ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Poll: Edwards leads in Iowa

Posted: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:27 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
In an InsiderAdvantage poll in Iowa, Edwards leads among (977) likely voters 30-26-24 over Clinton and Obama. Edwards is also the clear second choice winner, 42-29-28 over Clinton and Obama. This is the first poll to show Edwards solely in the lead in Iowa since July.

Among highly likely caucus goers (of which there are 633), though, the three are deadlocked: Obama 27, Edwards 26, Clinton 24. Edwards again wins second choice, 42-31-27 over Clinton and Obama. The poll was conducted Dec. 16-17 and has a margin of error of 3% for the likely voters section and 4% for the highly likely voters section.

On the Republican side, among (833) likely voters, here are the numbers: Huckabee 28, Romney 25, Thompson 10, McCain 9, Paul 6, Giuliani 6. Among (418)  highly likely voters, Romney leads with 28%, then Huckabee 25, Thompson 11, McCain 7, Paul 6, Giuliani 5, Tancredo 4.

A national Diageo/Hotline poll shows a narrowing between the Democrats and a tight race on the Republican side. The Dems: Clinton 35%, Obama 30, Edwards 14. The Republicans: Giuliani 21%, Huckabee 17, Romney 13, Thompson 11, McCain 10, Paul 7.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Is this because he has switched to being nice?  Does Iowa not remember him two weeks ago?  Good for Edwards, I'm sure that's nice for his campaign to see.

--NSMSNBC (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:31 PM)

I have got to say, as angry and mean I've been getting lately... it is somewhat fun to see such a dynamic race. As long, honestly, as the eventual president's last name isn't McCain, Thompson, Guiliani, Romney, or Huckabee - the presidency will be well served. Honestly the 2 candidates with the best ideas and would make the biggest actual change to America... Kucinich and Paul; at least they get the issues right and do so the first time. That being said, I think really anything at all other than a Republican. Edwards needs to continue staying nice, and once in a while insulting the Republicans.

Travis, Louisville, Ky. (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:36 PM)

How do you come up with he leads if in the case of the most likely causus goers(highly likely) he is second.  Why do you insist on listing likely voters in a caucus state...what difference does it make if they are not going to caucus

Joe (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:40 PM)

Bit of a biased headline, don't you think?  One poll says Edwards is winning among those who say they're caucusing, but is slightly behind Obama among real likely caucus goers and suddenly "Edwards leads in Iowa".  Even though this is the only poll to show that and it has a screwed up methodology and this is the first time they've polled the race?  

Mike (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:41 PM)

I think he is much better when he is positive and sunny side up and not angry.  Saying that drug companies won't cede ground willingly is fine, so long as he makes sure that it's a positive, honest message full of hope, not anger.  He is a very very earnest and persuasive person, and he connects very well with people.  Sort of like a spouse of another candidate.

JG Victoria TX (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:44 PM)

WUT?

As long as it's either Obama or Edwards I'll be happy

Perry, Toronto (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:53 PM)

I saw the detailed poll results.  Only 3.5% of the poll's participants were aged 18-29 and only 9.0% of the poll's participants were aged 30-44.  I would imagine that more than 12.5% of caucus goers will be under the age of 45.  And in the 18-29 group, Obama has 41.2% to Clinton's 23.5% to Edwards 5.9%.  In the 30-44 group, Obama has 38.5% to Clinton's 15.4% to Edwards' 25.0%.

So pretty much, if only 12.5% of caucus goers are under 45, Obama could be screwed.  But I am thinking that that number will be considerably higher.

Keith, Chicago (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:56 PM)

Edwards train is picking up steam. Best get off the tracks.

SoCal for Edwards (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 6:56 PM)

Assuming that the national poll--a clear outlier, see realclearpolitics.com--is any indication of what the Iowa poll for this organization is worth, well, it ain't worth much.  Still, the breathless news coverage like its fron the friggin' Oracle of Delphi.  What pure and unadulterated hooey!

Dazed and Confused in DC (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:00 PM)

I think the title of this post is misleading. Among likely Caucus goers, Obama is ahead.

From this vantage point, this is a dead heat!

Wayne, Silver Spring, MD (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:02 PM)

An Obama victory might knock Hillary into a 'death spiral'

(wouldn't that be cool ?)

Edwards is a good man, but tactically an Edwards victory helps Hillary unless she's a distant third

Can we hope ?

Hopefully, Iowa isn't falling for Hillary's scam ...

Sierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:07 PM)

Running for president is a tough job. It can be very disheartening to not get some good news. I hope this draws a smile on the face of Edwards’s supporters. Really I'm happy for them.

I knew his numbers would climb a little after persistently attacking Obama's healthcare and answering questions of "Why you and not Obama" by saying Obama wants to negotiate with lobbyists.

Unfortunately, it's Hillary who's celebrating this poll. How does Edwards beat a heavily funded, hugely popular, heavy weight candidate like Clinton who's running in 50 States? The answer is: HE WON'T!

His campaign doesn't have a national presence, he doesn't have the money to compete with Clinton, he only qualified for a few delegates in New York, etc. Clinton would win the delegates fight hands down.

CONCLUSON: Clinton wins. Everyone loses!!!!!

Diamond (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:10 PM)

Diego/Hotline poll...who are these guys?...first I have ever heard of them. And the poll they conducted was with less than 400 people. It seems to be out of wack with most other polls...I took one here at work...you want to post that too?

Eliot, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:10 PM)

The Iowa polling is again conclusively inconclusive...
How on earth do you poll a caucus where only about 6- 15% of the eligible voters actually show up in a process that is public and absolutely the opposite of voting as we think of it? While I am sure that the race is close, I have come to the conclusion that Iowa defies traditional polling models as to render them useless; And I am, in the opinion of many pro and con, the poll guy here.
When I read that;

"The big challenge for polling this contest, of course, is that turnout for the Democratic caucuses is typically a small percentage of eligible voters.  Iowa had roughly 2.2 million voting eligible adults in 2004, of whom (as of last month) approximately 1.9 million are considered "active" registered voters by the Iowa Secretary of State.  But only 124,331 participated in the 2004 Democratic Caucuses for President (according to the subscription only Hotline).  That number amounts to roughly 6% of all registered voters, so selecting "likely caucus goers" is no easy task."

SIX PERCENT? SIX PERCENT! All of this time and money, all of this media madness, and SIX PERCENT of the Iowa electorate will be providing a springboard and momentum for the potential next C&C?
Why the hell doesn't anyone write about this?

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:13 PM)

EXTREMELY MISLEADING HEADLINE

john (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:22 PM)

Insider Advantage is out with a most interesting poll in Iowa, surveying both "likely" voters and also "highly likely" voters. On the Democratic side, among "likely voters" Edwards holds a 3.5% lead over Clinton and a 5.5% lead over Obama. But among the smaller group considered "highly likely" to participate in the January 3 caucus, Obama jumps to the top, though by a statistically insignificant margin:

Democrats
Obama 26.6
Edwards 26.0
Clinton 23.8
Other candidates 14.0
Undecided 9.5

Grace (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:25 PM)

The Iowa polling is again conclusively inconclusive...
How on earth do you poll a caucus where only about 6- 15% of the eligible voters actually show up in a process that is public and absolutely the opposite of voting as we think of it? While I am sure that the race is close, I have come to the conclusion that Iowa defies traditional polling models as to render them useless; And I am, in the opinion of many pro and con, the poll guy here.
When I read that;

"The big challenge for polling this contest, of course, is that turnout for the Democratic caucuses is typically a small percentage of eligible voters.  Iowa had roughly 2.2 million voting eligible adults in 2004, of whom (as of last month) approximately 1.9 million are considered "active" registered voters by the Iowa Secretary of State.  But only 124,331 participated in the 2004 Democratic Caucuses for President (according to the subscription only Hotline).  That number amounts to roughly 6% of all registered voters, so selecting "likely caucus goers" is no easy task."

SIX PERCENT? SIX PERCENT! All of this time and money, all of this media madness, and SIX PERCENT of the Iowa electorate will be providing a springboard and momentum for the potential next C&C?
Why the hell doesn't anyone write about this?

