Zogby: Hillary And McCain Slightly Ahead In NH, Before Iowa Caucus Was Held

Comments (41)

grover_rover wrote on January 4, 2008 12:34 PM:

this is going to be interesting to watch unfold

T.S. wrote on January 4, 2008 12:48 PM:

Edwards will roar back in NH mark my word.

Any one who is a lawyer knows how to sway the voters with an argument.

And look what he said last night
his Dad worked in a mill
his grandma worked the night shift and cooked for him

So he deserves to be president

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 12:49 PM:

Two points from this poll:

1)

While roughly 60% of likely voting New Hampshire independents said they were planning to vote in the Democratic primary, about 40% said they would vote in the GOP contest.

So much for the idea that McCain is going to sap away all of Obama's independant support and give this one to Clinton.

2) The MOE on the democratic poll is +/-3.2, which means that Clinton and Obama are statistically tied here. Good news, that, for Obama supporters like me.

I dare say that I am felling fired up and ready to go. :-)

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 12:50 PM:

Any one who is a lawyer knows how to sway the voters with an argument.

They are all lawyers.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 12:52 PM:

Incidentally, why have we seen nothing about the state of affairs in NV of late? Why is it not, for instance, in the Pollster.com charts to our right?

destor23 wrote on January 4, 2008 12:53 PM:

Please, please, please let Ron Paul beat Rudy Giuliani again. Because that never gets not funny.

RWN wrote on January 4, 2008 12:55 PM:

Thus, they are saying it is now an irrelevant poll data.

What is relevant is that in Iowa there was a record turnout of over 100,000 participates...almost 100% this is the wild card that all professional (err past) officiados of the politico do not know....it is the same dynamics as in '32....and for the GOP who are seeing their closely controlled psuedo selections going the outsiders are also dominating....Huckabee...Paul and McCain are all mavericks of the inside....

fascinating....

Michael A wrote on January 4, 2008 12:57 PM:

destor23, absolutely. I'll never forget that debate where paul slapped down mr. 9/11 and then mr. 9/11 did that absurd sound bite. The next day paul gave mr. 9/11 a reading list to help him get educated on foreign policy. Tooooo funny.

LJ wrote on January 4, 2008 1:00 PM:

Incidentally, why have we seen nothing about the state of affairs in NV of late? Why is it not, for instance, in the Pollster.com charts to our right?

Great point.

Les wrote on January 4, 2008 1:02 PM:

Has anyone any news on why Ron Pauls name was on the list of the company who did the anonymous push poll in NH

eric wrote on January 4, 2008 1:10 PM:

I hope that speech given by Obama last night, with all of its vacous, naive, preachy platitudes will be enough to scare the anti-Clinton minded people that Edwards is perhaps a better choice.

We tried that naive, "let's compromise" approach with Bill Clinton in 1992.

KSWheels wrote on January 4, 2008 1:19 PM:

Pretty obvious after last night that Hillary's lead in all these polls is because her name is Clinton. No one who actually votes wants her to be president. Hope she enjoys staring at the back of Edwards' and Obama's heads.

colonpowwow wrote on January 4, 2008 1:37 PM:

eric:

Re the Clinton years, the Nineties.

I think The Onion said it best in its famous headline after the Republicans won back the White House:

"Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over!"

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:42 PM:

It will indeed be interesting to watch the NH polls, although the timeframe is so short we won't be getting decent post-Iowa 3 or 4 day polls until right before the primary.

Which, by the way, is part of why a lot of pundits have suggested this five day gap is just about ideal from a momentum standpoint (increasingly favorable polls should be coming out right as people are heading to vote). But we shall see.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 1:47 PM:

colonpowwow,

I think we are learning that the population of voters who just want to step into a time machine and go back to the mid-1990s is largely limited to Democrats, and only about 1/3 of them.

And your candidate has basically admitted as much by trying to co-opt the change agent theme.

Pat Kelly wrote on January 4, 2008 1:59 PM:

A lot of people supporting either Edwards or Obama are doing so because they think that candidate is the one to beat Clinton. I think you have to be seriously deluded to believe that Edwards' numbers will go up in NH as a result of the Iowa Caucuses. Obama right now is the clear ABC (Anyone but Clinton) candidate - already won Iowa, well ahead in NH - so there's no reason whatsoever for his numbers to drop from this base.
Similarly, some of Clinton's support is bound to be because she is seen as either inevitable or the likeliest to win in November. If that accounts for only 10% of either of her or Edwards' support, then Obama is in a position to win.
As I've said earlier, that still doesn't make Obama a lock for the nomination. He has a helluva lot of ground to make up in big states like Michigan, not to mention NY & CA where Clinton is way out in front. It's still up hill for anyone but Clinton, but only Obama can now catch up.

loki wrote on January 4, 2008 2:09 PM:

Once again the false notion of "going back to the nineties."

Arguing that the peace and prosperity that was enjoyed during the nineties is in fact more desirable than what is going on today is in no way the same as saying we want to "go back" there. What does that mean anyway?

The ignorant and robotic commentary from the Obama supporters regarding that ridiculous meme speaks volumes.

And just for fun...in case anyone's forgotten:

--in '92 the eventual Democratic nominee came in 4th place in Iowa.
--in '88 3rd place.
--in '76 2nd place.
--in '72 3rd place.

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:10 PM:

Pat Kelly,

As I suggested before, though, I think Edwards' game is now to replace Clinton as the alternative to Obama, not replace Obama as the alternative to Clinton. Of course to do that, he probably needs to beat Clinton in NH for second place.

But note he is only 12 points below Clinton in this pre-Iowa NH poll. If her numbers go down and he can pick up just a bit of that support plus whatever bleeds away from the second tier (which was basically wiped out in Iowa), then he may well have a shot at replacing Clinton as the only viable alternative to Obama. Indeed, I personally find it easy to imagine another 38-30-29 situation (Obama-Edwards-Clinton), given the starting point defined by the poll above.

SDC wrote on January 4, 2008 2:12 PM:

Pat, Obama isn't well ahead in NH--he's anywhere from 6 to 10 points behind.

This will be a VERY fascinating race, especially if you're happy, as I am, with most of our candidates. I think Obama is the least vetted and a lightweight--he has no idea what will be coming his way. But we shall see!

DTM wrote on January 4, 2008 2:20 PM:

loki,

I agree most people would prefer the '90s to the '00s. Every relevant poll tells us that, in fact: the American people overwhelmingly don't like the direction the country has been heading.

But that isn't really the question. The question is how people want things to go from here, and whether or not they want to use the '90s as their ideal for that new direction. That is where I think you find a lot of people jumping off the bandwagon.

On the importance of Iowa:

First, what happened to 1984, 2000, and 2004? And that "second place" in 1976 was actually to "uncommitted": Carter was the top actual candidate.

In any event, I agree winning Iowa alone doesn't get Obama the nomination, or really even frontrunner status. But Iowa and NH--well, you would have to go back to 1972 to find someone who swept Iowa and NH and didn't win the nomination, and that was a frontrunner seen as underperforming (Muskie), and the successful challenger (McGovern) finished second both times with a smaller margin the second time.

So, I really, really doubt Clinton wants to lose NH. And I really, really, really doubt she wants to finish third again.

eric wrote on January 4, 2008 2:20 PM:

colonpowwow wrote on January 4, 2008 1:37 PM:
eric:

Re the Clinton years, the Nineties.

I think The Onion said it best in its famous headline after the Republicans won back the White House:

"Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity Is Finally Over!"

Don't get me wrong... I loved the 90's and love Bill Clinton, I was just criticizing that naive way of thinking we all had back in 1992. The same thing that I am hearing from Obama now.

Bill and Hillary and we all learned that republicans cannot be trusted or compromised with. They have to be beaten. Edwards clearly knows this, too.

JHo wrote on January 4, 2008 2:26 PM:

John Edwards lived in Iowa for the past 4 years...and he lost. End of story.

R.C. wrote on January 4, 2008 2:27 PM:

SDC

"vetted"

come on - stop playing the Edwards and Hillary game.

It's old

Pat Kelly wrote on January 4, 2008 2:37 PM:

SDC Of course, you are correct. I intended to say Obama is well ahead of Edwards in NH. Hence with these numbers, and a net gain of 1 in 10 supporters from each of Clinton & Edwards, the numbers become:

Clinton 32% -3% = 29%
Obama 26% +3% +2% = 31%
Edwards 20% -2% = 18%

You are also right that any of the Democratic candidates would be preferable to the current crop of Republican. However, I should let it be known that I am Canadian.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:38 PM:

"Obama right now is the clear ABC (Anyone but Clinton) candidate"

Second Choice Iowa vote (people who wanted to vote for the 2nd tier but couldn't because of caucus rules)
57% Edwards
21% Clinton
20% Obama

Or put it another way, Edwards got 42% of the vote for those who didn't vote for Clinton (Obama got 53% of that vote).

Doesn't seem so clear to me.

But it does seem clear the MSM CW types overwhelmingly like to ignore Edwards successes (not just Edwards, but he's arguably the most egregious example).

