New poll from Iowa

[whometense]

Today's WaPo:

John Edwards's Iowa Surprise

Most Democrats involved or interested in the early moves of the 2008 presidential chess game spent the weekend focused on the Yearly Kos convention out in Las Vegas, where progressive bloggers and activists from across the country gathered to hear political speeches and strategize on how to exercise greater influence in this year's elections.

But a thousand miles or so to the northeast some news came out of Iowa that should open some eyes among Democratic partisans.

The Des Moines Register released the results of a poll of likely 2008 Democratic caucus participants that established John Edwards -- not Hillary Rodham Clinton -- as the current frontrunner in the Hawkeye State. Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and 2004 vice presidential nominee, took 30 percent to 26 percent for New York Sen. Clinton.

John Kerry, the party's 2004 nominee, had the support of 12 percent of the survey's sample, while homestate Gov. Tom Vilsack had 10 percent -- the only other candidates to attract double-digit support in the poll. Other candidates expected to enter the 2008 Democratic presidential contest, like former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, garnered low single-digit support...

Edited to add that to me the big surprise is that Vilsack scores so low. Edwards has a ton of time to concetrate on Iowa, so in combination with 2004 it's not necessarily surprising that he scores so high. Thoughts? With the caveat, of course, that it's ridiculously early, but usually early polls measure name recognition, so it's surprising to me that Vilsack didn't do better. Maybe Iowans aren't sure he's even interested in running...

[blm]

1. Take Vilsack out of the equation and you'd have a higher Kerry percentage.

But, I don't care much what the polls says now - let's see what happens after the Kerry folks tackle machine fraud more openly - and they BETTER BE PLANNING TO DO SO.

[Dr Ron]

2. Not that it means much

Kerry trailed far behind Dean much of the time before the actual vote.

Vilsack is the big loser here. If he doesn't do well in Iowa his chances are dead. He may do much better in an actual caucus than in a poll, having obvious political advantages. Polls like this could also hurt Hillary by reducing the feelings that her victory is inevitable.

In 2004 Kerry narrowed the gap before the vote but I I don't recall him actually taking the lead in pre-caucus polls. Anyone know for certain?

[whometense]

3. All I remember was hearing hints

from the Kerry people that they were going to do very well, and I definitely remember polls showing he was surging, but I don't remember him actually having a lead in the polls before the caucus.

[Dr Ron]

4. There were certainly predictions

There were predictions both from Kerry people and from others such as journalists that Kerry might do better than expected, but I also recall a time before Iowa when we saw coming in second as a good thing to build momentum for an upset in New Hampshire. As you said he was surging upwards in the polls but I don't recall him actually taking a lead.

As for "Kerry people" that goes quite high. I met Teresa just prior to Iowa and she acted very optimistic. Of course this could have been based upon knowledge of how he was doing, or she could have just seen it as part of her role campaigning to be upbeat about the prospects.

[sandnsea]

10. He did in the actual in Iowa poll

I forget which newspaper, but it was right before the caucus and it was a big deal that Kerry was actually the frontrunner in that poll. I can't remember if it was the Des Moines Register poll or another one, but it was the poll that everyone in Iowa waited for because it had predicted the winner for years and years. He was somewhere around 25% in the poll, the near 40% win was a huge surprise.

[karynnj]

17. Also, I was contradicted on DU-P when I said

Edwards was there at least 5 times (which I had read). An Iowan (Edwards fan) said that he was there far more times. He also has gotten very good press there - he was endorsed by the Des Moines Register in 2004, so it's not a suprise. This is good news for Edwards - but he really has yet to be really looked at critically.

I think that where Edwards will lose some support is when they have the debates. That's where he was weakest in 2004.

My memory of 2004 is that Kerry was moving steadliy upward - but they were showing the tracking numbers as a moving average of previous days. I assume the last couple of days had Kerry ahead because of how fast the moving average was changing. There were also many comments that "likely caucus voter" is hard to determine.

[fedupinBushcountry]

5. Didn't the DesMoines Register

endorse Edwards in '04? This poll was a very selective one, and only had 399 participants and has no + - in its calculations. In the very favorable column Kerry out does both Clinton and Edwards.

I think the DesMoines Register is still trying to push their pick. If I remember correctly Edwards was on the same ticket as Kerry.

[Mass]

6. 400 people means MOEof 5 %.

No reason to think the poll is not valid. Actually, the result is not at all surprising. The article said that Edwards was there 5 times in 06. How many times was he there in 05. And he is only in the MOE of Hillary with all this time spent there?

Kerry's results are very promising. With a nearly blackout in the media and without having been in IA more than a couple of times in the last two years, Kerry does as well as the governor of IA, and much better than media darlings like Warner and neighbors like Bayh and Feingold.

IMHO, this is a very good start.

[karynnj]

18. The other issue is that "likely caucus goer"

is very hard to get a sampling frame for. At least in previous years that was said as a caveat on all polls.

Like you, I think that although I would rather have Kerry in Edwards position - this far out - the fact that he's in the top 3 is great. The most significant thing is probably that Hillary is no longer a prohibative favorite. (If this continues - her support could further erode.)

[Dr Ron]

9. Des Moines Register did endorse Edwards

I wouldn't go too far with this. Editorial and news rooms are somewhat separate. A good journalist will report the facts regardless of the paper's editorial positon or their beliefs.

There are plenty of exceptions (primarily in the right wing media) but it would take a stronger case to question the validity of what they are reporting than going back to their endorsement. Maybe they are trying to push their pick, or maybe they are just reporting on a poll which means very little at this point.

[wisteria]

7. Edward's has been spending a lot of time in Iowa. More than anyone

else. It is also easy to see why he goes over well there with his aw- shucks demeanor and his message-old as it may be. Wasn't he also ahead there in 2004 for a while?

[whometense]

8. Interesting comment from an actual Iowan

on the Carpetbagger post

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/7660.html#comment-40422

Speaking as a Iowa Dem, who actually participated in this poll, I can tell you on the Vilsack item: he was a good governor, but many think he just does not have what it takes to win the nomination little lone the presidency. Yes - you can accuse IA Dems looking for a candidate that we think can take back the WH. But - do not pay too much attention to these polls in IA now - or even weeks up to the caucuses. Remember everyone in the media was saying a Dean victory was all sealed up….then Kerry won.

Comment by Beth — 6/12/2006 @ 11:07 am

[jillan]

11. IF Edwards did manage to get the Pres Nomination

I'm not so sure I can support him. Yeah, of course I would vote for him.

I was originally excited that he was chosen to run as Kerry's VP. I thought his personality would complement Kerry's. But I later came to think of him as a phony. He just came across to me as a politician that would say anything that he thought would get a vote. Nothing specific, just one of those gut feelings. And looking back, I can't say he really was a benefit to Kerry. Elizabeth Edwards, on the other hand, would get my support in a heartbeat. I loved watching her, listening to her. I hope she's doing ok.

[whometense]

12. I agree with you 100%

on both of them. I got tired of Edwards speech, and he didn't seem to be able to wander very far from what he had memorized.

Elizabeth, though - WOW. I was an instant fan, and would definitely vote for her!!

[Mass]

13. I agree.

[jillan]

14. Anybody know how she is?

I saw John on something on tv and he said alot would depend of Elizabeth's health if he would run again. I think he should give it up, don't put her thru the stress. He probably would be good in the Senate or the House. His spiels belong there. Not at the WH.

[Mass]

15. He says she is doing fine. It is actually another of these things that

drive me crazy: either she is doing fine and he is using that for sympathy, or she is not and he should say he does not run, but, 18 months later, the explanation is getting old. (I mean: obviously, everybody understands that, if she was sick, he would not run. What is the point of saying that at each interview - Is it not the case for every candidate except those who are real jerks?).

To be honest, these are the little details in Edwards that drive me crazy.

[jillan]

16. Drives me crazy too.

He was the one that the repugs should have labeled as
'changing positions as often as the wind blows' or 'waffle'.

And he should have been more vocal about the attacks on Kerry.
Personally, I would have loved to have seen him pick Clark. Oh well, enough about the past.
I'm spending my energy on Kerry '08, not Kerry '04.

And Edwards doesn't have a chance. Altho, I would love to see Kerry v Edwards in the primary debates. lol.

on edit - I am glad that she is doing better. :)

[karynnj]

19. I don't know the length of time before someone

is considered cured from breast cancer - or even if it differs by type. I assume that there has been no reoccuance or he would be with her, but it might be that the period doctors look for is longer.

My concern is that he is beyond slick and his supporters are oblivious to that. It astonishes me that months ago his supporters took his "I was wrong" as more sincere than Kerry's deep acknowledgement that his vote was wrong. To me, it's obvious who cared more.

It may be a mixed blessing if this gives Edwards more exposure - he doesn't wear well. I don't know if it's my Chicago and NYC areas background, but I was totally creeped out that he channeled the voice of a baby who died in childbirth in a malpractice suit.

[Inuca]

21. "he channeled the voice of a baby who died in childbirth in a malpractice

WHAT??? Details?

[karynnj]

22. Here's the NYT article - the baby actually lived but was brain damaged

"In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.

Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: ''She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing O.K.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.' ''

But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl's brain.

''She speaks to you through me,'' the lawyer went on in his closing argument. ''And I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you.'' "

link to NYT (4 page article)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9501E3DD1F38F932A05752C0A9629C8B63

Edwards filed about 20 such cases. The problem I had was that these cases should have been settled based on facts, not sympathy or false emotionalism. If the doctor was negligent, he should have proved it. Edwards was too condervative, slick and pro-war, but after reading this, I really didn't want him to win.

[beachmom]

25. As a lay person who studied child birth a lot before I had kids

Maybe my sympathies are more for the doctors, except in a case of blatant negligence. A mother needs to be armed with info, and work with the doctor. There is actually a shortage of OB/GYN's in my area because of malpractrice insurance. Now I know that insurance companies have a LOT to do with this, but I have to be honest that I'm not a big fan of trial lawyers. True, sometimes they're all that we have to hold large corporations accountable, but I wish there was a better way than constant lawsuits. Edwards certainly knew how to win (which means that he would be a great lawyer to HIRE), but this case strikes me to be over the top.

Kerry is a lawyer, too, but I don't think he would have done what Edwards did.

[karynnj]

27. I agree Kerry wouldn't do it - it comes down to integrity

It is really clear that Kerry fit best as a prosecutor.

[wisteria]

28. I find Edward's antics in this case repugnant. I hate to say it ,but it

makes me question why Kerry even considered him as VP.

[karynnj]

30. You are not alone

I heard that both Clinton and Kennedy recommended him. (In a way that may be that personality - wise Edwards may be more similar to them than Kerry.) I also think there was no obvious good choice.

[JI7]

20. this is actually good news and shows the importance of Iowa

the reason Edwards is ahead is because he HAS been to the state more than others. the people there pay attention and are willing to listen to candidates rather than just go by the whore media.

although i found the Des Moines article as too biased. you would think David would have learned from 2004 that nothing is certain this far before the voting takes place. of course he endorsed Edwards so it's understandable.

Kerry will have to make his case to voters again which i'm sure he will be ready to do if he does decide to run again.

[karynnj]

23. I agree - the main thing it says is that Hillary will need to work

to get the nomination. I think Edwards is smart to be doing what he's doing, but in 2007 many others will come and side by side, Edwards may again be seen as too weak. The media loved him in 2004 and actually gave him far more credit for the primary results he got. (SC and NC were the only wins, and Iowa was by far the next highest. (I also saw one article that I think was the Register's that annoyingly focused on Edwards' disavowal of the war and that he was for withdrawal (when his comments were vaguer) in comparison to others.

We've always known that Kerry was a long shot to get it twice. I'm more optimist now than I was a year ago. It's interesting that Gore, Edwards and Hillary are getting a lot of hype now - in 2002, there was less interest, but Gore and Clinton were spoken of. Then in 2003, there was huge Dean hype. It could be a liability to be the front runner this far out. It gives far more visibility to mistakes.

[wisteria]

24. I have always been enthusiastic ,but pragmatic about Kerry's

capturing the nomination again. I want nothing more than to see him become President, but I also realize it is an even tougher road this time around. I am up for the fight, I won't back down. I do see progress and I remain optimistic. I refuse to accept that he doesn't have a chance. I have seen and read to many things to the contrary. Besides, Kerry just seems so much more authoritative, in charge and ready to take command than any of the other mentioned candidates. I am excited thinking about the prospect of him campaigning again. He has the ability to "wow" people this time out!

[karynnj]

26. It will be really interesting to see

I agree that " Besides, Kerry just seems so much more authoritative, in charge and ready to take command than any of the other mentioned candidates." I think that Gore, if he became focused on that could project the same authority. I think it interesting that virtually every bit of coverage at a Kerry appearance has noted with surprise that he connects far better than expected and that he has more support than expected.

I do think Edwards will be a threat - the media likes him, he can be charming, and he will likely demogogue the trade issue. The fact is global trade is a reality.

[BlueIris]

29. I'm not going to elaborate, so take this with the bag of salt you should:

Edwards will be president one day, but not before John Kerry. This is a good sign for JE's future though, for which I have the greatest hopes (well, maybe not greater than the hopes I have for our John, but I like Edwards, too; so sue me).