Poll: Huge Majority Of New Hampshire Voters Think Hillary Will Win Nomination
Hillary's "inevitability" argument appears to be working -- at least in New Hampshire. A new poll out of that state finds that a surprising seventy-one percent of the state's voters are convinced Hillary will win the Dem nomination -- far more than say they actually support her.
The survey also finds that Dems are far more confident that their frontrunner will ultimately win the White House: 56% of Democrats say Hillary will win the Presidency, while only 23% of Repubs think Rudy Giuliani will. Meanwhile, the survey also has good news for Mitt Romney, finding that he has steadily strengthened his position in the all-important early primary state.
Full poll results here.
Advertisement
Totally meaningless and not worth highlighting.
November 6, 2007 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is not surprising people in NH think that, Greg, because that is what the national press until recently was trying to tell them (that Hillary was "inevitable"). Indeed, you were participating in that process yourself.
But of course the fact that most people have believed that assertion (after it was repeatedly conveyed to them by the national press) doesn't make it true.
November 6, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the pollster.com criticism:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/_yesterday_i_wrote_about.php
November 6, 2007 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
DTM:
And Rasmussen has that result up about who people would vote for in the primary.
With the usual caveats that it's Rasmussen, and, a national poll, of course--but now, when I look, I can't find it. It was Democratic voters, and more people responded that they would vote for Obama than Clinton.
But now I can't find it. In any event, I might respond that yeah, Clinton is going to win, but certainly be willing to vote another way.
November 6, 2007 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
This means that when the news media narrows it's focus to one theme about a public issue (such as the race for President)and relentlessly and literally broadcasts that message for four or five months, that people remember the message and begin to believe it is the truth. It is the same principle upon which the war with Iraq is started and which convinced a majority of Americans at one point, to believe Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11. It really is a sad commentary on our present system of political communications in this nation and is a virtually worthless nugget of information otherwise.
November 6, 2007 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls lie, but they do have the effect of self-fullfilling professy. Nice work Election Central.
November 6, 2007 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, Rasmussen has a national version of this poll available:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/39_say_clinton_very_likely_dem_nominee_11_say_obama
Interestingly, 74% say Clinton is very or somewhat likely to win the nomination, and 52% say Obama is very or somewhat likely to win. That is logically possible because more than one person can be somewhat likely to win.
November 6, 2007 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls. . . Hillary mailers. . . How about a post on this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAkGr_Rrdn0
November 6, 2007 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Jeremy
That is an awesome speech
One Year From Now
Full of hope and promise that we can have again in this country. But there will not be any coverage of that here on TPM nor the MSM, they also did not cover the event itself even though 4K folks who came out to hear it.
We are no different from a third world country today in terms of how the media completely fails us as a democracy.
I am heartened that over 20K people have listened to it. I suppose if it was not for YouTube all candidates except Hillary would be unseen and unheard.
The same goes for the rallies Obama holds with over 10-20K people there, no media coverage of those events either. I certainly think those crowds are historical. Someday a historian will look back and report on this time. Either due to our country taking the right turn or because of the failure of the media to respond to the electorate and that results in america plunging off a cliff.
I do not beleive there has ever been a Presidential candidate with these types of crowds. EVER.
Obama had 10K people come out in Iowa City, IA.
Imagine.
10K
Hillary can barely muster 1K.
November 6, 2007 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a horserace poll. In the poll a lot of voters will not vote for Hillary.
November 6, 2007 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble with inevitability campaigns is that the candidate's election is inevitable until it isn't
Then like the Empress Who Had No Clothes, everything falls apart
Girlfriend's having a bad month
November 6, 2007 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite the noise emanating from the msm echo chamber, the dynamics of this race have not changed very much, largely because voters who have been supporting Hillary have been doing iso in spite of the noise. They'd heard it all about her before, so nothing really would surprise them.
Pollster.com has now included the latest polls in their aggregation, and what appears to have emerged is that Obama has stopped his downward slide, while Hillary's trends remain virtually unchanged. Trend-wise, it looks like Edwards and Richardson are going down. Could there be a defection of their support to Obama? The numbers do not suggest it, but graphically and trend-wise, it would seem so, as HRC's curve is still point upward. So what we seem to have is HRC looking up, Obama flattening, and Edwards and Richardson diving. We might also want to look at the undecided voters for a clearer picture of the flux in support, i.e. who is gaining support and who is loosing it and at whose benefit...
Here's HRC's lead v. Obama in the last 3 polls:
Post/ABC: 23%
CNN: 19%
Newsweek: 20%
for a mean of 20.6%, basically where this race has been for at least a month...
Someone had wondered whether some event had taken place that had caused three out of 16+ national polls to report a lead of ~30% for HRC at about the same time. I cannot think of any, but it appears to have been an anomaly...
November 6, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Attention! Achtung!
Important Announcement from TPM ElectHillaryCentral
Hillary Clinton wins 98%...
BUSH
CLINTON
BUSH
CLINTON
Welcome to the Banana States of America
November 6, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
First they Tried to Run on Her Record
1. Sponsor Great Health Care Debacle 1993
2. First Madame Lincoln Bedroom 1992-2001
3. Co-Sponsor Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History 2002-2006 (do over year)
Now they're running on her poll numbers
November 6, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And some stil wonder how CheneyBushHillary herded us into Hell in Mesopotamia
November 6, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad
Now Sgt Kleefeld is running ElectHillaryCentral on polls about polls
Beyond double talk
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6194684901506464758&q=politics+of+parsing&total=12&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Parse on
November 6, 2007 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heckuva Job Hillary
We now return you to TPM ElectHillaryCentral's coverage of polls about polls
November 6, 2007 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Offered without commentary except to note the discrepancy between her 30% lead in the poll and her 9% drop in support in "interviews" following the debate and the echo chamber noise. That sums up Clinton for you: People are willing to cast their for her despite being worried about her "high negatives" when asked about them in "interviews." Her negatives having been driven as high as they can go, no longer phase those who already support her...or even those without an opinion. At some point people become calloused....
November 6, 2007 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is actually impossible to tell from pollster's current graph exactly how recent polls have affected the trend lines. That is because the entire trend line is revised in light of new polling (this is unlike the realclearpolitics graph, which simply tracks the average at any given point in time, and hence new polls do not change the past results).
So, for example, it is true that the trend line for Clinton remains upward sloping. But, the steepness and end point of that slope could have (and probably did) change in light of the recent polls.
By the way, dcshungu appears to be claiming that a 20.6% average lead "is basically where this race has been for at least a month..." As we documented ad nauseum in a prior thread, that is incorrect. Whether one looks at pollster's regression analysis, a simple average of the lead in the October polls, or the peak lead in the realclearpolitics tracking average during October, one will find a higher number than 20.6%
In fact, realclearpolitics provides the closest apples-to-apples comparison if we want to look at something like the average of recent polls, since that is their methodology (tracking the average of recent polls). Clinton's peak lead in October at RCP was about 27 points. In their latest average, it was down to 21.
So, 20.6% is consistent only with the average of the most recent polls (meaning it is consistent only with itself). If you instead look back to what the polls were indicating in mid-late October, 20.6% represents a decrease in the lead.
On the other hand, that is only true for October--it is also true that something like a 20.6% average lead is basically right back to where things stood at the end of September. Again, what is misleading about dcshungu's claim is the attempt to ignore the fact that during mid-late October, Clinton had a higher average lead than at the end of September, and a higher average lead than now.
November 6, 2007 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
dcshungu,
"Interviews" is just the term for the process of conducting the poll. See here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/RCP_PDF/Marist071106.pdf
"This survey was conducted October 29th through November 1st, 2007. 1,102 adults 18 years of age or older within the continental United States were interviewed by telephone."
By the way, I am not surprised you did not comment further. Marist compared their poll results in the two days before the debate to the two days after the debate and found that Clinton's lead dropped by 11 points from the first sample to the second sample (it was 36 in the first sample, 25 in the second sample, hence the overall 31 point lead for the entire four day sample). That does not exactly fit with your "nothing has changed" talking point.
That said, of course this is just one poll, and other tracking polls did not see such an immediate effect from the debate. Indeed, the apparent decrease in the lead that I was noting before appears to have started before the debates.
November 6, 2007 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone must have forgotten to tell them out there in CA that Clinton was "creamed" in the last debate and is supposed to be losing support...
Changes in election dynamics? Which changes?
November 6, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
dcshungu,
Next time you should probably click through to the actual survey. Here is commentary from SurveyUSA on that California poll:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5b6c9b07-4247-432e-ae34-4ff8c07cd0f8
"Drexel Democrat Debate Allows Obama To Recover Some Ground Against Hillary, But He's Still down 28 Points: The Democratic debate on 10/30/07, in which some saw a possible crack in Hillary Clinton's armor, results in Clinton's staggering 37-point lead last month shrinking to 28 points today, with Obama up 5 points from 20% to 25%, and Clinton down 4 points, from 57% to 53%."
November 6, 2007 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dissembling to Total Madness....
Below is the picture (worth a thousand dumb words) in CA according to SUSA, ladies and gents, including any post-debate polls (scroll down to the graph in the middle column)....
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/state-polls/california-presidential-polls.html
and the aggregate is here
http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Any questions?
November 6, 2007 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
You be the judge....
SUSA Survey for CA:
Date Clinton-Obama
11/04 53%-25%
10/14 57%-20%
09/09 51%-27%
08/05 51%-27%
07/01 49%-24%
This race is exactly where it has always been, the clearly anomalous jump for her in October, notwithstanding. She is exactly where she was 2 months ago.
Gotta. Please carrying on with the pontificating.
November 6, 2007 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
dcshungu,
Right, Clinton's current poll numbers are basically back to where they were in September. Which means they are lower than where they got in mid-late October. But I guess you are now declaring that the entire month of October was an "anomaly". I'm just not sure that anyone is going to buy that we should just ignore an entire month's worth of polling.
By the way, I would note two additional things:
1) Didn't you vow to ignore me for ever and ever? I wouldn't mind if you wanted to--seriously.
2) You really do need to relax. So what if Clinton gained some ground in the October polls which she has since lost? She is still doing fine, and your attempts to deny even the possibility that she could ever lose ground in the polls just makes it sound like that would be a terrible event for her.
In fact, the current trends in the polls really do not mean much this far out from the actual voting. So all you are doing with these contortions is setting your candidate up for an unnecessary fall.
November 6, 2007 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This poll is even less interesting than most. It's not 'who do you want to win?' it's 'who do you think will win?' Polls on matters of fact extra useless.
November 6, 2007 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid and dissembling to madness comes mind....
November 6, 2007 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
dcshungu,
Was that supposed to be an English sentence? Maybe it was beat poetry?
November 6, 2007 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there a memo that forbids the mention of the only liberal candidate, Kucinich? Even when he brings impeachment to the floor of the house?
November 7, 2007 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
A link to an AP and a Washington Post story, how sweet. There's no comments allowed though. That must bring Kucinich's coverage up to about 1%. I guess TPM is just enemy territory. Back to Clinton and the Conservatives.
November 7, 2007 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink