Romney, Edwards Top New Iowa Poll, would beat out the GOP opponent in every match-up.

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/7/27/95841.shtml

Friday, July 27, 2007 9:57 a.m. EDT

Romney, Edwards Top New Iowa Poll

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has pulled ahead of his Republican rivals in Iowa, site of the nation’s first caucus, in the latest poll of the state’s likely voters.

Romney garnered 25 percent of the vote, beating out second-place finished Fred Thompson with 14 percent. John McCain, the former front-runner, fell to fourth place, and Rudy Giuliani was third.

Romney is the only Republican candidate who has been running campaign advertising on television in Iowa.

On the Democratic side, John Edwards has replaced Hillary Clinton as the top vote getter in the latest poll by station KCCI, with Barack Obama in third place.

The poll also disclosed that if the presidential election was held today, the Democratic candidate would beat out the GOP opponent in every match-up.

[sharp_stick]

1. Newsmax actually printed that last line?

the one that says that any Democrat will beat any puke? That would be an amzaing slip and I'm sure some poor copy editor got the boot for it.

[ananda]

2. Go Edwards!

That is good news.

[dmallind]

3. Now if only IA had 300 EV we'd be gold.

Seriously it's good news and great to see. Edwards is coming up in my estimation by offering solid plans and remaining on message. He's a good solid second and starting making a move on my favorite Richardson, who is performing under par in this campaign although I still prefer his policies in toto. Policies and electability are all that matter to me. I couldn't care less about any personal foible or failing of ANY candidate, and have no time whatsoever for single issue litmus tests. If they can win and if they have sound policy platforms taken overall I'm happy, and I think Edwards has both.

Now if NATIONAL (or even better a solid electoral majority of single state) polls of likely voters showed these kind of results, even now so early when so much could change, then I'd be even more convinced of electability. Sadly, these IA polls are more a measure of candidates' spending priorities than anything else.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

4. Here are the national polls (Edwards the most electable)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3411252&mesg_id=3411252

[saltpoint]

5. Was Vilsack's exit from the race supposed to convert his support

apparatus to Senator Clinton's campaign? Since at the moment it appears that John Edwards is still running very strongly in Iowa.

He and Elizabeth made more than just convincing political points in 2004 in Iowa. They struck a deep emotional chord in many voters. Kerry won that caucus with 37-38%; Edwards finished a very respectable second with 32%.

The impressive component of that 32% performance was that it was done on a shoestring budget. There's more money in the kitty this time around. The danger in that 04 Edwards caucus campaign was that I feared that some Iowans would not permit John and Elizabeth to leave the state, but instead adopt them and keep them close where they could be admired on a far more local basis. That 32% second-place finish gave Edwards some political momentum, yes, but it established an emotional bond between many Iowa Democrats and John and Elizabeth Edwards.

Senator Clinton has more money than Kerry and Edwards put together, plus maybe throw in Vilsack's organization and donor list. But not that emotional bond.