Here it is:
HRC: 36% (was 43)
Obama: 22% (was 20)
Edwards 13% (was 12)
Richardson 12% (was 6)
That's a margin drop from 23 to 14 points for Clinton....
No appreciable gains for any candidate but Bill Richardson....
« Huckabee Hires A Rapid Responder | Main | Some Questions On Disclosure »
That WMUR poll....
20 Nov 2007 02:34 pm
Comments (20)
Those Richardson cats in Iowa won't meet 15% at most poll spots and thus will have to vote their second choices at the Caucus, which will be a boon to Edwards and Obama.
Whatever it takes to slay the Hillary Machine!
I was discussing this issue with My Favorite Liberal. She arrived at Richardson by looking at the choices as HRC-no way, BO-not ready, JE-too smarmy, Bill Richardson-don't know anything about him, but he's gotta be better than the others.
I suppose somebody standing up for the poor would be seen as smarmy gridlock??? I don't see Obama or Hillary building houses in New Orleans, do you??
I think Richardson's continual rise on the polls might reflect the fact that he is the only major candidate that has pledged to bring every American troop home from Iraq before 2013 and in fact to complete within his first year. His energy initiative has also been called "the most aggressive and detailed" by the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. Richardson also has the most experience both domestically and internationally of any of the major candidates. He has served more time in Congress than any of the other major candidates, and is the only one with major executive leadership experience. Frankly, I'm surprised its taken this long for his poll numbers to meet Edwards.
Wow. I thought the "I don't like the frontrunners" vote would go to Biden. I'm still baffled by Richardson's appeal. He comes off as an idiot to me. And he defended Gonzales.
So she's only ahead by 14 points and Obama soared to 22%. Get real. There's no way Clinton's not going to win NH. Now IA that's different. A bit more of a toss up but the problem for Obama is that a win in IA isn't going to change a thing. Why? Because over the next thirty days she wins just about everything. The notion that because Obama wins by a few points in IA the whole world is turned upside down and it changes the basic dynamics of these races given her huge leads is a fantasy. It's her overwhelming strategic advantage, she can lose Iowa and it won't make a scrap of difference. The wheel would have to come seriously off her cart in all these other states for her to be in danger and I don't see a scrap of evidence that it is happening.
John Hartford-- 14% anywhere but Iowa is a toss-up based on history. The winner of Iowa usually gets a pretty substantial bounce. We may also see somebody drop out and endorse one of the front-runners. Do you have a reason for thinking a 14% lead is insurmountable?
The Sept. Poll had Hillary at 41, not 43. Assuming the new poll has the same moe as that poll, her drop is within the moe.
Knowing when this poll was taken will shed much light on its validity. Hillary was widely seen as having taken a hit in the Russert debate - and there was a slide in some polls. However, she has since bounced back, and was widely seen as having recovered after the last Democratic debate. I am very curious to know when this poll was conducted.
John Hartford: The big bounce out of Iowa happens when the candidate has a connection to New Hampshire. For example, Dukakis (Governor of Mass.), Kerry (Senator from Massachusetts). The same may happen this year for Romney (former Governor from Mass). But remember Bush 41--big Mo out of Iowa, slammed in NH. And there's no reason to think that Obama will get a bounce out of Iowa that will melt a 15% lead in only five days. And, if you look at all of the Iowa polling--not just the outlier from ABC/WashPost--its unlikely Obama will win there, either. But this sure is a lot of fun for the media types.
I think Iowa shakes up everything. It seems like there's a ton of Democrats who want anyone but Hillary, so as the early primaries start to force some of the also-rans to drop, that group could consolidate around the main Clinton opponent.
Plus, if Obama wins Iowa, watch South Carolina numbers move. Winning one early state - okay, could be a fluke. Look at Pat Buchanan. But winning a second forces everyone to reconsider the race.
Lots of voter angst over the status quo looks like it's catching up with "safe" Hillary. Not a good sign for her.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
I very much doubt that there has been any concrete evidence that Clinton will not win. She will be the next President. Her VP picks will include Gen. Clark and Gov. Richardson. I suspect that she will go with Clark and give Richardson the spot on the Cabinet (Education). That's it.
The GOP will be defeated in all 50 states. GOP will be the Mondale of 2008.
Accept it. As a supporter of Obama, I am surprised at his relaxed manner. I have contributed to his campaign but I get no emails of more requests. I get Clinton (from previous contributions) all the time these days. Her team (supporters, reporters, criminals like Norman Hsu, international mediocre pols like Tony Blair, actors, etc.) all are organized. They want to use Clintons to get to the power, and Clintons want to use them to get to the power. Each is a parasite and each is a host.
Thus, no one can defeat the Clintons and their massive team. You have no idea of the magnity of the defeat GOP is about to face.
If we could defeat the Nazi, defeating the Clinton machine is a walk in the park. Hillary is all smoke, mirrors and dirty tricks.
First of all, who is "the nazi" sonya?
I can't think of anyone who has run an effective campaign in the United States under the National Socialist party.
Secondly, I seem to remember seeing a poll just the other day that showed Howard Dean with a huge national poll lead going into December. I believe polls were showing leads for Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire. Far too much is made of "the scream" as if it was the moment that everyone in America finally realized Howard Dean wasn't ready for primetime. Isn't it possible that the entire time he really didn't have that much support and polling methodologies were suspect?
Polls are useful, but they're not holy writ. Really, I think national polls of primary contests are entirely useless. You're comparing apples and oranges. The primaries will be decided in the several states. In fact, national numbers will be only a footnote the entire presidential race. Because of the electoral college and how our conventions work, national polls are basically useless. Hell, we had a fairly accurate national poll in 2000 that said Al Gore was the winner---see how that worked out?
But polls do provide a storyline that's easily digestible. It doesn't take alot of work to put numbers in a story. Doing research about field organization and the nitty-gritty of campaigning takes work, and most of our journalists seem to be too lazy to do that. They'd rather comment on how candidates look in a swimsuit (though a swimsuit competition as part of the primaries would be hilarious).
As eorse, I get plenty of emails from Obama's team--I used to get lots of mail but I moved and haven't updated my old address. My old roommate tells me he throws out plenty of Obama mail (he's a Clinton supporter). I guess part of it's being in Virginia, where my vote doesn't mean anything (and the system works, really...) so I don't get the full-court press, but I certainly have felt like his team is working. I don't get as many phone calls anymore, but I changed my phone number when I moved too.
I dunno. I'm biased, obviously -- I want Obama to win and I see the race that way; however, I don't see what's so "impressive" about Clinton's candidacy. She's played to her strengths (which any candidate would do) and in a primary where nobody's trying to be the bad guy (except for MAYBE John Edwards, whose biggest sin seems to be willing to say Clinton's not honest) she's not taken too many hard licks. Her debate performances bore me. She speaks in doublespeak that would make any spineless politician proud. Even if it's self-satire, she straddled the fence on the dang "pearls vs. diamonds" question.
She's openly antagonistic to the base on a number of questions, and not ones where she's right. It's disgusting that we've declared another country's military a terrorist entity. Has anyone read the state department's definition of terrorism? You have to be a non-state actor to be a terrorist--so that's just stupid. Clinton's biggest asset is that she represents a return to the 90s, which seem like the promised land after 8 years of Bush.
But she would never be able to do even the incremental things that Bill did. She'd be hamstrung by the hatred on the right and her own inability to stand for anything of consequence. You can't claim support for policies you don't run on.
Finally, I hate the idea of a "mandate" for health insurance. It's a great hand-out to the insurance companies (just like mandatory car insurance) that really won't help anyone if the system still works the way it does. My health insurance costs me thousands of dollars a year -- and I've been to the doctor once for a physical this year. My daughter has been once as well. If it weren't for my daughter, I'd probably stay without health insurance. It gives me no benefit and costs far more than a doctor telling me I'm health after a 30 minute examination is worth.
On top of that, what place does the federal government have telling me I "must" purchase health insurance? It's totally outside the rights of the federal government and totally unnecessary. If universal coverage is your goal, single-payer is how it's done. Otherwise you're coming up with a less-than-best solution that serves everyone poorly (except the insurance companies that have given Clinton more than any other candidate).
In short (because if you've read this much you deserve a summary) -- Clinton is not unbeatable. Her policies aren't that great. Her debate performances have failed to impress me. Her best line is "they're attacking me because I'm the leader" which anyone who WAS the leader could and would have said.
January will be far more interesting than all this conjecture. Voters have shown a real capacity for proving all our pundits wrong.
Who was it that said the Democrats would get the Senate and House? In early 2006, wasn't George Allen going to cruise to re-election on his way to the Presidency?
Hell, if our pundits were in Vegas they'd be walking home to the house they lost.
Re: Expections of the Clintons and their team to lose, I am afraid I do not agree.
I am an Obama supporter. From the beginning. I will vote for him in the primary.
But, there is a reality. And, that is, the entire establishment is for Clintons. Ever read the stupid Gail Collins in NYT (former columnist, former editorial lead, now columnist). Her columns are free advertisement for Clintons. Who reads NYT? All people who vote. Did you see the idiot Blitzer? He cannot even ask hard questions to Clinton.
Bottom line: Clintons have the media (atleast the ones that matter - NYT, CNN, PBS, NPR); Clintons have all the women vote, etc.
Can Clintons be beaten? Yes. Obama has to be tougher. More organized. And, Edwards must be expected to critize Clinton further.
Obama/Edwards ticket will be great for the country, and will help to defeat GOP.
James Hare makes all excellent points...
For those who cling to the belief that things cannot get worse than Bush-Cheney, trust me that the Constitution will be further torn asunder at the hands of a Guiliani administration. He must be stopped, but most regrettably the Democrats, rightly sensing the urgency, will rush to cast their ballots for Hillary despite all evidence that the end result will be that millions of conservatives, currently downtrodden with regards to their own field of flawed candidates and filled with righteous anger as to Bush's ineptitude, will cast their ballots for Rudy out of their fear, legitimate or not, of Hillary. If you wish to galvanize conservatives to come out and support Guiliani, then vote for Hillary. Obama is the only Democrat who has a prayer of picking up enough Independents and Republicans to stymie Guiliani's imperial march.
People will vote for Hillary for three reasons:
1) Out of fear of missing out on a seemingly shoe-in of a presidential election. After all, her baggage is all old hat, whereas with Obama, we're waiting for the Repubs to hammer him into submission on something as of now unknown, concocted or not...
2) 90's nostalgia...However, they forget the vitriol and political-emotional exhaustion that resulted from the myriad battles (budgets, investigations, impeachment, et al). And Hillary, unlike Bill, is devoid of any bonhomie. Compassion is not her strong point, like Bill's. She is a disciplined, policy-wonk, who has no business being President. The 90's are gone. She cannot bring them back.
3) Obviously, many women will cast their ballots for Hillary just because she is a woman. It's unfortunate she is the first credible woman running for the nomination. It would be my pleasure voting for an inspiring female candidate, I only wish that Feinstein or Boxer ran instead. Hell, I'd take Pelosi over Clinton any day.
Did this poll include independents? It reads as Democrats only. What are the repercussions if independents are added to the mix? As I understand it, they can also vote in one of the primaries.
I don’t want either Clinton back in the White House. What is past is prologue. But before we help Hillary unpack at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue - consider the incidence of Al Qaeda flight students at the University of Bill Clinton. It’s pretty self-explanatory. According to Dick Morris, Hillary’s Secret Police are out in force. That, “there were off the record calls to journalists from the White House accusing Monica Lewinsky of being a stalker.” At CSU Monterey Bay, White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta made the announcement himself. It was flabbergasting. But what would befall yours truly, that was one for the X-Files. Hillary Clinton: positively pandering, definitely duplicitous, ultimately unelectable: http://theseedsof9-11.com
A few quick facts:
First, the poll did include independents who counted as likely voters in the Democratic primary. As it turns out, Obama did relatively well with them (which is consistent with other polls involving independents).
Second, the poll was conducted Nov. 14-18. So, some of the data came from before the Las Vegas debate, and some after. Personally, though, I wouldn't expect much of an effect from that debate.
Third, Clinton was at 43% in the last poll without Gore. The 41% number comes from the last poll with Gore. Since this poll was without Gore, 43% is the proper number for the purposes of comparison.
Finally, probably one of the most important results is this: 24% reported having decided, 29% are leaning toward someone, and 47% are still trying to decide.
Accordingly, while we do not know what effect future events, including the Iowa caucus, will have in NH, we do know it is entirely possible the numbers in NH could change dramatically before the end.
By the way, in another interesting question, they asked people whether they would consider supporting Clinton, Obama, or Edwards, and reported the results alongside how many people were currently supporting that candidate. It ended up like this:
Clinton: currently-36%, would consider-39%
Obama: currently-22%, would consider-53%
Edwards: currently-13%, would consider-63%
If you add those up, the numbers are virtually identical: about 75% are currently supporting or considering each of those three candidates. Again, that just shows that pretty much anything is possible coming out of Iowa.
| 
God help us if Bill Richardson continues to pick up steam and becomes the Democratic nominee. Nothing against the man; just can't believe he's even remotely ready for primetime. His staying power in New Hampshire and Iowa is beyond me.
Posted by Will | November 20, 2007 2:47 PM