L.T. wrote on January 4, 2008 2:39 PM:

loki

we are all still wondering who you are supporting

as if it is not very obvious

I got a pot of gold and some fairy dust
you can sprinkle on yours dreams for Hillary.

loki wrote on January 4, 2008 2:43 PM:

So, I really, really doubt Clinton wants to lose NH. And I really, really, really doubt she wants to finish third again.

What does this statement of the obvious have to do with anything? Answer: Nothing.

And that "second place" in 1976 was actually to "uncommitted": Carter was the top actual candidate.

More people voted for "uncommited" than they did for an actual person. Carter came in 2nd to that. 2nd place.

The question is how people want things to go from here, and whether or not they want to use the '90s as their ideal for that new direction.

Very good then...from this point forward I can expect that you will be more intellectually honest, rather than ape the foolish Obama/Republican talking point of "Going back to the Nineties." Right? ;^}

Jeff Winchell wrote on January 4, 2008 2:43 PM:

"I think you have to be seriously deluded to believe that Edwards' numbers will go up in NH as a result of the Iowa Caucuses."

According to pollster.com's current trends, 21.8% of the NH voters aren't supporting Edwards, Clinton or Obama. For Zogby that's 22%.

Biden and Dodd have both dropped out. Pollster.com shows Richardson's numbers continually trending down in NH. Edwards got 57% of the 2nd tier vote that wasn't viable under IA caucus rules. I don't know why any analyst would be seriously deluded to not think he could get half of that non Edwards/Clinton/Obama vote in NH. Add 10 points to Edwards current total, and bump the other two, and you have a repeat of Iowa (all three are around 30% or higher).

What is serious delusion is people who are supposed to be bright, listening to MSM CW nonsense that Edwards is a dead man walking. It isn't based on logic. Merely on wishful thinking.

Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:44 PM:

Thank you Eric, I've long compared Obama to young Clinton and the Clintons had to learn the hard way that you cannot trust the Republicans to play fair, to we really have to watch Obama go through this process?

Jeff Winchell wrote on January 4, 2008 2:45 PM:

"John Edwards lived in Iowa for the past 4 years...and he lost. End of story."

Simple minds love simple stories.

eric wrote on January 4, 2008 2:47 PM:

"JHo wrote on January 4, 2008 2:26 PM:
John Edwards lived in Iowa for the past 4 years...and he lost. End of story."

Wrong. It's a myth that Edwards spent significantly more time in Iowa.
_____________________
Days spent in Iowa

Kerry '04: 76
Edwards '08: 80
Obama: 78
Clinton: 66
_____________________

Also, note that it pretty much looks like Obama *bought* this one:
_____________________
TV Advertising (in millions)

Kerry '04: $2.73
Edwards '08: $2.7
Obama: $8.3
Clinton: $6.5
______________________

Copied from here:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/29/163224/35

loki wrote on January 4, 2008 2:49 PM:

L.T.,

I am supporting the Democratic nominee. I will gladly vote for Clinton, Edwards or Obama. For the record I really like Dodd and Biden as well!

My dream ticket isn't running...

Feingold/Clark.

What you perceive as a Clinton bias on my part...and I've explained this a dozen times...is simply my distaste for the Obama supporters who if one didn't know better one would think they were typical neocons from the Republican party. They make the same ridiculous, uninformed remarks that Scaife and Limbaugh and O'Reilly make and made about both Clintons for the past 15 or so years.

I love Obama...can't stand (some of) his supporters.

Jeff Winchell wrote on January 4, 2008 2:50 PM:

"I intended to say Obama is well ahead of Edwards in NH. Hence with these numbers, and a net gain of 1 in 10 supporters from each of Clinton & Edwards"

Based on what theory? The wishful thinking theory? That's a popular one with people starting their own business ("if I just get 1% of the people who need XYZ widget to buy it from me, I'll be successful").

I suggest reading http://Pollster.com and learn that analysis is much more complex, with all sorts of conflicting factors, and not so neatly analyzed by wishful thinkers or MSM pundits.

Maybe the end result will be as you say, but it will be based on real world factors, not just "I think this incremental, but highly beneficial simple change will happen" type analysis.

eric wrote on January 4, 2008 2:54 PM:

"Anonymous wrote on January 4, 2008 2:44 PM:
Thank you Eric, I've long compared Obama to young Clinton and the Clintons had to learn the hard way that you cannot trust the Republicans to play fair, to we really have to watch Obama go through this process?"

You're welcome.

Lets remember that 18 year-olds that went to the caucuses were 2 years-old in 1992. I was young and naive once, too. In 1992, for example. Clinton was so concilliatory and compromising during the campaign and in the beginning of his terms. We now know what good that did.

You are correct, anonymous, we would be better off if we didn't have to watch Obama learn these lessons *again*.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 4, 2008 3:30 PM:

It's a myth that Edwards spent significantly more time in Iowa. _____________________ Days spent in Iowa

Kerry '04: 76
Edwards '08: 80
Obama: 78
Clinton: 66
_____________________

Well, I am always obliged to folks who provide actual data, so I thank you, dear Eric. That said, I clicked through the links to get to the source of those data and I do wonder what the baseline for counting was. Is that "days spent in Iowa..." as in "... in his/her whole life" or "... since Jan 1 2007" or "... since November 2004"? That is to say, those numbers do not necessarily disprove the "myth" that Edwards has spent more time in Iowa. If the count which serves as the basis of those numbers began (for instance) in Feb of 2007 then that does not necessarily mean that Edwards was not spending far more time than anyone else in Iowa in 2005 & 2006 in preparation for this run. I am not saying that such is the case (I do not know). I am simply saying that the significance of these numbers is somewhat ambiguous to my mind.

Pat Kelly wrote on January 4, 2008 3:38 PM:

Jeff I agree. My theory is indeed simple: that Obama's victory, and the higher-than-expected margin of it, will have an impact on NH voters. Who is, in this case, the likeliest to gain? My experience with politics is that Obama will be. Clinton is unlikely to gain from coming third, albeit very marginally. Edwards could pick up some of that support, but I suspect Obama will get the lion's share. Not because I dislike Edwards - I like the guy - but human nature is to move to the perceived victor.
The "1 in 10" switch in support was arbitrary, but illustrates how few voters have to change their mind in such a close contest. If only one in 15 change to net Obama, Clinton wins. If one in seven moves to Obama (less likely, I'd agree), he wins by a lot.
As to Edwards picking up second choice votes in Iowa, good point. Edwards could pick up the plurality of whatever voters that were supporting Dodd or Biden.
Let's assume the numbers breakdown the same way they did in Iowa. The top 4 have 85% of the vote, so assume the reamining 15% is fully in play. Of that 15%, Edwards get 6 in 10 (9%), Obama & Clinton each get 2 in 10 (3% each). Now you get:
Clinton 32% +3% = 35%
Obama 26% +3% + 29%
Edwards 20% +9% = 29%

Still doesn't look good for Edwards.
But the biggest blocks of changing voters will come from weak Clinton supporters moving to Obama and weak Edwards supporters going to either Obama or Clinton. There's currently no incentive for weak Obama supporters to move to the other two candidates, although that will certainly change if Clinton wins in NH.
The Obama-Clinton match up reminds me of the 1968 Canadian Liberal Party leadership race. Pierre Trudeau was the young, far less experienced, but articulate and hugely charismatic candidate with overwhelming support among younger voters. Paul Martin Sr was the establishment favourite (sorry, Canadian spelling) with lots of Cabinet experience and connections. John Turner was the really good looking candidate with middling experience.
See any parallels?
The good news is that Liberals won the next election in a landslide and won 4 out of 5 elections with Trudeau as leader.

RU Shur wrote on January 4, 2008 6:27 PM:

It's poor form to post "information" without disclosing its source - the Edwards campaign.

Jeff Winchell wrote on January 4, 2008 8:26 PM:

'It's poor form to post "information" without disclosing its source - the Edwards campaign.'

RU Shur posted this message in a long thread. I have no idea what he is referring to, and I imagine few other readers do either.

RU Shur...would you like to tell us what you're talking about?

lestatdelc wrote on January 4, 2008 8:35 PM:

destor23 wrote on January 4, 2008 12:53 PM:

Please, please, please let Ron Paul beat Rudy Giuliani again. Because that never gets not funny.

ROFL

Now that you said it, I couldn't agree more.

lestatdelc wrote on January 4, 2008 8:45 PM:

eric wrote on January 4, 2008 2:47 PM:

...

Days spent in Iowa

Kerry '04: 76
Edwards '08: 80
Obama: 78
Clinton: 66

If you look at the source of those numbers you are only looking at number of days in 2007 holding public campaign events, they do not include any days in previous 3 years or any non-public events.

Not saying Edwards has indeed "lived in Iowa" for 4 years, but this little counter-factoid is a dubious and flawed data-point (at best). For the record, I have been vacillating for weeks between Edwards and Obama.

Disabled OIF Vet wrote on January 5, 2008 1:53 AM:

HRC, "I'm the change candidate." Yah, as in change to whatever you want to hear!

Maybe she should add '3rd in IOWA' to her experience resume.

Please watch a good republican spoof video. This is one of the best!
Go Democrat in 08
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5JprTzqfCLg&watch_response

Post a comment

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