Edwards Leads in Iowa, so Does Huckabee

December 19th, 2007 By: Michael van der Galien | Tags:

Here are some recent polls: Edwards is – according to one poll – now leading in Iowa, while Clinton and Obama are tied in South Carolina and Clinton has a comfortable lead in Missouri. Governor Mike Huckabee is leading quite comfortably in Missouri as well, while he and Romney are tied in Sout Carolina, just like Obama and Clinton.

The results of the latest Insider Advantage Poll (via Open Left) are:

Edwards: 30%
Clinton: 26% (fixed)
Obama: 24% (fixed)
Other: 12%
Unsure: 7%

This poll is great news for Edwards – if he doesn’t win in Iowa, his campaign is over – reasonable news for Clinton and bad, horrible news for Obama. If Obama wants to beat Clinton he has to create momentum. He has to do so by beating her in Iowa. And not just by beating her but also by beating all the other Democratic candidates.

The best possible scenario for Clinton? Winning in Iowa. The second best possible scenario? Edwards winning.

Meanwhile, Real Clear Politics also has a poll up (also Insider Advantage), but then about the Republican primaries. It shows that the difference between Romney and Huckabee in Iowa is decreasing. It’s only 2% at this point in time, according to this poll. This means that Huckabee and Romney could still both win in Iowa. If Huckabee loses there, his chances of winning the nomination diminish, basically. If Romney loses Iowa, he’ll fight back in New Hampshire and it’ll be on in South Carolina, Florida, Michigan, etc.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • SphereIt
  • NewsVine
  • TailRank
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Chris
    December 19th, 2007 at 19:22
    Reply | Quote | #1

    Funny how Edwards get almost no media coverage despite doing so well in the polls.  Same goes for Huckabee in the polls and Ron Paul and his fundraising.  Greenwald has some idea why:

    Edwards, Paul and Huckabee are obviously disparate in significant ways — ideologically, temperamentally, and otherwise. But there is a vital attribute common to those three campaigns that explains the media’s scorn: they are all, in their own ways, anti-establishment candidates, meaning they are outside and critical of the system of which national journalists are a critical part, the system which employs and rewards our journalists and forms the base of their identity and outlook. Any candidate who criticizes and opposes that system — not in piecemeal ways but fundamentally — will be, first, ignored and, then, treated as losers by the press.

  2. Interested
    December 20th, 2007 at 06:28
    Reply | Quote | #2

    Edwards certainly should – he’s been there since 04 and never left it.

    But I think if Edwards places 1st, and Obama makes 2nd – Clinton can still struggle out but it will give Obama a nice jolt.

Comments are closed.

PoliGazette Comments Policy

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.