MyDD :: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls

Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls

by areyouready, Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:42:01 AM EST

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com

ARG has just released its October early states polls. I have added some brief comments on the trendline.

Oct (Sept)
Clinton 32 (30)
Obama 22 (24)
Edwards 15 (19)

Their results are similar to Rasmussen's findings. Clinton has a small uptick, Edwards continues to fade and Obama flat lines after taking over Edwards in September. On the GOP side, Huckabee jumps to second place which is consistent with other pollsters' findings.

Oct (Sept)
Clinton 40 (41)
Obama 22 (22)
Edwards 10 (10)

Very little change in NH. Obama's ads blitz in this state have probably stablized his position, at least temporarily. Clinton still has roughly 18 to 20 points lead on average.

Oct (Sept)
Clinton 41 (41)
Obama 19 (30)
Edwards 18 (7)

Bashlack on Obama's gay controversy? This SC poll might be an outlier.

Sample Dates: October 26-29, 2007
Margin of Error: ± 4 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 39 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (2.00 / 1)

Bashlack on Obama's gay controversy? This SC poll might be an outlier.

Well, the movement is clearly all Obama -> Edwards.

by dblhelix on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 09:49:49 AM EST

I don't trust the SC number -- its too large (none / 0)

I also don't think she is that far ahead of Obama in IA. I think Obama's real support in IA is tough to guage because he is relying on so many first time caucus goers. If Obama wins on Jan. 3 by a few points I wouldn't be surprised. If he gets dusted by 15 I wouldn't be that surprised either. I think his support in Iowa is that hard to measure.

I think New Hampshire is spot on. I think Clinton is rolling in NH.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:00:59 AM EST

Re: I don't trust the SC number -- its too large (2.00 / 1)

take all these polls with a grain of salt. Trendline is probably more important.

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:06:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust the SC number -- its too large (none / 0)

She's relying on first-time caucus goers as well.

by dblhelix on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:15:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust the SC number -- its too large (none / 0)

actually it's pretty standards that in each election 50%+ are first-time goers if you read the previous exit polls...

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:17:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust the SC number -- its too large (none / 0)

True, it's reported as 53%/47% for the last two, but this one will be held Jan 3rd, right after New Year's.

by dblhelix on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:but this one will be held Jan 3rd (2.00 / 1)

True.

But then again, this may prove to be a rather extraordinary year concerning overall turnout. Many people in the country, and especially the Heartland are concerned, at places angry, when they talk about Iraq, free trade, globalization & and the middle-class squeeze, health care, the culture of corporate corruption, growing economic inequality, failure of public infra-structure etc. Many candidates talk about getting new people into the process, some are very serious about it.

Edwards leads among those who went last time. Their support, sometimes going back to 03, is rather reliable.

Clinton and Obama lead among self-identified first-goers.

It remains to be seen if their initial enthusiasm survives a campaign that will increasingly focus on the issue that's closest to the people's heart - their wallet.

Both Hillary and Obama will find it hard to explain their pro-NAFTA, Peruvian FTA and free-trade positions to people who are obviously hurt by a free trade agreement with a farming country whose average wage level is at a tenth or twentieth of its American (or Iowan) equivalent.

Don't give me but the country was economically better off in the Nineties, that's a point for Hillary. It isn't. Bill Clinton may like the little people (he increasingly also likes Bush sr.), his policies weren't for them. He happened to preside over a fairly long boom, that inevitably crashed. Also she's not him, but I guess that's besides the point in the age of dynasty.

"The way to win a Presidential race against the Republicans is to develop the class warfare issue..." Lee Atwater, Bush `88 campaign manager.

by aufklaerer on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:37:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:but this one will be held Jan 3rd (none / 0)

You are wrong about the Peruvian trade position Hillary Clinton "supposedly" supports. In fact, the opposite is true.

Also, pro-NAFTA? Hillary has stated that it needs revision, so you have a very hard case to make there.

by georgep on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust the SC number -- its too large (none / 0)

The SC numbers are way off. I know this, for fact. And the Gospel Thing did not play there.

What is interesting is IA and NH.

Those two places are suspect to me.

