Huckabee Rockets Ahead In Newsweek Iowa Poll, Dem Race Close
The new Iowa poll from Newsweek gives Mike Huckabee his best showing yet — and Mitt Romney his worst in quite a long time. Huckabee has an astonishing 39% support in the poll, up from only 6% back in late September. As for Romney, he has only 17% support, less than half of Huckabee's and down from his 25% in the September poll. Everyone else is in bad shape, too: Thompson 10%, Giuliani 9%, and McCain 6%.
Even worse for Romney is that 16% openly said they were less likely to vote for him because he is a Mormon — which makes one wonder just how many are thinking the same thing but won't admit it.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are in a statistical dead heat, with 30% for Hillary and 29% for Obama. Edwards is in third with 21%. Among those most likely to participate, Obama leads with 35% to Hillary's 29%, with Edwards way behind at 18%. Election Central earlier today obtained an Edwards campaign internal poll, and they cast themselves in a much better light.
Comments (45)
Geek, Esq. wrote on December 7, 2007 6:11 PM:Internal polls are incredibly suspect because they are so selectively leaked.
In this case, I bet it was leaked to offset the Newsweek poll, which shows Edwards as an also-ran.
Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 6:19 PM:Agree with Geek, Esq., gee, I wonder why edwards leaked the internal poll. It looks like we have a two horse race unless something wacky happens, which it always could. Go dems in 08.
Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 6:22 PM:Huckabee's timing is interesting. He's rocketing to the top just as the Dumond story is hitting the main news outlets. Is it possible that Republicans see paroling the rapist of a Clinton relative as a good thing? I'm not sure if I'm joking here.
Anyway, he also has loads of corruption problems which haven't gotten much attention yet. If he knocks McCain out of the race and then implodes, I will be pleased.
Looks like this was taken on the 5th and 6th, just as Huck was in full spinning meltdown on the DuMond story. I wonder if it will have any impact on Huck's support next time.
dcshungu wrote on December 7, 2007 6:57 PM:I just read Murray Waas's HuffPo's piece as well as his contemporaneous accounts of the Dumond tragedy. If Huckabee survives and wins the GOP nomination, I am sure that it will come back and destroy him in GE. This is really bad stuff that is still not widely known and might not be in time to derail his candidacy for the GOP nomination. The GE would be another story because it would be just two candidates and the MSM megaphone. The whole world would hear about Dumond, who will soon be joining Willie Horton in the Hall of Fame for effective political boogeymen...
tomdawg wrote on December 7, 2007 7:20 PM:Allow me to explain my take on why Huckabee would pardon a vicious criminal.Huckabee is the sad product of a very feminine strain of Christianity. When females became the majority of attenders in churches in the South, the ministry responded by growing more feminine in its' tendencies (more compliant, centimental and compassionate acting). Huckabee is an obvious case. As an overweight child, he may never have had the chance to be 'one of the boys' and opted, under Mama's calling no doubt, to enter the ministry. Feminine men unfortuanately are a good fit for todays ministry due to the majority of church goers being women. Think about it, how many 'tough' guys do you see survive in the professional ministry?
So Huckabee was bound to react as a women governor: overly swayed by centiment....and perhaps too quick to pardon criminals claiming to be victims so they could get out and kill again.
You got it wrong!!! You're comparing apple and oranges. Wil the GOP you have likely caucus goers and with the dems you have ALL dems. Please correct this!
Obama 35
Clinton 29
Edwards 18%
Let's keep it accurate and non-partial!
Akonitum wrote on December 7, 2007 7:34 PM:See NY above. Eric, your report needs fixing.
bob wrote on December 7, 2007 7:35 PM:Yes, PLEASE CORRECT!
