Newsweek poll in Iowa shows Democratic race far from over

September 29, 2007

When it comes to the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, national polls show Hillary Clinton with a significant lead. In New Hampshire, the latest CNN/WMUR poll showed Clinton way out in front with 43% support, followed by Barack Obama with 20%, and John Edwards with 12%. (It’s worth noting that 55% of poll respondents are still “trying to decide” which presidential candidate to support.)

But what about Iowa, which has consistently been the closest contest? A just-released Newsweek poll is bound to get some attention.

Among all Iowa Democratic voters, Clinton draws 31 percent, followed by Obama (25 percent) and Edwards (21 percent). But among likely caucus-goers, Obama enjoys a slim lead, polling 28 percent to best Clinton (24 percent) and Edwards (22 percent). Bill Richardson is the only other Democratic candidate to score in the double digits (10 percent).

Stay tuned.

I’ve been saying for some time that it was dangerous to nominate Hillary because the Clintonhaters will be out in force to defeat her. But another poll that I read today shows how the leading Democrats would do against various hypothetical Republican nominees. Surprisingly, Obama does the worst. Next best is Hillary. The Dem’s strongest candidate is John Edwards.

Perhaps because he’s a white male.

  • Pingback: www.buzzflash.net

  • This Newsweek poll makes it all the more odd that Obama is the only major Dem candidate skipping the Johnson County Barbeque (home of University of Iowa), and that he was the only one to blow off the Iowa AARP debate (Iowa has one of the oldest average ages in the country). This is his one – and probably only – chance to derail Clinton. Every other scenario requires her to beat herself with a mistake. He needs to do a Kerry and double down on Iowa. (I would say the same for Edwards, but he seems to get it. Only Obama has been doing the weird scheduling.)

  • I just want to see her trip on her shoelaces and end up face down in the dirt. No primary vote, or general election vote, for her here.

  • You mean it ain’t over? I just talked about this on my radio show this morning. The media has crowned Hillary the winning already. I don’t care how many endorsements any candidate gets, momentum matters. Who ever wins Iowa and New Hampshire will have an enormous amount of momentum going into a very shorted primary season. Look for John Edwards to pull out Iowa. He did well there 4 years ago and he has been campaigning there for over a year.

  • Nothing’s over till the fat lady sings, or so I was told when I first came here. If I can’t have Gore (’cause he ain’t runnin’)… And I can’t have Kucinich (’cause he ain’t electable)… I’m pulling for Edwards, with Obama as my second choice. Though, currently, Edwards is tickin’ me off; with the 3rd quarter coming up to a close, it seems like I’m getting a “donate again” message 3 times a day (ditto from everyone else I’ve ever given money to), with no option to check the “please, piss off for the next 3 months” button… Sigh… Give ’em an inch…

  • I disagree with Okee because Obama does amazingly well against the hypothetical Republican nominees. He actually wins all the match ups and Clinton looses and Edwards splits. Lets really be honest the Republican nominees are our Dukakis, nobody really thinks they have a chance and the selection is a joke, so its up to us to win it all.
    Just goto the Obama website and listen to him speak and inspire. People want him to attack, conform, and speak in soundbites. The press is trying really hard to break him but he is unbreakable. He is a Kennedy and a MLK rolled into one, he can and will heal our nation. We need to be inspired in this country once again, vote OBAMA.

  • I’m going to be interested how much impact Iowa and New Hampshire have in this election cycle.

    My untrained eye sees the press already downplaying Iowa – more for the Republicans but also on the Democratic side. They seem to already be setting up the narrative where Iowa “doesn’t matter” because some of the Republicans are blowing it off. If Giulianni loses big in Iowa, for example, and Romney wins, they’re not going to report that as a big deal because, well, Romney has been dumping money into the state and Giulianni has been ignoring it. I think some of that is going to bleed over onto the Democratic side because of “balance”.

    New Hampshire is kind of similar – though less extreme. I’ve never seen the choices of those two states downplayed so much in the run-up to the primary season. I wonder if it’s because we have two completely open primaries for the first time in decades.

  • Scott, I’m not sure what pools you are looking at but there was a media poll (i.e. not candidate sponsored) just within the last few days that showed all three of the top Dems beating all of the top R’s, but Clinton had the biggest leads, then Obama, then Edwards.

    Iowa is one of the top states in the country by percentage in subprime foreclosures; the revelation about Edwards involvement with a company involved in over 100 Iowa foreclosures will not go over well and certainly undermines his core message about helping the little people not the wealthy.

  • Since LBJ pushed through the Voter Rights Act, the Old South has voted Republican in presidential elections & the only Democrats to win the Electoral College have been southerners — there are no indications that that will change in 2008 — it is not that anyone particularly likes any of the particular Republican candidates, they are just going to vote against the Democrat (& Hillary could very well be another Dukakis — reportedly, she polls very badly in swing congressional districts, & that is where the election is decided).

    So Edwards so me (I want to win for a change — losing in a noble cause is called LOSING!)

  • Pingback: Obama Leads in Iowa Poll Among Likely Caucus-Goers - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

    • Comments are closed.