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:28 PM)

this is good. if it comes out edwards 1 and obama to that's great. if it comes out obama 1 and edwards 2 that's great. hillary's strategy of edwards winning, her coming in second and obama 3rd may blow up in her face.

ace p washington, d.c. (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:41 PM)

Completely ridiculous poll.

Re: Keith, Chicago: this poll actually is weighted for age and gender; but you're still right about the ridiculousness of polling so few younger people...this poll is giving statistics based on only SEVENTEEN people interviewed in the 18-29 age group.  To state that 41.2% of this group supports Obama is silly when the margin of error would be something like +/- 30%.  The +/- 4% published is misleading.

Garrett, Seattle (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:43 PM)

this is what everyone should be worried about..who cares who gets in they will not change anything. until we the people stand up and take control of OUR GOVERNEMNET PERIOD..because this is what is going on int he real world if you just open your eyes.
Nothing has changed on Iran. The administrations interest in Iran & nukes is a smoke screen for their real agenda. Their true interests are Cheney''s energy policy.Condi Rice is a former board member of Chevron Oil and mouthpiece for the administrations energy policy. Part of that policy is the The Caspian Sea pipeline which will go through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,Pakistan, to the gulf of Oman or on to India & Nepal.It will be cheaper to construct if they can go through Iran, but regime change is necessary first. The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration, and the national media are not allowed to discuss or comment on it. More troops are needed in Afghanistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline. Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil now with sales of oil to China''s Sinopec Oil,deal signed Dec.10,2007. Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''''t care they are in control!!! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios.

for-america@hotmail.com

david a belanger,u.s.veteran (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:47 PM)

this is what everyone should be worried about..who cares who gets in they will not change anything. until we the people stand up and take control of OUR GOVERNEMNET PERIOD..because this is what is going on int he real world if you just open your eyes.
Nothing has changed on Iran. The administrations interest in Iran & nukes is a smoke screen for their real agenda. Their true interests are Cheney''s energy policy.Condi Rice is a former board member of Chevron Oil and mouthpiece for the administrations energy policy. Part of that policy is the The Caspian Sea pipeline which will go through Turkmenistan, Afghanistan,Pakistan, to the gulf of Oman or on to India & Nepal.It will be cheaper to construct if they can go through Iran, but regime change is necessary first. The Caspian sea area holds one third of the world''s oil and south asian oil markets are their target market. This pipeline was also the reason for the Afghanistan invasion. Cheney''s energy policy is the root of all these middle east wars, a federal court judge sealed all documents associated with it for the administration, and the national media are not allowed to discuss or comment on it. More troops are needed in Afghanistan to protect the contractors building the pipeline. Iran stands in the way of total control of global oil now with sales of oil to China''s Sinopec Oil,deal signed Dec.10,2007. Months ago China said there would be dire consequences if the US interfered with there direct oil contracts with Iran. Both parties in the Congress should be very concerned with China''s growing war machine and need for oil. They are the real threat & the administration doesn''''t care they are in control!!! All that matters to them is BIG OIL and their corporate stock portfolios.

for-america@hotmail.com

david a belanger,u.s.veteran (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:48 PM)

Ron Paul 2008!!! maybe Giuliani should realize that he was a Mayor of City and not worthy of  being President and just drop out.  Actually keeping him around for comedic value would make it worth it.

rob g LA, CA (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:48 PM)

On a related note Rassmussen has come out with a poll in South Carolina showing that Clinton 2 point lead from last week is gone (36 to 34) and now she is tied with Senator Obama (33 to 33).

MK, Los Angeles, California (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:54 PM)

An Obama victory might knock Hillary into a 'death spiral'

(wouldn't that be cool ?)

Edwards is a good man, but tactically an Edwards victory helps Hillary unless she's a distant third

Can we hope ?

Hopefully, Iowa isn't falling for Hillary's scam ...
Sierra, SF (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:07 PM)

Awe now you are feeling bad that Edwards is winning? All along you kept spewing hatred for Hillary. Is that the only tunnel vision you have?:-)

Nancy, Tx (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:55 PM)

I have to admit, I'm an Obama supporter because of his consistency, but if Edwards wins I'll be very happy too.  Just please, please anybody but the Clintons.  They are the worst.

Dave, NY (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 7:59 PM)


The People who heard Edwards
like what they've been hearing!

Here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/profile_favorites?user=MeetJohnEdwards

http://johnedwards.com/issues/

James Siebert, Portand OR (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:00 PM)

Edwards leads and Clinton's mission is accomplished. Smear Obama, Edwards wins IA. and she kills him and Obama in NH. and wins the nomination.  Textbook Washington campaign.  Thanks dum dems for feeding in to the bullsh*t.

Todd Ed (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:02 PM)

The divergence between the two polls today (one showing either Edwards ahead by 4 or Obama ahead by 1) and the other showing Clinton ahead by 5 can probably be best explained by the fact that neither has done a poll in Iowa in months (if at all).  I would trust polls done by polling outfits that have consistently been polling the state over a long stretch of time.  Such consistent polling diminishes the chances of producing odd ball results, which is exactly what the two polls today have done.

MK, Los Angeles, California (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:06 PM)

I would prefer Obama, but I'm also enthusiastic about an Edwards candidacy.  My biggest problem with Edwards is the same as kos's - that thanks to taking matching funds he will have virtually no cash to fight a general election campaign over the spring and summer. He's also a bit too populist and confrontational in tone for my tastes, though I can understand why what would appeal to many democrats after the last 8 years.

John M., San Diego, CA (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:07 PM)


  Well as cozy as B. Clinton and Bush I is.  I personally don't want anything to do with either of them.   Edwards and Biden is the team that will win.

  Let the Clintons and Bush's bask in the former glory let get rid of them all.

  I am from Illinois and believe me you do NOT want Obama he is so dishonest in what he says and what he does.

marjorie (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:12 PM)

I have participated four times in my home state's caucus. Edwards according to this poll is in a strong positon considering the second choice numbers. The second choice is very important, and it could easily determine the winner.

Mark Cutelli (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:24 PM)

The Pete's Main Street Diner Poll has Edwards up by 4.  Margin of error = plus or minus 84%

PulSamsara (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:29 PM)

The Insider Advantage poll also has problems with its second choice question as it asks it of all the candidates supporters.  The problem is that there will be very few precints where Obama, Edwards, and Clinton fall below the 15% non-viability threshold and therefore their second choice becomes relevant.  If the pollster understood Iowa it would have asked the second choice question of the supporters of Biden, Dodd, and Richardson.

MK, Los Angeles, California (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:31 PM)

Come on Domenico!  If you don't show us how you polled them, it doesn't mean anything.  This article just became pointless... goodbye.

Blake, broomfield co (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:34 PM)

"HELLO"!!!?? IOWA, OBAMA? EDWARDS? IT'S JUST NOT WORTH THE RISK. OUR COUNTRY IS ON THE VERGE OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. WHAT WE NEED IS THE VOICE AND ACTION OF EXPERIENCE THAT HAS BEEN TRIED AND TESTED. SURE, MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PAST,.. WHO HASN'T MADE MISTAKES? THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MISTAKES IS IN WHAT WE LEARN FROM THEM. HILLARY SHOWS US THIS WITH HER NEW HEALTHCARE PLAN. SHE KNOWS HOW TO BRING AMERICA INTO A NEW ERA OF OPTISMISM AND SUCCESS.
www.hillaryclinton.com
www.thehillaryiknow.com

Joey Alexander - IOWA (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:35 PM)

Edwards is competitive and even winning in Iowa, while spending mush less money than either Clinton or Obama.  Winning in Iowa, will give him the free media coverage that has been afforded Obama and Clinton for the last year.  Of course he can win the nomination!  Moreover, many thousands of people will be sending Edwards more donations when he wins Iowa.  He's dynamic and people will be drawn to him.  Edwards an't be stopped.

Lura, Philadelphia, PA (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:37 PM)

I'm getting really fricking pissed here.  You pikers in Iowa better vote for me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mitts Romney (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:40 PM)

Obama knows he is in trouble.  Thats why he has been attacking Edwards the last few days.   Clinton is happy to attack Obama, finish second to Edwards and skate the rest of the way ... All the way to the White House.

BybBye Barry Obama!  Thank you for playing the Presidential hopeful sweepstakes .... See Oprah for your parting gifts!

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:44 PM)

Matt Towry is another Mark Penn Pollster .I checked out the link and here's what stood out to me.

   And guess who Matt Towery has contributed $2,300 to this cycle?  Why none other than Hillary Clinton's campaign.

      Towery, Matt A JR
      Atlanta , GA 30327
      Towery Communications/President/ CE
      CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM (D)
      President
      HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT $2,300
      primary 05/29/07

   So why are right-wingers actively and financially supporting Hillary Clinton?  Why is Hillary's top advisor a man who has been involved in anti-Democracy CIA-backed coups in other countries?

Now, why would a pollster who is a Clinton donor miraculously have a poll out that suggests John Edwards , who has been and still is, running third place in Iowa , has all of a sudden , leap frogged over Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?

Why would the Clinton donor pollster also front page a poll that suggest John Edwards is the number one second choice among Democratic voters who said they intend to participate in the Jan. 3? Looking at the comments section of the Diary celebrating this poll , it appears clear.

Towry knows his candidate , Hillary Clinton will not win in Iowa. So, the best thing the Clinton Campaign can hope for is to make sure that Barack Obama does not beat her. What better way, to accomplish that , than to throw in a trumped up poll that makes it look like Edwards is rising and Obama is falling in an effort to discourage not only Obama supporters , but new supporters who were thinking about switching to Obama ?

I know my friends who support Edwards will accuse me of trying to rain on their parade and kill their Christmas Joy, but the timing of this poll and the fact that it helps Hillary and cast doubt on Barack Obama's status as the new Iowa Front Runner, is heavily suspicious in my view. Edwards supporters are welcome to celebrate. I am happy for them. But I would be even more happy for them if this poll was legitimate.

IDon'tBuyIt (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:50 PM)

I am sorry, but Edwards is not a nice man. If Iowan's are falling for it, it is a shame.

Pat Santa Cruz Ca (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:50 PM)

Stick a fork in Barry Obama ... He is done.

Iowans will do two things in the next week or so.

They will settle down, stop flirting and go with their old steady which is Edwards.  That will be the emotional crowd.

Or they will look at experience and electability and go with Clinton.  That will be the cold hard pragmatic crowd.

Hope will go out the window either way.  Obama is done.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:50 PM)

As long as it's not Hillary, we will all be better off.

Barbara Masterson (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:57 PM)

I guess they will need a new poll now with the love train derailment.

John Doe Today (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 8:59 PM)

And now the Enquirer and Drudge are after Edwards...

If this turns out to be true, he's done.

If wrong, drudge and enquirer should be done.

Clark (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:03 PM)

Was this before or after the National Enquirer rumour?

maurice yacowar, calgary, alberta (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:05 PM)

Was this before or after the National Enquirer rumour?

maurice yacowar, calgary, alberta (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:05 PM)

Have you seen the Drudge headline... if true, and I reiterate, if true, Edwards would be lucky to get a vote. Pregnant woman, wife sick with cancer... Someone earlier said Edwards train is rolling... it may have jumped the track...

Dave Valente, Alpharetta, GA (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:07 PM)

Sounds like the Clinton spin machine is at work the National Enquier is reporting on a John Edwards affair and is now linked on Drudge Report. Sounds like Hillary dirty tricks.......

Masterofsparks, Mason City, Iowa (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:07 PM)

Polls have been manipulated and yanked in every direction at this point.

Jackson, Blairstown, NJ (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:11 PM)

GO JOHN! Hillary and Obama are no match for you!

EDWARDS '08

Kelly, Cedar Rapids, IA (Sent Tuesday, December 18, 2007 9:12 PM)



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)

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=524511

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

More First Read

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Topics:

Political Links

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google

MSNBC Weblogs