Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: ARG Iowa Caucus


A new American Research Group statewide survey of likely caucus goers in Iowa (conducted 12/31 through 1/2) finds:

  • Among 600 likely Democratic caucus goers, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (34% to 25%) in a statewide caucus; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 21%, Sen. Joe Biden at 8%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 6%.
  • Among 600 likely Republican caucus goers, former Gov. Mike Huckabee runs at 29%, former Gov. Mitt Romney at 24% in a statewide caucus; former Sen. Fred Thompson trails at 13%, Sen. John McCain at 11%, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 8%, Rep. Ron Paul at 6%.
  • All other candidates receive less than five percent each. The margin of sampling error is 4% for each subgroup.

 

Comments

Arg predicting indy turnout of 17%.

____________________

That's lower than 2004- 19%

____________________

Anonymous:

ARG's sample model presumes a higher percentage turnout of party regulars. You've got to join the democratic party to Caucus, you can't simply be a republican or independent who wants to party with the Dems for one night. Some of the other surveys more heavily reflect the leanings of independents and republicans who who either won't caucus or won't qualify to caucus.

____________________

Bryan:

ARG polls aren't the most dependable, Independent turnout will not be lower then 2004, that is a fatal flaw in this poll, Indy turnout will be at least 25%, when Zogby's numbers agree with the Des Moines Register poll then you know Hades is Freezing over. The DM poll is predicting at 40% I turnout and a 5% R turnout, That might be a bit high, but let's split the difference between 40% and 17 % and assume an I turnout around 29% and an R turnout around 2%

____________________

Paul:

ARG has Clinton-Obama-Edwards at 34-25-21. The Jan 3 Zogby has Obama-Edwards-Clinton at 31-27-24. The rank order is totally different and the magnitude of differences between the polls appear rather large (Clinton 10, Obama 6, and Edwards 6). Given the differences in rank order and magnitude, we should be able to see which poll "wins the day" and then look to figure out why. As for the Republicans, the differences almost nil. I wonder why there are such differences for Democrats and not so for Republicans?

____________________

Henry:

As Paul said, this new ARG poll, with results almost the reverse of the previous couple Zogby and DMR polls, will in the end give us some answers to all the speculation of Clinton bias, etc.

Seems to me it's going to come down to two main issues:
1. Who shows up more: Old Dem party faithful (more Clinton inclined) or more new caucus goers (more younger, more Independents, more Obama or Edwards inclined).

2. Where all the unviable-candidate second choice votes will go. Kucinich, who I support, recently endorsed Obama as second choice. I can't very well see Richardson voters (second only to Kucinich in anti-war stance) going with the invariably pro-war Clinton. Biden and Dodd are probably a toss-up.

Meanwhile Ralph Naders endorsement of Edwards and Michael Moore's near-endorsement of Edwards will probably give him a slight boost.

In my case, I was torn between Edwards and Obama as my second choice after Kucinich. Then Kucinich endorsed Obama (I'm still trying to figure out why), and at the same time Ralph Nader, who I unrepentantly voted for in the last two elections, endorsed Edwards (who Kucinich also endorsed last time, even though Edwards ran a much less progressive campaign in 04). Between the two, I give Nader the slight nod in judgement and experience over Kucinich, so I'd vote for Edwards as the most progressive, most populist, most leader-like candidate. Meanwhile I see Obama, more reserved, thoughtful, soft spoken, as the best realistic choice for VP, then perhaps Pres in 2016.

In any case, as long as the corporate-money-corrupt ultra-pro-war Clinton machine doesn't come in first or second tonight in Iowa, I'll be happy with the results as we move on to NH.

So with Clinton out, I'm free to say: May the best man win.

Peace.

____________________

Henry:

As Paul said, this new ARG poll, with results almost the reverse of the previous couple Zogby and DMR polls, will in the end give us some answers to all the speculation of Clinton bias, etc.

Seems to me it's going to come down to two main issues:
1. Who shows up more: Old Dem party faithful (more Clinton inclined) or more new caucus goers (more younger, more Independents, more Obama or Edwards inclined).

2. Where all the unviable-candidate second choice votes will go. Kucinich, who I support, recently endorsed Obama as second choice. I can't very well see Richardson voters (second only to Kucinich in anti-war stance) going with the invariably pro-war Clinton. Biden and Dodd are probably a toss-up.

Meanwhile Ralph Naders endorsement of Edwards and Michael Moore's near-endorsement of Edwards will probably give him a slight boost.

In my case, I was torn between Edwards and Obama as my second choice after Kucinich. Then Kucinich endorsed Obama (I'm still trying to figure out why), and at the same time Ralph Nader, who I unrepentantly voted for in the last two elections, endorsed Edwards (who Kucinich also endorsed last time, even though Edwards ran a much less progressive campaign in 04). Between the two, I give Nader the slight nod in judgement and experience over Kucinich, so I'd vote for Edwards as the most progressive, most populist, most leader-like candidate. Meanwhile I see Obama, more reserved, thoughtful, soft spoken, as the best realistic choice for VP, then perhaps Pres in 2016.

In any case, as long as the corporate-money-corrupt ultra-pro-war Clinton machine doesn't come in first or second tonight in Iowa, I'll be happy with the results as we move on to NH.

So with Clinton out, I'm free to say: May the best man win.

Peace.

____________________

Henry:

As Paul said, this new ARG poll, with results almost the reverse of the previous couple Zogby and DMR polls, will in the end give us some answers to all the speculation of Clinton bias, etc.

Seems to me it's going to come down to two main issues:
1. Who shows up more: Old Dem party faithful (more Clinton inclined) or more new caucus goers (more younger, more Independents, more Obama or Edwards inclined).

2. Where all the unviable-candidate second choice votes will go. Kucinich, who I support, recently endorsed Obama as second choice. I can't very well see Richardson voters (second only to Kucinich in anti-war stance) going with the invariably pro-war Clinton. Biden and Dodd are probably a toss-up.

Meanwhile Ralph Naders endorsement of Edwards and Michael Moore's near-endorsement of Edwards will probably give him a slight boost.

In my case, I was torn between Edwards and Obama as my second choice after Kucinich. Then Kucinich endorsed Obama (I'm still trying to figure out why), and at the same time Ralph Nader, who I unrepentantly voted for in the last two elections, endorsed Edwards (who Kucinich also endorsed last time, even though Edwards ran a much less progressive campaign in 04). Between the two, I give Nader the slight nod in judgement and experience over Kucinich, so I'd vote for Edwards as the most progressive, most populist, most leader-like candidate. Meanwhile I see Obama, more reserved, thoughtful, soft spoken, as the best realistic choice for VP, then perhaps Pres in 2016.

In any case, as long as the corporate-money-corrupt ultra-pro-war Clinton machine doesn't come in first or second tonight in Iowa, I'll be happy with the results as we move on to NH.

So with Clinton out, I'm free to say: May the best man win.

Peace.

____________________

Henry:

As Paul said, this new ARG poll, with results almost the reverse of the previous couple Zogby and DMR polls, will in the end give us some answers to all the speculation of Clinton bias, etc.

Seems to me it's going to come down to two main issues:
1. Who shows up more: Old Dem party faithful (more Clinton inclined) or more new caucus goers (more younger, more Independents, more Obama or Edwards inclined).

2. Where all the unviable-candidate second choice votes will go. Kucinich, who I support, recently endorsed Obama as second choice. I can't very well see Richardson voters (second only to Kucinich in anti-war stance) going with the invariably pro-war Clinton. Biden and Dodd are probably a toss-up.

Meanwhile Ralph Naders endorsement of Edwards and Michael Moore's near-endorsement of Edwards will probably give him a slight boost.

In my case, I was torn between Edwards and Obama as my second choice after Kucinich. Then Kucinich endorsed Obama (I'm still trying to figure out why), and at the same time Ralph Nader, who I unrepentantly voted for in the last two elections, endorsed Edwards (who Kucinich also endorsed last time, even though Edwards ran a much less progressive campaign in 04). Between the two, I give Nader the slight nod in judgement and experience over Kucinich, so I'd vote for Edwards as the most progressive, most populist, most leader-like candidate. Meanwhile I see Obama, more reserved, thoughtful, soft spoken, as the best realistic choice for VP, then perhaps Pres in 2016.

In any case, as long as the corporate-money-corrupt ultra-pro-war Clinton machine doesn't come in first or second tonight in Iowa, I'll be happy with the results as we move on to NH.

So with Clinton out, I'm free to say: May the best man win.

Peace.

____________________

Henry:

Very sorry for the multiple posts; I kept getting error messages when trying to post.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR