Poll: Hillary And Obama In Dead Heat In Iowa

Comments (47)

Horseface wrote on October 29, 2007 11:17 AM:

Cant wait till Obama dropkicks Hillary out of frontrunner status.

corinne wrote on October 29, 2007 11:19 AM:

This is a UI Hawkeye poll that carries several caveats.

Mark Blumenthal of Pollster.com:

"The methodology of the previous U. of I. poll was unusual in a few respects: they asked an open-ended vote question (that asks respondents to volunteer their choice without prompting), they sampled from a directory of listed telephone households (rather than from registered voter lists or via random digit dial or voting list) and used a screen that was wider than other polls....

"We have not included the previous Hawkeye polls in our Iowa chart because of the use of the open-ended question. This is not a statement about the quality of the survey....

"Of course, we do not know what methodology the Hawkeye poll used this time, but the news advisory does promises that the new results will show how candidate support "has changed since August." So presumably the methodology has been held constant."

Blumenthal's comments regarding the August poll can be found here:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/a_different_approach_the_univ.php

Greg wrote on October 29, 2007 11:26 AM:

yeah, I'm really hoping blumenthal writes something about this poll, too.

Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 11:29 AM:

Hmmm, does anybody know if there's been an analysis of poll numbers that don't include the monoliths of California and New York? What are Clinton, Edwards and Obama's numbers like without those big states skewing the results?

Anthony wrote on October 29, 2007 11:30 AM:

THe disparity betweeen the National and Iowa polls maybe the effect of preferential treatment that Hiliary is getting form the national press. Would she be tied in Iowa without the help of the National Press?

Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 11:35 AM:

She is NOT INVINCIBLE. She is also a fake, poll-driven opportunistic would be loser running on her husband's record. The country needs authenticity and she ain't it.

Anthony wrote on October 29, 2007 11:42 AM:

Or she playing the best game she can in the world of sound bite politics.

Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 11:44 AM:

Seems to me, he's saying that you can't draw any conclusions about trends vis-a-vis other polls, but that this poll isis worthwhile when compared against the previous poll. And that is true for most polls--where their methodology for determining likely caucus-goers is an inexact science.

The trends observed by comparing the August an October Hawkeye polls are meaningful - because they used the same methodology for both polls - but apply only to the very broad population of Iowa adults sampled. It helps that the trends in this poll bear a resemblance to what we have seen lately on other Iowa polls, but we advise huge grains of salt before comparing the support for any particular candidate on this survey to that measured by any other survey.

Terrible headline on the front page: Obama's never been close to "dead".

DJL wrote on October 29, 2007 11:49 AM:

No, she is not invincible. But, she is authentic. She is also hardworking, smart, tenacious and funny. She does not need to run on her husband's record. Inform yourself.

DTM wrote on October 29, 2007 11:50 AM:

It is not difficult to understand why the Iowa polls and the national polls have diverged. People in Iowa are actually seeing ads from the candidates, and sometimes even seeing the candidates in person. In contrast, nationally most people are just getting second-hand information (eg, coverage in the media about the campaign), and many are still not even paying much attention to that.

Most importantly, people in Iowa know that they will be the first to assign delegates, and are just now starting the process of figuring out who they should support (although this is an ongoing process, and likely most voters in Iowa will not finally make up their minds until days before the caucus). But nationally, we know that the results in early states like Iowa will affect the decisions of people in later states.

Which is why national polls really are not useful for the purpose of predicting what will happen once the caucuses and primaries start. Unfortunately, reporters and other analysts often can't seem to help using national polls in that way (to try to make predictions about the results once voting actually starts).

Fred M. wrote on October 29, 2007 11:58 AM:

Hillary is an old school politician and has no desire or intention to make the meaningful changes we so desperately need. A vote for her is a vote for the status quo in Washington.

Also, even if she were elected ... which I doubt is possible ... it would unite the right and will result in four years of a poisonous partisan political climate.

Nominating Hillary would be just one more instance of the Democratic Party shooting itself in the foot ...

workaday joe wrote on October 29, 2007 12:01 PM:

I've never thought that Obama was dead and I'm really hoping he wins.

That said, I don't think Clinton is as vapid as she is coming off at the moment. She wants to win and she is playing the game that will make that happen. Once she is in office, who knows if she'll be as tenaciously centrist as she is now? But one thing is almost certain: Hillary would be supremely competent and would be surrounded by some of the most talented people in the entire country.

Obama is the hope, but those candidates can turn out to be turkeys sometimes. It's hard enough trying to just keep things going in this country. Entirely remaking its politics on top of that is a lot to ask of a person.

gcs wrote on October 29, 2007 12:04 PM:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry reading a headline like "Not Dead Yet" about Obama when nearly three months remain BEFORE A SINGLE VOTE IS EVEN CAST.

Just because every lawyer bobblehead in DC is running for president and all the brilliant, knowing news minds long ago grew tired of waiting for the Clinton/Giuliani race they see as inevitable doesn't make it so.

The blathering class that run our modern news media have forgotten their job is to REPORT what happens, not tell us what will happen, then act astonished when we don't do what they predicted we would do.

Between the two of them, I can't decide which class of overblown, self-impressed stuffed shirts sicken me more.

kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 12:05 PM:

My bet is most of the Edwards supporters would break for Obama before Clinton.

The idea Obama was ever out of the race, or that it was over before it began, is so much MSM hysteria and push polling.

Hillary always had the machine and Bill. Her goal has always been to create the impression of inevitability to avoid a hard look. Take away the false impression of inevitability, and examine her actual credentials and platform, and there's not a lot there.

Kerry was easily typecast as the flip-flopper, because he always bungled his message. I remember seeing that in him early in his campaign as he wandered around small towns trying to make an impression on the locals and usually failing miserably.

I'm equally concerned Hillary has an achilles heel Dem voters will overlook, but swing voters and Republicans certainly won't.

She'll easily be typecast as someone not her own person. A triangulation expert who produces sort of a least common denominator. Spouse of Bill with little experience of her own, Bill's adultery, lacking judgment on Iraq, other past controversies, a mixed bag of loyalties from Wellesley to Walmart, etc. None of which is particularly flattering.

That could lose important states like Ohio and Florida, again.

kozmik wrote on October 29, 2007 12:14 PM:

I'm not following how an open ended question is a "flaw" in the methodology.

It's superior in some ways, in that it elicits a more honest response for first choice without any prompting. The person must know the candidate's name at least!

Some problems with multiple choice polls is they 1) tend to favor the candidate with higher name recognition, even among unlikely voters, and 2) innately suggest politics are important and people should vote, which elicits a guild response to questions on voting past and future, which tends to inflate and distort numbers of those claiming to be likely voters.

That's one reason why the MSM claiming someone is the front runner, and sloppy polling including unlikely voters, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It also tends to favor candidates with high name recognition who may in fact be weak in the general election. Such as Kerry for example.

Jan wrote on October 29, 2007 12:26 PM:

This is getting to be very bad news for Edwards. Iowa was supposed to be his state.

dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 12:39 PM:

Anthony wrote on October 29, 2007 11:30 AM:

THe disparity betweeen the National and Iowa polls maybe the effect of preferential treatment that Hiliary is getting form the national press. Would she be tied in Iowa without the help of the National Press?

This is actually quite simple. Obama is doing well in IA because he has put all that he has got into trying to win the state (so has Edwards, but he'll be out simply because Dem voters are notorious about their aversion for "re-runs"). Obama has outspent everyone and, until recently, has had the largest staff there. For me, the big surprise is Clinton's strength in the state despite having spent and campaigned (relatively speaking) little there...

Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 12:45 PM:

Clinton has spent a good deal of money in Iowa. Stop trying to play the expectations game now that a poll calls her lead into question.

TPM, please take your own advice and stop breathlessly posting every national poll and random state general election poll. Entirely meaningless. You don't want to make the same mistakes as the MSM.

bob wrote on October 29, 2007 12:46 PM:

Anyone know when the next Iowa poll is due out???

anns wrote on October 29, 2007 12:47 PM:

The same poll also registered a big uptick for Hucklebee. I am truly terridiedby the possibility of a Giuliani-Hucklebee ticket which, I think, could defeat Clinton. I am not disparaging Senator Clinton whom I have grown to respect. I just think this is the dream ticket the Republicans will end up with if they want to win.

Martin Heldt wrote on October 29, 2007 12:49 PM:

I'm a lifelong Hawkeye and a veteran of many caucuses.

No way does Hillary come out ahead on caucus night.

low-tech cyclist wrote on October 29, 2007 1:08 PM:

I expect Obama's popularity may suffer somewhat as soon as his fans realize what Donnie McClurkin's about, and how cozy Obama is with him.

Obama's supporters tend strongly towards young and educated. Which also tends to be the most gay-friendly demographic. What we have here is a bubble that's about to burst.

destor23 wrote on October 29, 2007 1:08 PM:

Do they hate homosexuals in Iowa? Maybe that explains the Obama Bounce.

dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 1:10 PM:

Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 12:45 PM:

Clinton has spent a good deal of money in Iowa. Stop trying to play the expectations game now that a poll calls her lead into question.

Educate yourself, as there is data all over the place to show that, relatively speaking, Clinton has not invested much in IA. And, please point to a poll that has shown Clinton holding a substantial lead in IA. Finally, before you get carried away with this poll, please wait for a more "orthodox" poll to be published to confirm the results of this poll [remember the Newsweek poll that showed Obama ahead in IA only to be contradicted by every poll that came out afterwards?]. Actually, this UI poll is much better for Clinton and, yes, for Edwards than it is for Obama, if you consider the all-important "internals" for a caucus state:

1. Edwards, Clinton supporters more likely than Obama supporters to caucus: Among Democrats, Edwards and Clinton supporters are significantly more likely than Obama supporters to say they are very likely to attend their caucus. Of Edwards supporters, 62.3 percent say they are "Very Likely" to caucus, as do 60.2 percent of Clinton supporters and 48.1 percent of Obama supporters. In 2004, 46.4 percent of Obama supporters did not caucus, compared to 42 percent of Clinton supporters and only 24.5 percent of Edwards supporters. "Obama is clearly relying heavily on those who do not caucus regularly," Redlawsk said. "If we only look at caucus-goers who are almost certain to attend, we find that Edwards makes up the gap with Obama and Clinton moves clearly ahead. Women will be the key to a Clinton victory; for Obama, getting people who are less likely to caucus out the door in January will be critical."

2. Obama supporters remain most likely to change minds: As in August, the poll points to challenges for Obama. Only 32.1 percent of Obama supporters say they are not at all likely to change their mind, compared to 42.3 percent of Edwards and 52.3 percent of Clinton supporters.
"In addition to Obama's challenge of getting his supporters out to caucus, he also has supporters who appear more likely to be considering other candidates," Redlawsk said.

3. Gender and age play big role: "Obama is clearly relying heavily on those who do not caucus regularly," Redlawsk said. "If we only look at caucus-goers who are almost certain to attend, we find that Edwards makes up the gap with Obama and Clinton moves clearly ahead. Women will be the key to a Clinton victory; for Obama, getting people who are less likely to caucus out the door in January will be critical."

4. Clinton supporters not interested in Al GoreCurrent Clinton supporters are significantly less likely to support Gore, with only 8.1 percent saying they would be very likely to do so. More than 1 in 5 Edwards and Obama supporters (Edwards, 21.7 percent; Obama, 23.4 percent) say they would be very likely to support Gore.

Clinton's support in the state is more solid, followed by Edwards'. Obama would have to work hard to mobilize his supporters to actually get up and go caucus...

Cindrella Ferret wrote on October 29, 2007 1:11 PM:

Anyone know when the next Iowa poll is due out???

I am looking forward to the January 3rd poll. The one that counts. Silly me,eh?

Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 1:22 PM:

For me, the big surprise is Clinton's strength in the state despite having spent and campaigned (relatively speaking) little there...

Should be no surprise, they try and poll likely caucusers, so for example, the last Des Moines Register poll, excluded anyone who didn't participate in the 2004 caucus, and the only contemplated 18-24 as 8% of the caucus goers (which, if I recall, underreported their historic participation). She does well amongst 55+ and they have consistently been the largest and consistent participants--thus most polls overweight this particular demographic. Couple that with the MSM pushing the inevitability meme, one can see how she's leading in Iowa without putting in the same effort as Obama and Edwards.

Your comment about Obama putting everything in Iowa is wishful thinking on your part. Part of why HRC was pushing the Donnie McClurkin story so hard is because Obama is essentially in a dead heat for the African-American vote in South Carolina (internal polls are showing he has a 10-15 point lead amongst the demographic, but take with the appropriate grain of salt) and she wants/needs to blunt his efforts. Given their large portion of the voting demographic (I believe 47%, but that figure could just be Democrats), it bodes well for him. He's also pushing hard in New Hampshire and Nevada (already has 1200 precinct captains for the 1700 precincts).

No sir, his efforts are on the primary states, not just Iowa.

NDNO wrote on October 29, 2007 1:25 PM:

I wholeheartedly agree with those who think Democrats would be shooting themselves in the foot (again) with a Clinton choice. I would be very interested in a Clinton supporter explaining how in the world ANY candidate can overcome a 48-50% "never will vote for" negative among all voters. On top of that, Senators just do not make good Presidential candidates - since Kennedy, I think they are on the order of 0 and 40+. Please, please folks, let's think rationally about who is qualified (in a meaningful way) and can be elected. Once you apply those two standards, the best candidate standing is Bill Richardson.

Seth H. wrote on October 29, 2007 1:31 PM:

I can't say this with any supporting evidence beyond what I know about the people I know who support Bill Richardson, but my guess is that once Richardson's out (which should be by the end of the year, right?) most of those supporting him will defect to Obama. Richardson's supporters seem to be Obama supporters who want to avoid supporting a mainstream candidate. Same, I think, goes for Kucinich supporters (who authentically support Kucinich, but would probably vote Obama to avoid a Clinton presidency). We'll see... This gives me further optimism about Obama's run. Maybe Clinton would make a good vice-president... Just kidding.

Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 1:34 PM:

dcshungu:

That's Obama's gamble--that he can turnout the 18-24 demographic in a way no other candidate has been able to do in the past. Contrary to recent reporting, I think the January 3rd date actually helps Obama. If he has strong support amongst college students (as presently contemplated), have those students at home, rather than on campus, is a huge plus. He needs to be competitive in as many precincts as possible--winning Cedar Rapids (Univ. of Iowa) and Ames (ISU) big isn't going to help him. And just remember, 65% of Univ of Iowa and 70.5% of ISU students are from Iowa.

At the end of the day, we are where we were before this poll: this race is very tight.

Heretic wrote on October 29, 2007 1:40 PM:

I don't think Iowa, NH or SC are going to have much of an impact on voters in other states. Iowa has always been pretty close in the primary polls. It was never a lock for HRC. But it is unlikely she will quit even if she loses all three. Unlike Kerry in 04, HRC and Obama are both already well known. People looked at Kerry in 04 because they didn't really know who he was yet. Plus the media so ridiculed Dean for his scream that he was instantly anathema to many. If Obama wins in Iowa, I doubt there is a person out there who is going to say, "who is that guy? never heard of him. should probably give him a look."

I can guarantee you, having lived large parts of my life in NJ, NY, and CA, that people there are not going to flip their votes because because of the votes of a highly unrepresentative bunch of folks in the three early states. To be honest, most folks in those states don't give a crap what people in NH, IA and SC think about anything. Early victories are only useful when the candidate is an unknown property or the frontrunner stumbles (and losing those primaries is not going to be considered a stumble to most, but rather an idiosyncratic blip from demographics that are far more conservative than those in the bigger, coastal states...a lot are just irrational Hillary haters like many of you folks at TPM). Remember, winning NH didn't make McCain the nominee, did it? Finally, for those who say Hillary would lose the generals, read the state polls. She fares better against all the repigs in just about every state than Obama does.

Heretic wrote on October 29, 2007 1:53 PM:

Here is the explanation of how Hillary can wind with her high national negatives. Those numbers are skewed by the extremely large number of people in wingnut states that will never vote for her (or any Dem, making their hatred of HRC meaningless). This is balanced by the decent majorities that would vote for her in pretty much all the blue states and enough of the purple ones to coast to a nice electoral victory. Also, if you paid attention to the vote counts in the last two POTUS elections, around 50% of the country didn't vote for the Dems those times either. No, Hillary's biggest threat is that sore-loser Obama supporters will sit out the election or vote third party as so many in this forum have publicly stated in recent weeks. Its not the middle of the roaders who are going to hand the repigs the election, its gonna be a repeat of 2000 when the same whiney bunch voted for Nader. You guys really need to grow up. Personally, I can't stand Obama, but I will hold my nose and vote for him if he wins the primaries. I really hope you don't cut off your noses again this time. And, as for who ends up with the supporters of the early dropouts, that has a lot to do with who their candidate endorses. Edwards probably won't drop out in time to make a difference, and don't be shocked when Richardson throws his support to Hillary.

JR wrote on October 29, 2007 2:19 PM:

I've long held that a Hillary Clinton White House would look not unlike it does at present. This was strengthened after reading Michael Isikoff's piece last week: http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

She's running on a plank of preparedness and experience yet refusing to release proof of what she actually DID as First Lady. My question to her: If you cannot trust the American people with knowledge of your actions as First Lady, how can we trust you with the Presidency?

Never forget: The Clintons are brilliant and very well-intentioned, but what's best for them will always trump what's best for the country.

dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 2:23 PM:

Keith, Keith, Keith...

Your comment about Obama putting everything in Iowa is wishful thinking on your part.

LOL. How can wishful thinking be the campaign's own words, which had called Iowa the whole shebang?

Part of why HRC was pushing the Donnie McClurkin story so hard

Now you are getting outright ridiculous...Where is your evidence that HRC commented, much less "pushed so hard", on the McClurkin story?

.. because Obama is essentially in a dead heat for the African-American vote in South Carolina (internal polls are showing he has a 10-15 point lead amongst the demographic, but take with the appropriate grain of salt)...blah...blah...blah

Aside from the fact the whole post is a bunch of unsubstantiated suppositions and conjectures, are you now revealing to this forum that you are close enough to CampObama to be privy to their internal poll numbers? There is always a joke about one poster or another being on the payroll of a candidate they publicly supporter here, but I did not know that this was no joke! Nice to meet you, Keith, and please convey to Sen. Oboama my sincere wish to see him succeed...in 2012.

Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 2:52 PM:

dcshungu:

You are, if nothing, predictable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502421_2.html?wpisrc=newsletter

And in case you can't read, here's the relevant passage:

Last week, Clinton aides sent journalists a Huffington Post column criticizing her major Democratic rival, Barack Obama, for a planned appearance with a gospel singer who is hostile to gays. Time blogger Ana Marie Cox posted the item -- but added that Clinton had been endorsed by a minister who preaches against homosexuality. The Clinton camp quickly obtained a correction saying that the minister had praised Clinton but not endorsed her.

As for the South Carolina data, I was part of a conference call with the campaign yesterday (words come directly from David Plouffe's mouth). So, yes, I'm close enough to the campaign to pass along what their internal polls are reporting. I'm taking it with a grain of salt, but given his efforts in South Carolina, it seems reasonable and certainly given HRC's efforts to push this McClurkin story it makes it all the more likely.

Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 2:53 PM:

And I'm not on the payroll, but I am an active volunteer in his campaign.

NCSteve wrote on October 29, 2007 2:53 PM:

I've seen (and contributed to and inflamed) some pointless discussions the the TPMEC comments since I started hanging out here, but this one takes the cake.

The data from Iowa caucus polls--any of them--are about as meaningful as climate data gathered by an Exxon-funded scientist. Hell, even the exit polling of those things is only a ballpark.

Polls in states with real elections, yeah, I'll argue about those anytime, but arguing what's going to happen in Iowa on Jan. 3 on the basis of polls? Sheesh. You'll find more meaningful debates on E!

The truth is, no one knows what the hell is going to happen in Iowa and the suspense is frikkin killing us so we argue about these polls and indulge in banal "my-candidate-can-beat-up-your-candidate" arguments like this one.

dcshngu wrote on October 29, 2007 2:58 PM:

NDNO wrote on October 29, 2007 1:25 PM:

I wholeheartedly agree with those who think Democrats would be shooting themselves in the foot (again) with a Clinton choice. I would be very interested in a Clinton supporter explaining how in the world ANY candidate can overcome a 48-50% "never will vote for" negative among all voters.

Here's the answer. She will overcome that MSM canard, just like she has done so far: By letting the real voters out there see her for who she really is, and for who the MSM and wingnuts have told them she is. Clinton was trailing Rudy and McCain in most polls just a few months ago, prompting Obama's and Edwards' supporter to use that as evidence that Clinton would be unelectable. Second, we were told that Clinton was so "polarizing" and had such "high negatives" even among rank and file Dems that her poll numbers would be stuck in the low 40s. Wrong and wrong. Clinton has not only erased her deficit against the GOP candidates and is the ONLY Dem candidate that has been consistently outpolling them, but her level of support in some states has been approaching 60% in some Dem-safe states(e.g., CA and NY, where Obama and Edwards have been struggling against Rudy)!

Now let me ask you a dead serious question that few have been willing to consider, but would show why it would pure folly for the Dem to nominate Anybody But Clinton (ABC) if Rudy is the GOP nominee: How many of your truly believe that that either Obama or Edwards would be able to compete against Rudy in NYC, CT, NJ, and CA and win all of those states, or just NYC, without which no Dem can be elected POTUS? See the folly? If HRC is the nominee, the electoral vote calculus is immediately in favor of the Dems because she would easily win CA, NY, CT, NJ (in the end), and all the Dem states that Kerry had carried in 2004. Add AR to that, and Hillary has already won without needing to win IA...

That is my scenario for how Clinton would win it all; what is your scenario for an Edwards (he's now the weakest, having unilaterally disarmed by accepting public dough) or Obama win against Rudy, if they cannot ensure that they would "protect" NY, CT, NJ and CA?

Anyway you cut it, Clinton is the Dems' strongest candidate, and a little bit of intellectual honesty and back of the envelope electoral calculus would show this make plenty of sense...

dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 3:10 PM:

A great pair of posts:

Heretic wrote on October 29, 2007 1:40 PM
Heretic wrote on October 29, 2007 1:53 PM

Read them and see why lucid thinking should make you reassess your knee-jerk reactions to HRC.

She is, by far, the strongest candidate that the Dems can field in the general election, as I just argued above in my "scenario." Remember that electoral votes determine the presidency in our system, and by the criterion, I can see a plausible path from here to the White House for Clinton. It is not so easy for me to see a path from here to there for Obama or Edwards, especially if Rudy is the GOP nominee.

Michael wrote on October 29, 2007 3:21 PM:

dcshungu, your posts are really tiresome. It's the same thing, over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Why don't you post on another board for your boss? It's really boring. Also, at least keith admits who he is and in fact his posts make sense and address issues. Your posts are just repeating ad nauseum the same alleged inevitability of your boss and gross manipulation of facts. If she's inevitable, why do you waste your time? Get your tickets to the cooronation and just wait it out until January 09.

dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 3:28 PM:

Michael wrote on October 29, 2007 3:21 PM:

dcshungu, your posts are really tiresome.

So stop reading them and responding to them. But I am sure you won't because OCD won't let you...

-"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
-"So, for goodness' sake, do not do that!"

Ciao, man!

dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 3:35 PM:

Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 2:52 PM:

dcshungu:

And in case you can't read, here's the relevant passage...

Thanks for the link. It does appear that TeamClinton did contact HuffPo with their take on the Gospel-Singer-gate... I had not seen that. Evidence speaks louder than empty words!

The blogosphere is abuzz with this story yet again, since the singer's comments last night... A self-inflicted wound on Obama's part, me thinks.

kjoe wrote on October 29, 2007 3:36 PM:

DJL wrote on October 29, 2007 11:49 AM:
No, she is not invincible. But, she is authentic. She is also hardworking, smart, tenacious and funny. She does not need to run on her husband's record. Inform yourself.

Get real. Hillary's demeaning to women candidacy is based on a combination of legitimate status quo centrist support, plus people who just think it would be a good idea to elect a woman, plus a sizable percentage who think it is ok to have a woman if we have a highly qualified man at her side to supervise her.

Hillary has a bigger asterisk than Barry Bonds' home run record.

dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 4:20 PM:

Get real. Hillary's demeaning to women candidacy is based on a combination of legitimate status quo centrist support, plus people who just think it would be a good idea to elect a woman, plus a sizable percentage who think it is ok to have a woman if we have a highly qualified man at her side to supervise her.

Dear KJoe:

You lost me somewhere with your sharp logic. How exactly is Hillary demeaning to women if she has "legitimate status quo centrist support", "plus people [not Clinton herself, mind you] who just think it would be a good idea to elect a woman", "plus a sizable percentage who think it is ok to have a woman if we have a highly qualified man at her side to supervise her."

So, "people" have all of these takes on a Clinton presidency, that she might or might not even subscribe to, and this makes her demeaning to women? That just does not compute...

DTM wrote on October 29, 2007 4:20 PM:

As I have noted before, the best confirmed hypothesis in modern presidential elections is that the most likeable candidate tends to win. So far Rudy appears to be one of the two most likeable possible nominees on the GOP side, along with McCain (although it is fair to wonder whether people actually know much about Rudy's more unlikeable characteristics at this point--but it is not clear that it will make a difference either). So, Democrats should be particularly concerned about likeability of their own candidate if Rudy or McCain is the nominee.

Keith wrote on October 29, 2007 4:23 PM:

The blogosphere is abuzz with this story yet again, since the singer's comments last night... A self-inflicted wound on Obama's part, me thinks.

Methinks, HRC's campaign is pushing this new non-story to distract from this poll (it's their way). Sort of the same reason why all of sudden the methodology of this poll is all the rage--when it wasn't much of a problem in August. But I digress....

kjoe wrote on October 29, 2007 5:07 PM:

Hillary wants it both ways---she wants the votes of people who think she is making some breakthrough, and believe she is her own person separate from Bill. Characteristically, she also wants to give off the message that nothing will go wrong, because Bill will be there.

She does have a legitimate core of lobbyist-politician types who are comfortable with the notion that the 1 party system works well---leave it alone.

dcshungu wrote on October 29, 2007 6:11 PM:

Methinks, HRC's campaign is pushing this new non-story to distract from this poll (it's their way).

I am not sure exactly what you think this poll means, but it is really not such good news for Obama or bad news for Clinton. It is good news for Edwards if you stop the look at the internals (see my post earlier). His support is quite deep in IA. There is enthusiasm for Obama but it is shallow, and I wager that when it comes to caucusing, the college kids who are so enthused by him would let him down. Hillary is where she needs to be at this point in IA (they, in fact, had thought about not competing there at all), and might even with it, in which case this thing would be over before it even starts...

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)