What is going on with Edwards? I am not a poll reader, but this does not read well for him in Iowa.

Any thoughts?

Clinton and Obama are the only ones treading, upwards in Iowa. Again, interesting.

by iamready on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:22:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards may be yesterdays news (none / 0)

I think people are naturally going to focus in a two person race coming down the stretch and Edwards may be odd man out, especially as you cited elsewhere, because of a lack of cash.

by dpANDREWS on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 06:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards may be yesterdays news (none / 0)

I agree. But he has steady support. But I believe, it is still early, that it will be a two man/woman race down the stretch.

by iamready on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 06:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gutless troll here (2.00 / 4)

dpANDREWS is sexist and homophobic. Repeats Coulter lines about John Edwards.

Troll.

Check Hidden Comments.

Youa re a bigot.

by TomP on Wed Oct 31, 2007 at 12:10:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In a debate the visual is important (none / 0)

I think I was commenting on the visual aspects of the debate. My reference was more about style.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Nov 01, 2007 at 08:35:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't trust the SC number -- its too large (none / 0)

The real question though is what happens if Obama does win by a few points in Iowa. Given Hillary has been ahead in most polls both in Iowa and nationwide, the inevitability meme is playing harder than ever. I have to think that a loss in Iowa hurts her. Whether its enough for Obama to get a big enough bounce to beat her or get real close in SC and NV (and NH IF it still takes place after Iowa and they don't act like a bunch of tools and move into December). I do think IF NH moves and Obama wins Iowa, South Carolina gets REAL CLOSE REAL FAST (I think most of the support that left Obama for Hillary was soft and remains soft and will go with the candidate with the momentum. If Obama shows he is surging, he will get most of that back... if Hillary wins Iowa, she will keep it and get more) and probably favors Obama.

Long story short, If Obama wins Iowa by a few points as you say may happen, then the race tightens (unless Hillary gets blown out of the water in Iowa, which I don't think will happen) and it probably comes down to Feb 5 to see who the the Nominee is. If Hillary wins by 5-10 points, the nomination is probably over (stranger things can happen on Feb 5, but I doubt it) unless Al Gore has gotten into the race and can't do Iowa (In which case it is Gore vs Hillary with Obama and Edwards losing a majority of supporters to Gore, IMHO). Jan 3 looms as a day of interest, and I see all candidates in until Feb 5, regardless of their finish in Iowa.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 07:42:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ARG's SC polling (2.00 / 2)

may be the WORST in polling history.

Here are Obama's last 4 numbers:
July 33
August 21
September 30
October 19

So in August he went down 12, in September he went up 9, and then he went back down 11 in October.

Makes no sense.

The New Hampshire is consistent with other polling for the most part, and the Iowa poll is on the high side for Hillary, and on the low side for Edwards, but reasonable.

But the SC polling is worthless.

by fladem on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:19:48 AM EST

Re: ARG's SC polling (none / 0)

Well it may be an outlier, but it's far from worthless. I think it's very reflective of the problems Obama is having with the African American community. Early in the campaign Hillary and Obama were basically tied with African Americans, but now it seems like Hillary has been building a lead, particularly on the strength African American women. Unless Obama can turn this around his South Carolina results won't be that much different from that latest poll.

by Christopher Lib on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:48:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (none / 0)

Let's see if the MSM pushes this poll the way they have the University of Iowa that shows Obama close to Clinton- They want a food fight- MSNBC is even using the Rocky theme song- How pathetic- Don't they get that this is not just a reality tv show- this is about our children.

by Menemshasunset on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:20:41 AM EST

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (none / 0)

they won't...

Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?

by areyouready on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (none / 0)

the U of Iowa poll was one of the worst i've seen in my life the MOE was so huge, and the number of people in the poll was less than there are people in my class

vote blue in 2008

by sepulvedaj3 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:26:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (2.00 / 1)

Good numbers for Hillary!

by samueldem on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 10:23:27 AM EST

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (none / 0)

Edwards at 15% in Iowa is the lowest he has been in any poll. The trends are sharply downwards, but I am not sure if 15% would be correct at this point. Seems a bit on the low side. The ARG Iowa poll is very much in line with the Iowa Rasmussen poll we have seen. I think we'll see more and more double-digit polling margins for Clinton for Iowa as we get closer to Iowa. It is a little disconcerting because Iowa is hard to poll and the expectations game is part of the equation, but I think the Clinton team is rightly optimistic that they can win in Iowa and with that remove any doubt about the nomination process. We have seen time and time again that the more people see Hillary, the more they like her. So, logically, if she puts up tents in Iowa and increases her visits to the state strongly, she should be fine there.

The NH poll is right in line with the other polling we have seen. Clinton holds a massive lead in that state, a major firewall for her.

SC is interesting. Obama losing steam there is conceivable, but needs to be verified by additional polling data. If that result is near accurate, SC is turning into another firewall for Clinton.

I would probably tend to view the SC result with the most suspicion at this point, the other two polls seem reasonable at this point.

by georgep on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:32:45 AM EST

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (none / 0)

Georgep, forget about the boring Polls. Nobody cares about it.

Think about the facts, documented in the new video on Google and Youtube about Hillary Clinton.

by win on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 11:45:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Try some civility in the future.

by georgep on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (none / 0)

WIN, YOUR A JOKE AND DONT KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOUR TALKING ABOUT! YOUR POSTS MAKE NO SINSE AND ARE NEVER BASED ON FACTS!

by boxer4hrc on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 08:25:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

hilarious (2.00 / 0)

SC is an outlier (because it shows an Edwards surge, I suspect), but Iowa is dead on accurate?

ARG is crap, across the board.

by DrFrankLives on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:17:08 PM EST

Re: hilarious (none / 0)

It's crap until the poll is favorable to your candidate, right Frank?

by FilbertSF on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:01:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i think both are crap (none / 0)

learn to read

by DrFrankLives on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:13:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No Arg is just generally crap regardless (none / 0)

read some of the Pollster stuff on it.

by okamichan13 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Even if you believe it (2.00 / 1)

This is not exactly a fantastic poll for Clinton. (Not good for Edwards, either). Keep in mind she has spent MILLIONS on TV there. Look at her numbers:

Clinton 31% 35% 31% 34% 23% 31% 32% 30% 28% 30% 32%

She is precisely where she was a year ago.

by DrFrankLives on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:20:34 PM EST

Re: Even if you believe it (none / 0)

How nice. Edwards is at 15% in this poll, which means if Clinton is at 32% (and exactly where she was a year ago) she has more than doubled up on Edwards now. Obama also lost 2% in this poll, so the result is the second double-digit margin poll we have seen (after Rasmussen's earlier this month.) You are spinning that as a "bad result" for Clinton? Dizzying. If this poll is anywhere near accurate, it is terrible news for Edwards (the worst news possible) and then bad news for Obama next. Crossing the double-digit margin for the second time in an Iowa poll is obviously good news for Clinton.

by georgep on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (none / 0)

"Connections"? Now you are just being silly.

by georgep on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 12:43:08 PM EST

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (2.00 / 1)

If you talk about "connections" (obviously aimed at implying an unsavory Clinton connection) you can't just throw that out there. You have to provide some proof, or it just seems "silly." Or, you CAN throw it out there, but then someone else might post that it is a silly notion.

It would really help your case here if you had some proof to go along with the accusation.

by georgep on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:00:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Breaking: New ARG IA, NH and SC polls (none / 0)

ARG might be suspect but the totality of polling out of Iowa shows a small but clear Clinton lead over Obama with Edwards slipping to third. There is, however, still the potential for movement back to Edwards when he starts advertizing - he has barely spent a dollar while Hillary and Barack have been up on TV for several months. The campaign believes it wasted resources last time running all those ''My father worked in a mill'' intro ads early on without any poll movement to show for it. Instead, they have been concentrating on organization believing they can replicate that swing right at the end by late blanketing ala John Kerry. It may or may not work but as always time will tell.

by conspiracy on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 01:07:39 PM EST

A total of $23,000 so far (none / 0)

and agreed with you, they've been focusing on organization with the experience of 2004. We'll see how it goes.

by okamichan13 on Tue Oct 30, 2007 at 04:17:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.