ABC Iowa poll: Obama 30, Hillary 26, Silky 22
posted at 6:24 pm on November 19, 2007 by Allahpundit
Shocka! All Silky has to do is slip a few more points and we may see that alleged Obama scandal-bomb detonated after all. The money graph:

The trend on this one’s surprising, too. You’d think the recent relative quiet in Iraq would benefit the most hawkish candidate of the three. Tain’t so:

Scroll down through the last five months’ of polls amassed by RCP and you’ll see that almost all of them have Hillary leading — with one of the few notable exceptions being the last ABC poll conducted in July. That one had Obama in the lead too, 27-26, with Silky tied for second with Hillary. In other words, this particular pollster has a history of being an outlier; you have to go back to a Newsweek poll conducted in September to find the last one Obama led in. That said, the fact that he gained three points while Silky lost four suggests how much Edwards is hurting Obama and how close the race might be in January if, as expected, he finishes third and drops out, leaving most of his supporters to gravitate to the Messiah. Might the press, smelling momentum, at last start to deliver some of the goods we all suspect they have secreted away? Dare to dream, my friends.
Rasmussen argues that Iowa only matters if Hillary wins or else loses by ten points. Really? Seeing Obama knock the crown off her head wouldn’t do anything to her aura of inevitability? Forgive me if I disagree. Exit question: Whom do we root for here? Instinctively, personally, nearly all of us prefer Obama, I suspect — but rationally we know we’re better off with the candidate with no principles than with the audacity of hard-leftism. Choose.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I love that pic, makes me crack up every time.
benrand on November 19, 2007 at 6:27 PM
Yep, that Larry Flint endorsement has turned Kucinich into a steam roller baby!
TheSitRep on November 19, 2007 at 6:27 PM
I’d choose to vote against Obamarama in the general. He’s a hardcore lefty, but he’s infinitely more trustworthy than anyone named Clinton.
fiatboomer on November 19, 2007 at 6:29 PM
Hillary has New Hampshire locked up so She can lose Iowa.
The South would tather back Hill than Obama so she has those states locked up. Add NY and hard to think where Obama can give her a run for her money
William Amos on November 19, 2007 at 6:31 PM
From this graph seems Obama is benefiting from a collapsing Edwards campaign
http://www.pollster.com/08-IA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
William Amos on November 19, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I have nightmares of a choice between Obama and Ron Paul.
bbz123 on November 19, 2007 at 6:37 PM
It appears that nationwide, it makes little difference in head to head polls whether the Republicans run against Clinton or Giuliani. It also appears that Rudy vs. Edwards is our best matchup right now. Weird.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html
freakagriep on November 19, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Who can we more easily beat? My guess is Obama because he is a man.
bnelson44 on November 19, 2007 at 6:39 PM
When in doubt, blame the “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
That, or her inability to pick a stance and stay with it.
madmonkphotog on November 19, 2007 at 6:43 PM
The good news is, in 2009 we will have a Republican president. The bad news is, that it will probably be Rudy.
Maxx on November 19, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Damn you’re quick Allah! (You hear that all the time, am I right?) I just saw this on Special Report and was about to email you, and you already had it up. Nice work.
RightWinged on November 19, 2007 at 6:45 PM
I’m lovin’ it. It would be unfortunate if Hillary coasted to an easy win and kept her powder dry for the general.
Splashman on November 19, 2007 at 6:45 PM
I was just wondering, if I HAD to choose a Dem to vote for, which would it be? Four years of what?
Hillary:
Clinton sleaze
Canadian health care
1/3 as competent as Bill
Obama
As far left as the leftiest
Inexperienced and unqualified
Race card out the wazoo
Edwards
Scum trial lawyer, but 2nd fiddle to Clinton sleaze
Needs to give away more than even the leftiest lefty just to prove his sincerity
Not so bright
I’m stumped.
peski on November 19, 2007 at 6:46 PM
I’d take Hillary over Obama.
tommylotto on November 19, 2007 at 6:47 PM
Now Drudge has it up. This will cause some media noise. Obama may get a surge out of it in other states as well, now that more people are paying attention to the race.
bnelson44 on November 19, 2007 at 6:51 PM
The best FARK link evah. (nsfw)
locomotivebreath1901 on November 19, 2007 at 6:51 PM
I’d take Hillary, too. She may be sleazy and want socialized health care, but she’s openly said national security comes before what the Left defines as “human rights” (Translation: Being nasty to those terrorists).
amerpundit on November 19, 2007 at 6:51 PM
How many Republican and Independent women will she pull simply because she is a woman and not a man? My guess is a lot.
bnelson44 on November 19, 2007 at 6:53 PM
Hillary is too old, too. Look how old she looks in the pic! We need young blood. :)
Dusty on November 19, 2007 at 6:54 PM
I think they’re all beatable, and I’d get the most satisfaction out of seeing Hillary go down.
TexasDan on November 19, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Root for Obama. Look to November 08: hard left can’t win (if there is such a thing as “can’t” anymore) but this country has TWICE voted for a Clinton.
pavruch on November 19, 2007 at 7:01 PM
From up above:
They fear her sex
bnelson44 on November 19, 2007 at 7:02 PM
JiangxiDad on November 19, 2007 at 7:06 PM
SCHADENFREUDE!!!!!!!
csdeven on November 19, 2007 at 7:08 PM
I’d say that Obama-’yo mama had better stay away from the parks and keep a keen eye about what is happening behind him. Remember what happened to Vince Foster.
OBX Pete on November 19, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Eh. I had Allah beat by 21 minutes. I only mention it because….well because I can. lol
But, I didn’t have to embed anything of type it up, so I guess it ain’t such a big deal. :-)
csdeven on November 19, 2007 at 7:15 PM
I have said all along, and I will continue to say it. The Democrat candidates have very little chance of winning. The only question in the equation is wether or not the Republican nominee has the ‘nads to go after whoever the Democrat is.
I suspect Rudy will go after whoever the candidate turns out to be. Mitt is too wishy washy and would probably get lulled into a “Clintonesque” let’s play nice type of ploy.
I find Rudy to be barely tolerable than the Democrat candidates, but Rudy seems to know how to play in the big leagues. I doubt Rudy will allow the Democrats to get away with the soft petaling that goes on in their campaign.
Rode Werk on November 19, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Yep, she is fixin to nuke him!
conservnut on November 19, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Obama’s ideology is hard core left, but somehow I think he’s more honorable and statesmanlike than Shrillery.
So I wish him the best of luck, at least for now.
BTW, how does Hillary get away with her claim that she has more experience? If it weren’t for nepotism, she’d be running for president of Vassar’s alumna association. Phooey.
petefrt on November 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Muddy thinking. In fact, why would anyone think that at all? (Is the assumption supposed to have been that recent trends in Iraq should somehow have educated the Democratic electorate on the wisdom of a more hawkish position?)
The fading of Iraq from the headlines equates with greater willingness to take a chance on a well-meaning, symbolically pleasing, otherwise totally unimpressive and unqualified candidate. It makes an Obama (and also a Romney or a Huckabee on the R side) theoretically more electable, too.
Still only a marginal move, and as much an index of Hillary’s weakness as of Obama’s credibility.
CK MacLeod on November 19, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Slug it out, kids. The fact that Democrats have a choice of Obama and Hillary, and some vote for John Edwards, validates everything we have ever said about either of them.
Jaibones on November 19, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Seems to me that Howard Dean was in this same position. Supposed frontrunner faltering in Iowa and the punditacracy starts talking about how Iowa isn’t all that important.
I’d say for the vagina that has acted like she should simply be given the nomination by acclaimation because of her sex and spouse, this is a HUGE setback. It would be too much to expect a “Howard Scream” moment this time around but it certainly give’s the vagina’s critics pause to wonder if she is as invincible as once thought.
highhopes on November 19, 2007 at 9:27 PM
Choose.
The “icy-queen”, as the Brits have coined her.
Entelechy on November 19, 2007 at 9:48 PM
If you want the Republican candidate to win, you root for HilldaBeastie™ to get the democrat nomination.
MB4 on November 19, 2007 at 10:07 PM
Vote for Kinky Friedman before I’d ever vote for Hillary
bones47 on November 19, 2007 at 11:01 PM
PS: He isn’t running for those in Rio Linda
bones47 on November 19, 2007 at 11:02 PM
Shillery is desperately trying to keep one leg in the “moderate” wing and one leg in the “left” wing, hoping to appease all. She has to keep her “moderate” stance in order to run in the general election, but now the left wingers are coming out against her saying she is too moderate! Both Obama and Edwards are running far left and are realizing this is Hillary’s tactic and are attacking her on it. A lot of Democrats are looking to Obama as a “not your usual politician fresh face” candidate. There are some who are tired of politics in general. It’s just too early now. Neither Edwards or Obama stand a chance against any Republican, so I think Shillary will be the candidate, although I think the Democrat Party will hold its collective nose.
Neocon Peg on November 19, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Democrats vote with their hearts more than their heads.
Hillary gets it, but around convention time there’s a OMG, What have we done ! moment.
silverfox on November 20, 2007 at 5:30 AM