By wplog

Published Wednesday, Nov. 14, 2007 | 9:40 a.m.

Updated Thursday, Oct. 30, 2008 | 2:14 p.m.

Horse race afficionados: The New York Times/CBS News polling team has "gone out in the field," as the politicos say, and polled voters in the two early states of New Hampshire and Iowa.

Key passage:

"Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire — the states that begin the presidential nominating battle — say Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards are more likely than Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to say what they believe, rather than what they think voters want to hear, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Polls. But they also view Mrs. Clinton as the best prepared and most electable Democrat in the field, the polls found."

As the article notes, Clinton is having trouble shedding the image of the calculating pol (no doubt the constant media references to this alleged part of her persona don't help.) But she has firmly put to rest doubts about her electability, which were a key obstacle to her winning the nomination, at least early in the race. (See for instance, this Sun story from the summer.)

Who's winning? On the Republican side, Mitt Romney in Iowa, but with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee running close. I spent time with Huckabee last week in Iowa, and I can see why he's doing so well there, despite being a relative uknown just six months ago. Here's my dispatch from Iowa. Romney, who's here for a town hall meeting Saturday, is also leading in New Hampshire, with Rudy Giuliani and John McCain in second. McCain won there in 2000.

On the Democratic side, Clinton, Obama and Edwards are essentially in a three-way tie Iowa. Clinton has a 15-point lead in New Hampshire.

One troubling problem for Republicans: To their voters, immigration is an all-important issue, especially in Iowa. But it's not that important to the rest of the voter pool, meaning Democrats and independents. This means the Republican candidates are forced to run to the far right on immigration, and spend time talking about it while the rest of the electorate wants to hear about extricating America from Iraq, solving the health care mess and keeping the economy in good shape. You generally want your base to be as lined up as closely with the public as possible, or at least have your base be willing to give an electable candidate some breathing room. The Democratic base did this for Bill Clinton in 1992, allowing him to part with base positions and interest groups because they wanted a victory so badly. On the Republican side this year, the base's issues are clearly not the country's issues. Whether the base will allow the nominee to veer toward the middle is still not clear.

Another key passage:

"Voters have clearly rallied around one central part of Mr. Obama’s message: 37 percent of respondents in Iowa described him as the candidate most likely to bring change to Washington. But Mrs. Clinton’s effort to present herself as having the experience to be president has clearly taken hold: 80 percent of Iowa voters described her as prepared to be president, compared with 68 percent who said that of Mr. Edwards and just 42 percent who said that of Mr. Obama."

If Mrs. Clinton has trouble in Iowa, the poll suggests that New Hampshire is heading toward the voting with a more positive view of her. There, 34 percent of respondents said Mrs. Clinton was the candidate who best understood the needs and problems of people in their state; in Iowa, 18 percent of respondents said that.

On the Republican side, the poll suggests that Mr. Giuliani’s rivals might not have as easy a time as they once thought in derailing his candidacy by attacking him for his stand on social issues. A majority of Republicans in Iowa and New Hampshire said they were aware that Mr. Giuliani supported abortion rights, suggesting that they had already incorporated that fact into their voting calculations."

Here's the most significant number in the poll, which, somewhat oddly didn't make it in The Times story: (If you click on the link above, there's a pdf link to the poll results.)

Half of Democratic respondents in Iowa and New Hampshire, and 43 percent of Iowa Republicans and 33 percent of New Hampshire Republicans, said it was too early to say for sure for whom they'd vote in January. This isn't unlike 2004, when there were huge swings in the Iowa and New Hampshire Democratic electorate at the very end of the race.

Now, if that's the case in Iowa and New Hampshire, where voters have had more exposure to candidates, by far, than anywhere else, it's fair to surmise that people in other states, including Nevada, are even less certain in their decision making.

This race was all but declared over on the Democratic side by the national media and its every-four-years-trot-em-out experts.

Perhaps the poll respondents want to seem smarter and more responsible by saying they haven't come to a hasty conclusion.

Either that, or this race isn't over. In fact, it's just starting.