Among those most likely to attend the caucuses, Obama has moved substantially ahead of Clinton, 35 percent to 29 percent, while Edwards falls back a bit, to 18 percent. Obama also gets more support from those who say they will "probably" attend a Democratic caucus (40 percent vs. 27 percent for Clinton). While the Illinois senator's lead among Democratic caucus-goers in this poll is not large enough to be statistically significant, things seem to be trending his way, Hugick said. "It's evolving into a two-person race, with Edwards hanging on," he said.
bob wrote on December 7, 2007 7:37 PM:btw, how dumb of Newsweek to report the ALL registered Dem numbers like that anyway. They know darn well that all registered Dems ain't showin' up at the caucus, but I bet some of their readers don't realize that, so it's just misleading.
c wrote on December 7, 2007 8:08 PM:I'd still caution fellow Obama supporters about excessive optimism, and particularly about discounting Edwards' ground organization. He's also done pretty good job of staying out of the line of fire lately, if you've noticed, and could pick up a lot of waverers if Iowans perceive this as an Obama-HRC scrap.
jim wrote on December 7, 2007 8:14 PM:I think the GOPer will either be Huck or McCain. Romney's speech may end up backfiring on him because it reminds everyone that he is a Mormon.
Huck's Drummond thing won't hurt him if he's smart about how to react. So far, he's done a crappy job, but that could change. I think most GOPers would give him a pass for some Clinton-era insanity.
McCain is coming on strong, and may end up second. Actually, I see a Huckabee/McCain ticket in the works, which is so brilliant that I don't see how the GOP pulls it off.
As for the Dems. . .I have no idea anymore. It could be Obama or Clinton or even Edwards. Everything is static but fluid at the same time. But I wonder whether Edwards' people will flip to Obama if the numbers continue to look so-so for Edwards.
NCSteve wrote on December 7, 2007 8:19 PM:And, I'll join the chorus of "hey, Eric, you've got the wrong data in the Democratic race" chorus, but I also have a comment and a question.
Two percent of the R's and one percent of the D's who said they were definitely/probably attending the caucus this year didn't know whether they'd attended one before? Wtf? I think if I was running a poll and I got a "I dunno" answer to this question, I'd have thrown them out of the sample as they are obviously either impaired in some fashion or just messing with the polling data for fun.
Edwards leaking of his internals shows he knew about the the Newsweek poll in advance. I suspect his pollster's methodolgy is giving greater weight to past attendence in determining who's "likely" than the others we've been seeing. That would tend to explain why he and Hillary are ahead of Obama, anyway.
NCSteve wrote on December 7, 2007 8:22 PM:And, dude, now you've got the wrong numbers on the poll tracker as well!
Charlie wrote on December 7, 2007 8:28 PM:You neglect to mention that Ron Paul is at 8% in Newsweek's poll, ahead of John McCain. (Full poll results here: http://www.newsweek.com/media/75/0714_newsweek_poll.pdf)
upper left wrote on December 7, 2007 9:02 PM:Eric,
You are apparently completely without shame in your reporting. Real Clear Politics and most other sites are reporting the "Likely Caucus Goer" numbers with Obama up by 6%, twice the margin of error. The story for your mostly Dem audience is that Obama's lead is now statistically significant and that this suggests that Obama's momentum is continuing to build.
I have repeatedly asked you to repond to the chorus of complaints about your obvious HRC bias. I get no response. You should address these concerns or TPM should hire someone with an ability to avoid frequently injecting their personal preferences into their reporting and headline writing.
IMO you are about as objective as FOX News.
Zueda wrote on December 7, 2007 9:02 PM:Please fix your numbers. Geez...this is getting really ridiculous... Perhaps a delirium is setting in.
Daniel wrote on December 7, 2007 9:30 PM:This is jaw-dropping stuff. Could Romney hold on to win New Hampshire if this happens? I think he could, insofar as his loss would not be a huge shock like Dean's was in 2004. Read full analysis here.
DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 9:36 PM:Oh, I am sure the fact that Eric overlooked the relevant numbers and posted the numbers that make Clinton look better is just a coincidence.
Just another coincidence in a long, long, unbroken streak of such coincidences.
DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 9:38 PM:Sorry, I meant to say "underplayed" not "overlooked" (not sure how that happened).
DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 9:41 PM:By the way, this poll is not great for Edwards, but not horrific either. The bottom line is that in the RCP average he is still just 4 points behind Clinton and 6 points behind Obama.
Matt wrote on December 7, 2007 9:50 PM:Perhaps the Newsweek poll is an outlier. It seems out of step with every other Iowa GOP poll.
DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 9:58 PM:Matt,
Of course this poll is a little more recent than the other Iowa polls, and generally the polls have shown Huckabee surging quite dramatically. So while I agree it is somewhat likely this poll may end up being on the high side when compared to the closest in time polls, it is too early to tell if it is a true outlier.
DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 10:01 PM:Incidentally, Insider Advantage has a poll out showing Obama ahead by 2 in SC. We haven't had a lot of polling in SC until very recently, so this could get interesting.
CranialRectalLoopback wrote on December 7, 2007 10:16 PM:What I love about the Huckabee "Surge" (my that word is in vogue) is how Romney won't get the nomination because he belongs to a racist party! Hey, I guess the free market of ideas just doesn't choose moronism, I mean, Mormonism.
Oh, and when Willard "Glove" Romney talks about how religion isn't private, and shouldn't be banished from the public square he should try reading his Christian Bible:
"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." Matt 6:5-6
It looks like Senator Clinton is successfully weathering O-Bomb-A's premature squirt in the Iowa polls.
pacc wrote on December 7, 2007 11:10 PM:Clinton’s Triple Threat
To get a sense of the sophistication and sheer muscle of the machinery lined up behind Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid in Iowa consider this: three of the largest players in national politics have all launched efforts on her behalf enlisting the services of a single media firm, and each will be tackling a different critical task.
The American Federation Of Teachers AFL-CIO Committee On Political Education reported today it has spent $281,114 on radio ads promoting Clinton in Iowa. Yesterday, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees unveiled a flight of television ads it began airing in Iowa promoting Clinton, the leading edge of what it said would be a seven-figure expenditure. And earlier this week, the national political group Emily’s List unveiled a massive get-out-the-vote effort that involved surveys and a new web site aimed at drawing likely Clinton supporters to participate in the Iowa caucus.
For these efforts all three groups have enlisted the services of a boutique media consultant that specializes in political message development, Chicago-based Adelstein/Liston.”Our intent is to deliver a very strong message for a very strong candidate,” said Ann Liston, a principal in the firm.
The three mammoth political action committees did not all just stumble into each other. “We talked it all through,” said Richard Feller, who is handling the Iowa effort for AFSCME. “I think it went in pieces. Emily’s List designed their program. I spoke with them about what they were doing and then tailored my program to assist their program.” The AFT effort followed after that.
None of the groups is legally permitted to coordinate with the Clinton campaign to design this effort, and each said they had not. “We have not and would not take any direction from them at all,” said Eric Smith, of AFT. But coordinating with each other is a different matter.
The FEC has typically allowed separate independent groups to coordinate their activities, said Scott Thomas, a former FEC chairman.
The groups made an interesting choice of media firm to design the message. Eric Adelstein had history working for Bill Clinton in 1992. Liston worked previously for Emily’s List. Together, they worked on the 2000 congressional campaign of Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.). That was the year he defeated Barack Obama.
–Matthew Mosk
www.blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/12/06/clintons_triple_threat.html
Keith wrote on December 8, 2007 12:13 AM:If Obama opening up a 6 point lead in this Newsweek poll (amongst likely caucus goers) and 7 point lead in the Strategic Vision poll the other is evidence of Clinton "weathering [Obama]'s premature squirt" then perhaps you need a new definition of "weathering.
DonnaG wrote on December 8, 2007 1:04 AM:Please remember, commenters, this being a Friday, Eric will be happy to, oh, I mean likely to leave the incorrect data on the poll tracker all weekend. That may have been the freudian slip point of his, er, 'mistake'.......sort of like not posting other favorable-to-Obama poll news until days later when those reports can be buried within lots of other news.
heretic wrote on December 8, 2007 9:47 AM:
It seems there is a good chance that Obama will win or come in a close second in three of the early four primaries (IA, NH, SC). HRC, however is also quite likely to do the same. She remains way ahead in polling for the fourth early primary (NV) and pretty much every other state as well. It is highly unlikely that Obama will have a total blowout in any of the three mentioned above. So if HRC comes in second in all three, but the tallies are close, does anyone really think she is going to drop out. It would be very different if she lost by a large amount or if the person who beat was a hitherto unknown quantity on the national stage (as Kerry was before IA in '04).
