Rudy versus Hillary and it could go either way, and won't matter very much, and republicans will have a better chance in congress because of the low voter turnout guaranteed by this sickening choice.

Now leave me alone, so I can watch the world series and check on the marriage plans of kid rock and Britney.

DTM wrote on October 23, 2007 3:39 PM:

gqmartinez,

The pollster.com aggregation you linked shows Edwards starting a downward trend at the same time as Obama.

Not, of course, that polls right now are strongly predictive (and national polls in particular are about a purely hypothetical event that will never occur).

bob wrote on October 23, 2007 3:47 PM:

Here are the only polling trends that may matter.

Hillary and Obama trending up, Edwards trending down.

http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

edgery wrote on October 23, 2007 3:52 PM:

Geek,
1) It was Edwards' decision, not Trippi's.
2) Edwards has raised through the 3rd Q more than had any other Democrat in history prior to this year; he's running his campaign on a budget that they are on target to meet (read that: fiscal responsibility).
3) With almost 3 million union members with him already, he has the resources to run and win the early states AND the big Feb 5 states as well.
4) At some point, it might be smart for Democrats to start looking at who has the best numbers against any of the Republicans -- that is Edwards.

NCSteve wrote on October 23, 2007 3:56 PM:

There is no bump for Edwards on Pollster's graph. He's flatlined, just like he's been for months.

I lay off Edwards because I like him and Obama and Edwards supporters are basically fellow travellers at this point, but, damn, this "Obama should get out of Edwards way" thing that keeps popping up has kind of a serious logical flaw, doesn't it? The flaw being that Edwards is the one who's behind in the polls and waaay behind in the money race, I mean? I'm not suggesting Edwards should get out and throw his support to Obama, because I do think we should at least have a goddamn election or two before we start picking winners and losers. I would, however, point out that that's a more logical position than the contrary.

Tom Wells wrote on October 23, 2007 4:09 PM:

Looks like Obama continues to fade.

This poll does not even include the recent issues with the homophobic gospel singers. Using that singer may help in South Carolina with anti-gay bigots, but it will hurt in California.

More improtantly, it's wrong. Ambition is causing him to lose his soul.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 23, 2007 4:18 PM:

I want a 50-state strategy. I want a 50-state candidate.

NCSteve wrote on October 23, 2007 4:23 PM:

This poll, btw, we're all pontificating on so knowledeably has not even been released yet. All we've got (and all TPMEC had) is what some dude who wrote a teaser on the paper's website said.

Given the trendlines in every other poll, I'll be really surprised to see any significant change in Edwards vs. Obama numbers. Certainly nothing to indicate that in the Rasmussen daily numbers.

I can't say until this LAT thing is actually out, but I'd be really surprised if this big change they tout is based on a comparison to the last poll they took which, apparently, seems to have been last June.

Blue in IA wrote on October 23, 2007 4:24 PM:

NC Steve

Your point is well taken. I think there's a larger question behind the Obama should get out of the way/Edwards should get out of the way dispute, however. Do we really know that support for Edwards would shift to Obama or vice versa? When I last looked into the question, the few polls that broke down second choices by first choice candidate had a majority (or plurality) of both Obama and Edwards supporters going for Clinton. Under those circumstances, one or the other getting out of the race would simply expand Clinton's lead. Unfortunately, that was a few months ago and I haven't been able to get more recent data. If you, or anyone else, knows if there's been a shift in this pattern, I'd be very curious.

mariel wrote on October 23, 2007 4:28 PM:

John Edwards 08!!

dcshungu wrote on October 23, 2007 4:34 PM:

Kenji wrote on October 23, 2007 2:55 PM:

The Republiscammers are most fearful of Edwards running. and that should be reason enough to support the man.

That is nothing more than wishful thinking that we've heard over and over again without credible evidence to substantiate it. Please go to the SUSA website and look at state-by-state polls to see how Edwards does against Giuliani, and you'll notice that Edwards gets trounced in NY, NJ, CT and CA. Such an outcome would guarantee nothing less than a Repub win by landslide. At this point the only Dem candidate that would win these MUST WIN Dem states is HRC. I do not see how either Obama or Edwards wins this election if Rudy is the GOP nominee since I do not think that either would be able to beat him in the Northeast. No NY, no win.

Finally, and this is NOT a conjecture that requires poll numbers to substantiate: The Repubs would just love to run against Edwards because he has unilaterally disarmed by accepting public financing! He'd be a dead duck, being shot at all fall and unable to retaliate or hide. After they're done bloodying him, Edwards' loss would be by a landslide.

Liberal Larry wrote on October 23, 2007 4:47 PM:

I'm tired of hearing about Buddhist temples, pardons, and the Lincoln Bedroom. The Democratic culture of corruption has to end.

NCSteve wrote on October 23, 2007 5:17 PM:

Blue,

I admit I have no data at all, just a gut call but I just can't see Hillary picking many of Edwards or Obama's supporters if one of them were to leave the race. Possibly, I'm just projecting. Thinking about it objectively, however, I guess Hillary would have a pretty good shot of picking up the majority of Obama's black support. Other than that, it is clear that there is not a whole lot of daylight between the two of them on the issues and it's also clear that both are on the same side of most issues from Hillary.

Both of them have also been pretty conspiciously not taking shots at each other, which bespeaks, among other things, of a conscious desire not to alienate the other's supporters on the chance that one of them collapses after Iowa.

oleeb wrote on October 23, 2007 5:41 PM:

Instead of Obama or Edwards getting out of the way, how about Hillary getting in the Republican primary where she belongs? That way she could be with the party that continues to support the war as she does and which refuses to admit the very concept of this war was an error as she does.

D.K.C. wrote on October 23, 2007 6:00 PM:

"The armed conflict between nations horrifies us. But the economic war is no better than an armed conflict...An economic war is prolonged torture." Gandhi

As Naomi Klein says in her new book "The majority of people in the world including the U.S. are poor or live below the average income in their countries." If they vote, they vote for higher wages and more land, "not more free-market promises."
The people of the U.S. are finally waking up and Edwards is their guy. They sense a crisis and they see him as their brother in arms.

Brian wrote on October 23, 2007 6:08 PM:

The media loves Hill because she is the only democratic candidate in the top three that can actually lose in '08. Also, if she wins - all the salacious:

"are Bill and Hillary sleeping together or in separate rooms?"

"BJ Bill back in the Whitehouse"

"The ghost of Vince Foster is roaming the Whitehouse grounds"

and etc. and etc. and etc....

will keep people tuned into the mainstream corporate media complex through the commercial breaks. Also, Hill will allow all the hedge fund managers to keep their 15% income tax rate...

annefrank wrote on October 23, 2007 7:16 PM:

More people are realizing Obama's campaign helps Hillary - and why DC insiders and media elites were able to change "his" mind about running for prez after declaring in 2004 that he wouldn't.

John Edwards will fight for ALL races and genders - in all 50 states!

pacpallez wrote on October 23, 2007 7:42 PM:

"Don't count Edwards out!" Boom! Boom! Boom!...Boom! (Just how many booms make up a "boomlet"?)

daniel155 wrote on October 23, 2007 7:57 PM:

I have not seen the poll but I suspect it is not so much that Edwards' numbers are going up closer to Obama's as it is that Obama's numbers are dropping down closer to Edwards'.

At least Edwards has gotten out from under the expectation that he will win Iowa. But unfortunely, there are little expectation that he will win anywhere.

CalD wrote on October 23, 2007 8:22 PM:

As a basic rule of thumb, I've observed that LA Times polls generally suck. I'll believe this isn't an outlyer when someone with a much better track record turns in the same results.

CalD wrote on October 23, 2007 8:42 PM:

I was just looking at pollster.com's national chart though and Obama's numbers actually are off enough that he and Edwards, who has been pretty flat for a few months now are only about 8 points apart on average. So Daniel55 was right. That's only about 2 x the MoE for a typical national primary poll so you could easily see a poll showing them pretty much tied, within the normal expectations of probability.

But LA Times polls still suck.

slazarian wrote on October 23, 2007 10:02 PM:

Obama is too inexperienced for this dog fight. Either he or Hillary would make a good VP for Edwards, though.

Obama is not strong enough. Hillary sounds like she still may be a republican, and I'm not happy with they way she couldn't get national health care done years back. They never resurrected the issue. I'm afraid both she and Obama are bought by the corporatiers, in their back pockets. How can they really promote the interests of the middle class and common man, when they are paid by the lobbyists?

Edwards doesn't owe any lobbyists, and will make a great president soon.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 23, 2007 10:11 PM:

With incestous nature of pollsters an corporate media these days . . .

I admit bias and am happy that there may be an Edwards up-trend . . . But I still have trouble with the rave reviews that the twin/interchangable corporate conspiritors, Clinton and Guiliani, have been getting.

Color me tin-foil hat . . .

Anonymous wrote on October 23, 2007 10:45 PM:

The numbers are up now. As CalD predicts, it seems to be more about Obama dropping than a large upswing for Edwards.

48-17-13

Dan wrote on October 23, 2007 10:46 PM:

Obama is finished after the McClurkin fiasco. Obama will be pursued 'til kingdom-come by angry LGBT voters at every event. Clinton will deliver a knockout punch on the issue in the up coming debates and Obama is stuck offending black evangelicals or the gay community. He's going to offend one or the other and lose 5-10% in polling.

SoCali wrote on October 24, 2007 12:08 AM:

We all knew Obama was not going to be president. Not now and not for the foreseeable future. I suppose there is some electorial strategy that would give Obama enough votes but it is far-fetched and certainly would come at a heavy cost to Dems in the South, Midwest, and Prairie states.
If anyone has any doubts I suggest they have not traveled much out of NY and CA. Certainly they have not been to AL, OH, VA, Carolinas, MI, Dakotas etc etc.
Get real, the guy has not even been vetted thoroughly in a national campaign. Even the race in IL was against a hard-to-find non-contender.
So that leaves Clinton, Edwards and possibly Richardson.
Are the Dems ready to bet the farm on a woman? I can remember the last time a woman was on the ticket.
Whoever wins the Dem nomination, we can be assured that the status quo is secure for the foreseeable future.

CalD wrote on October 24, 2007 2:04 AM:

Well if I were a betting man, I think I would put my money on whoever comes across as the toughest candidate -- what with half the country still only about an inch from diving under the bed and dialing 911 every time they see a guy with a beard walking down the street. And you know the right wing is going to be pouring on the fear with all they've got for the next year and Osama Bin Laden will be releasing his greatest hits video the weekend before the election.

But if our guy comes across just as tough as the Republican or tougher, then all that is pretty much a wash or better yet, we get the points. So looking over the field on both the Republican and Democratic sides, I've gotta say the guy who really comes across as the toughest one out there this time just might be a girl.

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 7:15 AM:

SoCali,

Actually, for a Democrat Obama is very popular among white, conservative, and downstate voters in Illinois. If you know anything about Illinois outside of Chicago, I think that significantly undermines your hypothesis.

Incidentally, Obama originally faced a very tough opponent in Jack Ryan. Ryan was eventually forced to withdraw when details from his divorce proceedings were revealed, and I agree his replacement (Alan Keyes) was not credible. But before all that happened, Obama had built a 20 point lead on Ryan. And the reason the Republicans could not get a credible replacement to run against Obama was that every Republican in Illinois knew that Obama was going to slaughter whomever he ran against.

And to come full circle, they knew that because Obama had proven his ability to appeal to not only people in Chicago, but also was likely to win the suburbs and keep it closer than usual in rural areas. That is a recipe for an overwhelming win in Illinois, and also a recipe for an overwhelming win nationwide.

DTM wrote on October 24, 2007 7:24 AM:

CalD,

Of course, that was the same idea the Democrats had in 2004, and what happened is that the Republicans successfully painted Kerry as a flip-flopper on national security issues (eg, for voting for the Iraq War but then criticizing it). And frankly, the idea that any Democrat is going to credibly look as "tough" as someone like Giuliani is far-fetched, because there is pretty much no extreme Giuliani won't go to in order to look "tougher" than his opponent. And given his advisors, he might be crazy enough to believe it.

On the other hand, you might look at the current polls about voter sentiment and the results in 2006 (where the Republicans ran on a "Democrats are too soft" strategy and got hammered) and conclude that the American people are in fact ready to move on. You might also look to recent history, where the Democrats have generally won when they offered a candidate with personal appeal and an upbeat message, and generally lost when they offered a candidate whose central theme was competence.

framecop wrote on October 24, 2007 1:54 PM:

Polls, smolls.

Polls don't mean any more now than they did in the 2004 cycle, when all of the polls showed Edwards doing poorly, but the results of the detailed, deliberative study performed by PBS' We the People showed that he was the strongest Democrat to take on Bush.

Of course the media ignored that, and kept talking about stupid polls, and the blogs all kept focusing on the same stupid polls, as well, just like they are doing now.

Polls, smolls.

framecop wrote on October 24, 2007 1:57 PM:

Who is it that said that Obama is "finished" after the McClurkin "fiasco"?

Get a brain.

Obama wants black votes a lot more than gay votes.

There are a lot more black votes to be had.

Most black voters love Donnie McClurkin, and don't think that homosexuality is "right."

You may be finished with Obama over McClurkin, but the bulk of the voters that Obama is trying to reach are much more important to him than you.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)