Dan Balz's Take
The Iowa Three-Way Race
The three-way race shaping up in Iowa. (AP).
There is more than enough worrisome news for Hillary Clinton in the new Washington Post-ABC News poll of Iowa Democrats to keep her political team on edge for the next 44 days.
Only half of likely caucus participants in Iowa believe she is willing to say what she really thinks about issues. They find her less honest and trustworthy than either Barack Obama or John Edwards and they rate her third behind the other Obama and Edwards on the question of which candidate best understands their problems. For a candidate running on a middle-class message, Clinton has some significant persuading left to do.
What may be even more troublesome for Clinton is the evidence that a sizeable number of Iowa Democrats who support other candidates do not cite her as their second choice. In fact, fewer Obama supporters in the current poll cite Clinton as their second choice than did in a Post-ABC poll conducted in July and Edwards's supporters are now more likely to choose Obama over Clinton as their second choice.
Many Iowa voters could change their minds between now and Jan. 3. But for whatever reason, many of those who do not now support Clinton appear disinclined to shift to her if they start looking for another candidate -- unless she can change the equation in the next few weeks.
That is contrary to the pattern that sustained John Kerry four years ago at this time. Even in the depths of Kerry's problems, when his campaign was sliding downward, his advisers took heart from that fact that he seemed acceptable across the entire spectrum of the party in Iowa. When Howard Dean began to slip, it was easy for many Iowa Democrats to shift to Kerry. It's not clear that will happen for Clinton.
What the new poll shows is exactly what the major campaigns have believed about Iowa for many months, that there is a three-way race among Clinton, Obama and Edwards. The Post-ABC poll showed Obama at 30 percent, Clinton at 26 percent and Edwards at 22 percent. That compares to the 27-26-26 result in a July poll. But it is what is underneath those ballot numbers that is most intriguing.
Obama's advisers see the results of the Post-ABC poll as validation of what they believe has been happening on the ground in Iowa and why they have sought to discount national polls that show Clinton with a substantial lead. "Iowa is close and going to remain close but we like the canvass it's playing out on," said David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager.
Plouffe said the poll highlighted two realities that he said run counter to perceptions of Obama's campaign. First, Obama is running stronger with older voters (45 and above) than he was a few months ago, a sign that his campaign is not relying only on the votes of young people, who in the past have been far less likely to go to the caucuses.
Second, Clinton and Obama are tied among women in Iowa, in contrast to national polls that show her well ahead. Plouffe asserted that in both Iowa and New Hampshire, "The gender gap is narrowing."
Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategists, offered a strong dissent on that and other issues raised by the poll's results. In an e-mail message Tuesday, he said, "No other poll has Hillary tied among women. It is an unlikely finding given all the other polls showing her ahead with women."
Penn also argued that on the areas that count, Clinton still holds the high ground. "I think this poll shows the strengths of Senator Clinton in terms of electability, strength and leadership," he said. "These are big assets going into the homestretch."
On this, the Kerry experience should give pause to Obama rather than to Clinton. When Dean imploded, Iowa Democrats turned to Kerry not because they found him the most likable candidate but because they thought he would be their strongest general election candidate and because they believed he had the right experience to be president.
On those attributes, Clinton continues to dominate the Democratic race. Obama runs fourth in the Democratic field on the question of experience, behind Clinton, Edwards and Bill Richardson. Just 11 percent of likely caucus-goers cited Obama as the candidate with the best experience to be president. At the same time, however, Clinton slipped most dramatically on this attribute, from 50 percent in July to 38 percent last week.
Clinton's advantage on strength of leadership over Obama also narrowed between July and November, while her advantage over both Obama and Edwards on electability remained about the same.
Penn makes another point about what the poll shows about the state of the race in Iowa: "You have to bear in mind that she stayed exactly the same and that the changes for Obama are within the margin of error, and that this was done before the full impact of her very successful debate," he wrote.
Clinton advisers believe last week's debate in Las Vegas stopped a two-week slide and that Obama's sometimes-shaky performance will have consequences in Iowa, at least in the short-term.
As if to signal where the Clinton campaign may be heading, Penn observed, "They know very little about Senator Obama and so his numbers are in particular subject to a lot of change. Most voters don't even realize he was in the state senate three years ago and never voted on Iraq."
No one should ignore what the poll says about Edwards in Iowa. Certainly the other campaigns do not. They have a high regard for his organization and for the loyalty of his core supporters.
Edwards also has the highest percentage of supporters who have attended past caucuses, which means his team has less hand-holding to do to persuade them to come out on the night of Jan. 3. The question is whether that core of support now represents only a fifth to a quarter of likely caucus-goers, which is not enough to win on Jan. 3, or something significantly higher.
Where the campaign in Iowa shifted between July and November, according to the Post-ABC poll, is that a higher percentage of Iowa Democrats now say they are looking for a candidate who represents fresh ideas and a change in direction, rather than one who has strength and experience.
A 10-point tilt toward something fresh and new in July grew to a 22-point advantage in November. Obama's edge among voters looking for something new is almost identical to Clinton's advantage among those looking for strength and experience.
Clinton's challenge is either to refocus voters on the importance of experience or persuade more voters that she is a change candidate. Obama's task is to keep driving voters to downplay the importance of experience in favor of a change in direction. Edwards's job is to persuade Iowans looking for change that he can deliver and that Obama cannot.
So it will not just be the Clinton campaign on edge about Iowa for the next six weeks.
--Dan Balz
Posted at 2:15 PM ET on Nov 20, 2007
| Category:
Dan Balz's Take
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Obama Offers Education Plan |
Next: The Passport Primary
Get This Widget >>
Posted by: sassooni | November 21, 2007 2:44 AM
I get a chuckle out of all these polls that ask questions like "who would you rather have for thanksgiving dinner, Hillary or Obama?". These polls show that people would like Hillary over for thanksgiving. I know who else feels you should have Hillary over for thanksgiving. Yeah, Bill (Bubba) thinks that Hillary should spend thanksgiving with you. He already has plans for having his turkey nibbled by either Monica or Paula. He does not want Hillary to be there to carve his turkey away.
Posted by: DerekMcCormick | November 21, 2007 2:00 AM
We saw how Bill Clinton did in hs second term. He concentrated on who is under the table that the American people. He had his first 4 years to claim as 'experience'. Even with all that experience his second term was so rocky. That shows why the so called 'experience' does not matter when it comes to the presidency. The presidency should be handled by someone the people can trust. That trust has to be earned. It is not an entitlement. That trust is not in Hillary. Obama comes out a thousand times more trustworthy than Hillary. Fiddel Castro has 59 years 'experience'. Look where Cuba is today. We have seen many aristocrats with 'experience' running a country down to the ground. More than anything else Hillary feels she is entitled to be the next president. She is running as if she is the next president. She does not even bother to wait for the election to decide the outcome. It is very dangerous to hand her the keys to the White House. She is more like Paris Hilton who has many fans, even though she has no talent. Obama on the other hand, is very credible. He talks. He listens. He responds to questions. He makes sense. He does not need to plant a question like pearls or diamonds, to give an answer. Hillary can make fun of his childhood all she wants. But living in a foreign country at the age of 10 does give a perspective on the life of people out there. Hillary on the other hand has visited 70 countries, posed for the camera with phony smiles while shaking hands. We have runway bikini models who have visited more than 70 countries shaking their booties. That does not entitle them to claim 'experience' to be president. Hillary's experience is all hidden in those papers in the Clinton library, which both Clinton's don't want the public to see.
Posted by: DerekMcCormick | November 21, 2007 1:39 AM
Well this has gotten interesting. Being an astute observer of presidential candidates, I conclude the following:
1) the republicans don't stand a chance. like Nixon, Mr. Bush & Cheney have mucked things up for anyone to make it anything but a democrat by a landslide in 2008- besides, Guiliani is creepy & has little substance outside of "all terror, all the time', Romney is better suited to run a church, McCain should have been the GOP's candidate 8 years ago but comes off as an angry old man & is out of touch on several key issues, Ron Paul (is he a joke?);
2) the next president will be a one-term president- see #1, above- things are so mucked up that it will be nearly impossible for any leader to undo the mess in-time to get re-elected in 2012;
3) the democrat's choice WON't be Hilary- too many perceive her as a "cutthroat" politician, especially now that she has taken to outright attacking her similarly qualified colleague Obama;
4) John Edwards could very well be the winner of the nomination- his message resonates with voters who are fed up with the Bush/Clinton dynasties and the corporate greed that feeds upon those..his appearance is not charasmatic, but if one listens to him, his appeal comes off as more widespread and genuine than the scripted candidates who have led until this point;
5) the other democratic candidates are wasting their & everybody's time- especially Biden (ala McCain, another angry old man), Richardson (a competitor, & the hispanic thing is a nice touch, but most of them in the U.S. aren't citizens and can't vote), Dodd (he's still around?), & Kuchnich (he'd be a good speechwriter - but he's wacky). Perhaps they are staying in it to try to get a good job in the next administration..
Go Get them Iowans!!
Posted by: mcmtn | November 20, 2007 11:35 PM
Penn says this was done before the full impact of her debate performance, but the debate did occur right in the middle of this survey, so one would suspect if there were any bump from the debate, it should have helped her a little, even if only over the last 2-3 days.
Posted by: RollaMO | November 20, 2007 8:56 PM
OMG! What a Montage of Photos!
Someone who looks even MORE Chimplike than Bushie, Billary with a Phallic Symbol trying to fool me into thinking of her as a Woman, and Pretty Boy Crying about it(Again)!
Dims!
Posted by: rat-the | November 20, 2007 6:57 PM
And now, Hillary's support is dwindling in NH.
Seems the more attention americans pay to the race, the more doubts they have about Hillary.
Posted by: julieds | November 20, 2007 6:26 PM
Stuart Rothenberg also gave less credence to the media's "breathless" interpretation of this poll. Mr. Balz has provided some context and analyis, but any change in the story line that keeps the "horse race" going will be the aspect that the media emphasizes.
Posted by: rdklingus | November 20, 2007 4:32 PM
Why is this poll different than the others coming out of Iowa? LIKELY CAUCUS GOERS. This is the 2nd such poll in as many months to show this. I'm curious as to why Obama is labeled as having only younger, frugel support, yet it seems to be that Hillary's supporters are the ones who won't show up on Jan 3rd.
Posted by: thegribbler1 | November 20, 2007 4:05 PM
While I take one poll with a grain of salt I do commend Mr. Balz for providing a better than average piece discussing the possible ramifications of the poll. Everyone else in the media seems to be hysterically going overboard in their shallow assessment of what this one poll shows. Thanks Mr. Balz for providing a well thought out, balanced piece. There was a little something for everyone as there should be when there is a three way tie.
Posted by: pmorlan1 | November 20, 2007 3:55 PM
Great story! There is a contest here worthy of being reported. The way Hillary's team points to polls that she's ahead in the national primary as a response for any attack is ridiculous. The reason people attack her is not because she is ahead and not because of her gender, it is because she is the most hated candidate in the election pool and she thinks she can get away with anything ((including murder? - google 'clinton murders' for some interesting reading)).
Obviously considering her with her spouse they have the most experience in their campaign team - but that experience is corrupt. People have not forgotten the scandals, how bill was the second of only two presidents in our history to be impeached, and how one of his last act's as president was to pardon the husband of one of their largest fund-raisers. These aren't republican talking-points, bc i am not a republican.
Also, I disagree with the spin being put on the last debate. Edwards or Obama's harsh words to her may not have caused her to stumble or skip a beat (is that awkward fake smile the result of plastic surgery?), but her answers to the real questions were far from the best.
I could only imagine how she'd answer if she was confronted directly about Marc Rich...she'd probably say it wasn't her that gave the pardons...and in the next sentence she'd be talking again about how great her husband's presidency was. Bill got off easy with an impeachment.
Obama is a man of principle, the Iowans recognize that and i am sure the rest of the country will see this as well.
Sorry Hillary, the people that don't like you are not just republicans, it is the majority of the country. If we really want to see a democrat in the white house, keep the real stories coming (i'm tired of all the hillary puff-pieces about who i'd rather go for a drive with) and stop reporting on every time Howard Wolfson or Mark Penn open their yappers.
Posted by: sassooni | November 20, 2007 3:54 PM
jbrooks, poll numbers are not facts on the ground, they're a momentary impression. Poll numbers this far out don't mean much, it's organization on the ground, feet on the ground. Something is changing though. Hilary's name recognition-based lead is being reduced in every state where the voters are meeting the other candidates. Election day is a long way from today.
Posted by: thebobbob | November 20, 2007 3:37 PM
All of this reporting on this one poll shows nothing except the media's desire for a contest--which will, of course, there won't be much of if Sen. Clinton wins Iowa. Why do I say this? The evidence is overwhelming. Twelve consecutive polls over the past 2-plus months show Sen. Clinton ahead. See realclearpolitics.com or pollster.com. The most recent--completed on the very day the ABC/Post poll was begun--is an ARG poll showing Sen. Clinton ahead by 6%. Do you really believe Sen. Clinton went from 6 points up to four points down over a single four-day period? Of course you don't. And speaking of bad news in the underlying numbers: the ARG poll finds that 92% of Sen. Clinton's supporters say their support is definite; for Obama, its only 41%, and for Edwards, its only 50%. These ominous numbers were not reported by the press, however, because they don't support the desired story line. Also, the ARG poll has Sen. Clinton with a 10% lead over Obama with women, and an 11% lead over Edwards. With men, its Clinton 23%, Edwards 20%, and Obama 20%. These numbers mirror virtually all other Iowa polls for the past two months. Do you really think these numbers all changed as suggested by the ABC/Post poll over the four days from November 14-18? Of course you don't. In virtually every respect, the ABC/Wash Post poll is an outlier. Failure to report this is shoddy journalism at best.
So, the media wants a contest. Too bad. You can selectively report on the polls you like and ignore the ones you don't, but the facts on the ground are still what the facts on the ground are.
Posted by: jbrooks | November 20, 2007 3:07 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
This is exciting...to see obama now leading in iowa, and reading an article like this with about a dozen people that are paying attention to the primary all weighing in that hillary clinton is phonier than a cubic zirkonia on a late night infomercial, except for the first response by jbrooks.