So whatever happens in the early Dem primaries, don't count on it having the same impact as it has had in the past. What will change is that many of the others will probably drop out. So that will be one major factor in whether Obama picks up steam in the delegate-rich states where HRC leads by crushing margins right now. (Remember, he was always competitive in IA, comes from a neighboring state, etc.) Another will be whether he gets a major bump from his early victorie(s). For the reasons mentioned above, I don't really see that happening. It just makes no logical sense that voters in CA and NY, for example, are going to think after IA something along of: "gee, I never heard of that Obama guy before, but if they like him in IA, I'll see what he is about." Everyone already knows both of them and IA and NH do not reveal one iota about the sentiments of those elsewhere.
What IA does perhaps reveal is who the heartland feels comfortable with. I think one of the reasons that Kerry surged after IA is that he appeared conservative enough to beat Bush (and being a war hero and all that.) Dean ended up looking like a leftie who would get pummeled in the GE. I have hear a lot of interviews with likely caucus-goers on NPR this week and its interesting what guides their choice. Most of them said its about how they "feel" about a candidate. Personally, I find that disturbing. That's how we got George Bush and that is why IA has picked one loser after another for the Dems. Remember, the last Dem to win the GE lost in IA big time:
Tom Harkin (76%) Paul Tsongas (4%), Bill Clinton* (3%), Bob Kerrey (2%) and Jerry Brown (2%)
Also, recall that in 1992 Bill was the comeback kid because he came in 2nd in NH (not first).
Paul E. Tsongas 33.2% Bill Clinton* (24.8%) Bob Kerrey (11.1%) Tom Harkin (10.2%) Jerry Brown ( 8.0%)
And he lost by a larger margin than HRC probably will (if she even loses there). Now Bill won really big in SC because he has the southern boy going on. However, even if Obama wins there, it will only be by a few points. So, despite the conventional wisdom, who wins in NH and IA don't really amount to a hill of beans in recent elections in determining 1) who gets the nomination or 2)who is a truly competitive candidate in the GE. If Obama wins IA and goes on to be the nominee, that would truly make me nervous for the GE. That is what history actually tells us.
jeffgee wrote on December 8, 2007 10:08 AM:The HuffPo articles about Huck may boost his standing with the base. The christianist faction thrives on what they consider persecution by liberal media. They won't actually READ the article to see that this guy is only slightly less phony than Romney.
The Murray Waas article certainly changed my opinions about Huck. Before I read it, like a lot of other liberal men, I though of Huck as a nice, funny guy, although seriously deluded about the origins of the universe. Not like I would ever vote for him but, compared to the other guys in the race, he's less scary. Waas pointed out Huck's authoritarian tendencies, cronyism, his thin skin and sense of entitlement. How different is he from the current occupant?
The weak and wobbly "conspiracy theories" that Obama supporters are leveling at Eric on here (and often, elsewhere) are not worthy of the strong candidate you are supporting.
Stop whining and ascribing ulterior motives. It just makes you look petty. Eric, like any TPM writer, tries to be completely factual in his posts - it's not like he doesn't have an editor and publisher to answer to. If he continually published information in a "mistaken" manner in order to push a hidden agenda for a certain candidate, he would be fired. Hoever, if he made a mistake, that's all it is, an honest mistake.
Noone wrote on December 8, 2007 11:07 AM:Ok, now where is Ron Paul, with 8%???
Here is the link to the actual poll results.
http://www.newsweek.com/media/75/0714_newsweek_poll.pdf
CalD wrote on December 8, 2007 11:10 AM:Some numbers to keep in mind regarding this poll:
N = 1,408 Iowa registered voters (MOE: plus or minus 3)
N = 540 Iowa Republican voters (MOE: plus or minus 5)
N = 275 likely Rep caucus-goers (MOE: plus or minus 7)
N = 673 Iowa Democratic voters (MOE: plus or minus 5)
N = 395 likely Dem caucus-goers (MOE: plus or minus 6)
Interviewing dates: 12/5-6/07 (Link.)
