Two New Hampshire Polls Will Show Shrinking Clinton Lead

This should help Obama further:

http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/obama-picks-conveted-endorsement-n-h

Posted by David | November 9, 2007 12:13 PM

Obama and Edwards haven't moved but Clinton is down 10%. Where have they gone, to Kuncinich. What is the purpose of this little hit piece. I'm coming to the view that this sort of stuff is going to inoculate her like the other analyses of the nbc poll which actually had awful numbers for Obama but was played as Clinton only barely beats Giuliani.

Posted by john | November 9, 2007 12:33 PM

Seems like a good explanation for why they dropped the insignificant Strickland endorsement today.

Posted by Hatch | November 9, 2007 12:33 PM

The more people pay attention to the elections the less people will be impressed with Hilary Clinton. She is a nepotist candidate who doesn't stand for anything except getting elected.

Posted by dan | November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

I think if Sherrod Brown endorseds JRE it will be seen bigger in Ohio.

Posted by rssrai | November 9, 2007 12:42 PM

Any Movement in the Republican side of the polls..

Posted by Paul8148 | November 9, 2007 12:43 PM

Just further evidence that the HRC support is predominately due to her status as a very well known Democrat, and thus the default for truly undecided voters.

As people pay more attention, they start realizing they're undecided, and they tell pollsters that.

This race isn't over.

And it has nothing to do with kucinich.

Posted by drfranklives | November 9, 2007 12:45 PM

At least a new poll of the general election has her taking back the lead from Rudy and expanding it to outside of the margin of error.

Posted by Daniel | November 9, 2007 1:17 PM

Wow - interesting that she's losing older voters in NH as they're considered a strong part of her "base" in Iowa.

Iowa really is crucial. More than ever, I hold what I've been saying for a while now: If Obama wins Iowa, it will lift him up in NH (esp. with independents), and probably guarantee him South Carolina (where black voters need to see that he can bring in the white vote). That would SERIOUSLY shift the race.

Posted by JR | November 9, 2007 1:20 PM

I agree with you JR. All obama needs t win the dem nomination is to win at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire and come close in the second. If he does this, I am sure SC will beat it out of the park.
Can Obama deliver the white vote? Thats is major challenge with black voters. If he answers in the affirmative with proof in either Iowa or NH, I think its a forgone conclusion.
My 2pennyworths!!

Posted by J Kunc | November 9, 2007 1:26 PM

Lincoln returns as Obama to rescue our nation. All hands to the tall man.

Posted by Time | November 9, 2007 1:46 PM

Marc A:

Are these embargo agreements customary? Or is this a unique situation?

Posted by Keith | November 9, 2007 2:37 PM

Who set up the embargo by the way: the pollsters or a specific organization? And is this normal? Once the whole thing comes out and the embargo is lifted I would really appreciate if you could explain if this is the norm or not. Thanks.

Posted by Rhoda | November 9, 2007 3:11 PM

I like Obama so I am glad to see it more of a race, but if I end up supporting Hillary it wont be because she is just the best known Dem as one person mentioned here. There are some people who like her and her policies and think she would be a good president, and they are not stupid or evil. Try to absorb that if you will. We can disagree on candidates without getting nasty about it.

On the other hand, my guess is that Obama is rising among old people because he is shamelessly trying to make Social Security into the life threatening crisis that it is not. I was not always convinced of this but my own research tells me SS gets fixed relatively easily, and Medicare is the boondoggle that will drag us down if we dont fix it somehow. Kevin Drumm of Washington Monthly has posted the same thoughts. I guess I dont blame Obama for pulling this card, any pol would, but get real, he is a politician and not in any way immune to distortion and the elevation of hot button issues to get people all riled up when it suits the campaign.

And in the heat of rhetoric lets remember one other thing, Lincoln was not elected with a sense he would save our nation, and to a large extent I think he was successful because people did not put God-like qualities into his persona until his actual deeds justified it. I dont think anyone helps Obama or the nation by trying to posit him as our savior. If the deeds fit, fine, but until then, he is a man, a politician, running as a politician and capable of the same flaws as other politicians.

Posted by Jammer | November 9, 2007 4:10 PM

If Hillary gets the nomination it might be because she is the best known Democrat, but it won't be because the Democrats thought it through. Arguing about which Democrats has the most 'experience' or the best plan for health insurance sounds to me like passengers on the Titanic arguing about which pubs to hit when they get to New York. Because Hillary Clinton would lose the general election campaign.

Right now the GOP candidates are falling all over each other to prove who is the biggest wingnut to get the nomination. With that in hand however their candidate will run a consistently populist campaign a la Ronald Reagan and sunrise in America etc. With the counrty craving change and candor more than at any time some Democrats are proposing running a candidate widely seen to lack candor and is in fact part of the two families who have been ruling the Executive for the past twenty years. Believe the GOP will exploit that to death. And it will work.

Meanwhile the Democrats have this new star in the party who has managed to fundraise and run neck and neck with Hillary on the strenght of all these new people joining the party in order to support him. This is happening in the few places where people have gotten to know Barack Obama, particularly Iowa. The Democrats have a candidate who is showing them he can grow the electoral base in a way they haven't seen since at least 1992. After being stuck at best at 50-50 for a decade it probably makes sense to go with the guy who draws them in, not the old family hand who would rely almost exclusively on core Democrats.

Posted by RandyK | November 9, 2007 4:53 PM

From the very beginning Hillary had voters to lose and Obama had voters to win.

Posted by laurie | November 9, 2007 5:14 PM

If the polls were good for Clinton, one of her people would have broken the embargo and leaked it to Drudge already.

Posted by adam b. | November 9, 2007 5:15 PM

Jammer,

I've heard Obama speak on Social Security and on Health Care. He isn't using social security to scare voters. I heard him say that the real problem we currently face is Health Care, but that Social Security is a problem we will face in the future if we don't do something about it now.

Posted by John | November 9, 2007 7:46 PM

I think this is good news. I don't know about South Carolina but in North Carolina we are waiting to vote for Obama

Posted by Vinny | November 9, 2007 8:32 PM

No surprise, really. I think most people were expecting the race to tighten as we got into the heart of campaign season.

I do think Clinton's strategy of inevitability was foolish. As the race does tighten (as people start paying attention to more than just name awareness), it will look akin to her missing expectations, which gives all the buzz and excitement to her competitors, predominantly Obama I'm guessing.

I agree with JR above, and I'm a convert, previously believing Iowa and NH were less important because of the condensed cycle. But we're seeing a lot of people taking their time making up their minds, and a bunch of them will be making their decisions right about the same time the Iowa winner is basking in the glow of that victory.

Posted by Paul | November 9, 2007 8:43 PM

Obama has an army of under the radar supporters who are growing by the day, as they pay attention and he makes them understand change is within their power and their decisions.

Black folks are listening when he talks of real issues of education, family values and responsibility. Yet all we hear is "they love Clinton" an empty, patronizing, degrading rhetoric.

or

could it be the reason they are so badly off foolishly being taken for a ride by the Clintons who would rather babysit them than put a mirror infront of their faces for some self reflection?

Posted by SilverB | November 9, 2007 8:46 PM

While there has been lots of news coverage about Billary Clinton's debate double speak about driver's licenses for illegal’s, who come to this country, no one has focused on her response to questions about reforming social security. You should review the transcripts, in adittion to saying she would appoint a commission,she said she has a plan to save social security; however, she will not tell the American public what her plan is until after she is elected President. The last time some one running for president had a secret plan, (to end the Vietnam war)it was Richard Nixon. So now we have Billary Clinton copying tactics espoused by the only President forced to resign instead of being impeached. Does she really think the public is so stupid that it will fall for her secret plan? It is time for the liberal media to be objective about her statements and stop giving her a pass on her statements. Smart democrats should dump her because their party will lose the White house in 08, if she is the Democrat candidate. They should realize that Billary Clinton has the highest number of people who will never vote for her. Her negative polling is 45 to 50 percent, which is a historical record for any Presidential candidate. Also her husband was elected 2 times with less than 50 percent of the vote.
Wake up and smell the coffee Democrats or you will spend another 4 years in the political wilderness. Do you really want to spend another 4 years debating the meaning of the word is? The Republicans will have a field day with her past scandals. The only reason her and her husband, of convenience, are not convicted felons is that they consistently used the phrase "I can't recall" more times than anyone can count, whenever asked tough questions during those scandal investigations. Pretty amazing that they couldn’t remember anything, especially when they credit themselves with being the smartest couple in the world. They will only get away with being the smartest couple in the world if everyone else can't recall all of their scandals like renting out the Lincoln bedroom for 50k per nite. The office of President deserves some one who is honest, not some one who will look the American public straight in the eyes and lie. Bill Clinton was not impeached for sex, as their political machine would have you think, he was impeached for lying under oath, which is a felony. Americans should just say no to Billary!

Posted by Charles Ellis | November 9, 2007 9:33 PM

In the General Election who will the R's prefer to run against a 1st term Jr. Senator who prefers not to support the USA or a faux NYawker retread with a huge felonistic history or a prissy trial lawyer...my oh my what a choice.

Posted by vaquero | November 10, 2007 10:06 AM

As a proud Clinton supporter, it speaks volume to me that the polls never matter until they show some weakness in Clinton.

On all of these polls, Clinton is still LEADING.
So, do POLLS MATTER, or not?
Because if they DO matter, she's still leading.
And if they don't matter, why does THIS one matter?

Show me any poll where all the candidates are polled against each other, and Clinton leads every single other candidate.

If Clinton Haters could see themselves objectively, I think they would be humiliated at their own narrow-mindedness.

I've never once said that Senator Clinton will win the primaries or the general election.
But my money will remain on her until we actually have the election and someone else beats her. So far, that's not even happening in the polls.

Tonight there's a chance for some things to go either way. Let's watch.

Posted by Jan | November 10, 2007 11:52 AM

My disclaimer: I am a Ron Paul supporting NH Republican with a passion for politics and political debate. Nonetheless, I do not believe that this taints my view of Clinton, or Democrats in general. I voted for Bill Clinton twice, and never once regretted it.

That said, I simply do not understand why Democrats are overwhelmingly supporting Hillary Clinton. Doing so dramatically decreases their chances of winning in the presidential election, if not ensuring a loss. When polls repeatedly show that 52% of Americans claim that they absolutely would not vote for Mrs. Clinton, you are behind in the game right from the start.

The only reason why she "wins" in head to head polls right now is because she is the most recognizable name on the list. Once the parties select their candidates, the public will become very familiar with both, and her advantage will be lost. Her opponent will be in the news and on TV equally as much as she, and both will be "household" names. No longer will she benefit from her high profile.

Beyond her "winability" factor, Democrats seem to be ignoring her duplicity and neo-con-lite positions on foreign affairs. She has been vocal and loud with her criticism of Bush for the war in Iraq and his drumbeat towards Iran, yet her actions themselves show little deviation from Mr. Bush. She voted to give Bush a blank check on Iraq in 2003. She voted to designate a standing army of the sovereign nation of Iran as a "terrorist organization" -- which, given the established Bush Doctrine, implicitly approves military force in Iran. She continues to promote a slightly rehashed version of the neo-con "democracy through force" ideology. If we need change in vision, she's not the one to provide it.

The fact is, along with the rest of Congress, Hillary has failed those Americans (me) who voted to sweep the neo-GOP out of office in 2006. We wanted someone to check the power of this administration and to investigate the lies -- Democrats promised that they would if elected, but have failed miserably in their mandate.

For someone who wants to lead this nation, she has shown a complete lack of leadership in Congress. She has the clout and the power to ensure that a bill is passed to start bringing our troops home. She should be leading the pack of cowardly Democrats in Congress to use teeth in their investigations of Bush administration misdeeds (Iraq run up, attorneys, missing emails, etc) instead of standing by as they give in to the executive branch over and over again. Despite the fact that she voted not to approve FISA, the bill passed. Had she exerted leadership, it may have been a different story. The fact is, her words do not reflect the truth of her actions and inactions.

If Ron Paul does not get the nomination I will look to the Democrats for a candidate. I pray that it will be Obama, who has shown leadership and integrity at every turn. I would love to see it be Kucinich, but he suffers from a lack of looks and charisma -- which is an unfortunate factor in these races. For both my wife, a truly liberal democrat, and myself, there are no circumstances where we would vote for Mrs. Clinton. She is simply too much like the current president for my liking.

Hopefully the educated and intelligent voters of New Hampshire will wake up and realize just how much of a disaster it would be if they support Hillary Clinton for president. Hopefully, NH independence will shine once again and they chose a candidate with true integrity.

Posted by MadManMoon | November 10, 2007 2:23 PM

Jan says,
If Clinton Haters could see themselves objectively, I think they would be humiliated at their own narrow-mindedness.

Wow Jan, I think maybe you need to look in the mirror for that one.

Posted by Afshin | November 10, 2007 3:22 PM

In this discussion, "experience," whether not so good or lack thereof, seems to be the key to how electable each Dem candidate is. What about Richardson and his incredible resumé? Governor, Energy Secretary, UN Ambassador, Congressman. I think once the country gets to know him, he probably will look good. Is he vulnerable on anything?

Michael Yoder

Posted by Michael Yoder | November 10, 2007 4:01 PM

I am a very liberal life long Democrat. I dislike Hillary intensely and am not at all certain that I would vote for her if she were the candidate. MORE TO THE POINT: She cannot be elected- Americans will not vote for her...
RE OBAMA- I am in no shape or form racist and have been engaged to an African-American BUT THAT SAID- America will never in my life-time elect an African American as President. IT WILL JUST NOT HAPPEN-and by the way- Have you observed Michelle Obama- She will lose him votes. Your average American woman or man, will be totally turned off by her. AND FINALLY, I'm afraid that Obama has never shown that he's tough enough to navigate as President.
I'm pretty sure I'll be vilified for this post, but you can take what I say to the bank. Tania, Esq.

Posted by Tatiana Sundquist | November 10, 2007 4:11 PM

I'm afraid I agree with Tatiana on both counts. That begs the question, which of the remaining candidates can pass the dual test of 1. being able to get the nomination, and 2. being able to attract enough independents to win the general election? I fear Edwards is vulnerable for his skimpy resumé, and generates high negatives for having been a trial lawyer. I supported him in 2004, but am not so sure now. I'm almost thinking Richardson is the best one all the way around. Democrats have to nominate someone who has is true to democratic values, and has less negatives for the purposes of the general election.

Posted by Michael Yoder | November 10, 2007 5:06 PM

Michael and Tatiana, however "not a racist" they may be, are indicative what's wrong with a certain portion of America. They would sooner swallow the spittle of Hillary Clinton and her ilk, than support the best candidate in the bunch, Barack Obama. Tatiana "disclaimer" that she was "engaged to an African-American" does not mitigate in any way her racist remarks regarding Michelle Obama (whom she apparently dislikes because -- omigod -- she is black too.

If white Americans like Michael and Tatiana would reject the racist politics of their parents, Barack Obama would be elected in their not-so-productive lifetimes, and they could at least celebrate the fact that they had something to do with really making history, instead of taking the chickensh*t path people like them always take.

Posted by Jade7243 | November 10, 2007 6:45 PM

I think this shows that Hillary has a certain percent of soft supporters. People who say they back her because they are told on the cable news that she is inevitable and she is loved by all democrats.
But, the democrats who are waking up and seeing that they do indeed have a choice and that there are excellent candidates who are superior to Hillary to pick.
I am an Obama supporter and see how deep his support is. but, if someone who sees that Hillary is not the only candidate and does not want to pick Obama, I hope they look hard at the other ones. I can live very easily with any of our candidates as president as long as it is not Hillary.
I will not vote for her at all. So, yes, this is good news. finally!

Posted by vwcat | November 10, 2007 8:40 PM

Maybe I am naive, but I simply do not believe that Obama's race would be a major factor in his electability. I simply do not feel that it's a factor. If he has the message that Americans want to hear, then Americans will support him.

Are there individuals who will refuse to vote for him because he is black? Absolutely, but I do not believe that the numbers are as widespread Tatiana would lead one to believe. From a purely anecdotal example, I give you my 70 year old father. He is a racist SOB, and will tell you as much. Yet, this traditional libertarian conservative commented to me the other day that he really likes what Obama has to say, and hopes to vote for him as president. As should be the case with all Americans, regardless of race, it is Obama's person and message that matters to my dad. Once he had the chance to "get to know him," race no longer mattered.

I have a $5K wager in place with a friend that if Mrs. Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she will lose the general election against whomever the GOP nominates. Aside from Ron Paul, which I do not delude myself into believing Republicans are willing to support, there is not a single Republican candidate I will vote for. On the Democratic side, there are two or three that I believe would lead America back to honor and dignity. Hillary Clinton is not one of them.

Democrats have rightfully yelled, screamed and begged for change in America. But, like Democrats in Congress, they do not have the courage to follow their convictions. Instead they have chosen to stay the course and accept status quo in Hillary Clinton. They are simply unable to muster the courage required for revolutionary change in America.

I still have hope that America will wake from their malaise.

Posted by MadManMoon | November 10, 2007 9:08 PM

FYI - the "embargoed" poll is easily found with a simple Google search.

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/NH/NHPZ0711.htm

Posted by MadManMoon | November 10, 2007 9:54 PM

Did you find the second Poll?

Posted by Paul8148 | November 10, 2007 10:09 PM

"Did you find the second Poll?"

Unfortunately, not as of yet. It is likely to come out of The University of New Hampshire.

Posted by MadManMoon | November 10, 2007 10:33 PM

UNH it is, with the Boston Globe

From the article
"A majority of Republican voters, 54 percent, said they would be willing to surrender some civil liberties if it "significantly improv[ed] our security against terrorists," but three-fourths of Democrats said they were unwilling to make that bargain."

What in the world has happened to the Republican party? If anyone ever questions whether the GOP has changed, one need only point to this single polling number.

Posted by MadManMoon | November 11, 2007 6:16 AM

I'm not a "party voter"... I am virulently anti-Bush... and I'm wondering what the h*ll the democrats are thinking by trying to win 08 with a Hillary and/or Barrack. You've got a country that is sick of a nonsensical war - so you want to try to calm and reassure everyone by putting a minority in the White House? I have no problem with either as president -in general-, but this is not the time.

They've just completely blown any chance for support from moderate non-party voters. I find myself planning to vote for Mitt Romney now even though I reject socio/religious conservativism. I figure it will be like having an overly conservative father-in-law... you may not share his views, but you love him anyway...

Barrack has already alienated many moderates with his "hey I'm Black" rhetoric. Clinton comes with built in alienation by reputation.

If Barrack (who strikes me as fantastically competent) wins, he will probably be martyred by some backward skinhead yahoo within months of his election.

If Clinton wins, she'll spend her presidency being the "woman in the whitehouse" instead of "president".

At least Mitt will be able to get down to the business of corruption right away without distraction.

Posted by Citizen Kane | November 11, 2007 7:22 AM

I think Jade 7243 totally missed my point, which was in agreement with Tatiana's general argument. It's not that Tatiana or I are racist. I lament that the country may not yet be willing to vote for an African American. I was shocked and disappointed to see a poll on one of the major networks maybe six months ago that indicated that a sizable group of Americans would not under any circumstances vote for an African American. African Americans in South Carolina, the media tells us, are waiting to see if Whites will back Obama before they themselves do. Does that make Blacks in South Carolina racist?

On the other hand, maybe the poll indicating America is not ready to vote for a Black was totally wrong, and MadManMoon is right. I hope so. After all, the now-famous (non-scientific) Zogby poll of a couple weeks ago indicated that the percentage of those who would not vote for Obama under any circumstances was in the 30s, while in the case of Clinton the figure was at 50 percent.

Both Tatiana and I indicated we will NOT vote for Clinton in the primary, so I think Jade 7243 is a bit, well, jaded by believing Tatiana and I would "sooner swallow the spittle of Clinton. . ." My own reservation about Obama is his arguable lack of experience. I guess I'm wondering if the country is ready to vote for someone who has served only part of a term in the Senate. If I can be convinced that the resumé is less important in a general election than charisma and oratory flair, I will vote for Obama in the primary. Otherwise, I will vote for Richardson, who seems to me to have the best resumé. What I wish Jade 7243 would do is convince me WHY Obama is "the best candidate in the bunch" instead of making tired and baseless accusations of racism that unnecessarily complicate this serious discussion about who can beat the republicans.

Posted by Michael Yoder | November 11, 2007 7:46 AM

vote ron paul

Posted by bertram haut | November 11, 2007 1:01 PM

Biden is my choice, a candidate with a great resume. First he has vast foreign policy experience that this country needs. Second he talks straight instead of that double talk. Third he can bring in the Independent voter and the Moderate Republican which in turn will give him what Ronold Reagan had(cross over votes) and that will give him a landslide victory to the White House. Biden also has a track record of bringing both partys together and wouldn't that be nice a President that could get things done. As everyone knows you need some Republican to come to the table to have the votes you need to pass anything in Washington. I think there is alot of Republican voters not happy with the crop of Republican hopefuls that they got stuck with and they would never vote for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by julie | November 12, 2007 9:37 PM

Two New Hampshire Polls Will Show Shrinking Clinton Lead

Comments (40)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives