Friday’s political round-up

December 28, 2007

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* With just six days remaining before the Iowa caucuses, the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll finds that there’s still no obvious frontrunner. In Iowa, Hillary Clinton leads with 29%, followed by Barack Obama with 26%, and John Edwards with 25%. (Clinton’s lead gets larger when the poll narrows to likely caucus goers, but the margin of error goes up, too.) In New Hampshire, the LAT finds Obama inching ahead with 32%, followed by Clinton at 30%. Edwards a distant third with 18%.

* Among Republicans, the LAT/Bloomberg poll found that Mike Huckabee still leads in Iowa with 37%, followed by Mitt Romney with 23%. John McCain and Fred Thompson are tied for third with 11% each. In New Hampshire, Romney leads with 34%, followed by McCain with 21%. Giuliani is third with 14%.

* For even more poll news, Strategic Vision, a GOP pollster, also shows the Democratic race in Iowa to be very tight. In this poll, Obama holds a very narrow lead with 30%, followed by Clinton at 29%, and Edwards at 28%.

* As for Republicans, Strategic Vision shows Huckabee in the lead, but by a smaller margin. The former Arkansas governor has 29%, followed by Romney with 27%, Thompson with 15%, and McCain with 14%.

* An AP poll released late yesterday reminded us of just how much things can change in the 11th hour: “Dig beneath the surface of the raucous Republican presidential race, and you will find even deeper turmoil: Four in 10 Republican voters have switched candidates in the past month alone, and nearly two-thirds say they may change their minds again.”

* Perhaps no one constituency in the country is as happy about the presidential race as sales directors at Iowa television stations. In 2004, Dem candidates broke a record by spending $9.1 million of TV ads in Iowa. This year, the Democratic field has spent $23.7 million.

* And there are more ads to come: “Democrat Hillary Clinton has purchased two minutes of airtime on every Iowa television station to deliver her ‘closing argument’ on the eve of the Iowa Caucuses, her campaign announced Thursday. The campaign says the message will air on every 6 p.m. news broadcast across the Hawkeye State.”

* Obama is getting a hand in Iowa from retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, who campaigned for Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000. He told a crowd yesterday that Obama is “what the joint chiefs want to see — somebody they can rely and depend on.”

* And in New Hampshire, Romney wants to make sure McCain doesn’t get too much closer, so he’s going negative: “The text: McCain is on the wrong side of taxes and immigration, two core issues for GOP regulars. The subtext: ‘For the future?’ flashes on the screen under McCain’s picture. In other words, the 71-year-old McCain is yesterday’s news not tomorrow’s promise. Does (can?) McCain hit back with a response spot?” Time’s running out.

That LA Times poll has some great questions and some really interesting results when one looks at the details. You really see a Republican party that is disspirited and in disarray (my faves are Q64-Q65, where 22% of the Party of Morals says that learning a candidate had an extramarital affair would increase the likelihood of their support!)

The poll details strongly suggest that Romney can’t win Iowa; they also show HRC is much stronger than people think – and to address directly the “people just wont vote for her” meme, 16% of Dems say they could never vote for HRC — the same number, 16%, say they could never vote for Obama. Numerous Republicans do worse among their own party than that.

Indeed, there are a lot of morale boosters in that poll – on questions like which candidate can beat the other party. A whole lot of Rethugs say “not sure,” while many Dems say “any of ’em.”

Interesting stuff all around.

  • The LAT Poll simply does not fit with other, larger polls and does not echo what we are seeing on the ground. It may reflect the desires of their liberal constituency more than the opinions of the people of Iowa.

  • Clinton has done very well in Iowa since Christmas and is now favored to win in Iowa

    Odds to win
    Clinton 45%
    Obama 38%
    Edwards 18%

    huckabee 59%
    Romney 32%
    McCain 5%
    Thompson 2%

  • For even more poll news, Strategic Vision, a GOP pollster, also shows the Democratic race in Iowa to be very tight. In this poll, Obama holds a very narrow lead with 30%, followed by Clinton at 29%, and Edwards at 28%.

    Wow, that’s interesting that the Republican poll (Republican activists hate Hillary) has the opposite result of the other poll, with Hillary behind Obama, instead of leading him.

    * Obama is getting a hand in Iowa from retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, who campaigned for Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000.

    ?!?

  • Whoops, messed up my html tags.

    The quote about a Republican trying to push Obama ahead of Hillary was supposed to be in italics, to read:


    * Obama is getting a hand in Iowa from retired Air Force Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, who campaigned for Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000.

    My comment:

    ?!?

  • People are relying too heavily on polls and trading predictions for Iowa. Iowa is near impossible to poll and trading predictions are based mainly on polls. Before Kerry won Iowa, he was at 18% and Dean was about 10% higher. I believe Kerry won Iowa with about 37% of the vote and Dean got 8%. The bottom line is NO ONE knows what’s going to happen in Iowa.

  • Here’s another reference to how difficult it is to predict Iowa. It uses 2004 Zogby polls to prove the point.

    Poll-obsessed media stresses strategy over substance:
    http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=12&a=320735

    Before the Iowa caucuses –
    “Kerry was in third with 18 percent, followed by John Edwards at 5 percent. A Zogby poll from around the same time had a closer race between Dean and Gephardt (26 to 22 percent), with Kerry and Edwards picking up 9 and 5 percent, respectively….And what happened when Iowa Democrats actually caucused? Kerry won with 37 percent, followed by Edwards at 32 percent. “Front-runners” Dean and Gephardt finished with 18 and 11 percent, respectively.”

    No one knows what’s going to happen in Iowa.

  • Wow, that’s interesting that the Republican poll (Republican activists hate Hillary)… -Swan

    Republican activists also hate:

    Obama
    Edwards
    Puppies
    Fact Checking
    Cornflower Blue

  • I just saw a story on the news about the bizarre rules and procedures of the Iowa Democratic caucuses. Well, bizarre to me, anyway, I guess Iowans must like them. But really, if you need a 75-page instruction book just to tell you how to get through the process then that seems just a leeetle bit over the top for my tastes.

    Oh, well, whatever works. Have fun out there, folks! 🙂

  • They’ve just made her into a scapegoat for everything that irks them about their lives.

    Granted, conservative thinking is largely about scapegoating (Politics in a nutshell: conservative voters think that voting to hurt black people will improve their lives– it really won’t– while Republican leaders lead them on to believe that it will and even to believe that the Republican leaders are going to do more to hurt black people than they actually are. Liberals are out to help everybody, even black people, and the Republicans have to cover up the core message of Republican ideology to make politics in America comfortable and to make it possible for the Republicans to succeed politically. Smaller fights– over gay rights, women’s role in society, or orthodoxy in, and supremacy of, Christian religion, etc.– are analogous to this fight).

    But Hillary is someone they focus more on, the totem for all they despise.

  • Republican activists hate Hillary more than they hate Obama, Edwards, puppies,
    fact checking, or cornflower blue.     -Swan

    Well, like with most everything you write I completely disagree.

    Frankly, I assumed you’d make the opposite argument, since you’re a Clintonista. Why do you support someone who by your own admission is hated above all else and therefore cannot bridge the divide and pull any Republicans into the fold?

    They’ve just made her into a scapegoat for everything that irks them about their lives. -Swan

    They do that with all things Democratic. Bill and Hillary have only gotten the worst of it for the last seven years because of their position in history. Al Gore also gets the same hatred, and would more so if he were running for office.

  • Having just completed a semester of probability and statistics, I find all this polling data interesting. The reality is we CANNOT know who will win in Iowa. We can be somewhat sure that for the Dems it will be Clinton, Obama or Edwards.

    Who the hell knows who the Reps will settle on? The fact that every state seems to favor a different candidate and that the numbers are shifting all the time suggests to me that the Reps are not happy with any of their choices.

    The consisitently close numbers among the Dems in Iowa suggests they have a strong field and are conflicted over who to choose. If I were to go out on a limb I would predict that Edwards does not win, so the question then becomes who do his supporters choose, Clinton or Obama? Tough call. I don’t know. My preference is Obama. Yours? Personally, I am tired of the same old players making the same old empty pledges. I want an outsider. Obama is the closest we are going to get to that. And he stands up well in every hypothetical matchup I’ve seen. That says electibility.

  • As always polls pick the names but as with many of my friends we only care about Kucinich and have never been polled on anything.

    Also I notice Paul’s name is never mentioned either in spite of raising more funds than anyone else.

    They may not register in the polls but Kucinich has a lot of support.

    Do the polls and the MSM always pick whose names will be rammed down our throats?

    How is it “none of the above” becomes the ones the MSM and the polls always talk about?

  • I would support whoever wins the dem nomination but I don’t see much difference at all between Obama and Clinton. Both are more of the same corporatocracy we’ve had for the last 12yrs. Neither has taken a bold stance in anything but rhetoric against this administration. Both include private ins cos in healthcare plans, both have basically the same Iraq plans, both said they would but neglected to come and stand with Dodd to filibuster telecom immunity, neither will make much of a change in our trade policies, neither are willing to make this administration accountable or diminish the outrageous defense budget and both will continue the “look how tough we are” foreign policy in spite of their diplomatic rhetoric. Our economy will collapse shortly before they would take office and neither has anything but a denial plan so far. For not impeaching we will lose the dollar as the world currency and neither has a reference to a plan as to how to go forward. Without a plan for some very radical changes like what the FDR administration ended up putting in place the next president will inherit an empty box of band aids and a bucket of lies as the perpetrators flee to Dubayy with the treasury.

  • If no one speaks up for Kucinich or Paul, how are they supposed to win?

    Kucinich is even said not to have any offices in Iowa.

    Not that I care about Iowa, honestly. I’d like to be in a country where the presidential candidates spent as much time in every town.

    • Comments are closed.