August 3rd, 2007
03:49 PM ET
12 years ago

Iowa polls show contradictory results

WASHINGTON (CNN) - As the presidential campaign season heats up, recent polls taken in Iowa reveal drastic inconsistencies in their results, and show that voters just haven't made up their minds yet.

"Early in the season people aren't paying a lot of attention," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "Polls bounce around a lot when voters' minds aren't made up."

A Washington Post-ABC News Poll released Friday shows Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton virtually tied for first place with roughly 26 percent of the vote.

Other polls taken in the Hawkeye state show more distance between the candidates. An American Research Group Poll puts Clinton ahead of her opponents with 30 percent of the vote, followed by Edwards with 21 percent and Obama with 15 percent. A KCCI-TV poll shows Edwards in the lead with 27 percent, followed by Clinton with 22 percent and Obama with 16 percent.

–CNN Associate Producer Lauren Kornreich

Related: Dems in three-way tie in Iowa

Filed under: Candidate Barack Obama • Hillary Clinton • Iowa • John Edwards
soundoff (25 Responses)
  1. Anonymous

    Someone is bound to know the numbers... based on today's polls, is Obama down? Perhaps because of the "nuke" controversy that erupted yesterday?

    August 3, 2007 04:22 pm at 4:22 pm |

    Attaboy ! Let's elect this guy our next President. We can trust him to finish what Al-Quaida started. Did I hear someone say where he gets his campaign money from ?
    Osama, of course !!!

    August 3, 2007 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
  3. Tom, Ames Iowa

    Why not show the number and admit that Obama polled ahead with 27%? Why show old polls? This is a reputable poll. Sen. Obama is taking off in Iowa, and I think he should get credit for the success of the campaign.

    August 3, 2007 04:32 pm at 4:32 pm |
  4. Daniel, Texas

    The Washington Post-ABC Poll seems to have the best statistical support. It's a toss-up.

    August 3, 2007 04:34 pm at 4:34 pm |
  5. Bruce, San Francisco,CA

    The Clinton News Network was quick to publish fake poll results showing O8ama trailing both Clinton and Edwards before other media outlets showed the reall poll results with O8ama actually leading. This report shying away from saying they got it wrong. They cant destroy him, along with the propaganda of twisting his statements and broadcasting the false sentiments internationally to draw much more hatred against him amongst people who dont have access to first hand info and dont understand english very well.

    August 3, 2007 04:45 pm at 4:45 pm |
  6. Anonymous

    Iowa Democratic Caucus
    ABC News/Wash Post 07/26 – 07/31 Clinton 26, Edwards 26, Obama 27, Richardson 11 (Spread: Obama +1.0%)

    August 3, 2007 05:04 pm at 5:04 pm |
  7. Jon, Sacramento ~ Ca

    In the past 32 years (9 democratic caucuses) – only 1 time has the winner of the Iowa caucus gone on to become President of the United States: 1996 Bill Clinton (he ran unopposed that year in Iowa).

    You might want to hope your candidate DOESN'T win Iowa if you really want a shot at the White House!


    August 3, 2007 05:33 pm at 5:33 pm |
  8. Steven Terrell, Sr. Knoxville, Iowa

    I know who I'm voting for. Tom Tancredo!

    August 3, 2007 05:37 pm at 5:37 pm |
  9. Larry S, Tucson AZ

    Right on! I'm voting for Tom Torpedo too!

    August 3, 2007 06:34 pm at 6:34 pm |
  10. David, Salinas, CA

    I'm leaning towards one of the top- tier candidates and I'm not accusing CNN of media bias, but I would like to know how the other candidates are doing.

    Is there some reason not to publish ALL the numbers?

    August 3, 2007 06:36 pm at 6:36 pm |
  11. j, new york

    wow you must be kidding...
    this is absolutely ridiculous.

    FOURTH time posting because my other three were taken down. check out the obama campaign’s response to all the backlash of his statements!

    CNN, if you don’t wnant to see this link again, you should start by posting it on your political ticker for all to see how wrong you were.

    August 3, 2007 06:43 pm at 6:43 pm |
  12. Alex, New Orleans, LA

    It's not Obama that I have a problem with, it's his supporters. I mean seriously, they act like he walks on water and that anyone who doesn't support him is either not intelligent or not enlightened enough. It's the old New England Liberal Elitism all over again, which is odd since he's from the midwest.
    I'm still relatively open-minded about Obama, but if I hear one more of his supporters say that he is the only politician in the race who genuinely cares I'm not only going to throw up, I'm also going to do everything I can to make sure he doesn't win.

    August 3, 2007 06:51 pm at 6:51 pm |
  13. Russell, North Carolina

    How can Clinton be President and keep her eye on Bill and the Interns at the same time?

    August 3, 2007 09:19 pm at 9:19 pm |
  14. cliff Jones, honolulu hi

    People don't change their minds within a span of a day or month or even a year. It takes awhile. Look how long it took for Republicans to start doubting Bush. It wasn't overnight. The polls are being manipulated. Its as simple as that. Its the same as the NYTimes poll last week that showed a contradicting poll that people thought the war was going well in Iraq. They wondered why.

    August 3, 2007 09:35 pm at 9:35 pm |
  15. Steve, South Orange NJ

    I am shocked and appalled to see that the CNN moderators allowed such a racist comment to be allowed in this comment section. To imply that Sen. Obama is a terrorist or supported by terrorist is not only terribly offensive but equally ridiculous. If anything Sen. Obama is one of the most dedicated individuals who wishes to snuff out Osama Bin Laden. Certainly more dedicated than any of the republican candidates.

    August 3, 2007 11:25 pm at 11:25 pm |
  16. Rolando DePuy, El Paso, Texas

    In this multitude of hungry for power polititians, and with none of them answering questions, I don't see one candidate that really means well for America. And I really tought it was Obama, but the more I hear him, the less I trust him or any one else.

    August 4, 2007 09:41 am at 9:41 am |
  17. John, Michigan

    Show me the numbers on January 15, 2008.

    August 4, 2007 10:03 am at 10:03 am |
  18. Kim, Sacramento, CA

    This is exactly why you do not listen to the polls. Polls say exactly what the person who commissioned them wants them to say. Polls do not poll everyone, just a small sample. Time for the American voter to think for themselves and not rely on polls and the media to make up their minds for them.

    August 4, 2007 10:07 am at 10:07 am |
  19. erika morgan black dimond wa

    Listening to the controversy it occurs to me, our political process is fraught with hyperbole, and posturing. I think for folks raised inside the western culture this purposes few problems as we understand it.

    Listening to Obama's more direct bellicose rhetoric has a refreshing quality to it, and sounds like street smarts, staking ground; in a somewhat dangerous alley I'd like him on my side.

    So when I play this revelation against our current experience in Iraq, how Sadam seemed to have better control, his infrastructure was working, sure he killed folks, but we too are now reduced to killing and torture. I am beginning to wonder if some genius that I am looking for in a presidential candidate is surfacing

    August 4, 2007 01:38 pm at 1:38 pm |
  20. Amber, Houston, TX

    I think that some of you should do a little research on a guy named Ron Paul. Don't let his Republican label deter you from listening to his message. Not all Republicans are "big-government, spying on americans, fighting unconstitutional battles" neocons.

    August 4, 2007 02:26 pm at 2:26 pm |
  21. Independent Voter, TN

    Erika posted:

    "I think for folks raised inside the western culture this purposes few problems as we understand it."

    and this..."Listening to Obama’s more direct bellicose rhetoric has a refreshing quality to it, and sounds like street smarts, staking ground...

    What does any of this mean?

    Stick to the basics....waxing poetic ain't working.

    August 5, 2007 02:29 pm at 2:29 pm |
  22. Lance, Monrovia, CA.

    To me, Obama is a visionary leader.

    He has far more experience in the real world than Clinton or any of the other candidates.

    Everything I hear and read about him furthers this. He was a civil rights attorney, he worked to rise people above their stations. He is the kind of leader that comes along once a generation if we’re lucky.

    I’ve just read “the Audacity of Hope” and it was so stirring, so clear, so clearly written not by a ghost writer but in the voice of the man himself.

    Barry Obama is the real deal, he’s the sort of fighter that we need oh so desperately in these trying times.

    I would go door to door for this candidate and no other and I've never been involved politically in my over 30 years of life!

    Based on his own words, Obama would look at any issue either foriegn or domestic with clear eyes and make decisions that were both humane and smart for our country and the world. The other candidates all strike me as fodder for lobbists, career politicians.

    I remember how moved I was when I heard his speech during Kerry’s convention. He is indeed a uniter, someone who can bring this sadly divided dis union back into union again. People will put paintings and photos on their walls of this man in the same way they do JFK or MLK.

    Mark my words, America and the world will prosper under President Obama. To see that happen I’d gladly travel to Ohio, to South Carolina, to Iowa, or anywhere else I needed to go to ensure he gets a fair shot. That’s all the man needs, is one good fair shot.

    Given his due he’ll do us right. Do the research. Don’t be a lemming. Read about him, read his own words. They aren’t sound bites, they’re living, breathing, human thoughts full of compassion and common sense, stength and integrity.

    Really look at this candidate. Do your kids and their kids the biggest favor of our lives.

    August 6, 2007 05:38 pm at 5:38 pm |
  23. Terry G., Manchester, NH

    I think it is too early to predict; people should not be swayed by the campaign with the most money or largest entourage. John Edwards is right on with the damage NAFTA has done to the working class in this country, and he is right about the lobbying money too. This country needs a major overhaul with an honest and genuine candidate like John Edwards, who will lift up the poor and middle class in America.

    August 6, 2007 09:02 pm at 9:02 pm |
  24. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    Let us look at the forest, rather than the tree.

    Regardless of the Iowa poll (up, down or sideway for Hillary), the bottom line is that the american registered democratic voters of all states, according to the recent Newsweek Poll of August 1, and closely supported by the NBC/Wall St Journal Poll of July 30, prefer Hillary Clinton (44%) over Obama (23%) and Joh Edwards (14%). Both Obama and John Edwards have declined or maintained their poll positions of previous month because of their debate performance or recent comments, while Hillary has increased her poll standing.

    August 6, 2007 10:41 pm at 10:41 pm |
  25. Matt, Lewis Center, Ohio

    national polls don't matter. the primary system is state by state. The fact that Clinton leads nationwide is irrelevant.

    For now, only look at Iowa, NH, and SC. Whoever does well in those three will be the nominee.

    nationally, Clinton is the clear leader. In the three key early states, it's a tossup.

    August 13, 2007 05:57 pm at 5:57 pm |