Poll: Two Dead Heats In New Hampshire — And Obama And McCain Rising
The new Boston Globe poll finds statistical dead heats in both parties' primaries — and huge movement in favor of Barack Obama and John McCain.
Obama has a two-point lead over Hillary Clinton, with 30% to her 28%, followed by John Edwards at 14%. In early November, it was Hillary 35%, Obama 21%, and Edwards 15%.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney has 28% to McCain's 25%, with Rudy Giuliani way behind at 14%. In November: Romney 32%, Rudy 21%, and McCain 17%. Mike Huckabee still hasn't really caught on here, registering 10% support, up from 5%.
Comments (65)
Jeremy wrote on December 23, 2007 2:07 PM:Hillary really should have dumped Mark Penn early on. I don't know if it would have helped, but the way he's performed does not instill confidence for the GE. Hillary started with a big cushion and has squandered it in the early sates with gaffes and blunders. She won't have that luxury if she gets the nomination. Her campaign will need to be almost flawless and she'll still be running for %50+1, given pre-existing perceptions.
Dan wrote on December 23, 2007 2:10 PM:The poll also says that a plurality of Dems now oppose a mandate on health care, which is leading to a new-round of criticism against Obama from the left.
Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 2:10 PM:Oh a dead heat, major trend toward Obama. Ok Hillary spinners, turn this into good news. "but but but, NH is insignificant, never really mattered to Hillary, she never expected to win there."
But but but, what about the much hyped Clinton "Fire Wall"? The inevitability machine is now facing the possibility of a weak third place finish in Iowa and defeat in NH. Better get Bill out over Christmas to reassure everyone that they aren't really just voting for lack-luster, Mrs. Bill. We need a charm offensive.... and Bill's "charm" is pretty offensive these days.
Oh a dead heat, major trend toward Obama. Ok Hillary spinners, turn this into good news. "but but but, NH is insignificant, never really mattered to Hillary, she never expected to win there."
But but but, what about the much hyped Clinton "Fire Wall"? The inevitability machine is now facing the possibility of a weak third place finish in Iowa and defeat in NH. Better get Bill out over Christmas to reassure everyone that they aren't really just voting for lack-luster, Mrs. Bill. We need a charm offensive.... and Bill's "charm" is pretty offensive these days.
When the story of the NH campaign is over, the monumental turning point will have been the Billy Shaheen comments about Obama's past drug use and him needing to be asked whether he "sold them". I've talked to a lot of straight-down the line Democrats up here who were sickened and embarrased for our state after that, and who decided for Obama right then and there.
My guess is he's gonna win the democratic nomination and the some dumb racist republican somewhere is going to make the same kind of mistake as Shaheen did and Obama's numbers will go up again.
anon wrote on December 23, 2007 2:24 PM:Q: How do you spell "inevitability"?
A: O-B-A-M-A
upper left wrote on December 23, 2007 2:57 PM:Let me warn my fellow Obama supporters against over-confidence. Obama has been on the receiving end of an enormous amount of bullshit attacks from Clinton.
It appears that this has slowed his momentum in Iowa and given Edwards enough of a boost to keep his supporters hoping against hope.
Again, I would urge all Edwards supporters to take a good long, cold, hard look at their guy's chances of winning the nomination. He is completely stalled everywhere except Iowa. Even if he does win Iowa, he does not have enough money, organization, nor a large enough base of support in NH, SC, or Nevada to win convincingly. He doesn't have enough time to raise money to win in the Feb 5 states.
In summary, the most likely outcome of an Edwards victory in Iowa is a comeback by Hillary on or before Feb 5.
Those who support Edwards should be thinking about their second choice. If you recognize HRC's flaws and vulnerabilities as a nominee, give Obama a second look. I know you don't want to give-up on Edwards before the first vote is cast, but think about the strategic situation and who benefits from an Edwards victory in Iowa.
Don't just take my word for it, look at the Intrade odds at Real Clear Politics. JE has a one-in-twenty shot of winning the nomination. Obama's chances are rated as six times higher. Going all-in on an inside straight draw isn't very bright in poker, nor is it very strategic in politics. Please, think about it.
random wrote on December 23, 2007 2:59 PM:Steve in Concord said "...the monumental turning point will have been the Billy Shaheen comments about Obama's past drug use"
And no one I know thinks this was Shaheen acting independently. It was Hillary-sanctioned, Mark-Penn-implemented, Karl-Rove-inspired Clinton Campaign strategy. And it back-fired big time.
cms wrote on December 23, 2007 3:07 PM:upper left -- I agree with you about cautioning against overconfidence with Obama supporters. Hillary's free-fall in Iowa has stopped and Edwards is definitely improving in that state. I'm going to volunteer there for three days next week in somewhat rural areas, so it'll be interesting to see. I know I do not feel remotely overconfident. Obama could win Iowa or could come in third -- any position in the top three seems possible to me at the moment.
David wrote on December 23, 2007 3:09 PM:Oh no, McCain is swooping in to save Hillary's ass! If the Republican race were a lock in NH, all the independent voters would go vote in the Democratic primary, and all polls show that Obama does better with independents than Hillary does - like 20 points better!
So if the Republican side of the primary has some life, lots of those independents will try and block Romney by voting for McCain. That means far fewer votes for Obama.
Kefa wrote on December 23, 2007 3:10 PM:No spin here...it's bad news for HRC and it means the news has got to get out better on BHO that he's not the one. A better job has to be done or we as a party will lose the White House in 08. It's bad news for HRC but bad news for you too.
cms wrote on December 23, 2007 3:17 PM:Kefa -- have more faith in the Dem candidates. Any of them (with the exception of Kucinich and Gravel) can win in the GE.
jules wrote on December 23, 2007 4:08 PM:Dan, i clicked on that link, and I'll post here what i posted there.
I think the reason polls are starting to shift against mandates is because people are finally starting to understand that when Hillary and Edwards talk about mandates, they aren't talking about a mandate that everyone gets free insurance. It's a mandate on the uninsured to go buy it themselves.
Mandates are a TERRIBLE IDEA.
Asking a family of 4 who makes $48k per year to spend $12k on private insurance, is crazy.
------------
cms,
You have too much faith in dems ability to take 2008. Dems have mastered the art of losing.
47% of ALL Americans won't vote for Hillary no matter what. Only 33% say the same thing about MCCAIN. We HAVE TO nominate someone with cross-over appeal. Obama is the only dem candidate that wins over all 5 of the top republicans.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/12/zogby-obama-is.html
cms, upper left,
I would agree that any of the candidates are able to win the General (although with Edwards, for example, one concern is that he will be vastly outspent by the Republicans.)
However, as I mentioned in another thread, I think that not all of the candidates can win the primary.
Clinton is absolutely going to be one of the two last candidates standing. The way I am assembling my data and expectations gives the conclusion that (barring anything major, obviously) only Obama has a good chance of taking the nomination from her. Even Edwards will have a very hard time of doing it and he will likely end up spending more than he could afford.
I think that may be a consideration many are undertaking before casting their lots.
Clinton's current strategy is to bring Obama down enough to push Edwards evens or past him even if it costs her a bit in the polls too, which is why we are seeing the recent reprehensive tactics from her (I am assuming they are not so incompetent or out of touch as to have done it all accidentally.)
BluePuppy wrote on December 23, 2007 4:21 PM:
Democratic Iowa Caucus
Iowa: Clinton 31% Obama 27% Edwards 22%
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Each side can pick a poll which supports their candidate. I'd still rather be in Hillary's shoes. Her national lead is enormous, she has more money, and leads on intratrade. Don't get too excited over one poll with a huge (40%) number of undecideds. Hillary will win the nomination. I'm sanguine.
"47% of ALL Americans won't vote for Hillary no matter what. Only 33% say the same thing about MCCAIN. We HAVE TO nominate someone with cross-over appeal. Obama is the only dem candidate that wins over all 5 of the top republicans."
This is naive. I know most of you were campaigning for Nader the last two times, but the Republican attack machine will sodomize Obama's reputation. No Democrat, even if we put pu Jesus H. Christ, could get more than 53% of the vote.
savvy wrote on December 23, 2007 4:28 PM:random wrote on December 23, 2007 2:59 PM:
It was Hillary-sanctioned, Mark-Penn-implemented, Karl-Rove-inspired Clinton Campaign strategy. And it back-fired big time.
YUP!!!
Jules:
"mandates, they aren't talking about a mandate that everyone gets free insurance. It's a mandate on the uninsured to go buy it themselves.
Mandates are a TERRIBLE IDEA.
