Poll: Huck, Obama lead in IA

Posted: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:05 AM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
Huckabee and Obama continue to lead in Iowa according to a new Strategic Vision (R) poll which will be released tomorrow. On the Democratic side, Obama leads with 33% of the vote and Clinton and Edwards are statistically tied for second with 25% and 24%. Biden and Richardson each received 4%.

On the Republican side, Huckabee leads with 30% while Romney has 25%. Thompson came in third with 13% followed by Giuliani with 10% and McCain with 5%. The poll was conducted December 8 to 10 with 600 people from each party. The margin of error is 4.5%.

Another poll by Strategic Vision (R) conducted in the February 19 state of Wisconsin shows a different story and points to Giuliani's national polling strength. He is leading with 26% while Huckabee received 20%. Thompson, Romney and McCain are statistically tied for third with 12%, 11% and 10%, respectively.

On the Democratic side, Clinton also shows her strength in the later states. She takes the lead with 36% in Wisconsin while Obama comes in second with 29%. Edwards lags behind with just 12%. This poll was conducted December 7 to 9 with 800 people from each party. The margin of error is 5.5%.

Strategic Vision (R) Democrats
	12/8-10	11/30-12/2
Obama	33	32
Clinton	25	25
Edwards	24	25

Republicans
Huckabee	30	27
Romney	25	24
Thompson	13	11
Giuliani	10	13
McCain	5	6

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Huckabee smiles sweetly-----but he has the devil in his eyes---another sleazy evangelist---another George Bush with a better grasp of English.As for Mccain and we are winning in Iraq---he needs to follow the news today---senility has evaorated his brain.

HMT-MI (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:22 AM)

Polls polls polls.
So busy are the trolls.
As the voter mulls.
And the pollster bulls.
It's time for America to stand up and elect a Margeret Thatcher and an Indira Gandhi.

Both women were strong willed. Both were blamed as too calculating by their own country men. Both were elected when the country needed a change in direction. And both delivered and changed their country around for good for generations to come.

If anyone knows anything about how democracy helped Britain and India with Thatcher and Indira, they will know the characters of Hillary as a person/individual matches them.

Simon, IA (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:23 AM)

It's time for America to stand up and elect a Margeret Thatcher and an Indira Gandhi.

Both women were strong willed. Both were blamed as too calculating by their own country men. Both were elected when the country needed a change in direction. And both delivered and changed their country around for good for generations to come.

If anyone knows anything about how democracy helped Britain and India with Thatcher and Indira, they will know the characters of Hillary as a person/individual matches them.

Simon, IA (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:23 AM)

You are comparing Clinton's potential leadership to that of Thatcher's of England and Gandhi's of India?

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:27 AM)

Huckabee and Obama continue to lead in Iowa according to a new Strategic Vision (R) poll which will be released tomorrow. On the Democratic side, Obama leads with 33% of the vote and Clinton and Edwards are statistically tied for second with 25% and 24%. Biden and Richardson each received 4%.

Ramussen now has him in the lead in NH 31 to 28

Let's see is that outside the margin of error for IA...must be that 1% that cares about a Oprah endorsement vs the 44% who care about what Bill thinks...LOL

The dirt will now start to fly....the debate tommorrow will be ugly

Grace, Ny (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:27 AM)

Too many polls. The closer it gets to the start of the primaries, the less I believe them. No one really knows the questions asked. Or people who answer will actually show up to vote. And since Iowa has notoriously low turnout, time will tell. Maybe it's not good for Obama to be leading going in. And at the end of the day, people might NOT go with the person who is the most likable if they don't think that person really has a chance in the general election. I do think chances are Hillary will lose Iowa, her lead was never that big anyway. But I don't believe it's as close in New Hampshire as polls say. So I think there will be some surprises either way. But polls grow less meaningful as we get closer to the primaries. Look at Howard Dean. He was expected to win, but he lost BIG time in Iowa. Obama now has the lead in Iowa, so who knows what will happen.

Kelli, Michigan (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:29 AM)

Simon,

comparing Hillary to Thatcher might not be the best way to encourage Democratic primary voters to cast their lot for Clinton.

Although personally I think it's a pretty apt comparison. They are both right-wing warmongers with a penchant for fascism.

Steve, Chicago, IL (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:33 AM)

Now we need Edwards to pull another 5% or 6% from Hillary to make this a horse race !!

Wishful thinking by First Read last week ....

That was Hillary's high water mark alst week....
That crooked little soap opera is slowly fading.......

someone to rule us
someone to fool us
We want you crooked Hillary

someone to beat us
someone to cheat us
We want you crooked Hillary

Hillary Clinton, for business as usual....
warts, scandals and all......

TURN THE PAGE !
HONESTY COUNTS !
INTEGRITY COUNTS !

Obama/Edwards '08

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:33 AM)

It's time for America to stand up and elect a Margeret Thatcher and an Indira Gandhi.

******

I like Margeret Thatcher and Indira Gandhi. I know them as good people. But you Ms. Clinton are no Margeret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi.

Hillary is more in line with Tammy Faye Baker.

Lloyd B. (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:36 AM)

Obama is also leading in SC and now in NH where Clinton held a 20+ point lead a month ago.
No wonder she is starting to go on heavy attack again him.

diane (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:37 AM)

You know, it is true that all of these polls are all over the place. But to me it seems that an awful lot of them show Senator Obama surging.

P.S. Simon I like your pollster poem - very cool!

Nashville_fan (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:38 AM)

There is a revolution taking place in this country. People everywhere are standing up to say that we have had enough of the same old politics as usual. We have had enough of divisiveness, manipulation, going behing closed doors to make decisions, calling in favors, and pandering to lobbies.

We've had enough and the polls are just beginning to register this sentiment.

We want an open government, and an honest president. The tides have turned and a new generation will lead the way.

Obama '08

Sharon (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:38 AM)

Forgive me, but I would like to re-visit a story that got very little notice yesterday. (Yesterday was a difficult day for posting on this site.) The story said in effect, that the Iraq war was not such a dominant issue with voters as it once was. I find that suprising but it has caused me to wonder if the American people feel the same about the war in Afghanistan and/or the search for Bin Laden? News reports show the Talaiban making significant inroads back into south Pakisthan, so I wonder what will happen to the US war effort there? Over the last few weeks, I haven't heard this war discusssed much by the candidates, so could any of you fill me in on which candidates have outlined proposals for dealing with Afghanistan and what those policies are?

Are we still trying to find the head of Al Quaida? AN, I would think that the large amount of opium grown(legal or othrwise) in Afghanistan alone makes that area a concern of US. Comments welcomed!

Dot, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:38 AM)

The local news print this morning had a good point about Iowa. It has not alwasy been a predictor of the presidental election.

TEC-Spring-Tx (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:42 AM)

hey, grace- just saw the poll on RCP for New Hampshire- what great numbers and what great news.

SO O O O FIRED UP!!!

-numbers are *just barely* withing margin of error- which is +/-3.5%

kmnecole, st louis, mo (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:43 AM)

The numbers are insignificant, but the trend is surely palpable! I think this new poll is such a slap on Penn's face. He was talking about trends... and now there are polls to back up the trend!

Obama has the momentum and he'll win decisively.

Wayne, Silver Spring, MD (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:43 AM)

This race will turn on electability. There is no doubt in my mind.

Obama can't win. Democrats don't think he can win. Look at the numbers.

Even if Iowa or Iowa and New Hampshire go the starry eyed dreamer route, I believe other states will be much more pragmatic down the line.

Also one note about polling. Polling may be almost meaningless at this point. It is the Holiday season. Women are out shopping for thier families gifts. Working women are working OT at their 2nd job - the seasonal Department Store job that they take this time of year to help pay for Christmas.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:49 AM)

Are we still trying to find the head of Al Quaida? AN, I would think that the large amount of opium grown(legal or othrwise) in Afghanistan alone makes that area a concern of US. Comments welcomed!

Dot, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:38 AM)

I'm not really sure how much we were actually trying in the first place. That is part of the reason for the unequaled failure of the Bush Presidency. The "Uniter", instead of uniting us - and the world - to go after the bastard that pulled off 9/11 right under our noses, "Decided" to divide us by going into Iraq to get those nasty WMDs that only existed in Dick Cheney's mind. Now one half the country hates the other half and most of the world hates all of us. "Mission Accomplished"

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:50 AM)

John Doe (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:55 AM)

Dot, Illinois: '... if the American people feel the same about the war in Afghanistan and/or the search for Bin Laden?...'

Dot, the war in Iraq distracted America from locating it's REAL Enemy..... Hillary Clinton !!

;-)

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 10:59 AM)

One question for Senator Clinton supporters...will you support Senator Obama if he becomes the party nominee?

Chuck, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:00 AM)

One question for Senator Clinton supporters...will you support Senator Obama if he becomes the party nominee?

Chuck, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:01 AM)

These lastest polls have been uplifting! Maybe, just maybe, we will have a Giuliani/Clinton/Romney-free general election campaign, and the bitter, phoney BS that goes with them. C'mon America, this is not a beauty pageant or a popularity contest. Let's start listening to what the candidates are saying and consider how their ideologies and actions will impact our nation and the world, and let our thinking go beyond the I-me-mine mentality that has overrun our land. The blue state/red state mindset has resulted in nothing more than paralyzing divisiveness for almost two decades. Who could posssibly want more of this? As far as I'm concerned, McCain, Huckabee, Edwards, Obama, Biden, and Dodd all deserve a listen. Iowa and New Hampshire, we count on you to look past the allure of the campaign money machines and vote with your hearts and minds!

Pete Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324 (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:03 AM)

In reference to the Clinton-Thatcher comparison, I doubt that Hillary has Thatcher's balls. If she did, she wouldn't be looking over her shoulder so much to see if she offends someone.

s woods Amsterdam (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:04 AM)

I said it before and I will say it again.

I will NOT support Clinton if she wins the nomination.

The only way she will get my support or a vote.

Is If that nominate the Romney or Rudy as the Repulican Redcoat.

Freeman Female Dallas, Tx (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:08 AM)

Wow, Simon I don't think you are doing Hillary any favors by calling Thatcher.

Indira Gandhi never matched her father's or brother's potential

Yiannis, Baltimore (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:10 AM)

Pete Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324

You are writing in a reasonable and un-partisan manner. You need to leave this blog immediately

Ron T., ny (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:14 AM)

Hillary's worst dream is coming to past. Momentum has turned and she has no clue how to make the onslaught go away. As for this big states theory that she can withstand the early gashes that appear inevitable, I've got doubts that such thinking is plausible. Time will tell.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:14 AM)

This race will turn on electability. There is no doubt in my mind.

Obama can't win. Democrats don't think he can win. Look at the numbers.

--------------------------------------------------

Is that Clinton's new strategy? Please quit the talking point and let us face the challenges of our nation. I am tired of fear and i am hopeful for the nation.

I guess the Obama-Oprah show is working in New Hampshire...

Bee (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:14 AM)

Hillary and Obama will go at it during tommorrow's debate. Edwards will stick to policy/vision, leading him to a Jan. 3rd win.

Kevin, Houston, Texas (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:16 AM)

Hillary like Indira! That might be a good comparison after all. Indira imposed emergency law in India and jailed opponents. Ruined the economy and led her party to its first electoral defeat. Good path to follow!!

____________

My great grandfather was one of those "opponents" that she took it out on. He was backed the opposition candidate so she nationalized the whole textile industry. I'm not a fan.

John Doe 2 (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:18 AM)

Amen S woods. I didn't want to touch that Clinton Thatcher comparison--but let's be honest Hillary Clinton is NO Margaret Thatcher!!

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:24 AM)

Dot, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:25 AM)

You need to include past poll results from Strategic Vision in Wisconsin to get a better sense of the momentum Obama has. The last time SV polled Wisconsin in September, Clinton was at 44 and Obama was at 22. This means Obama has gained 7 points and Clinton has lost 8 points since they last polled the state.

http://strategicvision.biz/political/wisconsin_poll_091907.htm

Mo (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:26 AM)

Dickie Flatts:

You tell us to "look at the numbers" with regard to electability in the general (I have, by the way — Edwards leads, Obama is in second, and Clinton is way behind), then denounce polls as meaningless. Anything else you'd like to try to grab onto on the sinking ship?

James, Washington, D.C. (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:31 AM)

It's a bird, it's a plane, it's a flip-flopper ... no, it's just me. Polls still, in some weird twist of fate, both such and blow, but they do become more important as we near Iowa! With under a month to go, I think it is possible to put more stock in polls as a predictor.

Dot--I think the popular thinking among the American people, is that occupying Afghanistan is not unjust--like Iraq. I would hope, we’d do some positive stuff and good will in the country. I would bet regardless of candidate, we will have involvement in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border, perhaps. I would almost bet a greater involvement by a Democratic President, because they won't be bogged down in Iraq, which the Republicans 'claim' to feel is central to the war on terror. Bottom line, short of Kucinich, I think we will stay there. But as you see, voters and bloggers just don’t care about Afghanistan as an up-front issue. I’m willing to accept that everything I just typed may be wrong, it’s just my impression, I’d be happy for anyone to correct me.

--NSMSNBC (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:32 AM)

THIS POLL IS WHAT IT IS A "FARCE". MSNBC FOR THE LAST 3-4 WEEKS HAVE BEEN PUTTING IN ONLY NEGATIVES ON HILLARY.IT'S "BIAS" REPORTING.WHAT IS TIM RUSSERT FEEDING YOU INFORMATION? GIVE ME A BREAK, THIS IS HOG WASH.I WILL NOT SUPPORT OBAMA THE DRUG USER AND WILL NOT VOTE. AND BELIEVE ME THERE IS "ALOT" OF PEOPLE WHO FELL THIS WAY.GOOD BUY AND GOOD LUCK !

A VOTER (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:33 AM)

A quick note to people still pushing the "electability" meme:

Remember 2004? Kerry was seen as the most electable, and he was trounced (compared to Gore). Swift-boating can only go so far, and personally, having remembered that time, I don't know of anyone who changed their vote because of that tripe.

Instead, it was simply a rally cry that solidified an even more solidified Republican base.

Since it looks like the Republicans might not even have a nominee this summer, can we go ahead and put these "electability" concerns to bed? Personally, electability, when applied to Barack Obama, seems to me to be code for racism.

Truman wasn't seen as "electable" in 1948.

Reagan wasn't seen as electable in 1980.

Clinton wasn't seen as electable in 1992.

Can we go ahead and stop with that tripe already? I think it is quite obvious that conventional wisdom is completely full of sh%#!!!

M, Saint Paul, Minn. (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:37 AM)

Obama will win in Iowa, NH and SC. Then, the "national" poll number will follow, which right now are based primarily on name recognition.
Honestly, I don't think Bill really wants Hillary to win. As long as he gets some sort of top job at the UN, he'll feel relavent.

Bob from NC (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:40 AM)

I thought polls didn't matter? Oh wait...that's right. Polls that show Hillary ahead don't matter; polls that show Obama with a lead are gospel.

Moving right along...

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:41 AM)

No one cares about drug use. Hillary is just flailing and screaming over nothing. Bill smoked pot. Hillary probably smoked pot with him, it was the 70s. She lies all the time, so who knows if she's telling the truth. Bush smoked pot, snorted cocaine routinely, even had a DWI... no one cares.

I know one thing- I just LOVE watching all these bitter disgusting Clintonites on here screaming and throwing dirty mud every which way trying to see what they can make stick. They make up all kinds of absolute garbage and are filled with so much hate. America is sick of it. Partisan fighting has to stop. It's time for REAL CHANGE.

Ron, TX (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:42 AM)

There are just too many polls... 38% of Americans know that based on the poll of how the polls are doing. Please check back for the results of the 9:30, 11:15, and 12:45 polls today.
If you cannot wait, please feel free to conduct your own poll about anything and just add any +/- percentage to it that you wish... I recommend 12%.

Just never forget that we are talking about politicians playing politicts and news reporters with 24 hours of programming to fill every day. If there is no story, just make one out of nearly nothing and phrase it as gospel truth.

P.S. When the dust settles, Hillary will be the next President like it of not.

John Q. Pollster, LA, CA (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:44 AM)

Citizen J
Thank you for the response. In some ways I feel the war in Afghanistan has become the forgotten war. If our soldiers leave Iraq, will they come home from Afghanistan too--or will forces in Afghanistan be strengthened---have any of the candiates addressed these concerns and I missed their proposals? Would like to read their views. If Afghanistan again becomes a safe haven for Bidn Laden, what do we Americans do? Do we still want to bring him to justice?

Dot, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:25 AM)

Dot,

Even more than being forgotten, I think the war in Afghanistan has become - and I hate to say it - a technicality. I'm not really a conspiracy nut, so I think that we really did originally intend to go in there with purpose. Now, as I said, I think it's a mere technicality. Yeah, we have troops there, but it's not enough to effectively search for bin Laden.

We have something like 1/7th of the troops in Afghanistan as we do in Iraq. Was bin Laden really 1/7th as important as toppling Saddam Hussein, who really was a stablizing force in the region? I personally don't believe that. Yes, he was a ruthless dictator, but there are many of those we don't seem to care much about. On the other hand, bin Laden was responsible for thousands of American deaths ON OUR SOIL. I think he should have been our first priority.

I think the candidates' proposals for Afghanistan is really intertwined with their Iraq proposals. I've heard from several candidates about a "Middle East peacekeeping force". And I've heard Obama say several times that we have been distracted by Iraq from the real war (in Afghanistan). Other than that, I don't know what else to tell you other than visiting their web sites.

CitizenJ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:46 AM)

Hillary Clinton is the ultimate political whore, and would say anything to turn a few votes here and there....she would sell her entire family to the Chinese if she could become President. It's all about her, and not about her "fellow Americans."

Aren't Americans tired of the Bush-Clinton Aristocracy?

Enough already with these people. Please save America, and vote for anybody but a Bush or Clinton.

From the late 1980s, they and their Illuminati Agenda of a One World Order have dictated events in this country.

Please elect someone else....anybody else.

Ken, Arizona (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:47 AM)

Chuck, NY: Hillary is, um, okay. I will acknowledge that she is not terrible and not the she-devil, but she will not automatically have my vote. On the other hand still, she will not automatically lose my vote. I just feel that Obama both literally and figuratively stands head and shoulders above Clinton. I strongly feel that he is the best man for the job. It depends on who the Republicans nominate, what the candidates say, and what is the position of our country next year--likely crap.

Look, I don't know who will win the nominations of either party, but I do strongly feel that the Democrats will take the Presidency next year (probably in a close, polarized election), whoever runs. I argue it too, but I say screw electability and vote for the best!

--nsmsnbc (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:47 AM)

Well, I will say this to all. George Bush is really making it easy for Obama, and a nightmare for Hillary Rodham who?

bucj, Columbia South Carolina (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:49 AM)

The reality is that a vote for Obama or Huckabee is a wasted vote. The country is not even ready for an african-american nor do they want a baptist minister or a priest or rabbi for that matter. The final tickets in progress seem to be Clinton/Richardson and Guilani/Thompson. Regretably, if a democrat does win the vote, stand by for an expanded welfare state with more billions in taxes to pay for it---but, I do favor a health plan to cover all american citizens not just the current 50 millon plus on medicaid that have never paid any premiums for health coverage. As always, remember to work harder and make more money because millions of people who receive welfare benefits (SSI/medicaid/food stamps/public housing with free utilities/rental assistance vouchers/etc.)depend on you.

Wannabe Political Hack (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:50 AM)

My biggest problem with Hillary is that I DO NOT TRUST HER. I want to know about whats in those files in her husband's library; her cozyiness with the drugs and insurance companies and the effectiveness of her health plan if (God forbid) she becomes POTUS; her fuzzy relationship with Norman SHU; and what did she do to be crowned the most experienced candidate? If she is, then how should one describe Joe Biden, Dodd, and Richardson?
Americans must never allow themselves to be fooled by these two con artist- Hill and Bill. Its time to turn the page in America's politics.
OBAMA 08!

David Samuel, NY, NY (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:52 AM)

The way this thing is dragging out, we might all need drugs by the end of this madness....

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:53 AM)

Obama is not ready for the Presidency. He won't even salute the flag and people want him for president? I think not. This is one Democrat who will vote the other way if by some chance he is nominated and that is what the Republican Party is hoping for.Mark my words and I'm an old lady with savvy! I remember when a certain young man from Mass. wanted to get nominated in the 50's. As young as I was I knew he wasn't ready at the time and I gave my 100% full support when he did run.As for the people rallying around Obama just because of Oprah shame, shame, shame on you. Don't you have brains? Try using your head for something other than a hat rack!

Sharon L, Litchfield Pk, AZ (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:53 AM)

NSMSNBC

For some reason, the fact that voters and bloggers just don't care about Afghanistan as an up-front issue really bothers me. If all of this warfare started as a result of 9/11 why have we stopped caring about capturing who was responsible? I never agreed with the invasion of Iraq, but I thought trying to root out and capture Bin Laden was a worth while goal. Our troops are still fighting there, aren't they? But you are right in saying that the fight in Afghanistan seems to have become a non-issue that the candidates seldome address. If we are really concerned about fighting terrorism, though, shouldn't we continue the hunt for the "top" terrorist? I don't like the fact that a large portion of southern Afghanistan is again falling under Taliban control and the illegal production of opium (and millions of dollars that product generates) seems to be viritually unchecked. Are we to a certain extent winning the battle in Iraq but losing the war on terror?

Dot, Illinois (Sent Wednesday, December 12, 2007 11:54 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=511658