Edwards Internal Poll - Iowa: Hillary 27%, Edwards 24%, Obama 22%...

[SaveElmer]

John Edwards' campaign pollster has produced an internal poll that he claims shows that Edwards is locked with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a statistical three-way tie for first place in Iowa.

The info about the poll is contained in a polling memo produced by Edwards' polling firm, Global Strategy Group, and sent to Edwards Iowa state director Jennifer O'Malley Dillon. The memo was obtained by Election Central and its veracity was confirmed by the Edwards campaign.

The memo claims that the poll was completed Wednesday night, finding that Hillary has 27% of likely caucus goers, Edwards has 24%, and Obama has 22%. "Support for the top three candidates is so close that it is impossible to distinguish among them with the commonly accepted level of statistical confidence," the memo says.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/edwards_campaign_internal_poll_finds_statistical_tie_in_iowa.php

[JI7]

1. do we have internal numbers of the other campaigns ?

[Benhurst]

2. It's up for grabs. It could by any of the three, which is not to say there couldn't

be a complete upset. It's the Iowa primary, after all.

[ChiciB1]

3. Polls Are Just That... It's MUCH Too Early & I Most Certainly Believe....

REALLY believe that all these numbers FLYING all over the place are "just numbers" because in just TWO days it seems that Huckabee pushed ahead of Romney by double digits!

VERY WEIRD!

[JackORoses]

4. poor, poor Hillarites, you have to cling to an Edwards internal poll for hope.

[bahrbearian]

6. Hilliary is going down. Iowa has spoken

[BootinUp]

7. This is an example of a hateful comment. nt

[JackORoses]

9. it's not hate, it's pity.

[BootinUp]

10. Sounds like denial to me. nt

[emilyg]

32. It's hate. Face it.

[IA_Seth]

33. We will see who pities who Jan-4th, right?

I know that I've convinced at least a dozen Iowans to become first-time caucus goers... how many have YOU convinced?

[BootinUp]

5. I'm about ready to put Edwards 2nd on my list

out of the top three.

Thanks for posting.

[Evergreen Emerald]

25. so, you are choosing your candidate based on the polls?

?

[BootinUp]

37. No.

I am concerned that Obama is attacking Clinton from the right.

[IA_Seth]

34. Oh geez.

Say it so, yo.

Seriously, if there has to be a number 2 for anyone, regardless of their first choice, make it a so-called 'lower tier' candidate. Keep democracy free from media influence as much as possible.

[BootinUp]

36. I couldn't help it

that post was partly influenced by the scotch and partly because I don't think I want Obama as the nominee. ;)

I might regret it later. ;)

[TeamJordan23]

8. Just consider the source: of course Edwards' people would want Obama in 3rd. nm

[BeyondGeography]

11. Obama's not doing well in the Trippi Poll

:cry:

[BootinUp]

12. Its called the Trippi poll?

or was taken by Trippi?

link?

[BeyondGeography]

13. Joke alert, dude

Had ya there for a second, I guess.

[MadBadger]

14. Jokes need links too.

[BootinUp]

16. There was plenty of sarcasm in my request, lol.

[BeyondGeography]

20. I feel better now

But what is it with you Clinton guys? Ever since Kindergate, nobody can ever tell when you're joking.

[BootinUp]

23. Don't worry, I am sure the Obama supporters

look just as foolish as the Clinton supporters to most lurkers.

[calteacherguy]

15. Clinton supporters posting "internal" (read: bogus) polls of Edwards campaign.

It's getting to be too much!

:rofl:

[BootinUp]

17. You're reaction is

too much.

[calteacherguy]

18. Dude, it's funny!

Can't you have a laugh?

[SaveElmer]

19. Just think...a mere month ago...

You would have been happy at this poll...

Change your candidates, change your positions, change your attitude...and you change your name...

What's next?

[calteacherguy]

21. More change is coming!

It's what America wants!

GOBAMA!

Oh - And as to the poll, I would not take ANY internal poll seriously. And I do find it hilarious that Clinton supporters are reduced to posting internal Edwards polls. I find a lot of humor in that. Obviously we don't share the same sense of humor!

:hi:

[SaveElmer]

22. Reduced?

With your switch to Obama you seemed to have adopted their ridiculous and childish criticisms...

I of course did not invent the poll, I merely noted it...I suppose Josh Marshall deserves the same condemnation from you for posting it on TPM...where of course I got it...

The good thing is...all I have to do is wait a week or two and you will switch to someone else...

[BootinUp]

24. I'm going to make a project

of insuring he does not switch back, lol.

[calteacherguy]

27. No need.

:hi:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. If He Switches Back To Hillary I'm Switching To Huckabee

DSB

[calteacherguy]

26. Don't hold your breath.

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

29. Is everyone giving you a hard time because you've changed candidates

three times already?

[calteacherguy]

30. It's really not complicated.

I was for Obama -then Clinton for two weeks when Clark endorsed her (call it misguided loyalty) - then back to Obama.

You think voters in Iowa aren't changing their minds? Geesh!

This is supposed to be some sort of negative mark against me? How?

[denem]

31. Were you really for Clinton only two weeks?

It seemed like forever.

[calteacherguy]

35. About two weeks I believe, yes. I didn't actually mark down the dates, LOL.

Oh, those were strange days indeed...and I feel so much happier and enthused about my choice now.

With Clinton, I always felt like I was trying to like her more, but I never did.

[L84TEA]

42. Give Edwards a try :) nt

[juajen]

38. I like polls. They are so varied, biased and some, quite honest.

The problem is telling the difference. BTW, I'm a Clinton supporter and I've never posted a poll. I do enjoy reading them, though. Do you often generalize?

[cali]

39. you seem more desperate than amused to me.

And I say that as someone leaning toward Obama.

:hi:

[Progress And Change]

40. what change does Obama bring?

[DaLittle Kitty]

41. Krugman : On Obama's Health Care Plan, (He's Com'in Up Weak!)

Here is the Krugman Piece...

AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications •

Go to Original

The Mandate Muddle
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Friday 07 December 2007

Imagine this: It's the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they've concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance - a so-called mandate.

Without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it.

But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he'll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he'll have trouble responding - because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination.

O.K., before I go any further, let's be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan - although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans - is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.

But lately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right - which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.

First is the claim that a mandate is unenforceable. Mr. Obama's advisers have seized on the widely cited statistic that 15 percent of drivers are uninsured, even though insurance is legally required.

But this statistic is known to be seriously overstated - and some states have managed to get the number of uninsured drivers down to as little as 2 percent. Besides, while the enforcement of car insurance mandates isn't perfect, it does greatly increase the number of insured drivers.

Anyway, why talk about car insurance rather than looking at direct evidence on how health care mandates perform? Other countries - notably Switzerland and the Netherlands - already have such mandates. And guess what? They work.

The second false claim is that people won't be able to afford the insurance they're required to have - a claim usually supported with data about how expensive insurance is. But all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient.

In fact, the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. If low-income families find insurance unaffordable under these plans, they'll find it even less affordable under the Obama plan.

By the way, the limitations of the Massachusetts plan to cover all the state's uninsured - which is actually doing much better than most reports suggest - come not from the difficulty of enforcing mandates, but from the fact that the state hasn't yet allocated enough money for subsidies.

Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that "force every American to buy health care."

Look, the point of a mandate isn't to dictate how people should live their lives - it's to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.

Here's an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn't think you'd actually need Medicare when you got older - except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare's finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.

So how much does all this matter?

:bounce:Mr. Obama's health plan is weaker than those of his Democratic rivals, but it's infinitely superior to, say, what Rudy Giuliani has been proposing. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama's rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he's making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.



:bounce: I'd add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn't that serious about achieving universal care - that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there's a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing...



LESS:nuke:

[surfermaw]

43. Suck it up...Edwards has never been behind in IOwa

Just ask the People from Iowa!!

[forsberg]

44. wouldn't shock me

Edwards had a big surge in 2004