Brand New Iowa Poll -Latest In Field- Clinton -29% Obama 25% Edwards 18%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

[Czolgosz]

1. OK, Hillbots, dust of the "inevitability" meme!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. What's With The Hillbot Slur?

~

[Czolgosz]

41. Obamination a slur? Is Kucinichista? I suggest a thicker skin is needed if these names irk you

[cali]

82. I prefer kookheads or may poopykookyheads. Names meant to demean an

entire group of people and that grossly generalize suck. Since when is negative stereotyping a progressive value?

[Czolgosz]

87. People who whine about such things fuel the right-wong "politically correct police" stereotype

liberals.

Are you REALLY that sensitive?

[BootinUp]

88. bottom line

it reflects more on you when analyzed in an intelligent manner. But don't let that stop you.

[cali]

6. Just out of curiosity, who are you supporting? n/t

[Czolgosz]

21. You tell me. I'm pro-universal single payer health care, anti-war, anti-Patriot Act, anti-poverty

I only know one candidate who has consistently stood up for these values since 9/11.

Do you know any who have met these criteria since 9/11?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Dennis Kucinich?

~

[Czolgosz]

35. Is there another candidate who has stood for these values more consistently?

[TwilightZone]

7. The only people I've seen claim that "inevitability" was ever an issue were non-Hillary supporters.

Neither Hillary, nor her supporters, has ever claimed that a win in Iowa was inevitable.

It makes for a nice talking point, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. It Was The Classic Straw Man

~

[TwilightZone]

12. Oh, I know.

I suppose that it's easier than thinking of something substantive to contribute.

[ArkySue]

It was the media

saying the "inevitable" thing. And the Obama "Rock Star" meme was media created as well.
I wish the talking bobble-heads would just SHUT UP!

[Czolgosz]

43. You should acquiant yourself with the Google news feature

[TwilightZone]

61. Since you're so acquainted with it, let's see a link to a story where a Hillary win in Iowa...

was declared "inevitable."

[ClarkUSA]

56. Mark Penn wrote a 350 pp. memo "declaring her to be inevitable," according to John Zogby

As we get very close to Iowa and New Hampshire - the two main events - let's re-examine each of the candidates.

Hillary Clinton - I cringed when her chief strategist and my polling colleague, Mark Penn, wrote a 350-page memo several
months ago declaring her to be inevitable as the next President of the United States.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/when_inevitability_isnt_so_ine.html

Then there's the former Iowa Democratic Party chairman:

“The strong pitch made to me and others not that long ago was that we had to be for Hillary, because Hillary was going to be the inevitable
winner,” Fischer told me.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7518.html

Then there's Hillary repeatedly telling Katie Couric she "never" thinks of anyone else winning the nomination except herself...

[TwilightZone]

59. Where does that say that she was "inevitably" going to win Iowa?

Oh, right. It doesn't.

[ClarkUSA]

62. You're moving the goalposts now that I've proven you wrong... typical Hillaryworlder dodge!

Now people know that the "inevitability" meme is NOT a media creation at all... it was force fed to the media by Mark Penn in memo form
months ago. Team Flawless strikes out again! :-)

[TwilightZone]

64. Moving the goalposts. Try actually reading the post that you responded to.

I very clearly stated that I was talking about Iowa.

"Neither Hillary, nor her supporters, has ever claimed that a win in Iowa was inevitable."

Reading is fundamental.

By the way, I'm not a Hillary supporter - I'm currently undecided. I love how everyone assumes that anyone who points out inaccuracies must be a Hillary supporter.

[ClarkUSA]

65. Read the post #1 to which you responded to re: '"inevitability" meme' and which I confirmed

You see, it's not all about you... I was backing up your objection to the poster at reply #1. Reading IS fundamental... follow your advice.

I've read plenty of your posts and you sure don't seem undecided to me.

[BootinUp]

66. # 7 might be wise to review for you too. nt

[ClarkUSA]

69. #7's subject line was a denial of #1... I was offering proof to back up #1's subject line

#7 conveniently moved the goalpost from #1 in the body of the post, despite the subject line which denied #1's general theme. I'm just
glad to puncture another aspect of Clintonian revisionist history I've seen repeated ad nauseum here: that there was never ever any
inevitability meme of any kind from the Clinton campaign. As for Iowa, it's clear that Penn is trying hard to lower expectations now,
although I suspect his 350 pp. "Hillary Is Inevitable" memo of a few months ago did not make any exceptions. I'm just waiting for
Hillary to throw some of her support to Edwards in order to block an Obama win.

[BootinUp]

70. This thread is about Iowa friend. nt

[ClarkUSA]

72. #1 was not about Iowa, it was about the existence of 'the "inevitability" meme'

Friend is better than "Rovian attack dog". I'll take it. ;-)

[TwilightZone]

71. The thread is about Iowa. Check out the poll.

[ClarkUSA]

75. #1 was referring to the "inevitability" meme, which you said was a media creation in #7

You and others here are wrong. It was Mark Penn's creation, according to John Zogby. Another piece of Clintonian revisionist history
bites the dust. Oh well. :hi:

[TwilightZone]

73. That's quite the explanation. Too bad that it's irrelevant.

[ClarkUSA]

76. What's irrelevant is splitting hairs about the "inevitability" meme that was Penn's creation

But you knew that.

[iamjoy]

2. This Is Bad News

I like Hillary Clinton, but I think she would be a disastrous nominee. Since there's been the fewest smears against Hillary than against any of the other "top" candidates, I can only assume they are holding back until it is too late for us to do anything. She hasn't been vetted by all the mud from the 1990's - voters have just forgotten and the Right Wing Smear machine can't wait to remind them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. If HRC Loses It Won't Be Because Of The Nineties Crap

If it's a referendum on the nineties versus what followed it ,the folks that say what followed was better loose...

Anyway, elections are about the future...

[Tom Rinaldo]

25. She was "vetted" by Ken Starr and a 50 Million Dollar Budget

The office of Federal Prosecutor started out investigating "Travel Gate", Whitewater, and Vince Foster's death, not Monica's dress. And if you think most voters can't remember what it was like living through only the second time in American History when an American President was impeached, you have a lower opinion of most voters than I do. Perhaps most college student voters don't remember it well, but even there I disagree, and students are not on average stupid people who have no grasp of politics before George W. Bush.

Hillary has also been vetted by talk radio for 15 years non stop. What are you talking about, I mean really? Hillary was been the poster child for Republican mass mail fund raising letters between 2000 and 2004 until they gave Dean and Kerry a spin, and then they went right back to using Hillary. And she ran for Senator twice, and won, in one of the two biggest media market states in the nation. Republicans have already used any dirt on Hillary they could find - at least MUCH MORE so than with any of our other Presidential candidates.

[BootinUp]

30. I heard it was 70 million dollars. :-)

[comradebillyboy]

79. Excuse me, but Hillary is the most smeared candidate

here at DU. The level of venom directed at her by the majority DU crowd and so called progressives cant be any worse than what one would expect from Michael the Savage Weiner or Rush or slant-head Hannity. There is noting new on her since the Ken Starr Jihad came up empty 10 years ago. No dirt is left to dig up.

[iamjoy]

86. She Is Attacked A Lot Here

Often unfairly.
But, I do not consider pointing out concerns about her electability to be an attack or smear. It's a legit concern.

The attacks by DU and the other Democratic candidates are NOTHING. The Republicans will run commericals talking about how many times she was investigated and not bother to mention the investigations turned up NOTHING. Sure, there was nothing to Whitewater, but the Right Wing smear machine will conveniently forget to mention that in their attack ad. Expect to hear more about Juanita Broadrrick too. She seems to have it in for Hillary more than Bill, which is a little suspicious if you ask me and reduces Ms. Broadrricks' credibility. But, it will come up anyway.

[CyberPieHole]

83. The "Their holding back the smear" meme...

Doesn't have the ring of truth. No repug has EVER held anything back against the Clintons~~~Fact or Fiction it has been hurled at them continuously since Bill ran for President.

[TwilightZone]

3. The race that most expected to be close is now a tie, and the individual polls all seem to be...

within the MOE.

[cali]

5. I just don't believe any of the polls are reliable indicators of what

will happen on jan 3.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Think One, Two, And Three Will Be Close

It's too close to say who will be one, two, and three but I think we can safely say that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards will be one of those three...

