« Dick Morris Butchers Facts To Slime Hillary | Home | Lieberman Took Campaign Funds From Makers Of Violent Video Games »
Clinton And Obama Tied In New Hampshire Poll
A new poll out of New Hampshire shows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in a dead heat, with Clinton at 22% and Obama at 21%. The poll, which was done by by Research 2000 and is scheduled to be published today in the Concord Monitor, finds John Edwards in third place with 16%, and Al Gore in forth at 10%.
On the GOP side, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain are similarly tied, with Giuliani at 26% and McCain at 25%, with Mitt Romney third at 10%.
Interesting footnote: While 18% of GOP voters in New Hampshire voters are undecided, only 8% of New Hampshire Dems haven't made up their minds. We'll link to the full poll when it's online.
Update: The Monitor's article can be found here.
Advertisement
So Obama's tied with Edwards in IA and nearly tied with Hillary in NH. Not a bad place to be.
December 24, 2006 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh jeez, you scared me. i could only see "Clinton and Obama Tied in New Hampshire..." in the tab while the page loaded, and all i could think of was that they had been implicated in the phone-jamming case.
December 24, 2006 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Not a bad place to be."
Actually it is a bad place to be.
Obama has had fawning press coverage for 6 months and he is tied with the front runner. He has peaked. He has no place to go but down when the scrutiny starts.
OTOH, things are looking good for John Edwards. For someone who has been under the radar out of public eye for 2 years he is doing very well. It shows he has a hard core support in both Iowa and NH.
BTW, this is bad news for Romney. New Hampshire is practically his backyard. He has to win there to win anywhere else. He should be doing a lot better.
December 24, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the same thing.
But for a different reason. Obama has nowhere to go but up. This man is brand new on the national scene and tied with a political candidate who has been on the scene for over 15years.
If these are hard core numbers for Edwards given he has been out there campaigning in IA and NH for over a year...yet he is tied with Obama, after 1 book signing trip? Edwards has peaked and it is Obama whose numbers as just the tip of an iceberg.
Miri, these numbers are equivalent to an athlete posting world class numbers at their first meet or game, having only been self-coached. That athlete is not peaking...they are only going to get much better with professional training that unleashes and maximizes their potential while teaching them how to minimize or overcome any challenges or weaknesses.
Hillary and Edwards should have great concern, because when they do meet up with this candidate they may just find themselves seriously overmatched.
December 24, 2006 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
The assertion that over a year before the actual contest, someone with only about 60% name recognition and who has only visited the state once has "peaked" is beyond absurd.
December 24, 2006 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, well, looks as the Democrats have made decisions if only 8% are undecided this early in the primary campaign. If these are strongly held positions, it will difficult to change minds. That means the independent and GOP cross-over voters may determine the winning Democratic candidate.
It's an expected showing for Senator Clinton; Edwards has managed a decent showing after a lot of hard work. Obama is the real surprise and it says a lot about his message. Without any foot in the mouth moments, Obama will be a very serious opponent for Senator Clinton. I make note that some folks still think the Clinton "two for one" deal is still politically viable. I disagree and believe that Bill is a negative factor in Senator Clinton's potential campaign.
The GOP folks seem to be still hanging around for the plucking--the "old" side of McCain or the competence of Rudy? I suspect that Rudy will be able to attract more independent and cross-over voters than McCain. Rudy's candidacy seems to depend on these types of voters.
Interesting polling results.
December 24, 2006 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"they are only going to get much better with professional training that unleashes and maximizes their potential while teaching them how to minimize or overcome any challenges or weaknesses."
His "professional training" will take place under intense public scrutiny. Every gaffe will be magnified a million times over.
IMO Edwards, Hillary and even Gore are far better suited to survive the campaign than Obama.
Lets recap;
* Hillary has been under intense media scrutiny, not to mention partisan investigations, for a decade. She has been subjected to 24/7 demonization by the Right Wing Noise Machine.
* Edwards ran in 2004 and for a newcomer did well. He participated in debates with opponents, gave interviews, answered hostile questions. He was chosen as the VP candidate. He has been scrutinized, including finances, family life, gaffes etc.
* Gore - See Hillary above.
* Obama - Elected to the Senate 2 years ago against a joke opponent. Has had fawning press coverage for 6 months, mostly focused on his bio as an African American success story and his speeches.
Primaries are more than a year away. You think Obama will continue getting the kind of coverage he has been getting? He will spend a year running a "why can't we all get along" campaign?
Obama should enjoy his honeymoon because it is not going to last.
Edwards is the biggest threat to Hillary. Gore would be too if he decides to run.
December 24, 2006 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and Edwards should have great concern, because when they do meet up with this candidate
"This candidate" does not exist. He is an imaginary figure, a blank slate onto whom people are projecting their hopes and dreams.
Edwards and Hillary are both real, flesh and blood with real strengths and weaknesses. Obama is a media creation, portrayed as the second coming of Lincoln and JFK. He does not exist. There is no way Obama the real person can live up to the hype the media has created.
December 24, 2006 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Miri...does not exist...imaginary??? O but no...please recall 1500 people showed up for this candidate. The candidate is real, his politics are galvanizing, he stumped for his fellow Democrats to get a majority in the Senate and House. The candidate is very real. So real, in fact, that conventional wisdom is being blown out the window. He is not polling these figures as an 'unknown' because he or his politics are imaginary.
Or perhaps,I should say the American electorate has an awsome imagination.
So is Obama. Just admit it. You simply have a difficult time recognizing all his strengths and talents. Or choose to out of fear that he has capabilities beyond your imagination and you have to assign this to your imagination out of fear that is a more real than you could have imagined.
Nope. He is real,flesh and blood, with 2 books,2 kids, a wife and having registered over 2,000 voters in IL, while teaching Constitutional Law and serving in the IL legislature before running for the Senate and after being the first of his ethnicity to be elected to the Harvard Review.He is real,lots of substance combined with talents you see once every 3-4 decades. REAL DEAL.
What is the hype that you believe he cannot live up to? What does the hype say that he does not possess?
December 24, 2006 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. One third of all people can't identify Obama, whereas Hillary has universal recognition, and Edwards is close to her in name recognition after his '04 run, which ended just over 2 years ago. If anybody's peaked of those three, it's Edwards. No way the Dems go with that softball tossing, lackluster loser.
Gotta run, Santa's coming!
p.s., Romney's a dead issue, what with voting for Tsongas and hiring illegal aliens to work in his yard. The nazis will never go for him.
December 25, 2006 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
These are obviously not strongly held positions, but the idea that Bill Clinton--the most successful and popular Democratic president since Roosevelt--could be drag on Hillary's candidacy is ridiculous. Gore "lost" because he ran away from Clinton; Hillary's unikely to repeat the error, even if she could. Her best move would be to make Bill her running mate!
December 25, 2006 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
From a NH guy who's been off and on involved in campaigns: I can't help but compare Obama to Howard Dean--same sense of someone new, someone who can break through the same-old same-old. Except that the first time you met Dean (and Kerry for that matter) was in someone's kitchen or back yard. What's missing here, at least so far, are any grass roots.
As far as NH goes (and we may be losing our former star act in the great media circus of the primaries) listening to the guy give his talk in a neighbor's livingroom is what gets you to man the phones and do the leg work. TV doesn't do it.
BTW I haven't heard that much serious conversation about candidates yet from friends and acquaintances. I doubt opinions behind the poll numbers are set soggy concrete, let alone stone.
December 25, 2006 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think it's so "obvious" about the strength of these decisions amongst Democrats in NH. I would say some Democrats were looking for an alternative to a Hillary candidacy or Obama would not have been able to so easily peel off a significant percentage of Democratic supporters.
If Hillary receives the nomination, it is not just a woman running for President...it is also a previous President becoming the male equivalent of the First Lady. Both roles would be historic with an extra "twist" due to Bill's presidency. Yet, we ask the American voters to get "two for one" and miraculously avoid all of the controversy of the Clinton two terms. That won't happen. I don't find it "ridiculous" to consider the implications of this on independent and cross-over voters. The election reality is that these voters are critical to Democratic success in 2008. We can't wish away that reality.
Hillary just might be able to get the Democratic Party nomination. But I focus on the general election because I want the Democratic Party to not just have a President elected...but also to ride a big wave into control of both houses of Congress. It is very unfortunate that the Clintons will stir controversy that just won't be there with another candidate.
December 25, 2006 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's been around the state senate since 1996. When he originally ran for the US House,
So if it's too early, our fellow voters will take care of things.
I suspect however, that they are sick of the same old s**t...Here's hoping he doesn't listen too closely to the consultants.
December 25, 2006 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink