Obama eclipses Clinton in Iowa

[oberliner]

THE first test of the Democratic presidential candidates, the Iowa caucuses, has suddenly become a lot more interesting.

An ABC/Washington Post poll released yesterday showed Senator Barack Obama ahead of Senator Hillary Clinton, putting in doubt her status as the frontrunner of the Democratic pack.

The poll found 30% support for Senator Obama and 26% for Senator Clinton, a statistical tie, since the poll's margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.5%.

"There's going to be a caucus, and not just a coronation," said Bill Burton, national press secretary for the Obama campaign.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/obama-eclipses-clinton-in-iowa/2007/11/20/1195321781726.html

[wyldwolf]

1. this is not much of a change from their July poll

No matter how much media outlets are claiming this is some breakthrough for Obama and he leads in Iowa for the first time (as NBC claimed last night), the previous ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in late July had Obama leading with 27 percent, to 26 percent each for both Clinton and Edwards. Obama’s statistical 3% boost is less insignificant than Edward's 4% drop.

I never discount polls unless they come from an obviously partisan source and I don't discount this one. But ABC/WaPo polls have a history (now) of favoring Obama.

[BeyondGeography]

2. What did the July poll say about the demand for change vs. experience?

Where were Clinton's "believes what she says" numbers then? Trustworthiness?

Spin it however you want, we're headed into late November and your girl's numbers in iowa are headed in the wrong direction.

[Tellurian]

4. What a crock!

One (dead heat)poll doesn't make a president in ONE state!

:rofl:

[BeyondGeography]

6. It's not the differential that I'd be worried (or enthusiastic) about

it's the numbers within the numbers. When your whole campaign has come down to experience and 55% of the voters say they value change the most compared with 33% who place experience at the top of the list, someone's looking good, and it ain't Hillary.

[Tellurian]

21. One poll does not an election make..

Especially when it is promoted by Tim Russert!

[EV_Ares]

7. Absolutely, if Clinton is so all powerful, what happened, why are her

numbers going down? They are going down because the more she is out there, the more news about her, the more realization that she is the "same old Washington corporate insider" in other words, "no change". People want someone who is going to bring some change to the way things are done in DC, someone who is going to look out for the people, not the corporations.

I think people are beginning more to see Hillary as she is which is a corporate democrat.

[wyldwolf]

9. "my girl's numbers" are steady.

[Colobo]

17. wyld, rejoice because Obama is leading!

[wyldwolf]

18. he's been leading in this particular poll since late July

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Every time this same thread is posted I wonder:

Why do Obama supporters *suddenly* believe polls?
:rofl:

[BeyondGeography]

5. And the Clinton crowd "suddenly" doesn't

:rofl:

[EV_Ares]

8. LOL, the morning joke I guess. And I wonder why all of a sudden it

is a non-favorable Clinton poll the Hillary crowd all of a sudden doesn't believe in polls.

[mtnsnake]

10. The significant thing in Iowa isn't so much Obama doing so well, but how much Edwards is sinking

Afterall, John Edwards has practically taken up residence there and if he doesn't win Iowa, it's time for the curtain call. Obama and Clinton, OTOH, can stand to lose Iowa and still be very much in the running.

[Czolgosz]

12. The fact that Edwards accepted matching funds confirms that Edwards is running to win and will be in

race through March no matter the results.

He's not going down in Iowa. He's only two weeks into his media campaign whereas Obama is $4.5 million into his Iowa advertising campaign and Hillary is $2.5 million into her Iowa advertising campaign.

Have you not seen the 2002 polling? Edwards is exactly where he needs to be and so is Obama. Watch Hillary's storm troopers lower expectations in Iowa over the next six weeks.

[EV_Ares]

15. Pretty good analysis, it is going to continue to just keep getting more

interesting.

[Czolgosz]

11. I wonder if Edwards is this cycle's Dean, Hillary is the new Gephardt, and Obama will win like Kerry

[IADEMO2004]

13. eclipse: interesting event, doesn't last long

[hijinx87]

14. the MSM finally has it's horse race

I figured it would find a way to report on the horse race
perspective one way or another.

I understand that her support among women dropped by double
digits. if anything sounds anomalous in those numbers, it's
probably that.

[suston96]

16. Clinton's numbers did NOT go down.....

.......in the Wash Post poll. John Edwards numbers did. Clinton stayed the same.

Obama led in the previous Wash Post poll in July. When you compare poll numbers you stay within the same pollsters.

Now if you want a real look at Clinton's numbers, go here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

This is a Republican leaning pollster, by the way. Look at Obama's recent numbers: they went down!

Edited to add: "Eclipse"? Have you ever watched an "eclipse"? It only lasts for a very few minutes. Then everything comes back to as it was before the "eclipse".

[Imagevision]

19. Why would anyone think Hil's numbers will go up the closer it gets to game time in Iowa? if

was all that in last weeks Vegas debates it would have reflected in the polls but if anything she will begin to slide with each Obama speech given.

[suston96]

20. Check again.....

Who says that the Nov. 15 debates were included in each day's polling by the Wash. Post?

"....This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone November 14-18, 2007, "

Get it?

More details: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_111907.html

[Yukari Yakumo]

22. One poll does make a trend

Especially a WaPo poll.

Look at WaPo's July numbers against other pollster numbers at about the same time. See anything peculiar? While Edwards and Clinton are about on par, Obama is being listed as polling way higher than the others.

Now look at WaPo's November numbers against other pollster numbers at about the same time. Doesn't look good for Obama (and WaPo's legitimacy), does it?