Asking a family of 4 who makes $48k per year to spend $12k on private insurance, is crazy."
Damn skippy!! Barack, who has actually been successful at passing healthcare legislation, unlike his political opponents...totally understands that. He knows that not only is it burdensome to consumer but that it is politically unviable, and not just for those who would find it unaffordable but also for all those who are HAPPY with their present coverage. So, mandates are unwelcome at both ends of the spectrum and the word mandate is unAmerican anyway!
BluePuppy, you never answered my questions about why you thought Clinton's health care plan was better than the others'! If you like, I could repost the questions so you can explain your rationale?
Also, I assume that my explaining the reality behind the "present" votes you mentioned helped you you understand why they do not reflect negatively on Obama and why it is not an effective argument to make?
DTM wrote on December 23, 2007 4:35 PM:It is looking fairly likely to me that last UNH poll was a statistical outlier: this poll and the UNH poll before the last one are more in line with each other, and this one sticks out considerably. I note this just because while it is entirely possible the trend in these polls favor Obama, the difference between this poll and the last UNH poll may be giving an inflated sense of the magnitude of such a trend.
By the way, I really don't know why people keep bringing up Nader. This is the primaries, not the general election, so the proper analogy would be to people who supported Bill Bradley--or Edwards and Clark, or Gary Hart, and so on--not Nader.
Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 4:38 PM:When Obama and Giuliani talk about "access" to healthcare, they are NOT talking about healthcare for all. Access is just another republican way of saying "buy your own insurance or get left behind." That is the status quo.
And you wonder why people say there's no difference between the two parties.
roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 4:45 PM:Crossposting my take on the Campaigndiaries issue of Obama's healthcare plan:
Obama has actually expressed that ultimately he prefers a single-payer system that eliminates the insurance companies as a middle-man. I believe he still prefers to keep the medical practices un-nationalised, though. I could not find any quotes on the latter aspect.
However, in the interest of political viability (remember, the policy affects Republicans too and as we know, they vote) it is too early for a single-payer system. For this reason, Obama's proposition is to offer comprehensive plans to everyone (universal availability and coverage) as an option.
While I would personally prefer a fully nationalised or at least a single-payer system, I also recognise the huge obstacle of a sizable portion of the population being predisposed to oppose either. I even surmise that there may be an even-larger portion that is opposed to a halfway solution that is MANDATED because it does not bring all of the benefits.
Until the American public has surpassed its capitalistic indoctrination and in light of "the art of the possible," Obama's plan seems to be the one that at this point in history would be the most acceptable first step to the voting public.
Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 4:50 PM:If Hillary is the Democratic nominee, many Democrats and Independents intent on preventing the continuation of a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton corporate-driven status quo, will not be supporting her. With Hillary or with the official Republican nominee, the White House would remain essentially Republican.
Her nomination will be sufficient to draw Bloomberg into the presidential race, and he will appeal to moderate Republicans as well.
Random wrote on December 23, 2007 4:53 PM:Interesting to watch Bloomberg. I don't like him, but he would be much better a choice than Hillary.
Does Bloomberg have a public position on the War in Iraq?
Hillary is a warmonger and with her nomination, there will be no option for ending the war.
roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 4:55 PM:Anonymous:
When Obama and Giuliani talk about "access" to healthcare, they are NOT talking about healthcare for all. Access is just another republican way of saying "buy your own insurance or get left behind." That is the status quo.
And you wonder why people say there's no difference between the two parties.
By this, are you drawing a contrast between Obama and the other Democratic candidates? If so, could you explain which specific parts of your preferred plan you see as an improvement over Obama's (unless it is Kuchinich's single-payer system)?
In reviewing Obama's full plan and comparing it to Clinton and Edwards' respective plans, there is only one broad distinction:
Obama's plan is not mandatory to participate in (but available to everyone) yet provides the same or better level of coverage as the other two's.
In addition, due to the lack of mandate it is, I think, more likely to be passed as legislation than the other two's plans. The optional plan that passes is better than the mandatory plan that does not, or do you disagree?
Tom wrote on December 23, 2007 5:00 PM:Who cares about NH?
After Edwards wins Iowa, all those people will wake up and realize he's the only candidate with the balls to stand up for them.
And pretty much anyone who knows anything knows that Edwards is going to win Iowa. That's why Obama and the corporate media are starting to attack him for his 527s. They don't like the fact that those 527s give real people the chance to voice their opinions. They only want the candidates to be able to have an opinion. Facists.
The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party doesn't introduce, campaign, or fight for single-payer healthcare, because THEY DON'T WANT IT! To say that they are only following the polls is to say that they are a bunch of punks.
Helter wrote on December 23, 2007 5:07 PM:Look for Hillary to go increasingly negative. She can lose Iowa, but if she loses NH the press is going to be brutal.
john mccutchen wrote on December 23, 2007 5:18 PM:THANK YOU JUAN COLE!
Zogby: Obama and Huckabee Surging
Zogby has just released a national new poll that shows that the proportion of voters who are undecided on both sides of the aisle has fallen dramatically. The chief beneficiaries of the voters making up their minds have been Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee.
http://www.juancole.com/graphics/zogrep1207.jpg
http://www.juancole.com/graphics/zogdem1207.jpg
timnlisa1 wrote on December 23, 2007 5:23 PM:Anon,
When you compare Obama's Healthcare plan to Giuliani's, do you think you have any chance of being taken seriously? It make you sound completely uninformed or a crank.
The GOP believes you need to offer tax cuts to help make insurance more affordable. Of course this is ridiculous because a good chunk of the un-insured and under-insured pay very little in federal income taxes in the first place. The GOP's plan does very little to help.
Obama's plan, similar to what most dems want, works to reign in the costs of the health system. On top of that, it offers subsidies to help pay for the insurance of those that can least afford it. Obama's plan, IMO, does a better job at reducing cost and will make it easier for lower income people to afford than his dem rivals. Mandating health insurance for everyone but doing a poorer job at reducing the cost of insurance as Clinton's plan proposes, does not seem like a big step in the right direction. Ideally I would prefer a Kucinic style plan of Universal Health care or single payer. Getting rid of the insurance companies would be a great accomplishment. Unfortunately it will not happen until there are some major changes in public opinion or a filibuster proof majority for Dems in the Senate. Again here where Obama is offering universal health coverage for all children, this is the right first step. Most people think children should be covered and if it is run well, it will be a convincing step towards a true universal health care in the US.
When you post, try to make a valid argument for the statements you are making. Comparing any of the Dem plans to any of the GOP plan is completely ridiculous.
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 23, 2007 5:23 PM: Roo_p
Again you say that Sen. Obama has the better health plan, but after reading it again, there is no public plan in there to compete with the private plans. Unlike the Edwards plan that has a componate of single payer in it, that would compete with the private insurance industry.
Liberal Larry:
The let's make a deal wing of the Democratic Party doesn't introduce, campaign, or fight for single-payer healthcare, because THEY DON'T WANT IT! To say that they are only following the polls is to say that they are a bunch of punks.
Are you saying that most Americans would, in fact, be amenable to single-payer healthcare immediately? Amenable enough that the Congress Republicans would not dare block its passage?
Or are you of the opinion that this would be the case if we campaigned and educated people about it (this is my position, incidentally)? How long do you think it would take to do it? Do you think it would be faster than passing the currently proposed universal coverage plans?
If we assume that it would be faster to pass one of the current plans first instead, do you think that once it has been implemented successfully that people would be more or less likely to support further nationalisation?
JRE wrote on December 23, 2007 5:31 PM:The purpose of John Edwards' "mandates" is to get people to choose the single-payer option.
john mccutchen wrote on December 23, 2007 5:51 PM:For months now Mrs. Bill has lived by the "inevitability" of her coronation
Now she can jolly-well die by inevitability
The sooner she sinks to her watery grave the better for all Democrats
roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 5:51 PM:Its ...:
Again you say that Sen. Obama has the better health plan, but after reading it again, there is no public plan in there to compete with the private plans. Unlike the Edwards plan that has a componate of single payer in it, that would compete with the private insurance industry.
There we go! An actual counterargument! :)
Actually, Clinton's plan is the heaviest on this aspect in that it allows people to directly opt in the public plan (although it seems that the plan is "to be announced") even if they currently have coverage.
Edwards', on the other hand, places a public plan (MediCare or a new similar) in the "pool" that people can choose from along with private plans.
Obama does offer the a national plan to anyone who is not currently insured, also based on the "plan available to members of Congress." His Exchange, similar to Edwards' pool, further requires that all plans offered will at a minimum provide similar coverage to the new national plan.
All in all, the cost and benefits to the end-user or consumer would be pretty much the same. The difference here is the "backend," if you wish, and in that respect if we view it through the lens of eventual nationalisation, the plans that allow already entering in a public plan may have an edge. The related concern of viability remains, of course.
roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 5:59 PM:timnlisa1:
Obama's plan, similar to what most dems want, works to reign in the costs of the health system. On top of that, it offers subsidies to help pay for the insurance of those that can least afford it. Obama's plan, IMO, does a better job at reducing cost and will make it easier for lower income people to afford than his dem rivals.
This is my feeling as well, although it is hard to accurately gauge because all the plans are vague on some details.
In strict dollar amounts the difference is not huge but probably still significant for the hardest-up "working poor." It would also probably be the fastest one to implement which means quicker relief for the needy.
I do find the various initiatives in efficiency and prevention that Obama puts forth to be the best of the lot but there should always be a lot of room to move with those types of things.
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 23, 2007 6:10 PM:Glad to see you smile roo_p ;-) My objection to the obama plan is that it doesn't offer a public plan to those who may already have insurance. In your above post you said, "Obama does offer the a national plan to anyone who is not currently insured" after reading plan details of his this national insurance is already in place it is the schip for children and medicaid. As a union member who goes in to negotiate a contract at my job i want an option of a public health plan, so i can better show my company why public plans offer more for less and if they want a private insurer they can then pay the differance. Having a public plan in the mix competing against the private plans will only go to show people, you will get the same or better coverage for less money.
Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 6:25 PM:Obama's "initiatives in effenciency" are the same as all of the Democratic candidates. READ ALL OF THE PROPOSALS.
BluePuppy wrote on December 23, 2007 6:56 PM:This ASFME ad against Obama states well why Hussein's plan is not put to par.
BluePuppy wrote on December 23, 2007 6:57 PM:http://markhalperin.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/afscme-negative-health-care-radio-ad122307.mp3
Here's the ad.
Natasha Chart on why Obama is not Howard Dean:
http://mydd.com/story/2007/12/23/18934/831
jeanba wrote on December 23, 2007 7:27 PM:BleuPuppy,
No wonder many people will never vote for Hillary, do you think using Obama's middle name is going to turn people away from voting him? Please if you can't find anything worthy to discuss stop spilling over to this site your bigotry, we all know why you are using his last name, America is not that stupid. Last AFSCME (not ASFCME) has not a single voice, different chapters, for example IL's chapter, do not agree with national leaders partisanship. Enough of your smear!
Anonymous wrote on December 23, 2007 7:36 PM:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
cms wrote on December 23, 2007 7:54 PM:Tom -- 527s = "real people?"
I hope you meant that as a joke, or else you need a serious education on how those groups are funded.
Desider wrote on December 23, 2007 7:55 PM:To the memory-challenged, it wasn't long ago that "Ms. Inevitable" didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell because her negatives were too high. Then someone started pushing the "inevitable" meme, she had a few rough patches (part press-induced, way Russert & Williams), and now she's being written off. Except she's up nationally by about 25%. And people think she should just ditch her campaign manager? Word of advice, folks - typically it's easier to fix a few problems than start over from scratch. Second is the nattering predictors are frequently wrong. (According to conventional wisdom, net roots candidates didn't have any chance in the 2006 elections). Third, polls can be a useful indicator, but the voting booth/caucus room has the final say.
Tom wrote on December 23, 2007 7:58 PM:jeanba,
What's bigotry about using the guy's middle name? Why is Obama so sensitive about this stuff? If he can't handle it, he shouldn't have run for President. He should have known the Republicans would be bringing up his middle name (Hussein) and the fact that he was raised a Muslim and went to a madrassa. This is why he's unelectable despite what that poll by Zogby (who's also coincidentally a Muslim) may show. The real poll by CNN showed Edwards as the most electable.
Tom wrote on December 23, 2007 7:59 PM:cms,
no, you need an education. These 527s are funded by nurses and union members. Real people who like the only real candidate in the race, John Edwards.
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 23, 2007 8:14 PM:Dear Tom,
As an Edwards supporter, i find your personal attacks about Sen. Obama an insult to all of us.
Tom wrote on December 23, 2007 8:21 PM:How is it a personal attack? I'm just pointing out what the Republicans are going to be saying. And I'm just a supporter of Edwards, not his national chairman or anything, so who cares what I say? It shouldn't be insulting.
roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 8:42 PM:I usually try to see both sides of an issue and keep an open mind but commentary like Tom's above is simply unnecessary.
Tom:
What's bigotry about using the guy's middle name? Why is Obama so sensitive about this stuff? If he can't handle it, he shouldn't have run for President. He should have known the Republicans would be bringing up his middle name (Hussein)...
Yes, the Republicans. Typically I would not expect a Democrat to attempt to take issue with a completely immaterial thing such as a person's name and display this degree of small-minded, xenophobic racism in an attempt to undermine him. Obviously I have been proven wrong.
... and the fact that he was raised a Muslim ...
That is, actually, the exact opposite of a fact.
... and went to a madrassa.
He went to school. The right wing has been successful in
This is why he's unelectable despite what that poll by Zogby (who's also coincidentally a Muslim) may show.
Ah, the Islamofascistian Candidate theory. Well, Obama DID say "Denzel Washington" when he was once asked who he wanted to be portrayed in film by. You are clearly onto something.
The real poll by CNN showed Edwards as the most electable.
I am not addressing the correctness of any particular poll (most of us are more sophisticated than that) but how can I tell if a poll is "real" or a "fake?" Are there some signs that I should watch for aside from not placing Edwards first? Can there be a poll where Edwards wins AND it is fake? Or are those mutually exclusive?
roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 8:48 PM:Sorry, I was cut off there. I was pointing out that "madrassa" literally means "school," not "crazy sodomite baby-eating terrorist demon training compound" as the right wing would like everyone to believe.
NC-11-CD wrote on December 23, 2007 9:04 PM:I'm another Edwards supporter who finds Tom's posts reprehensible, for all the reasons roo_P has cited.
roo_P wrote on December 23, 2007 9:32 PM:BluePuppy,
Here is the text of the ad for those who cannot listen to the audio file (you are missing out on all the spooky voice acting though so read it to yourself pretending it is a horror story):
Healthcare. It’s a confusing topic. Especially lately. Everyone’s got a plan. But who can make sense of it all? Universal health care where everyone is covered and costs are controlled is within our reach.
I will agree that there is great demand for this. However, there is no analysis on how easy the plans comparatively are to pass. So whether it is "within our reach" is somewhat debateable.
With all these plans there is one fundamental difference, either everyone is covered or some are left behind. CBS News reports Obama’s plan, according to independent experts, leaves as many as 15 million uninsured.
Incorrect. Obama's plan would cover everyone but people do have the option to forgo insurance. No-one is "left behind."
Obama cites concerns about affordability. The policies must be affordable before a mandate can be implemented (which he has indicated is a possibility later.)
Also, can you tell me how Clinton plans to enforce the mandate? This is the third time I ask.
The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes: Obama’s plan would lead to higher premiums by rewarding the irresponsible who don’t get covered.
It may be for brevity but I am not sure Krugman ever explained the model that predicts this when it is specified that pricing is regulated. I also believe that there are some provisions for those who choose to forgo insurance but attempt to collect the benefit.
The column goes on to say that there is a quote “uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care.”
And, I understand, among some Americans there is an uncomfortable sense that there are monsters in the closet.
Appeals to Anonymous Authority are not valid debate form, for a reason.
Margaret wrote on December 23, 2007 9:42 PM:Nope! can't go with the hope and dope dealer.
Obama could never win the nomination, it's doubtful Hillary could win the general - but Edwards would.
Desider, spin all you want. Hillary's campaign is imploding. She is now totally dependent on Bill to pull her through. Is this the strong first woman candidate, independent and well qualified?
What a major irony that if Hillary becomes the first female president, it will be because of who she married and his efforts to get her elected (we call that nepotism). Huge victory for women. Almost as impressive as the absolutely incompetent Nancy Armani-clad-photo-op Pelosi.
framecop wrote on December 23, 2007 10:23 PM:The Boston Globe endorses Obama and McCain, and then its poll shows them rising, rising, rising.
Gee, what a shock.
When did Talking Points Memo become nothing more than a regurgitator of corporate media propaganda, with no analysis whatsoever?
Joe Lisboa wrote on December 23, 2007 10:43 PM:"Margaret,"
If you repeat the utterly absurd slur that Senator Obama is a drug dealer one more time, I'll be fully convinced you're an HRC-camp operative.
If not, you're not doing your candidate any favors.
Its about the future stupid wrote on December 23, 2007 11:43 PM:roo_p from above post.
The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes: Obama’s plan would lead to higher premiums by rewarding the irresponsible who don’t get covered.
roo_p says,
It may be for brevity but I am not sure Krugman ever explained the model that predicts this when it is specified that pricing is regulated.
Reguardless if pricing is regulated or not, someone has to pay the medical bill. Most of the people who would opt out of the system would most likely be people that would not be able to afford the whole medical bill which would then put the burdon on the rest of us like it is now. If i would forgo the health insurance then get a heart attack, with no ability to pay the hospital the 100k or so it would cost then who pays, the rest of you pay. Then as soon as i know i have health issues i then get the insurance. Health insurance works best for lower costs when all are enrolled, both healthy and sick.
This is a pretty horrible poll. The margin of error is +/-4.9%! At least it was asked of likely voters...
Anonymous 10:58, you're simply delusional or making your own spin. If you want an obvious example of "implosion", just look at Giuliani.
Jeremy, 10 months ago, Hillary's negatives were considered too high to make her electable. Obama released a memo in July saying he really had the best prospects, that Hillary was a weak wounded "incumbent". Mark Penn responded by showing Hillary polling well nationwide with key constituency support (she still has). Ben Smith of Politico labeled this the "inevitable" memo - Penn didn't. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/Hillary_the_inevitable.html)
So 5 months later, the race has tightened in a few early states - not surprising, Obama is focusing on these states, while Hillary is sound nationwide. Mark Penn has done a good job despite a few missteps. But everyone's a backseat driver on campaigns.
Decider,
Hillary's campaign is imploding and the best comeback you can muster is: Giuliani's campaign is in worse shape?
I rest my case. Hillary and Rudy can wrestle in the mud they love so much at the bottom of their respective packs.
Hillary, you go girl, right to the end of the line. Or maybe, just maybe, your husband can rescue you. Better be nicer to the man of yours, Tammy.
Anonymous wrote on December 24, 2007 8:25 AM:Clinton fatigue is really weighing in. The more Bill talks and talks and talks, ABOUT BILL, the more the nation remembers fo the downside of the Clinton years. The more Hillary's desperate campaign attacks unfairly and whispers lies, the more voters see she brings more Bush-style politics.
We just don't need more of the Clintons. We need change to move the nation forward. Let's keep the White House out of the tabloids.
Desider wrote on December 24, 2007 8:57 AM:Anonymous, Hillary's campaign is "imploding" and the best example you can give is.... nothing?
I don't think its spin to remind people that Bill got 3% in IA in '92 and came in second in NH, but not really even that close a second (losing 33-25). Now, SC—that will be telling. Bill slaughtered his opponents there, getting almost 70%, I believe. Given that the SC race is already pretty close, I don't think a 1-2 loss bodes well for Hillary, but she would really have to be creamed in NH to take her out of the running. And even if she is creamed in the first three, its still unclear how that will affect FL and Feb. 5. This is an unusual, if for no other reason than an upstart nobody like Obama could even be in the running at all. Its not over until its completely over. Anybody who expects Hillary to bail early is missing a few screws.
Heretic wrote on December 24, 2007 10:35 AM:Actually, it's doubtful any Dem would get more than 51-52% of the vote. When was the last time a Dem did better than that? Pretty sure it was LBJ in '64 (and before that Roosevelt in '44—Truman and JFK, just like Bill, got less than 50 each). However, as we learned in '00, it really doesn't matter. Its the electoral college that counts. Hillary could actually be slaughtered in the popular vote by losing the diehard red states by huge margins, yet still come out on top with moderate-narrow victories in blue and purple states. That's why I can't be overly concerned by national polls that show her losing to all the repubs. State-by-state polls of GE matchups over at Surveyusa show her easily winning the electoral college.
One caveat: It all depends on no changes happening in CA with regard to electoral allocation.
DTM wrote on December 24, 2007 12:02 PM:If people want an unbiased assessment of national trends, there is now a handy link to pollster's chart over on the right.
By the way, of course that electoral college logic works both ways: a person who was, say, far more popular among Democrats than Republicans and independents could do well in the popular vote thanks to populous "blue" states like California and New York, and still lose the election in places like PA, MI, WI, or MN (states Kerry barely won in 2004).
