« AMES: Not So Fast, Sen. McCain | Main | South Carolina Moves: Some Questions And Tenative Answers »

Clinton and Obama Gain Ground In Iowa

09 Aug 2007 12:20 pm

Maybe it's just the heat, but something happening in Iowa. Two Iowa polls of solid methodology -- last week's Post/ABC and today's, released by the University of Iowa, show a virtual dead heat among the Democratic presidential candidates.

Clinton does better when the sample is enlarged to include non just likely caucus voters but Dems statewide, proof for the theory that she has the largest available base. John Edwards maintains a within-the-margin lead among likely caucus goers. His support is dropping.

Why? One possibility is that Iowa Democrats are beginning to see the race as a contest between, increasingly, Obama and Clinton, with Edwards on the verge of losing his status as a frontrunning contender.

The Clinton-Obama exchanges have dominated the last two debates and certainly have accounted for most of the press coverage. Obama might be helped by his steady television ad schedule in Iowa, too. Clinton, who has seen her lead in most national polls rise a bit, isn't on the air at all, so her campaign has every reason to treat these latest two polls as a sign of strength.

There's more good news for Bill Richardson: he continues his slow climb.

Obama seems to have Mitt Romney's problem. To wit: his standing in national polling is going southward and his standing in key state polls is trending in the opposite direction. The audiences are different; Democrats nationwide, who rely mostly on national press coverage for their information these days, could be forgiven if they thought Obama had a rough couple of weeks. The press thought his foreign policy answers were green, and his own ties to lobbyists have come under heavy scrutiny.

Democrats in Iowa, who (in theory) are paying somewhat closer attention and who've gotten to see the candidate during this period, might look past the press coverage and find they like the contrasts Obama is drawing.

But his rise is not coming at the expense of Clinton's fall.

** The only dynamic worth paying attention to in national polling right now is trends; all other things being equal, a trend has some significance; the data points themselves have virtually none at all.

Comments (14)

I think the part that Marc omitted may end up mattering most in December and that is according to this poll:

Candidate Perception: Clinton "Strongest," Edwards "Most Electable"

Usually Iowan end up voting for the "Most Electable" candidate (remember last election?). Even though there is some drop in Edward's numbers he is still at the top. This is a good news for him considering how MSM is obsessed with Hillary/Obama. And if things remain as they are now, Obama supporters may switch their votes to Edwards at the last minute since they would like to deny a victory to Hillary.

By the way, is Edwards running TV ads in Iowa? Marc has mentioned that Obama is running ads.

No - Edwards ran the We the People ad for about a week in IA, otherwise he hasn't been on the air. He has been on the air in a small buy in NH for the past few weeks - but otherwise he is dark everywhere.

The interesting thing about that U of I poll was that the first question asked respondents to name for whom they would vote for president, without the names of the candidates being listed. Among Republicans on that question, Obama was 3rd, behind Romney and Giuliani.

Rasmussen shows the Clinton "bump" in national polling evaporating. Normal week-to-week fluctuations of August polling. Doesn't seem to be a substantial shift.

Edwards gets 26% to HRC's 25% and Obama's 19% among likely caucus goers. That's the same range for Edwards that he's had in most Iowa polls. (See real clear politcs or pollster.com) Once we note the slightly higher "undecided" percent in this poll, meaning voters weren't pushed Ambinder's "Edwards falling" spin just doesn't wash.

Also, the "less likely" caucus goers include 90% of the registered voters polled, hardly a credible turnout projection.

Odd headline. I seem to recall Clinton was LEADING Edwards in one Iowa poll...how can she be "gaining ground" if they're in a dead heat, and if she had been leading at one point?

Marc's reasoning to back up his headline is less than convincing...

I'd be surprised if be she were not leading in the national polls. That she's not leading by at least 30 points is actually a failure. 99% of the population already know her. That's why ads won't do any good.
Besides, Obama has more money than her, so she'd be better off spending her money bribing the pollsters and pundits to trump up her ratings.

It is amazing to me that Obama can forsake lobbyist money and say it creates undue influence and he is a hypocrite. However, Hillary Clinton votes to authorize war, supports it wholeheartedly for 2.5 years, then switches positions and her position "evolves" according to the national press.

Additionally, where is the press coverage questioning the fact that she has never been influenced by the lobbyist money that she takes by the truckload??

On a different note, I am curious to see how HRC's numbers change when she goes on the air in Iowa and elsewhere. It seems to me that people have very concrete views of her. I think it is easy to raise her negatives than her positives at this point in the game.

Lastly, I think the national polls differ from the early state polls, because Obama is so much less known. Those people who are seeing him are liking him. The question is does he have time to introduce himself to the nation?

I am not surprised by the national polls concidering the press cannot gush enough about hillary and do not hold her to the same standards as the other candidates.
Maybe if they actually did thier job by insisting she take a stand or put out at least one policy postiion or have to answer for all her inconsistencies she would not be doing so well.
The press has decided to promote Hillary for the nomination and take out her competition. therefore, where Hillary is concerned, the national press has decided to play her poodle.

Marc, continuing that NBC line about how Clinton is pulling further ahead nationally? She is, in the NBC poll. But in the Rasmussen daily tracking poll, Obama has closed to within 12 points as of today.

Do I know which poll is right? Of course not.

But I do expect the race to tighten more in the coming week as Clinton has been exposed for not only being confused about U.S. nuclear policy regarding non-governmental organizations, but also for being confused about U.S. nuclear policy regarding potential adversary nation states.

And even this tightening of the numbers is meaningless - in August! However the growing perception that Clinton is unprepared on foreign policy and national security issues isn't meaningless.

Obama has the best ability to win against the Rebublicans. He appeals to the independent voter. He has the ability to bring us all together to solve this country's very complicated problems.

The general perception among Edwards campaign workers is that he is loosing momentum. That seems to be confirmed in the UI poll by Professor Redlawsk.

Despite the comments here, Hillary is looking like a strong bet for the nomination and her numbers have been consistantly trending upwards lately.

What I don't understand is, as Seinfeld would say, "who are these people" who are supporting Hillary Clinton? Obama has twice the number of donors, so that's not it. When I search her website for events near me, there are two. On Obama's site there are twenty events. I see no visible effort for her anywhere, but lots for Obama. Obama raises more money than she does, and yet she is called the "frontrunner." It seems like it's "media creation time." The only good part is that what the media creates it will also seek to destroy. Look for a wave of anti-Hillary stories once they get tired of praising her and bashing Obama.