US News
New Iowa poll shows Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul spike in percentages
By M&C US News Dec 26, 2007, 16:17 GMT
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (L) and New York Senator Hillary Clinton laugh during the Des Moines Register/Iowa Public Television Democratic candidates\'s presidential debate in Johnston, Iowa, USA 13 December 2007. The first political test of the 2008 will be the Iowa caucus on 03 January 2008. EPA/JOHN GAPPS III / POOL
A new Iowa poll seems to show the New York senator Hillary Clinton with a new double-digit lead over her nearest rival among likely Democratic caucus-goers.
GOP dark horse Doctor Ron Paul now has 10 percent in the latest poll, up from 4 percent last week.
Clinton and Obama were neck-and-neck in last week’s American Research Group poll. But in the new survey, conducted December 20-23, she leads the Illinois senator by 15 percentage points, 34 to 19 percent.
Obama is now in a statistical tie for second place with former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who has 20 percent of the vote.
This week, the leaders with male voters polled are Clinton and Edwards, with 28 and 27 percent support among Democratic men. Obama has 16 percent support, and Joe Biden has 11 percent.
The Republican race in Iowa may be tightening up. A week ago, an ARG poll placed Mike Huckabee over Mitt Romney by an 11-point margin among likely Republican caucus-goers, but the latest poll by the group puts the two back in a statistical tie, 23 to 21 percent. John McCain has 17 percent of the vote, Rudy Giuliani has 14 percent — and Ron Paul has 10 percent in the latest poll, up from 4 percent last week.
The latest poll indicates that Huckabee’s support among male voters in Iowa may be slipping. Last week, Huckabee had 31 percent support among Republican men; this week, he and Rudy Giuliani are tied at 20 percent. John McCain and Mitt Romney both have the support of 17 percent of the GOP’s likely male caucus goers.
The most recent ARG polls have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The polls were conducted over the phone, and had a sample size of 600 likely Democratic and 600 Republican caucus-goers living in Iowa, respectively.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Bout time they get a Black brother in that White house. Call it the Black house. ya.
a White woman for president and a subservient male Negro vice-president isn't such a bad idea. Hell, we've tried everything else, even voted in a chimp, (not the smartest chimp but a chimp just the same) and that didn't work.
...the more he wins, the harder it is to convince the party that she's the person to go on to the next step.
Right now, no one's asking who is the best candidate, only who can beat the republicans.
The republican survey is given to 'likely voters' in primaries, which only comprises those who voted for bush in 04...only the most hardcore of the republicans..the ones who still love bush. Ron Paul's supporters are in large degree those who didn't vote in 04 for bush because he ran pretty much unopposed. Democrats and independents can show up at the primaries and switch to the republican party and vote. The tens of millions of ron paul supporters will vastly outnumber the few hundred thousand people who voted for bush in 04, and who comprise those who are being polled... it's no mystery that the 'top tier' GOP candidates are all appealing to the 'security mom' types and the evangelicals
I am a reformed Evangelical, went back to Catholicism. The thing about many Evangelicals is that they have the mentality of 'The sheep hear the shepherd. They listen for his voice. They follow him wherever he goes.' To these Evangelicals, Pastor Huckabee has become that shepherd on a national scale as the one who represents Jesus the Good Shepherd. Pastor Huckabee is full of scandals, but they ignore it because he's the shepherd and the sheep follow the shepherd wherever he goes. The consequences of the philosophy are often not good. On an extreme scale this was the Rev. Jim Jones in Guyana. On a lesser scale happening every day it is people giving away their life's savings to their pastors or the teleministers. If these Evangelical pastors were poor themselves and the money really went to the poor it would be one thing. If they gave all the money for example, to the suffering Christians and Jews in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, I would call them saints. But these pastors, especially the heads of the megachurches and the televangicals, are all multimillionaires! Jesus' words come to mind: 'They devour widows houses, and for a show make lengthy prayers.' Furthermore, Pastor Huckabee is also a politician who wants to be president. An even bigger no no. This does not reflect well on Evangelicals to my mind. I am voting for Ron Paul for president. He is not a huckster. He is a man of integrity and truth. Evangelicals take note: Dr Paul is pro-life, has been married to his wife for 50 years, and his older brother is a Lutheran minister.
The first half of this post covers the problems with the ARG poll amply.
ttp://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/12/problem-with-american-research-g roup.html
Namely, the ARG poll makes no attempt to account for cell phone users. Given the youth skew of Obama's support, that is a real problem. No wonder they've produced numerous results off by 20 points or more.
has an enormous hole to dig themselves out of, a hole created by GWB. Ron Paul has an enormous shovel. T'would be a shame to see the same old political fluff voted in. I'm an independent voting for Ron Paul.
Somehow, we've survived Bush; now we cannot afford not to have Ron Paul.
Record employment
low inflation
record tax receipts
outstanding exports
Iraq secure and dealing
Stopping useless liberal legislation at every turn.
The only 'hole' here is the one you libazis dug for Bush and he's avoided for the last two terms!
Highest housing foreclosure rate since the Great Depression. (and just getting started - still not at the bottom)
$1,500 less in annual purchasing power per houshold.
30% percent decline in the value of the US dollar in the last 3 yrs.
Over 50% percent of ALL Illegal immigrants came in under Bush's watch ... er neglect.
More than $9,000 billion in debt (an increase of more than 50%!!!!) under Bush's (and Republican Congress) leadership.
...
Regarding SP4's comment 'Iraq Secure' ... even from SP4, that's beyond stupid. (OK, SP4, if Iraq is secure, then we should be able to leave now, right? ... idiot!!!)
This poll closely resembles the AOL online poll. I assume Ron Paul was actually included as a chose this time.
Hillary is an absolute disaster for america and ron paul surely gets my vote.
We cannot have another clinton in the white house, one clinton is enough for me.
I'm really hoping Hilary wins the Dem nomination, this will really help Paul. Once he wins the GOP nomination and is up against her in the general election, he will win in a landslide!
Dark Horse going to the dark house? I think so. I still don't belive these polls represent the real support he has and I also belive we're heading for the political upset of the century. I'm a RP supporter.
why do we need a president?
we went 7 yr.s without one already.
Ron Paul is an interesting, libertarian candidate. But libertarianism is the Utopian idealism of the right, just as socialism is the Utopian idealism of the left. Paul and the libertarians do not seem to realize that capitalism always requires new markets and thus, wars to open them up. Iraq is a case in point. That war is merely globalization by force.
Paul has no chance to get elected. Even if he did, his policies have about as much chance being implement as a snowball has of thriving in Hades.
Ron Paul wants peace. Hillary wants to continue murdering people. RON PAUL for peace and liberty. Hillary is a gun grabber as well.
This was written in defense of GWB:
Record employment
low inflation
record tax receipts
outstanding exports
Iraq secure and dealing
Stopping useless liberal legislation at every turn.
The only 'hole' here is the one you libazis dug for Bush and he's avoided for the last two terms!
My question is:
1) What is a libazis? If what you are trying to communicate is that Ron Paul is a liberal, wrong.
2) If you are trying to say that record employment of meaningless jobs is good, ok your right, but the middle class is disappearing because jobs created by Walmart & McDonalds don't cut it while good jobs are being outsourced by Corporate America.
3) If you think outstanding exports are good at the expense of inflation due to a sinking dollar, good job GWB! NOT!
4) If you are trying to say Iraq is stable, ask yourself was it worth spending the Trillions of dollars to remove Sadam so we could pave the path for a Iranian run Iraq.... stay tuned this one is still playing out.
Harry reid and John 'pockets' Murtha have both admitted the surge was successful.
Houseold wealth is at a Historic High.
Foreclosures are not the reuslt of the President. They are borrowers and lenders who made some big mistakes.
Bush actually wants to help those who do not deserve it.
Go see how Clinton dealt with illegal immigrints...he has his wife using them for illegal cash donations! Don't balme Bush
9 trillion debt - we're at war, so that is what it takes.
Iran is dealing
N. Korea is dealing
Iraq is pacified and dealing to democracy
Bush has defeated AMT and Paygo in Congress, has Reid boxed in and must be laughing out loud.
Lame? Who...Reid?
You go and make another nonsensical statement like 'Iraq is pacified'??!!??!!??
Again ... simply beyond stupid.
So tell us all then SP4, if Iraq is 'pacified' and 'secure', as you say ... then we should be able to leave now right?
SP4, Why do you have such a great desire to show all of us how utterly stupid you are with comments like that?
Your other comments are 'self evident' as wrong ... anyone with half a brain can see that ... and as such, don't require a rebuttal to be shown as wrong ... they show themselves to be wrong.
And yes SP4, that does make you wrong, again.
Baghdad is having a film festival.
A Film Fesitval! can you imagine this even one year ago?
I think even the worst dem-libnazi has to ante up with Hirry and ol 'Pockets' Murtha and see the light here! The corners been turned. How do I know this?
No more drive-by libnazi press! Yes, Ol Rush hits it on the head:If the libnazis can't advance a slam on the right, they shut up until they can.
This is why you're not reading anything substantive: The liberals are embarrassed because Bush is winning and they just can't walk around it! We saw this when the JFK airport attack was foiled. The NYT had a lead story on brickmaking in India! Anything to not give credit to this president.
Leave? Heck no! They'll wait until they are in and either bring home 10 people then declare a pullout, or snipe at the next President, if he is a republican. No use trying something for the greater good, eh?
This is how we got there to begin with: Liberals voted to greenlight this in order to win in 04 but it backfired. They lost, and no want to take credit for any successes. This is why Hirry and Murtha are mouthing off.
Wrong? Me? Maybe but you certainly have not shown me how.
..what a boob.
I'd love to see Iraq become a peaceful democracy, I really would. It's certainly not there yet; pointing to a film festival as an example of success shows about the same unrealistic optimism as those who think Ron Paul will win when he's currently polling at 10%. In both cases it's a small victory, but there's a long war left to be fought.
If Iraq turns to anarchy, dictatorship, civil war, or theocracy, surely most people will agree that our 4,000 lives lost and trillion dollars spent will have been wasted. But even if Iraq turns into a peaceful, democratic, pro-US ally, you have to question whether this war was really was worth $1 trillion, 4000+ US dead, alienating most of our allies, and expending all of the international good-will that the U.S. had after 9/11. For that amount of money, after toppling Hussein we could have just handed every man, woman, and child in Iraq $30,000 in cash! Might that have been a better way to make friends and influence people than dropping bombs on them? Or better yet, give them just half of the trillion dollars and with the rest, give every man, woman, and child in the U.S. nearly $2000. Family of four, that's $8000. I'm just trying to put the staggering amount of money that we've spent on the war into perspective here.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who realizes that you can't be a true conservative - advocating limited government, low taxes, and low spending - while advocating unlimited budgets for overseas wars. As happy as I'll be if Iraq turns democratic, Iraq's government is the responsibility of Iraqis, not of the American taxpayer.
So if we had suicide bombers, sectarian death squads and IEDs on our roads here in the US ... you'd would still use the term 'secure' as you do in reference to Iraq? ...
You would then say the US was 'secure'?
No. You wouldn't.
Like I said ... your comments about Iraq being 'secure' are simply beyond stupid.
... suicide bombers, sectarian death squads, IEDs on the roads ... are STILL daily occurances in Iraq.
SP4 says Iraq is 'secure' .... Bwahahahahaha!!!!
What an idiot he is.
...but only about himself. Paul does not believe you can be a true conservative only because HE is incapable of it himself.
In the world we are living in, his philosophy is simply outdated. We no longer have the luxury of turning our backs on the rest of the world because we have no barriers to our enemies except our iniative.Both parties understand this, perfectly, whether you are Clinton in Kosovo or Bush in Iraq.
Every president since Roosevelt realizes it but only the republicans are up front about it because their constituency understands it. The dems must lie constantly to stay in office because the cake-and-ice cream liberals won't hear of it, until one minute after a democratic president decree's he must. Then, they get amnesia.
Power in this world comes in blocks. We want a surrogate in the middle ast, and so does Russia. China wants a surrogate in the middleast too. In Ron Paul's world this is beyond his comprehension, or at least he will not countenance it.
For this,Ron's about to get his walking papers.
So, was this war worth it? It will take decades to realize a gain, at least at the rate we are going.
SP4 writes ... 'So, was this war worth it? It will take decades to realize a gain, at least at the rate we are going.'
Yet in his other recent posts under different articles, he writes 'Iraq is secure' and 'Iraq is pacified'
Clearly his statement above doesn't talk about Iraq going so swell (... decades to realize a gain ... at the rate we are going).
The fool can't even keep his partisan spin and distortions straight.
That's what liars do.
None of it. Not the insults or the rehtoric. The fact is, history will be the judge. Now, how in hell does one put a spin on that?
In 1783 the british left New York, for the last time. The Congess was a mees and loyalists wanted Washington to take control of the nation as king.
Washington wnet to Congress, faced those who denigrated 'his' war,(sound familiar?) and then, in one definitive move that saved the USA, he resigned his commission, on Dec 24th 1783! It forced Congress to deal with nationhood.
It took 30 years to realize the effects of his actions. That being the case why is Iraq going to be any different?
We have a chance to shape the region, and only a chance.
I point out where SP4 contra-dicks himself ... yet again ... then he replies with 'But, does that make me wrong?' ... (c'mon SP4 ... contradicting yourself certinaly DOES NOT make you right! ... it just shows you to be a fool.)
... And then SP4 goes on with a bunch of irrelevant rambling about Washington resigning (which Washington did because he didn't want to be held up like a 'King' in our new democracy ... concepts that Bush , and SP4 can't grasp).
Gauwd I've never seen such a clear example of an idiot as SP4 consistently shows himself to be.
...any cogent argument is, sometimes wasted on the morons who sink to simple insults.
All the more credibility to my argument...they do not have a real argument of their own.
The libnazi playbook is s simple one: Iraq must be pasted as a failure, because if it has any level of success, their argument falls like a house of cards. This is why the libanzi press has shut up i.e. Rush Limbaugh's comment that until bad news arrives, they gag the story.
Now, their worst fears come true: Harry Readi and 'Abscam' Murtha are backpeddling on their previous statements.
They get down every night on their knees and pray, PRAY, that casualties go up and the progress collapses.
Enemies? Maybe THESE guys are the ones Walt refered to looking in the mirror!
As for Fox's poll, I really could not believe it myself, and my kid told me about it. I had to look it up myself to see if this was Hannity hallucinating again or did they really poll dems to get it.
My kid was right. Damn, I hate to lose an argument with my child!
For SP4 to say that we 'pray for casualties to go up' ... It's the most vile and disgusting thing I've ever read from SP4.
NEWSFLASH SP4 ... Since you apparently missed it ... Casualties are what we have protested from the very beginnig of this neo-con mess.
You are truly a sick and hate-filled person to make that comment SP4.
You show yourself to be the lowest of the low.
SP4, you throw insults at every turn...
And here you are accusing others of 'sinking to simple insults'?
Typical SP4 hypocrisy.
Unless your a Republican today supporting Ron Paul or possibly McCain most likely you are an idiot. Every Republican with half a brain left the party before Bush'es second term.
The republican style is to tap your happy-feet and reach into the stall next to you, looking for gay sex, in a PUBLIC bathroom ... unconcerned that young boys could be exposed to it ... after you've pushed for anti-gay legislation in Washington.
Yeah SP4, that's the republican style ... it's also known as hypocracy.
You say 'they got us there just as much as Bush did'
LOL
Let me explain it to you SP4 (and don't worry, I'll type real slow so you can read it)
Here goes...
The person who creates the lie bears the ultimate responsibility for it ... not the ones who believed it.
Got it? Or was that too fast for ya?
You always try the same shameless, wormy and laughable distortion on who's responsible for starting the war in Iraq.
Never wavering, you're like a rock ... only dumber.
...so, it was the so called intel community that lied? THAT is where the info orginated, so that is where the lie came from, by your thinking.
Joe Wilson, went to Niger, disguised as, surprise, an american businessman. Golly, i''l bet he fooled...5 people with that one! The only ting missing was the shoe phone and agent 99.
Then, he comes back and says Iraq never wanted to buy Yellowcake uranium, when Iraq had sent a trade delegation there in 1999, to a nation that only exports cattle, onions and uranium. Let me guess, Einstein, you think it was for the onions, right?
The CIA was sooooo impressed no one would even print it!
The liar responsible is the one that created the lie?
I'll buy that....
That being the case...Bush is not really responsible, is he?
By the way, over 500 WMD's were found in Iraq, two were actually setonaded in public, so I would say he's not a liar, twice!
Re: his endless repetition of 'over 500 WMD's were found in Iraq'
Look SP4 ... if they were viable, REAL WMDs, Bush would be standing on the rooftops showing them to the world.
But he isn't.
Why?
Because they were useless rusty shells with mere traces of chemicals in them that Donald Rumsfled gave to Iraq in the 80's. --- Empahasis on useless!!!
Not even remotely close to the examples Bush gave to start this damned war.
And you know that ... why do you continue to blather on so stupidly and endlessy about them?
SP4, you really are dumber than a rock.
And lying is something you do without hesitation.
You're a lying idiot.
Now ... 'Simon Says' you can go crying to your mama and tell her I told everyone how stupid you are.
...over 500 WMD's WERE found, regardless of the state that they were in.
2 were set off (sarin?) inside Iraq during the occupation.
Now, follow me here, if you can (and I havve my doubts), we were told NO WMD's existed. I use No as None...or zero...meaning NONE.
Obviously, that was NOT true, was it? In fact, evidence clearly points to the fact that they do exist, or existed.
Now, any reasonable person would conclude that the lie was that they did NOT exist!
So now, Dickhead, who's the liar here? Not me!
Other pertinent questions:
What DID they actually have in them when operational?
When did they become inert or unusable?
How many did they actually find?
Where were they found?
Was there a record of them
In reading Reagan's diaries, he refers to speaking engagements where he got a standing ovation and the press then called it a 'tepid' reception.
Now, why would I trust a liberal press to cover something like THIS, when they are unwilling to correctly present something as simple as a speech?
We see this all the time i.e. the Joe Wilson propaganda. It gets presented as fact and is confirmed as fact, even though it's completely debunked.
These folks rely on one fact to protect themselves: YOU will not remember tomorrow, what was said today.
And YOU are the perfect example of this.
Answer that SP4
He did.
The press summarily ignored or refused to accept the facts, as illustrated. They ignored the glaring fact of a sarin bomb,found clearly to be a military weapon set up as a roadside bomb detonated, and discounted it as 'a single incident'.
They do this ALL the time. They let Joe Wilson lie on the stand and present his testimony as fact. They softball liberals and are completely unfair to conservatives. They do it ALL the time.
Limbaugh calls this the 'template'. The press does not report news, they shape it to their own views. They are caught doing it ALL the time.
Understand, these are the same folks who got someone to cook up phony documents on the president before an election and present them as fact to the nation on his military service.
These so called journalists were fired for gross incompetence, but STILL stand by the story. can you imagine another profession saying 'well, the evidence was false, but the story is true!'
Dan Rather, on a speaking engagement in Philadelphia, was asked at a common mike, by a newspaper reporter, why he failed to check out the source.
What did they do? They shut off the mike...the true face of the libnazi press.
Bernie Goldberg once questioned the way CBS handled a Steven Forbes interview, printed it in an OP Ed piece in the WSJ, and they forced him to resign for it. He wrote a whole book on it called, appropriately, 'Bias' about the biases of the media.
Besides, to address your question, Bush really doesn't give a crap what folks think, except at voting time. If his tenure is to be defined, I think THAT defines him. It also makes him a poor salesman, one of the few, glaring shortcommings he has.
Don't worry thogh, the lovefest is coming back. One of these chukleheads in the column is likely to be the next president.
Bush has NEVER announced to the world that the WMDs he started the war over have been found.
Gauwd you just keep making stuff up.
page: 1
SP4: HirraryDec 26th, 2007 - 16:30:20
...has gotta deal out th black guy or she's in trouble.
Report this comment