Hillary leads fellow Democrats comfortably in Iowa, Nevada. Smaller lead in NH and SC: Poll

[antiimperialist]

In the sample of Democratic Party supporters in Iowa, New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is first with 31 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 20 per cent, Iowa governor Tom Vilsack with 17 per cent, and Illinois senator Barack Obama with 10 per cent. Support is lower for Massachusetts senator John Kerry, Maryland senator Joseph Biden, Connecticut senator Chris Dodd, retired general Wesley Clark, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, and former Alaska senator Mike Gravel.

On the Republican side, things look much more competitive:

This is an American Research Group poll. See data for all states here:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

[liberalnurse]

1. This is very early........

John Edwards may make a serious dent in Iowa. He was embraced for the 04 Primaries there.....2nd.

[madfloridian]

2. Where is that October poll showing Edwards leading by far in Iowa?

I have it somewhere. What has Hillary done since then to win so many in Iowa over? I understood she has not even been going there, so wouldn't this be name recognition?

This is so very early to worry about polls, though.

[fuzzyball]

3. Go Hillary Go

:spank: the opposition !!

[kimmerspixelated]

4. I'm sorry,

but I think Hilary should just GO home! Well, she can stay in the senate...but please forget about being prez!!!GOREGOREGOREGORE!

[PresidentObama]

5. You do know we have a year?

Polls are all good and fine, but it's a year out. I'd refer you to look at that post someone made with poll numbers from a year out last time--in 2004. Lieberman was in the lead, and Dean was in the back of the pack. And Kerry was mismatched in there somewhere. Give it a year in 04', Lieberman isn't a factor, Dean-A-Mania is running wild, and eventually Kerry is the nominee.

I mean, look at how much the polls changed when Obama's name got thrown in the hat. They changed so much with in one month. Times that by twelve or so, and can we predict who the nominee is?

I wouldn't give Hillary her crown just yet!

But it's a good indication of where we are right now.

[mtnsnake]

6. Funny how you love to diminish any poll where Hillary's in the lead, isn't it

Because the poll's about Hillary, it doesn't mean a thing. Anyone else, though, and it would be a different story.

I wouldn't give Hillary her crown just yet!

I don't see anyone around here who is, especially when she's got serious competition right now in Edwards, and I fully expect Obama will give anyone a run for the money when the time is ripe. Just the same, Hillary's been leading most polls consistently and for more than a few minutes, so you could at least give her some credit in the meantime. She's a formidable competitor, like it or not.

[PresidentObama]

8. I diminish any polls right now.

If John Kerry were leading, or Hillary were leading...It's too early. It's an indication of things right now, but things change a lot in one year. So, no your wrong. It wouldn't be a different story.

[sendero]

16. She's a formidable competitor..

... against other Dems, she will be a cakewalk for McCain.

[bigdarryl]

7. there is no way in hell Hillary is going to beat Vilsack in Iowa....

take these polls for what there Worth

[Radical Activist]

9. Why is this poll so different from all the others?

The last three I've seen had Hillary trailing Edwards and Obama in Iowa. This looks like an outlier poll.

[IndianaGreen]

10. Why does ARG has posted already Clinton/McCain in 2008 General?

Are they saying that Hillary and McCain are the anointed ones for 2008, two warhawks?

[mtnsnake]

11. You sure do know how to throw around the term "warhawk" so loosely

Why am I not surprised. Good gawd, if you can label Hillary so easily as a warhawk, then you might as well include Kerry as an even bigger warhawk, unless all that talk of his about him being a better killer of terrorists than Bush was another botched joke during his campaign.

[KingofNewOrleans]

13. Why don't polls match? Here's the answer

How they screen for "probable" caucus goers. ARG had a wider screen (meaning more people qualify as "probable" caucus goers) Research 2000 has a tighter screen (only the more dedicated voters qualify). Read more here:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/01/its_a_small_uni.html


Of course, this far out, it really doesn't matter.

[newyawker99]

17. Hi KingofNewOrleans!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[antiimperialist]

12. kick

bump

[Eurobabe]

14. Polls right now are really worthless

Clinton has name recognition going for her, but there are others that may jump in that will shake up the pot. Talk to me in late fall of this year.

I got burned pretty bad as a political primary newbie in 2003: fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice, er, can't fool me again.

[Vinca]

15. Hmmm - I'm in NH and I don't know anyone who'd vote for her

in the primary. It goes without saying if she ends up the candidate she'll get our votes, but Edwards and Obama are looking pretty good up here.

[wisteria]

18. Polls are useless at this point. LOL! n/t