Zogby has new Iowa and New Hampshire polls out, for both Democrats and Republicans. The polls were all donducted by telephone between November 29th and December 1st, with samples of between 502 and 514 voters. The margins of error are either 4.4 or 4.5, and results from early November are in parenthesis:
Strategic Vision is also coming out with a new Iowa poll, showing Obama ahead 32%--25%--25%. This makes the five-poll average in Iowa, including only polls that started collecting data on November 26th, Obama 27.2%, Clinton 25.8%, and Edwards 23.2%. In other words, across the entire poll average, little has changed and only 4.0% separates first and third. That is pretty much a three-way tie.
The five-poll average in New Hampshire, taken from November 25th forward, is Clinton 32.6%, Obama 23.0%, Edwards 16.0%, and Richardson 9.2%. It seems to me that Edwards is actually going up faster in New Hampshire than Obama, which is interesting. Also, while I believe that a 1.4% Obama advantage in Iowa, combined with a 9.6% Clinton advantage in New Hampshire, would result in Obama sweeping the two states, Charlie Cook doesn't think so:
The bottom line is that Obama has to show strength beyond Iowa if he is to beat Clinton and win the Democratic nomination.
Yes, he has to win Iowa in order to live to fight in the next round of states. The latest batch of polls and the balance of the primary and caucus schedule reflect the magnitude of that challenge.
As popular as it has become to denigrate national polls, they do reflect the attitudes of voters outside the early primary states, whose opinions may, for once, count in the nomination fights.
Obviously, I disagree. I feel that both Dean and Clark supporters made the same claim in 2004 that early state momentum doesn't matter as much, when the opposite ended up being the case. Maybe I am just basing this on a gut feeling that momentum from early state wins will matter as much as ever, but given just how difficult momentum is to predict, perhaps a gut feeling, combined with past experience, is as good an indicator as anything else. It has been 16 years since any candidate did well after being shut out of wins in Iowa and New Hampshire.
On the Republican side, the Iowa average currently stands at Huckabee 26.6% to 25.8% for Romney, with everyone else at less than half those totals. In New Hampshire, the average is Romey 34.2%, Giuliani 17.8%, McCain 16.2%, and Huckabee 10.0%. While I don't think there is any way that either Giuliani or McCain stays ahead of Huckabee after Iowa, I also think that a 24.2% lead is enough for Romney to hold onto New Hampshire even if he loses Iowa to Huckabee. So, after Romney and Huckabee finish 1-2 in both Iowa and New Hampshire, I imagine they will duke it out in those same positions all the way to the end, with other candidates dropping off quickly.
Wow, Romney versus Huckabee. How many people called that one eight months ago?
