New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lead

by robliberal, Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 08:54:37 PM EST

The new polling numbers from Gallup show Sen. Hillary Clinton with a commanding lead and a significant drop in support for former Sen. John Edwards. Edwards lost 31% of his support dropping from 16% to 11%. Clinton gained 2 more points and is nearly at 50% in Gallup polling.

Hillary Clinton      47%.
Barack Obama    25%
John Edwards     11%
Bill Richadson       5%
Joe Biden             3%
Christopher Dodd  1%
Dennis Kucinich    1%

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/200 7/09/gallup-giuliani.html#more

Gallup compared the 2008 race to previous election cycles.


But one would have to assign a fairly low probability at this point to the chances of any one other than Clinton ending up with the party nomination.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/gallup/2007/09 /how-certain-is-.html




Tags: Barack Obama, john edwards, hillary clinton, Mike Gravel, joe biden, chris dodd, bill richardson, dennis kucinich, 2008 elections, bluesunbelt.com (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 125 Comments :: Post a Comment


How is this news? (none / 0)

She's always leading.


by Namtrix on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:05:40 PM EST

Re: How is this news? (none / 0)

It is news because she is now nearly 50% and Edwards lost about 1/3 of his support from the previous Gallup poll.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:08:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

because some here have to understand (none / 0)

that calling her corrupt - is attacking all her vast number of supporters.

No smart Dem would do that.  


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because some here have to understand (none / 0)

go feed the ducks


zombies are coming
by leewesley on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:21:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because some here have to understand (none / 0)

They must be corrupt, too.

Or stupid.


by John Poet on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:29:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because some here have to understand (none / 0)

Way to go buddy, calling 40% of the Democratic electorate stupid and corrupt. Excellent way to help your candidate.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: because some here have to understand (none / 0)

thats exactly what 40% here exacly mean to do


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Democrat Party "Hack" and President Harry S Truman
by holden caulfield on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:54:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

Go Hillary!


by American1989 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:06:26 PM EST

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

People don't like the negative attacks, which is all Edwards has been doing lately.  He seems to spend more time attacking Hillary than he does attacking Bush.  Watch his numbers fall even more after this week.


by reasonwarrior on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:30:26 PM EST

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

Hey, attack all he wants. It hurts his campaign while energizes the Clinton supporters.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 09:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

it makes him look small mean and desperate.  No one votes for desperate. I don't know what the answer is for Edwards.  Whatever part of the vote he is going for I think he has aimed poorly


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 10:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

You and others view him as desperate.  I and others view him as passionate and committed.  All opinions welcome.

The media fails to let distinctions be drawn between the candidates so he is doing it for them.  

Can't wait until SEIU endorses him.  Hard for the media to ignore when the labor unions go strongly for Edwards.

Hillary will get the education unions but they're not trying to organize in unfriendly places like the service and industrial unions.  

This will make a huge difference in the race, and all the candidates know it.


Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
by passionateprogressive on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

Clinton has received more union endorsements than Edwards so far.  The SEIU may not endorse at all.  Even if they do, it won't make that huge of a difference.  Are you not seeing the 25% margins between Clinton and Edwards everywhere?  That is not easy to overcome.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:22:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

I have not seen her 25% lead in IA.

PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH THE POLL OR LINK THAT SHOWS SUCH A LEAD


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:37:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i think he means among all the national polls... (none / 0)

his sentence would have been grammatically correct with that interpretation...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

Of course you know George that Edwards has several hundred thousand more members in the unions that have endorsed him, which, when looking at the impact of an endorsement, the size of the union, and not just how many, makes a huge difference.

And forget about shouting when Hillary wins the education unions.  They don't organize for turnout or elections in nearly the depth that industrial and service unions do.  In my 8 campaigns of volunteering on election day, I've never seen a contingent from a teachers union while I've seen thousands of other unions out working.

If we listened to poll numbers, Obama wouldn't have won the Democratic IL Senate primary, Kerry wouldn't have won the Dem nomination, and Webb wouldn't be a Senator.

Instead of polls, I listen to primary/caucus voters - not registered voters who happen to answer the phone.  The primary voters will be counted in January and not until then.  Notice I don't shout about Edwards rising or leading in polls that show so.

If Hillary wins, so be it.  Yet it is far from over.  So much can be revealed between now and January.  How will the photos of Hillary and Hsu fly?  Will that become the poster child photo for the lobbyist issue?  Not saying it's fair, but you know the election is all about perception.  So much can still happen.

And shouting about national poll numbers doesn't change that reality, no matter how unattractive it is to Clinton supporters.


Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. -- Martin Luther King, Jr.
by passionateprogressive on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:13:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

There was a Washington Post story late today that SEIU may be backing off on an immediate endorsement of Edwards and the possibility has been raised they may stay neutral in the race.


So it's possible SEIU will, in the end, decide not to endorse anyone and that will be part of the discussion at Wednesday's board meeting.

In any case, the leadership may not be ready to announce an endorsement decision this week.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/09/18/union_endorsement_still_up_i n.html


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:22:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

What does this mean for Edwards then, who many expected to win the endorsement.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:51:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show (none / 0)

you are in denial so severe you can't see what is happening.  It doesn't matter whether SEIU endorses him or not.  The media couldn't care less and they won't report it, or will barely report it and voters will not care. Union endorsements haven't helped him to this point.  And you can see things however you want, but when a candidate is doing nothing but attacking another he is desperate.  And he looks mean and that is why he is dropping in the polls.  I don't know how any self respecting person calls an attack "passion".

Look for more drops in his support coming soon to a poll near you.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:39:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

We are having a semi-national primary. But I do agree, national numbers matter more than it did in 2004 and these numbers are huge for Clinton. I hope it stays this way.

The early states are still worth watching though. I just don't think there will be a 20-point shift in support if Clinton does not win Iowa.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 10:45:54 PM EST

Re: (none / 0)

BTW, this comment was a response to holden caulfield who posted at 10:35.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

The early states are still worth watching though. I just don't think there will be a 20-point shift in support if Clinton does not win Iowa.

The media's so hungry for a real story you can be sure they'll pimp the hell out of whoever wins Iowa.  I watched John Kerry go from gutter trash to Pat Buchanan declaring him "unstoppable" on MSNBC in a span of about two weeks back in 2004.  I just don't see how things will be any different this time around.  The MSM still has the power to make or break any candidate they want.


by Will Graham on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:29:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

You REALLY don't see the difference this time around?  I find that amazing.

A reminder of the polling done this time of year in 2003:

A Sept. 8-10 Gallup poll showed this:

Dick Gephardt 15%
Howard Dean   13%
Joe Lieberman   12%
John Kerry       11%

So, you REALLY don't see a difference between 2004 and this election?   To reiterate:  The Gallup poll from the same week in Sept. in 2003 showed the "leader" Gephardt with 15%, Dean in strong second place at 13%, followed by an impressive showing of both Lieberman and Kerry just a couple of points behind.   15% gave Gephardt the lead, for crying out loud.   Our frontrunner now is showing 47%.  You see no difference?


by georgep on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:39:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I see how the lowest candidate in this breakdown actually became our candidate.

'Somehow' that happened. It just tells us that this election cycle has been moved up, but it doesn't mean that that doesn't change.

Does she have a lead?
Yes.

Do leads in polls = victory... obviously not.


by MrMacMan on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:47:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Dominating leads like the one you are seeing here?  Absolutely.  

Gallup has stated that in their history they have never had a candidate ahead by more than 20% in their national polling in September NOT win the nomination of their party (for both Democrats and Republicans.)

Historical facts are hard to dispute.  That is why all the known pollster are calling the race "Clinton's to lose" with the one caveat of a possible major mistake on Clinton's part.  


by georgep on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:57:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Rasmussen. 12/7/05.
Allen (R) 57
Webb (D) 26

31 point lead... but we all know the outcome of the election

I'm not saying that it's going to happen or that she sucks or anything like that, you just can't say that it's some guarantee.

Look, as surprising it may be to hear this I'm an UNDECIDED VOTER, I don't support ANY SPECIFIC democrat yet -- but 90% of what I hear on MyDD is how since she is so far ahead I should put my support with her, YOU NEED TO CONVINCE ME to support her.

I liked her healthcare plan but I haven't read the other plans so I can't say how they stack up.
I don't like how she doesn't want an immediate withdrawal, but only Dodd and Mr. Crazy from Ohio support that...


by MrMacMan on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:04:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Look, you need to vote your conscience.  If you like anyone for whatever reason, that is who you should vote for.  I really don't care to convince you. I am here to set the record straight, if it needs to be set straight (from my perspective, of course.)  If you decide on Edwards because you like his wife, that is cool.  Nothing wrong with that.  

It is just FACT that in the history of Gallup no candidate ahead by 20% or more in September has ever failed to win the nomination.  Can't dispute that, as it is cold, hard fact.  Of course, there could always be a first, but the likelyhood is just very low.

As for Allen-Webb:  Allen had a major macaca moment.  I mentioned something like that in the post above:  A major, major mistake on Clinton's part on that level could change the race.  It is obviously an unlikely event.


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:09:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I understand your point about unlikely event


by MrMacMan on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:18:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

It would have a really big gaffe, I think.  Something like her being secretly recorded saying she plans on nuking Iran her first day in office, or just going nuts- like stripping off all her clothes and doing the jitterbug on the White House lawn.  She did make a bit of a gaffe into being recorded with Edwards on stage talking about the others- she definitely needs to make sure that doesn't happen again.  But anything is possible.


by reasonwarrior on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:21:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

That's a pretty controlled campaign. Almost Republican in its level of discipline. I don't see it happening, frankly.

If the Repubs could keep an idiot like Bush from making an ass of himself, it shouldn't be too hard to keep a smart woman like Hillary on message.


by Bush Bites on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:19:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

except repugs couldnt keep bush from making an ass of himself... he does it every time he opens his mouth

but i do agree HRC is no Bush


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:29:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I remember he did it a lot- they just didn't care for some reason.


by reasonwarrior on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Uh, that's wrong., so quit repeating it. (none / 0)

Apparantly, the Gallup people citing that "fact" don't know their own history.

In August of 1979, they had Edward Kennedy leading President Carter by 55-25% for the 1980 nomination-- a thirty point lead.  I can't find a record that they conducted any poll that September.

You know how that race turned out, right?


by John Poet on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i was going to point out the error here... (none / 0)

as well as the ahistorical nature of this race, but the former point has already been made...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:33:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

both Dodd and Mr. Crazy have close to 1% chance to win the nominee. That's why they had this 'plan'.

The 1% chance = chance of all other candidates vanish on the same plane.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:10:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

but I support that plan!

I want our troops home, the war is unjust and we aren't helping the situation there by staying any longer.


by MrMacMan on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:18:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I support that plan (none / 0)

Then vote for Dodd or Kucinich in the primary. And then support Hillary in the general election.


by LakersFan on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:33:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Get back to me when Sen. Clinton shows up on YouTube calling someone a "macaca".


by hwc on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:45:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

since you are the sockpuppet of bruh no one needs to convince you of anything.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:12:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

I'm pretty sure your the only person making that accusation... you can look back at my history on
http://take19.blogspot.com/ compared to bruh...

Can I ask what me and him have in common?


by MrMacMan on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:31:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:GALLUP (none / 0)

Gallup had a poor record in the 2004 election. They could not pick the winner 49-49

Most pollster's could pick the winner.

They have only 7% UN-DECIDED WHICH MEANS THEY ARE PUSHING PEOPLE TO MAKE A DECISION.

I have seen Gallup doing GE match-ups with only 5% UN-DECIDED. tHAT IS A JOKE.

Zogby's poll came out today and had 20% UN-DECIDED AND cLINTON LEADING BY 14PTS. tHIS IS MUCH MORE REALISTIC AT THIS STAGE.


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:41:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:GALLUP (none / 0)

I have stated (and I guess it bears repeating) that HISTORICALLY no candidate that has had a lead with Gallup in September exceeding 20% (as Clinton's lead here shows) has ever lost the nomination - Democrat or Republican.  It is historical fact that can't be disputed.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:06:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His name was Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

and after having a 30-point lead in the Gallup poll in August 1979, he LOST.


by John Poet on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:18:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His name was Ted Kennedy (none / 0)

How poetic.  Did I not specify in my post that Gallup made the claim that in their polling history (over 40 years) not a single time did a candidate who had a 20%+ lead in SEPTEMBER not win the nomination, Democrat or Republican.  Here you bring a rebuttal with a poll from AUGUST?  That disputes my point how?


by georgep on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 02:09:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Of course with this kind of lead, the story of a Clinton loss in the early states would also be a story of "how'd we get it so badly wrong?"  

Good for a week's set of news cycles.


by Carrington Ward on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 08:57:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Bah.  The DesmoinesRegister will come on the air and state (as they have done many times) that Edwards practically lived in the state since 2001 and was expected to win Iowa, had the biggest operation, largest infrastructure.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:09:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

That'll have wonk appeal, but you know the Corporate Media and General Public will see it as an Edwards win in the first big test of the primary season.

Not sure where he'd go with it, but it wouldn't be glossed over.


by Bush Bites on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Oh, it will be talked about.  But the Hillary support is very strong at this point.  It will not be shaken to its core and she won't be abandoned en masse because Edwards may win a  state.  Look at what winning Iowa did for Gephardt, Harkin, et al.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 10:30:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:DESMOINES REGISTER (none / 0)

Historically the best poll for the IA caucuses.

The expectations in for Clinton are so high that a win over her will produce a bounce of 17-20 pts in my opinion.

If Obama wins he will really get a bounce. Donot under-estimate him. He had the most supporter's at the IA steak fry than any other candidate. Most political observer's were surprised at his organizational strength. Over 3000 plus people with 15 buses from 10 different locations in IA.


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:45:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:DESMOINES REGISTER (none / 0)

Ridiculous.  Clinton will lose 20% of her support if she does not win Iowa?  You have not been paying attention AT ALL.  Or you are just blowing smoke here.  Definitely one of the two.


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:03:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

There is a large difference between today and 2004. In 2004, support was largely soft and Democrats did not like their choices. Almost 50% of Democrats did not know who they would support. When Clinton and Gore was thrown into the mix, they dominated the field. This time around, the race is saturated earlier than ever, and we have a definite national frontrunner, which 80%-90% of Democrats view favorably, who also has a high core support. If Edwards win Iowa, he will NOT go from 15% to 35% overnight. It will NOT happen. Plus, I can't envision a scenario where Clinton does not recieve delegates. I see her bottom at 15%-20%, enough to get delegates. Whether that will be enough to throw the nomination to the convention is another issue.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:48:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

The media is going to pimp John Edwards?  I don't think so- what you will see is the media saying he practically lived there and campaigned for years (which is true) and that is why he won (if he does)- they wll downplay it, they won't be championing him.  I don't think so, anyway.  But I've never thought Hillary had to win Iowa to get the nomination.


by reasonwarrior on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

The morning after the Iowa caucuses, if every single newspaper in the country features a front page, above-the-fold headline that says "EDWARDS WINS IOWA" or "OBAMA WINS IOWA" with accompanying photo of either candidate smiling and hugging his wife, that will move voters.  A lot of voters.

People just like to get behind the person they perceive to be a winner.  It's human nature--and probably explains a lot of Hillary's current support.

Look, all I'm saying is that once John Kerry won Iowa, there was absolutely no chance he wasn't going to win the nomination.  If Hillary loses Iowa, she might have the ability to hang around for a couple more states, but that's it.  Since a lot of her "strength" is predicated on inevitability and invincibility, an Iowa loss would be a serious blow to her campaign.

I'm not saying Hillary isn't the frontrunner right now.  Clearly she is, when you look at national polls.  But as long as things remain close in Iowa then the race could go any direction.  If Hillary starts pulling 30-point leads in Iowa then I will concede the race is basically over.  


by Will Graham on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:48:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Iowa will NOT move voters away from Clinton to the tune of 20+%.  This is obviously your way to keep the faith, but at current polling level  Clinton is calculated to even survive a third place showing in Iowa (which won't happen) and still win New Hampshire and the nomination.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:06:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Agree with that.

It's Hillary's to lose at this point.

I could happen, though it's not likely.


by Bush Bites on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:25:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: (none / 0)

Edwards is using the Gephardt strategy that Iowa will be the magic to make him the nominee. A win in Iowa would help Edwards very little at this point.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:56:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

Hillary has slightly more support than all other six listed candidates taken together. Wow!


by markjay on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:29:20 PM EST

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

Although these national polls may make Hillary supporters feel all warm and fuzzy, don't forget that they are essentially worthless.  How many people from this poll reside in states that won't be voting until March or later--when the race will be finished?  Probably quite a few.

All that matters is Iowa.  Iowa Iowa Iowa Iowa...


by Will Graham on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:36:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

The early state polling is very, very similar in states like New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan, Florida, South Carolina.  Iowa won't erase 20% leads in the early states.  You know that, but can't bring yourself to acknowledge it.  I understand.


by georgep on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:42:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

pollster (none / 0)

George,

I don't know how to insert photos in the comment section. If you include the images of both 'national' and NH primaries, the trendline is now remarkably similar. It shows a widening gap between Clinton and the other candidates.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 11:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

Historically George you are wrong. You are way to biased on current polling and donot take into account the dynamics of a race due to events such as a win in IA.

CURRENTLY THIS RACE IS TIED IN IA. No crdible political analyst will say otherwise, including Hillary's campaign strategists.


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:51:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

She is now leading in Iowa Iowa Iowa....  
Sucks to be Edwards and ps... all the polls count.  They also count because they influence voters in Iowa and NH and SC.
DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:05:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

They [national polls] also count because they influence voters in Iowa and NH and SC.

I'm relatively new to politics, but I don't believe that's the case at all whatsoever.  They take their 'leadership' roles, their independence, very seriously, from what I understand.


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:30:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

statistics (none / 0)

Gallup compared the 2008 race to previous election cycles.

The comparison was to a total of 4 previous campaigns, looking at September (or fall) results.  In each and every case, Gallup's polls show the candidate who was not ahead in September became the eventual nominee.

Making any sort of statistical argument based on four data points is senseless (the space shuttle seemed like a very fine way to get into orbit until the 25th data point) - but the author of Gallup's article gives us a really great case study of using data to "tell a story" to fit a preconconceived conclusion.  For each of the cases (except perhaps 1976), the author tells a story of why, although the candidate who was behind eventually won, the case actually does not bode well for candidates who are behind.  Go figure!

:-)


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:09:11 AM EST

Re: statistics (none / 0)

no election is like any other.  And the one thing people always forget is that Edwards and Obama both had a mini surge and faded. You don't surge twice.  Some one might come from behind, but it won't be either of them.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:10:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: statistics (none / 0)

How can you be so certain about future events?


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 08:00:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers (none / 0)

I am just thrilled about Hillary's polling numbers. And her healthcare plan is really being scrutinized with a magnifying glass and the critics are quite positive about it.  Throw in General Wesley Clark's endorsement and WOW!


A helluva week for my gal.  

by samueldem on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:09:23 AM EST

Re: New Gallup Numbers (none / 0)

There was nothing to scrutinize.

Her health care plan is nothing: Nine pages.

Which was smart of her. Last time, she crossed all the t's and dotted the i's and got her head handed to her.

I wish more democrats would be purposely vague. That's what the Repubs have been doing for years.

But don't act like she just issued some great piece of legislation.


by Bush Bites on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:29:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: OH and WI (none / 0)

Strategic Vision out with OH and WI numbers:

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics 2007/09/new_polls_oh_wi.html

Strategic Vision is out with new '08 polls in Ohio and Wisconsin (Sept 14-16, 1,200 LV total, MoE +- 3%). First, in the Buckeye State, Clinton holds a 20-point lead over Obama:

Democrats
Clinton 43 (no trend)
Obama 23
Edwards 11
Richardson 6
Undecided 11

On the Republican side in Ohio, Giuliani and Thompson run well ahead of the rest of the field, with Rudy holding a 13 point lead:

Republicans
Giuliani 34 (no trend)
Thompson 21
McCain 9
Romney 8
Gingrich 5
Huckabee 4
Undecided 11

In Wisconsin, Strategic Vision shows Clinton extending her already substantial lead:

Democrats
Clinton 44 (+4 vs. last poll July 13-15)
Obama 22 (-2)
Edwards 11 (-3)
Richardson 7 (+1)
Undecided 11 (nc)

For the Republicans, with Tommy Thompson now out of the picture it's a two-man race at the top between Rudy and Fred, with Giuliani hanging onto a slight lead:

Republicans
Giuliani 28 (+2 vs. last poll July 13-15)
Thompson 24 (+3)
McCain 8 (-3)
Romney 7 (-1)
Gingrich 6 (-1)
Undecided 17 (+4)

Striking how poorly Edwards does in both states (below his national average,) especially a labor-state like Iowa.

Romney is starting to tank nationally and in some early states.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:17:07 AM EST

Re: OH and WI (none / 0)

oops, meant:  especially a labor-state like Ohio.


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:18:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

A lot of you have lurched onto candidates. Its better to lurch onto issues that are IMPORTANT to you.
Health care and Iraq are the issues i care about the most.
So i have asked myself who gives us the best chance of solving the health care crisis. The Clintons had their chance for 8 years and could not get the legislation passed. If passage of the health care legislation is the most important issue for you, Obama or Edwards give us a better chance in fact even Romney a republican would have a better chance of succeeding than Hillary.
The dems can nominate Hillary but if the republicans nominate someone reasonable it will get interesting.
Like i said i don't lurch onto candidates i lurch onto issues and go with whoever gives me the best chance of passing legislation on my issue.
by joachim on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:25:16 AM EST

New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

As far as I can tell, all of the Clinton supporters here favor Clinton because she the candidate with the strength and experience to make progress on the issues important to us:

Get out of Iraq
Rebuild our failed foreign policy
Move towards universal health care
Make education more available

Etc.


by hwc on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:35:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

So, this is code for telling us that you don't intend to vote for Hillary in the GE, instead would consider the GOP candidate?


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:41:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

George many of my democrat friends tell me that if she is the nominee, they will vote for NADER.

They just don't believe she will get us out of Iraq, but will have US combat troops in Iraq for the next 5 years.


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (2.00 / 1)

What is with your constant misuse of the term Democratic?   As in "many of my Democrat friends have stated yadda yadda yadda"?   It is DEMOCRATIC friends.   Using it the way you are prone to do is the right-winger's way.  Just a friendly reminder.  Someone may think you are a plant from the other side if you continue to misuse the descriptive term.  

Besides, if they vote for Nader, they are not Democrats in my opinion anyway.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 12:00:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

George,

I was working for democrats way before you were born,

Don't give me that bullshit of correctness, you know dam well what i meant.

Many of my friends who are activist's in the democratic party and have worked on many campaign's from Johnson to Kerry are going to vote for Ralph Nader if Clinton gets the nomination and I am not going to argue for her candidacy to them.

I will vote for her if I have to, but will not lift a finger for her campaign.


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:44:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

Fine, whatever you want to do.  Just use the term "democratic friends" in the future, not "democrat friends," ok?  Us Democrats don't like it used that way, as it is a cheesy tactic of putdown employed by right-wing fools.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:59:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't you mean (none / 0)

"us Democratics"?


by John Poet on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

And, get it correct:  THOSE PEOPLE ARE NOT DEMOCRATS if they vote for Nader.   They are NADERITES, our enemies.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:01:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

These are american citizens and are not our enemies just like republicans.

I see how Clinton supporter's view those who donot support her. No wonder she is so dis-liked. If you don't support her then she will make you pay the price. Is she going to make war on those who donot support her.


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:31:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

What a LOAD.  Naderites are responsible for losses by the Democratic party.  They are enemies of our party's electoral success.  That has NOTHING to do with Clinton.  It is nice to see where YOU stand, though.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

how convenient... (none / 0)

and, quite frankly, what a load.  democrats lost congress in 1994 -- without more than a handful of greens running for congress.  florida was lost to republicans precisely because of the interference and demands of the clintons.  if chiles hadn't decided to run for governor, the clinton philosophy would have destroyed the florida democratic party.

i know, i know, you meant to say the democratic party at the presidential level in 2000, or some other extremely narrowly defined "democratic party."  yeah, i can't wait for terry mcauliffe to purge the democratic party again...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:18:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: how convenient... (none / 0)

How is "the Democratic party" from 2000 forward (post-Nader getting into the fray) a "narrow definition"?    You are missing the point.  Out of the blue, for no good reason at all, BDM brought up that a few of his "Democrat friends" vow to vote Nader.  Why would I care about what BDM's friends vow to do?  But, if you are going to bring up Nader, then let's talk about what effect he had on the Democratic party and how his supporters enabled Bush and Co.  Naderites are anathema to the Democratic party, they are not an offshoot of it.  Alas, you already knew that and still commented as you did.


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:55:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no, i'm not missing the point... (none / 0)

i'm not arguing over bdm's emotional statement, it's perfectly predictable that people make these kinds of claims when they see their preferred candidate losing.  the winner's supporters are usually more tolerant of these kinds of outbursts, understanding the emotion that drives them.

then we have this idiot who claims he is supporting hillary but seems to believe that alienating progressives because hillary is not their first choice is a smart strategy.  in doing so, he makes a variety of stupid claims -- many that show he has no idea about how elections are conducted throughout the country or that different states have different rules (and especially that there are states out there without party registration) -- all of which need to be corrected.

my point, whether you agree with it or not, is that the democratic party should be an inclusive party, accepting of all the ideologies out there (yes, there are conservative democrats who actually get elected to office), and we need to be more accepting of democrats who have different ideological persuasions than our own.  iow, democrats represent a much broader part of the electorate than our friend seems willing to admit or accept.

that's my point.  you are welcome to make your own...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Thu Sep 20, 2007 at 11:18:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Misuse of "Democrat" (none / 0)

You asked why a poster constantly misuses the word "Democrat" when they should say "Democratic". I know the answer to that one:

People who habitually call the Democratic party the "Democrat" party, are commonly known as  Republicans.


by LakersFan on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:53:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Misuse of "Democrat" (2.00 / 1)

Bingo.  


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

In my opinion those who will vote for Nader are not really a part of the Democratic Party. They found Gore unacceptable, they found Kerry unacceptable, and they will find Clinton (or anyone else) who is the 2008 nominee to be unacceptable.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:59:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (2.00 / 1)

They are detrimental to the Democratic party.  Period.


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:00:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

"They found Gore unacceptable"

I think they misunderstood Gore and the dynamics of that race.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:05:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (2.00 / 1)

because the dynamics here if a repug wins is different?

Naderites are assholes. They voted against the most environmentally conscious person with a serious chance at the presidency. Instead they voted for the fraud candidate Nader who just piggy backed on a topic.

Naderites caused Bush to be in power.


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:38:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

I think there is very little difference between the far left and the far right. Both focus on radical agendas that are not acceptable to the majority of Americans. I don't consider Naderites or Republicans to be "enemies".  


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

"because the dynamics here if a repug wins is different?"

I was talking about the difficult of the hand Gore was faced with was not understood by many, including Democrats. I know many Nader'00 voters who thought that voting for Nader (to get the 5% for greens) was a safe thing to do. But had they attention to the polls (esp. state polls), they would have realized otherwise. I do believe that the Gore campaign did turn out more Democrats to show up and vote by talking about the Nader threat, but even so, Nader directly led to the loss of FL and likely NH as well.

I wish I were there to contact each one of Nader's major backers (such as Oprah, Maher, Moore, Huffington, Ivins) that they were going after the wrong guy, and Gore had an excellent progressive populist platform and damn good credentials. They could have gathered that had they read the convention speech and Gore's platform documents.

My arguments here are not a comparison with HRC. I have my own problems with here because of her support for the war and continued on-again-off-again hawkish triangulation on foreign policy. I'll vote for her in the general, of course, but not in the primary because of my basic loss of trust in her and to a lesser degree Bill Clinton (but I still have a favorable view of Bill as an individual, despite his shortcomings.)


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

I was talking about Nader'2000 voters here.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:38:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

Those activist's that I know voted for Gore and Kerry. Most worked in those campaigns.


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

Yeah, but Romney will continue with Bush's economic policies, foreign policies, domestic security policies, supreme court standards....

Get a grip.

I don't like Hillary either but another Repub would be a disaster for this country, even with a Democratic Congress.


by Bush Bites on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 09:35:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

I care about issues not candidates. And i don't see what the Clintons could do about health care in the next 4 years that they could not for the 8 years they were in charge.
Its good to have plans and white papers but how do they get that legislation through congress. In my mind we've seen this script before and we know how it ends. First 2 years of  Hillary administration, she'll put up a good effort, she'll hit resistance. Won't try the remaining 2 years of her administration as she'll be gearing up for re-election and more concerned on passing centrist legislation.
Seen the script before.
We'll be stuck with her as the nominee as the republicans find a perfect candidate to run against her.

by joachim on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:58:17 AM EST

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

Same old.  I was hoping for something more constructive....

1992 was a different time in our history.  UHC was a revolutionary concept, but the country was not ready for it.  You should understand the difference with 2007.  

Why wring hands NOW about what she will do?  Just wait and see.


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:26:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Gallup Numbers Show Increasing Clinton Lea (none / 0)

If you haven't noticed, most of the mainstream Republican pundits have been complimentary of Hillary's health care plan.

You have to keep in mind that, after they are wiped out in the 2008 election, the Republicans are going to be under tremendous pressure to rethink their politics of obstruction. As Arnold put it so concisely in California last week, "we are getting killed at the box office."


by hwc on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 03:13:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gore retains a strong 16% level of support (none / 0)

Gore retains a strong 16% level of support despite not being in the race as yet, and despite the skew in poll results stemming from people's general view that he won't run:


With and Without Gore Results

Hillay Clinton:

Without Gore (9/07): 45%
With Gore (9/7-8/07): 39%
With Gore (8/13-16/07): 42%

Barack Obama:

Without Gore (9/07): 24%
With Gore (9/07): 19%
With Gore (8/07): 21%

Hillary's lead over Obama:

Without Gore (9/07): 21%
With Gore (9/7-8/07): 20%
With Gore (8/13-16/07): 21%

John Edwards:

Without Gore: 16%
With Gore (9/07): 14%
With Gore (8/07): 11%

Bill Richardson:

Without Gore: 2%
With Gore (9/7-8/07): 1%
With Gore (8/13-16/07): 1%

Gore:

(9/07): 16%
(8/07): 15%

To preempt the "Gore won't run" chanters, Gore has NOT ruled out a run.

Unless and until:

  1. Gore issues a Shermaneseque statement about 2008, or
  2. endorses someone in the current field, or
  3. filing windows start closing in late October or early November,
he remains a potential candidate.

Should he decide to enter the race, thus removing the current skew in polls coming from not being in the race, there is some evidence indicating that he may poll in the 25-35% range upon announcement.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:33:43 AM EST

Re: Gore retains a strong 16% level of support (2.00 / 2)

Oh, you won't hear "Gore won't run" from me! No sir! Didn't you hear he's not doing anything in October? Which means he's probably doing something in October!

Also, there's my tarot cards.


"If [John Edwards] seems too good to be true, well, so be it; instead, you can pick a candidate who's bad enough to be plausible." - Daily Kos user Drew
by Junior Bug on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 06:32:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you're a smart fella, Junior! :) (2.00 / 1)


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:59:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Link for the poll (none / 0)

with both w/ and w/o Gore results: click me


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 07:55:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Head to head numbers against Rs? (none / 0)

That's all I really care about.  I'm not a Hilary fan.  Don't much care for her.  But she is still infinitely preferable than the least noxious Repub.  
So what do her numbers look like against Big Giulie?
Against TV's Fred?
by Teaser on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:04:25 AM EST

Re: Head to head numbers against Rs? (none / 0)

She is beating all of the GOPers at this time:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national.html


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:54:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When I was a boy ... (none / 0)

I used to watch a lot of Monday Night Football.  Somewhere near the end of the game when the when the outcome was assured, Dandy Don Merideth would start to sing "Turn out the lights the partys over ...."

When I think about this campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination I start to hear Don Merideth singing that song.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:37:46 AM EST

Re: When I was a boy ... (none / 0)

We have not had a vote cast yet. I guess we should  eliminate the primary's and declare her the winner.

This is such arrogance. I hope Clinton's team is not as arrogant as you are in your statements.


by BDM on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 11:57:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Nonsense (none / 0)

I am just looking at the facts and drawing a conclusion ... just like Dandy Don used to do all those years ago.  They used to play until ref blew the final whistle.  


by dpANDREWS on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 01:24:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Following your logic, (none / 0)

I guess we should just turn the White House over to the Republicans now, and not bother with a general election, either.

Hillary is a sure loser.


by John Poet on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 04:33:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not THAT is nonsense (none / 0)

Listen son, look at the facts.   Don't let your heart get in the way.   Hillary beats all GOP comers in Ohiop, she is up huge in Arkansas and New Mex, and Iowa (all went for Bush in '04), she is the most competive candidate we've seen this early in Florida in two cycles.  

The fact is if the election were held today she'd win with over 300 electoral votes.

If Tootsie Giuliani is nominated she will surely win.  She'll slice and dice that crossdresser.


by dpANDREWS on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 05:53:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: When I was a boy ... (none / 0)

There is no arrogance, just confidence.  If you look at the evidence before us, it is not even hubris or misplaced confidence, just logical deduction.  Look at how the bettors on INTRADE have reacted, they are betting big Dollars on Clinton to win the nomination.  They are hardly arrogant, just pragmatic.  It is actually arrogant to state (as you have) that none of the polls mean anything, that all candidates are at the exact same level, that all polls are worthless, that indeed Clinton has less chance of winning than the other candidates.  I trust that internally neither Edwards nor Obama (or Richardson) are as arrogant as some of you in your handling of the polls, as that would prevent them from righting the problems they are having connecting, getting their message across, etc.


by georgep on Wed Sep 19, 2007 at 02:55:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]