MyDD :: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (Tie In IA) In SEIU/AHC Poll On Healthcare

Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (Tie In IA) In SEIU/AHC Poll On Healthcare

by robliberal, Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:27:36 PM EST

Update 2: See Pollster.com. This poll didn't ask a real trial heat question.

Updated: OK, I just realized that this poll only included people who view health care as one of their top issues. That explains why Obama does so bad everywhere--young voters are one of his bases, and young people just don't usually include the cost or availability of health care as one of their top issues (I actually learned that at a union organizer training session with SEIU). This isn't about all Democrats, and so is thus less useful. But still interesting, and the kind of poll we could do of netroots types--Chris

Bumped with light editing. I have serious doubts about a lot of these numbers, including showing Obama so low everywhere, and Edwards so low in South Carolina. But they are early state polls, and considering how few we have of those relative to less useful national polls, and so I think they deserve attention anyway--Chris

A new poll of likely Democratic caucus goers and voters commissioned by SEIU and Americans for Health Care shows that Sen. Hillary Clinton has the strong support of voters who see healthcare as an issue in 3 of the 4 early primary and caucus states and she is tied within the margin of error in the fourth. Voters in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada gave Clinton a wide lead over her nearest challengers and she is statistically tied in Iowa with former Sen. John Edwards among likely Democratic voters who have healthcare as one of their top issues. http://bluesunbelt.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=291

Among Democratic voters, Hillary Clinton has the current advantage on health care: 35% of them say she would be the best president on health care, 17% say John Edwards, 11% say Barack Obama, and the rest of the candidates are in single digits.

The state by state results show Clinton and Edwards within the margin of error in Iowa and Clinton ahead by a wide margin in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina.

IOWA
John Edwards 30
Hillary Clinton 28
Barack Obama 11
Dennis Kucinich 3
Joe Biden 2
Bill Richardson 1
Chris Dodd 1
Mike Gravel 0

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Hillary Clinton 43
John Edwards 14
Barack Obama 11
Bill Richardson 2
Dennis Kucinich 1
Chris Dodd 0
Joe Biden 0
Mike Gravel 0

NEVADA
Hillary Clinton 34
John Edwards 16
Barack Obama 9
Bill Richardson 4
Chris Dodd 2
Dennis Kucinich 0
Joe Biden 0
Mike Gravel 0

SOUTH CAROLINA
Hillary Clinton 37
Barack Obama 13
John Edwards 9
Bill Richardson 2
Dennis Kucinich 2
Chris Dodd 1
Joe Biden 1
Mike Gravel 1

Poll summary, Pres release, State by State Results, Party Results, SEIU/AHC/Presidential primary polls, March 11-18, 2007, 200 likely relative somethings in each state

Tags: Barack Obama, hillary clinton, john edwards, iowa, new hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, 2008 elections, bluesunbelt.com (all tags)

Permalink :: 58 Comments :: Post a Comment

Shaheen Goes With Clinton (none / 0)

Another big story out of NH tonight.

http://bluesunbelt.com/showDiary.do?diar yId=292

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:18:39 PM EST

Re: (3.00 / 0)

I'll wait to see some other polls to confirm this... this seems like an outlier.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:29:26 PM EST

I don't believe these numbers either (3.00 / 0)

Obama hasn't been this low since he entered.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:35:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't believe these numbers either (none / 0)

They are who they will vote for... the question is Which candidate do you think will be the best president for healthcare...

In that case then I can understand Obama's numbers... He hasn't come out with Specifics... I am shocked HRC is above Edwards those.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't believe these numbers either (none / 0)

That should be The Poll isn't asking who they would vote for.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:38:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

voters pick worst healthcare plan (3.00 / 1)

by picking candidate with worst plan...

I'm hoping it's just early and voters don't know anything about the candidates platforms.. either that or we're screwed as a country if someone who thinks healthcare is important picks the largest pharmaceutical and Insurance PAC recepient candidate in the race.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (3.00 / 0)

Agreed... I can deal with Obama being 3rd... he has not put out a specific plan, just has said he supports it by end of first term... but even that to me is better than HRC. At this point, I would put Edwards in 1st, Obama in 2nd (despite the lack of plan... this is based on past proposals) and HRC in 3rd.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:48:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (3.00 / 1)

I don't get that either. Obama hasn't put out a plan but has said he is for universal coverage. Hillary, really no idea what she wants except we'll have to elect her twice to find out apparently.

by okamichan13 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

Voters are very engaged and alert (despite your constant claims to the contrary) early in this process. Many just have a different opinion than you on the issue of healthcare. As I mentioned in a previous diary, Edwards' health care plan is rather ho-hum and widespread dislike of his plan is probably the reason he is stuck at 12 to 14%. It is a good start, but fails on many levels.

At this point I would put HRC at the top when it comes to health care, Edwards at #2 (even though his plan is not very good, at least he got the ball rolling) and Obama at #3. Just like Democrats across the country, apparently.

by georgep on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:55:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

Democrats in 4 states George... Lets not invent fake poll results ;-)

I think HRC's plan sucks personally and I am not a fan of Edward's either (although both are better than we have now), but he has put out a comprehensive one which is why I put him first. I would be prepared to bet any amount of money that further polling of the 200 in each state could not tell you details of HRC's or Edward's plans.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:00:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

And I would add, these polls have very small sample sizes... only 200 per state.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:01:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

Err I didn't think Hillary had a plan?

I would bet you are wrong about Edwards though, especially with all the cds that went out. His health plan has been in the Iowa news a LOT lately.

by okamichan13 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:07:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

I am guessing that was directed to George... I just said I wasn't a big fan... not that it was good or bad or people hate it.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:27:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

Actually, polls have been very consistent on this across the board. When it comes to healthcare Clinton has a huge edge over Edwards and Obama. These polls are merely confirmation of a ton of other data we have seen in polls that ask specifically "Which candidate would be best for health care?" both on the national level and in many other state polls.

by georgep on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:36:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm sure there's a correlate (none / 0)

between where a voter gets his/her news and who they prefere.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:22:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

I can't imagine how you put Clinton's nonexistent, non-universal position on health care ahead of true universal health care. But, then again, i don't know how anyone can support Hillary and you apparently do, so there you go.

BlueNC - Progressive NC Politics

by Robert P on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:29:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

Yeah, "there you go." Instead of discussing issues you decide to descend into a personal bash. That reflects worse on you than it does on the bashee.

There are enough bits and pieces of information to figure out what Clinton's health plan would look like, as her actual nuts and bolts plan has not been released yet. Edwards' plan has major problems (I discussed this previously with Tarheel and others) and is in serious need of retooling. For instance, the health care mandate takes money out of the pockets of those who simply can't afford health care at the moment and feel they don't need coverage right now. It basically criminalizes a huge segment of our population and, IMHO, that mandate is a major component of the explanation why Edwards's polls are relatively disappointing so far. Tarheel offered a rather conservative rebuttal alongst the lines of "Why should the rest of us pay while others get away with not paying?" as if that makes Edwards and his plan more palatable to those Millions who would be adversely affected by Edwards' plan while they can least afford it.

by georgep on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:23:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

Do you really think that very many people have actually looked at Edwards' plan, and made a rational judgment?

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:30:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

I think that components of the plan have been widely discussed in the press and that there is strong resistance to some elements of it. I applaud that Edwards has come out early with a plan, but I can't begin to imagine what possessed him to include a health care mandate. I believe there is a huge segment of our population that chooses not to insure at all (I was amongst that group for years until a few years ago) and taking that choice away from them "for the greater good" was a ridiculous move, IMHO. While I am currently insured (but very healthy,) I want to be able to opt out of health insurance for myself if family circumstances make that either necessary or desireable. I know of three parties who are currently uninsured and they voiced negative opinions about this mandate, making them less likely to choose Edwards as their candidate.

by georgep on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: voters pick worst healthcare plan (none / 0)

"I think that components of the plan have been widely discussed in the press and that there is strong resistance to some elements of it"

Thats funny. I've never seen nor heard anyone discuss the specifics of his plan anywhere besides MyDD. And I've only witnessed a few references to it at all outside of here. Perhaps we just are immersed in different cultures with different news sources and different habits.
I agree with you that requiring some people to take persoanl responsibility for having health care isn't optimal, but aside from that it appears to me to be a solid plan, and I'd expect any others to include a mandate anyway. I don't expect Hillary to come out with a plan, though. She's too smart for that, I think. If I were a candidate I wouldn't release a specific plan, because specifics turn plenty of people off, like they did to you and the others you refer to, though they might have been willing otherwise to support Edwards. I expect Hillary understands that better than the less experienced candidates.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:24:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (3.00 / 0)

No kidding. Thats the highest I've seen Hillary and lowest I've seen Barack in a long while. I'm skeptical.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:36:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Read the cross tabs... Rob really wasn't very clear. I don't think it was intentional of course. Just a mistake.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:38:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

In the first sentence I wrote "among likely Democratic voters who have healthcare as one of their top issues". SEIU (which will be making an endorsement as they did in 2004) is apparently measuring voter's thoughts on which candidate they look to for leadership on healthcare.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Yet even Chris Bowers was confused... It wasn't intentional of course... But you post numbers after the headline, that I took to correlate with your Headline and then the numbers for the 4 states which everyone took to be polling numbers for whom they vote for. It was just confusing... not blasting you or anything... I like the fact you dig these up and post them, it was more a style thing on this one.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:29:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

These aren't who they are voting for... (3.00 / 1)

Rob...

This diary is a bit misleading... It seems like you are saying that the numbers you mentioned in each state were polling numbers for who the person was going to vote for...

Those numbers in the State are NOT for that... they are for the question... Which candidate would be the best President for healthcare?

So HRC is not tied or close with Edwards in Iowa and does not have 20-30 point leads over Obama and Edwards in the other states... she just does on the perception of healthcare; but that doesn't mean those will vote for her.

Please make it a little clearer next time.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:36:22 PM EST

Rob is big on misleading (none / 0)

He even goes to the Clark blog to mislead and "stuff".

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:07:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rob is big on misleading (none / 0)

I have posted on CCN since the site was first established in 2003.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:07:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rob is big on misleading (none / 0)

I don't agree with you there... Rob is very good with this stuff... this was just a style thing... not anything that was intentional.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:30:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (Tie In IA) In (none / 0)

I even question the healthcare numbers... This poll seems useless even for that... the sample size is only 200 per state.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:40:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (none / 0)

Michigan showed a similar result a few days ago, with 45% going with Clinton, 29% went to Barack, 16% to Edwards.

http://www.grandhaventribune.com/paid/35 5876337311385.bsp

In these polls Obama is doing surprisingly poorly across the board in all 4 pivotal states.

by georgep on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:49:08 PM EST

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (none / 0)

Read the cross tabs... the stuff printed in the diary is NOT Who People said they would vote for... it is instead Who they think would be the best president on Healthcare... BIG difference.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:55:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (3.00 / 1)

Yes, I saw that. But I don't think it is fair to call this diary misleading. If you take a close look it is spelled out that the poll is about health care. Some of us just jumped to hasty conclusions. :-)

Still, the fact that Obama is doing badly in different states on that vital issue is worthy of discussion. He obviously has a lot of ground to make up on both Clinton and Edwards, has to offer his own plan before too long.

by georgep on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:15:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (none / 0)

Well I did say it was unintentional... EVERYONE seems to have jumped to those conclusions even Chris Bowers.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:31:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (none / 0)

Considering that he's in second or third in every poll, thats not so bad. And he is trending upward. And the poll you just showed has suspiciously high numbers for each candidate.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:37:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (none / 0)

So, they pushed the leaners. That does not make it any less true (with that caveat) for the state of Michigan.

by georgep on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:49:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

wait until the debates (3.00 / 0)

Informed voters will learn that Hillary won't try to do anything about health care until her second term.

There is plenty of time for change in these numbers.

I don't believe Obama is that far back in Iowa, incidentally.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:53:07 PM EST

Re: wait until the debates (none / 0)

He isn't... Read my posts and the cross tabs. I hope Rob will make it a bit clearer. Glad I wasn't the only one who didn't get that they were results to a different question.

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 09:56:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who cares... (none / 0)

"Dean Leads....." He's got the press, the momentum, the money, the organization, he's got it all.. he is unbeatable.

oops!

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:05:47 PM EST

Huge undecided numbers (none / 0)

With the low sample and huge undecided in each, I don't think these polls tell us very much at all.

Maybe you don't need to post every single poll that comes out Rob?

For those interested, interesting article here on the campaigns in Iowa; Hillary seems to be behind on the ground:

http://iowaprogress.com/2007/03/20/candi dates-take-varying-approaches-to-hiring- staff-in-iowa/

by okamichan13 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:11:54 PM EST

Wait Till They Hear Hillary (1.00 / 0)

Most people when polled think they are voting for Bill Clinton.

Wait till they learn it is his evil, lying, warmonger wife.

You hate the war, but can still vote for Hillary.

You have issues.

by rapallos on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:23:01 PM EST

bumping this to front page (none / 0)

is BS. This is diary is very loaded.

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:30:47 PM EST

oops (none / 0)

pardon me. :)

Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:32:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (Tie In IA) In SEIU/A (none / 0)

I would suspect that Edwards and Obama have done internal polling showing similar results on the healthcare issues which is why they have ramped on more on it as an issue.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:58:28 PM EST

Clinton-Healthcare in 2nd term (none / 0)

All those Clinton supporters out there believe Hillary is going to do something in Health care. Forget it. She said she's not doing universal health care until her second term.. haha.. Just like her plan to end the war, with unending occupation of Iraq.

by cmpnwtr on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 10:59:46 PM EST

Re: Clinton-Healthcare in 2nd term (none / 0)

She said we'd have universal coverage "by the end of her second term." It's not like the president can just enact it (thank the gods, too, otherwise imagine how much worse Bush would be). Any UHC plan will have to come from Congress, after having fought pharma, insurance and corporate medicine.

by domma on Wed Mar 21, 2007 at 11:18:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton-Healthcare in 2nd term (none / 0)

I wish we could have UHC tomorrow but there are tremendous obstacles because of the healthcare and insurance industries. Even if we gain additional seats in both houses in 2008 it will be an uphill fight at best. Hillary Clinton was able to get CHIPS done during I think during Bill Clinton's second term which insures tens of millions of children now. That was an incremental step and that may be the only way to get it done is through expansion if we don't have the votes otherwise to do it in Congress.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:16:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not surprising she would lead on that (3.00 / 1)

Those numbers aren't surprising. An overwhelming majority of voters, here in March 2006, don't know diddly-squat about the candidates' health-care plans. What they do know is that Hillary chaired the commission that invented "Hillarycare," which may've been widely panned by the beltway crowd but has a different reputation among Democratic voters.

Even if they don't really have an opinion about Hillarycare, her background with it gives her street cred on health care that the other candidates don't have a whiff of.

The other folks have a year, or close to it, to make inroads on that. It's neither dispositive nor terribly surprising that they still have a long way to go at this point.

by Trickster on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:27:57 AM EST

Re: Clinton Leads (none / 0)

It is not hard to understand why Hillary gets top marks regarding Health Care! Outside of the mostly uninformed "netroots", the large majority of Dems actually know Hillary's record on health care. Hillary has never stopped working for better health for Americans.

It is NOT about "who has the best plan" so far. It's about a general belief that Hillary takes this issue more seriously than any other candidate, based on all she has done and all she continues to do.

Below is just a small example of the work that Hillary does. Please, click the links:

Senators Kennedy, Clinton Hold First Senate Hearing on 9/11 Health Problems (March 21,2007)http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=271075&&

Clinton Introduced Autism Bill to Promote Services for Those Affected by Autism (March 20, 2007)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=1406

Clinton Expands Health Care For Children (March 14, 2007)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=1396

Clinton and Others on Decision for Funding for Office of Women's Health (March 16, 2007)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=1400

Clinton Announces Reintroduction of Legislation to Fight Rates of Diabetes in Pregnant Women (March 16, 2007)
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=270814

Clinton/Snowe Write Legislation to Expand Healthcare for Immigrant Children
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=270120

Hillary Clinton on "Better Health Care Together" Campaign (February 7, 2007)
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=1305

Senator Clinton Introduces Screening for Health of Infants/Newborns (SHINE) Act (July 26, 2006)
http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement s/details.cfm?id=261692&&

Senator Clinton's Work on Health Issues (The List)
http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/health/

It is time to stop living in a bubble that only refers to which candidate has the "latest and greatest plan" for healthcare.
It has always been Hillary's top priority.

by marasaud on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:17:37 AM EST

Clinton (none / 0)

I think, at times, that the progressive "netroots" crowd just don't pay attention. They are so quick to trash Hillary as this useless politician, but they haven't got a clue what the woman has done and keeps on doing, even though she is also running a vigorous campaign for President.

John Edwards and Barack Obama are rookies!

I don't care what overnight plan they threw on the table to win votes.

by marasaud on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:21:08 AM EST

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Wow, that shows just how little you know about the netroots... the thing is the netroots DO KNOW what she has done. No one called her useless... most of us don't like her politics.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 09:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

FROM desmoinesdem (none / 0)

"Informed voters will learn that Hillary won't try to do anything about health care until her second term."

Wrong! Informed voters know what Hillary has done, is doing and will keep on doing for health care. YOU ARE THE ONE who is UNINFORMED.

by marasaud on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 06:24:33 AM EST

Re: FROM desmoinesdem (3.00 / 0)

Yeah, well since your wrong, I'm just going to have to disagree.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: FROM desmoinesdem (none / 0)

Best response ever.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 12:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Leads (3.00 / 1)

Oh, I am not wrong when it comes to the "netroots" lack of knowledge about Hillary Clinton. The netroots Dems cling to their straw polls like drowning people cling to a raft. At the same time, they cannot understand why Hillary keeps winning every national poll and almost all of the primary polls or the fact that she has been ahead in the polls, consistently, for a very long time.

I know her work record; and her achievements and of all the candidates, she works the hardest and the longest. She will win the nomination because she earned it. Not because she sailed into it or was "coronated" as so many so-called progressives like to say.

You live in a fantasy world that has nothing to do with the majority of Democrats. One of the netroots latest fantasies is Barack Obama - a total cypher if there ever was one. I'm not saying he won't win the nomination, because there are many people flocking to his side who couldn't care less that he brings nothing to the table but a lot of smooth talk and a certain charisma that is as shallow as one finds in a "star" like Tom Cruise.

I advise Democrats to be very careful, but I am also counting on the majority of Democrats to actually use their heads when they cast their votes.

by marasaud on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:27:09 AM EST

Re: Clinton Leads (none / 0)

If you are counting on them to use their heads, then Hillary won't win the nomination... your better hope is that the low info voters stay uninformed. If HRC wasn't a Clinton, she would not be a viable candidate in this election. Its that simple. She is better than a Republican, but she is not among the tops on the issues, and not among the tops on Experience.

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 10:38:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Polls don't mean squat - delegates matter (none / 0)

Just out of curiosity, why don't they poll "likely primary voters/caucus attendees", not just voters. I think if they did that an entirely different picture will emerge. The people who vote in primaries are usually a hard core group of dedicated party people. What we saw in the Dean campaign was that it is possible to have a surge of new people who can completely skew the balance of how the votes actually turn out. If you look beneath those polls, about 1 in 10-20 of those people will show up and vote on average, depending on the state. Among Obama supporters I would bet that number is double or maybe triple what it is among Hillary supporters. Passion matters, people will get out of their chair, they will put down their beer, they will turn off their TV, they will stand in a line, register, take hours of their time and support their person. If he can get 10,000 people to show up at an event, he has game. And now that California is moving up, that entire situation is thrown into question along with a huge number of delegates, those delegates will be up for grabs, they won't simply ratify what the other states have done. Those polls we are seeing don't mean squat.

This is about delegates when it comes to the nomination, not votes. It is an entirely different ballgame. If people were trying to be smart about this they would be gathering previous years delegate lists, and they would be getting a sense of the local parties, and forget about these polls. That is the real story.

Enough already...

by pjv on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 01:07:21 PM EST

please (none / 0)

I just want to know...Better yet, i want to hear from those of you who support Hillary Clinton. Just based on what do you think she deserves to be the next president of the United States? Just what exactly has she done? I'm from NY. She's my Senator (though I've voted twice against her).

Please tell me...I'm going crazy out here trying to figure out just what exactly it is that has Hillary on top of the polls.

Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?

by AnthonyMason2k6 on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 02:52:53 PM EST

Re: Clinton Leads NH, SC, NV (Tie In IA) In SEIU/A (3.00 / 1)

As the pollster who took this poll, I'm afraid I must correct both the initial interpretation and the revised interpretation posted here, both of which are incorrect.

The survey was conducted among all likely primary/caucusgoers -- 800 Democrats across 4 states (NH/IA/SC/NV) and 800 Republicans.

The 800 Democrats were asked: "Who do you think would be the best President on the issue of health care?" The results posted are from this question. So it is not a measure of their vote performance, but rather which candidate these early primary voters think would be best on the health care issue.

I can be reached at dmermin@lakeresearch.com if anyone has questions about the survey.

David Mermin Lake Research Partners

by Dmermin on Thu Mar 22, 2007 at 04:22:57 PM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.