Poll: Edwards, Huckabee Lead In Iowa
Republican firm InsiderAdvantage has a new poll out showing John Edwards leading the Iowa caucus with 30%, followed by Hillary Clinton at 26% and Barack Obama with 24%. This is the first poll in at least a while to show Edwards in the lead. The poll also shows Edwards leading as the second choice for caucus-goers whose first choices would not reach the 15% viability mark.
Chris Bowers thinks the poll is an outlier, as it would project only 1/8 of caucus participants to be under the age of 45 — as opposed to the 2004 caucus, when 1/3 of caucus participants were under 45. It's an age cohort that would likely benefit Barack Obama.
On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee has a narrow lead of 28% against Mitt Romney's 25%, with Fred Thompson at 10%, John McCain with 9%, Ron Paul at 6%, and Rudy Giuliani with 5%.
Comments (35)
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:24 PM:Also, Eric is only reporting the "likely voter" numbers. Among "highly likely voters", it is Obama 27, Edwards 26, Clinton 24.
Nate wrote on December 18, 2007 11:34 PM:REPUBLICANS: WAKE UP. Huck has been under the microscope for only 3 weeks and his true self is just now becoming obvious. Do not lock us into the guy before you really know him. Rudy & Romney both have warts & whiskers but they are under the microscope for more than a year and are still electable. 3 or 4 months of being under the microscope and Huckabee will be completely unelectable but it will be too late then to change. PLEASE VOTE FOR RUDY OR ROMNEY IN THE PRIMARY! IT IS THE ONLY WAY FOR A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.
roo_P wrote on December 18, 2007 11:45 PM:DTM,
I think the far more interesting tidbit is about "second choices" where--according to this poll--Edwards leads Obama.
I really believe that at this point we need to start prognosticating based on the
The GOTV effort is probably even harder to predict so for now I treat it as a constant shared by all the main competitors. I think Edwards may have a slight edge here, too.
I am an Obama guy* although Edwards would be acceptable. This concerns me greatly.
* Well, Kuchinich, but even with my vote he will probably not be going anywhere so MY number two, Obama, gets the nod from here.
roo_P wrote on December 18, 2007 11:50 PM:Bah.
The second paragraph went such:
DTM wrote on December 18, 2007 11:54 PM:
I really believe that at this point we need to start prognosticating based on the split of the less-than-15-percent crowd. Barring any earth-shattering news, that (and the "ground game") is where this thing is going to be decided.
Edwards has certainly done well in second choice polls, but since the viability rule is applied on a precinct level, statewide second choice polls are only so helpful.
So the inherent uncertainties of modeling all this, plus the still substantial amount of time left, mean we really don't know the final order, let alone the margins. And the really interesting thing (at least to me) is that thanks to the holidays, we may never get much more clarity.
Michael wrote on December 18, 2007 11:56 PM:The poll shows that highly likely voters that Romney actually leads 28% to 25% over Huckabee. I knew the media surge for Huck would not last.
Tom wrote on December 19, 2007 12:05 AM:Where's the evidence that this a Republican polling firm?
Funny how all the Obama supporters are out to trash polls that don't agree with their delusions.
Edwards is leading in Iowa and he's going to win. There's no doubt about it.
why nobody is talking about the South Carolina poll? Obama and Clinton 33%! Just wondering, as for Iowa it's too close to tell, my guess is Obama will win, Eduards second and Clinton will come third! But again, let's just wait and see.
FreakyBeaky wrote on December 19, 2007 12:19 AM:Nitpick: a poll with a questionable sample (i.e., likely caucus-goer model) is not the same thing as an "outlier."
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 12:19 AM:I'm with DTM. This one's up for grabs.
Anonymous wrote on December 19, 2007 12:22 AM:If this was a telephone poll, I'm curious to know whether cell phones were included. From what I understand, they are not often included in phone polls. Younger people use cell phones almost exclusively, a fact that would seem to help Obama.
CalD wrote on December 19, 2007 2:11 AM:The final percentages in this poll are weighted to something very much like the 2004 Entrance poll age group distribution. Just out of curiosity, I tried taking their table and re-weighting each age group to 2004 levels, but when I did I found the total percentages didn't change much.
I thought I was going nuts until I figured out that if you just tally up their raw totals for each age group from their LV table it comes to:
Edwards 29%
Clinton 32%
Obama 19%
Another candidate 13%
Undecided 8%
So the totals percentages they're reporting either reflect re-weighting or else there are typos in their table. Most likely they're weighted though. The results I got seem too close to be coincidence.
terry hallinan wrote on December 19, 2007 4:47 AM:Shocking!
The invisible man appears, sans $400 haircut and mansion.
Of course it can't be. We all know that invisible men can't be seen.
Pleasant dream though.
BTW polls, on the rare occasion one or two is somehow taken, show the invisible man mopping the floor with any Republican nominee unlike the two conservatives anointed by the MSM and TPM as Democratic presidential nominees.
Edwards appeals only to real people. People don't count for much these days.
Best, Terry
radlib1 wrote on December 19, 2007 6:04 AM:John Edwards is a real man who stands up powwerfully for the people in universal health care, jobs, and the economy for ordinary Americans.
Chris Dodd has just shown Congress and the nation that he is a real man standing up eloquently and passionately for the Constitution and all of our civil liberties.
To me, Edwards-Dodd sounds like a mighty strong (and electable) Democratic ticket in '08.
squenz wrote on December 19, 2007 6:54 AM:Not only is Edwards more reasonable and electable than the other frontrunners - but very importantly he has gone through the rigors of the 2004 campaign straight through to the end. Any dirt they could have thrown against him they would have thrown in 2004 - which is a big concern I have with Obama.
DTM wrote on December 19, 2007 7:16 AM:FreakyBeaky is right of course. In general, the word "outlier" gets thrown around way too much.
I would define true outliers as something like polls which reported results which in retrospect we believe were more than the MOE away from the actual numbers in the target population at the time as defined by the poll. Given that definition, true outliers will happen, but rarely (it should be about 5% of polls).
As FreakyBeaky notes, a poll with a questionable likely voter model is not by that definition an "outlier". Nor necessarily are polls on the high or low end of the range of similar polls taken close in time, nor necessarily are polls that show different numbers than polls taken substantially earlier or later, and so on.
The reason this is important is that I think calling a poll an "outlier" is for most people a prelude to saying we should ignore it. But even polls with questionable models (and so on) can contain useful information. And of course all this would be less of a problem if fewer people insisted on treating polls as strongly predictive of the future, rather than as telling us something interesting about the present.
Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 7:16 AM:squenz, you make a valid point about the 2004 campaign and edwards. If there was any dirt, it was slung, which is a good thing for edwards. I also think that the same thought process could be applied to obama. He has been the target of the much vaunted clinton II attack machine, and what did they come up with? Zippo. The clinton II machine is just as bad, if not worse, than the republican attack machine.
Now, clinton hasn't been the subject of the machine for 7 years or more and people have forgotten. She has gotten a free pass thus far and the mud and scum would be slinging all over the place if she got the nomination, which is a concern that I have.
I do disagree that edwards is "more reasonable and electable." He is tacking far to the left to win the primary, which makes the general more difficult and makes you wonder about his ethics. Where was that record in the senate? What about his war vote for politics? He can't even carry his home state for pete's sake!!!!! I have problems with these issues, among others, concerning edwards.
DTM wrote on December 19, 2007 7:31 AM:I also agree that with Edwards, there is likely not much to worry about as far as scandals are concerned. But the 2004 campaign is a double-edged sword: Edwards is running a somewhat different campaign this time, and the problem is that his general election opponent would undoubtedly try to paint him as a flip-flopper and as otherwise insincere.
To take just one important example, Edwards was a co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution, and according to the NYT, in 2004 he argued to Kerry that they should not renounce their votes. Edwards also did not read the full NIE, and Bob Shrum has suggested his original support for the war was primarily a matter of political calculation.
Of course since then Edwards has declared his support for the Iraq War a mistake, and has apologized profusely. Notably, almost all of the major Democratic contenders are in no better position on this issue (except Obama), so Edwards has not really been fully "vetted" with respect to Iraq. But again, I am fairly confident his credibility on this issue would be attacked in the general election, and I think no one really knows if Edwards' conversion story would hold up.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 19, 2007 8:43 AM:Normally I would be happier than all get out that Edwards did well in a poll . . . BUT this one bares examination.
It is REP poll. Since the REPs are on thewrong side of every farging thing . . . Sigh.
Normally REP voters are the 45 and older crowd . . . That is why their sampling was limited that way. The picture developed by there sample is who is presently their big gun and who their folk might cross over for . . .
The REPs are telling us that the DEM candidate that would win their vote is Edwards.
Unfortunately, the REP newbie/younger crowd seen leaning Paul. Paulian voters are like cockroaches and may turn out in the thousands for one day of mayham . . . The REPs may be shocked this year by the number of young anti-war idiots that can read platform point BUT don't wanta go to war. The REPs way have pooched themselves by Reagan's squelching of Humanities Education and do not even know it.
loki wrote on December 19, 2007 8:58 AM:It does seem unlikely that Edwards would suddenly turn out to have scandals popping up all over the place in the General. Same for Hillary...excepting the obvious rehash of White Water, Rose Law Firm, etc. Obama...not sure. Bush's DUI didn't surface til just before election day!
Flip-flopping? Everyone will be targeted for some form of this or another. Republicans and Democrats. It's a given. Even for the Great Pure Progressive Candidate, Obama.
In the end it'll be a wash.
Considering this Republican field, the General Election really does appear to be in the hands of the Democrats...it's their's to lose.
Loki, once again we agree on something. I agree with the bulk of your post except on the point about obama. Of course something could come up; however, the clinton II attack machine that is "ready to do battle with the republican slime machine" hasn't found squat. They went so far as to interview his kindergarten teacher in Indonesia. You want to talk about diggin deep. I don't think republicans would go that far. Sooo, I feel better about obama concerning potential scandals. He faced up to one of the meanest and nastiest attack machines in the business and is holding his own and then some.
Chris wrote on December 19, 2007 9:13 AM:Civics question - Even if Obama or Edwards win in Iowa, is it the conventional wisdom that the Obama/Edwards victory will melt away the huge leads in FLA, NY, CA, MI and somewhat less NV that HRC holds?
I'll support whoever the Dem nominee is, but I'm perplexed by all of the heavy breathing and excitement about Iowa and New Hampshire this cycle. People are talking like HRC's goose is cooked if she falters in Iowa, and it just seems like Super Tuesday is the elephant in the room that nobody is talking about. Does everybody believe that in the 3-4 weeks between Iowa/NH/SC and the rest of the primaries, that there will be such a huge swing over to Obama/Edwards due to a potential victory in these early states? Just asking.
loki wrote on December 19, 2007 9:38 AM:Michael,
The only thing I said about Obama and scandal was, "Not sure."
I realize to you that because Clinton is, well Clinton, then she must have the "nastiest attack machine" in the world. But, Number one: It doesn't mean it is the most thorough or competent attack machine in the biz. And two: the Republican attack machine is hardly without experience and expertise.
Also, the idea that there is a particular campaign that is more adept at finding dirt than another at this level doesn't hold water.
Your feelings towards Hillary yet again have you making statements that come off rather irrational. It really is remarkable how breathtakenly frenzied; how very Republican you sound when it comes to this woman.
Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 9:45 AM:Too funny loki, you are just way too funny. Republican???? Are you talking about clinton II supporters? Because I'm not one of them.
I thought part of her experience argument is that she can take on the republicans at their own game. Isn't that true? If not, then I guess she's inexperienced or naive and irresponsible.
Incidentally, republicans are singing her praises so that she gets the nomination and then they can slam her in the general. Blind clinton II lovers. Way too funny.
loki wrote on December 19, 2007 9:52 AM:Michael,
Way to not address anything I said! As Dubya might say, "Good job."
Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 10:06 AM:Uh, are you familiar with english? Way to try to divert and distract away from the issue as herr rove might say.
MasonMcD wrote on December 19, 2007 10:12 AM:I'd like to see the down and dirty methodology for these polls.
Are they taking a random sample of regional caucus precincts? Because even a small 40 person caucus group has the same vote as a large group from Ames, or Des Moines.
Edwards has *two* captains for organizing canvassing and education in 90% of the counties. He's visited all counties at least once. He's been in Iowa for four years, and doesn't have to focus on reintroducing himself. He's got a strategy for quick caucusing. He's put together an 80-page detailed, yet easy-to-read booklet about his position on over two dozen issues that are both printed out, and can be downloaded:
johnedwards.com/issues/plan-to-build-one-america.pdf
His floor is about 23%, and has the highest ranking in second choice.
Iowa is about defining the candidate, organization and mobilization. It's not about popularity contests, crowd size, or media buys. I think that's why few polls in the past have been predictors of success until just a few days prior to caucus.
Edwards seems to have the elements lined up that are required to win. And he's sounding like the most informed, sincere candidate out there.
Obama's got a groovy, photo-filled 13 page get-to-know-me booklet and DVD (I guess caucus-goers are going to bring a portable player?), and Hillary's got some great content on her policies on the web, but nothing to grab and take with you on caucus day. And they still had to spend a large chunk of time telling people who they are, and what they stand for.
Who knows. All of his planning may fall apart, but what some polls say, and what the New York Times says about Hillary really are tangential, and not indicators of what will happen on caucus day.
Uh, are you familiar with english?
Why yes! And everytime I read the English you use when it comes to Hillary it easily translates as: "Unhinged." ;^}
RobbyLove wrote on December 19, 2007 11:09 AM:Hey folks. Tell all of your conservative friends and acquaintances that you are "afraid" of Huckabee, that you are worried about his momentum, and that you are concerned about any Democrat's chances against him in the general election. Do everything you can to convince them to vote for Huckabee in the primaries.
With Huckabee as the GOP nominee, we can pretty much guarantee a landslide victory for Hillary/Obama/Edwards in 2008! So...Go Huckabee!!!
Michael A wrote on December 19, 2007 11:23 AM:Ok, robbylove, how is that possible? He has looney religious beliefs, but his track record is very moderate on social issues, notwithstanding the rhetoric. What are the dems going to do? Do attack ads attacking his religion? That would be a disaster. He is also very likeable, unlike one of the dem candidates and the rest of the republican field. Out of all the republicans, the one that I fear most is the huckster.
JubleJohnson wrote on December 19, 2007 12:15 PM:Dems nominating someone who voted for the war will be no different than who the Repukes are going to nominate.So we are going to go down the same path we did in 2004 ? "I was against the Iraq war before I was for it"
This is what we will put against the Repukes ? please
My only trouble with Edwards is that I feel that his face will be obscured by the backside of a mirror during the state of the union adress
Susan wrote on December 19, 2007 12:46 PM:loki
I've followed your line of reasoning and it makes a lot of sence, but I can't help but feel it is all colored somewhat by support for Hillary, so taking that into consideration makes it somewhat implausible you are being straight forward with your opinions about all the other candidates.
But It is interesting
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
loki
"Great Pure Progressive Candidate, Obama"
You do have a thing for quotation marks
