New Poll Shows Edwards With Clear Lead In Iowa

A new University of Iowa poll shows a Sen. John Edwards maintaining his clear lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in Iowa. Sen. Barack Obama finished in third place.

Democratic Voters (Likely Caucus Goers)
John Edwards      34.2
Hillary Clinton      28.5
Barack Obama    19.3

Full Poll Details

Iowa Democrats see Edwards as the most electable candidate.

Edwards' support among Democratic caucus goers appears to be linked to perceptions that he can win the presidential election. When given the statement  "Edwards is electable", 89.0 percent of Democratic caucus goers agreed. This was the highest percentage in the survey. Eighty-six point six percent of Democratic caucus goers believe Obama is electable; 76.5 percent feel Clinton is.

So continues Edwards' run of winning almost every single poll of likely Iowa caucus goers taken this year.

-----

This diary is partially in response to this diary, which I thought reported the news from this poll in an oddly skewed manner.

•  Good news for Edwards, but

  I'm personally getting some "Edwards is winning Iowa" fatigue; we get six diaries every time a new poll comes out.  I mean, he better be winning Iowa, since that's the basket wherein we find all of his eggs.  Anybody want to flash some numbers from SC, NH, Florida, Nevada, California, etc etc?

  by Pegasus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:03:18 PM PDT

  •  No Doubt

    No doubt.  I was only motivated to write it by reading the other diary I referenced that oddly presented the poll as a triumph for Hillary.

    by flubber on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:05:49 PM PDT

  •  I don't agree that Iowa

    is the "basket wherein we find all of his eggs."  It's March.  We are 10 months from Iowa.  Too early to say any state is essential for any candidate.

    by TomP on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:10:55 PM PDT

    •  That's fair,

      but you do have to admit that he has worked harder in Iowa than he has elsewhere, and combining that with the fact that he's a good candidate, his lead there is to be expected.  And Iowa, and practically only Iowa, continues to be the source of pro-Edwards-poll diaries.  I'm yawning when I see them, is all.

      by Pegasus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:14:00 PM PDT

      •  Iowa is not win all or lose all...

        but a win certainly catapults him ahead of the competition.  Anyone who hasn't learned that and is running for President needs to rethink their run.

        by chuckles1 on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:28:58 PM PDT

        •  Maybe.

          It's been that way in the past, but we've never seen a calendar this front-loaded.  Any of the big three could, with the current calendar (which may yet change), win only one of NH, Iowa and Nevada and then carry Florida/California prior to Super Tuesday and ride that momentum to the nomination.  Especially with the amount of money they're all going to raise, the old Iowa momentum thing might lose some of its past punch.  Or it might keep it -- the point is that I don't know, and neither do you.  

          by Pegasus on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:36:57 PM PDT

    •  Things could change...

      but the way things are shaping up right now, an Iowa win will be very important for Edwards.  There's no getting around that...it's the springboard for him to jump Clinton and Obama the same way it was for Kerry.

      And his campaign knows it...they're very Iowa focused.  It's not a bad thing...it's the right strategy.  The expectations are already set...might as well just get used to it.

      I'm not saying that it's not critical for Obama and Hillary to do well, but you can plausibly see how Clinton or Obama finish 2nd or 3rd in Iowa and still win.  Hard to see that for Edwards.

      Having said all of this, if I was the Edwards camp, I'd be delighted with where the campaign stands to day with money and polling.  It sounds really tacky to say it's been a couple of good weeks for Edwards, given Elizabeth's health, but from a strictly political perspective, it's true.

      by rashomon on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:20:01 PM PDT

  •  I am an Obama guy but Edwards just surged past

    Obama by 1% in NH

    Edwards 22%, Vs Obama 21%

    HRC lost a good chunk of support
    She is now at 26-27% down from 35-36%?

    Its on CNN

    by wuod kwatch on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:02:56 PM PDT

    •  Wow

      I didn't see that poll! I knew he had jumped up to 17% last time I looked. This is good news for Edwards supporters. It's also good for Obama and Edwards that Hillary's support is falling in NH. I know you're an Obama supporter, but you gotta admit having Edwards and Obama battle it out would be much better then having Hillary have a shot at it. Personally, I'd feel much more comfortable if it was between Edwards and Obama, I like them both.

      by sarahlane on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:31:36 PM PDT

      •  Its headin' that way, HRC is slowly sinking

        her support will ebb, It will be a race between Obama and Edwards.

        Obama has so much potential

        by wuod kwatch on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:25:12 PM PDT

        •  oh I hope you're right

          but I'll wait to see more confirmation polls.  An Obama/Edwards or Edwards/Obama ticket (I'm leaning Edwards myself) would be just fine with me.

          by eparrot on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:33:21 PM PDT

•  Iowa is

  much more important than it used to be. Kerry was nowhere in New Hampshire before he won in Iowa. He was some 20 points back in polls in NH until Iowa. With Nevada before New Hampshire, Edwards could take both and get the big mo' heading into NH.  

  by Mahler3 on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:10:37 PM PDT

  •  True

    Whoever wins Iowa will get a big mojo boost going into Nevada, and since Edwards has a good amount of labor support, he really could take that state, even without the celebrity status.

    by sarahlane on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:32:40 PM PDT

•  Okay, I support Edwards

  and I'm glad to see that he is ahead in this poll, but Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, can we please end this crap:

  Edwards' support among Democratic caucus goers appears to be linked to perceptions that he can win the presidential election.

  Can't voters in Iowa vote for someone based on their policy positions, or their leadership?  Does it all have to be based solely on whether they think the person can win???

  by GTPinNJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:15:15 PM PDT

  •  I agree that people support

    Edwards for policy positions. I do.

    by TomP on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:17:16 PM PDT

  •  Also, it's TEN months away!

    Gawd, I hate the Beauty Parade part of the pre-pre-primary season.  Somebody make it stop.  Every four years it gets worse too.

    by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:20:42 PM PDT

    •  At least

      it didn't really start until after the midterms this time.

      The next cycle, it'll probably start the summer before the midterms.

      By 2024, we'll be polling the potential nominees while the new president is being sworn in.

      by GTPinNJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:23:40 PM PDT

      •  I heard...

        Mrs. Smith's kindergarten class at the school down the street held a straw poll for 2024.  Somebody named "Squarepants" bussed in supporters to win.

        by rashomon on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:29:43 PM PDT

        •  Was the campaign tem headed by somebody

          named "Plankton"?

          by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:39:22 PM PDT

    •  correction:

      every three years.
      sigh.

      by HiBob on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:24:18 PM PDT

  •  American elections based on "issues"?

    Can't voters in Iowa vote for someone based on their policy positions, or their leadership?  Does it all have to be based solely on whether they think the person can win???

    Blasphemy!  Don't you know that issues don't matter in elections!  I know I read that in the New York Times...

    /snark

    by rashomon on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:26:43 PM PDT

  •  On the Other Hand...

    I don't think electability concerns are bad for primary voters to consider, as long as they get it right.

    For example, I'm an Edwards supporter because I agree with his issues focus and think he'd make the best President.  But I also think he's the most electable, and would do the most to help grow the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

    If I thought Dennis Kucinich was best on the issues, I'd have trouble supporting him solely based on the fact that his electability quotient is incredibly low, and that he'd likely hurt the Democratic Party were he the nominee.

    Electability isn't the only thing, but it does matter if we want to take back the country.

    by flubber on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:33:54 PM PDT

    •  As far as I'm concerned...

      electability is way low on the list.  I vote for someone with whom I agree and who I think would be a good leader.  In my mind, those people are electable.  I'm not worried so much about what I think other people might think...

      (And while I may agree a great deal with Kucinich from a policy perspective, I don't think he would make a very good leader, so I would probably never vote for him in a primary.)

      by GTPinNJ on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:40:30 PM PDT

      •  I love your tag line.

        by jct on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:44:35 PM PDT

    •  remainds me

      of the argument to support Kerry last time... :(

      by poetas on Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 02:29:40 AM PDT

  •  They're always going to question

    whether a candidate can win nationally, caucus goer's want to make damn sure they win, that's why I understand the electibility questions. I do wish they'd focus more on policy, maybe once the primaries get closer they'll start to take into consideration what the candidate's plans are.

    by sarahlane on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:34:33 PM PDT

•  Obama also showed broader support statewide

  among registered voters in Iowa relative to his numbers among Democrats, which speaks to his broader appeal nationwide in a general election.  

  When registered Iowa voters were given the top six candidates by name, Clinton led statewide with 19.3 percent, followed closely by a near-tie between Edwards, 17.6 percent, and Obama, 16.7 percent

  Considering Obama's lower number among Democrats in this particular poll, the fact that he's so close to Hillary and Edwards among all voters speaks to his broad appeal.  

  But I can't believe you missed the biggest shocker of the poll, which also backs this reasoning up: Obama comes in fourth among registered REPUBLICAN voters in Iowa:

  Giuliani: 22.8%
  McCain: 21.2%
  Romney: 17.4%
  Obama: 11.8%

  No, I'm not kidding, read the part about registered Republicans: http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/...  

  This poll also has great news for Democrats turning Iowa blue in 2008 whoever the nominee is, as a full 27.4% of registered Iowa Republicans picked one of the Democrats.

  by ShadowSD on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:50:57 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure

    it's a great sign for Obama that he's running well among Republicans.

    by david mizner on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:56:14 PM PDT

    •  It only works for him in primaries open to

      Republicans and the general election.

      by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:45:22 PM PDT

    •  Why is it not a great sign?

      All the Democrats are doing surprisingly well in a red state among registered Republicans, taking over a quarter of the vote, which is a higher percentage than they give individual Republican candidate.  How is that not fantastic news in terms of crossover appeal and electoral victory in 2008?  Obama just comes out looking like he has the most of that crossover support.  

      by ShadowSD on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:56:42 PM PDT

•  We Love Warmongers

  Of course Edwards is electable.

  We want another war.  And he brought Iraq.  Why not another one.

  The netroots love their warmongers.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.

  We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.

  Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.

  Edwards in his own words 9/12/2002

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away.
  I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

  Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

  What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

  by sillyparty on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:22:52 PM PDT

  •  By the way, no Democrat

    is a warmonger.  Quite trollish insult.  

    I am bored with folks like you.  

    by TomP on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:30:08 PM PDT

    •  Checked out silly's

      brief commenting history. Big Obama fan.  Likes to call Edwards and Clinton "slimeballs."  One of the nicer terms s/he uses.  Almost typical of a certain type of Obama supporter.  Not all, but some.  Full of hate and nastiness for other Democratic candidates or their supporters here.  Usually very young.  

      I wonder, sillyparty, who was the first Democrat Presidential candidate, if any, you voted for?

      by TomP on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:35:09 PM PDT

      •  sillyparty has asked me to answer for s/he, ahhh

        wants a candidate?

        by NCCarboys on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:11:36 PM PDT

    •  It isn't really any more shrill than

      OBAMA CAVES TO BUSH.

      by Yoshimi on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:47:04 PM PDT

      •  no it's not. Only Obama caves to Bush is

        the truth shrilled at the top of our lungs. You and sillyparty are shrill to the point of stupidity.

        by NCCarboys on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:14:31 PM PDT

  •  No Democrat is talking about

    another war, they are all talking about how to get out of the war we're currently in. So I think for you to insinuate that Edwards or any other Democrat for that matter wants another war is completely false.

    by sarahlane on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:37:29 PM PDT

  •  oh, hey look everybody it's sillyparty again

    with the same old garbage that he/she uses at every mention of the word Edwards. Just like Pavlov's dogs, mention Edwards and he/she starts salivating at the mouth. You never have to worry about he/she replying, all he/she does is open the door, throw in some vomit, and then run.  

    by NCCarboys on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:08:55 PM PDT

•  Raising Expectations

  Seriously, polls like that hurt John Edwards.  Expectations should not be raised so early.  The last thing he wants is to peak now.

  by howardpark on Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:40:16 PM PDT