ABC poll: Obama 33, Hillary 29, Edwards 20 - "effectively kills the Edwards rising narrative"

[UrbScotty]

This effectively kills the Edwards rising narrative that has been gaining steam, and directly contradicts the insider advantage poll released yesterday showing Edwards trouncing the competition. If ABC is right, it looks like Iowans may be breaking towards a Hillary/Obama binary of choices. I would trust the ABC poll far more here, but who really knows. Anyways, this kills Edwards momentum at least for the time being, and shows Hillary on the heels of Obama, probably because of the DMR endorsement. Strange.

Also notable here, Obama is now running even w/HRC on the issue of "electability". The premonitions of Iowa voters on this issue come on the heels of a new Gallup Poll showing Obama leading Clinton Nationally in hypothetical races against all Republicans.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/19/0126/9421

[aquart]

1. "Kills"?

I do not see a corpse, kiddo.

Gee, Obama really needs to slaughter Edwards, doesn't he? Because every vote for common sense over hyperbole is a vote against Obama. Gosh. Well, looks like it's happening. Rejoice. If only you could do it without sounding petty and mean.

[BL611]

2. I'm an Obama supporter

But this is not true. The insider advantage poll tracks from 12/16-12/17, the ABC poll tracks from 12/14-12/17, which makes the Insider advantage poll more up to date.The narrative at this point is not particularly strong because it is based on one poll and a couple of pundits speculation, but this certainly doesn't prove it to be false beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[MadBadger]

4. I disagree with your assessment

They both end on December 17th, so I dont really see how you can truly say one is newer than the other. Not to mention, no other poll besides Edwards' internal polls should him in first, Clinton in second, and Obama in third. That to me makes it look like that one is an outlier. Plus that was the very first Insider Advantage poll so you cant even see any trends. You cannot simply dismiss this poll. Still, look to the RCP average which has Obama up 3.5 points.

[BL611]

7. I'm not saying its right

just that this poll doesn't prove it wrong. If Edwards surge started two days ago (for whatever reason) as some seem to be suggesting than it is going to be more evident in a poll that tracked for those 2 days, than those 2 days plus the 2 before it. I think if anything the new Rasmussen kills it. But I don't think its really alive yet to kill, we'll see what happens in the next couple of days...

[Capn Sunshine]

3. on-ground Iowa campaign take

Edwards is doing better than the ABC poll, but is not ahead of Obama; tied w/ Hillary.

[jenmito]

5. Even if that's true,

Edwards is done if he doesn't WIN Iowa. Who else has been campaigning in IA for YEARS like he has? If he doesn't win, he'll lose the very little support he has everywhere else. He has no money to compete nationally anyway. Too bad he had to take matching funds.

[Capn Sunshine]

33. I don't know...

IF he catches lightning in the metaphorical respect, since I think his message is finally starting to resonate (finally!) he MIGHT be able to parlay a strong showing in Iowa into fresh online fundraising. I think his supporters are at least as legion as Ron Paul. So IMO he's not done until post Carolinas. If you ask me, if he can keep finishing second, he might go somewhere.

Hillary's campaign will suffer from the inevitable purging that will happen after losing Iowa. This might throw off her momentum, and it was a major screw up to have big dawg imply he's tight with Bushco in the primaries. That doesn't play well with any Democrat except the DLC fringe. So she will need a New Hampshire win worse than any other candidate.

Meanwhile, Hillary's numbers are falling precipitously in Cali and we are positioned for a momentum run similar to what we have accomplished in Iowa. Same with New York. If Obama has a strong finish there, the wheels will come off Hillary's bus.

[Stop Cornyn]

6. The key numbers in the poll were for prior caucus goers: 26% Obama, 25% Hillary, 24% for Edwards

By reporting some Obamaniac's anonymous post on Kos, you miss these sort of important internals.

Also, this polling data was gathered before the InsiderAdvantage data and so is not really inconsistent in that both polls show a three-way race that any of the three top candidates could win.

[jenmito]

8. You're missing the point...

If Edwards doesn't win Iowa, he's done. He had to take matching funds so he can't afford to compete any further and he put all his eggs in Iowa's basket. If he can't win there, where he's been campaigning for several years already, he can't win ANYWHERE and his supporters will more likely go to Obama than Hillary. Hillary being beaten by Obama in Iowa (regardless of Edwards' position) will change the national polls immediately in Obama's favor. Her "inevitability factor" will be gone. Obama's now seen as more electable than Hillary as it IS in the latest poll. IF Hillary wins Iowa and Obama comes in a very close 2nd, he'll still have the money to continue on, unlike Edwards. So Edwards will be finished if he doesn't win Iowa. He should be way ahead of the others.

[Stop Cornyn]

10. You can say that all you want, but that doesn't make it true. If Obama doesn't beat Hillary he's

finished, too. Likewise, Edwards has to beat Hillary in Iowa to have a realistic chance, but Edwards can finish second to Obama in Iowa so long as he beats Hillary.

If Obama -- who has or had a lead over Hillary in Iowa -- doesn't finish ahead of her in Iowa, which state to you think will be the state where he turns it around?

Just name a state that Obama wins and which will shift momentum in his favor if he falls behind Hillary in Iowa. Just name one.

[jenmito]

13. No he's not. HE has the money to continue...

unlike Edwards. If Obama comes in a close 2nd to Hillary he's still in it. South Carolina.

[MadBadger]

14. I think it matters how close of a second

If HRC beats him comfortably, then OBama is done.

[jenmito]

15. "A close second" would be within single digits, probably 5 or less.

Just my opinion.

[Stop Cornyn]

19. Even if Hillary beats Obama by 3% or 4%, then it will be Hillary and not Obama who goes into New

Hampshire with momentum.

If Hillary wins Iowa and beats Obama by 3% or 4%, she will win New Hampshire by an even bigger margin. If she wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, it will be a bloodbath in Nevada.

After than start, do you really think Obama can turn it around in South Carolina and on Gigantic-Tuesday?

Iowa is where Obama MUST make his stand, and he need not win, but he MUST finish ahead of Hillary.

[jenmito]

21. I disagree. It will be a two-person race-Hillary vs. the non-Hillary.

Edwards will be done and his support will mostly go to Obama.

[Capn Sunshine]

34. You're all missing the point- Hillary has LOST Iowa

Barring a miracle or monumental subterfuge on caucus night, numbers don't move the next 14 days. The die is cast. Hillary's campaign took a 30 point lead and reduced it to a loss, or possibly a squeaker win. That is not a winning performance no matter how they finish now. The self-serving assholes who recognize this will start "resigning" the week after Iowa's caucuses.

[Stop Cornyn]

16. Romney has all the money in the world, and Huchabee has none. Yet Romney's falling as Huckabee rises

[jenmito]

17. And? He still has the money to keep competing, unlike Edwards.

And Romney is no Obama. Romney's a phony and it's coming out.

[Stop Cornyn]

25. You don't understand how public campaign financing works, do you? You don't "run out of money" by

spending it all in the early states.

[jenmito]

26. I do understand and he still wouldn't have enough money to run a national campaign.

Too bad he had to take matching funds. I don't like how he claimed it was for moral reasons, though.

[Stop Cornyn]

29. At the time he accepted matching funds, he had more cash-on-hand than ANY Repub and more than

Biden plus Richardson plus Dodd plus Kucinich plus Gravel.

That's a shitload of money.

He didn't NEED to accept matching funds; after all, Richardson didn't and Richardson has less than half the funds that Edwards has. Tt was clearly a choice on Edwards' part.

[jenmito]

30. Who cares how much he had compared to THEM?

He had nothing compared to Obama and Hillary. He clearly DID need to take them. Why else would he have chosen to FOREGO matching funds last Feb. SAYING he was doing so to remain competitive?

[cali]

18. Nope. Huckabees bad news is catching up with him

he's almost lost his lead in Iowa. He's only up 2 over Romney. The Huckabee rise and fall is one of record speed.

[jenmito]

20. Good point.

[Stop Cornyn]

27. My point was that all of Romney's money ($300 per caucus supporter?) couldn't stop Huckabee's rise,

and Huckabee's lack of funds did not preclude his rise.

As another example, both Biden and Richardson are two well-qualified candidates who have campaigned with foreign policy experience as a major qualification. Richardson has outspent Biden 5 to 1 in Iowa, and yet they are neck-and-neck in Iowa.

It is mistaken to assume that it's all about money. Money is important, but it is only one factor.

[Carrieyazel]

9. I doubt one poll effectively means anything. It's a dead heat in Iowa.

Plus, ABC polls are not the most reliable.

[orion9941]

11. When I hear ABC, reliability isn't the first thing that comes to mind.

I don't trust any news org that was an especially loud drummer to the beat of the war drums when it came to Iraq.

[rocktivity]

12. Kills? I can count number of polls I've seen with Edwards above 20%

on one hand.

:shrug:
rocknation

[Bitwit1234]

22. Is this the one an hour ago or the one just in saying Hillary is

leading in double digits. Gee no matter when Hillary is the front runner Obama Idolers screw with the figures.

[K Gardner]

23. I certainly hope not to see the Obama people here take the place of HRC supporters

in nastiness and posting misleading headlines about candidates they feel a threat. Come on, rise above it.

[asdjrocky]

24. As one of the biggest Edwards Supporters here, I have to say-

This is really great news. I mean it. I could not be happier with this. The last thing I want is to see my guy go into Iowa with the MSM telling Iowans they are expected to vote for him. From what I've heard, they don't like that too much in Iowa.

[underpants]

31. They are desperate to bury him

Two more days until the (effectively) last news stories to effect voting come out and they will all be slams on Edwards

[Tejanocrat]

32. Wasn't it funny yesterday when so many non-Edwards-supporters tried to lower expectations for their

preferred candidates by posting all those "Edwards is inevitable" threads?

[Clark2008]

28. The Edwards "surge" may have hit a bimbo eruption.

Whether true or not.

[cali]

36. whether it's about Clinton or Edwards, you are consistently

vile.

[stray cat]

35. Howard Dean wins Iowa and is a lock for the nomination

at least thats what the polls said this far before the last primaries. Oh and Kerry was out of the race.