National Journal: "Recent polling in Iowa points to real trouble for Hillary... and Mitt Romney."

[ClarkUSA]

Amy Walters of National Journal has some interesting observations to share regarding the significance of an Iowa win or loss:

Iowa has been a dogfight on the Democratic side for months, but it's now clear that while Barack Obama doesn't have a statistically
significant lead in the polls, he's got the momentum. In the last six polls conducted in the state, Clinton averaged 27.2 percent
compared with Obama's 27.5 percent and John Edwards at 22.3 percent.

Ask folks on the ground in Iowa what's happening and they'll tell you that the investment Obama has made in the state -- both financially
and in campaign time -- is paying off. Most insiders point to his strong performance at the Nov. 10 Jefferson-Jackson dinner as the catalyst
for the surge in the state... One Iowa Democrat interviewed on NPR summed it up best when he said he wanted a candidate "who would
send chills up his spine." If spine-tingling is a key factor, Obama benefits. While I'm always dubious when voters admit to pollsters that
they place more importance on electability than issues (it's like telling someone you value looks over substance in a spouse), the latest
Pew Research Center/Associated Press poll did show a marked difference between the Iowa voter of four years ago and the Iowa voter
of today. In 2003, according to Pew/AP pollsters, 40 percent of likely Iowa Democrats said it would be more important to choose a
candidate who could defeat George W. Bush than one they agreed with most on the issues. Today, just 24 percent of Democrats view
electability as more important.

In addition, we now have a new national poll (Gallup/USA Today) that shows Clinton dropping 9 points since mid-November, while her
unfavorability rating has risen to 50 percent. Recent polling in New Hampshire shows her lead shrinking there as well... Could an Iowa
win help Obama solidify the anyone-but-Clinton vote? Perhaps. But if the Clinton campaign is able to lure him into a fight (something
he's been avoiding assiduously all week), he may be too banged up to be that unifying force.

Still, compare Obama to Mike Huckabee and one thing is quite clear -- the Illinois senator will have a lot more money to spend in New
Hampshire than the former Arkansas governor... Bottom line: Should both Obama and Huckabee win Iowa, Obama still seems a bigger
threat to Clinton than Huckabee is to Romney.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22115552/

This is a nice analysis and neat overall summation by an unbiased and respected political news source, which is refreshing, to say the least. ;)

[Sancho]

1. You can follow most major polls here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/latestpolls/index.html

[ClarkUSA]

2. Thanks, Sancho.

Bookmarked.