Another Cool Poll: John Zogby's "Reality Check"
By: Mark W Adams

John Zogby: A Reality Check on the 2008 Presidential Race:

First, an important rule for poll watchers: don't pay too much attention to the national polls of Democrats and Republicans just yet. Essentially, they are useful for measuring name recognition and are great for candidate hype and fundraising. Instead, look at the early states -- notably Iowa and New Hampshire -- because that is where the campaigns are most developed, where the candidates have pressed the flesh, and where some have even done some broadcast advertising.
Yeah, yeah, John. But what are the numbers?
My newest round of 500 likely Democratic caucus voters and 500 likely Republican caucus voters in Iowa, along with 500 likely Democratic primary voters and 500 likely Republican primary voters, has some intriguing results:
Alright John, fine. You're trying to put the "science" back into political science. Nice. But what are the numbers??
  • On the Democratic side, despite all the hype for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, John Edwards continues to hold on to a narrow lead in Iowa -- 26% to 24% for Clinton, and 22% for Obama. Edwards leads in the central part of the state and, most importantly for him, has begun to particularly take of among union voters. This is very much a three-way race and if Edwards should win, it will give him a bounce for New Hampshire. Clinton does well with liberals, with Democrats (as opposed to independents) among older voters and lower income voters. Obama does best among independents and in the eastern part of the state closest to Illinois. Importantly, while Edwards has kept his numbers since January, his two main opponents have grown -- Clinton from 16% to 24% and Obama from 17% to 22%.
Okay, do we care what the republicans are doing. Uhhhh....No. Gimme more numbers John. I don't like what I'm seeing in Iowa. Hillary and Barack are catching up to our lead and we need more numbers in our quest to conquer the world. Got any more numbers John?

Really? Why didn't you say so... Yes, we'd like to know more about New Hampshire. What's your crystal ball telling you about the Granite State?
  • On the Democratic side, Clinton now leads by only 2 points over Obama -- 28% to 26% -- with Edwards at 15% and Richardson at 10%. Clinton's numbers have grown from 19% in January to her current levels. Obama has moved up 3 points from January, Edwards has dropped 8 points, but Richardson has moved the moved up from only 1% to his current double digits.
So tell us John, you're the professional. What does this mean for our fair-haired boy (sorry)?
What to make of all of this? It is too early to project anything at all but for now, Clinton has not been the inevitable nominee for months. She has turned around on the war on Iraq but is still not trusted entirely on that issue or on her ability to win. And she has the misfortune of running her history-making campaign against both Jack Kennedy (Obama) and Bobby Kennedy (Edwards). Three in four Democratic voters in these two states (along with previous polling in Nevada and South Carolina) tell us that they are satisfied with the field of candidates.
Okay, that's just a weird analogy, especially since Huffington Post also is featuring an article by one of Lloyd Benson's old aides on impeaching Gonzales...

I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. And Senator Obama, you're no......

Oops, sorry. Wrong election. I got carried away. So what were you saying about those numbers John?
But Richardson's performance in New Hampshire indicates that either he or perhaps Al Gore may have some room.
What?!? Huh? Who is the Gore person you speak of? And why is he busting my karma?