Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

BREAKING NEWS: New Times poll examines 3 early states

At the beginning of the autumn dash to the primaries, a new Times/Bloomberg Poll of 3,211 Democrats and Republicans in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina shows that Hillary Clinton maintains a strong lead in all three states (28%, 35% and 45%, respectively). John Edwards is a relatively close second in Iowa (23%) with Obama at 19%, tied for second at 16% with Barack Obama in New Hampshire and trailing Obama badly (27% to 7%) in South Carolina.

Bill Richardson has 10% in Iowa, 8% in New Hampshire and 1% in South Carolina. Joe Biden, Dennis Kucinich and Chris Dodd all draw 3% to 0% in the three states.

In the Republican race, Mitt Romney holds a clear lead in Iowa (28%) to Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson tied for second at 16%. Mike Huckabee comes in third at 8%, John McCain at 7%, Tom Tancredo at 3%, Ron Paul and Sam Brownback at 2% and Duncan Hunter at 1%.

Romney maintains a slimmer lead in New Hampshire, 28% to Giuliani's 23%, while McCain has moved up to third with 12% and Thompson at 11%, two points behind Don't Know. In South Carolina, newcomer Thompson has surged into the lead with 26% to Giuliani's 23%, McCain's 15% and Romney's 9%. Huckabee has 6%. The poll was taken Sept. 6-10 with a margin of error of +/- 4 or 5%.

Iowa Democrats find Edwards the most likable (31%) followed by Obama (28%), Clinton (20%) and Richardson (9%). In New Hampshire they like Obama best (29%), Edwards next (26%) and Clinton third (20%). In South Carolina, Clinton is the most popular (38%) to Obama's 27% and Edwards' 18%.

The poll shows a high interest in the races across the board ranging from 95% of...

d New Hampshire Democrats to 84% of South Carolina Republicans. They also show more volatility in the GOP race with 72% in Iowa, 50% in New Hampshire and 64% in South Carolina saying they still might change their mind on a candidate.

For Democrats, the change factor is 59% in Iowa, 47% in New Hampshire and 45% in South Carolina.

Nine percent of Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats could never vote for Clinton while 7% felt the same in South Carolina. Five to 8% of Democrats in all three states could never vote for Obama or Edwards.

Among Republicans, 12% in Iowa, 11% in New Hampshire and 8% in South Carolina could never vote for Giuliani, while the respective numbers for McCain were 9%, 10% and 13%, for Thompson 6%, 7% and 4% and for Romney only 4%, 5% and 8%.

Democrats seem to agree that Clinton has the best chance of beating the Republicans in 2008--38% in Iowa, 45% in New Hampshire and 48% in South Carolina. Edwards places second at 23%, 15% and 11% respectively while Obama trails at 14%, 15% and 18%. In Iowa, Obama is beaten by Unsure at 15%.

Romney strikes Iowa Republicans as most likely to win at 28% to Giuliani's 20%, but Rudy seems more electable to New Hampshire (33%) and South Carolina (31%) Republicans than Romney at 28% and 12%. Thompson seems the second most electable only among South Carolina Republicans (21%), but trails Romney and Giuliani in Iowa (17%) and New Hampshire (10%). 

As a previous item today noted, the full story and poll data are available on this website.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments () | Archives (7)

The comments to this entry are closed.

The poll is now one of several to show Edwards has slipped from first place in Iowa. His strategy depends upon victory in Iowa. That's why he has largely pulled his staff out of Nevada and scaled back in South Carolina. He has to turn it around in Iowa and win - otherwise his campaign ends the day after the Iowa caucus. NH voters weren't all that impressed by him in 2004 and won't rescue Edwards in 2008 if he falters in Iowa.

Tuesday Sept 11,2007

Go....Hillary !

The Iowa sample in this poll is way too large, so the poll is a joke. And the Democrats who think Hillary Clinton is the most electable are clueless. The same ones probably thought Kerry was the most electable in 2004, even though PBS did a deliberative study showing that John Edwards was a lot more electable than Kerry, and the same thing is true this time. Edwards is more electable than Hillary Clinton.

These polls that are just reinforcing one another -- Clinton leads in one so she leads in another -- are fooling Democrats if they think Clinton is the most electable Democrat running.

The anti-Hillary "dems" fancy themselves to be polling experts. Usually after a poll is released, they whine about the sampling size being too small. But oh, no! Here comes OEST (several comments above) who boldly states, "The Iowa sample in this poll is way too large, so the poll is a joke. And the Democrats who think Hillary Clinton is the most electable are clueless."

Not just funny, but too funny!

Wow. Never heard of a poll's sample size being too large. So I guess that means the primaries and caucuses are the most unreliable of all polls, since they're just about the largest samples sizes you can get...

It looks like Mike Huckabee has risen in the polls again.

Yeah, I think Huckabee will start pulling alot more votes in the months to come. Initially, I was behind Romney, but Huckabee has alot of the same views that made me a Romney supporter, but he has more of the views I share on a broad range of issues, and a very good track record in Ark of pulling Dem. votes. I believe he is the only electable democratic opponent if and when he can get the GOP to unite even part of the way under him.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: