WASHINGTON (CNN) - A new poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, and former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Massachusetts in the lead in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
The poll by the American Research Group shows former Gov. Mike Huckabee, R-Arkansas, moving up to second place behind Romney in Iowa and making some ground in South Carolina and New Hampshire.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Clinton maintains her front runner status in all three states.
Iowa NH SC
Romney 27% 30% 29%
Giuliani 16% 23% 23%
McCain 14% 17% 13%
Huckabee 19% 7% 5%
Thompson 8% 5% 10%
Iowa NH SC
Clinton 32% 40% 41%
Obama 22% 22% 19%
Edwards 15% 10% 18%
Richardson 7% 5% 1%
Biden 5% 4% 6%
Sample Size: 600 likely voters
Sample Dates: Oct. 26-29, 2007
Margin of error: +/-4%
– CNN Political Producer Xuan Thai
How can Giuliani think he has a strong chance? These are the states that set the bar and he is not leading any of the three states yet or has. Whats his plan? I think the media wants him to win and keeps him looking good in the spot-light, but the voters know better.
Any Republican will do!
Do they individually poll the registered Republicans and Democrats, what of independents?
The Obama supporters were joyous with the Iowa U poll (Oct 17-24) a few days ago that showed Obama was only 2 pts behind Hillary (28 vs 26). Now these Obama supporters cry foul about the more recent ARG poll (oct 26-29)showing Obama was 10 pts behind Hillary (32 vs 22).
If the poll result favours Obama, they accept it. But if the poll result disfavour Obama, they dont accept it. They are simply in denial.
The fact is that the Iowa poll used a small sample size of 306 (vs 600 for ARG poll), and thus the IOwa U poll result was not that realiable. The ARG poll result is consistent with other states' polls that show that Hillary has increased her leads over Obama in recent weeks.
Fred, Reston VA :
This poll was done by American Research Group. The other poll which showed more tight ranges was by the Univerity of Iowa.
I am a Clinton supporter, but I do wonder if the University of Iowa poll has more validity because it was done by in-staters who know their own.
On the other hand, I think Hillary Clinton can rise above coming in second in Iowa. But I hope she gets it together even more before January and we won't have to find out.
Everyone believes in polls when their guy is leading. When your guy is in the dumpster, you can't accept the fact that most people simply don't agree with you on most things.
Polling is a pretty developed science, and all marketing as well as all politics is based on it. All of you hayseeds have to accept the fact that the PhDs, statisticians, and CEOs who base their fortunes and their futures on the science of polling know a lot more about it than you do.
Can polls be wrong? Yes, there is a margin of error, like in meteorology. Sometimes the weatherman is wrong, but if the weather service says floods are coming do you plan a picnic?
Are they just a bunch of BS? Not according to all the people who have studied it.
Are false poll numbers released by politicians? Well, they lie about everything else.
The simple truth is that most Americans prefer Clinton on one side and Giuliani/Romney on the other. The rest of you are just out of step. (I'm a Richardson fan myself. Give 'em hell, Bill.
Nice numbers, for Romney that is.
I don't think Romney can buy himself a general election win. If Giuliani is the nominee, it will be a good race between him and Clinton. If Romney is the nominee, we might as well get used to saying Pres. Clinton again.
No mention of Ron Paul...incensed...
The Obama supporters are in denial. They dont like the more recent poll of ARG showing Hillary is ahead of Obama by 10 points, while these people were reecetpive to the Iowa poll of last week showing Hillary ahead only by 2 pts.
The fact is that the Iowa U poll has a very small sample size of 306, and therefore its result is not reliable.
The ARG poll result is consistent with the Rasmussen poll result of earlier week that showed Hillary was ahead by 12 pts (33 vs 21) over Obama.
This, as usual, is a manufactured poll. They leave people off on purpose. that's why you can't account for 20%. And for those that actually think these media polls are correct just remember how all the polls favored John Kerry yet Bush won again. the media continues to try and sway the public. also, today, it was reported that respected oddsmaker William Hill has set the odds for Ron Paul at 12/1. that's putting him in a showdown with Rudy and ahead of McCain, Edwards. yet I don't see his name above. bias.
And there they go again, digging deep into fish barrels for another poll that supposedly contradicts the University of Iowa poll. Hogwash.
All polling debate aside, I do find it odd that Clinton has such a large margin over the nearest competitors, I'm an undecided voter at this point and I must say, I have serious doubts as to whether or not she can run this country, She has no clear plan on Iraq and seems as distant from that conflict as most of the other candidates. At this point if I had to vote for someone I'd give it to Stephen Colbert, he's intelligent, educated, appears to be more knowledgeable about the issues than some of the "true" candidates, and he isn't afraid to say something that might upset people.
Go Mitt! Romney will make a fool of Mrs. Clinton in the debates. (At least from the perspective of citizens with intelligence.)
Until the first votes are cast and verified accordingly, then a poll is just a snap shop of an opinion for a certain period of time. Hey, we can all change our thoughts in a matter of moments...
You can dance if you want to . . . GO ROMNEY! GO ROMNEY! GO ROMNEY!
Your poll numbers for Iowa, NH & SC are biased and wrong. Try asking again with all the candidates listed by name. That is if you are interested in truth rather than propaganda.