And then there were three
Posted on August 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm by Contributor ArchiveOooh, this is getting fun. Check out the latest WaPo/ABC News numbers in Iowa:
Obama - 27
Clinton - 26
Edwards - 26
With Richardson at 11, that doesn’t leave many undecideds (Insert the standard it’s too early to trust polls and Iowa caucus-goers always change their mind as they are walking up to the polls) but if this were to hold up, it could spell an extra-important year for New Hampshire. Imagine: Giuliani and McCain essentially skip Iowa, and the Dems split the vote three ways - it’s conceivable that we emerge from Iowa without a genuine frontrunner on either side.
4 Comments
Leave a comment
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
This poll has sealed John Edwards’ fate. He staked his entire campaign on Iowa; it is over.
Actually, for us political junkies, this is no surprise.
But, at least we will start to see less of that pitiful man. Unless, of course, his wife decides to run for him.
You can read my take at Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty
Agreed. Iowa was all he had, and now that’s done. He’s a footnote.
with a tie in New Hampshire and a lead in South Carolina, Obama’s looking stronger by the day (despite a bad week in the news) and Hillary’s national polling might just be a Howard Dean like bubble of support that will quickly evaporate if things don’t change drastically in the early states. At the very least, her aura of inevitability might just not be much of an asset any more, if she disappoints in Iowa and New Hampshire. Winning in either Iowa or New Hampshire plus South Carolina might just be the boost that Obama needs to catapault himself into the nomination even over Hillary’s strong national numbers.
I think a lot of people think that if Iowa comes down to Hillary and Obama, the winner could run the table.
It is my belief that Iowa will play a huge role in the decision of who the Democratic nominee will be.