Zogby: John Edwards Leads Democrats in Iowa

[Dos Equis]

Monday, April 2, 2007 8:46 a.m. EDT
Zogby: John Edwards Leads Democrats in Iowa

The race for the Democratic Party nomination for president has grown very tight in the nation's first caucus state, as likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers give John Edwards a tiny lead over Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.

Edwards leads with 27 percent support, the same percentage that backed him in a mid-January Zogby poll. Close on his heels is Clinton at 25 percent support, up from 16 percent in the January poll.

Obama has also improved his standing among Iowans over the past two months, winning 23 percent support. Fifteen percent said they were unsure whom they would support.

Obama won 17 percent support in the January survey.

The race tightened after two key developments - former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack's endorsement of the Clinton campaign, and the dramatic announcement that Edwards would continue his campaign despite a new cancer diagnosis for his wife, Elizabeth.

This new poll, conducted March 26, 2007, included 506 interviews with likely Democratic party caucus-goers, and carries a margin of error of +/- 4.5 percentage points.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/2/84814.shtml?s=ic

[240 is Back]

again with the polls.

You post away with them, unless it's something you disagree with.

That being said, the nomination is going to go with a safe, white guy.  Always does.  Edwards, while marginally incompetent and a future puppet of anyone he wants to impress, might just be the guy, if someone doesn't come out of left field to grab it ala clinton 92.

[Dos Equis]

Uh oh.  I wonder if this is a CIA-approved poll. . . . 

[240 is Back]

Uh oh.  I wonder if this is a CIA-approved poll. . . . 

monster dodge.


why do you only believe in polls when you agree with the results?

[Dos Equis]

I only post CIA-approved polls. 

[240 is Back]

you're a coward.

[Dos Equis]

I respect and fear the CIA.  I don't want them kidnapping and torturing me. 

[240 is Back]

you're an immature douche.


hth.

[Dos Equis]

you're an immature douche.


hth.

LOL . . .    The CIA disapproves of your personal attacks 240.   

[Hugo Chavez]

LOL . . .    The CIA disapproves of your personal attacks 240.   

You are being a little immature, but I think you know that.  Seems like you like to get under people's skin with it.

[Dos Equis]

You are being a little immature, but I think you know that.  Seems like you like to get under people's skin with it.

Who me?   

[Hedgehog]

again with the polls.

You post away with them, unless it's something you disagree with.

That being said, the nomination is going to go with a safe, white guy.  Always does.  Edwards, while marginally incompetent and a future puppet of anyone he wants to impress, might just be the guy, if someone doesn't come out of left field to grab it ala clinton 92.

I think your analysis of Edwards is quite wrong.

He is the only politician who's yet showed some kind of platform IMO.

Whether or not you agree with him is another issue, but he has a vision about fighting poverty, making it an agenda.

Obama and Clinton? They're pretty much trying to sit still in the boat IMO,while Edwards actually shows some balls.

I thought Giuliani had the political balls as well, but he bailed with his flip-flopping on abortion, and also has been very low key with his agenda on gun control.

A politician needs to show that he or she have faith in their platform, and that they're not clouding it, trying to dodge tough questions.

From what I've seen so far, Edwards is the only one of the Democrats who's been ballsy.

Giuliani is a disappointment so far. Romney isn't going to be a serious contender.

-Hedge