Polls: Obama Ahead Or Tied In Iowa, Huckabee Out Front
The new Research 2000 poll of Iowa gives Barack Obama a healthy lead in the caucus, at 33% support, with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards tied at 24% each. On the Republican side, Mike Huckabee leads with 31%, followed by Mitt Romney at 22%, with nobody else breaking into the double digits.
A separate poll from Hotline/Diageo puts Obama and Hillary at 27% each, with Edwards at 22%. On the Republican side, Huckabee has 36% to Romney's 23%.
Comments (86)
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 1:42 PM:Just a suggestion, but with all these polls coming in so fast and furious, I do think it is a good practice to give the trend from older polls by the same company where possible when reporting the latest numbers.
And so:
For R2K, that would be Obama +8, Clinton -3, Edwards +3 since their last poll in November.
For Hotline, that would appear to me to be their first Iowa poll.
In your heart, you know she is THE one! wrote on December 14, 2007 2:10 PM:I am not worried. America is not ready for a Muslim president.
Joe Lisboa wrote on December 14, 2007 2:12 PM:Do not feed the poll-troll.
Obama '08.
audit the polls wrote on December 14, 2007 2:12 PM:What puts candidates at the top of the polls is money. Them that has shall win the corporate controlled polls. Otherwise, the corporations would have to cover candidates they don't like.
votenic wrote on December 14, 2007 2:15 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Not that it should matter, but Obama is not a Muslim.
Incidentally, some might wonder why I would bother to note that yet again in response to this particular troll. My feeling is you never know who might be cruising by without knowing the history, so a quick correction seems to me like a good idea, even if it is repetitive.
What puts candidates at the top of the polls is money. Them that has shall win the corporate controlled polls. Otherwise, the corporations would have to cover candidates they don't like.
You're making a specious equivalence here.
All money =/= corporate money. Obama's raised $20 million dollars from donations of under $200. That's a sizeable chunk of change from just normal people donating.
You're off base. The source of the money matters. Obama is people-powered.
Michael wrote on December 14, 2007 2:24 PM:Obama is leading on the pollster trends in Iowa. That is significant.
Steve wrote on December 14, 2007 2:26 PM:It will be interesting to see where some of these polls go once they start incorporating the notion that Obama is (sort of) a front-runner. For example, now that people might look at him more seriously as the nominee, are they worried that he apparently used cocaine and heroin well into his 20s? (If I understand the slang in his book correctly...) While Shaheen should not have raised these things the way he did, I don't know if Obama has been asked how many times he did cocaine or heroin, and whether he ever sold it. Those are questions a nominee would have to deal with...
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 2:30 PM:Steve,
Actually, the passage in his book is about when he was 17 and in HS, and it says he did not try heroin. He has said he stopped all of that by the time he was 20.
And as it turns out: no, all indications are that no one cares.
John McCutchen wrote on December 14, 2007 2:33 PM:Time for Sgt Kleefeld to ask themselves...how much lipstick can that pig take? How long before the wheels come off the Clinton Change Bus?
Change?
There ARE no do-overs
Keith wrote on December 14, 2007 2:35 PM:Steve:
Clear you never read his book. Never used heroin. You can ask all the dumbass questions you like, but the real question is what impact the teenage drug use had on his life or his judgment. Examine his 20+ years and I think we all have the answer to that question.
ProDem wrote on December 14, 2007 2:38 PM:It looks more and more like HRC is DONE! If so, talk about "imploding". This would be a text book example!
kjoe wrote on December 14, 2007 2:38 PM:That goofy Ben Smith is in very hot water with the Clinton campaign. He had a headline about "Healthcare and Coke" which was about Clinton's chance to regain momentum.
He received a scorching e-mail from Mark Penn, all in capital letters, screaming at him about the necessity to spell out cocaine when referring to obama. Using the abbreviation "coke" conjures up a connection regarding soft drinks and obesity, which is off message, and off-putting to some very important corporate sponsors.
Joe Lisboa wrote on December 14, 2007 2:39 PM:Steve, that's just shameful. If you're not a plant, then you're an idiot (and I usually avoid name-calling). Obama never touched heroin and your baseless speculation (and mealy-mouthed, arguably race-baiting, cop-out: "if I understand the slang right") does nothing other than start false potential memes that will only come back to bite us (i.e., dems, progressives, lefties, sane people) in the general election.
Stop doing the opposition's work for them already and add something constructive to the discussion, or take it back to the HRC (or repub) camp from which you came.
jim wrote on December 14, 2007 2:39 PM:Clinton is losing this race because her strategy comes from 2004. She's trying to beat Howard Dean. The problem is, it isn't 2004, and Howard Dean isn't in this race.
Electibility is not an issue this time around. The Iowa Dems look over at the GOP side and they think what everyone else thinks - not one of these pygmies can beat our fourth or fifth best candidate.
Once electibility is off the table, what does Clinton have? She has offered nothing because her strategy all along is to run as an incumbent. That is a huge mistake.
Now, three weeks may be enough time to change things. But Clinton has to move fast, and start overwhelming people with new policies and new ideas. Otherwise, she's doomed.
Hank Essay wrote on December 14, 2007 2:45 PM:Obamentum?
-
Love how TPM uses pictures of Obama looking like a jack-ass (click Back to see what I'm talking about), while their Hillary pics are always presidential. He looks like a donkey in that pic!
Makes me wonder if they'll even support Obama when he wins the Dem nod?
Go Obama!
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 2:54 PM:Joe Lisboa: "Stop doing the opposition's work for them . . . ."
You mean like Obama supporters have been with respect to Hillary?
DTM: "And as it turns out: no, all indications are that no one cares."
Funny how "progressives" made a big deal about Bush's drug use and his response in publically talking about it with kids, but treat Obama much, much differently under the same circumstances.
HRU wrote on December 14, 2007 2:55 PM:Hank,
BOmentum?
Andy wrote on December 14, 2007 2:56 PM:Golly, if I understand the slang you "homies" are using nowadays, it looks like Barrack is a Madrassa-educated, Muslim, cocain shooting and heroin snorting America hater!
Oh, I don't understand the slang you kids are using? I'm neither "gnarly" nor "hip"? Oh.
Sorry.
Every time I read something like that, I imagine the poster in shorts, black socks, and orthopaedic sandals. Please don't try to cloak your smears in ignorance. It hurts smart peoples' brains, ok?
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 2:57 PM:CornBred: "He looks like a donkey in that pic!"
Maybe he always looks like a donkey and there are no other types of pictures to use.
jim: ". . . not one of these pygmies can beat our fourth or fifth best candidate."
Exactly what they said about Bush.
That turned out pretty well, eh?
Well, for the GOP anyway.
DonnaG wrote on December 14, 2007 2:58 PM:Steve, @2:26
your ugliness is looking for a place to light and, not able to find the place, you make up a lie-ing place on your own.
Either back up your ugly made-up story [he apparently used cocaine and heroin well into his 20's] with actual quotes and page references, or be known as a vicious intentional liar who gets off on bearing false stories about a good person.
I have the book, so I will check your referencing. If, by the way, you have any personal courage to counter your propensity to exaggerate and lie, then you could do yourself some good by apologizing.
If you don't see the difference between how Obama and W have each treated their past indiscretions w/r/t illegal drugs, then there's nothing I do for you, friend. W hid behind his favorite philosopher and unilaterally declared it "the issue that shalt not be touched" whereas O put it in his frickin' autobiography and uses it to illustrate the dead-end drug abuse represents to teens around the country. No comparison. No kidding.
And "anonymous" (ooh, very brave of you), pointing out that a big block of Americans would never vote for HRC (based on empirical data and not baseless speculation) is not "doing the opposition's work for them," it's calling out her bogus "electability" claim for what it is: tenuous at best.
Steve wrote on December 14, 2007 3:00 PM:I have indeed, read his book, and I read those passages to say that he used both cocaine and heroin. Somehow, I bet the Republicans will get to the bottom of that if he's the nominee. Meanwhile, it was NOT just in his teens. Axelrod said today that Obama's ddrug period ended in his "early 20s," which is a slide from what the campaign said Wednesday, when they referred to the "teenage years." So already, this has gone from his teen years as a student to a full-fledged adult using (Dealing, too? We don;t know -- but I'm sure we'll find out if he's the nominee) cocaine and possibly heroin. Oh, and PS: I am a plant for nobody. I am a Democrat who wants to win in 2008 becausse we can't afford to lose again.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 3:02 PM:anonymous at 2:54,
Well, that may or may not be true, but in any event I only hold myself responsible for the things I say.
And as it turned out: no one cared about Bush's drug history either.
Joe Lisboa wrote on December 14, 2007 3:02 PM:"Dealing, too?"
(plus)
"I am a plant for nobody."
(equals)
Thanks for playing, Steve.
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 3:05 PM:Since "Hitlery" originated in winger circles and has now been adopted by Obama supporters, I'd say they were doing the opposition's work for them.
But, then, Obama supporters are so blinded by their own self-righteousness, I don't doubt that they are blind to the nature of the smears they and their ilk are using against HRC.
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 3:07 PM:DTM: "And as it turned out: no one cared about Bush's drug history either."
"Progressives" did and raised it often as a stab at Bush during the past 7 years.
Seems you have a problem understanding the definition of "no one."
But that's par for your course.
Michael wrote on December 14, 2007 3:07 PM:Dealing, too? We don;t know -- but I'm sure we'll find out if he's the nominee
Here we go again. This totally baseless speculation. The only reason anyone knows about Obama's drug use is because he admitted to it himself in his autobiography
There is no reason to speculate on behavior beyond what he documented himself, save relying on old racial stereotypes. NOBODY EVER SUGGESTED BILL OR W SOLD DRUGS. I guess in Steve's world, "white kids do drugs; black kids sell them."