That is to say it is a two-day poll with less than 400 respondents in the most relevant subsample for Democrats and under 300 for Republicans -- with the relatively poor precision (i.e, high MoE) for the 95% confidence band that goes along with that. The better polls we see are of 500-600 LVs and are taken over a three-day period for better resistance to instability due to transient events.
Jor wrote on December 8, 2007 11:16 AM:I don't condone Huckabee's pardon, but out of all the republican candidates running, is there a better candidate? Maybe McCain, maybe? But thats it. So out of a list of evils, Huckabee seems the best choice to me. (excluding Ron Paul).
dcshungu wrote on December 8, 2007 11:27 AM:I think that everyone should stop hyperventilating about every single IA poll that comes out and shows Obama or Clinton "leading." None of the purported "leads" have been outside of the MOE, so that no one has got the foggiest idea who is "leading", much less who is going to prevail there. Having said that, I fully understand why the ABC crowd might obsess with the early states, but especially with IA: Although Clinton has several possible paths to the White House, a win for her in IA would seal the deal. It would be over...
Anonymous wrote on December 8, 2007 11:38 AM:Keith wrote on December 8, 2007 12:13 AM:If Obama opening up a 6 point lead in this Newsweek poll (amongst likely caucus goers) and 7 point lead in the Strategic Vision poll the other is evidence of Clinton "weathering [Obama]'s premature squirt" then perhaps you need a new definition of "weathering.
Dear Keith,
You are consistently dishonest and misleading with your non-stop blowjobs for O-Bomb-A. The high MOE (5+) makes any difference statistically negligible.
dcshungu wrote on December 8, 2007 11:39 AM:Huckabee seems the best choice to me.
He'd be tough to beat in the South, which would make the election tough for any Dem candidate. Heck, he might even carry AR against HRC, which would force her to win all the "Kerry states" pulse Ohio...
However, while the Dumond thing might not wound him fatally in most Red States, it would be a huge albatross for him in the rest of the country. It'd be close but Clinton or Edwards would prevail in the end...I am not so sure if Huckabee's baggage would be heavy enough to weigh him down more than Obama's inexperience and race in 2008 America would be a drag on him.
dcshungu wrote on December 8, 2007 11:45 AM:sorry, that was "plus Ohio."
MRI is all about electromagnetic "pulses"...
Michael A wrote on December 8, 2007 11:53 AM:dc, once again we find agreement. They indicate a statistical dead heat, which is good for democracy. I guess we may or may not be having a coronation for your candidate and she isn't inevitable.
However, what I find amusing about your post is that you have been hyperventilating about polls for months. Now that the polls are tightening, which was expected, you want to tone down the rhetoric. Toooo funny.
dcshungu wrote on December 8, 2007 12:41 PM:blockquote>
However, what I find amusing about your post is that you have been hyperventilating about polls for months.
Sure, but read carefully: I had said "IA polls." Nothing has changed there in a long time and nothing is likely to change until the only poll that counts is taken on Jan 3. It is a caucus state where reliable polling is notoriously difficult to do because no one is sure who's gonna turn up and for whom. I will hyperventilate about polls elsewhere, not in IA.
Michael A wrote on December 8, 2007 2:14 PM:Oh, I skimmed too fast. Glad to see you still have a sense of humor.
CalD wrote on December 8, 2007 2:42 PM:I guess it's not hard to understand how the media, being in the news business and all and apparently only knowing how to do horse race election coverage, might be getting so itchy for any newsworthy change in the dynamics of the Democratic race that they're starting to get a little trigger happy. But at least they've got Mike Huckabee to entertain them now. Maybe he will keep them out of trouble for a while.
Anyway, given that the preponderance polling data still points to a statistical 3-way dogfight for Democrats in Iowa, with undecideds running way down in the 10% range, the two things I keep wondering most at this point are:
a) What's going on with Bill Richardson? Will he or won't he have enough support concentrated in some areas to get delegates? How much of his current share will end up getting divided among the big three and in what proportions?
b) With Joe Biden also currently polling pretty solidly in the neighborhood of 5% in IA, who ends up as his primary beneficiary on caucus day?
(Chris Dodd and Denny Kucinich together account for right around 2% in the majority of Iowa polls.)
votenic wrote on December 8, 2007 6:07 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
