Polls: Hillary And Obama Neck And Neck In First Two States

Comments (84)

In your heart, you know she is THE one! wrote on December 12, 2007 10:56 AM:

Is America ready for a Muslim president?

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 10:58 AM:

Is America ready for ANOTHER Christian President?

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 11:02 AM:

I believe a couple Zogby polls from earlier in the year had Obama ahead, and an ARG poll had them tied.

But as usual, I would note that when polls are this close in a multi-way contest, we should expect the "lead" to change back and forth simply as a result of random variation.

bridoc wrote on December 12, 2007 11:06 AM:

Uhhh...I'm going to assume (and hope) that the Muslim comment was a sarcastic joke, and not a show of unimaginable ignorance on the part of the poster. If it is a joke, forgive me, but when so many people really are that stupid, it is hard to tell when people are being sarcastic or when they are really that crazy.

As for the another Christian president...like the US will ever have a choice. We'll be under an ocean before the majority of Americans will get behind someone who doesn't believe (or doesn't convincingly pretend to believe) in God and Jesus and Santa and all that jazz.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 11:06 AM:

Front page still has a poll up saying Hillary leads in South Carolina by 4 points. You can find this on Sullivan, or here...
http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_1210_74.aspx
It's an Insider Advantage poll, so I don't know why they aren't posting it here at TPMEC (well, other than the fact that Eric Kleefeld works here...)

December 10, 2007 — An InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion survey conducted December 8-9 of likely voters in South Carolina’s presidential primary shows Barack Obama extending his lead over Hillary Clinton. The telephone survey of 480 likely voters in the primary was weighted for age, race, and gender. It has a margin of error of 4%

Q. If the South Carolina Democratic Presidential primary were held today, would you vote for:

Obama: 28%
Clinton: 22%
Edwards: 14%
Biden: 10%
Richardson: 2%
Kucinich: 1%
Dodd: 0%
Gravel: 0%
Undecided: 23%

arbitrista wrote on December 12, 2007 11:08 AM:

Wow. That's a pretty dramatic fall-off for Hillary in NH. But then I always thought the Granite State was tailor-made for Obama. They have a soft spot for the cerebral reformer types.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 11:09 AM:

By the way, these recent NH polls suggest an interesting scenario in which Clinton pulls out a close win in Iowa but then Obama wins NH (which is plausible particularly if most Independents end up choosing to vote in the Democratic Primary). What could happen after that might be very interesting, up to and including no one securing the nomination before the convention.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 11:09 AM:

Also, with respect to Iowa, Strategic Vision's new Iowa poll which comes out tomorrow has Obama with a much, much larger (and statistically significant) lead.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/12/511658.aspx

"On the Democratic side, Obama leads with 33% of the vote and Clinton and Edwards are statistically tied for second with 25% and 24%. Biden and Richardson each received 4%."

CalD wrote on December 12, 2007 11:11 AM:

This is another one of those 1-day polls of his. I was wondering what was up with that when I saw the one yesterday for the Republican side. Virtually no one does that because single-day poll results tend to be all over the place.

Michael wrote on December 12, 2007 11:16 AM:

rofl, I hope that first comment is meant to be a parody of the Clinton campaign.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 11:18 AM:

DTM
I think that is a highly likely scenario. I beleive the nomination is going to be a huge dogfight, even if Obama has the delegates to be the nominee. It is going to be internecine warfare. I recall how Jackson had the second highest number of delegates but was denied the second spot on the ticket with Dukais.

Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 11:18 AM:

So Obama had 10 point swing in a couple of weeks? Wow. He's definitely got the wind at his back. He'd better be careful though, I heard Clinton is pretty good with a shank.

yklein wrote on December 12, 2007 11:19 AM:

The key point to bear in mind is that the string of recent polls have essentially negated the sense of inevitability surrounding the Clinton candidacy. This will give cover to voters that have nagging doubts about her to vote for their preferred candidate rather than the presumed "winner." At the moment, is seems like Obama is the likely beneficiary of this trend.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 11:21 AM:

Keith,
I think you are right about that shank. But then to me, Clinton is the warden in Shawshank Redemption and Obama is Andy.

Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 11:22 AM:

And Clinton is preparing to go there on the electability issue.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/clinton_will_close_on_electabi_1.php#comments

john crandell wrote on December 12, 2007 11:30 AM:

Who would have thought she's a train wreck waiting to happen. That Oliphant cartoon was on the money.

NCSteve wrote on December 12, 2007 11:31 AM:

This is one of those comments that will probably look really stupid by next spring, but, for now, imagine you are a network programming executive faced with the possibility of not one, but two, open conventions.

They've spent the last four elections trimming their coverage of the conventions down to next to nothing on the obstensible grounds that they aren't relevant because they're already sewn up. Now, that excuse is down the drain and they have to make up some whole other excuse to run entertainment over this boring old news thing.

On the other hand, if the writer's strike is still going, they may start beliving there is a God who loves them, after all.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 11:37 AM:

Unnoticed here is that Edwards is certainly not out of New Hampshire with 17%. He is close enough that an Iowa win could get Edwards over the other two in NH.

This nomination is still very much undecided, and it could go to all three. It's going to be an interesting two months...

brewmn wrote on December 12, 2007 11:40 AM:

If she's really going to go after him as soft on crime and dovish on handguns (as Ambinder suggests), than she is truly the scum of the earth. Among the problems with this country are decidedly NOT too few guns and too few people in prison.

Of course, we can attribute much of the dramatic rise in non-violent offenders doing serious time to her husband. It therefore makes sense that she, like Bill, would establish her centrist cred by destroying the lives of tens of thousands of poor and minority members of society.

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 11:41 AM:

Keith, obama definitely has a major wind at his back. Its exciting and actually is amazing how the polls have shifted dramatically in the states that are paying attention and have been the subject of active campaigning in the last couple of weeks. We shall see, but at least the inevitability garbage is gone and people will vote for the candidate that they want after hearing their positions, as opposed to ratifying a coronation.

By the way, what do you think about webb as the vp nominee, if he gets the nod?

bridoc wrote on December 12, 2007 11:43 AM:

It is ridiculous that she would roll out the electability argument when the most recent poll showed her as the least electable (even though still quite electable) out of the three. Regardless of the close most-electable race, the obvious conclusion is that all three are electable, so the argument falls flat on its face. Not to mention that all of this is coming from a year out...so it is equally pointless to make predictions on that account.

John McCutchen wrote on December 12, 2007 11:44 AM:

Weakly Standard Cover Boy: Barack Hussein Obama!
Saint Barack of Iowa

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/463haksg.asp?pg=1

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 11:49 AM:

Michael A,

You didn't ask me, but I'll chime in if you don't mind. I really like Webb, but I think he needs to shore up the "experience" questions by taking someone a little more seasoned. I don't think Biden would run as a v.p. but someone like him would be a good choice. I don't particularly care for Richardson, but he's an option too. He'd go a long way toward mollifying sour Clintonite's as well as locking in the Latino vote.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 11:51 AM:

Keith,

I see the 'unelectable' meme as the flip side of HRClinton being 'inevitable'. I suspect the voters will reject her characterization of him being unelectable just as they have rejected the meme of her being inevitable.

Clinton is going to lose on this, as it will bring into question her judgment once again and in addition to coming across as arrogant and presumptious "I know what is best for you'...it also carries with it racial undertones.

This new tactic is going to backfire worse than the Kindergarten essay as it does stoke the racial embers smoldering underneath Obama's candidacy.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 11:53 AM:

Michael A,

What about the former Democratic governor of MS?

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 11:56 AM:

Anonymous at 11:37,

You are absolutely right: Edwards not only currently has decent headline polls numbers in NH, but he also has very good internal poll numbers (meaning likely NH primary voters generally have a good impression of him). Hence, there is no reason to rule him out in NH at this point. The only caveat I would note is that I think he would have to share a momentum effect with Obama if they ended up a close 1-2 and both beat Clinton.

Incidentally, I would also note that I still think a fourth candidate could stage a late surprise. In particular, I think either Richardson or Biden could start picking up support if experience-oriented voters in Iowa start looking for a new home (which, in fact, they may be forced to do by the viability rules). And with a surprisingly strong finish in Iowa, that effect could carry over and build in NH.

But of course all this is purely speculative. The bottomline is that at this point, there are many different plausible scenarios (meaning scenarios we cannot reasonably rule out), and we will just have to wait and see.

brewmn wrote on December 12, 2007 11:57 AM:

"Weakly Standard Cover Boy: Barack Hussein Obama!"

Nice racism there, John.

With the Muslim stuff and now the get tough on crime and let guns flourish rhetoric, we're starting to see the true colors (pun intended) of the Clinton camp.

But please, remind me: why is she running as a Democrat? Demonizing Muslims and promising to lock up all the brown-skinned people plays better with the Republican voters.

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 11:58 AM:

DRinOh, I agree the shoring up the experience issue. However, I think the change wave is riding really high and webb and obama could ride that peak. Also, webb has experience going back to the b-movie actor, has a son that was fighting in iraq, and is a soldier himself. I think that carries alot of weight.

Also, obama could hint or reveal cabinet people that he would select with more experience as his advisors. That would put to bed the experience issue.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 12:02 PM:

brewmn
we may just get to see now Bill's true southern roots as the Clintons roll out the 'southernstratgy' against Obama. Some may have forgotten that Hill was a Goldwater Girl, after she claimed on Bloody Sunday in Selma to having been a supporter of MLK. What a time warped fabrication that was, but for those who did not know she was a GG it went unnoticed. Goldwater was a staunch supporter of states rights.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 12:03 PM:

Brewmn,

I think you're a little quick with the racism charge. Hussein is after all his middle name and John is a well known as an Obama supporter in these threads.

michael wrote on December 12, 2007 12:08 PM:

brewmn

Yeah, that "Hussein" comment was in pretty poor taste, but you should read the article he linked too. The Weekly Standard paints Obama as a liberal...and likes him. Its pretty cool, actually.

DonnaG wrote on December 12, 2007 12:09 PM:

As if we didn't need more evidence that Hillary is running on image, the ambinder piece nails it; she is playing a poll as her last card, just as she has been running on name recognition polls.

The article says she will hit Obama on 1] points of his resume, 2] his past statements, and, 3] details of his current policy plans.
I couldn't help but laugh. Hillary's resume is heavily p.r. fluff/unsupported assertions and a record of failed or nonexistent leadership, her past statements on many things [Iraq War, driver's licenses, etc] straddle any available fence and waffle a to z, and her health care plan [borrowed from Edwards] avoids details of how to enforce her mandate.

Bring it on, Hillary.

Michael wrote on December 12, 2007 12:17 PM:

The Strat. Vision poll showing Obama up 33-25-24 has an MOE of 5.5, which means, the 8 point lead is actually not statistically significant (by standard measures).

However, the MOE is at what's called a 95% Confidence Interval, which means, 19 out of 20 polls will be accurate within the MOE, but one out of 20 may not--the true values might be outside the MOE.

So

That could be one of those polls where the true values are actually outside the MOE.

Or

you can shrink the MOE to make the lead statistically signifcant (say to 3.5), but you'd have to lower your confidence interval too. My guess would be that you can be ~75% confident that the lead Obama is showing in that poll is real. That is, a 3/4ths chance that he's up on Hillary in a non-minor way.

However, again, that's all measuring error control

There's also sampling error issues...that is, Obama might actually be up 8 points on Hillary in the population demograph breakdown Strat Vision uses...but that might be a bad approx. of the population that will show up on caucus night.

So, as usual, grain of salt, and all that.

dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 12:20 PM:

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 11:09 AM:

By the way, these recent NH polls suggest an interesting scenario in which Clinton pulls out a close win in Iowa but then Obama wins NH (which is plausible particularly if most Independents end up choosing to vote in the Democratic Primary). What could happen after that might be very interesting, up to and including no one securing the nomination before the convention.

Not a very good scenario for Obama. He needs to take IA, which might help him sweep the early states. That would be his only path to the nomination. He must look unstoppable after the early states in order the blunt what is sure to be a slaughter house on Super Tuesday.

Man, is everyone's juice beginning to like mine is? You gotta love this stuff if you're a politics junkie.

dajafi wrote on December 12, 2007 12:20 PM:

I thought Burton's response to the electability attack--"It's odd that someone whom 50 percent of the country will not vote for is bringing this up"--was spot-on.

In general, I have trouble seeing anything on which Clinton can attack Obama that won't undermine her own position. Electability? Past super-liberal positions? Mis-statements?

I have never supported a winning candidate in the Democratic primaries, going back to my fondness for Bruce Babbitt as a 15-year old in 1988. Bob Kerrey in '92, Bill Bradley in '00, Wes Clark in '04. I never get it right. I'm starting to think Obama just might break my streak.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 12:23 PM:

Hey Michael,

No response to the VP suggestions, why?

What do you think of Mabus, or DTM's commentary?

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 12:25 PM:

Savvy, hate to ask, but who are you referring to? Unfortunately, I am bi-coastal and MS is flyover country for me.

Dc, you are absolutely correct. Once again we agree on something. I'm starting to get worried. The race is on and it is really, really exciting. Regardless who wins, it is fun. You have to admit, this is better than a coronation.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 12:29 PM:

Uhoh. The Firewall™ is burning up.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 12:29 PM:

Donna G,

I agree, bring it on. How does Hill have a leg to stand on when it comes to 'past statements' when she is MS. doubletalk herself.

I think her policy plan does not stand a chance when it comes to healthcare, after all, doesn't his being able to assert that he has successfully passed healthcare legislation in a GOP majority Senate speak volumes to her inability to pass any healthcare legislation in a democratically controlled congress when the majority of Americans were for universal healthcare?

Didn't Barack already see her Albright and raise Brzenski when it came to foreign policy?

Didn't Obama also make her SS bipartisan committee look like what it was more indecisiveness on her part when he said that he would consider raising the payroll cap, and totally vanquished her inane remarks about a trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class by noting that the top 6% are not the middle class in this country?

Just what is HRClinton doing here? Krugman is not the answer, he is an economist not an expert on health care and he certainly is no politician.

I think Hillary has bitten off more than what she can chew, once again by raising electability, past statements and policy.

brewmn wrote on December 12, 2007 12:32 PM:

If I jumped the gun on John's use of Obama's middle name, apologies are in order.

My comments re Hillary using tough on crime rhetoric remain. It remains one of several black marks on her husband's administration, and is one of the reasons I am baffled at progressives' support for her. Either they have very short memories, or don't really care about the poor and working classes.

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 12:32 PM:

Sorry savvy, I'm having major computer problems at the office. I can't even get any work done either.

I am not familiar with mabus, unfortunately.

On DTM, over the months that I have been playing on this site, I don't think that I have seen a post by DTM that I disagree with. She/he seems to almost always be on target and her/his commentary once again makes perfect sense.

I like all the candidates other than clinton II and I am not real hot about edwards. Biden could get traction and I really liked richardson's resume. He has performed poorly in debates and interviews though, which has taken away from the resume. Bottom line at this point, I like obama the most. He really has the wind at his back and there is a reason for that. Maybe he is what the nation needs and is longing for.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 12:36 PM:

Michael at 12:17,

Actually, I would think the probability of Obama being in the lead in the target population would be into the 90s (I'm too lazy to do the math, and Drum's chart tops out at a 6% lead with a 5% MOE, but at that point the probability is 89%).

But the more notable problem is the likely voter model, which I agree introduces a very significant degree of uncertainty. On top of that, of course, the caucus is still about three weeks away, and it remains unknown what will happen in those weeks.

So if I was a betting person, I'd take the field against any one candidate in Iowa right now. But we shall see.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 12:36 PM:

Mike,

O, OK...MS is Mississippi, RayMabus is the former dem governor working with Obama on his campaign strategy.

I know how the office thingy can be (snicker)

Ethan wrote on December 12, 2007 12:37 PM:

Agree totally Michael A. I have been pro-Hillary all the way, but I have to admit that the way things have been going, these last 2 months are going to be really exciting. If they can both stay positive, it's going to be a memorable campaign. As a Hillary supporter, I am looking forward to this being a competitive race, and if Barak pulls it out, I will be first in line to support him.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 12:45 PM:

dcshungu,

I think it is somewhat obvious that all of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards would be better off winning Iowa (and none would want to finish a distant third or worse). Similarly, they would all prefer winning at least one of Iowa and NH to winning neither, and prefer losing both to two different people over losing both to the same person. But it is really only in the last scenario (losing both Iowa and NH to the same person) that I think the odds against a comeback become nearly prohibitive.

By the way, given the recent trends in the national and Super Tuesday state polls, and all the evidence from history, I think it is pretty obvious there is nothing "sure" about what will be happening by that point.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 12:49 PM:

I don't think the breakdown of the early states could come any better for Obama. When you think about New Hampshire, there's the huge independent electorate that strongly favors Obama, whereas Hillary is more solid in the base. Then there's South Carolina, which is probably the only state with a majority black vote in the dem primary (MS? AL?). And as for Iowa, the NYT makes the point that part of her trouble in Iowa is that didn't have an infrastructure to inherit from Bill since he never had to campaign here in the primaries (it was conceded to local Harkin in '92 and he was incumbent in '96).

Very lucky for Obama, and probably the only way he could cut down Clinton. Then again, you make your own luck.

dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 12:49 PM:

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 12:25 PM:

Dc, you are absolutely correct. Once again we agree on something. I'm starting to get worried. The race is on and it is really, really exciting. Regardless who wins, it is fun. You have to admit, this is better than a coronation.

Long before the race started, Hillary's people had known something that the MSM seemed to ignore until now: her camp had said that getting the Dem nomination would be a lot tougher for HRC than winning the GE. I believe that their worry at the time had related more to Hillary's AUMF vote while the war was very very unpopular with the "natives." But they turn out to have been right about how tough it would be to get the nomination, but for a different reason: Obama has shown himself to be more appealing than they'd thought.

This remains her race to lose. She just needs to stay poised and do her thing because of her strength elsewhere. If her camp is perceived to be in disarray (which it is not, regardless of the emerging narrative), she might lose her overwhelming advantage in delegate-rich Super Tuesday states (NY, CA, NJ,...).

Regardless of what happens, a competition rather than a "coronation" would toughen our eventual nominee, who I predict to be Hillary.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 12:52 PM:

Former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Clinton administration, is joining Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign as an unpaid adviser on Middle Eastern issues.
Â
Mabus told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he'll also travel around the nation to make campaign appearances for the Illinois senator.

"I think that Obama, more than anybody else, has a chance to unify this country," Mabus said. "This country has been so divided, particularly by this administration, that I think (Obama) is talking about problems in a different way. I think he's a new voice from a new generation. That's what America needs now."

Mabus, now 58, was Mississippi governor from January 1988 to January 1992, serving during a slump in the state's economy. While supporters praised his efforts to move Mississippi's schools off the bottom of national rankings, opponents said he left a state budget that was stretched too thin.

Mabus lost his 1991 re-election bid to blunt-spoken contractor Kirk Fordice, who became Mississippi's first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

Mabus was governor when another young Democrat, Bill Clinton, was governor of Arkansas. After Clinton became president, he appointed Mabus to the ambassadorship. Mabus held the job in Saudi Arabia from 1994

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 12:54 PM:

Hey savvy, looked him up on the net and he looks great, I just don't think as vp. Odds are that he couldn't pull out MS in a general. I am willing to bet with VA trending dem, webb could pull VA in for obama.

I think you need a vp that pulls in a purple state. I doubt a ruby red one will swing based on the vp, look at edwards. He can't even carry NC and wouldn't in a general election, which is one of the reasons why I am not real hot on him.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 12:58 PM:

On the VP comments, not that it will happen, but I can't wait for the media speculation that he might pick McCain. It happened in '04 and it's inevitable this year.

Daniel wrote on December 12, 2007 1:02 PM:

A new Iowa poll has Obama up by 8%!!!

dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 1:03 PM:

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 12:45 PM:

dcshungu,

I think it is somewhat obvious that all of Obama, Clinton, and Edwards would be better off winning Iowa (and none would want to finish a distant third or worse).

I must disagree. All scenarios are not created equal. Clinton is too strong elsewhere for her to emerge with a win in IA, and she benefits if Edwards carries IA, even if she comes out third, because Obama is her main rival and she is so strong elsewhere. Any analysis that ignores Clinton's strength elsewhere is one-dimensional and flawed. The other candidates won't have sufficient time after the early states to campaign effectively where Clinton is strongest, therefore she must not be allowed to do even marginally well in the early states if she is to be fatally wounded.

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 1:05 PM:

Stupid computer. Hey savvy, I looked him up on the net and he looks good, just not for vp. I still like webb better. I think webb could bring in virginia and its electoral votes. I don't think mabus would carry ms.

I think that as a dem you want to pull in a vp nominee that brings along a purple state. Ruby red states won't go dem regardless of the vp. Look at NC. Edwards didn't bring it in for kerry in 04 and he wouldn't win it in a general today. That's one of the reasons why I am not real hot about him. He can't even carry his home state.

Dc, comeon you have been pushing that she was inevitable since august with the polls. That was the mantra from the clinton II camp. The right-wing media didn't make it up. Also, I believe out of all the dems the general would be much, much harder for her than the primaries. Anyway, the race is on.

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 1:07 PM:

Oh, brother. Sorry for the duplicate.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 1:07 PM:

Mike,

That was my anonymous post on Mabus, oops.

I see your point about purple states. Mabus however, is a charmer and I think he could turn some red states with the black vote. Remember, Mississippi has one of the largest black populations in the nation, along with Alabama. I think the duo of Obama and Maybus could win those states.

I like Webb, he definitely has red state appeal but I do not know that he has deep south appeal, kinda like Edward doesn't. The military thing would certainly be a plus in his favor.

Between Daschle and Obama I think the two can win most purple states, and I think Obama needs a deep south politician like Mabus who knows where the dogs lie to win GA, TX, AL, and MS.

Evadt wrote on December 12, 2007 1:08 PM:

The NORMALIZATION of a CANDIDATE

Hillary hails from privilege…. She intellectually understands the needs of disenfranchised, struggling Americans, but she has no natural bond with the soul of ordinary men and women — she’s really never had to get her hands dirty day-to-day — never been on hard times with no way out. She can imagine it: but never been there.

Hillary’s establishment elitism was recently demonstrated on the campaign trail when she stopped for lunch at a diner: hustled a photo-op off the old waitress — a working granny on hard times — got the press she needed, and waltzed off without leaving a tip… NPR reported the faux pas. It’s good of her to stop down across the tracks once in awhile — slummin’ — can’t stay too long.

Hillary really has no idea what it’s like in the trenches; desperate campaign handlers are pullin’ all the tricks to find image-magic touching the hearts and minds of salt-of-the-earth voters.

She’s trotted-out in fashions designed by alienated upper-crust Democrats — the same method and means they tried with Lord Fauntleroy, Al Gore: different doos, casual costumes, and feel good down-home family snapshots — Madison Ave. makeover artists dressin’ her up, and dressin’ her down as class-occasion may require — revision upon revision, fooling no one but Hillary. Gore lost the Presidency not because of the Supreme Court decision, but because American voters rejected the advertisement — he was not one of us — ordinary Americans don’t like being patronized by candidates claiming to be in common: déjà vu.

Hillary’s a Wellesley woman. Wellesley is a first-class private college for intellectually predisposed women — a select brand who generally come from the fortunate family genre. You won’t find many WalMart cashiers and diner waitresses who were educated at Wellesley.

She got her political break by design — Party connections. NY Senator Patrick Moynihan (D) stepped aside into retirement, Hillary stepped in. It was a gimme — she didn’t come up thru the rank and file — it’s was done in a Party machine top-down, New York minute.

And when her credentials and/or first-class voting record are challenged by other Party candidates and/or the media, she pouts, and gets huffy as if treated unfairly — like a spoiled child…. Then valiant Hubby jumps in to defend the advertised persona — fighting her battles…. Zzzzzz.

Party mob speculators promise, with Hillary we get a two-fer. But if Bill goes down with another heart attack, she might end up all alone to lead America. What then?!!

The question: Is Hillary qualified to lead the country at this time in history?

The answer: Nobody ever gave Barack Obama nothin’…. He is the American story, he worked for it — what you see is what you get.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 1:15 PM:

Evadt
your post is a different way of saying things...and I can't disagree with the perspective you provide.

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 1:23 PM:

You may be right savvy. I just don't know though. Dems have had a rough time in the south and have been getting hammered by large margins. This year could be different, but I'm not real hot about the risk. I'd rather see a purple vp nominee as opposed to a red.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 1:29 PM:

dcshungu,

First, the trends we are seeing in the earlier states are starting to show up in the national polls and later states as well--just with a time lag, which is somewhat to be expected. Second, as I have noted many times now, history says the results in later states will be affected by the results in earlier states (and that can happen in a matter of days so time isn't an issue). As a side note, if you haven't already, I suggest checking out the "Feiler Faster Thesis".

So it is not that I am ignoring the polls in the later states per se. Rather, there just is no reason to assume they will remain unchanged between now and the actual voting, particularly not in light of whatever happens in the earlier states.

Amber wrote on December 12, 2007 1:33 PM:

Bill Clinton is disguising himself by the screen name "In your heart, you know she is THE one!" Mr. Clinton you have to say that, but the rest of the country-although we're quite fond of you-know better. Are you getting your talking points from the other former front runner (the Mormon Republican candidate). Indeed, Mr. Clinton (AKA I.Y.H.Y.K.S.I.T.O), when it was revealed that you don't think your wife who will never be president wasn't hitting Obama hard enough, I guess we didn't think that you would go the way of Fox, The Washington Post and Mitt Romney. Muslim indeed. Although Senator Obama is a Christian who believes in separation of church and state like JFK did, it's obvious that you and Hillary don't. Once again, New York Times columnist Frank Rich made an excellent case for why Obama is the one:

Frank Rich: Who's afraid of Barack Obama?
By Frank Rich
The New York Times

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_7635335

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 1:33 PM:

Hillary's strength in the other states have everything to do with the fact that none of the candidates are actively campaigning there. In two words: name recognition. If she loses Iowa and NH my guess is her strength evaporates overnight.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 1:37 PM:

dcshungu,

If you finishing third with Edwards winning would be good for Hillary you are living on another planet. CNN and every other MSM outlet would tear her to shreds. The only other person for whom this might be worse is Edwards because people would be too busy talking about how Hillary is dead to notice that he won.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 1:37 PM:

Michael A,

I'm not entirely sure there is a big difference. A "red state" Dem is probably going to look a lot like a "purple state" Dem (see, for example, Webb and Tester). Of course it is possible a "purple state" Dem could have particular influence in that state, but I actually think the evidence of such a direct effect from a VP pick is very weak.

I would more think the idea behind such a VP would be to further increase Obama's appeal among independents and Republicans, particularly those who are economic populists and/or traditionalist national security voters who have turned against the Iraq War. And that idea isn't really limited to any particular state or region--indeed, it could play out in, say, rural communities across the country.

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 1:45 PM:

As always, the voice of reason DTM. Incidentally, I think webb still fits the bill. He would draw the categories that you suggest. He has name recognition right now and he has good policy positions. I hate to say it, because I am sure it is obvious, but I really like webb.

Long Memory wrote on December 12, 2007 1:48 PM:

Here's the poll question I'd like to see, for Democrats: Are you willing to vote for EITHER Hillary Clinton OR Barack Obama, whichever one earns the nomination?

I think the answer would be up there somewhere around 95% YES.

So I can understand why it's important to those who are tied to the campaigns to help their candidate win. The rest of us just want someone we feel stands a good chance of winning the election.

For that matter, I think I'd put John Edwards in the group. All strong. All true Democrats. All worthy of my vote.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 1:50 PM:

Michael A,

Absolutely, and if everything else is equal you might as well go with a VP pick from a state where you are planning to compete. I was more just chiming in because recent events have actually given the Democrats a lot of good choices that more or less would go along with that strategy. But Webb is certainly among them.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 1:53 PM:

Long Memory,

I haven't quite seen a poll question like that, but certainly the polls generally indicate most Democrats like all their top candidates, would be satisfied with any of them as the nominee, and generally are more satisfied with their choices than their Republican counterparts.

Liam wrote on December 12, 2007 2:02 PM:

Let them all fight for the nomination and earn it. No one is entitled to a Coronation.

Mrs. Clinton should be treated as just another candidate. Her Husband was elected twice, because Ross Perot split the opposition vote. Bill Clinton did not get to the 50% level of votes cast in either of his national races.

That does not give Senator Clinton any foundation on which to plant her "most electable" flag.

Who ever wins the votes that gains them the nomination is the most electable candidate.

Vote the issues folks, and not the spin. John Kerry was supposed to be the "Most Electible". How did that work out for you?

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 12, 2007 2:59 PM:

Re: Jim Webb for VP

Like yourself, Michael A, I really like Sen Webb. That said, I see a couple reasons why he would be a poor choice for VP (at least for Obama):

1) Obama's great drawback is his comparitive lack of experience. His only national office experience is his (will-be) four years in office in the Senate. Webb, however, has been in national office for even less time. In other words, his name on the ticket does nothing to allay Obama's most obvious deficiency.

2) To put Webb in the VP's mansion is to take him out of the Senate, and put VA's seat back up for grabs. We only narrowly won it in 2006 thanks to an unexpectedly terrible performance by the GOP candidate. Dare we risk handing it back?

3) Webb is only kinda-sorta southern. He was born in MO and grew up all over (including abroad). As such, I think it is a misnomer to suppose that his "southern" presence on the ticket could put the more purple southern states in play as convincingly as a real southerner could.

None of these points is meant to take away from the obvious merits of Sen Webb. I simply mention them because they do speak against his value as a running mate for Obama.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 12, 2007 3:06 PM:

Incidentally, I would also say that for all intents and purposes, I perceive no advantage to be had in Obama taking a southern running mate. As far I can see, Sen Obama could run with Jefferson Davis as his running mate and he still would not carry a single southern state. The same goes for Hillary Clinton. Both of these two will have to start with the assumption that the south is completely off the table and plan an electoral strategy around winning enough prarie and mountain swing states.

c wrote on December 12, 2007 3:10 PM:

It's volatile because there are a lot of thoughtful people like Ethan or Long Memory who are torn on their choices. The poll numbers are going to jump around.

We have to be vigilant on the Muslim-plant smears. One tactic is to repeat the charge so often that people get tired of rebutting it, and it stands. TPM might want to rethink its comments policy in extreme cases.

My favorite Obama VP choice is Jon Tester, though I fear he'll feel pressured to pick some long-serving stooge to answer the charge of inexperience.

dcshungu wrote on December 12, 2007 3:11 PM:

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 1:29 PM:

dcshungu,

First, the trends we are seeing in the earlier states are starting to show up in the national polls and later states as well--just with a time lag, which is somewhat to be expected. Second, as I have noted many times now, history says the results in later states will be affected by the results in earlier states (and that can happen in a matter of days so time isn't an issue). As a side note, if you haven't already, I suggest checking out the "Feiler Faster Thesis".

The problem with your reasoning is that you always think that your saying something amounts to it being "documented", which is seldom the case.

In most recent elections, the eventual nominee was not the one who did well in the early states. Bill Clinton did not really compete in IA and came out second in NH (the "comeback kid", remember?), but went on to win it all because of his strength in the South and winning NY, which effectively carried him over Jerry Brown in CA.

The results of the early states are likely to have even less impact this time around because of the compressed primaries schedule, with the lion's share of the delegated coming into play on Super Tuesday, which includes many states which are favorable to Clinton. In some ways, but concentrating on the early states and all but ignoring the rest of the country, Edwards and Obama MUST do overwhelmingly well in the early states in order to offset Clinton's nationwide advantage...

The race would tighten all around the country but I do not believe that Clinton would lose her advantage in the large deep blue states.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 3:14 PM:

"Who ever wins the votes that gains them the nomination is the most electable candidate."

Agreed. The problem with Kerry is that he isn't a very good campaigner. And let's be fair, it is pretty hard to unseat a sitting leader in a time of "war." Iraq was still a pretty new thing at that point.

I don't think Hillary is a very good campaigner either, but if she pulls it out I guess I have to say she is. The thing is, I can see her losing the early states which are the heavy campaigns, but then winning Florida and super2 because there is no time to campaign in there. Frankly, I think she is the kind of personality that wears very quickly. The more I see of Barak the more I think he is a kick-butt campaigner and he'll have the likeability thing going.

But I would still support Hill in a general against almost any Repub.

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 3:25 PM:

Greg, you are probably right, but I still really, really, really like webb and think he would be an awesome vp. Talk about a straight shooter. I am so sick of the double talk and webb has got to be one of the straightest shooters in politics today. It sure would be refreshing.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 12, 2007 3:51 PM:

In most recent elections, the eventual nominee was not the one who did well in the early states.

Huh? In 2004 it was Kerry's wins in IA and NH that made his campaign (the which had been going nowhere before IA). Bush and Gore both did well in IA & SC in 2000, neither of those races were terribly competitive to begin with, so they are not terribly informative for present purposes. In 1996 Bob Dole won IA. Bill Clinton, as you note, is the one great exception to the early-winner-takes-advantage rule, but once we turn to 1988 the rule re-emerges as Dukakis and GHW Bush in large measure built their later success on their NH primary victories. Walter Mondale won IA in 1984, Reagan won NH and came a very close second in IA in 1980 and Jimmy Carter won IA & NH in 1976. In other words, it is possible to win the nomination without doing well in early states, but your contention that "the eventual nominee is not the one who did well in early states" simply is not born out by the documented history.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 4:14 PM:

dcshungu,

You cite only one instance in support of your proposition that the winner of the Iowa and N.H. contests don't get an upper hand the rest of the way - and an entirely disreputable one at that. Harkin won in Iowa because no one else campaigned there since he was the obvious local pick, so no one gave it any weight or attention. Same with N.H. and Paul Tsongas, he was the local guy who everyone expected to win, so no one campaigned that hard or gave Tsongas any real credit for the win.

Another reason you might want to think about this is that you've been citing Hillary's upcoming win in Florida for the proposition that she can recover from losing Iowa, South Carolina, and/or New Hampshire. First, as we've all demonstrated, those states are worth way more than Florida in a normal year. Second, and more importantly, this is not a normal year for Florida since it's been stripped of its delegates. Even if she does win there, which is far from guaranteed, no one will care and the MSM won't cover it because no one is going to campaign there since it's not worth anything.

Your candidate is attempting to discourage college kids from losing and throwing Obama's drug use in college out there to try and get some traction. She's desperate, for good reason, and you clearly are too.

votenic wrote on December 12, 2007 4:24 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 4:28 PM:

dcshungu,

As I have already noted to you many times now, the last person to win both Iowa and NH and still lose the nomination was Muskie in 1972, and he was actually an establishment frontrunner who was deemed to have underperformed against the upstart McGovern.

As I have also noted to you in the past, two Brown economists just released the results of a study in which they found that voters in Iowa and NH have up to 20 times the weight of later voters because of momentum effects.

And finally, I just noted to you the Fieler Faster Thesis, which got a great test in 2004.

But obviously you have every right to ignore all this and simply assert what you believe.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 12, 2007 4:41 PM:

I still really, really, really like webb and think he would be an awesome vp.

Sure, no doubt. That said, VP John Garner is reputed to have told then potential running-mate-to-JFK Lyndon Johnson that the vice presidency was not worth a pitcher of warm spit. In other words, do we really want to waste a man of Webb's talents on the vice-presidency?

Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 5:01 PM:

You may be right Greg, but I still like him and think he would make a great vp and then eventually president.

votenic wrote on December 12, 2007 5:02 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Anonymous wrote on December 12, 2007 5:36 PM:

Interesting new NH poll:

Poll Finds Clinton Leading in New Hampshire A new 7News/Suffolk University poll in New Hampshire finds Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential race with 33% support, followed by Sen. Barack Obama at 26%, and John Edwards at 15%.

Other polls released today by CNN/WMUR and Rasmussen found Obama either ahead or tied with Clinton.

Key finding: "While 97% of likely Democratic Primary voters were aware that Oprah Winfrey had endorsed Obama, just 7% said the endorsement would make them support Obama, while 88 percent said it would not. When the same voters were asked whose endorsement was worth more, 56 percent said Bill Clinton’s, while 19% said Winfrey’s."

On the Republican side, Mitt Romney leads with 31%, followed by Sen. John McCain at 19%, Rudy Giuliani at 17%, and Mike Huckabee at 10%.

Caveat: The poll has a relatively high margin of error of 5.65%.

Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 12, 2007 6:00 PM:

I'd like to thank all who make this blog possible during this holiday season. Best wishes to all. Like many, I believe the blog-o-sphere will continue to play a huge roll during the upcoming election. That being said, those who read my posts know I am no fan of either Bill, or Hillary Clinton. But, that is not without reason. I am also leery of polls. They seem unclear as to how opinions are actually formulated. And at the end of the day, they're just opinion. My goal is to give you something more. Your opinion is important, as is the information used to shape it: http://theseedsof9-11.com

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 6:36 PM:

That Suffolk poll is not too surprising with Clinton's lead at 3.8 in the RCP average.

Indeed, that puts Clinton down 1 and Obama up 4 since the last Suffolk poll about two weeks ago (so the lead is down from 12 to 7), which is generally consistent with the overall trend.

Post a comment

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