Nice, Steve. Way to keep it classy.
By the way, you can innocently suggest you're just trying to "vet" the nominee, but guess what, "innocently" wondering whether or not someone will make an issue of drug use is making an issue of drug use. Speculating about whether or not he could've been a dealer is a baseless smear. You are smearing Obama, and its disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
steve wrote on December 14, 2007 3:07 PM:Sure, Joe Libboa ... because anyone who disagrees with the small number of Obama Obsessives must be a plant, right? Crazy much? I think it hits a nerve with the Obama crowd when someone raises the point that he has not been vetted. What'cha so scared of, anyway? If he's such a savior, you won't mind a little picking around, right?
Joe Lisboa wrote on December 14, 2007 3:11 PM:What this progressive cared about, "anon," wasn't that Bush did drugs, but how Bush's handling of his past drug abuse so perfectly exemplified the smug "I'm above the law" persona we've all come to loathe over the past 7 years.
By claiming that he was "born again" and thereby shielded from any inquiry whatsoever about prior lapses in his judgment, Bush managed both to play into the Religious Right's obsession with personal religious practice and to defuse any potentially election-derailing bombs. I fail to see how Obama's handling of this issue is anything short of a positive.
I can just picture anon bursting into an anti-drug lecture and haranguing the speaker for being a former junkie. Dude: forest, trees.
Joe Lisboa wrote on December 14, 2007 3:13 PM:Steve, your credibility is zero. Do yourself a favor and stop posting idiotic stuff that I then feel compelled to reply to and clog up the discussion.
You're the one insinuating (indeed, claiming!) that Obama used heroin and sold drugs. You're rightfully being laughed at because, (A) those claims are ludicrous and (B) you're regurgitating talking points that even the HRC campaign has now learned to disavow. Hence my "plant" suspicions. But now my "idiot" suspicions are kicking in to high gear.
I'm done fencing this troll. Apologies.
DonnaG wrote on December 14, 2007 3:13 PM:Steve,
No dice, you said it, so you either make the effort to back it up beyond your paltry generalities, or you apologize, or you remain a sleaze with no credibility.
steve wrote on December 14, 2007 3:19 PM:Sure thing, I will apologize as soon as we have a full explanation from the Obama campaign. A glancing reference to hard-core drug use, followed by a refusal to explain it, isn't exactly full disclosure. Instead of trying to raise money on this issue, they should be giving a full and complete explanation. The fact that the Obama Obsessives in here get so riled up about this is quite telling. Get used to it, kids. You want to be the front-runner, then these are the questions you will need to answer (hopefully now, instead of waiting until the general).
brewmn wrote on December 14, 2007 3:22 PM:I thought Democrats were supposed to be the ones who didn't get all worked yup about someone's casual drug use in their adolescence and early adulthood.
Just another example of how Hillary and her supporters have more in common with Republicans than liberal Democrats. And, like Hillary, you all claim that the only way to beat Republicans is to become them.
Kefa wrote on December 14, 2007 3:28 PM:Again I repeat myself.....Edwards needs Iowa or he's toast. Obama needs Iowa or NH or SC, or he's toast, maybe one can argue he can run maybe a longer race. No one can argue HRC cannot run until the very end and she will. She will run until the brakes fall off the wagon. She's got the war machine and that's what gonna get her the title. You may not like it or not but she is gonna carry our water into the White House. :)
NCSteve wrote on December 14, 2007 3:34 PM:Ya wanna know what I find increasingly laughable? The way Hillary and her minions are now darkly hinting that those evil, powerful, oh-so-crafty Republicans will dig up dirt on Obama that her own oppo people have been unable to find. She even did it herself today on some Iowa news show today. That's right, no surrogates or sacrificial goats. She did it herself with her very own mouth.
Hah! It is to laugh!
Say way you will about her (and God knows I have), Hillary's oppo team is second-to-none. Both Hillary's op shop and whichever of the two Chicago papers it is that hates him have been digging around in Obama's backyard for two years now. What have they come up with? Stuff he wrote about in his first book, a long time contributor who's in trouble with the law on stuff unrelated to Obama and, gasp, his leadership PAC giving away money to Democratic candidates for office. Oh, yeah, and that brilliant Kindergarten ambition coup.
Given the rising reek of desperation wafting over from her camp, do you really think we wouldn't have heard about it by now if they'd found anything?
Instead, all they've got is Penn's polling showing that x% of Democrats are suffering from chronic post-traumatic shock disorder that causes them to fearfully attribute dark supernatural powers bordering on omniscience and omnipotence to the Republicans.
john mccutchen wrote on December 14, 2007 3:36 PM:Obama NoCali is now lining up precicnt captains for February 5
That's why Edwards can't beat Hillary
Might as well vote for Kucinich
Mama Warbucks
Hillary Clinton - Militarist
While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clinton's support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, there's every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration.
Comeback Kid III - Brunehilde's Revenge?
Not if I can help it
What about YOU?
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 3:38 PM:By the way, you can innocently suggest you're just trying to "vet" the nominee, but guess what, "innocently" wondering whether or not someone will support torture and never-ending war is making an issue of torture and never-ending war. Speculating about whether or not Hillary could've been a facilitator of torture and never-ending war is a baseless smear. You are smearing Hillary, and its disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
13 Martyrs wrote on December 14, 2007 3:39 PM:At the end of the day, winning Iowa may not be the be all for the candidate to win the nomination. But one thing that Obana did right is look at the big picture by looking at the small things. He made a point of visiting the editorial boards and staff of small weekly newspapers. Those folks carry considerable weight in small communities and such visits do a hell of a lot better than the stage-managed photo-op diner stops. He just might clean up in Iowa.
Kefa wrote on December 14, 2007 3:41 PM:Read this from a guy who has some inside scoop.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/davidcorn/
enjoy.
NCSteve: "The way Hillary and her minions are now darkly hinting that those evil, powerful, oh-so-crafty Republicans will dig up dirt on Obama that her own oppo people have been unable to find."
Obama and his supporters don't have to dig up dirt on Hillary - they just make it up out of whole cloth!
Steve,
Seriously?! Why does your head immediately go to the idea that if he did drugs, then maybe he sold them. As someone above noted, no one asked that of Bill or W. And while we are at it, has anyone asked Hillary if she did drugs? Her husband did...stands to reason that maybe she tried them as well. Did she ever sell? Did she ever whore herself out for blow? You know...just asking?
Anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 3:50 PM:Michael, It's true, Obama got a lot of small donations. He also got a lot of big ones. In any case, it doesn't matter if he got his money by returning cans, big media wants it.
Ever notice how in some magazines, the products that advertise get mentioned? This is the same thing. Time Warner expects a lot of money from Clinton and Obama, and not much from Kucinich. Et voila! Dennis Who??
[forgot to sign]
Michael, It's true, Obama got a lot of small donations. He also got a lot of big ones. In any case, it doesn't matter if he got his money by returning cans, big media wants it.
Ever notice how in some magazines, the products that advertise get mentioned? This is the same thing. Time Warner expects a lot of money from Clinton and Obama, and not much from Kucinich. Et voila! Dennis Who??
>>>>Love how TPM uses pictures of Obama looking like a jack-ass (click Back to see what I'm talking about), while their Hillary pics are always presidential.>>>>
They've simply dropped all pretense of objectivity. But I think we can all agree that, at least symbolically speaking, Clinton bears little resemblance to a donkey.
Anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:01 PM:Wow! Meltdown!!
Shorter Clinton at today's presser:
"Hey, you ignoramuses want to vote for Blackie McDrugpusher over me, the queen of clean, be my guest. Don't blame me when you find out he fathered 18 children while playing for the Seattle Supersonics, though. With me, you know the only dirt is that I willingly cover for my "husband's" statutory rape habit, which is like a total non issue.
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:04 PM:NCSteve: "Given the rising reek of desperation wafting over from her camp . . ."
A month ago, there was a reek of desperation from the Obama camp which immediately sent he and is loyal minions into hateland, spewing forth negative and false information about Clinton and sliming her with all manner of vomitous name-calling (e.g., "Hitlery", "GOP-lite").
Talk about adopting Republican tactics.
That has been Obama's forte, not just Clinton's, and he and his supporters are the ones who started it.
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:07 PM:With me, you know the only dirt is that I willingly cover for my "husband's" statutory rape habit, which is like a total non issue.
Yep, Obama supporters are so clean and righteous in their opposition.
Not.
The above charge is more Rovian than Karl himself.
What's next from Obama ops - calling HRC "Hitlery Child-molester?"
So are we trying to pin anonymous internet comments from supporters on the candidates now? Good luck wih that.
By the way, to clarify something above (although I would have thought this was clear), when I say "no one cares about X" in an electoral context, I usually mean something more like "not enough people to have a significant electoral impact care about X" (which is a bit of a mouthful).
Wil Burns wrote on December 14, 2007 4:15 PM:Had Al Gore (remember him?) taken over as he should have those first steps would have led to a very different America today. But no, Ariana and Chris Hitchens and all the other oh so pure “Left” Progressives just knew better and went off and enabled Nader. So please! I back Hillary in this race. I’ll be damned if I let your ilk hand us Guiliani or Romney. If she gets the nomination I’ll bust my hump for her. And anyone who sits it out or moans or any such nonsense is an enemy of those people they claim to support.
Anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:15 PM:"I’ve been tested, I’ve been vetted,
unlike blacky McDrugpusher"
she said. "There are no surprises
like for instance stealing watermelons and fathering NBA crackbabies.
There’s not going to be anybody saying, 'I didn’t think of that, my goodness, what’s that
hidden conviction for running a Jamaican drug cartel
going to mean,
if not a unanimous constitutional amendment to make Carl Rove supreme leader'"
"I'm a known quantity,
my past is squeeky clean with no controversy"
she added at the press conference, at which she recieved the endorsement of Iowa Democratic Congressman Leonard Boswell. "We need to nominate a candidate who can win.
not some black drugpusher that scares all the Republican grandmaws in Iowa"
She don't lie, she don't lie, she don't lie....Cocaine....
jim wrote on December 14, 2007 4:19 PM:anonymous at 2:57:
W was not highly regarded in 2000, not 2008. But even then, he had the name, the institutional support, and even the press backing him. None of the GOP candidates this time around are even close.
Additionally, the Iowa voters don't think any of the GOP candidates are worth a damn. That means they're going to vote for who they want to be President, not who will win (again, as they see all the candidates as winning).
Clinton has failed to realize this and hasn't changed her campaign strategy to match the current mood.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 4:21 PM:Wil Burns,
Since this is still the primaries, this is more like people who supported Hart over Mondale, Simon over Dukakis, Bradley over Gore, or Edwards over Kerry.
Anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:27 PM:>>>Yep, Obama supporters are so clean and righteous in their opposition.
Not.
The above charge is more Rovian than Karl himself.
What's next from Obama ops - calling HRC "Hitlery Child-molester?">>>
Why not, we might as well have "fun" with this at this point. Penn was on the televisions today and he repeated the word "cocaine" about thirty times. I figure you guys have quit pretending and just want to roll. I mean, two days ago Hillary swore up and down that her campaign had nothing to do with that horrible drug surprise (or did she...I have to go parse that now) and today it is the basis of her new direction (no surprises with me).
Dan wrote on December 14, 2007 4:33 PM:Do these polls mean anything?
We have learned that Iowa polls four months out are meaningless. And we learned why: people change their minds, "likely voters" often do not even realize they have to spend 2 hours in a caucus and there is no secret ballot, etc.
But what about a poll 3 weeks before the caucus? Are they historically a useful predictor?
Anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:36 PM:>>>And while we are at it, has anyone asked Hillary if she did drugs? Her husband did...stands to reason that maybe she tried them as well. Did she ever sell? Did she ever whore herself out for blow? You know...just asking?>>>
Actually the reporters did ask her that today at the presser and she did her best "I'm not going to dignify that kind of atrocious garbage" face and said you could just go look at her past statements. I guess she's probably clean since she was a Propper Wellesley Goldwater Girl, not some hideous ghetto person. Icky.
I don't know why Obama would say he was thinking of soliciting advice from this college republican hall monitor.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 4:40 PM:Dan,
About two weeks before the 2004 Iowa Caucus, the polls started picking up trends which proved predictive (Dean and Gephardt sinking, Kerry and Edwards rising). The order was still wrong at that point, however. In turn the polls taken right before the Iowa Caucus got the order about right, but not the final margins (which is really impossible to do, because of the caucus rules).
Of course this year we have the added complication of the holidays being right before the caucus, and good luck figuring out what that really means for the polls.
moondancer wrote on December 14, 2007 4:47 PM:The most interesting thing is that this is interesting. What 2 months ago the world thought it was etched in stone Rudy vs. HRC. Turns out the MSM can't dictate like they used to, nobody wants their anointed.
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:56 PM:DTM: So are we trying to pin anonymous internet comments from supporters on the candidates now?
No.
And this is typical of your way of misrepresenting other's comments.
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 4:57 PM:jim: "W was not highly regarded in 2000 . . ."
You're right about that.
Which supports my point.
anonymous wrote on December 14, 2007 5:03 PM:DTM: Since this is still the primaries, this is more like people who supported Hart over Mondale, Simon over Dukakis, Bradley over Gore, or Edwards over Kerry.
No, it's like Nader vs. Gore because the "progressives" are all wailing about how far right the favored Democratic candidate supposedly is and how it would be no different electing Rudy or Hillary, just like they said that it would be no different electing Gore or Bush.
But leave it to you to miss the big picture in favor of a little one that furthers your Hillary Hatred.
trecina rice wrote on December 14, 2007 5:08 PM:o me, Obama's lack of experience could spell trouble for the Democratic Party. Hes had three years of experience at the federal level, and he talks about bringing change, but what has he done to change Washington?
Yes he sponsored a bill on government transparency with Tom Coburn, but it was other senators who did the heavy lifting when it came to the details. And when it comes to sponsoring bills, you don't have to do much to be a co-sponsor. Compare his leadership to Tom Coburn or Sen. Jim Demint who were also elected in 2004. On issues that matter to the conservative base, like government spending and immigration, they have been working hard behind the scenes to bring the kind of change their constituents want. From a progressive point of view, Obama has done nothing to that effect.
It’s clear from these polls that despite Guiliani's numerous scandals, people still value MEANINGFUL leadership and experience (even though Guiliani’s experience is overrated).
Massachussets (progressive bastion right?..not for obama)
Clinton 54% Guiliani 40%
Obama 46% Guiliani 44%
New York (Democrats must win this state to have any shot in the general election)
Obama 46% Guiliani 46%
Clinton 56% Guiliani 37%
The purpose of the Iowa polls is not predicting winners. It's enabling big media to steer the coverage toward whom they like. What makes you people believe these results? Do you really believe?:
1. the responders are telling the truth. and
2. the pollsters are telling the truth. and
3. The pollsters have honestly and correctly identified 'likely voters' and
4. They got a representative sample using land lines phones. and
5. The people who tally them are honest. and
6. Those who own the polling companies are honest. and
7. Those reporting the results are honest.
A lot of assumptions. I don't know where you people expect all this honesty to come from in presidential elections. The benefits of winning a widely reported poll must be huge. Strangely those with the most money usually win the polls.
Evadt wrote on December 14, 2007 5:43 PM:CANDIDATE QUALIFICATIONS: A Curiosity Regarding GOP Poll-Voters.
Q: Why were Gracchus and Caesar successful populist Roman politicians?
A: Gracchus and Caesar owned experience to do both — run the Republic and prosecute war; rightly so, citizens trusted leaders with guts to put their lives on the front lines, side-by-side with the rank and file.
The war against United States and world Citizens began long before 9/11. We can argue reasons how and why we got to where we are with Iraq, Afghanistan, et al: not the least, a blundering, puerile TheoNeoCon Bush/Cheney Administration — few in which have ever served in the military with distinction — or at all.
Bush/Cheney stepped in it for reasons other than advertised, crapped in the GOparty nest, and left armed forces and agencies to do the heavy liftin’ and take the fall…. Few Republicans the likes of McCain have shown the courage to drop stones in the political shoe of B/C — John McCain does not appreciate chicken hawks.
Russia is rebuilding; China is expanding forces and war toys; both intend to reinforce political, military, and trade influence for ideological hearts, minds, and earthly natural resources. Europe and others sense American demise — blood in the water; infatuated with the new emerging power, they fall one-by-one, thumbing noses and cutting Uncle Sam’s throat on international trade.
There are a number of good reasons for being pissed-off; but apparently, continentals have forgotten they’ve been livin’ off US security at a discount — too young to recall we saved their bacon in WWI and The Second. Perhaps western Citizen Allies now prefer the Russian and/or Chinese rule model. LOLuck.
McCain discusses the situation in Foreign Affairs (Dec/Nov 2007)…. Aside from his stated platform issues in FA, zero fellow Republican candidates are not even remotely aware that growing trends are part of cause why the American economy is tanking — that we’re getting passed over, run-thru. OPEC is playing games with production; France just took a $15B Nuclear Plant installation and arms package deal with Libya — this after French president Sarkozy came to Washington and flattered the intellect of Dubious Dubya enuff for him to announce they were great pals; and the US is financing Russian and Chinese military expansion. John’s tryin’ to tell us somethin’….
RudyGee, the Makeover Husksta, and Flippin’ Mitt are not known for military service/experience, nor as candidates, do they demonstrate ANY ability to lead a nation in clear and present danger — any claim of expertise is vicarious wannabe. World destabilization is a valid “fear” — do any of these three own the chops to lead in uncertain times? Future conflict is a given; like it or not, war has been and shall continue to be part of the human condition. Sober pragmatism has the leading three Republican candidates appear as pencil neck desk-jocks who’ve never been outta the office and in the trenches — cause célèbre cheerleaders who earned freshman letters sittin’ on-the-bench wavin’ political pom-poms — NO MILITARY BEARING.
The arrogance of a full tank of ethanol gas: Examples of McCain gut-style politik include a stand-up to Iowans the other day, told ‘em truth they didn’t want to hear — that corporate farm welfare is a trade travesty and scam on markets and taxpayers: he didn’t back down. NPR reports the Farm Bill includes federal relief for gas station and dime store owners for losses during bad crop years. In Iowa, John has also repeatedly shown his frustration as the AWOL Republican Candidates babble-on about everything but national security issues needing to be vetted in national discourse and debate. Media forum sponsors should be strangled for soft-topic questions, also. Republicans out in the Corn Country don’t recognize the Veteran candidate — just keep the SubChecks comin’.
Polls show Iowans preparing to vote their wallets and/or for one of the advertised Good News boyz… If they get what they think they want, it’ll be another four years of flat-footed leadership, an unqualified Presidency thinkin’ behind the national security curve.
Rudy, Huckabee, and Romney: It’s difficult to see any of ‘em as CINC: when gazing into the crystal ball — imagine a tense Whitehouse Situation Room scenario — sorry, they just don’t cut it. Romney: looks good in a Board Room…. The Hucksta: behind the pulpit or selling used cars…. Rudy: well, he’s a New York favorite son and deserves to remain so. In a street fight, John’s the only one who could move without on-the-Job-training; he’s got fire, and enough common sense showing he understands the human condition — McCain is not Bush/Cheney, and long sea mile from the competition.
Agree or disagree on John McCain: he’s straight-up, tough — reliably consistent; he speaks his mind without pretense. Loyalists give respect because he has respect for himself, and America: he’s genuine, sincere and no nonsense — what you see is what you get.
This reads like a Puff-Post for McCain— it is not — so the predictable disclaimer is: I don’t agree with John and the GOP on lottza issues. But if a Republican is elected President — it could happen again — the experienced hardnosed Veteran candidate owns best Quals. As a Vet, it is baffling why GOP voter polls show attraction to untested, out-of-the-box lightweights — one of which they say ducked behind five military draft deferments during Nam.
I fear we are looking at another Democratic Party disaster.
Democrats have been losing easy to win elections as the purists, idealists. and practioners of politics laced with the scorn and hate that was shown Al Gore by MSM and "new" liberals of the 2000 debacle continue on.
We witnessed Arianna Huffington and left liberals literally derail the 2000 election by emphasizing Gore's faults and buying into Nader's bull that Gore and Bush stood for the same old corrupt DC business.
Sound familiar? Over 80,000 Nader votes turned Florida into a right wing inferno and we have seen the results of Naderite thinking.
Huffington and other liberals still blame Gore for this loss when they & MSM did everything possible to oppose him, but of course this kind of Gore/victimization is transparently flawed and insidious.
Now we see all the Hitler hate marshalled against Hillary, and the GOP is thrilled at the prospect of facing down Obama with Huckabee or Guiliani.
Both would have a rough time with Hillary. But no. Hillary is not perfect, and the Oprah driven and idealistically challenged have set their sights on Obama who is not electable.
As our new rock star who speaketh in platitudes continues to enthrall Democrat voters, you have my condolences in advance. As a democrat who has voted for over 60 years, I see Democrat Party suicidal behavior repeating itself.
This 2008 election should have been an achievable election for Democrats.
Oprah's intrusion into caucusses and skewing the playing field is another troubling issue that has convinced me we are headed down a cliff. Again. The MSM and GOP are salivating.
Liam wrote on December 14, 2007 6:01 PM:The second choice votes of the Iowa caucus supporters of the Candidates who do not make the 15% support cut-off point will tell the story.
How many of those people will make Hillary their second choice. I think that not many of them will. I think she is already maxed out, and that is why I think that it is really a contest for first place, in Iowa, between Edwards and Obama, with either Richarson or Biden with an outside shot at coming in third.
I predict that Hillary will finish no higher than third place in Iowa.
morris1030 wrote on December 14, 2007 6:22 PM:I miss seeing my last post, but anyway it seems it's ok to blast Bush for drug and alchohol use, but it it had to come up with Obama as he opened up the issue for starters.
Right wing blogs and HuffPo had lots of posts on his drug use and how the GOP would savage him, etc. This was to be expected.
Bill wrote on December 14, 2007 6:22 PM:Why does that person keep saying that America is not ready for a Muslim president?
Is he/she really that ignorant? Or does she intentionally come across as being out of touch with reality?
bp wrote on December 14, 2007 6:23 PM:Given one's preference one can choose a poll that reinforces one's candidate. Question: how is TPM different from CNN and the rest of the MSM when it plays the same horse race game. I don't come to TPM to read a Chris Cilizza or Chris Matthews selection of what to emphasise. If you are for Obama say so and I will understand. Edwards hardly gets space here. Very sad.
Liam wrote on December 14, 2007 6:57 PM:It doesn't matter if America is ready or not, since the voters will not have the option. There are no Muslims running for President, in either party. Obama is a Christian and a cousin of Dick Cheney. He was born to a White American Mom, so he is not just a black candidate. He is as much a White person as he is a black person.
Atma wrote on December 14, 2007 8:46 PM:I like Obama, but cannot stand his wife. She will be his biggest liability if he is the nominee. She has a sort of entitlement vibe to her that I have seen in many African-American women. She totally strikes me as a bitch, and I feel sorry for Obama that she is his wife. She could well bring him down.
votenic wrote on December 14, 2007 8:50 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
Atma, if that's all you've got, then I feel sorry for the 99% of the brain cells you don't use. They most be awfully bored. I'm sorry, but after a bottle of wine and this latest bottle of whine, I'm losing my patience. Good night.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 9:42 PM:anonymous at 5:03
So let me get this straight: I point out that every time the Democrats have simply fallen in line behind the establishment pick in the last 24 years that person has lost in the general election, and your reply is that I am the one missing the "big picture"?
morris1030,
That is pretty much the opposite of what has happened. The Democratic nominees who have lost in the last 24 years were all sold to the party as safe, competent picks. The one Democrat who actually won in the last 24 years was the self-styled "Man from Hope", and you might as well have been describing Bill Clinton when you wrote "a rock star who speaketh in platitudes".
