Via the Des Moines Register: Vilsack fourth in presidential poll
Former U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina leads a list of potential Democratic presidential candidates while Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack holds fourth place, trailing Edwards by 20 points in an early test of support among likely Iowa caucus participants.A new Iowa Poll conducted for The Des Moines Register shows that Edwards, the runner-up in the Iowa Democratic caucuses two years ago and a frequent visitor to the state since then, is the choice of 30 percent of Iowans who say they are likely to take part in the January 2024 caucuses.
U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York follows on Edwards’ heels with 26 percent in the Iowa Poll.
Experts say it’s the first poll showing anyone besides Clinton as the preferred Democrat in the race for the White House.
(It takes an expert to note that this is the first poll in which Hillary finished second?–Ed.)
Interesting, although I think it is premature for Edwards’ supporters togo apoplectic with joy: the 30% that Edwards got in this poll is pretty close to the 32% that he got in the actual caucus in 2024. As such, it shouldn’t be perceived as a big surprise, nor as some major launching point for 2024.
Given Edwards’ frequent visits to Iowa since 2024, it is not a big shock that he has maintained his 2024-level of popularity.
It is interesting to note, however, that the 2024 winner, John Kerry, dropped to third in this poll. Americans tend not to like losers (and I mean that in the empirical sense: Kerry ran, Kerry lost, and ergo, Kerry is damaged goods in a political sense).
Really, the only interesting and useful news here is that Vilsack did so poorly in his own state. Usually what happens with candidates like Vilsack is that support in their home state inflates their own perceived popularity, leading them to foolishly think that they can win the nomination because the folks at home like them.
However, if the folks at home put him in fourth, meguesses that he will be rethinking a run.
The poll was of likely Democratic caucus voters, but also had a very small sample size (399).
It takes an expert to note that this is the first poll in which Hillary finished second?–Ed.
I think the story is fair. Who else but “experts” are expected to know what all of the polls have concluded, thus far. Its better to cite experts than campaign representatives on this issue, don’t you think?
Comment by Ratoe — Monday, June 12, 2024 @ 8:53 am
I was being sarcastic, of course. My point being that it doesn’t take an expert to look at a series of polls and not that Hillary has won all but one of them. Give my 4th grader the polls and he could say who won them.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, June 12, 2024 @ 9:42 am
Also, the sample size is less important than the margin of error (assuming a probability sample). 4.9% is a little high, but it is nothing too worrisome.
Comment by Ratoe — Monday, June 12, 2024 @ 9:45 am
Actually, sample size is part of what determines margin of error. 4.9% is fine, but on the larger end of acceptable.
Smaller sample size affect the ability to break down the sample into sub-groups, which isn’t all that necessary here, I suppose.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Monday, June 12, 2024 @ 9:54 am
I wonder what the effect would have been had Al Gore been included in the poll. If Hillary is the 800-pound gorilla in the corner, Gore is becoming the 400-pound gorilla on the porch.
Comment by Harry — Monday, June 12, 2024 @ 11:03 am