[avrdream]

93. I agree with both of you.

I have learned not to get upset (in either direction) about poll results from Iowa. I'm just waiting for the actual caucusing to start and then my emotions will start seriously going crazy. I love American politics.

[suston96]

10. Brothers and sisters, let us all pray.......

.....for that tie ....or very, very close result, so that the irrelevance of early primaries and the need for one national primary can become more apparent if not more vital to our democratic processes.

[cali]

I can't imagine a worse idea than a national primary

talk about corporate power.

[suston96]

29. By "national" I mean all on the same day.....

...and what kind of power is involved right now in promoting the significance and influence of Iowa and NH and SC on the rest of the nominating process?

Early primaries and their bloated importance are a close second to those cigar smoke filled back rooms where fat guys in derbies picked candidates.

We are talking about the nominations of candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency - constitutional national officers. National officers? A national or single day primary is appropriate and less given to concentrated media or corporate (same thing) interests.

[cali]

47. I thought that's what you meant. And yes, it's a very bad idea.

small state early primaries allow at least the chance of a dark horse non-monied candidate. Huckabee demonstrates that. JE would not be in this race or at least stand a chance if there were a national one day primary. Retail politics would vanish. It would be about who could run the most and the slickest ads. That's it. Unless there's radical campaign finance- not happening anytime soon- there's no way a national primary is an improvement. It would be a disaster. I'll fight like hell to prevent it.

[suston96]

67. You are partly right, but....

Iowa and New Hampshire have been in the grips of media corporations for years.

Small state early primaries have been seized upon by those media corporations and painted with a significance that has no relation to what the voters in the rest of the nation might want to see in their national nominees.

Like it or not, a basic and ingrained two-party system means that one of the nominees of those two parties will become president. Therefore, the method least subject to corruption by corporate media influences is clearly a national primary on a given day.

Let Chris Matthews and his ilk try to manipulate such an onslaught of state primaries that all happen on the same day.

[BootinUp]

68. The only way to cut through the media impact

to any degree is to reach out directly to voters on the ground with whatever limited resources one can muster. That is more easily done in small states. jmho.

[suston96]

74. But you have candidates competing with national media elements...

...concentrated in those small early states, media which have long decided whomever they will back. That is an unfair and dangerous match. No thanks.

Pick a day: the first Tuesday in March or April, or some such, and every state holds its nominating or preliminary elections does so on that date.

In parliamentary processes, there are such preliminary thinning, eliminations followed by a general election between the top percentage achievers.

[BootinUp]

60. I agree nt.

[MadBadger]

11. Isnt this the same ARG poll that was reported here a couple of days ago?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. I Went To RCP

I noticed it was on top... I noticed it was completed on the nineteenth...That makes it the freshest poll we have... I also noticed the new CNN poll...

[MadBadger]

15. Bullshit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3867624

You started this same kind of thread about this same poll two frickin days ago.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. Is It Or Is It Not The Last Poll In The Field?

Is it or is it not on top of the RCP chart which lists polls in the order of the last day in the field?


And, since you're fucking with me , isn't it ironic that the last two IA polls showing Obama with a lead were conducted by Rethuglican polling organizations?

A simple yes or no will suffice...

[BeyondGeography]

18. Which means it was published on the 20th; today's the 22nd

You posted the same numbers on Thursday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3867624

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. It Was Completed On The Nineteenth

That was the last day in the field...

And the only two relatively new polls were conducted by Rethuglican polling organizations... That's why there's an (R) after Strategic Vision:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

[MadBadger]

26. Youve already done this thread before two days ago

[BeyondGeography]

28. Give it up, man

This whole thread should be deleted.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Why Should It Be Deleted?

If you think it should be deleted , hit the alert button... It would be ironic if this thread was deleted with all the hateful bullshit that is posted here and never deleted...

Everything I said in this thread is true...

The poll was concluded on the nineteenth...No other published poll is as fresh... Even the vaunted Strategic Vision (R) poll which shows Obama leading was concluded on the eighteen , the same day as the Gallup poll which showed him losing:


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

[BeyondGeography]

37. It's a repeat, DSB

How many times do we have to tell you? You're the one who posted these numbers on Thursday and now you post them again on Saturday saying it's a "brand new poll."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. ARG Is The Freshest Poll-It Was Finished On The NINETEENTH

CNN/Galllup and Stratetic Vision (R) were finished on the EIGHTEENTH

That makes it the freshest poll...

Why are you so hung up on polls anyway?

Strategic Vision (Republican) shows Obama winning...

[BeyondGeography]

45. We've rebooted your Thursday thread just to show you how absurd this is

[BootinUp]

48. Two things

First DSB doesn't have to justify posting this thread to you.

Second the poll is still relevant today, whether he kicked a thread that went off the first page or started a new one whats the diff?

[MadBadger]

50. I guess some of us feel there is a statue of limitations on the term "brand new"

and posting another thread about the same poll two days later doesnt qualify as brand new.

[BootinUp]

52. If the outrage

feels good, go for it. lol.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. As Of Now -11:22 EST/12-22 -It Was the Last Poll In The Field Published At Real Clear Politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

If someone can disprove that statement I swear on my mother I Will grind my monitor into little bits and eat in on youtube...

That's how pissed off I am at this character assassination from the anonymity and privacy of a computer modem!!!

[MadBadger]

55. Good citizens check for dupes n/t.

[TwilightGardener]

58. Now THAT I would like to see!

[BootinUp]

38. because Hillary

is the anti-Christ of course, lol.

[MadBadger]

40. I dont think it should be deleted, I just would love to know your rationale

for posting the same poll YOU posted two days ago, passing it off as Brand New

[ClarkUSA]

14. Those "free" mugs put Hillary on top... or maybe it's that negative AFSME flyer?

"... the Clinton campaign has been sending out a special glossy mailing to expansion voters. On the bottom is a scratch card that says:
“Itching for change? Show your support for Hillary. Scratch to win your special limited edition gift.”

When you scratch the card, you find out that you have won a travel mug. You mail the card in with your address, and the campaign
sends you a free mug.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7518.html

Get ready for the coronation, now!

[cali]

16. amazing that the posting of a poll can elicit such responses. n/t

[MadBadger]

20. The thing that pisses me off is the OP is passing this off as a brand new poll

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3867624

Funny how the same person posted the same poll two days ago, and called it brand news. Its like, havent heard news in a couple days? Well, lets remember the good news for Clinton!

[TwilightZone]

22. Oh, my goodness. It's two days old?!?!? Alert the press!!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

39. Can You Do A Screen Saver?

The polls are listed in the order of the (((((last day of polling)))), not when they were released...The latter wouldn't make any sense...


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

[TwilightZone]

54. In case it wasn't obvious...

I was being sarcastic. I was responding to the claim that a two-day old poll is apparently ancient history.

I find it hilarious that DU will readily declare that events that took place 20-30 years ago are relevant, then claim that a poll completed two days ago is "old".

[ClarkUSA]

31. More truthiness from Hillaryworld!

Love your endorsement OP, btw...

[MadBadger]

32. Thanks

This OP is completely disengenious, passing this poll off as "BRAND NEW!" Especially when the same person posted this thread two days ago.

[ClarkUSA]

36. lol! BUSTED!

I guess the Clintonian psych-ops team is starting out bright and early. But for you, they would have succeeded. Thanks! :hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. You Never Answered My Questions In Post Twenty Three

~

[ClarkUSA]

81. Your "Brand New" OP title is misleading and this is the 2nd time you've posted this.

I try to make it a point to include the poll data collection period in all my OPs, for example.

[TwilightZone]

19. Oh, good. Another person obsessed with Hillary's mugs.

Newsflash: Hillary's campaign is not the first to give out free items during a campaign.

Ever heard of bumper stickers? Buttons? T-shirts?

Oh, my goodness! That makes them all guilty! All of the candidates are pandering because they give out free stuff to their supporters!

Guess that we had better eliminate them all from contention for pandering.

You guys are too funny.

[ClarkUSA]

33. Um, it was a brilliant marketing ploy... as explained in another OP devoted to the subject

Just brilliant. Really.

In fact, I want one. Really.

[TwilightZone]

63. I thought that you were being sarcastic.

Sorry. The only thread I saw on the issue was one claiming that the mug thing was pandering to women.

[babylonsister]

42. This is newer: Poll: Obama More Electable Than Hillary AND Edwards

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/poll_obama_more_electable_than_hillary_and_edwards.php

Poll: Obama More Electable Than Hillary AND Edwards
By Eric Kleefeld - December 21, 2007, 12:45PM

A new Zogby poll shows that Barack Obama is the most electable of the top three Democratic candidates, followed by John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

Of the three Dems, Obama is the only one to beat five Republicans in all match-ups. Hillary loses to Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, while Edwards can beat Huckabee but loses to Giuliani and McCain.

The full numbers are available after the jump.

Obama (D) 53%, Romney (R) 35%
Obama (D) 47%, Huckabee (R) 42%
Obama (D) 48%, Giuliani (R) 39%
Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 43%
Obama (D) 52%, Thompson (R) 36%

Clinton (D) 46%, Romney (R) 44%
Huckabee (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 43%
Giuliani (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 42%
McCain (R) 49%, Clinton (D) 42%
Clinton (D) 48%, Thompson (R) 42%

Edwards (D) 50%, Romney (R) 38%
Edwards (D) 47%, Huckabee (R) 41%
Giuliani (R) 45%, Edwards (D) 44%
McCain (R) 46%, Edwards (D) 42%
Edwards (D) 51%, Thompson (R) 35%

* print
* share

PERMALINK | TOPICS: Clinton, Obama

Advertisement
Comments (152)
bridoc wrote on December 21, 2007 12:52 PM:

Mmmmm...saucy. And this is still with Obama being less well known in many states. If nominated and other states get the exposure to Obama over the next year that Iowa has received, I have no doubt that these margins would only swell as the general election progressed.

(Consequently, the opposite seems to hold true for Hillary)

Fired Up! Ready to Go!!
Michael wrote on December 21, 2007 12:57 PM:

Eric-this should come as no surprise. The myth that Edwards is the most electable is just that, a myth. One only need glance at these pollster graphs to see that Obama's aggregate margins vs GOP matchups exceeded those of Edwards and Clinton as far back as 6 months ago.

Nobody's bothered to ever challenge the notion, b/c Edwards is white and southern and male. But the numbers simply do not bear it out. This is more evidence, but no deviation from the norm that's been in place for quite some time.
Margaret wrote on December 21,

[ClarkUSA]

49. Wow, Hillary loses to Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani AND John McCain???

No wonder she needs a "Likeability Tour".

Thanks for the poll data... what good cheer you're spreading during this holiday season. ;-)

[babylonsister]

51. I aim to please!

:D

[ClarkUSA]

78. That you always do...

Unlike me. ;-)

Oh, and Happy Holidays, in case I forget. :hi:

[lisainmilo]

57. RCP spread average is actually a tie

12/13-12/19

Obama- 28.3
Clinton- 28.3
Edwards- 23.2

that is taking into account all of the polls, see last poll on link

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

[creeksneakers2]

90. And of the latest six listed

Obama won three and Hillary won three. The race is amazingly close.

[huskerlaw]

77. If those numbers make you feel better

knock yourself out believing them. But I've been in Iowa this week and I assure you those numbers are completely wrong.

[jefferson_dem]

80. So giddy about this poll that you had to post two threads trumpeting it as "brand new"?

Ok...

[CyberPieHole]

85. Does the poll upset you so much that you felt compeled to post...

:shrug:

[CyberPieHole]

84. Kick and recommend for Hillary Clinton 44th President of the U.S. of A...

...well, I can hope, can't I?:shrug:

:kick:

[DemKR]

89. Kickin' 4 HILLARY!!!!!!

[TeamJordan23]

91. Too bad this poll is not taking into second place votes....also, why did you post twice about it. nm

[creeksneakers2]

92. I don't think the media and many Obama and Edwards supporters

have really considered that Hillary might win Iowa. All the talk has been about how much trouble she's in. The polls show a very tight race that Hillary is as likely to win as anybody.

If Hillary wins Iowa I predict there will be accusations of a fix or cheating.