Huckabee surges, Edwards fades (new Iowa poll)

[geek tragedy]

The latest still photo from the slow motion, inter-party electoral horse race known as Iowa is in — and it looks like John Edwards is losing steam on the Democratic side while Mike Huckabee is charging at the GOP frontrunners.

The University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll, released at 8 a.m. Monday morning, shows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a heated battle on the Democratic side. Clinton leads the poll with 28.9% while Obama garnered 26.6%. John Edwards trails with 20%, a 6-point drop from the last Hawkeye poll in August.

On the Republican side, the Hawkeye poll showed that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has widened his overall lead by 8 percentage points, to 36.2%. But Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, has gained ground despite spending just $1.7 million compared to Romney's $53.6 million. Huckabee is up from less than 2 % in the same poll in August to 12.8%, putting him in a statistical tie for second place with Rudy Giuliani who garnered 13.1%. Giuliani had spent $30.2 million as of September 30, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1677221,00.html

[Adelante]

1. Huckabee's the one to watch on their side

I think.

[cali]

2. Interesting on both sides. I'm going to go out on a limb here

and suggest that Edwards will continue on his sinking traectory, and that Obama will continue to battle it out with Clinton. On the repuke side, I think that Huckabee will continue to make inroads, and will gain on Romney, though not, of course, catch up whith him.

[geek tragedy]

3. Huckabee is the scariest of their group in terms

of electability. He's a likable guy with a populist streak who can keep the social conservatives in line.

His big problem is that the Club for Growth types hate him.

[cali]

4. I don't think that ultimately Huckabee poses any threat

He's not going to get the nom, and if he did, it's certainly be possible to soundly defeat him.

[C_U_L8R]

6. Yeah, there was chimp they once said that about too

[cali]

18. thechimpster and his handlers deliberately posed him

as more moderate than he really is. Not to mention that he had a machine behind him.

[Yupster]

10. I could see Huckabee getting the nomination, but

I agree that Hillary would soundly defeat him in the general.

[CoffeeCat]

5. In Iowa...

...I've barely heard a peep from Edwards. It's possible that he's "losing steam"
as this article reports--because his presence here isn't as strong. I see Obama
and Hillary ads, but I don't see any ads from Edwards.

I know I don't catch everything the media covers, but it's almost as if Edwards disappeared
for a while.

He'd better get his tail in gear...

[youthere]

7. I haven't heard a peep about Edwards...

..BUT I know several dems that are supporting him. But the media is so fixated on Hillary and Obama...who can tell?

[cyberswede]

16. Edwards waiting to run ads

Edwards hasn't run ads in Iowa yet. The increase in the poll numbers for Obama and Clinton (and even Richardson) are due to the fact that they have run ads. I think Edwards is waiting to spend the $ on ads until closer to the caucus, and I think once he does, his numbers will increase again.

[CoffeeCat]

19. I am glad to hear that...

However, I wonder if that's the best strategy.

You have Obama and Clinton running ads and propping up their visibility.

Now, Edwards is slipping in the polls and the media is positioning him
as "fading". That's not a good position. He looks weak.

He should have some media presence in Iowa, so he doesn't going into
the heavy campaign season as a weak candidate.

Just my opinion...

[acmavm]

8. Anybody can say anthing and it don't mean shit...

<snip>

On the bright side is that the people who do support Edwards have a history of showing up when it counts. Nearly 76% of Edwards' poll supporters attended the 2004 caucus, while 58% of Clinton's and 55% of Obama's supporters made the trip four years ago. "If we only look at caucus-goers who are almost certain to attend, we find that Edwards makes up the gap with Obama and Clinton, and moves clearly ahead," said David Redlawsk, the poll's director and an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa. Of course, Bill Clinton skipped the caucuses in 1992, so this is the first time a Clinton is really running in the state, while Obama was an unknown almost everywhere four years ago. Another bad omen for Edwards: only 7.9% of Democrats polled said they are "very likely" to change their minds between now and January 3, when both parties caucus in Iowa.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3657517

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Big M.O.E.

Too close to call between Obama and Clinton...


Johnny, we hardly knew ya...

[OnTheOtherHand]

11. huge, even

Reporting tenths of a percentage point with n=306 for the Democrats -- quirky.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. If There Was A Huge Gap The M. O. E. Wouldn't Be Troubling...

The rounding off to tenths is silly because it implies a level of specificity that can't be achieved...

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. something else to consider here

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/new_ia_poll_tomorrowbut_a_caut.php

I don't have time right now to vet the methodology of the new poll -- I don't think it matters that much anyway. There are all kinds of reasons why we can't safely infer very much from this poll, although it probably rules out, say, a massive Dodd surge.

[geek tragedy]

15. It'll all be about enthusiasm and organization.

Who'll get their folks out on a cold night on a holiday weekend?

[Colobo]

17. Viva OBAMA!

[BeyondGeography]

12. But Obama is dead, never shoulda run and McClurkin and all

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.