Iowa Caucus: Clinton 33% Edwards 22% Obama 21%

[usregimechange]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democratic_iowa_caucus

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. This can't be right... I don't even live in Iowa

(Joke)

[TwilightZone]

3. (Joke)

Was the joke of the "Hey, I know four people in Iowa, and none of them support Hillary!" variety?

[TwilightZone]

2. That's a bit of a surprise. As is this:

Among political liberals likely to participate, Clinton earns 29% of the vote while Obama attracts 24%.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. If this trend continues into December

it will cost some NH-area TV stations a lot of money because the other candidates will have to go for broke in Iowa.

If Clinton wins Iowa, a state she was considering skipping just 6 months ago, it's hard to see how she could be side-tracked.

[TwilightZone]

7. Agreed. Winning Iowa is a significant part of the Obama and/or Edwards plan.

It will be interesting to see if this poll is an aberration or indicative of a trend.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. It seems in line with the trends of Iowa polls from the last few months...

a slow steady Clinton increase. Edwards solid but static. Obama fluctuating within a 5-10 point range, sometimes ahead of Edwards, sometimes tied.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

4. Well, Iowa has a way of not going according to polls,

so I'm willing to wait and see.

Having gone door to door for Kucinich in Iowa, I KNEW that Dean wouldn't win. There was no sign of support for him. But I thought, judging by the yard signs, that Edwards would win. There was little evidence of support of support for Kerry, so I was surprised when he won.

The Iowa caucuses were largely ignored until 1988, when the Pat Robertson won on the Republican side. That was such an unexpected outcome that the news media have focused on Iowa ever since then.

[MADem]

6. Iteresting details in that link.

I wouldn't aver it could be transposed beyond Iowa, but the breakdowns in terms of gender, income, perceived liberal v. not-so-much liberal, and the 'fluidity' of the contest as a whole. I enjoy looking at these sorts of details, thanks for providing them:

The first Rasmussen Reports poll of the Iowa Democratic Caucus for 2008 finds Senator Hillary Clinton on top with support from 33% of Likely Caucus Participants. Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards is supported by 22% and Illinois Senator Barack Obama attracts 21%. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is at 7% in the poll followed by Delaware Senator Joe Biden at 4% ... Clinton has a substantial lead among women, attracting 39% of the female vote. She has a much smaller advantage among men, leading Edwards just 28% to 24%.

Among political liberals likely to participate, Clinton earns 29% of the vote while Obama attracts 24%. A recent national survey found that 40% of Democratic voters see Obama as politically liberal. Only 29% say the same of Clinton.

Obama is strongest among upper income participants, those earning at least $75,000 a year. Clinton does best among those earning less than $40,000 a year. As for those between those extremes, Edwards is preferred by 29%, Clinton by 28%, and Obama by 21%.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Clinton supporters say they are certain they will vote for her. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Edwards’ supporters say the same about him and 48% of Obama’s voters are that confident. Given the high numbers of voters who say they could change their mind, the race in Iowa remains very fluid.

Nationally, Clinton has a commanding lead in the polls. Her growing lead is one of three trends currently defining the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. Clinton also leads in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. That income disparity is familiar

Mondale v. Hart, Tsongas v. Clinton, Gore v. Bradley... the upper income intelligensia candidate always makes it interesting but never pulls it out.

Basic American democragphics... a lot more people make under 40K than make over 75K. Lower income folks are less likely to vote, but their numbers are ginormous.

[MADem]

11. I dunno about those examples. HART got bagged for fucking around.

He was every bit as wonky as Mondale, only he looked 'cooler' because his wonkishness wasn't obvious when he was younger (it's more apparent now). Paul Tsongas got cancer, and everyone knew it. Clinton, I acknowledge, did a VERY good job of looking like a regular guy, though he has a mind like a steel fucking trap--that guy is a brilliant thinker. Bradley had that HUGE fat-glob BASKETBALL under his chin that was incredibly distracting (along with his height--and appearance does count), and unless you liked basketball, he didn't have a national footprint or an "old name" like Al did. And he's certainly a wonky guy, too, almost, in some regards, as wonky as Al is, really, though those who don't look closely might not see it.

But let me stop with the nitpicking, because I certainly DO take your larger, and very valid, point. I think the rich feel more comfortable with taking a chance on someone who says they want to do a serious and substantial course correction, while those who are living closer to the margins prefer someone who is gonna steer the ship towards the Shores of Hope, but maybe not do a hard turn and send the cannon tumbling to port while they do it!!!!

Huge chunks of my family tree make around 40K--some even less. They're very highly educated, too. They're too smart, they'll tell ya, to take jobs where they're on a corporate treadmill. They're also not opposed to combining incomes to live better in group situations than they might in a one bedroom apartment with a lonely cat. They'd rather work to live, than live to work. Can't say as I blame them. It's really quite amazing what one can do without.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Given the high numbers of voters who say they could change their mind,the race in remains very fluid

From the Rasmussen link you gave in the OP.

[Perry Logan]

12. According to anti-Hillarite logic, the only valid polls are the ones showing Hillary's "negatives."

You can take those to the bank. But all the polls showing Hillary kicking butt are completely bogus. That's the way it works in Anti-Hillaryland.