Still a three-way tie (0.00 / 0)

And possibly more evidence that this race isn't going to change much until after Iowa.

Regardless of what the polls in Iowa say, lots of people are still so focused on the national polls. That, and the lack of any kind of momentum for a viable alternative candidate in the blogosphere or the other parts of the movement mean that the Hillary inevitability train could go on well into January. 

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

---

by: Jenifer Fernandez Ancona @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 14:00:07 PM CDT

obama supporters can take heart (0.00 / 0)

At a time when so many people are feeling frustrated by his lack of movement in the polls and his reluctance to go on the attack, I think that this poll; the 24K rally in NYC; and the news that will come next week of half a million donations from 350,000 people totaling more than $100 million dollars ($33+ million per quarter) will buoy Obama supporters and push back against the naysayers.

no one is inevitable.

---

by: aiko @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 14:41:15 PM CDT

erhm...make that more like $75 mil (0.00 / 0)

Obama:
1st quarter primary donations =23.5 m
2nd quarter primary donations =31 m
3rd quarter low estimates =18 m
total: 72.5 million

---

by: aiko @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 15:01:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Amazing how the media's decided on Hillary (4.00 / 2)

Before a single vote has been cast and with the first caucus still more than 3 months away and no one coming even close to having majority support. Where do they suppose that Edwards or Obama's supporters are going to go when their guy fades--to the other guy, not Hillary. I suppose that most of Biden's and many of Richardson's supporters will likely go to Hillary, but they don't have that many so they probably won't be a big factor. I'm starting to think that Dodd's someone to watch more closely. He's been quietly getting the support of progressives and still has time to pick up his numbers.

Anyone confidently predicting that Hillary is inevitable is simply being lazy and doesn't know what they're talking about. Voters are only now starting to pay closer attention, and there's no way to tell what will happen come January.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 16:25:03 PM CDT

Iowa Polling 1st and 2nd choices (0.00 / 0)

The new poll showed the following when combining 1st and 2nd choices:

Obama 52
Clinton 44
Edwards 41

---

by: BDM @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 17:04:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

the traditional media often doesn't know what they are talking about (4.00 / 1)

but unfortunately they still have the ear of the majority of Americans.

It's the blogs that could step in and try to change this race. So far they have been unwilling to. So I guess we'll just wait until January and hope for the best.

Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.

---

by: Jenifer Fernandez Ancona @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 17:16:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But apparently not the ear of Iowa Dem voters (0.00 / 0)

I'm starting to realize that not only is the media (along with beltway consultants) out of touch with reality and what most Americans are really thinking, but that most Americans have stopped listening to or giving a damn about what the media thinks and says. The disconnect now operates in both directions. The blogosphere still listens and pays attention to the media, because good or bad they still do the bulk of the reporting and opining--and they make such a great foil for us. But frankly, I don't think that most Americans really care what Chris or Tim or Wolf or Tucker have to say about the "horse race"--especially seeing as what most of them have to say about it has little to do with reality or their own take on it.

What the establishment beltway media doesn't realize is that not only is it cut off from the public and reality, but that this is slowly starving and asphyxiating it to death. It's just a matter of time before internet-based alternative media outlets will start seriously competing with big media, and it's not going to be fun when they wake up and realize that no one listens to them anymore.

Of course, the disconnect is not entirely clueless. To a large extent they are aware of it and pretend that it doesn't exist because they have a political, corporate and ideological agenda to plug--i.e. the one that has a Giuliani or Clinton as the only viable candidates for president. They are clearly advocating for an outcome that they desire. Not necessarily them personally (although as Digby and others have brilliantly shown, it's that too--i.e. "Versailles" or the "Village"), but their corporate masters--the Sumner Redstones and Jeff Immelts and Rupert Murdochs who actually control what the media puts out. The news and opinion that they put out is really just a very slick series of political infomercials designed to fool us into believing that certain outcomes are preferable and inevitable, to make us give up on ones that we might prefer and which in reality do stand a chance of happening.

After all, this is the same media that has claimed that most Americans were for Libby being pardoned, against withdrawing the troops, share far-right conservative values, and have referred to left-wing blogs and activist groups as far-left radical extremists. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the RNC and CNN and MSNBC. The difference is one of nuance and degree, not position. They are ALL committed to maintaining the power status quo, and will not hesitate to distort the news if not outright lie to do that. Thus the sudden "Hillary is inevitable" meme that mysteriously popped up almost overnight and is being parroted across the media. This was no accident.

Perhaps Hillary IS inevitable--but only if the media succeeds in manipulating the public into believing that she is. Wag the dog, anyone?

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 17:36:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting, but not that germane (4.00 / 1)

If future pollings back this up, that's terrible news for Edwards. That said, the MoE is so immense that I don't think you can really learn anything from this poll.

Plus of course there's also the fact that the caucus system makes it difficult to predict a winner even with reams and reams of polling averages.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 17:47:55 PM CDT

That's exactly what I thought (0.00 / 0)

Plus of course there's also the fact that the caucus system makes it difficult to predict a winner even with reams and reams of polling averages.

That's exactly what I think of whenever I see another Iowa poll. Including a 2nd choice in this poll is helpful, but we still have no idea if this support, whether 1st or 2nd choice, is concentrated or evenly spread. Or what if, for example, most of Obama's second choice support comes from people whose first choice is from candidates who aren't viable, while Clinton's second choice support comes from candidates who are viable? In that scenario, Obama gains while Clinton is static.

Remember that in 2004, the estimated popular vote had the top 4 bunched around 20%, while Kerry and Edwards dominated the delegate count.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 18:23:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's tremendously difficult to interpret (0.00 / 0)

You also have to factor in things like delegate concentration and the like. A caucus system is so difficult to predict that there is always a substantial element of guesswork. One can analyse the data afterwards to see why what happened happened, but the changing situation and the multitude of data points needed make it near impossible to have much certainty of the results.

To be honest, we're not safe saying much beyond the fact that Clinton, Obama and Edwards are the three leading candidates in Iowa.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

---

by: Englishlefty @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 19:00:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Internal identifiers (0.00 / 0)

Personally I think that it will all come down to organization.  Obama is in my opinion rightly concentrating only on the early states right now so it isn't a problem if people outside Iowa lose faith that he can win.

It might even be a good thing.

Not to say that the lack of support in polling is a good indicator for him, but really I think that neither is it too bad of a thing.  Personally I'd place a lot more stock in an ancedotal story about the various levels of organization among the candidates.

---

by: Astera @ Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 18:43:26 PM CDT