Looks like ARG poll was wrong. This race is TOO close to call!

Three new polls show the race is tight.

Edwards seems to me moving out of the steady third place, and competing for the first or second slot. A lot of people think he's got clear momentum going into the final few days.

Obama has the slight advantage, and he's got a tough job--riding out the momentum he already has till Thursday.

And Clinton has a lot at stake. For someone who was always seem as inevitable, she must beat Obama in Iowa. If Edwards wins Iowa, she can bounce back. It'll still be tough, but she could do it. If Obama loses Iowa, she's in a better position. Of course she could surprise the world, and win the state that even the media is saying she could possibly lose.

Here are the three polls:

Strategic Vision:



MSNBC:



Lee Enterprises Newspapers:



I'm not ignoring the ARG poll. It is what it is. But I don't think it tells the whole story, or the true story, of what is happening in Iowa. Back earlier in the year, when Edwards lead EVERY poll in Iowa, ARG showed in two polls Clinton leading by double digits. This is when John Edwards was clearly leading in Iowa, and no other poll backed up Clinton's lead in the ARG polls there. And one poster here at DU noted that in 2000, the ARG poll was TWENTY points off from the final result of the New Hampshire primary.

I'm not saying ARG is always wrong or unreliable. But they seem to have their flaws.

I'm not saying these polls are right, just posting a trend.

In the last week of the race? Going in, no candidate has the lead in the polls. Not Edwards. Not Obama. Not Hillary.

That's if you choose to believe these polls. Or any poll.

But polls or no polls, it's close as close can be.

:) Good luck to all candidate supporters!! It's going to be a good week for us.

is it has richardson and biden with 12% and 8% support. Even if they get that much support in the first round, they are both unviable unless they reach 15%. That means it's a free-for-all in the precincts and nasty things such as voter intimidation, bullying, giving votes for favors to local elected officials and community leaders will happen.

....if they aren't viable.

Most of them, anyway.

I could see Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel supporters going to Edwards.

Biden has been stressing EXPERIENCE in his campaign vigorously over the last couple weeks. Obama is the candidate with the least national foreign policy experience of the big 3. I think Biden voters who want experience go to Clinton and those that for whatever reason can't vote for Clinton go to Edwards. Obama I don't think scores with Biden supporters.

so how did you come to the conclusion that Hillary will get all of Biden/Richardson/Dodd support. If theyre not supporting her already theyre not supporting her for a reason, imo.

might Biden, Richardson, Dodd + folks get together, decide one of them gets their support, resulting in one 15% + 'second tier?'

What happened with Kuch last time? Anyone remember?

Hillary, not so much. I think you go a bit far to try to toss all of Biden's supporters in Clinton's camp. If DU is a small sampling, I'd actually say that's a far reach. I have no idea why some people just can't realize that there are a huge number of people who will not vote for HRC, and that she is unlikely to get a high percentage of 2nd choice votes, from anybody.

Biden, Richardson, and Dodd supporters will probably mostly go Clinton, then Obama. I'd guess for every one who goes to Obama, three goes to Clinton.

Kuch supporters will go to Obama or Edwards. Considering there is bad blood between Edwards and Kuch, I'd guess Kuch may encourage his supporters to go to Obama.

Gravel... who knows.

And likely correct.

The people who want REAL experience are voting for Richardson and Biden. If they don't break the 15%...they likely go for a more popular candidate like Obama or Edwards. Especially if Clinton were to come in 3rd or something.

Do you know if this rumor is true.

I hope it is, because the system stinks.

Is that how Hillary's caucus-goers intend to caucus for her? We've certainly seen that kind of behavior here. I'm just asking..because it seems the orders have gone out.

getting this thing started!

I fee waaay more excitement and anticipation for Thursday than I've had for Christmas or New Years.

for providing some more food for thought.

and they take the importance of the primary seriously;that is if 10% participation can be considered serious. But those 10% take it seriously.

Wanna see some Iowans show up to caucus, tell them they the state has a viability rate of 20% turnout to remain first in the primaries next time. But this will not happen 'cause that would threaten the reason for the caucus.

In fact, for as much a Iowa loves to project itself as the litmus test of America. I was there and just saw a state election system owned and operated by the landed and moneyed in both parties.

How is the waitress at a restaurant supposed to vote against the owner? How is a wife in a small town supposed to vote against her husband or church? How does a son or daughter vote against family or church?

The caucus sucks. It's designed to "keep an eye" on the situation and make sure that the will of the money and otherwise powerful are maintained.

within that MOE they can do almost anything with the numbers

his theory is that the PTB are trying to make it look much closer than it is in reality

there was a recent analysis I saw, I think at Daily Kos that proved it. ARG's polls are way off from almost all the other polls.