Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Positioned

Fox's latest national poll (PDF) shows pretty much everyone gaining ground, but Clinton by far gaining the most. January 30-31, MoE 5 for the Democratic sample (December numbers in parenthesis):

Clinton: 43 (33)
Obama: 15 (12)
Edwards: 12 (8)
Gore: 11 (11)
Biden: 4 (2)
Richardson: 2 (1)
Vilsack: -- (2)
Dodd: --
Kucinich: --
Other: 2 (3)
Don't Know: 9 (20)

Now, there is no way that this large shift out of "Don't Know" has actually resulted in any hard new "hard" supporters for any candidate. We are still more than a year from most people having a chance to vote in the primary or caucus in their home state. Probably 80%, or more, of everyone's support is "soft" at this point--the events of the last month haven't sold anyone. However, this does back up what I said earlier in the week: Clinton's advantage at this point is not comparable to Lieberman's in 2003. As Joe Trippi noted in the comments to that post, it is more like Mondale's lead in 1983, or Gore's lead in 1999. As was the case with Mondale and Gore at this point in their respective campaigns, Hillary Clinton has the dominant advantage of long being, in the eyes of the base, the "heir apparent." Lieberman was never the prumptive heir, both because most Democrats thought Gore actually won and that he was going to run again in 2004. Gore was still the "heir apparent" in late 2002. Also, Democrats think Lieberman is a melting, preachy, egotistical, Republican-loving wienie, as the Democratic voters of Connecticut showed last August.

It is going to take a very impressive campaign to topple her. Once again, the Fox poll shows that Obama is best positioned to do that (disclosure: I am now undecided between Edwards and Obama). The poll included the following open-ended question:
Thinking about the announced and also the frequently mentioned possible presidential candidates from both political parties, which one candidate would you most like to learn more about? OPEN ENDED
Among Democrats, Obama easily led Clinton, 30% to 19% Among Independents, Obama led Clinton 37% to 15%. No other Democrats was in the double digits in either category, even though at least Gore and Edwards are better known than Obama.

People are intrigued by Obama, and willing to consider him. I am one of those people. The opportunity is there for him. Can he step up and seize the day?

Tags: Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, polls, President 2008, Walter Mondale (all tags)



Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Dodd's at 0, or not polled.  I really think he has some credibility as a candidate, and I'm a little suprised he has no following.  Announcing he's not a Senate contender anymore raised my eyebrows.  I'm not for him, but I'd think the beltway types would go to him as well as Clinton, and cut into her a bit.  I suppose his $2 million would be better spent elsewhere.

by John Nicosia 2007-02-01 02:27PM | 0 recs
agree about Clinton's lead

it is disturbing.

However, I think Obama missed the boat.

He was given the free media opportunity of a life-time and left a vaccuum of ideas or issues..

will be much harder to keep the "freshness" given he was to some extent a media creation.

I don't think Hillary or Edwardses people will leave a vacuum and perfect storm that big again

by TarHeel 2007-02-01 02:30PM | 0 recs
Obama's honeymoon will end sometime

I don't know whether it will be in the spring, summer or fall, but at some point there will be a media backlash against Obama. I am actually surprised that given the overwhelming favorable coverage of him these last few points that he is not well ahead of the other non-Hillary candidates.

I stand by my prediction that at this stage, either Edwards or Obama is more likely to be the nominee than Clinton. I think that as elections draw closer in the states, the more-informed voters who tend to vote in primaries will be looking for alternatives to Hillary.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-01 02:37PM | 0 recs
Can you please explain yourself?

He was given the free media opportunity of a life-time and left a vaccuum of ideas or issues.

Media opportunity of a lifetime compressed into, what, a month or less?

The hyperbole from some folks is just a bit too much.

by rosebowl 2007-02-01 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?

He's had several months of nothing but puff pieces all over the free media. I also think he could have done more during this period to flesh out what he stands for, but mostly he talks about how we should all get along and how we need a different kind of politics that's not nasty, etc.

That said, I still think he's got a better chance at the nomination than HRC. The calendar favors Edwards, though, and Obama's got catching up to do in the early states.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-01 02:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?
Maybe the puff pieces are the problem. Maybe people want to see him lead more now, as he did with his Iraq legislation. They want to know there is substance behind the fluff.
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-01 02:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?

Why would the PAC closings be big news?  One was still identified with "Holy" Joe LIEberman.  I don't think Al wants that chain around his neck.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-01 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?
by Chris Bowers 2007-02-01 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?

Well there is no other way to ask, since it's not really worth a diary entry.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-01 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?

Isn't that exactly what the "Open Thread" threads are for?

by Silent sound 2007-02-01 04:06PM | 0 recs
not completely knowledgeable

about the Iraq legislation that is going to pass,, but at least the Levin bill is adamantly opposed by Feingold - who posted this on dKos today in detail and why he is against it -.

so if Clinton and Obama vote yes on a non-binding levin resolution that feingold, dodd and others vote No on - will that even help Obama??

by TarHeel 2007-02-01 03:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?

I think people would like to see any of the Dems lead, now that there's a majority, and as we know, the people are bolder than their leaders right now.

Thing that stunned me about this poll: Gore's negatives are even higher than the were pre-movie.  Hillary's high numbers are no shock -- she's the most famous person to run for the office since Ike.

by Adam B 2007-02-01 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?

I agree - I did not know much about Obama, but when I heard his speech about getting along, and even today, when I read what he said about there is no time to be cynical ('cause when I hear the drums beating on Iran, like they did on Iraq, I think we had damn well better be cynical) my eyes glaze over.

No. No more "Mr. Nice Guy, Must Be Bipartisan." We did that for 6 years, and got out teeth kicked down our throats. I want fire, toughness and passion.

by adigal 2007-02-02 07:18AM | 0 recs
Well, I beg to differ

What exactly is the puff pieces argument here? I think it is a very weak talking point from Obama's detractors who are envious of his ability to draw in audiences, friends and foes alike. Is it Obama's fault that the he has a certain level of intrigue and charisma as a candidate and the media is trying to understand 'that' intrigue factor?

Its a smart decision not to pound the gavel at every single turn. I think the Obama team understands that  media attention can be grating after a while. I predict a shift in campaign focus and aggressiveness once Obama officially announces on Feb 10.

by rosebowl 2007-02-01 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Can you please explain yourself?

I agree with Trippi that Clinton is well positioned to be the nominee and the polls are showing that. When the Obama press honeymoon is over he may decline in the polls and that would give Edwards a shot (a long shot I might add).

The problem for both Edwards and Obama is by the time they are the last one standing against Clinton the primary process will be so far along it would be extremely unlikely they could catch up with her even if they started winning the late primaries.

by robliberal 2007-02-01 03:06PM | 0 recs
it seems others are answering for me

but yes.. not only was he on all the magazines, all the TV shows and all the radio shows with free media.

the media was universally flattering, unscrutinizing and pumping him up.

it seemed to go on for a large part of the fall until Hillary was forced to bump him off when she announced.

People still don't know where he stands on issues.. He could have easily picked one single issue to associate with him so people could say "yeah, Obama stands for",   being against the war in 2004 doesn't do a lot for most voters today.  Because most of the electorate was for it too.

While Hillary gets lots of free media too, hers contains a lot of negative framing "Dukakis in a Dress"-chris matthews, "Triangulating" - one reporter actually made a triangle with his hands describing her on MSNBC from Iowa.

obama got completely flattering media and still does.  except for the random fox and friends douchey stuff.

by TarHeel 2007-02-01 03:08PM | 0 recs
The"fluff" pieces talking point is weak

Obama hadn't even decided to enter the race till late last month. Speculation here and there, but the ultimate decision was up to him and his family to make.

I'd rather a candidate make complete sense when he/she talks on major issues than to hear them blather on and on pretty much directionless or unfocused just for publicity sake.

by rosebowl 2007-02-01 03:23PM | 0 recs
I never used the word "fluff"

that was another commenter.

however, regardless of whether or not he had really known weather or not he was running in December,

we expect politicians to politic, and anytime you see yourself on TV all the time you need to think about what you want people to think.

I don't think it's being unreasonable to say Obama missed a golden opportunity to get some one line message out there.

some such as yourself are perhaps suggesting he hadn't thought about it while at the other extreme some may think he was too cautious.

by TarHeel 2007-02-01 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I never used the word "fluff"

I have never seen Senator Obama go for the 'sound-bite' style of messaging.  He has decried it, rightly, as part of what is wrong with the mainstream political process.

I am betting he doesn't want to make a case for his issues without an opportunity to make a reasonable and thought-provoking presentation and he doesn't want the MSM to do the translation for him.

My impression is that Obama has respect for the electorate to out-think their political leadership on substantive issues but if I were him I would not have trusted this initial period to be the appropriate forum for that.  I assume his strategy is to treat this initial 'fluff' period as just that, a 'meet and greet' with the American public.  If that is the case it has been successful.

And the two things of substance which he has done in this period are provide a summation of where he stands on universal health care and introduce the Iraq De-escalation Act of 2007.  Both significant issues, the health care as a conceptual framework for further discussion, the Iraq policy as a formal bill which will be debated, hopefully, in commitee and on the Senate floor.  And not before time, either.

Personally I think he is on the right flight plan to run his candidacy the way he wants to run it.  Substantive, on the issues and tunnelling through institutional perceptions to communicate directly to the American public.

He has plenty of time and he isn't going to tank any day soon.  His poll numbers are going up, I notice.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 04:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

 I'm also on the fence between Edwards and Obama at this point. Edwards had been my (soft) choice until his Iran comments in Israel, and Obama's last two days have him climbing fast up my charts. Right now, it's a wash between the two. Bill Richardson is Number Three.

 I foresee one scenario that would completely open the field for Al Gore -- and that's an Iran war.

 If/when the attacks on Iran commence, the Democrats will take a serious powder in public opinion. They were elected to put a lid on the Middle East madness and to rein in Bush, and they will have proven themselves spectacularly inept at doing so. The Iran war (unlike Iraq) will effect some serious, profound, and palpable changes in the American way of life -- $5/gallon gas, for starters -- and the public will sour on it very quickly.

 Under those circumstances, EVERY Democrat in the Senate will lose most of his/her credibility -- Clinton certainly, and, sorry to say, Obama. The Democratic Party's ONLY hope in 2008 would be a candidate whose hands are completely clean of the wars -- and that's where Al Gore comes in.

 I hope Al Gore enters the race under more favorable circumstances than those, of course...


by Master Jack 2007-02-01 02:31PM | 0 recs
stay tuned, Obama will let you down on Iran too

If your vote is going to be swayed by rhetoric on Iran, then I recommend that you settle on Kucinich now. I don't expect Obama to say anything significantly different from what Edwards has said about Iran.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-01 02:52PM | 0 recs
Maybe he will...

  ...but an Iran war will pretty much be the end of the Democratic Party's chances in 2008, if not forever.

 The Dems were elected last year to STOP Bush, not to enable him. If they do what they did in 2003 -- meekly fall in line behind White House Iran saber-rattling -- it's over. The Dems could run Thomas Jefferson and he'd get creamed.

by Master Jack 2007-02-01 02:59PM | 0 recs
they're about to sign on to a non-binding

"bipartisan" bill saying they don't like how Bush is playing.

A bad political move that gives cover to the GOP.

The dems need to make sure they own NO PART of IRaq or Iran

by TarHeel 2007-02-01 03:36PM | 0 recs
Re: stay tuned, Obama will let you down on Iran to

Well... I sure as hell do.  I observed the Edwards supporters have their moment of doubt and it was not a pretty sight.  Sincerely hope I don't have to go through that.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-02 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Every Democrat in the Senate?  Don't include Feingold in that morass.

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-01 03:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

 I don't include Feingold (or some other good Democrats, like Chris Dodd) in that morass.

 But I'm not sure the voting public is going to make those kinds of distinctions. "Dammit, I voted for The Democrats to pull the plug on this Iraq shit, and all I got was ANOTHER war! I should have known better. Screw them!"

 Two-thirds of Americans don't think Congress is moving aggressively enough against Bush on Iraq. And the Democrats, as a whole, are doing nothing but dicking around. I canvassed and phonebanked my butt off last fall trying to counteract the "both parties are equally bad" sentiment I kept encountering among potential voters. Nice to see the Dems completely undermining all my work, and that of thousands of other volunteers around the nation.

  Yes, I'm pissed. We're on the 2002 path all over again, and with much less excuse.

by Master Jack 2007-02-01 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

DO you understand how wars can legally happen?  Do you really think that the Dems would authorize Iran?  Please give me some of the drugs you are on.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-01 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

 Yes, the Dems would "authorize" Iran if it meant not looking "weak" on "national security". You know, the approach that worked so well for Tom Daschle...

 Check out Matt's BB post on Harold Ford. That's the problem. The Dems will jump on the Iran bandwagon because they don't want to "look weak", and sign the party's death warrant in the process...

by Master Jack 2007-02-01 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Not a chance.  Did you catch Biden's let me set a marker here comment on Iran when questioning Rice in committee?  He has gone on the record as challenging the constitutionality of any military action beyond the borders of Iraq.  When the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations says something like that to the Secretary of State even the Bushies should take notice.  Rice certainly looked pretty grim.

I don't think they would buy a Gulf of Tonkin scenario either but that would be the Bushies only hope.  

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

As anyone called Reid's office and asked him what the hell is going on?  Why aren't Kennedy and Kerry on board with Feingold?  Does HRC really think she's gonna keep up her poll numbers of the shit starts flying in Iran?

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-01 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Don't look for Gore.  I just read that he closed down his PACs today...

by vwcat 2007-02-01 03:09PM | 0 recs
Just saw that too

   I hope Obama puts together a dynamite staff. He's going to need it.
by Master Jack 2007-02-01 03:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Just saw that too

Funny, apparently he has.  Check it out here.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

If he wins the Nobel Prize, he is going to be making a LOT MORE money from appearances and I am betting the number of appearances requested go sky high as well as book deals, etc.  

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-01 03:37PM | 0 recs
See Jerome's BB entry

   A phoenix rising, indeed.

  I need to cling to SOME strand of hope...

by Master Jack 2007-02-01 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

To be clear...

You READ it today.  He closed down his old PACs last year.

I'm not sure why it's news.  Is there a reason he would want to keep ancient entities like "Gore/Lieberman, Inc." alive?

by Steve M 2007-02-01 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Um... I'll say the obvious to this statement...


Not with the Dems in control.  If we are still in the same position in Iraq, then we would probably have to institute a draft... WHICH ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN.  So unless Bush sends troops in on his own, that is the only way it happenens and via the War Powers Act of 1973, Congress can bring home the trips after 60 to 90 days.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-01 03:47PM | 0 recs
Smirk won't ...

give a damn what Congress does .. I don't think he'll use troops on Iran .. it will be a lot of bombing ... the only way to stop this madness will be to impeach .. the media sure as hell isn't doing its job

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle 2007-02-01 03:52PM | 0 recs
An "attack"

  ...could be anything. As soon as Iran answers one of Bush's provocations, that'll be your "attack".

 I hope the Dems are smart and farsighted enough to see through what Bush is trying to pull. No doubt many are. But do we have enough of them?


by Master Jack 2007-02-01 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

The Democrats can't do any more than they have been doing.  As much as I would like a "force of hand," we have to live with the reality that the GOP has an almost even number in the Senate.  That means that to get a binding resolution to cut funding or to remove troops immediately through and have it stick, you need 60 votes.  That is not going to happen.  The same is true for impeachment.  All these things are easy to demand, but not easy to achieve, given current reality.  I like the symbolism of a binding resolution not making it past cloture, you put people on record, which is going to count in 2008 and 2010.   But I don't see where one can talk of a "failure to act" on the part of Democrats.  The resolutions are there, the hearings are being conducted.  Put the blame where it belongs if all we are going to get are non-binding resolutions:  Most of the GOP plus Lieberman.  

by georgep 2007-02-01 04:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

You mean for cloture, still passes with a simple majority.  They GOP may not vote for it but who is going to filibuster it?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 04:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

You really believe a binding resolution has a chance?  The GOPers will not let it go through, even if we get 6 or 7 defections, that's about it.  Then they vote against cloture and that's all she wrote.  They don't have to actively filibuster, just continue to vote against cloture.  If we don't have 60 on board, it won't pass.  

by georgep 2007-02-02 06:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Sigh.  Sadly true.  What the f*ck can we do?  I thought the substance of Senator Obama's bill was quite good.  Fiengold's and Kennedy's are cool but curt.  Any suggestions?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-02 08:15PM | 0 recs
not to be tedious

But there is plenty of time. Anyone want to speculate on unusual events that could "change it all"? There's bound to be one or two.

One thing I'd say is that the Dean implosion hinged on Iowa and Kerry's ability to get a solid insider's ground-game to rock that vote to him. (Don't think that's controversial, but if it is, maybe let's not have that debate again.) Forget media love -- who is getting not only new support, but the support of the local insiders?

by sdedeo 2007-02-01 02:50PM | 0 recs

Fox stopped polling for Clark with this poll and added his name in italics along to the list of those who have announced they are not running John Kerry, Evan Bayh, and Mark Warner. That is interesting since Clark is an employee of Fox News.

by robliberal 2007-02-01 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark

That's odd.  Still, even when he is polled, Clark's numbers are sub-5%, I believe.

by Adam B 2007-02-01 03:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark

Clark will be attending the Winter Meeting - that's a good sign, isn't it?

The Winter Meeting of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is designed to showcase potential presidential candidates to members of the DNC - all of whom are Super Delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

The Candidate Presentations will take place Friday & Saturday, Feb. 2-3. The Friday morning schedule includes: Chris Dodd, Barack Obama, Wesley Clark, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, Mike Gravel, and Tom Vilsack will be speaking Saturday morning.

He's my fave - of those listed to speak!  

by Astraea 2007-02-01 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark

Clark cancelled his SEIU appearance though.

by robliberal 2007-02-01 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark

Oh, that's a bad sign.  The SEIU endorsed Howard Dean.  I wonder who'll get their endorsement this go round.

by Astraea 2007-02-01 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark

Good question.  Who indeed?

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 04:37PM | 0 recs

He has been busting his butt to help unionize service-industry workers. I would be shocked if he doesn't get that endorsement.

by desmoinesdem 2007-02-01 06:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards

Wouldn't surprise me either but I am not so sure; I want to keep an eye on this endorsement.  Feels significant somehow and Clinton has done a big hard-sell too.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Clark

I'm surprised by that.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-01 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position
Being from Illinois and seeing an Obama campaign before I can tell you things will change.
He starts out quiet and slow.  Right now he is getting ready and keeping his name out but, staying away from the limelight.  Alot of background stuff going on.  
Next week is the big roll out.  The online and in person campaign begins.  This will change numbers alot.  
Look for unexpected in his run.  He seems to not go according to CW.  
I personally do not think Hillary will maintain and will loose big steam by spring.  Edwards and Obama will overtake her as they become better known and Hillary will make mistakes and her lack of presence on the stage and boring speaking style will grate.  Likability, while scoffed at, is a factor.  You don't want to look at someone for 4 years you don't like.  She has a problem there.  
I think a year from now it's going to be an Edwards and Obama fight.  I'm pulling for my senator.  Obama
by vwcat 2007-02-01 03:08PM | 0 recs
Hey - I'll be happy if you're right

 I could live with that

by TarHeel 2007-02-01 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

I wish I could have written this... says everything I agree with and feel.  Fantastic comment and reminds me of the 2004 senate race 100%.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-01 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Um, the 2004 senate race I could have won against Keyes in the blue state of IL.  Clinton is a new universe from Keyes.

by jgarcia 2007-02-01 08:42PM | 0 recs
In A Galaxy Far, Far Away...

Hard to see the dark side is.


by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: In A Galaxy Far, Far Away...


by jgarcia 2007-02-02 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Totally agree, in fact I would have been disappointed if his campaign had not already started to unfold along the lines you suggest.

I fully expect the good Senator to run a delightfully insurgent but well crafted campaign which will be fascinating, successful and, well, fun.  He intends to take us places well outside the triangle, uh, I mean square.

Let's wait and see.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

LMAO I'm sorry but this is wishful thinking in the worst way. It will probably come down to two, but one thing is certain- Hillary Clinton is going to be one of the two. You seem a little naive....may i suggest you try warming to the idea of a Clinton nomination??? It'll make it so much easier when it actually happens (which is likely).

by gbcollins21 2007-02-02 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still

I'm curious where the 11% would go if Gore comes out and says I'm not running OR if they take Gore out of the poll

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-01 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still

To the corner. To cry. At least that's where I'd head.

by BingoL 2007-02-01 03:54PM | 0 recs
I do not like these results.

    Why do they keep putting Gore in the damned polls?!  He shouldn't be there.  Anyway, I wish Richardson would gain some support.  If feel like he would steal support directly from Clinton.  But I can't envision it happening.  I think we really might need a single anti-Clinton candidate to beat her.  If the anti-Clinton people don't unite she's going to win.

by cilerder86 2007-02-01 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not like these results.

Richardson would be a great President, but I just don't think he currently has that IT factor.  I do think he would be an outstanding choice for an Obama or Edwards candidacy.  But HRC still has to deal with Iraq... Once the others start hammering her on it, her numbers head south and Obama's and probably Edwards rise.

by yitbos96bb 2007-02-01 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I do not like these results.

Yeah, but he DOUBLED his support in this poll.

Snark, of course.

by fbihop 2007-02-01 06:15PM | 0 recs
Impact of the black vote in the Dem Primaries?

I've mostly supported Edwards because he speaks up about the class divide, and I value Health Care, Education Opportunity and Economic Fairness.

I felt Obama was a newcomer, but I was intrigued by the support he gets in Illinois that crosses race and even political differences. Ezra Klein pointed out a very good article about Obama's earlier career, that leads me to believe he is the real deal.

Clinton still pulls a lot of support from african americans, but watch what happens if the black community decides Obama is for real. I'll bet he bumps to 40% and it all comes out of Clinton's numbers. Obama will have a huge advantage in any democratic state with a large black population, which obviously doesn't include IA, NH and NV. That early disadvantage isn't serious if Obama really has a strong core of support with blacks.

Black voting turnout is typically lower, but a passionate, engaged black vote would make a huge impact within the democratic party, and may lead to higher voting turnout in a general election.

Maybe Obama wins the South? This isn't just because a number of Southern states have large black populations. I think he is genuinely appealing to white voters.

If I were Obama's campaign, I would already be touring the South working on this broader appeal.

by MetaData 2007-02-01 03:43PM | 0 recs
Unfortunately the polls

show Hillary pulling twice as many black voters as Obama.

as mind-boggling as it seems.  Her husband will help pull the black voters,  if someone like sharpton and jackson endorse Hillary, I'll predict she gets most of the black vote.

by TarHeel 2007-02-01 04:00PM | 0 recs
Well that was my point

AT THE MOMENT, Clinto gets a lot of black support. I'm sure a lot of it comes from long-standing respect for Bill, plus she is the one with the greatest name recognition. Even if this is true, it is an indication that Obama isn't (yet) recognized name-wise or as a significant enough player by the black voters.

I expect this to change.

I shouldn't have been so hyperbolic with the numbers. What percentage of Clinton's support is Black? Maybe enough to make a 10 point shift. The importance is within the Democratic primaries, in those state with significant black population.

I'm suggesting that strong passion and enthusiasm could build better turnout even in the General.

by MetaData 2007-02-01 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Well that was my point

more wishful thinking. I am black, I talk to other engaged, voting blacks that are very aware of Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton is still their woman. ESPECIALLY among black WOMEN. My God, the support she has there is unfathomable.

by gbcollins21 2007-02-02 04:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Impact of the black vote in the Dem Primaries?

I agree that Senator Obama will get alot of traction in the black community once they get to see where he is coming from.  I was impressed how he wove the Little Rock Nine, Selma and MLK into a stump speech he gave in Little Rock to an unsuspecting audience during the campaign for Mike Beebe last year.  

Seamless, unpatronising but indelibly part of the message.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead

The Fox poll referenced in Chris Bowers' piece, above, also asked which candidate from both parties would be the best President in the fight against terror.  Hillary polled the highest - even higher than Rudy or McCain.
What, possibly, many of the younger generation don't realize and which might account for the shock over Hillary's big lead is that Hillary has been growing roots to the Presidency for many many years and her network (that's right, her base) is enormous.

She also won the Rhode Island poll released today.

I enjoyed her interview with Anderson Cooper three days ago (guessing here on the date). When Anderson told her that Cheney trusted Maliki and had complete faith that he was doing everything he could to effect peace in Iraq, Hillary said, "No, he isn't. And I do not trust him."  So, Anderson said, well Cheney said it.  Hillary replied, "And I don't trust Cheney either, or anything he says."

I have paraphrased the comments above but find the video on CNN.  It was impressive to say the least.

Then check out Hillary's comments on America's middle-class, as covered by

She's the best candidate we have.  Try not to trash her.

by marycontrary 2007-02-01 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead

She also got high poll numbers in Ohio, very similar to the national poll referenced here: 7006306270

She polled ahead of McCain and Guliani and amongst Democratic contenders she pulled in 38% with Obama getting 13% and Edwards 6%.  

Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute explains, "Those who say Senator Hillary Clinton can't win the White House because she can't win a key swing state like Ohio might rethink their assumption."

by georgep 2007-02-01 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead

Been trying, Mary, but then she goes and says things that just don't seem to fly.  I would be so much more sympathetic if she would just cop the Iraq vote so we all could get past her endless positioning on that.  Frankly she still seems a bit hawkish to me.

The Code Pink protest recently didn't help her on that, I saw it on Fox, of course.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead

I disagree that Madam Fundraiser is the best candidate we have. AND she just said that Iran is a threat and that we cannot take anything off the table in dealing with them. It is so nice that she gets her talking points from the White House.

Plus, the amount of support she has from big businesses and the wealthy show me how little she will care about the less fortunate in society. And don't even get me started about her husband's NAFTA deal. That was terrible for America, but great for the corporations and the wealthy, her base.

by adigal 2007-02-02 07:38AM | 0 recs
The more she campaigns

The more popular she will get.  Hillary is charismatic and smart and has a husband who is very popular.

It is like Nancy Pelosi.  Once she gets more media attention,the more people like her.  

I bet she will gain some ground with netroots too.

And she does not even belong to my top 5.  But I dont mind if she will be the Dem candidate.

by jasmine 2007-02-01 04:03PM | 0 recs
I know Nancy Pelosi and

Hillary is no Nancy Pelosi.

Pelosi says iraq is not a war to be won.

Pelosi wanted Murtha as #2 instead of Steny Hoyer.

Steny Hoyer is MUCH similar to Hillary.

by TarHeel 2007-02-01 04:18PM | 0 recs
Clinton - Obama
Sudden thought: Clinton and Obama both owe their Senate seats to somebody else's sex scandal (Bill C. and Jack Ryan, respectively). Does this matter? I don't know.
by drlimerick 2007-02-01 04:32PM | 0 recs
Hang on a Second...

If you actually read the Fox PDF you will notice that of the respondents 18% overall and 22% of Democrats have still never heard of Barack Obama.  HRC's 'never heard of' figures are nil.

Help me with this, am I interpeting the results correctly?  I find it hard to credit but have checked it twice now.  If so, don't you suppose this is a significant impactor on future results?  If I have understood this correctly it would seem to set a ceiling on HRC's support except for 'don't knows' and leakage.  Senator Obama still has an untested audience of over a fifth of Democrats polled.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-01 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Hang on a Second...

Obama has room to grow but it's unlikely he could take more than 50% of the undecideds. Many of them will not make a great deal of effort to learn about the candidates prior to the primaries and could even make their final decision knowing very little about Obama.

I would say that Obama and HRC have the potential to bring in people who wouldn't normally vote in the primaries. But it is going to be tough to achiveve. Edwards, in contrast, is hoping to win over those who regularly vote in the primaries, focusing his efforts on Iowa, New Hampshire and the unions.

by kundalini 2007-02-02 12:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Hang on a Second...

I am making a distinction between undecideds (the 'don't knows') and those who never heard of a candidate on the assumption that people would be unlikely to vote for a candidate that they had never heard of before.  

In the theoretical vote HRC has 43%, Obama has 15% and 9% are undecided.  Cool.  But of the people who responded to the poll, 18% have never heard of Barack Obama and all of them have heard of HRC.  This leads me to believe that the results are not as conclusive as they seem, on prima facie evidence.  HRC's support is high but her support has already been tested across the whole sample, whereas Barack Obama, trailing at 15% has a better chance of increasing his share of the theoretical vote as, pretty inevitably, the electorate gets more exposure to him.  His 15% of the votes must currently come from just 82% of the sample.  I am not judging the relative merits of the candidates in this at all, or considering future events which will obviously also affect voting preferences.

I am certainly not suggesting he will get all of the votes of people who haven't heard of him but it does skew the results.  The same applies, to a lesser extent, to other unknown candidates to the extent that they are unknown.

To put it simply, someone who has theoretically voted for HRC but has not yet even heard of Barack Obama is less convincing a vote for her than someone who theoretically votes for HRC and already knows about them both.

No big deal but just an example of how hard it is to analyse trends this early in a campaign.  I was very surprised to note that fewer Republican  (16%) than Democrat (22%) respondents had not yet heard of Senator Obama.  Go figure.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-02 02:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hang on a Second...

You have to consider Bill Clinton's impact here.  He is the most popular politician on the planet.  Once he gets started to make national appearances on the shows (who will eat it up and feature him in prime time,) that has got to be good for another 10 points or so.  JMHO of course.  

OBama is intriguing, but not everybody who sees him walks away with the idea that he should be president.  A good orator, sure.  An inspiring man.  I just don't see the IT.  The Clintons have the IT.  Perhaps not here, but "out there."

by georgep 2007-02-02 06:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Hang on a Second...

I was only making a point about the poll.  But now that you mention... haven't seen the slightest sign of Bill yet.  Wouldn't you have thought that he would have had some acknowledgement or presence in this campaign so far?  Hmmmm.

What was that movie, The First Ladies Club?.  Ooops, sorry, just kidding.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-02 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hang on a Second...

Oh, and just on the it factor... the last time I heard that line was in regard to Clara Bow.  Fat lot of good it did her.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-02 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead,

I see half of Gore's supporters moving to Edwards at least. Edwards is the sleeper here. Wait till the debates, he will shine. Obama and HRC hype will have worn thin by then.

by padcrasher 2007-02-01 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Chris has generally been realistic about Hillary Clinton's chances in the primary. Unlike many on this site he looked at the numbers and didn't assume her support was soft or 'low information' voters. She does not have the primary locked up, but anyone familiar with her and with Democratic voters knew she would be a formidable challenge. Edwards certainly did, and he has been working hard to prepare. Too soon to tell with Obama, though his experience organizing in Chicago is a compelling base on which to build a story.

In any case she has just begun campaigning, I expect her lead will grow before the race tightens up approaching 2008. People who want to defeat her will have to grapple with her actual, substantive positions and her differences with her primary opponents, rather than fantasies about her being a corporate tool, or having no principles, or some other variation of the Nader argument against Gore. Democrats know her, and they know what she stands for, and when they hear her they remember why they like her.

by souvarine 2007-02-01 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

If Clinton is the nominee, don't expect much enthusiasm. As far as I'm concerned, she's no better than Guliani or McCain. I know we're all supposed to get behind the eventual nominee, but I won't vote for a censor no matter what party or how disloyal it makes me. Some issues are not negotiable for some people. I'm hardly a one issue voter, but her belief in the her own right to tell other people what kind of entertainment we can consume makes her ineligible to be President as far as I'm concerned

The more I hear from her the less I like her. I voted for her in 2000. I didn't in 2006 and I won't in 2008. She WILL start a war with Iran. She WILL NOT withdraw from Iraq. Anyone who disagrees with either of those statements hasn't been listening to what she's said, or just hasn't believed what she's said. She's not just pandering, she really thinks those are the responsible positions to take. I will not vote for another corporate. pro-war democrat. I'm fairly certain a large portion of our party won't either.

by SoulTim 2007-02-02 02:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position


if hillary clinton is the nominee we'll know that enthusiasm from YOU (YOU! YOU! YOU!) won't be very much. But there are millions others who WILL be enthused.

Funny how ppl can use their own personal preferences and those of ppl who think like them and make broad statements like:

If Clinton is the nominee, don't expect much enthusiasm

by gbcollins21 2007-02-02 04:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

I'll have one of whatever he's having...

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-02 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Like I said, none of you can challenge what I've said. Hillary Clinton runs campaigns against popular culture. It's what she does, it's what her husband did, and it's what they will always do. Don't think the tendency of Democrats in the 90's to attack popular music, movies and video games isn't a large part of what drove down Democratic support among young people between 92 and 2000. The war recovered a  lot of that lost support. So why blow it again? You all talk about growing the base. How fast will it grow as the elderly die out and the young people you've spent the last 20 years defecating on refuse to replace them? Who do you think does the legwork in presidential campaigns? You think that her positions won't have an influence on the enthusiasm of younger volunteers? You think that won't have an effect on our ground operations?

you see the difference between actual argumentation and "I'll have whatever he's having". The difference between an explanation of a thought process and a simple declaration? Perhaps you'd like to make a similar attempt to show the flaws of my argument, or to establish an argument of your own? Pointless inane accusations of drug use or inebriation just make you look like a reactionary idiot.

by SoulTim 2007-02-02 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Sorry, buddy, I was agreeing with you, it was my way of giving you a 'high-five' and I regret I wasn't clearer.  Didn't you see 'Sleepless in Seattle'?  I like the way you express yourself as well as the content of your post.

Never mind.  I have issues with HRC too although I never really considered the popular culture aspects but from the strength of your response I am encouraged that the younger end of the spectrum has a healthy 'bullshit detector.'  You'll probably need it.

Next time I will just rate your comment like I did your other one.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-02-02 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

Lmao, there won't be a lot of enthusiasm from a LOT OF PEOPLE. Like anyone under 25. Like anyone who hates censorship. anyone who plays video games. Anyone who doesn't see it as the governments place to tell us how to think. It's funny how people ignore the entirety of my argument and base their entire attack on the opening line.

Tell me GB, did you even read my post or are you so reflexively pro-hillary that you couldn't stomach to see beyond the first line? I gave you reasons, you just didn't care to see or hear them. Just like Hillary herself.

by SoulTim 2007-02-02 05:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton Still Ahead, Obama Still Well-Position

oh, please.  

we shall see.  But don't be surprised to see a LOT of young people vote for her.  "Anyone who plays video games?"  Come on.  

If you really believe this line of your reasoning:  

She WILL start a war with Iran. She WILL NOT withdraw from Iraq. Anyone who disagrees with either of those statements hasn't been listening to what she's said, or just hasn't believed what she's said.

IMO that is a smear.  It is obvious that you are consumed by irrational hate.  

by georgep 2007-02-02 06:38PM | 0 recs
by inconnii 2007-07-03 05:53AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads