Clinton Falls to Third Place in Iowa (by John Nichols for The Nation)

[marmar]

BLOG | Posted 05/20/2007 @ 12:22pm
Clinton Falls to Third Place in Iowa
John Nichols


Hillary Clinton's campaign is running into trouble -- potentially very serious trouble -- in Iowa.

The latest and best poll of likely Democratic caucus goers in the first state that will weigh in on the 2008 nomination race has Clinton falling to third place. And that's not the worst of it. As Clinton stumbles, a new contender with potential to eat into her base it rising rapidly.

The Des Moines Register survey has former North Carolina Senator John Edwards solidly in first. Edwards, who ran second in the 2004 Iowa caucuses and has worked hard to maintain his organization in the state, is at 29 percent. That's about where he has been for some time in Iowa, where caucus goers will do much to define the direction of the 2008 race as it hist full speed next January.

In second place is Illinois Senator Barack Obama with 23 percent.

Clinton musters a mere 21 percent -- down significantly from her position in several previous polls -- to secure the No. 3 position.

But Clinton, the presumed frontrunner nationally, does not just have to worry about who is ahead of her in the first-caucus state. She's also got to watch who is coming from behind. ....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=197223

[Hardrada]

1. We're fighting her here so you won't have to fight her over there

wherever you are.

Go Hawks!

[Colobo]

2. LOL!!! Hahahahaha!

Loved it! :)

[frankenforpres]

3. i like Hillary

but that is funny

[papau]

10. LOL-polls this early mean little-but for the record Hillary leads in IOWA - doubled her vote in 5 mo

http://www.kcci.com/news//detail.html

Clinton, Richardson Make Gains In Exclusive KCCI Poll
GOP Candidates Hold Steady

POSTED: 4:50 pm CDT May 17, 2007
UPDATED: 10:25 am CDT May 18, 2007

Research 2000 Iowa Poll was conducted May 14-16 via statewide telephone interview of 600 likely Iowa voters. Sample conducted among likely Democratic caucus voters totaling 400 respondents- margin for error is 4%.

QUESTION: If the 2008 Democratic Primary for President were held today, which of the
following candidates would you vote for? (ROTATED):
....................ALL MEN WOMEN
Hillary Clinton..... 28% 25% 31%
John Edwards........ 26% 29% 23%
Barack Obama........ 22% 20% 24%
Bill Richardson...... 7% 9% 5%
Dennis Kucinich...... 2% 2% 2%
Joe Biden............ 2% 3% 1%
Chris Dodd........... 2% 2% 2%
Mike Gravel.......... 1% 1% 1%
Undecided (NOT READ) 10% 9% 11%


DES MOINES, Iowa -- An exclusive KCCI-TV poll released Thursday shows that Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton is leading as the top presidential candidate and John McCain holds steady as the top Republican presidential contender.<snip>

It also shows that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has edged up the list of Democratic candidates. The poll puts GOP candidate No. 2 Rudy Giuliani among Republican candidates and Mitt Romney is No. 3, according to the poll.<snip>

It also shows that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has edged up the list of Democratic candidates. The poll found that Rudy Giuliani was second among Republican candidates and Mitt Romney is No. 3, according to the poll.<snip>

In KCCI's exclusive poll taken in December, participants were asked whom they would vote for if the Democratic caucus were held today. Democrats John Edwards and Barack Obama were tied for the top second spot spot at 22 percent. Former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who is no longer running, was No. 3 with 12 percent.<snip>

[Colobo]

11. According to one poll, according to the other...

[papau]

12. True - both with between 4 and 5% MOE - IOWA poll was 5/12-16, other was 5/14-16 so 12&13th were bad

for Hillary I guess!

:-)

[DemDem07]

13. Awesome

:toast:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Haha!

Post of the day!

[Bluzmann57]

4. I've been to Clinton, IA

Oh wait, a woman named Clinton...never mind.

[1776Forever]

5. Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart for six years have anything to do with it???

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05182007/transcript3.html

BILL MOYERS: Populist, neo-populist-- social Democrats.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Meanwhile, the Clinton wing of the party is in the ascendancy. Let's not forget Hillary Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart for six years when her husband was governor of Arkansas. She is now making some symbolic anti-Wal-Mart gestures. But at heart, she's very much allied with the retail lobby. Just to give you a sense of how powerful Wal-Mart has become, Fritz Hollings told me-

BILL MOYERS: Former senator from--

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Senator from South Carolina.

BILL MOYERS: Democrat.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: --anti-free trader-- told me not long ago that when he introduced a port security bill after 9/11-- which would have put a $15 surcharge on every container that comes into an American port to pay for extra security, Wal-Mart and the retail lobby killed it. That's why we don't have a port security system because they don't wanna pay the extra $15 a container. That's how powerful they've become. Even--

BILL MOYERS: Because they want cheap prices for the consumer-

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Because they want cheap prices for the consumer.

BILL MOYERS: They want to right.

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Right.

BILL MOYERS: And the American citizen wants cheap products--

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: Well, that's the way they put it. But what they really want to do is make more money for Wal-Mart and make Wall Street happy. So one of the things that's great about manufacturing in China is that you cannot form a union that's independent of the government union, the Communist Party controlled union. Wal-Mart loves that. They have dedicated factories in China that manufacture exclusively for Wal-Mart.

BILL MOYERS: But globalization is here. The free movement of money, the free movement of ideas, the free movement of goods. You can't reverse that, can you?

JOHN R. MACARTHUR: You could if you slapped tariffs on certain imports. "Tariff," the word "tariff" has become a dirty word in this country. A protective tariff aimed at protecting certain industries, certain groups of people is perfectly all right. The Japanese do it. The Japanese have one of the highest standards of living in the world, one of the best healthcare systems. They have the highest tariffs of industrialized, among unindustrialized nations. They protect their home market against cheap imports.

****************

I am learning toward Gore or Edwards right now -
:kick:

[papau]

7. No -Most know WalMart always had the Gov's spouse on the Board &was indeed good to ee's up to

92 when Sam died and they went from being another anti-union company to a company at war with employee pay and benefits. Hillary's reputation while she was on the WalMart board was as a fighter for the employees - esp for equal treatment for female employees.

As to John R. MacArthur of Harpers, he is a good guy that sometimes sees things - or at least tries to imply things -that are not there - as when he told the world - in 2006 - about how Gen. Wesley Clark was "a Clinton lieutenant".

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. That is false

From all accounts HRC did not even have the courage to utter a statement against Wal-Mart's anti-union policies.

[rinsd]

31. Wow on the Walmart board 15+ years ago

:eyes:

[illinoisprogressive]

6. I support Obama but, I also like Richardson. Glad to see Hillary tumbling.

[jefferson_dem]

8. If Hillary falls to third in Iowa, she'll have some explaining to do, a la Gephardt in 2004,

Gramm in 1996, etc.

[Botany]

9. The John Edwards Bandwagon is rolling

Outside of Al Gore he is the one "they" fear.

[IA_Seth]

14. The bandwagon has been parked here for a few years...

Edwards has campaigned in Iowa for going on what, 4 years now? How is he doing in the states where he hasn't been?

[1932]

16. Once he goes there, the chances are that people will respond to him

the way others who got to know him responded.

[1776Forever]

27. Agree - it bothers me the more I read up on "they" and there agenda!

I wonder what the real truth is! I keep trying to do my research on it and find a lot about the issues of outsourcing popping up. It isn't looking good at all for some of the so called middle class "champions". How much money and power do some of these candidates need to feel fulfilled?

:dilemma:

[MH1]

15. Who is coming from behind - Richardson

That is also good news.

[UrbScotty]

19. Indeed. He's my #2 pick at the moment. (nt)

[calteacherguy]

21. Richardson is a great candidate. Probably will end up being my choice. nt

[IA_Seth]

24. VERY good news.

I will say that the Richardson bump is probably due to the fact that he recently began airing some TV ads in Iowa (and NH if I am not mistaken)... and I believe he is the only Dem to have done so at this point. They are pretty clever ads too.

Not to detract from Richardson though, he is a solid candidate that is in my top 3 (and the only one of my top 3 that is running!).

[snowbear]

40. I really hope Richardson continues to pick up steam..

[Jacobin]

42. I like that

But I don't like Richardson's stance on Gonzales, at all

[calteacherguy]

20. That's nice. nt

[skipos]

22. I read in a recent poll that the more people are paying attention, the less they support Hillary

Anyone remember that? That probably explains why Hillary has big leads in most of the national primary polls, but not so much in the Iowa and NH polls.

[wyldwolf]

23. "The latest and best poll" LOL! Like I've been saying, polls are meaningless until...

...the candidate you like leads or the candidate you don't like doesn't lead. Why is this the BEST poll? Nichols didn't bother to explain that.

[rinsd]

28. The latest and best poll....as opposed to Zogby who also did likely caucus goers.

[SaveElmer]

25. What is truly funny...

Is that the very people who were making the case that "polls are meaningless" this far out, are now absolutely certain that Hillary is fading, on the basis of one poll that came out two days after another poll had her in the lead....

What is actually more astounding is how poor Edwards is doing considering he has practically made Iowa his second home over the last year!

[Ethelk2044]

43. You are really funny.

You have been pushing polls a lot on here. If they go against Hillary they are inaccurate. If they are for Hillary then they are correct? laughable.

[SaveElmer]

57. Show me a single instance where I have claimed a poll is inaccurate...nt

[DemDem07]

26. This DM Register poll is of likely caucus attendees.

The KCCI showing Hill making gains was taken of likely voters.

Big difference.

[wyldwolf]

29. NOT a big difference

Other states have primaries. Iowa has caucuses. The only difference is the way the results are achieved are much more complicated. A likely voter in Iowa choosing among the Dem nominees is a likely caucus attendee, however. There is simply no other way to "vote" during a nominating season in Iowa.

[DemDem07]

32. That makes no sense what so ever.

The difference between the number of folks who show up at caucus and those who vote at the polls is night and day.

[wyldwolf]

34. Make perfect sense. In Iowa, you don't vote for the Dem nominee at the polls

So if you're going to vote for the Dem nominee, it HAS to be at a caucus. So if a likely voter is polled in Iowa in regards to the Dem nominee, it is the same as being a likely caucus goer.

[DemDem07]

38. Makes zero sense.

Prove that the voters polled have ever attended a single caucus in their life and you might redeem your crumbling argument.

It was likely voters not likely caucus voters.

[wyldwolf]

39. well, then, you prove the likely caucus goers have ever attended a single caucus

:shrug:

It isn't about whether they have ever attended a caucus. It is about if the are likely to next year. All you have to say to that question is yes or no.

If somone is a likely voter in Iowa, they're a likely caucus goer because there is no other way they are likely to cast a vote.

[DemDem07]

41. You are proving how little you know about Iowa

The likely caucus goers were picked from a list of previous caucus attendees. That's where Zogby gets my name for there polling of caucus attendees.
The rest of your post is too confusing to follow.

[wyldwolf]

44. I know much about Iowa. Refute anything I've said about it.

But you are showing how little you know about the definition of "likely voter" or in this case "likely causus goer."

[IA_Seth]

53. The terms...

Likely Voter = Someone likely to vote on election day, Nov-2008

Likely Caucus Goer = Someone that will show up at the caucus, Jan-2008

There is a rather large difference. Dean made the mistake of not thinking so, and look how he fared. There are LOTS of Dems in Iowa, but not all of them are die-hard enough to attend a caucus. I'd guess the lion's share doesnt even know what one is (and that includes 'likely voters')

[wyldwolf]

56. source for that?

I've always heard/read/see that a likely ANYTHING means exactly that - likely.

[DemDem07]

63. "source for that?"

Just good old fashion common sense, thats all. ;

[rinsd]

30. The Zogby poll is also of likely caucus goer and shows a much closer race.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1301

Edwards - 26

Clinton - 24

Obama - 22

Zogby also had a larger sample size and slightly smaller MOE.

[DemDem07]

33. That it does.

:)

[rinsd]

35. I still think Edwards leads. He has in every other poll.

I just think the top 3 is bunched up around 25%.

[DemDem07]

36. Edwards has some key players onboard here in my co.

Obama has quite a few of the Kerry caucus goers sewn up at this point too.

[rinsd]

37. He has pinned most of his hopes to IA.

He needs to win there, do well in NH (though not necessarily win) and NV(I think he has to win this one) and win SC (no small feat).

If Edwards doesn't go into the week before Sooper-Dooper Tuesday this year with 2 or 3 primary wins under his belt, I don't think he has much of a shot.

[SaveElmer]

45. He loses Iowa...he is done...

The only way he can get any momentum going into NH, NV, SC, and Florida if they succeed in changing their primary date, is by winning Iowa...

[DemDem07]

46. Don't tell that to Bill Clinton

[rinsd]

47. Pssssst You are aware Clinton(as well as every other candidate) conceded IA to Harkin

Hillary's camapign was toying with the idea of doing the same when Vilsack was running so her orgon the ground isn't where it should be at this point in time.

[SaveElmer]

48. Bill Clinton didn't pin his hopes on Iowa...

Remember Harkin was in the race, so Bill concentrated on NH, where he came in a strong 2nd to Tsongas, and then moved into Super Tuesday with a strong tailwind...

Edwards has no momentum anywhere but Iowa (and it is pretty anemic given how much time he has spent there), NH (though he still trails), and North Carolina.

Hillary has considerable strength in NH, SC, NV, and FL. Obama has strength in SC. If Edwards loses Iowa, he can kiss NH goodbye and that is it!

[DemDem07]

49. Nice work.

Both of you just debunked your own arguments that one has to win Iowa to go on and win the presidency. :applause:

That kinda takes the fun out of debate though.

[rinsd]

50. Not every candidate needs to win IA to win nomination but Edwards does.

Because without momentum from that win he will be passed over by the dueling camapigns of Hillary & Obama going into Sooper-Dooper Tuesday.

Clinton won because most of the Dem field conceded IA to Harkin. Gore tried to skip IA and ended up with a fight with Bradley in NH. McCain tried to skip IA and concentrate on NH which worked well in NH though he got killed in SC.

I think if Edwards does not win IA when he has spent so much time and energy there the media will crucify him and he may not be able to recover.

[SaveElmer]

51. Only if you apply the same model to every candidate...

Edwards has pinned his hopes on Iowa...so if he loses...he is done

[DemDem07]

52. Well, That makes everything clearer. Thanks!

[IA_Seth]

54. Where are you?

I'm in Linn County.. Edwards has a lot of die-hards, but there doesnt seem to be much new buzz about him. I see Obama picking up a lot of new supporters, and now Richardson has some buzz with his latest ads (although we'll see how steady that support is).

[Hardrada]

55. Oops, you were asking somebody else.

[IA_Seth]

58. Yeah, I know where YOU are! ha ha.. n/t

[Hardrada]

59. Don't tell anyone though!

He said in a loud stage whisper!

[Debi]

60. Both of you need to keep quiet and let the experts expalin Iowa to us

I'm still trying to figure out if I'm a likely caucus goer or a likely voter :crazy:

[IA_Seth]

61. Just remember it said LIKELY!

What I thought was funny is that the poster argued that the respondents 'only had to say yes that they were likely' and that it didnt prove anything...

Well...If I am not mistaken, isnt that what a poll is? Isn't it really just a bunch of people saying yes or no, and us taking them at their word?

Sheesh.

[Debi]

65. How many times have I told you to stop with all the logic talk?!

Have you seen the recent DMR poll regarding "likely" caucus goers? Seems they may be a different breed than "likely" voters. But again, what would we know about that???

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070523/NEWS10/705230368/1001

[Hardrada]

64. Can we go to the Mall then?

[Debi]

66. Only if the two of you stop picking on each other for the rest of the trip

:thumbsup:

[DemDem07]

62. I'm over here.

Nice to meet you. :)