Wacky Caucus Poll Numbers
December 29th, 2006 at 12:46am Geraldine
Via Political Wire, American Research Group put out a crazy new poll of likely 2008 Iowa caucus goers.
In the Democratic caucus, Clinton led the poll with 31%, followed by Edwards with 20%, Vilsack with 18%, and Obama with 10%. Interestingly, Vilsack did the best with “no party” respondents who said they were likely to participate in the Democratic caucus, at 38%. Clinton garnered 32% of this group’s support, but no other candidate scored more than 2% of “no party” support. This could be a product of name recognition, but since when are Iowans who consider themselves likely caucus goers unfamiliar with Kerry or Edwards? I never would have though that Clinton could bring a lot of “no party” support to the caucuses.
In the Republican caucus, Guiliani led with 28%, followed by McCain with 26% and Gingrich with 14%. Naturally McCain did well in the “no party” category, although for some reason American Research calls them “independents” in this section…
These numbers look completely different from Research 2000’s poll last week and otherwise left me scratching my head, so here’s one more shout out to Chase’s Wide Open Caucus post.
Related Posts
- New Poll Numbers Look Good for Boswell and Braley
- A Media Engineered Election
- Obama Leads In Iowa, Clinton Trails McCain
- Rasmussen Numbers: Still Close
- Obama and Edwards Tied in Iowa
Entry Filed under: Miscellaneous, Democratic Party, President 2008, Republican Party, John Edwards, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Tom Vilsack, Hillary Clinton
Related Searches: 2008 iowa caucus, democratic caucus, republican caucus, american research group, s poll
2 Comments Add your own
1. Dave Michaels | December 29th, 2006 at 3:30 am
I’m thinking that ARG doesn’t know how to do a sufficiently tight screen on “likely caucus-goers.” Mysterypollster has made the point in the past that the screen needs to be really, really tight, because a very low percentage of even “likely voters” actually ends up at the caucuses.
2. Hannah | December 29th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
Sounds dead on, Dave. I wonder if we should expect accurate polls to look more stagnant then, even from election cycle to election cycle.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed