of ARG in that past..

I don't see how Obama's support dropped.

although if you look at the trends Hillary has plateaued and Edwards has gone up the last two months.

who knows, one poll is not enough...
ARG has always been the most favorable to Hillary in Iowa

I've heard lots of the major grassroots figures that were for Vilsack have gone to Edwards, but just what I've heard, no clear evidence.

Agreed... plus its so far out... HRC could crash, Edwards could crash, Obama could crash or improve... I would say though Big Winner is Edwards.

and as I mentioned before, Obama is within a few points in those big states. The great thing about this primary is that a candidate can really afford to focus on the states that have tons of delegates. But I don't think either Iowa or New Hampshire is out of play for Obama by a long shot. From what I've read about the 2004 Senate primary in Illinois, this election is starting to take that same form.

Obama has a massive volunteer army ready that doesn't even kick off until March 31st. From what I've been hearing he's been getting mad ridiculous amounts of volunteers signing up at all these events he's been to, and also on the internet. The campaign is about to start.

I have to say I dont think so. Even with the close schedule, winning in those 4 (5 with Florida coming and maybe 6 with Michigan) will mean a lot.

If you can't win any of the early wins, Feb. 5 is just not going to happen.

2nd placers don't win the whole enchilada.

Strange.  Aren't you the same poster who claimed that a bad Hillary loss in Iowa could well "wheedle" her out of contention for the rest of the primary season?  Now you state that losses in EVERY ONE of the first four state are basically meaningless because of Feb. 5?     Is it because Obama is looking very bad in Iowa and New Hampshire as well as Nevada at the moment?  

Not so much. I remember hopefully reading their state polls in 2004. According to them, Kerry should have won in a cakewalk.

One thing is for sure:  Every poll has Obama way behind in Iowa, no matter what polling agency.  It is usually between Edwards and Clinton, with one of the two usually slightly ahead.

I said that he has won every poll.  It is true that he tied once with Obama (in a poll that included Gore which skewed the results) and once with Clinton, in a poll just after her announcemnet.  I should have been more specific but my point is that Iowa Dems gravitiate to Edwards, and even though there have been 2 ties he has still won all but 2 of the non-ARG Iowa polls and in those 2 he was tied for first.  I'm sorry if you thought that statement was deceptive.  I posted the non-ARG polls below to show what I meant.

As for ROBLIBERAL I already explained this to you before and you said that same stuff about ARG having a good record in the past.  Well their record regarding Iowa in 2008 is less than stellar.  You defend anything that boosts Clinton and trying to shoot down anything that boosts Edwards.  That is you're right and I'm sure that we agree on most policy positions, but please do not try to act like there is nothing wrong with ARG's current polling just because they have been reliable in the past.  It took a while for a lot of people to realize that ARG's Iowa polling was off.  But there is a pretty strong consensus (read the analysis on Pollster) about thier screens.  Think about how this effects national polling.  Registered voters who "lean Democratic" are going to be far likely to say "Hillary" or "Obama" because those are the names that they have heard of.  Caucus/primary going Democrats break toward electability at the end.  That means breaking towards Edwards.  If you need me to post or send to you all the polls that show him doing far better than Obama and Hillary in head to head polling with the GOP I will.  Yes, there are polls that show Hillary or Obama doing the best.  But if you look at the totality of polling, the best Democrat for the general is clearly John Edwards.

Here's how Iowa polling has gone so far.  Edwards wins the first few.  Then the first ARG poll gives Clinton a 20 point bump compared to the other polls.  2 more non-ARG polls show Edwards in the lead and then 2nd ARG poll shows Clinton way ahead.  Her camp even takes her position in the last non-ARG poll before the second ARG poll (down by 10) and adds her position in the second ARG poll (up by 20) to say that she got a 30 point bounce in Iowa after one appearance.  At this point analysts take notice and begin talking about how the screens aren't tight enough.  This is verified when the first non-ARG poll after the second ARG poll shows Clinon and Edwards tied. The next poll shows Edwards ahead again.  The point is that Iowa caucus voters gravitate to Edwards.  Obama and Clinton are the media's favorite candidates (because they are easy to sensationalize) and Edwards is still ahead.  That shows something about how deep his support is.  While county chairs might be leaning towards Edwards (and also Obama) county co-charis, who are also imporant, are backing Edwards.  Latest estimate (post Vilsack) has 50% of county co-chairs backing Edwards.  He polled at 40% and that was before Vilsack dropped out.