In general, I seriously don't get why some Democrats seem to have forgotten the basic rules of politics. Politics, for good or ill, is at root a popularity contest. So if you want to maximize your chances of winning, you nominate the person who is likely to end up the most popular. In short, giving good speeches, holding big rallies, generally inspiring people ... since when were these considered bad attributes in politics?
Steve wrote on December 15, 2007 12:44 AM:I must say this 9 point lead in conjunction with the clear trend of late...Obama is going to win this nomination! We are going to learn a lot about Hillary as well, will she go down gracefully so as to give Barack the best chance heading into the general election?
mike wrote on December 15, 2007 12:55 AM:eeeyew!!!! this thread of comments is like rolling around in the sewer. However, the Clintonistas here seem really desperate, and the Obamaphiles seem to make pretty reasonable points.
I don't read it enough to know if TPM is really pro Clinton or not, although I do get that vibe.
Hillary wouldn't be a disaster or anything, but she is simply unelectable.
Obama talks in glib generalities that annoy me, but I'd vote for him just to stick it to the Dem establishment. I don't know if a Black man can be elected in 2008, but I'd sure like to believe it is possible. The drug and religion smears are just jaw dropping to witness.
Personally I'd vote for Edwards or Kucinich above either of them because he is talking about the power of corporations... which means he's addressing the problem of American fascism. I don't know if he can change our fascist political system, but I'm pretty confident that Hillary will just ride it, and I can't figure out if Obama is an anti-fascist or not.
I hope he would be.
mike wrote on December 15, 2007 12:59 AM:Meant to say:
Personally I'd vote for Edwards above either of them because he is talking about the power of corporations... which means he's addressing the problem of American fascism. I don't know if he can change our fascist political system, but I'm pretty confident that Hillary will just ride it, and I can't figure out if Obama is an anti-fascist or not.
Kucinich is good too.
james wrote on December 15, 2007 2:08 AM:The Research 2000 poll was debunked - the screen used way too many young people. It wasn't proportionate to the actual turnout in 2004. Maybe more young people will vote this time around, but I believe the screen was off by at least 10-15%.
robert ethan wrote on December 15, 2007 3:52 AM:Clinton is race.
Howard Dean was "surging" and had bolted into the lead in Iowa by exactly the same margin at this very point in the nomination process 4 years ago.
I wouldn't put too much stock in what the polls say. The exit polls in Iowa last time found that nearly half the people who voted MADE UP THEIR MINDS IN THE LAST 3 DAYS!
heretic wrote on December 15, 2007 7:37 AM:The drumbeat from the Obama zealots has gotten so mind-numbing and predictable, it barely dignifies a response at this point. I am OK whether he or she wins. But the incessant whining whenever he gets slammed and the gloating whenever he scores some points is incredibly childish, a theme I see constantly in the Obama crowd. I haven't read Obama's book, but Steve is right. He has not been vetted and the drug question will be one more part of a smear campaign against him if nominated. This is hardly oppo research. The repugs know all about it and you can be sure they will be ready to pounce when the day comes. No one has suggested that Obama is unfit to lead because of whatever he did at whatever age. (Personally, I think some teenage drug use builds character.) It is only be pointed out that he will be attacked for it and it would be best to come clean now on the all the details before the repugs reveal them (or some bastardization thereof). Remember, Bush never admitted any drug use (not even pot) and denies it vehemently to this day. It was intimated, but never corroborated, so Obama's overt admission is a whole different story. It will soon be known whether we have reached the point where such things no longer matter. (I hope so, but I wouldn't be so sure.)
merryll wrote on December 15, 2007 9:22 AM:Morris
Gore wasn't defeated, until he surrendered. He had won. Then, the neocons stole the election. Stop blaming Democrats for being Demoocrats. Hilary is the most Republican of the bunch, so we should nominate her to win. I don't think so.
If you want Democrats to win, instead of nominating Republicans or more conservative 'centrists', how about making the elections more honest and fair? No more touch screens, no more caging lists, no more billionaires financing themselves or puppets, no more electoral college. How about speading some democracy in the US?
Liam wrote on December 15, 2007 11:08 AM:Reality Check.
The Obama camp is not whining about the Clinton campaign bringing up his drug usage as a teenager. Senator Obama was the one who wrote about that part of his life.
To those of you who are saying that the Clinton campaign were right to challenge Obama about that issue, well then answer this:
Why did the high level Clinton campaign official, the one who brought up the Obama drug usage issue get forced to step down from the Clinton campaign.
Hillary said that it should not have been done, apologized to Obama, and got rid of the high ranking campaign official that brought up the issue.
So, which is it; Hillary is right now, or the official that she dumped was right?
It can not be both.
Al wrote on December 15, 2007 11:19 AM:The media has given Obama so many passes.
Whatever it takes to distract from substance - John Edwards.
