DECEMBER 27, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
LA Times/Bloomberg [IA -- Dec. 20-26]:
Clinton 31%, Edwards 25%, Obama 22%
Huckabee 36%, Romney 28%, Thompson 10%, McCain 8%, Giuliani 8%
Strategic Vision [IA -- Dec. 26-27]:
Obama 30%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 28%
Huckabee 29%, Romney 27%, Thompson 15%*, McCain 14%*, Giuliani 4%
LA Times/Bloomberg [NH -- Dec. 20-26]:
Obama 32%, Clinton 30%, Edwards 20%
Romney 34%, McCain 20%*, Guliani 17%, Huckabee 12%
--Dayo Olopade
* Numbers to watch?
15 comments
Ha! The LA Times Bloomberg polls assume 500k caucus participants in Iowa...not to be trusted.
The New Hampshire poll assumes that all primary voters are nudists. Also not to be trusted.
- virginiacentrist
December 27, 2007 at 10:59pm
I don't know where you are getting your LATBloomberg Iowa numbers, but it doesn't look like it's coming from the poll. Clinton-29, Obama-26, Edwards-25 - its right there in the link.
- mcfife
December 27, 2007 at 11:31pm
Oops - you're using likely democratic voters. My mistake.
- mcfife
December 27, 2007 at 11:38pm
What a bizarre polling method! I mean...if likely democratic voters narrow the turnout down to 500k, I guess registered democratic voters include a pool of about 5 million voters...
- virginiacentrist
December 27, 2007 at 11:42pm
Virginia, what if the Iowa poll is correct? I won't slit my wrists, but the numbers are worrisome. I'm nervous.
- MOLLYSIMON
December 28, 2007 at 12:36am
Look at when it was taken. Right smack dab in the middle of Christmas and Christmas traveling. And look at the one taken after some of the Christmas bruhaha died down. Big difference. I would wait for some other (post-Christmas) polls before I start to worry too much. Bhutto may have a have an effect there, though, that will be hard to predict, but could skew everthing to Clinton. (Although if there is any justice in the Iowa caucus, it should help Biden. He's the real "experience" candidate. And he has a history of talking about Pakistan.)
- vanwurs
December 28, 2007 at 8:27am
I know that this is rank apostasy around these parts, but I just don't care about any more Iowa polling data. The actual caucus is a handful of days away, right? What say we just wait and see what happens next week?
And I am hard-pressed to offer any real respect to voters that would seriously support an idiot like Huckabee over a statesman like John McCain. Why these people enjoy "first in the nation" king-maker status is beyond me.
- drdannyu
December 28, 2007 at 9:31am
Enough polls already.
- The Ignorant Populist
December 28, 2007 at 9:55am
I'm a poll junky, but I don't think any polls taken between 12/22 and 1/1 are going to be very reliable because of all the holiday travel and what-not. I don't think there'll be any fresh reliable polls before the Iowas Caucuses. I'm therefore assuming it's a three-way jump ball in IA no matter what the polls say between now and then.
- seanwright
December 28, 2007 at 9:57am
So what is it going to take to wipe Iowa off the electoral map? I'm serious. Here I sit in a state with a caucus on February 5--February 5!!!--and my preferred canidates are likely to be off the board by then. I am getting sick of those corn-fed bozos up there who can't count past three (candidates).
And what is the deal with complaining about campaigning during the holidays? You brought it on yourselves, Iowa, by insisting on always cutting to the front of the line. Deal with it, or get out of the way and quit dictating to the rest of us voters here in the real world.
OK, rant over...sheesh.
- cspencef
December 28, 2007 at 11:12am
Mickey Kaus has written why these polls can't be trusted: beyond not knowing who is going to turn out, they don't reflect anything but initial preferences -- these caucuses have key second rounds where supporters of second-tier candidates change votes. Though I don't like it, I'm guessing that Obama benefits more than Clinton and Edwards from that.
- Lymon1
December 28, 2007 at 3:14pm
Lymon1 -
Actually, in every poll I've seen, BOTH Obama and Edwards do well with second place votes. This suggests a really tight race for first with Hillary finishing FARRRRR back in 3rd (her second place votes are less than Biden, if I remember correctly).
Note how Obama has been fighting with Edwards and ignoring Hillary? She's really a non factor in Iowa at this point, in my opinion.
- virginiacentrist
December 28, 2007 at 3:27pm
VC -- Well, all I can say about that last point is that I hope you're right.
- drdannyu
December 28, 2007 at 4:08pm
My theory is that this format (where second place votes count for a bunch) is pretty bad for a polarizing candidate like Hillary. Can she hit 30% of SOLID support? Sure. But those 2nd place numbers really hurt her.
- virginiacentrist
December 28, 2007 at 4:42pm
Anyone: What happens if Edwards barely beats Obama in Iowa and Hillary comes in a bad third? Does Obama absolutely have to win Iowa? Don't know, just asking.
- jhildner
December 28, 2007 at 8:55pm