Edwards finally gets some media attention (for something terrible happening to his wife) and now David Yepsen (the political guru at the Des Moines Register) is saying that if the media covers Edwards even half as often as they cover Obama and Clinton he will be extremely hard to beat in Iowa.

I should have mentioned before that Clinton and Obama each tied with Edwards once but in both cases it was after their announcemnet or announcemnet about announcement (in Obama's case) bounce.  In the next poll Edwards was back in first by himself.  My bad.  But I meant to say that he is in first place (albeit tied in for first in two of the polls) in every Iowa poll.  

The Vilsack endorsement might help HRC a little but over a hundred former influencial Vilsack supporters already joined the Edwards camp.  I think Hillary knows that, now that the media is finally paying Edwards some attention, she is in trouble.

I don't think it is over-exagerating to say that, as David Yepsen said yesterday, Edwards is the definite frontrunner in Iowa.  He has been since measurements of Iowa Democrats support was first taken for the 2oo8 race (in late 2005 National Journal ranked him 1st in Iowa while he tied with HRC in the state fair straw poll)and he is even more of a front runner today.  After Iowa, everything could very well change.  What I'm saying is, John Edwards hasn't gotten the media hype that Obama and Clinton have but he's a more stable candidate running a more substantive campaign (when issues begin to matter more it will only help him) and there is an argument to make that he is also the best positioned candidate.

Here are all of the non-ARG polls.

THIRD ARG POLL - CLINTON UP BY ONLY ONE

Strategic Vision Poll - Feb. 16-18, 2007
4% margin of error
Likely Iowa Caucus Goers

John Edwards - 24%
Hillary Clinton - 18%
Barack Obama - 18%
Tom Vilsack - 14%
Joe Biden - 5%
Bill Richardson - 3%
Wesley Clark - 2%
Chris Dodd - 1%
Dennis Kucinich -1%
Undecided - 14%

Zogby Poll - Feb 7-8, 2007.
4% margin of error
Likely Iowa Caucus Goers

John Edwards - 24%
Hillary Clinton - 24%
Barack Obama - 18%
Tom Vilsack - 9%
Joe Biden - 4%

Note: This was after her announcement so clearly it did give her a bounce, just not the 30% one James Carville was claiming.  My point is that after this, once again, Iowa Dems gravitated back towards Edwards.

SECOND ARG POLL - CLINTON UP BY AROUND 20% (If my memory serves me right)

Strategic Vision Poll - Jan. 19-21, 2007
4% margin of error
Likely Iowa Caucus Goers

John Edwards - 25%
Barack Obama - 17%
Tom Vilsack - 16%
Hillary Clinton - 15%
Joe Biden - 4%
John Kerry - 3%
Wesley Clark - 2%
Bill Richardson - 1%
Chris Dodd - 1%
Dennis Kucinich - 1%
Undecided - 15%

Zogby Poll - Jan. 15-16, 2007.
4% margin of error
Likely Iowa Caucus Goers

John Edwards - 27%
Barack Obama - 17%
Tom Vilsack - 16%
Hillary Clinton - 16%
Joe Biden - 3%
John Kerry - 3%
Dennis Kucinich - 1%
Bill Richardson - 1%
Not Sure - 13%

KCCI-TV Poll - December 22, 2006.
5% margin of error

John Edwards - 22%
Barack Obama - 22%
Tom Vilsack - 12%
Hillary Clinton - 10%
Al Gore - 7%
John Kerry - 5%
Wesley Clark - 4%
Dennis Kucinich - 4%
Joe Biden - 1%
Evan Bayh - 1%
Bill Richardson - 1%
Undecided - 11%

Note: Every other Iowa poll has not included Al Gore, as he is not likely to run.  His inclusion almost certainly skewed the result.

Des Moines Register Poll - October 12 - 19, 2006.
4% margin of error
Likely Iowa Caucus Goers

John Edwards 36%
Hillary Clinton 16%
Barack Obama 13%
Tom Vilsack 9%
John Kerry - 6%
Joe Biden - 5%
Undecided - 8%

Des Moines Register - October 12 - 19, 2006
4% margin of error
Iowa Democratic Party County Chairs and Vice Chairs only

Edwards - 40%
Vilsack -15 %
Obama -11%
Clinton - 8 %

Des Moines Register Poll - June 2006

Edwards - 30%
Clinton - 26%
Kerry - 12%
Vilsack - 10%