Polls: Hillary Ahead in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina
The new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg polls of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina shows Hillary Clinton leading in all three states, with a fairly close race against John Edwards in Iowa and landslide margins in the other two. On the Republican side, Mitt Romney leads Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and New Hampshire but barely registers in South Carolina, where Rudy narrowly trails Fred Thompson.
Full numbers after the jump.
Iowa:Democrats:
Clinton 28%
Edwards 23%
Obama 19%
Richardson 10%Republicans:
Romney 28%
Giuliani 16%
Thompson 16%
New Hampshire:Democrats:
Clinton 35%
Obama 16%
Edwards 16%
Richardson 8%Republicans:
Romney 28%
Giuliani 23%
McCain 12%
Thompson 11%
South Carolina:Democrats:
Clinton 45%
Obama 27%
Edwards 7%Republicans:
Thompson 26%
Giuliani 23%
McCain 15%
Romney 9%
While the trends on the Republican side have the making of 'brokered convetion' (no dominant figure yet, although I think that Rudy will sink, Thompson will get stronger,and Romney will oscillate), it is beginning to look like rout on the Dem's side.
We are still waiting for Obama to catch fire. In fact, it seems that he has been losing ground, even after we were told to wait for polls after his "ass-kicking" performance on ABC's 'This Week' debate of which the IA Politics Guru Yepsen had declared him the winner. Well, we waited and the good Senator is is now in third place in IA! My sense is that Obama's novelty as a 'new kind of politician' has now worn off, and by the time of early states primaries, it would have become stale altogether.
September 12, 2007 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
On the one hand, we have Obama with a record of bipartisan achievement that includes getting CAFE increases through the US Senate for the first time in 20+ years and ethics reform passed in IL for the first time in 20+ years as well: the sunshine candidate with all the open government reforms to his name and bigs plans for improving democracy. On the one hand, we have Obama the street organizer, who went from registering voters to civil rights attorney to constitutional scholar, a black man with a tremendous CV who somehow still "doesn't have enough experience". On the one hand, we have a man of sound judgment that was right on Iraq before any of these candidates that want to attack him and who has called for a responsible, phased withdrawal since he's been in the Senate.
On the other hand we have this:
Will Dem primary voters do what they are told and nominate her?September 12, 2007 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it sounds too good to be true that is because it is...
September 12, 2007 1:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeremy,
You are a barack-tard. Please stop. Wishing that your new BFF will take his non-experience and lose the best chance in 40 years a democrat has had will not make it happen.
The R's would eat him for lunch like nobody's business. We are going with a winner this time around.
September 12, 2007 5:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although the other candidates are green with envy that Hillary is the one that the moneyed interests are "cozying up to" (this may be the first time in capitalist America that this has ever happened - OMG!), the supporters of the other candidates sound like the fable of the sour grapes.
I hope you all put your Fox-induced-Hillary hatred and your more-PC-than-thou breast beatings aside after she takes the nomination (because more Democrats vote for her), and rally around electing the first woman president in our glorious progressive history.
Then we can turn our attentions to trying (once again) to fix the evils of undue corporate influence.
September 12, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one Liberal who will sit out the presidential campaign if Hillary is my only choice. What's the difference between Hills and Joementum? Maybe she'll follow in Bill's footsteps and sign a NAFTA Part II trade pact. Maybe as president, she'll push through a ban on flag burning amendment; or perhaps she'll push through more "faith-based" initiatives to follow in Bush's footsteps.
She's a bore, and will bring minimal change to Washington. She'll be surrounded by the same foreign policy "experts" who supported the rush to war in Iraq.
How can anyone get excited by a Hillary campaign? It's more of the same. She does NOT represent change in any way shape or form.
What a bore.
September 12, 2007 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's too bad. I'm going to have to do a write in if she is the nominee.
September 12, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's "too bad" is when people base their political choices on what's not 'boring,' or take their toys and go home if they don't get exactly what they want.
The notion that Hillary's a Republican in Dem clothing has always been BS, since Nader and his parrots said it (then denied saying it, while accepting GOP funding and saying it again) and it's BS now. If you truly believe that then you're either blinded by personal animus or an idiot.
If you're that addled, then please feel free to stay home, tapping away on your keyboard advocating all the stupid ways we can lose the 2008 election.
September 12, 2007 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
This time I'm not gonna plead the same way I did in 2000 with the idiots sitting out the election or voting for the green progressive with the big stock portfolio - here's my new plea to you all:
Please, please don't let the saloon door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party. The rest of us Democrats will still inside fixing to raise a toast to the election of an unquestioned, life long Democrat who has championed socially progressive issues since the 70s, the first woman president of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton!
September 12, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, Hillary's supporters go with "barrack-tard" and "Hillary-hater" rather than address the points made in my post. We're hoping to change the Democratic Party, to give people back their government and end the disproportionate influence of the lobbyists. Obama has a record of accomplishing change. With Hillary, it will be more of this:
But that's not the only objectionable feature of the event, critics say.
For the price of a ticket -- from a $1,000 personal donation to a $25,000 bundle –- attendees will get a special treat after the luncheon: an opportunity to participate in small, hour-long "breakout sessions" hosted by key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important subcommittees on the Homeland Security committee.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/09/on-heels-of-911.html
I have no personal feelings for or against Hillary. I do have strong commitments in regards to how we make judgments as a democracy. I'm very much impressed by Sen Obama's achievements and commitment to political reform. You jerks have nothing to say besides "barrack-tard" and "Hillary-hater". It's quite telling.
September 12, 2007 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somehow the html got screwed up. blockquote should got all the way top the link.
September 12, 2007 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
More ad hominem attacks by Hillary backers. Boring!
Come back when you have something substantive to say.
September 12, 2007 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A Dem who would stay home, at the risk of giving the presidency to Rudy, if HRC wins the nomination is dim beyond repair. Please switch parties; you are too dimwitted to be of any use to anyone.
September 12, 2007 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's something more substantive, and this time I'll write it r e a l s l o w so even you will understand.
Hillary is a lifelong Democrat with unquestioned bona fides and if she wins the nomination, it's because most Democratic voters elected her. I know you think you're so much more pure than the rest of us, but park your bicycle next to your tree house for a second and realize that, like it or not, corporate capitalists are, will still be running the show in 2008 and until we change it. You're not gonna change things by abandoning the Democratic nominee in a two-party race.
To put it another way, which party do you associate most with big business interests above ALL others?
If Obama, Edwards, or any of the other Dems could get their hands on the money going Hillary's way because she's the frontrunner, they'd take it in a second.
September 12, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink