IA-Quinnipiac: D: Clinton 52% Sanders 33%; R: Walker 18% Carson 10% Trump 10%

[Mr. Morden]

Quinnipiac poll of Iowa, conducted June 20-29:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2258

Walker 18%
Carson 10%
Trump 10%
Cruz 9%
Paul 9%
Bush 8%
Rubio 7%
Huckabee 5%
Perry 4%
Santorum 4%
Fiorina 3%
Jindal 3%
Kasich 2%
Christie 1%
Graham 1%
Pataki 0%

UPDATE:

Early numbers from the Democratic side:

http://time.com/3943994/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa/

Clinton 52%
Sanders 33%

[Türkisblau]

That ain't good for the Huckster.

[Mr. Morden]

So latest polls have Trump at ~10% in both Iowa and New Hampshire.  That's good enough to be tied for 2nd in IA and alone in 2nd in NH.

[Mr. Morden]

Which candidate would you *NOT* support under any circumstances?

Trump 28%
Bush 24%
Christie 18%
Graham 12%
Huckabee 11%
Paul 11%
Cruz 9%
Santorum 8%
Perry 7%
Pataki 6%
Kasich 5%
Carson 4%
Fiorina 4%
Jindal 4%
Rubio 4%
Walker 4%

I won't bother listing everyone's favorable #s, but Trump is 42% favorable / 47% unfavorable…not as far underwater as Christie or Graham, but still not good.

[Former Democrat]

No numbers for the Dems?

[Mr. Morden]

No numbers for the Dems?

I'm assuming they'll release those tomorrow.

[mds32]

Cruz at 9% probably because he has been making a ton of noise on the marriage ruling and King v. Burwell.

[Mehmentum]

The would not support under an circumstances number is pretty bad for Bush (surprisingly higher than it is for Christie).  A reminder that despite running a good campaign so far, Bush has significant obstacles ahead of him.

[RINO Tom]

1. I have actually warmed up to Bush, and I like him personally ... but the people who say he has huge obstacles ahead are absolutely right.  I HIGHLY doubt he's the nominee.

2. I know it's a tad optimistic, but I'm really hoping Kasich can get an announcement bounce (once he announces) and then continually rise once voters can see/hear him in debates.

[King]

Walker is still the frontrunner even if he's slipped in national polls.

[Crumpets]

Walker is still the frontrunner even if he's slipped in national polls.

In Iowa and a couple of other states, but nationally? No.

[eric82oslo]

Bush, Kasich and Christie should all be very worried with these numbers. These three candidates together have only 11% in the poll versus 10% for Trump alone. On the other hand, shockingly/surprisingly, the past two Iowa winners, Huckabee and Santorum, are both doing horribly as well.

Walker, Carson and Rubio have all very low negatives and very high positives in Iowa. Cruz is doing really well there as well.

[Mehmentum]

Walker is still the frontrunner even if he's slipped in national polls.

In Iowa and a couple of other states, but nationally? No.

National polls actually mean very little at this stage of the race.  A huge lead in national polls will evaporate into nothing if the candidate doesn't win Iowa or New Hampshire.

In the end, the nomination will come down to 2 or 3 people: the winners of Iowa, New Hampshire and possibly South Carolina, if a third candidate wins there.  Having a strong lead in one of those states (especially Iowa or New Hampshire) makes it more likely that candidate will be one of the final contenders.

 

[Likely Voter]

Walker's sustained front-runner status in IA for someone who is undeclared and hasnt really taken that many trips to the state is impressive. That being said he is from a border state and people in the NW of IA probably are exposed to a lot of local WI TV.

Cruz at 9% probably because he has been making a ton of noise on the marriage ruling and King v. Burwell.

Well compared to Quinni's last IA poll Cruz is actually down a few points, although that was done not long after his announcement. THis may be a bit of a bounce back for Ted.

[Eraserhead]

Walker is still the frontrunner even if he's slipped in national polls.

In Iowa and a couple of other states, but nationally? No.

The national polls don't mean jack (Inks).

[Mr. Morden]

Time says the Democratic numbers are:

http://time.com/3943994/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-iowa/

Clinton 52%
Sanders 33%
and then everyone else.

Full results should be out at the top of the hour.

[Tender Branson]

A 60% lead is down to 19% in just a few months ... she's inevitable !

[Mr. Morden]

Full Democratic numbers:

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/iowa/release-detail?ReleaseID=2259

Clinton 52%
Sanders 33%
Biden 7%
O'Malley 3%
Webb 1%
Chafee 0%

[Mr. Morden]

Among voters describing themselves as "very liberal", Sanders leads 47%-43%.  Clinton leads among all other groups.

Are there any candidates you would definitely *NOT* support?

Biden 7%
Chafee 7%
Webb 7%
Clinton 6%
O'Malley 4%
Sanders 4%
no one 59%
don't know 16%

fav/unfav % among Democrats:

Clinton 85/10% for +75%
Biden 80/12% for +68%
Sanders 66/8% for +58%
O'Malley 24/5% for +19%
Webb 18/6% for +12%
Chafee 10/8% for +2%

[Gallium]

A 45% lead is down to 19% in just a few months ... she's inevitable !

With numbers like these you bet she is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember in 2000 Gore only led Bradley by single digits at various points in Iowa, but eventually turned out a 30 point victory. The same will happen here. People are flirting with the new liberal alternative, and Iowans have always wanted a competitive caucus. But all the numbers show that they love Hillary and when it really comes down to it in February they're going to vote for her as their standard bearer.

[mds32]

At this rate Sanders will have a 40% or so showing in Iowa. Definitely starting to become competitive in Iowa.

If Sanders somehow keeps in close in Iowa or somehow wins it and then NH then it becomes a serious problem for Clinton.

[Mehmentum]

#Clintonunder60

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

A 45% lead is down to 19% in just a few months ... she's inevitable !

With numbers like these you bet she is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember in 2000 Gore only led Bradley by single digits at various points in Iowa, but eventually turned out a 30 point victory. The same will happen here. People are flirting with the new liberal alternative, and Iowans have always wanted a competitive caucus. But all the numbers show that they love Hillary and when it really comes down to it in February they're going to vote for her as their standard bearer.

A black freshman Senator from Illinois with a funny name would like to have a word with you.

[Fusionmunster]

A 45% lead is down to 19% in just a few months ... she's inevitable !

With numbers like these you bet she is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Remember in 2000 Gore only led Bradley by single digits at various points in Iowa, but eventually turned out a 30 point victory. The same will happen here. People are flirting with the new liberal alternative, and Iowans have always wanted a competitive caucus. But all the numbers show that they love Hillary and when it really comes down to it in February they're going to vote for her as their standard bearer.

A black freshman Senator from Illinois with a funny name would like to have a word with you.

The logistics of the race are more akin to 2000 than 2008 in large part due to a lack of Edwards. So the comparison to Bradley is more apt than Obama.

[Mr. Morden]

Polling was more sparse in 1999, but according to this source:

http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/21/dmr.gore/index.html

the Des Moines Register had a poll in late June 1999, and on the Democratic side, it was:

Gore 64%
Bradley 24%

but by October the gap had narrowed down to as little as 3 points, at least in one poll.  Of course, Gore ended up rallying in the end, to win by 63%-37%.

So yeah, there's the potential for more wild swings one way or the other over the next six months.