Trouble in Hillaryworld: Edwards supporters in Iowa more likely to choose Obama as second choice

[ClarkUSA]

Hmmm.... wonder why?

Hillaryworld has offered a wide variety of excuses as to why Clinton was slipping, and Obama gaining, in the latest Iowa poll:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1051a1IowaDems.pdf

Dan Balz's take on the race in Iowa in the Washington Post:

"There is more than enough worrisome news for Hillary Clinton in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll of Iowa Democrats
to keep her political team on edge for the next 44 days.

Only half of likely caucus participants in Iowa believe she is willing to say what she really thinks about issues. They find her less
honest and trustworthy than either Barack Obama or John Edwards and they rate her third behind the other Obama and Edwards
on the question of which candidate best understands their problems. For a candidate running on a middle-class message, Clinton
has some significant persuading left to do.

What may be even more troublesome for Clinton is the evidence that a sizeable number of Iowa Democrats who support other
candidates do not cite her as their second choice. In fact, fewer Obama supporters in the current poll cite Clinton as their second
choice than did in a Post-ABC poll conducted in July and Edwards's supporters are now more likely to choose Obama over Clinton
as their second choice."

Run, don't walk, to the excellent full story here: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/20/post_205.html

[dsc]

1. Edwards and Obama's second choices likely won't matter

what would be much more important are Dodd's, Kucinich's and Biden's as they are much more likely not to make the 15% cutoff.

[ShaneGR]

3. This time 4 years ago, Kerry, 4%

And I'll bet nine bazillion whatevers Edwards wins Iowa.

[FogerRox]

36. Edwards has consistantly beaten repubs in polling

Why the HRC fans cant get their brains around the fact I dunno. 29% of HRC supporters would dump her for Gore. THis suggests some very soft HRC support.

I think HRC poll numbers are soft compared to Obama... why ? Obamas larger number of contributors, I think Obamas poll numbers are good & solid.

Edwards & Gore have been polling very well in Iowa, for a long time. This suggests a solid core of support for progrssive candidates in Iowa, this does not bode well for HRC.

Shane, you may be right. I think you will be right. I hope you are right. Edwards can beat repubs, HRC doesnt show that with any consistancy over time.

[surfermaw]

37. You got it Shane

[Clark2008]

54. And loses his home state...

That would speak volumes.

[zalinda]

56. Yup, apparently the Kerry campaign only ran

one ad there. That speaks volumes too.

zalinda

[ClarkUSA]

5. "A sizable number of Iowa Democrats who support other candidates" don't have Clinton as 2nd choice.

That means more than Edwards or Obama to me. Considering Obama is #1 as both first and second choices for a bet tally of 55%,
I'd wager that he has a fair number of support from second-tier candidates' fans, too.

[dsc]

9. sadly we have no idea

We will have to wait and see. I would rather play Hillary's hand still if I were playing anyone's but both Obama and Edwards have a chance.

[MethuenProgressive]

32. At least they pick a Democrat. Not too sure about Edwards:

From the latest Newsweek story on Edwards:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/70997
"The Wrath of John"

His voice rising, he said it is a "lie" that any Democrat will be a better leader than any Republican.

[JTFrog]

44. Are you really going to try that again?

Unfucking real. Didn't work so well last time did it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3733640

Talk about pathetic and desperate.

[Clark2008]

55. Doesn't matter - Edwards STILL wouldn't make a good leader.

To be a leader, one needs to lead... not stick one's finger in the air and change one's opinion on everything based on the way the air is blowing.

Look, I understand the flexibility argument, but Edwards is more like his middle name - a reed - blowing in the wind in order to be elected rather than being a flexible person who honestly changes his/her mind based on evidence. The only "evidence" Edwards looks at is "will it get me elected?"

[yourout]

2. I wish we had instant runoff voting in the primarys.

Kind of like the NASCAR "chase".

I think it would make the later primarys more important.

[Tellurian]

7. I wish the OP used current Polling news rather than Polls from July and August..

The entire article posted in the OP is a slight of hand rehash of old poll numbers combined with some polling numbers most probably of bused-in Obama supporters subsidized by the Obama campaign.

***YAWN***

[ClarkUSA]

22. Um, the article is studying trendlines from July until November 2007. Duh!

"Where the campaign in Iowa shifted between July and November, according to the Post-ABC poll, is that a higher percentage
of Iowa Democrats now say they are looking for a candidate who represents fresh ideas and a change in direction, rather than
one who has strength and experience.

A 10-point tilt toward something fresh and new in July grew to a 22-point advantage in November. Obama's edge among voters
looking for something new is almost identical to Clinton's advantage among those looking for strength and experience."

Read it and weep.

Love that new Zogby poll, too, where "Obama Gains Big," don't you?

And wasn't latest SurveyUSA head-to-head match ups (which showed Obama beating all Republicans by a wide margin while Clinton lost
to McCain, of all people!) just terrific?

[Tellurian]

23. It would be nice if Zogby was accurate. But unfortunately, it's NOT!

[ClarkUSA]

25. Yes, and Up Is Down, too.

lol

[karynnj]

57. In a strange way, the caucus to a limited degree do this

All the people who have first choices that do not get 15%, chose between the top vote getters in the second round. Not a real runoff, but it moves towards it.

[aquart]

4. I saw CNN gloating over the downfall.

Reminding myself that msm really wants Hillary as the candidate, oh yeah.

HILLARY LOSES IOWA! GOES DOWN IN FLAMES!

People hear actually believe that?

[creeksneakers2]

6. Hillary can afford to lose Iowa and New Hampshire too

As long as she doesn't come in fifth place or worse.

[earthlover]

11. yeah, she can afford this outcome...she can go back to being Senator!

But she ain't gonna get the nomination that way!

Dream on!

I do find it wonderful that the Hillary is Inevitable crowd are preparing for fourth place finishes as not being that bad....


HA!

[Perky]

13. No SHe cant.

A purported front runner who does not winIowas or New Hamposhire has notmomentume going into super Tuesday. Most of lukewarm support wouill be looking around..... and workers will start peddling their resumes to other contenders. Twin losses for a frontrunner is a death sentnece. The trrops or demoralized ad the oress starts doing post mortems on ineptitude and failure to connect.

[Tellurian]

15. Hillary will win Iowa and NH by a Landslide..

Will Obama and Edwards fold their tents and support the future Dem Nominee?

[zulchzulu]

19. Wanna bet a grand?

I say she loses both badly...

[Tellurian]

21. You haven't been right yet.. When is Feingold endorsing Obama again?

[pauldg0]

27. Edwards.....

knows how to manage his money well!!!!

He's our next pres....and a good one at that!!!!

Edwards 2008

[surfermaw]

38. Right on pauldg0

[ClarkUSA]

24. Better check with Hillaryworld first to get talking points before you mention "landslide" again.

"Our definition of success doesn't necessarily mean coming in first," explains Clinton spokesman Mark Daley.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3751966

But I'll bookmark your comment for future reference, because I am sure you'll be parroting the "but Obama
is from next-door Illinois" loser's whine/Hillaryworld talking point very soon.

[Tellurian]

31. Obama lost the election first time he ran for State Senator..

A person's History is the best predictor of the future.

[ClarkUSA]

41. Ooooh!! You're right -- how could I have ever thought he could be president??

Gotcha.

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

50. When? I saw no such gloating, just reporting of the facts.

Just like they do when Obama "stalled" and Edwards "dropped to third".

Touchy, touchy.

[illinoisprogressive]

8. The lack of being a second choice can really hurt a candidate in Iowa

[Tellurian]

10. It all depends on the source..

The OP's source is not a reliable source.

[dkf]

12. ABC & Washington Post are not reliable sources? hahaha.

So funny. I love it.

[Tellurian]

14. Follow the links...

Maybe you'll read where Dan Baltz touts Hillary as the candidate most likely to win iowa in another article. Follow the links within the links, at least 3x. Click on the Real Clear site. Just about every poll has Hillary ahead of Obama.

Yes, you are "slovenly" funny. I'm SO not into that!

[dkf]

18. You said "The OP's Source Is Not A Reliable Source"

The OP's source is ABC News and Washington Post.

Your comment sure sounds like a blanket statement to me.

But then I guess I'm supposed to look farther than your words to what I think you mean.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Neither is Zogby, apparently -- at least since this week's headline "Obama Gains Big"

Hillaryworlders ARE very entertaining.

[mtnsnake]

16. Only Edwards supporters would ever think of voting for their 2ndchoice over their 1st choice. Smart!

[Hawkowl]

20. You don't understand

In the Iowa caucuses, if a candidate doesn't get 15% during a caucus, the caucus goers are required to go with a second choice. So, if all the 2nd tier candidates poll below 15%, their supporters must throw their support to a "second" choice to get on the boards. Edwards and Obama should do very well. Dollar to donuts, HRC is nobody's second choice. She will be lucky to finish a distant third in Iowa.

[ClarkUSA]

42. Some people are only interested in attacking Edwards and Obama

Instead of trying to understand the caucus process objectively, there are those who are too preoccupied nursing partisan grudges instead of
arguing the merits of an issue. Such a shame, really.

[paulk]

52. and some people are interested in attacking only Clinton

have you looked in a mirror lately?

[PresidentObama]

17. I support Edwards, and originally supported Obama. He's my second choice, like alot of JE supporters

[William769]

28. One loser to another loser, so what?

:rofl:

[PresidentObama]

35. To my memory, neither has lost anything yet. No votes have been casted.

Hey, whose leading in Iowa again?

What happened to Hillary's lead in NH? It's shrinking!!

Those national polls are enough to hide behind, huh?

[Life Long Dem]

29. Iowa's thinking of Clinton has to be going nationwide. That

"They find her less honest and trustworthy than either Barack Obama or John Edwards and they rate her third behind the other Obama and Edwards on the question of which candidate best understands their problems. For a candidate running on a middle-class message, Clinton has some significant persuading left to do."

[Perry Logan]

30. Meanwhile: "Clinton crushes Obama: Electability: 69% to 10%, Tough enough to beat GOP: 50% to 13%"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3746176&mesg_id=3746176

[BenDavid]

33. That is a convoluted way to chose. Am sure HRC

will carry Iowa, but the real fun will begin when people vote in NH, SC and Michigan, and Nevada. HRC should have the majority of delegates sometime between February 5 and the 15th.

Ben David

[Adelante]

34. I'm missing something

I see where Dan Balz says this:

In fact, fewer Obama supporters in the current poll cite Clinton as their second choice than did in a Post-ABC poll conducted in July and Edwards's supporters are now more likely to choose Obama over Clinton as their second choice.

But I don't see those numbers in the polling data. Can anybody point me there?

[ClarkUSA]

40. Do you mean you want the link to July's ABC/WaPo poll of likely Iowa caucus goers?

Here it is: http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/1042a1IADemCaucus.pdf

And this is the link to November's ABC/WaPo poll that came out this past Monday:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1051a1IowaDems.pdf

The growth in Obama's support and image is striking from July until now.

[Adelante]

45. Yes, it is

But I was looking at the November polling data and couldn't find where it says to which specific candidates the second choices of other specific candidates go. I see the overall tallies of receipt of second choices by each candidate, but not which candidates they are coming from. That's what I was curious about. I don't see, for example, where the polling data indicates Edwards second choices are more for Obama than other candidates (though Balz says it). I do understand Obama is gaining overall in second choices. I'd like to know who Richardson's supporters like second, Obama's, Biden's, Clinton's, Dodd's etc.

[ClarkUSA]

46. I noticed that, too

Balz obviously has information that he didn't provide a link to in his article. You could email him and post his response here so we could all
eyeball the data.

[Yukari Yakumo]

39. Relevance?

If Edwards scores over 15% of the vote, your "point" becomes irrelevant.

Plus the WaPo is one of the last places I'd cite info from.

[snowbear]

43. RELEVANT!

. . .

Very interesting info ClarkUSA ~ thanks for sharing.

[ClarkUSA]

47. Anytime, larissa.

:hug:

[AtomicKitten]

48. This is HUGE in caucus deliberation.

Gobama.

[ClarkUSA]

53. Yes, it is.

:toast:

[LanternWaste]

49. Am I reading this correct...?

Am I reading this correct...?

A voter who wasn't planning to vote for candidate A in the first place now has less of a chance of voting for candidate A? That's bad news?

[snowbear]

51. ..say what?

"A voter who wasn't planning to vote for candidate A in the first place now has less of a chance of voting for candidate A? That's bad news?"

Ok Lantern, that was confusing!

~~~ Or maybe I'm just tired.