Poll: Obama Edges Hillary In New Hampshire, Romney Still Way Ahead
The new Research 2000 poll has some bad news for Hillary Clinton and good news for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. On the Democratic side, Obama now has a one-point lead, with 32% to Hillary's 31%, followed by John Edwards at 18%. It's not a statistically significant lead, but it's definitely big news when you consider that Hillary used to have an enormous edge here.
They key point here: Among registered Democrats, Hillary actually leads with 36%, with 27% for Obama and 21% for Edwards. But among independents who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary, Obama has 40%, Hillary 23% and Edwards 13%. So this primary could well hinge on how much of the electorate is made of core Democrats versus independent voters.
On the Republican side, Romney can still count on the state as a firewall against a loss in Iowa — he leads with 31%, with Rudy Giuliani at 18% and John McCain with 17%. Mike Huckabee hasn't caught on here, either, with only 9% support.
Comments (64)
Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 10:17 AM:Oh, oh. I guess its time to whip out the comment from obama's pre-school teacher to stop the slide. Maybe that will work.
Jeremy wrote on December 14, 2007 10:25 AM:Core Democrats need to wake up and seize the opportunity to nominate the candidate with the stronger progressive track record who also happens to be better liked by independents.
John McCutchen wrote on December 14, 2007 10:32 AM:California Democrats will get just that wake up call!
February 5 "decline to states" can vote in the Demo primary without re-registration but not in the republican
John McCutchen wrote on December 14, 2007 10:33 AM:Since the Philadelphia debate, Clinton hasn't had very many good hair days. Count em on 1 hand
The Inevitability Bums Rush we endured in October came and went. The Inevitable is no more.
Now she has to campaign and it isn't pretty is it?
Fair question - at this rate, how long before the wheels come off that old bus?
These recent NH polls lead to the very interesting possibility that Clinton could win Iowa and then Obama could win NH (in part thanks to independent support), and maybe then win SC too.
And if that happens, we could be in for a very long contest, one which might remain undecided after Super Tuesday, and perhaps even until the convention.
John McCutchen wrote on December 14, 2007 10:37 AM:DTM..I've been looking for the possibility of an open convention since last spring. I agree. The possibility increases with each passing day of the Clinton Collapse
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 10:47 AM:John,
I think there are a lot of other ways that could happen as well.
Just to give one example, I think it is entirely possible that a different "experience" candidate could emerge from Iowa and NH with momentum (e.g., by finishing a close fourth in Iowa then perhaps a close third in NH). If that happens, eventually that person could start picking up a lot of delegates, even if two other people are slugging it out, leading to no one having the delegates to win the nomination outright.
I'd suggest Biden or Richardson are probably the best bets to play this role, but Dodd could be that person too. Indeed, the general point is that the Democrats have a very strong field with no fewer than six viable candidates, and that means a lot is possible once the process begins.
savvy wrote on December 14, 2007 10:48 AM:If the ground organization that Obama has is as great as stated and he gets the young voters from 18-24 to the polls in unprecedented numbers, we can view these polls as being extremely conservative when projecting Obama's lead.
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 10:49 AM:Jeremy wrote on December 14, 2007 10:25 AM:
Core Democrats need to wake up and seize the opportunity to nominate the candidate with the stronger progressive track record who also happens to be better liked by independents.
--- Track records, I thought the man is proud of his inexperience. Wasn't he born with superb judgement? gimme a break!
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 10:53 AM:Jeremy wrote on December 14, 2007 10:25 AM:
Core Democrats need to wake up and seize the opportunity to nominate the candidate with the stronger progressive track record who also happens to be better liked by independents.
--- Track records? I thought the man is proud of his inexperience. Wasn't he born with superb judgement? gimme a break!
By the way, what's the point to tout this poll? Have you Obama-sucking contributors been posting another poll showing Obama ahead by 3% for how many days now?
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 14, 2007 10:59 AM:Watching Hard Ball yesterday, I finally realized one of Hillary's problems: Mark Penn. She should ban this guy as spokesman. There he was, a very privileged, very plump white guy, in his fancy suit, effete silk tie and $400 haircut, smirking as he prattled away about an upstanding black man and cocaine. If it made this white lady want to throw a brick at my television imagine how a black South Carolinian felt. This guy is bad news.
Ni Daye,
As I have noted before, when the polls are this close, particularly in a multi-way contest, we should expect minor random variations, which in turn will cause lead changes. So, these couple recent polls showing Obama with a slight lead are not meaningfully distinct from the couple recent polls showing Clinton with a slight lead. Indeed, in the RCP average, Clinton has a 1.4 point lead in NH (as I write this).
Of course, the trends are a different matter. Overall Obama is in what appears to be an accelerating upward trend, and Clinton is in a steady downward trend. Of course trends can change very quickly, but that is a large part of why I suggested it now looks possible that Clinton could win Iowa and Obama could still then win NH--by that time he might actually have enough of a lead in NH to hold off any momentum effects. Plus, NH does not react in a predictable way to Iowa in any event.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 14, 2007 11:12 AM:To know Clinton is to be underwhelmed by Clinton.
AND given that New Hampshire is voicing supporting the lying sack of shit Romney . . . Perhaps we all should give Obama a second critical look.
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 11:28 AM:AlwaysTipTheWaitress-
Or always trip the waitress? an upstanding blackman? Yea, a black man who admitted he used cocaine in his youthful years. You don't want other people to talk about does not mean it will not. You really think the GOPers will not ask him where and how he obtained his cocaine. Was he involved in giving his cocaine to anyone else, not necessarily deal to anyone else? If you think by shutting down a Clinton campaign official, you have shut the issue down, you are more than naive.
by the way, is it a black man after all. this man was born a mix of a white woman and an African, not even an African American. He grew up in a white family and was taken to live in Indonesia but did he spent a single day growing up in any community? Bill Clinton is more a black man than Obama because he grew up among the blacks. skin color says nothing, just look at Justice Thomas.
Talking about media. clinton people should tell the meda to go hell. All the media people are now shilling for Obama because they are the media narrative these days. You watched Hardball so you know how much Mathews hates the clintons. tim russert has hit Mrs. Clinto twice under the belly already. they should complain loudly that the media are out to get them. they should take the campaign to the people, to us, directly through advertising, through small-group meeting.
there are two huge endorsements that are up for grab. Tom Harkin and Ted Kennedy will endorse clinton. Do you think they believe experience does not count?
frankly0 wrote on December 14, 2007 11:29 AM:I've found the dynamic over Obama's former use of cocaine to be interesting.
While it certainly did not seem to do Hillary anything good to have her campaign chair in NH be the one bring it up, I wonder if her campaign isn't making the best of a possibly unfavorable deal by apologizing so loudly and so often over it.
I suspect that very few voters knew about this fact in Obama's personal history, and the attention it's received is going to make many of the aware of it.
The problem for Obama is that, any way you slice it, it's only a negative for him. Only his mother and his supporters can spin it into a positive. (It's kind of funny to see how some of the same people who were ridiculing Bush as a "cokehead" (even if only presumed, not established) now suddenly seem to find themselves thinking of cocaine use as just the sort of experience an upstanding citizen should engage in as part of his process of maturation).
Now maybe Obama's cocaine use won't be an issue in the Democratic primaries, because Democrats tend to be more tolerant of such things. But it's genuinely hard not to believe it will affect him in the general. I don't see Mom and Pop Sixpack, who have done everything they can to warn off their progeny from drug use, as being so cool and sophisticated about it.
It's going to be interesting to see how all this is going to play out. I've always had the strong feeling that this cocaine issue was eventually going to bite Obama in the ass.
The issue, as it has been brought up, may affect negatively both Obama (because he used cocaine) and Hillary (because her campaign raised the issue). I wonder if the real beneficiary here might not be Edwards.
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 11:29 AM:AlwaysTipTheWaitress-
Or always trip the waitress? an upstanding blackman? Yea, a black man who admitted he used cocaine in his youthful years. You don't want other people to talk about does not mean it will not. You really think the GOPers will not ask him where and how he obtained his cocaine. Was he involved in giving his cocaine to anyone else, not necessarily deal to anyone else? If you think by shutting down a Clinton campaign official, you have shut the issue down, you are more than naive.
by the way, is it a black man after all. this man was born a mix of a white woman and an African, not even an African American. He grew up in a white family and was taken to live in Indonesia but did he spent a single day growing up in any community? Bill Clinton is more a black man than Obama because he grew up among the blacks. skin color says nothing, just look at Justice Thomas.
Talking about media. clinton people should tell the meda to go hell. All the media people are now shilling for Obama because they are the media narrative these days. You watched Hardball so you know how much Mathews hates the clintons. tim russert has hit Mrs. Clinto twice under the belly already. they should complain loudly that the media are out to get them. they should take the campaign to the people, to us, directly through advertising, through small-group meeting.
there are two huge endorsements that are up for grab. Tom Harkin and Ted Kennedy will endorse clinton. Do you think they believe experience does not count?
gqmartinez wrote on December 14, 2007 11:32 AM:Interesting. If you look at Hillary's support before the slide, she was about 36% and Obama was about 25%. Taking out independents, Obama has not surged and Clinton has not fallen at all.
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 11:34 AM:AlwaysTipTheWaitress -
Hey, chris mathews said on Hardball that Michelle Obama is a young attractive woman? do you agree? It is that only me? I thought her face is a bit oversized and she looks really old, old enough to be mistaken as Obama's mother. by the way, she has a really big mouth! Correct me if you disagree. Thx
dajafi wrote on December 14, 2007 11:34 AM:Note here the classic Clinton tactic: Make It About Our Enemies
But Obama isn't Newt Gingrich, and it's not going to work this time. Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation has nowhere left to hide, and her erstwhile media enablers--well, other than Kleefeld--have turned on her. Stripped of her Inevitable trimmings, Clinton is revealed as a shrill, polarizing tribune of entrenched Beltway interests.
Vote change. Vote hope. Vote Obama.
ourstorian wrote on December 14, 2007 11:40 AM:Ni Daye
I'm amazed how you have managed to cram so much hateful and ignorant rhetoric into a few paragraphs. Bill Clinton is more black than Barack Obama? Michele Obama has a really big mouth? Tell me, how is it you manage to write at all with you head shoved so far up your a-hole?
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 11:45 AM:ourstorian-
Don't write hateful words about me! if you disagree and have a brain, refute my comments instead.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 14, 2007 11:45 AM:You guys missed the point or I was not clear. First, Mark Penn is a horrible apokesman. Iowans, most New Hampshirites and middle class democrats like me look askance at pretentious, smirking fops. Penn looked ridiculous, like he should be lunching at some fancy DC restaurant.
Patti Solis is far realer. I would put her in front of the camera. As for the comment about Afican Americans, tune into News and Notes or any of the other major African American news oulets. If you don't get the seismic effect of the Shaheen/Penn comments in the black community, I am stunned.
Gettin' testy in here again.
$uperfly wrote on December 14, 2007 11:49 AM:Ni Daye -
You are irrelevant. Attacking as you have, demonstrates an innate need to be heard and more importantly to feel as if you are in control.
Obviously, you are neither in the real world, thus you over compensate in the virtual world.
It's classic, weak-minded, and simply sad.
Have a nice day.
savvy wrote on December 14, 2007 11:52 AM:Tip writes:
If it made this white lady want to throw a brick at my television imagine how a black South Carolinian felt. This guy is bad news.
O it is far worse, than that. He made blacks ALL ACROSS America pissed and outraged with his combover eyesore head and supercilious demeanor.
$uperfly -
You are attacking me now? Can you take time to refute my underline points? Are you, NCSteve, and anounymous all pseudo names for Obama? If you are too weak to refute other people's points, just go to your bed and cry. Don't put hateful words against fellow viewers of this site.
Desider wrote on December 14, 2007 11:55 AM:John McCutcheon,
You're truly an optimist, aren't you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DPM2008_12_12.png
savvy wrote on December 14, 2007 11:52 AM:
Tip writes:
---- You guys are something. You are the one who instantly connect cocaine use to black community. How sad!!!
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 11:58 AM:frankly0,
As usual, you are overlooking quite a bit in your speculation about Mom and Pop Sixpack.
Specifically, Obama describes this as a case in which he was making mistakes as a teenager, but he learned from those mistakes and put them behind him. Of course, the rest of the story is that he got a great education and became a national leader. That is a classic redemption story, and Mom and Pop Sixpack really like redemption stories.
That is why even though this is all in his book and available for anyone who cares to use it, no one who has tried to use it has ever been able to make this line of attack work. It just goes against the American love of redemption.
Michael wrote on December 14, 2007 12:00 PM:Disgusting. I see Clinton supporters are following the lead of Clinton herself and her surrogates.
Here's a newsflash, dickheads:
"Innocently" wondering aloud if "other" people will make an issue of his past drug issues, if "other" people will try to unfairly paint him as a drug deal, is making an issue of his past drug use and painting him as a drug dealer.
You're disgusting people and ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Ni Daye, adding the ridiculous sentiment that Obama, who has family currently living in Africa and who's father was born, raised, and died in Africa, is somehow not African-American, is absurd and offensive. The suggestion that Bill is somehow more authentically black because he plays the sax, grew up around some black people, and slept with some black women, is offensive.
I guess if you are who you grew up around, you must've grown up around some real assholes, huh?
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 12:02 PM:DTM wrote --
How do you like the redemption story of George W. Bush?
People have argued for sometime that the experience of cheney and rumsfeld has not helped bush made good decisions. Just forget a simple point: Bush was swayed by rumsfeld and cheney because he did not have enough experience himself. the rightwing people are against meier to supreme court because they fear she would be easily swayable.
$uperfly wrote on December 14, 2007 12:03 PM:Ni Daye -
Hateful words? Simply observation.
The truth of the matter is, the manner in which you operate obfuscates any message in which you intend to deliver.
You create a tapestry of what you believe are vaild "points" that is mixed with negativity and innuendo.
While you weave your argument, you then play the victim card when someone calls you on your method.
Again - this is classic behavior of someone with an innate need to be "heard" as well as be in control - that overwhelmingly suggests the opposite is true in other environments.
You make yourself irrelevant based upon your tact, or lack thereof.
savvy wrote on December 14, 2007 12:03 PM:NiDaye writes:
by the way, is it a black man after all. this man was born a mix of a white woman and an African, not even an African American.
Are you crazy? Just what the heck do you think African stands for in the term AFRICAN American?
ND goes on to say:
He grew up in a white family and was taken to live in Indonesia but did he spent a single day growing up in any community? Bill Clinton is more a black man than Obama because he grew up among the blacks. skin color says nothing, just look at Justice Thomas.
No WJClinton is not.
WJClinton can hail a cab in Manhattan, he can ride around with his boys in the suburbs and never get stopped for driving while black and no one will ever accuse him of selling drugs simply because he acknowledges using them. It is called white privledge in America.
Obama despite all his achievements and political success does not get the same benefit of the doubt. As he said, he can't hail a cab in Manhattan, he can't drive down the street in the suburbs without being stopped and he is now alleged to be a drug dealer simply because he acknowledge having used drugs in the past.
Bill Clinton might know about black culture but he has not ever experienced one day in America as a black male.
Having your heart in the right place despite skin tone is not the same as having your heart crushed due to skin tone.
So get it straight.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 12:04 PM:gqmartinez,
Where are your 36-25 "before the slide" numbers coming from? And are you also backing independents out of those "before the slide" numbers?
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 12:06 PM:By the way, the "Obama isn't black enough" line of attack is REALLY old. It goes way back to the beginning of his political career, in fact.
tango belle wrote on December 14, 2007 12:09 PM:
Yesterday, I called both Hillary Clinton's Senate and campaign offices reeling over the disgusting tactics she and her handlers are using to discredit and derail Senator Barack Obama's candidacy. Let us not forget she is still represents New York as a Senator and these reprehensible attacks on Obama reflect badly on all her constituents as well. Frankly, I find it embarrassing to see my representative, for whom I twice voted, engage in these kind of shenanigans. It shows the desperation of the Clinton camp...things slipping out of their control. I voted for the Clintons four times. No more.
If there is an aura of inevitability,of destiny, of "the right person at the right time" this aura envelops Obama and not Hillary.
Ni Daye,
Personally, I never had a problem with Bush's past drug use. But the more relevant point is that neither did most Americans. Again, they like the redemption story, which has nothing in particular to do with political ideology.
As for the dynamic between Bush and his foreign policy team, I agree it has been very unfortunate. I think that has little to do with his experience in foreign policy specifically, however, but rather is much more basic to his way of making decisions. Indeed, that unfortunate dynamic has hardly been limited to foreign policy issues.
In any event, Obama is far more experienced in foreign policy matters than Bush was in 2000.
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 12:13 PM:savvy ---
No WJClinton is not.
WJClinton can hail a cab in Manhattan, he can ride around with his boys in the suburbs and never get stopped for driving while black and no one will ever accuse him of selling drugs simply because he acknowledges using them. It is called white privledge in America.
By belittling WJC, you exposed you are just as hateful of the clintons as the right wing nuts. there are lunatics on both extremes of the political spectrum. A campaign cannot be driven by hateful people like you.
You should get a life!
Ni Daye wrote on December 14, 2007 12:16 PM:For all you righteous people complaining about Bill Sheehen's off-color comments, where were you when Obama continued his bus-tour with that hateful anti-gay minister? did you demand his removal?
Liam wrote on December 14, 2007 12:22 PM:Senator Obama was born to a White American Mom.
How does that make him only a black candidate?. He is a distant cousin of Dick Cheney.
Stop all the false race baiting.
Iowa folks. Iowa.
What the polls do not measure.
Who will actually show up to caucus, and more important; who is going to get the second choice votes, once other candidates do not reach the 15% support level at certain caucus locations.
Those votes have to pick a second choice to support.
Which of the top tier candidates is most likely to be the second choice of the also ran supporters.
That is the real Elephant in the room.
dcshungu wrote on December 14, 2007 12:25 PM:December 10, 2007 (Oprah effect a fluke?):
A new poll from Republican firm InsiderAdvantage shows Barack Obama leading the Democratic field in South Carolina with 28% support. Hillary Clinton has 22%, John Edwards 14%, and Joe Biden 10%.
December 14, 2007 (no Oprah effect?):
The new CNN poll in South Carolina shows Mike Huckabee leading in the Republican primary with 24% supporter, followed by Fred Thompson at 17%, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney at 16% each, and John McCain with 13%.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton leads with 42%, with Barack Obama at 34% and John Edwards at 16%.
The question is: Which poll to believe? The answer is on the right hand side of your browser: The aggregate polls compiled by pollster.com and posted here for your convenience by TPM-EC.
The Big Picture in the early states:
Three-way tie in IA. Clinton still leading in NH, SC, NV but Obama surging everywhere.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 10:34 AM:These recent NH polls lead to the very interesting possibility that Clinton could win Iowa and then Obama could win NH (in part thanks to independent support), and maybe then win SC too.
I understand that you are giddy at the moment but I am sure that your fantastic scenario is not one that Obama's people are wishing for or even dare to contemplate. Clinton cannot be "allowed" to win IA. Should that happen, she'd win everything after that and it would be over before it even starts. Be giddy, but also keep the Big Picture in mind. Last week Obama was "leading" in SC, today Clinton is back on top...
Under-estimate Hillary's real strength at your own peril. She remains the candidate to beat...
gqmartinez wrote on December 14, 2007 12:34 PM:DTM, The numbers were from the running average at pollster.com pre- and post-slide. Turnout models for independents will vary the most since they are fickle and less committed than partisans. Not that Obama isn't winning there--I think its silly to think otherwise when you include "independents"--but to say that Hillary is in a slide among Democrats is somewhat misleading.
I'll happily admit that Obama is having an apparent surge in support from non-Democrats. I'm not quite convinced that Hillary is losing much support, however, within the Democratic Party.
BTW, something some schmoe says in a blog comment is not representative of a campaign or a movement. It's absurd when O'Reilley uses blog comments to trash Democrats. It's equally absurd to trash a campaign based on anonymous blog comments.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 12:36 PM:dcshungu,
As an aside, as I noted in the thread actually discussing the CNN SC poll, Clinton has lost 1 point and Obama has gained 7 since the last CNN poll. Of course we do not know if that is an "Oprah effect," but it is not inconsistent with such an effect. In general, I honestly would have thought you would know better than to use polls taken by different companies to make such an argument.
Anyway, as I have noted before, I think all the leading Democratic candidates would very much prefer to win Iowa, for good reason. But I also think it is clear at this point that Iowa is not as much a do-or-die situation as many were assuming back when it was the only close state.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 12:45 PM:gqmartinez,
Just FYI, pollster does not do a running average. Rather, they fit a regression to the data, and that means the historical track can actually change in light of new polls.
Anyway, I agree if one wants to claim Clinton is losing support in NH among registered Democrats specifically, one has to back the independents out of the numbers. Of course, you have to make sure to do that consistently, and my point was that independents were also included in the older polls.
Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone keeping track of only registered Democrats in NH, and I couldn't find a breakout of independents and registered Democrats from the last Research2000 NH poll taken back in July. If you are really interested in the question, though, I know some of the other polls have been consistently breaking out the independents, and you could try to pull that information together.
dcshungu wrote on December 14, 2007 12:46 PM:Anyway, as I have noted before, I think all the leading Democratic candidates would very much prefer to win Iowa, for good reason. But I also think it is clear at this point that Iowa is not as much a do-or-die situation as many were assuming back when it was the only close state.
You are still looking at the small picture...
It still is a do or die situation for Edwards, and to a slightly lesser extent for Obama, simply because he has the dough to go the distance. But if Clinton wins IA, the "inevitable" will just become inevitable sooner. Clinton must be fatally wounded coming out of the early states if anyone else is to have a chance...No other scenario would work for the opposition.
That is a classic redemption story, and Mom and Pop Sixpack really like redemption stories.
Personally, I don't think that Mom and Pop Sixpack particularly like for people like you to pee on their legs and tell them its raining, you know?
That is why even though this is all in his book and available for anyone who cares to use it, no one who has tried to use it has ever been able to make this line of attack work.
Look, Obama has hardly been tested on the national stage has he? He was elected State Senator in Illinois for one of the most liberal districts in America. He then won the Democratic nomination for US Senate in Illinois -- the bluest state in the midwest -- so was not really tested there. Finally, the Republican he ran against for the US Senate was as poor a candidate as Obama might ever hope for.
So, again, he has not been tested in a context in which his cocaine use might be a real issue.
I can hardly claim to know how much his cocaine use will hurt him, but I simply can't imagine that simply chalking it up to a "story of redemption" is going to capture its real effect on the larger voting public.
Again, think of how many Democrats made a big deal out of Bush's being a "cokehead". Why the sudden and convenient change of tune on this issue?
And the fact is that Bush's case was, from the stand point of the public, quite different: his cocaine use was always only speculated, never proved. For Obama it's a certainty. So long as Bush's use was only speculated, he could not be used as a "model" for kids who might want to justify their own drug use to their parents. It's precisely because of how much political damage it would have inflicted on Bush that he was so very careful never to acknowledge that he used cocaine.
And, I have to say, I don't just don't get why it's a vicious and unfair thing to bring up Obama's cocaine use. Why should we not see that as indicating, say, a desperate need to be accepted, or to run from himself, even if it was when he was young? Isn't that what people tell kids who are considering using drugs as being the kind of highly undesirable motivation that lies behind drug use?
Now I understand that it's a bad thing for a campaign to bring up such a fact about another candidate, because it reflects negative campaigning, a bad thing unto itself.
But, look, cocaine use is also a very bad thing in and of itself. Only, again, your mother or a blind supporter might see your use of it as a good thing.
Again, Obama used cocaine. Why is it unfair to attack him on that point? Why is this not a personal failing? If it weren't, why did so many Democrats (albeit not Democratic politicians) attack Bush on precisely this point?
I can see why Hillary's campaign might suffer from this attack, because she's perceived as going negative. But I don't see the fact of Obama's cocaine use as being anything but a distinct negative in the general -- and it may even damage him in the Democratic nomination process.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 12:58 PM:dcshungu,
Interestingly, not too long ago you were pointing out that the winner of Iowa does not inevitably become the nominee. But now apparently you do believe that is true--but only if the winner is Clinton.
Anyway, while I wouldn't say anything is "inevitable" (and one would think at this point that people would have learned better), I agree that if anyone wins both Iowa and NH, they will likely be very hard to stop. The only exception might be a Muskie-McGovern situation, the basic idea being that a person can finish second in Iowa and then a closer second in NH and turn that into the momentum they need to win the nomination.
dcshungu wrote on December 14, 2007 1:13 PM:DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 12:58 PM:dcshungu,
Interestingly, not too long ago you were pointing out that the winner of Iowa does not inevitably become the nominee. But now apparently you do believe that is true--but only if the winner is Clinton.
Sure, but you are still not looking at the big picture. I have also consistently said that if Clinton wins IA it would be over. Those things are consistent: Clinton is driving this race because of her strength outside of the early states. She is the only one who could survive even if she loses the early states. No one else could. Because everyone else depends so mucn on IA, they could not afford to lose it to Clinton, again because she is so strong elsewhere.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 1:18 PM:frankly0,
That is a colorful image, but it does not seem applicable, because it really is a redemption story: Obama stopped doing drugs, went on to Columbia and then Harvard Law School, and eventually became a U.S. Senator (after, by the way, disclosing all this in a popular book). So no one is trying to fool our Mr. and Mrs. SixPack: that story is very much the truth.
Now it is true that the political significance of Obama's story has not been tested in the general election, but rather only in the primaries. But conversely, I see no reason to expect that story to suddenly stop working. And of course it would be a bit absurd to claim he should not be given a chance at the nomination simply because he has never been nominated before and therefore hasn't proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that in the general election these attacks won't work. Indeed, there is only one possible Democrat in the position to make use of that sort of argument, and the Constitution forbids Bill Clinton from running again.
As for Bush, this of course is what people are trying to do: attack Obama for his candor, because the actual substance is unlikely to work. As Romney and now Clinton have found out, however, attacking someone for being too candid does not seem to go over well with voters.
In the end, I still think you are missing the bigger picture because you are isolating the mere fact that Obama tried cocaine as a teenager. Of course when that fact is viewed in isolation, it is a negative. But when that fact is placed in the context of a redemption story, and also placed in the context of Obama's relative candor, it appears to be a negative without significance.
But still, if you are going to keep asserting that it will hurt him in some signficant way until he proves otherwise in the general election for President, then I guess that he will only be able to convince you if he does in fact get the nomination and prove otherwise. Again, though, there are no Democrats running who are in any better position when it comes to proving what they can do in a general election for President.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 1:20 PM:dcshungu,
Trust me, I understand the sort of consistency which lies behind your commentary.
AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 14, 2007 1:21 PM:Onw last comment on the politics of personal destruction. I am beginning to wonder why some people here are so dense (I apologize for a bad word. I just couldn't think of a better word) about the implications of banding about the drug charge against Obama by the Clintonistas. Of course the Republicans will bring it up. That's not the point. The fact is that Clinton is playing with fire in alienating core parts of the democratic consituency that we all need in November. One bad reason why I had some trouble originally voting for Senator Clinton in 2000 (I did) was I did not like the way she enabled her husband to indulge in certain behavior throughout his career. I obviously got over it (she won me over)and repect her choice to maintain her marriage and establish a stellar career. You bet the Republicans are going to hurl this stuff at her, most likely in the form of questions about sexual harassment in the workplace. I would be disgusted, however, if Obama or Edwards started attacking her for this stuff that happened years ago. the point is there is no reason for anyone to go nuclear, especially fancy pants pollsters who should know better.
savvy wrote on December 14, 2007 1:26 PM:Franklyo
Dems brought up GWBush's coke use primarily due to his gross incompetence and imperialism and cowboy mentality. Had he run the Presidency with the dignity, excellence and judiciousness it deserves. I doubt that his coke use would have been an issue.
Michael A wrote on December 14, 2007 1:43 PM:Alwaystipthewaitress, you are on target. What is funny is that clinton II is doing obama and dems a favor by doing this. I know that sounds twisted, but she is.
First, she is getting the issue out in public discourse, so it won't be a "surprise" later, like obama is by addressing it in speeches and by writing about it in his book. People are getting desensitized to the issue. When it is brought up in the future by republicans, it will be like so what, big deal, been there done that.
Also, she is showing her true petty and vindictive colors to dems. These attacks are truly pathetic, just like kindergate. If this is all the vaunted clinton II attack machine has, obama shouldn't have a problem. Also, this silliness will hopefully be one of many factors that derails her coronation.
votenic wrote on December 14, 2007 2:16 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
FranklyO,
The fallacious argument that Obama has not been "tested" (whatever that means) presumes that Hillary HAS been tested as a candidate (rather than as a candidate's wife), which just isn't true, at least under the criteria you seem to be using.
Your argument rests on the fact that Obama was elected senator from the bluest state in the Midwest. However, let's ponder: Where was Hillary elected senator? Probably the bluest state in the whole country. Not to mention that her opponents have been pushovers.
And let's not forget, Obama has more elected experience (and has run many more campaigns) than has Hillary.
I think the more important question is how candidates run when they're under pressure, and so far Hillary doesn't seem to be handling it to well.
Ethan Quern wrote on December 14, 2007 2:49 PM:Some of you who are putting passion ahead of reason need to entertain the idea that nasty New Hampshire republicans might be messsing with things in New Hampshire thinking that Obama can not possibly win a national election, or at least is certainly the most vulnerable.
Ethan Quern wrote on December 14, 2007 2:50 PM:Some of you who are putting passion ahead of reason need to entertain the idea that nasty New Hampshire republicans might be messsing with things in New Hampshire thinking that Obama can not possibly win a national election, or at least is certainly the most vulnerable.
DTM wrote on December 14, 2007 2:58 PM:Ethan,
People often float such theories, but typically they don't make much sense. The problem is that in the meantime, they also have a more direct problem, which is picking their own nominee. And if they do a bad job at that, their efforts to manipulate the Democrats' choice of nominee may be wasted.
Indeed, how many of the Democratic partisans here would agree to go support a candidate they perceive as weak in the Republican primary, rather than supporting a Democrat they view as strong? I don't think many would agree to make that exchange.
heh wrote on December 14, 2007 3:13 PM:Err--
Frankly0, how has Hillary been tested on your so-called "national" stage? What, by spending millions to beat a no-name down-state Congressman for a Senate seat in one of the bluest states in THE NATION?
I find it interesting to note that virtually every argument Hillary supporters use to criticize Obama can invariably be used successfully against Hillary herself.
What seems indisputable is the fact that she starts off with 50% of the electorate dead-set against voting for her under any circumstances. I'm still trying to determine how that translates into a winning campaign.
Clinton fatigue has set in. It's time to turn the page.
frankly0 wrote on December 14, 2007 4:28 PM:Frankly0, how has Hillary been tested on your so-called "national" stage?
Is this in any way a hard question to answer?
Look, as far as the right wing was concerned, they were every bit as happy to uncover dirt on Hillary as on Bill. Did you forget the endless amount of energy and money and time they spent on Whitewater, for example? Everything the two of them did both before and after Bill was governor of Arkansas was fair game. They even invented the Vince Foster murder story, which was supposed to be the work of Hillary, not Bill.
I can't believe you can even ask the question of whether Hillary's been tested by these cretins.
Can you even possibly be objective enough to admit the obvious here?
obama has no experience wrote on December 14, 2007 5:19 PM:To me, Obama's lack of experience could spell trouble for the Democratic Party. Hes had three years of experience at the federal level, and he talks about bringing change, but what has he done to change Washington? Yes he sponsored a bill on government transparency with Tom Coburn, but it was other senators who did the heavy lifting when it came to the details. And when it comes to sponsoring bills, you don't have to do much to be a co-sponsor. Compare his leadership to Tom Coburn or Sen. Jim Demint who were also elected in 2004. On issues that matter to the conservative base, like government spending and immigration, they have been working hard behind the scenes to bring the kind of change their constituents want. From a progressive point of view, Obama has done nothing to that effect
votenic wrote on December 14, 2007 8:56 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
New YouTube Video!
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.
frankly0,
How exactly is that a test?
Yes, a lot of people have attacked Hillary Clinton over the years. As it turns out, as far as approval and attribute polls are concerned, it appears those attacks have worked. And of course she has never run for national office before, so for all we know those attacks have rendered her chances of winning such a contest very low.
Interestingly, the usual way I hear Clinton's supporters talk about this is to say something like "Clinton is still standing" or "Clinton is still here". Right, and so are people like Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry: they are still "standing" and still "here"--Gore even won a Nobel Prize. But none of them are President of the United States, and Hillary Clinton has not shown any more than anyone else running that she can achieve that goal despite her high negatives.
patchwork wrote on December 15, 2007 12:06 PM:Michael A
Not only is she showing her petty and vindictve propensities, but she is also showing her cruelty. Obama has two young children. I can imagine a few of their schoolmates whose mother is a Hillary supporter, taunting these two little girls with sneering--your daddy sold drugs.That's hurtful, but the gal is "strong" because she is hurtful to children. How cruel of Hillary. And she is so strong as trot out her mother and her daughter to campaign for her, as if she is a dear sweet little old family gal.
She is just plain cruel and going by the posts I read here and elsewhere, her supporters, or they could be staffers, show that same cruelty.
