Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Zogby Iowa Democratic Caucus


A new Zogby telephone survey of 502 likely caucus goers in Iowa (conducted 11/6) finds:

  • Sen. Hillary Clinton narrowly leads Sen. Barack Obama (28% to 25%) in a statewide caucus; former Sen. John Edwards trails at 21%, Gov. Bill Richardson at 9%. All other candidates trail at less than five percent each.
  • When votes for candidates with less than 15% are reallocated*, Clinton receives 30%, Obama 29%, and Edwards 27%.
  • *Note: "In the [Democratic] caucuses, a first round of "balloting" is conducted, and those candidates who do not win at least 15% support are ruled "unviable" and supporters are directed to a second choice among those who remained "viable" before a second round of "balloting" is conducted."

 

Comments
Masha:

I sincerely hope Bill Richardson can make it to at least 15% by the primaries. Without him, the Democrats will have a tough run against the republicans. Republicans have already admitted that they're scared the most of running against Richardson. They want to go against Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

____________________

Masha:

I sincerely hope Bill Richardson can make it to at least 15% by the primaries. Without him, the Democrats will have a tough run against the republicans. Republicans have already admitted that they're scared the most of running against Richardson. They want to go against Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

____________________

Paul:

In response to Masha's comment, although Richardson presents an interesting contrast to the front running three, I do not see how he makes it past January. He is running no better than 4th in IA, NH, SC, NV, MI or FL ... he would have no chance to compete on the super Feb. 5 primary day.

____________________

Andrew:

will Clinton implode a-la Dean if she loses in Iowa? Or will she prove resilient like George W. Bush after losing to McCain in New Hampshire?

____________________

EO:

I had made a bet with a friend that the ticket will be Obama/Richardson or Clinton/Richardson. The VP slot is taken, unless Richardson messes up. If he does, then the VP slot will be Clark.

So, if Clinton is on the top, then VP is Richardson or Clark.

If Obama is on the top, then VP is Richardson.

____________________

Ifeoma:

I believe that Mr. Obama will win Iowa. I am from Mn and last Saturday, we went canvassing and it was a good day. I think that the MSM will be surprised on January 3rd.

____________________

c:

"Republicans have already admitted that they're scared the most of running against Richardson."

really?

I like the guy too, but surely his limited traction so far says something.

HRC won't implode like Dean because she's a more disciplined candidate and has a better organized and funded campaign. I still hope Obama pulls it out, though.

____________________

Isaac :

I doubt Richardson is named VP on anyones ticket. The man has a long history of lying for no paticular reason, like claiming that he was a professional (or was it semi) baseball player? Also, during the debates he came off as a shameless self promoter, and while it is clear he is positioning himself to become Hillary's vp, by criticizing the other candidates who went negative on her, I still don't think she'd pick him. Obama has refrained from any harsh direct criticism of her, and is perceived as being warm compared to Hillary who comes off as frigid to voters. Also, there is always Bpb Kerrey of Nebraska or Warner of Virginia who could appeal to more swing state voters than Richardson, who could presumably only carry New Mexico and hell maybe he could influence voters in Nevada.

____________________

Greggie:

I sense an Obama/Edwards deal for the veep spot. Edwards keeps hitting HRC and lays off Obama, and gets the veep slot in return. By the way, if HRC loses Iowa TO OBAMA she will collapse ala Dean. NH is tailor made for an upstart, hope-driven reformer like Obama. Independents will vote in the Dem primary in DROVES for him. Then, fresh off a pair of crucial wins, the African American vote in SC will melt away from Clinton and to Obama. He wins there in a landslide, and she's dead before Super Tuesday. The media environment after an Iowa/NH sweep will be like salt to the HRC slug.

____________________

diago:

Why did Sen. Obama change his religion?Is it for political purpose? If a person is just and caring, can win elections irrespective of what religion he or she belongs.

____________________

Bryan:

"Republicans have already admitted that they're scared the most of running against Richardson."

ABSOLUTELY. There is a big difference in the kind of candidate that does well in the primaries (i.e., appeals to the extreme base) and the kind of candidate that can win a general election. The Republicans know that Richardson can do the later. He was overwhelmingly reelected Governor of NM, a "red" state. He is moderate. He has experience on the most important issues: international relations and security (UN Ambassador; Nominated 4 times for the Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating in international crises); energy (he was Sec. of Energy); immigration (He's the Gov. of a border state, for Pete's sake). Plus he's been in Congress. Far and away the best qualified. Far and away the best broad appeal for a general election. Problem is the dude has no chance -- he doesn't appeal enough to the Dem party zealots to get out of the primaries alive. BTW, the "pro baseball" bit mentioned by Isaac is nothing but fluff the NM Rep. party unsuccessfully tried to make an issue during the governor's race. From what I found on-line, he played for an elite non-pro league that reported him drafted, which caused the confusion. But it doesn't matter anyway, because Democratic primaries are notorious for picking candidates who are not palatable to the rest of the country. So the question becomes, of Clinton, Obama and Edwards, who will the swing voters hate the least?

____________________

I find it interesting all the talk about the candidates as if Hillary hasn't already won. The money is in, Hillary in a landslide.

Don't get me wrong, its not as simple as buying votes, rather the contrary, money flows from support. The support for Hillary is overwhelming.

Iowa doesn't matter. NH doesn't matter. Only Hillary can afford the process in the long run.

Not that I am a Clinton fan. I'm not really...truth of the matter is, while George Bush is a particularly bad president...he is such a bad president because he believed government should use its force to demand its way.

Hillary, unfortunately, largely has the same philosophy, even if, sometimes differing goals. Every 4 years, a candidate says they are for change...there is nothing new about it. What would be nice, is a real, choice.

____________________

Michael B:

If everyone in America had the ambition,integrity,experience,courage and intellect of Hillary Clinton, America would be an even better place to be.In life without healthcare what do we have.Hillary has been a loyal advocate for healthcare for her political career and has a track record where the other democratic candidates are now just talking about it because they know that is what voters want to hear.Hillary has been a consistent backer of American Healthcare where the others are just rehearsing.Not only does Hillary have phenomenal White House experience but has the best foundation of relationships with both national and international leaders.She is also a strong advocate for equal pay for women.May the best woman win for President.

all my best to you,Hillary,

Michael B

____________________

BakerBoy:

I often wonder how so few people really take a look at the whole candidate before making a decision. Michael B is right about HRC's ambition, experience, and even intellect. Integrity however is really stretching it...anyone who has followed the Clinton's for the last two decades knows that integrity is of no value to them. HRC HAS put forth many admirable programs, including those involving healthcare, but has not succeeded in even one single issue of importance. Her international relationships are cool at best but border on dislike in most countries because of her perceived haughtiness. Her husband's behavior overshadows any positive White House experience she may have had, but at best was considered to be a poor First Lady. She has never managed a city, county, state, etc. and is sadly lacking in real leadership skills...
That being said, there are women out there that would make a much better President and hopefully will make it so someday... if HRC is the best we can do, then we are in for a rough term of office should she win.
The sad thing is that few of the candidates are any better... on the whole!! But at least few others will go off "tilting with windmills"...

____________________

algraves:

whe ever votes for a black muslem inexpireince only 3 years in the senate got to be crazy// wake up iowans + america he could be a terroris // vote for the clintons they know how to run this country///go hillary///

____________________



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