POLL: Hillary 40 (+2), Obama 32 (+5), Edwards 13, only 4% of Dems are undecided

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - Mike Huckabee has surged into a virtual tie with front-runner Rudy Giuliani in the national 2008 Republican presidential race two weeks before the first contest, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas whose campaign has caught fire in recent weeks, wiped out an 18-point deficit in one month to pull within one point of Giuliani, 23 percent to 22 percent.

Among Democrats, Hillary Clinton's national advantage over second-place rival Barack Obama shrunk slightly to eight percentage points as the races for the White House tightened in both parties. Clinton had an 11-point edge last month.

The shifting numbers have changed the shape of a dynamic presidential race two weeks before Iowa on January 3 kicks off the state-by-state process of choosing candidates in each party for the November 2008 election.

<SNIP>

Among Democrats, Clinton held a 40 percent to 32 percent lead over Obama, an Illinois senator, down slightly from 38 percent to 27 percent last month.

Some other polls have shown the national lead for Clinton, a New York senator, shrinking even more dramatically -- and disappearing completely in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was well back in third place at 13 percent, with Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson tied for fourth at 3 percent. Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut was at 1 percent.

"Obama is moving because he is building strength among young people and independents and growing his lead among black voters," Zogby said.

Obama, who would be the first black president, led Clinton among likely black voters by 19 points, among independents by 16 points and among young voters age 18 to 24 by 34 points.

Clinton, who would be the first woman president, led Obama among likely women voters by 12 points and among older voters aged 55 to 69 by 16 points.

The percentage of Democratic voters who said they were undecided in the race was down to 4 percent from 14 percent last month.

The poll was taken last Wednesday to Friday. It surveyed 436 likely Democratic primary voters and 432 likely Republican primary voters, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.8 percentage points for both parties.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1952159120071219?sp=true

I find no one, not even in the blue state of Illinois, not one, person who supports HIllary. None. Nada. Nikt. neiko, zip. nil. no one.

There are people sporting edwards, Obama, and Paul pins, but not one hillarian. Frankly, I am getting ready to believe that these poll companies are trying to make opinion rather than report on it.

stickers, very few Edwards stickers (especially given this is his new home and HQ) and almost no Hillary stickers. In spite of this, my morning Caribou coffee friends think Edwards has the best shot against the GOP. And, surprisingly, they think Thompson would be the hardest R to beat. And I have only seen ONE Fred08 sticker in my life and that was in Raleigh (a very red spot).

Given these discontinuities, I am growing skeptical of polls these days. Maybe in a few months things will tighten up a bit.

Or,..., bumper stickers are not a proxy for voters true intent...

I've been saying this for a long time. Hillary was the frontrunner long before she or anyone else announced their candidacy. I have one former co-worker who is a Hillary supporter...other than that - no one! I know many Edwards and Obama supporters. I think the MSM and pollsters decided a long time ago that Hillary would be our candidate.

I think her support while genuine among her core is actually very shallow. Maybe people are embarassed to be supporting her. I dunno

to double digits over Obama in New Hampshire. Thought the Obama supporters said he was reaching new heights there?

Truthfully , these polls are all about who the pollesters call at that particular time.

Hillary is probably up in New Hampshire but until I see more polling reflecting such a "surge" I'm not buying it.

Every poll they do usually has Clinton pulling ahead. I do not trust CNN polls as there seem to be Clinton operative working there. IMHO.

And their latest national heat has the race closer than most other polls.

I guess that kind of poops on your tinfoil theory.

Can't seem to find the infomation on Zogby. Here is an interesting article from December 14, 2007.
It seems a letter which re-examines the Democratic candidates.

"It seems like we've been involved in the presidential campaign for a year, probably because we have been involved with the presidential campaign for a year. A lot has happened, intriguingly, even though no one has even voted yet. In a previous column I looked at the Democrats and handicapped them. As we get very close to Iowa and New Hampshire—the two main events—let's re-examine each of the candidates.


Hillary Clinton—I cringed when her chief strategist and my polling colleague, Mark Penn, wrote a 350-page memo several months ago declaring her to be inevitable as the next President of the United States. It was the wrong message for a number of reasons.


First, it raised expectations way too high, so she was left running against herself and, secondly, it sounded horribly arrogant, which I still think it was. Number three, it misunderstood—then and now—the genuine anger that voters feel and their willingness to take it out on some of the best-known candidates. Finally, one thing I know about Iowa voters is that they don't like to be told whom they're going to vote for. It is not over, but let me restate here what I've been suggesting in columns, speeches, and media appearances for a couple of months—Sen. Clinton could come in third in Iowa. Thus, arguably the best-known presidential candidate in American history has a ceiling of 25% to 29% in Iowa. Not likely to bring those numbers up, she has tried to go negative at Obama to bring his numbers down. It seems to be backfiring on her."

To read more from Zogby: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1399

It's not over till it's over it seems.

"The percentage of Democratic voters who said they were undecided in the race was down to 4 percent from 14 percent last month."

That means that of 436 likely D's polled only 17 are undecided? That's insane...more like 40% are undecided, at least across the nation. Right here on DU we have an incredible # of undecideds, it is just that we hear form supporters of a candidate 500% more often than an undecided.

436 people is no where near a # necessary to get a realistic poll, if such a thing is possible.

This poll is trash...x(

1)I suspect they push soft supporters to make a choice...

2) It is a small sample... That's why the MOE is 5%... If you double the size of your sample you at least double your cost...

I'd have to disagree. None of the current polls show that anywhere near 40% of likely voters indicate that they are undecided.

The current national poll average is 42% Clinton, 27% Obama, 13% Edwards. That leaves only 18% divided among the rest of the candidates AND undecideds. Factor out the 6% to Richardson and Biden, and you're down to 12% for the rest of the candidates plus the undecideds.

Source for above numbers: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national-primary.html

Edit: to clarify, nearly all of the polls indicate that the number of undecideds is low. Whether that is indicative of reality or not is up for debate.

cross lines undetected that I find virtually all of them ridiculous. To me, "undecided" are those that change on a whim, usually when something arises that embarrasses a candidate. No one is 100% behind a particular candidate, because of varying emotional, factual or another aspect that crops up.

Look at the R side...Guiliani had great support, but that dwindled, just as Thompson showed that he would have great support as some kind of conservative "hope" thing. It was not "undecideds" that dumped them, it was supporters that became "undecideds".

Almost everyone I know that is a Dem, here in the living breathing world that I interact with every day, is undecided...not 4%, but 94%...these are people i talk to every day, many of them in the NE D Party. To be honest, and bluntly so, most people i talk to don't really like ANY of front D's. Quietly, I see people leaning to Richardson, but they don't speak out like many others do.

The "support" the front D's are being given press coverage, and there's really not much to go by. None of them have come down and put anything concrete down, and people are getting the distinct impression that they don't have anything to put down. All people are hearing is blather and platitudes, w/an occasional splatter of negativism. People want MORE than that stuff.

Have you ever been "polled", I don't know of anyone personally that has, so I have to wonder where these #'s are coming from. I work w/the NE Democratic Party, I am on the County Election Board, I am out there every day trying to get the D message out...I would think that at least ONE poll would call me...and if they did, I'd be undecided.

There are going to be some serious surprises in this Primary. History shows that all of this stuff means nothing in the long run, it just feeds hyperbole and egos. I don't know who the candidate will be, neither does anyone else, but when it comes down to a D standing against an R, I'll be standing w/the D, regardless of whom he or she is.

Most of the polls ask people who they would vote for if today was election day. Roughly 90% of them indicate a preference for a specific candidate at that particular moment. So, from that perspective, they're not really undecided - they make a selection.

Perhaps a better word for what you describe would be "uncommitted". They're not really undecided from the polling perspective, because they provided a response. The response at polling time doesn't mean that they're locked into a candidate, of course.

The road is never straight not flat. there are always things that "crop up".

Illness, death, personal issues, and occasionally just a lack of effort can do amazing things to the dynamics.

As an aside, I have no dog in this fight yet. I think the Primary Season is ridiculously long, does nothing but but exacerbate people because of the non-committance of the candidates, and to top it all off, just deepens chasms that separate people over "issues" that mean little except on a personal basis. No one can please everyone nor can they stumble over smaller issues when the larger ones loom over their heads. It is imperative to have 1,2 or 3 issues that can be hammered home. The lesser items can be dealt with if the candidate wins. I have found that far too many D's are running around w/valid issues that need to be addressed, but they are pretty low on the scale necessary to gain support. We need to come together and push the larger issues; the war, the economy that benefits only investors, energy, or some nationwide item. The call for Equal Rights is very important to me, but an election will not hinge on that issue. After gaining the WH and increasing the #'s in congress, we can get Equal RIghts under control. If I were to use that as my only call for judgment of a candidate, I might lose an election on that sole issue...why would I risk a future because of one thing that means a lot to me?

That is why so many are "uncommitted", they look at this from a personal view only...not as a national/societal POV. So we lose because we can't see the forest through the trees.

This election is the D's to lose, and if we don't get it together, we'll be whining about what we happened, not realizing that we are the very apparatus that lost it all...:(

This is the first time that I can ever remember not having a pretty solid idea of who I wanted to support by now. I moved from Nebraska to Texas recently, and my primary vote wouldn't really matter much in either place, so I guess that there's no hurry.

In a way, being undecided is ok, because it allows a bit of impartiality, plus I can defend any of the candidates from silly attacks if I want, without feeling like I'm "betraying" my candidate.

The election is ours to lose, as you noted, but I think that the prospects are good, regardless of our nominee. We won big in '06, and voter identification is steadily shifting leftward, so '08 looks promising.

destroyed the GOP for at least a generation. While that may indeed be a little over optimistic, there is no doubt in my mind that the damage he has done is very serious.

There are only two people I have contact with that support bush out here, that is down from about 150 that did before that I personally know. I have given out well over 300 voter registration cards, and most of them were to people who changed from R to I, with 22 that went D from R.

Amazingly, tis heavily R district almost booted out 1st term, (at the time), Fortenberry-R 1st District. This sent a shockwave through the NE GOP. They are worried that Maxine Moul, or some other D might run against him and knock him right out of the House...:evilgrin: FWIW, Fortenberry is a true, honest-to-god moron. With Hagel leaving, and the possibility that Bob Kerry might have run, the GOP was soiling their collective pantaloons. Hagel has become a serious PITA to R's...:D

Back to bush's "legacy"...the GOP will hold districts of course, but they will still lose big in the House, maybe 15-20 seats. The Senate....hard to call, but I see a pick-up of 3-9 seats. Presidency...the GOP candidates are in turmoil, and they all seem as though they were picked up in the produce aisle at Hy-Vee.

He is definitely a moron. First class.

Nebraska politics has sure been interesting lately. The turmoil in the GOP and the near-misses by Kleeb and others have made it a much more competitive place than I would have believed possible at this point.

As much as I disagree with Chuck Hagel on 99% of issues, I have to give him credit for consistently poking the Bush administration with a stick on Iraq. Just when you think he's gone, he pops up on the talk shows and jabs them again.

Regarding the Republican field, as I said in another thread, it's difficult to attack the personality traits of a bunch of guys who have no personality.

:rofl:


Persoanlity...think Thompson...:eyes: :D

One poll puts Obama ahead, one puts Clinton ahead, one says that Edwards is back on top.

I think statistically it is a three-way tie.

nationally, Clinton is far ahead, and Edwards is far behind.

If not, they are poo. Plus MOE of 4% plus/minus is not to good either.