SUSA's new Iowa poll: CLINTON ahead

[DemocratSinceBirth]

The latest wave of SUSA polls are not including Obama and Edwards -- so this is not to be taken as a comparison of electability, but a measure of how good things are for Democrats. For they showing quite exciting results for Hillary Clinton, who leads all Republicans in Missouri, leads all but one who she ties in Ohio, edges Rudy in Kentucky and is even competitive in Alabama. And today comes Iowa!

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/21/134828/12

[Evergreen Emerald]

1. ok. Has anyone ever heard of Kerik? What is wrong with people

I do not understand the republican party.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. I Heard Of Him

He's the guy who was putting the wood to Judith Regan...

[SteppingRazor]

3. In a word, no.

Or, maybe they have heard about him, back when he was a possibility for Sec. of Homeland Security, but they quickly forgot again.

We all too often make assumptions around here that everyone is as politically savvy as we are, but it's soooo far from the truth. Look at the Donnie McClurkin/Obama thing blowing up in GD and GD POlitics right now. Trty doing a google search on "Donnie McClurkin Obama." Note the results -- a bunch of blogs and discussion forums, and not a single mainstream news link. Not one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Always Get A Laugh Out Of That

You google a subject and get your own posts...

[SteppingRazor]

6. Yeah, it is a little silly. But you get my point.

If we're aware of something here at DU, it does not follow that society at large is similarly aware.

On edit: And mind you, I don't think that's because we're necessarily better informed as a whole. We're just more interested in politics.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Rightly Or Wrongly

Rightly or wrongly the average American doesn't give a rip that Obama is appearing with a homophobic gospel singer...

[SteppingRazor]

8. I don't even thinik it's that they don't care. I imagine most aren't even aware of the fact. ...

although, if they were made aware, I imagine that, yeah, they probably wouldn't really give a damn.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. From the coments at MyDD regarding this poll:

"There's even worse news in this poll for Rudy.

The poll's sample tilted towards men (51% of the sample) and underrepresent women (49% of the sample). The actual distribution in the 2004 election in Iowa was 54% women and 46% men.

In the SUSA poll, Rudy has an 8% edge among men against Hillary (50% to 42%). Offsetting this is Hillary's 20% advantage among women (55% to 35%).

So, if you adjust the sample to reflect the majority female electorate, Hillary is demolishing Rudy in Iowa..."

[ginchinchili]

9. I think it's important to keep in mind that Hillary has the greatest name recognition.

So this early in the game it should come as no surprise that she holds a lead in most polls. The polls aren't altogether insignificant, but there is still a great lack of familiarity with the other candidates, and with the Republicans being more divided than the Democrats at this point, it behooves us to consider the stakes when the Republicans coalesce around a single candidate. One could make the argument that the Republican candidate at that point will have less of a ceiling than Hillary. I'm not saying that will definitely be the case, only that a reasonable argument could be made for that scenario.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Survey USA lways seems to show good results for Dems;

http://www.mydd.com/tag/SUSA

[zalinda]

11. I am suspect of most polls

We have no idea what questions were asked or how they were asked. For instance: "Do you have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton?", the majority of dems would say yes. Did they follow up with the question: "If she were the Democratic nominee, would you vote for her?", again the majority of dems would say yes. This does not mean that the majority of dems would vote for her in the primary.

We know that what and how you ask the questions can make or break a candidate within the poll.

zalinda