Zogby IA Poll -Clinton -31% Obama 27% Edwards 24%

[DemocratSinceBirth]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2948587520071230

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. The Huckster Is Sinking As I Predicted Two Weeks Ago

The Pugs like Fundys but not the kind of Fundys who scare normal folk... The Huckster scares normal folks...

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

2. Hickabee isn't the only huckster sinking as far as I'm concerned...

And thank god, but if he hadn't run at all, that would've left room for Edwards' rise. Hillary better be a Trojan Horse with some form of a liberal inside, ready to pop out once she's in office, because this country is going to collapse under much more corporatist rule.

[William769]

3. Like it did under Bill Clinton?

Damn those years of prosperity! :eyes:

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

5. So you're pro-corporatist?

To each their own, but I think that's akin to a chicken being pro-Colonel Sanders.

[William769]

6. If thats what you want to call it then yes.

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

7. 1992 isn't 2008

We need someone more liberal than Bill to counterbalance 8 years of radical right rule.

[William769]

8. Someone more liberal than Bill Clinton will not be elected in 2009.

2004 is proof positive of that.

[denem]

13. I disagree

In 2008 the mood is much more strongly against the GOP

[VarnettaTuckpocket]

21. I think Kerry ran as a moderate, and he ran a horrible campaign whatever the case

And I agree with Lamprey that this is a great year to run a progressive candidate, with the Repugs on the ropes. But there is a legitimate problem with running a liberal these days, the media is more reich-wing now, CNN has become faux-lite. Because of media consolidation, an excellent, and sad, example of how Bill was more centrist than was necessary or good for the nation.

Btw, you seem to have missed that in my original post I was only saying I hope Hillary will turn out to be a trojan horse, who will be more liberal in the White House than how she's presenting herself now. You know, low on the media consolidation, NAFTA type crap.

[denem]

12. Hillary isn't Bill

It's obvious but overlooked. Bill lives for adulation, Hillary is somewhere else. Of all the candidates, other than Kucinich, she is least likely to be someone's puppet. What I hope is that her ambition extends to being amongst the greatest US presidents. We shall see.

[William769]

14. I never said she was Bill.

But I do believe the are relatively close on the political spectrum.

[zalinda]

9. You know what, I like Bill Clinton as well as the next dem

but, he did not cause the prosperity of the 90's, the Internet did. For the first time people with very little money could get a business going. And those with ideas could get all kinds of venture capital. I don't see how or where Clinton worked the miracles that has been ascribed to him.

zalinda

[William769]

10. So if Bush had been President then, your saying we still would have have had the same benefits?

On EDIT: Or better yet if the first Bush had been reelected the Country would have bounced back?

[zalinda]

15. I don't know, maybe

All I know is that I didn't see a lot of jobs created, except for the Internet. And the bubble burst soon after jr took office. Of course, Bush Jr screwed up all the surplus, but we will never know for sure.

To be honest, I don't know what Bill did. He was dogged by the RW all the time. It seems there was one scandal after another, I got tired of defending him to others, so I quit many groups. Was life better? Yeah, better than it is now. Did he cause it? I have no idea.

zalinda

[William769]

17. There was nothing to defend on his bad behavior, he did it. Case closed.

But if thats your only reason for not defending him on what he did for the Country, sounds to me like you didn't like him as much as you say you do. Just my two cents.

P.S. As to the other scandels, they were just that scandels that amounted to nothing. I defended him when he was right and took his name in vain when he was wrong.

[William769]

4. K&R!

[maximusveritas]

11. Not much change from his last poll

It was 27-24-21 at that time.

Interesting thing is the 2nd choices:
"Edwards was the most popular second choice with 30 percent, while Obama had 25 percent and Clinton only 12 percent."

Clinton's not looking good there.

[Jai4WKC08]

22. But what Zogby didn't address...

Who are those people caucusing for first? If most of the 2nd place Edwards people are for Obama first, and most of the 2nd place Obama caucus goers are for Edwards -- not impossible, given the numbers -- then it really doesn't affect the final results much unless either Obama or Edwards ends up unviable.

Zogby also didn't talk about urban/rural/small town difference, nor did he mention age/gender differences. I was disappointed by his lack of analysis below the surface numbers.

My guess is that Obama's support will be much like Dean's in 04. Young people are not as reliable about showing up as older ones are. Unless the weather's bad, of course, in which case many of the older caucus goers will stay home.

If either Edwards or Obama ends up unviable, the other will win the caucus, but I don't expect that to happen. I also think most of the Richardson, Biden, and Dodd supporters will go to Hillary if they are unviable, which I do expect. Kucinich supporters will probably go to Edwards, unless they remember the double-cross in 2004, but there won't be enough of them to really matter.

For that matter, I don't think Iowa will matter that much this time around. It'll give the winner a bump in NH, a smaller bump SC, but it just wont affect Tsunami Tuesday states that much. That's where the nomination will be decided.

[book_worm]

16. Very close. The problem for Hillary is that among second choicers she runs third

and in Iowa that will be important. A candidate has to have 15% to be relevant, so the ? is where will supporters of the second tier candidates go? If Hillary loses it will probably be because she didn't have enough support to win as a first choice but because somebody might be able to gather enough votes from people who support second tier candidates to defeat her.

[TeamJordan23]

18. A far third too. I think Obama or Edwards will pull it out. Hopefully it is

Obama and not Edwards (who will likely give Hillary the nomination)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Here

"Importantly, if you eliminate the potentially 'unviable' candidates and redistribute their supporters' second choices, the result is: Clinton 35.8%, Obama 33.4%, Edwards 30.8%."


It is too soon for clarity in either party. On the Democratic side, Clinton leads in the Central part of the state and is tied with Obama in the West and East. She also picks up the largest share of Kerry supporters from 2004, Democrats, and does particularly well among voters over 50, liberals, and both the lowest and highest income groups. Her supporters are strongest -- 76% say they are ‘very strong’, compared to two in three of Edwards' supporters and 57% of Obama's. She also leads among those who are ‘definite’ they will vote (as opposed to ‘very likely’).





http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1406

[Colobo]

20. It's so close! A political junkie's dream!

[Jai4WKC08]

23. Thanks

Those figures reflect the data I was looking for in #22 above. I watched C-SPAN and didn't hear Zogby discuss these numbers.

[JackORoses]

24. those 2nd-choicers are going to sink Hillary's battleship

don't you think?

[William769]

26. 1st choicers are going to sink Obama's.

[suston96]

25. Hillary doesn't have to win in Iowa or NH....

...she can be the comeback kid - like the NE Patriots, and do it all in the 4th Quarter......

Then on to the perfect season finale on Feb 5.