WaPo/ABC News Poll: Hillary Holding Single-Digit Lead Over Obama In New Hampshire

Comments (46)

pacc wrote on December 5, 2007 5:44 PM:

It looks like Senator Clinton is still the one to beat!

vena wrote on December 5, 2007 5:49 PM:

Last I read, I thought it was 39 to 23. Obama has really closed that gap quickly. I wonder how?

LJ wrote on December 5, 2007 5:54 PM:

If the Inevitable One fails to meet expectations in Iowa, six points isn't much of a cushion.

Stallionaire wrote on December 5, 2007 5:55 PM:

"Hillary Holding Lead Over Obama In New Hampshire". Am I taking crazy pills? Hillary "holding" a lead is not the story-the fact that Obama is now polling w/in 6 points is the story. He has been getting blown out in NH.

This, as they say, is why they play the games. She's a paper tiger.

chaunceyatrest wrote on December 5, 2007 5:55 PM:

And let the speculation-as-certainty as to how this benefits each candidate while destroying the other begin!

NCSteve wrote on December 5, 2007 5:56 PM:

So, basically, she's back down to her core true-believers and she's lost everyone else.

Anyone on Hillary's side who tries to spin this as good news for her is delusional. Not that I have a problem with that--delusional opponents are beatable opponents.

If she loses Iowa convincingly, the 20 point Iowa bounce will kill her in New Hampshire--there's just not enough time between the two for her to recover. If Obama is the one who beats her in mostly white Iowa and New Hampshire, a big chunk of her remaining black support in South Carolina goes to Obama and he wins there too (at which point, Edwards has some hard decisions to make).

If that happens, winning in Nevada is not going to help her and much depends on how the MSM will cover her likely big wins in Michingan and Florida. No doubt, she'll be spinning them as "Comeback Kid II" like crazy, regardless of her previous contorted explanation about why she didn't need to take her name off of the Michigan ballot. (On the other hand, if Dodd makes a significant showing against her in Michigan, its no help to him, but its terrible for her.)

Damn. No wonder they're losing their composure in the Cube.

NCSteve wrote on December 5, 2007 5:59 PM:

chaunceyatrest: "A touch, a touch. I do confess't."

Jeremy wrote on December 5, 2007 6:00 PM:

The "attacks" are working because they are true. "I'm not going to tell you what i think until I've heard from a bipartisan commission" isn't much of a conversation.

Keith wrote on December 5, 2007 6:02 PM:

The wild card is still Iowa. If Obama wins, he gets more of the undeclared vote (remember, they constitute the majority of NH voters). Good news, but he (and his supporters (myself included) would do well to keep everything in perspective. This thing is a LONG way from over. And Senator Clinton, whatever you think about her, is not Howard Dean.

Greg wrote on December 5, 2007 6:04 PM:

actually, we think the abc news analysis of this is questionable. we're adding an update in a bit.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 6:13 PM:

That was kind of an odd argument about the solidity of Clinton's support.

On the one hand, it is true that she appears to have the most solid support relatively speaking. However, only 53% of her supporters say they are definitely voting for her (and 53% of 35% obviously is not enough to win). Moreover, that number is actually lower, not higher, than the number in Iowa (in fact, everybody's "definitely vote for" number is lower in NH than Iowa).

And perhaps most importantly, Obama leads Clinton on the second choice question, which makes their combined first/second choice totals nearly identical. After Iowa, it is a good bet at least some people will be looking for a new candidate.

All that paints a picture of NH voters not yet solidly behind anyone, including Clinton (even if Clinton's support is relatively the most solid). So, I get their point, but it doesn't seem to undermine the overall picture of a race which is actually getting less and less predictable over time.

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 6:13 PM:

The strength of support and demographic numbers in the poll sound EXACTLY like the IOWA numbers in the weeks BEFORE OBAMA TOOK THE LEAD.

Anyone got some time to look into that? Obviously if he wins Iowa, her lead evaporates overnight, if she's indeed even still in the lead at that point. If she keeps bleeding support at this rate, we are going to see Obama leading in the next round of polling in two weeks.

Seth H. wrote on December 5, 2007 6:36 PM:

Yeah, I think the extended version of the poll does look rather bleak for those rooting against Hillary (and, in my case, strongly supporting Obama). Upon reflection, however, it occurred to me that if you're going through a transition in opinion from one candidate to another, that's exactly what you should expect your numbers to look like. Hillary's not strengthening her core votes, she's just losing all the others. Blessed be...

I was initially a little worried about the numbers, but the more I think about it, the more encouraged I am that this is great news for Obama. Fired up and ready to go, indeed.

Keith wrote on December 5, 2007 6:36 PM:

Also important to remember, there's a debate schedule just before the NH primary. Gotta assume that's going to be one HOT debate.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 6:36 PM:

Anonymous at 6:13,

I thought the same thing.

Interestingly, Obama appears to have rolled out his advertising in waves, with Iowa being first and NH second. In each case he started steadily gaining support around the same time he started advertising (so later in NH than in Iowa).

In contrast, Clinton was also gaining support in both Iowa and NH until more or less a single point in time, around mid-late October. Since then she has been heading down in both states (and nationally as well).

So it appears to me that Obama has been gaining on more of a state-by-state basis as he advertises and otherwise campaigns. Clinton in contrast is more experiencing an overall decline in support across the board.

All very interesting--but we can bet that the trends will look pretty different after Iowa, one way or another, and of course maybe before Iowa as well.

LJ wrote on December 5, 2007 6:43 PM:

From the Post article Greg linked to in the Late Update:

Voters said they trusted Clinton on most major issues, including health care and the war in Iraq, each cited by about half of New Hampshire Democratic voters as the election's most important or second-most important issue.

This amazes me. Clinton has a record of failure as a champion of health care reform and voted wrong on the war in Iraq. Wow. She's 2nd only to Rove in presenting her weaknesses as strenghts. As much as I'm opposed to her, I am sincerely impressed that she's been able to convince people that down is up. I look forward to the sun rising in the west when she's president.

LJ wrote on December 5, 2007 6:47 PM:

Gotta assume that's going to be one HOT debate.

Unless it receives the same coverage that yesterday's NPR debate received from TPM, which is to say absolutely zero.

Greg & Eric:
What's the deal with that? Every other debate gets highlight reels and debate highlight posts. You guys don't do audio or you hate NPR or what? Was it too substantive for you without all the bullshit gotcha questions?

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 6:58 PM:

pacc said "It looks like Senator Clinton is still the one to beat!"

Interesting analysis. Looks to me like she's on her way to being beaten. And her campaign is getting wildly desperate. So much for the "highly experienced,seasoned, flawless" campaign machine.

Keith wrote on December 5, 2007 6:59 PM:

TV v. Radio.

DonnaG wrote on December 5, 2007 8:15 PM:

Wow, I feel a bit of deja vue at this moment.

In Illinois in '04, the then unknown Barack Obama beat the favored Dem machine candidate in the primary, State Comptroller Dan Hynes. As well, in both the primary and the general, his opponents with the really huge bank accounts self-destructed from scandal.

I think of Hillary as the favored Dem machine candidate in this race. Now, should some Hillary scandal come to light [beyond Hsu and beyond the recent Hillary campaign's surprising ineptness], I may have to revise my notion of how the universe works.

DTM wrote on December 5, 2007 8:22 PM:

DonnaG,

I agree: for those of us who watched the Illinois primaries close hand, this is all very familiar. And I won't go so far as to predict this, but of course he didn't just squeak out a win in the end.

DemAC wrote on December 5, 2007 8:40 PM:

As John McCain so eloquently put it: "When you see a bad poll, you say 'that’s a lousy poll, don’t pay any attention to that.' But with more favorable numbers, it's: 'Wow, look at that! This is huge!'"

Much inspired by McCain I’ve decided to like and trust the new Marist poll instead of this lousy Republican poll and I think the Marist poll is huge! :-)

Tara wrote on December 5, 2007 8:41 PM:

What a find is so funny, RIGHT under that poll and released on the same day is the Marist Poll:
A new poll of 1,343 likely primary voters taken Nov. 28 to Dec. 2 by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion shows Democrat Clinton leading Barack Obama, 37 to 23 percent, with John Edwards at 18 percent and no other candidate in double digits.

A much bigger sampling. This poll gets no SCREAMING headline but the other does.

DemAC wrote on December 5, 2007 8:45 PM:

NCSteve wrote: So, basically, she's back down to her core true-believers and she's lost everyone else.

Yeah, feel free to indulge in such wishful thinking. As you put it yourself: “Not that I have a problem with that--delusional opponents are beatable opponents.”

NCSteve wrote on December 5, 2007 9:26 PM:

Well, that's the funny thing about politics, isn't AC? If both sides genuinely think they're going to win, we generally don't know whether we were the visionaries or the delusional ones until after the ballots are counted.

pacc wrote on December 5, 2007 10:03 PM:

Anonymous wrote on December 5, 2007 6:58 PM:

pacc said "It looks like Senator Clinton is still the one to beat!"

Interesting analysis. Looks to me like she's on her way to being beaten. And her campaign is getting wildly desperate. So much for the "highly experienced,seasoned, flawless" campaign machine.

Dear Stupid,

When one is ahead in the polls, they are, in this moment, the one to beat.

MichaelB wrote on December 5, 2007 10:10 PM:

So what's with the Marist poll? As valid as the WaPo/ABC poll? More valid? Guess I'll go do some more looking. In any case, either one, and even John Edwards or Chris Dodd, is great. But, for now, go Hillary.

Kozmik wrote on December 6, 2007 12:56 AM:

I bet more Edwards supporters would break for Obama than Clinton. Meaning, in ranked choice, or if Edwards drops out, Obama is probably actually leading.

runescape money wrote on December 6, 2007 2:42 AM:

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve online isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve online isk

runescape money wrote on December 6, 2007 2:43 AM:

runescape money runescape gold runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape items runescape gold runescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold runescape accounts buy runescape accounts runescape lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money lotro gold
buy lotro gold Tabula Rasa Credit
Tabula Rasa Credits
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldseller.com/eve-online-c-892.html">eve online isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve isk
eve">http://www.vgoldsupply.com/eve-online-c-1191.html">eve online isk

Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 5:01 AM:

For pacc, DemAC, dcshungu, colonpowwow and the other Hillary staffers assigned to make TPM/EC comments:

Are we ready yet to say "flaw-full" campaign instead of flawless? Hillary and her mean campaign machine seem to be working overtime to lose. And Bill seems more of liability than an asset. He loves the limelight and can't keep his ego and lies in check.

Hillary's mean machine is in a panic because their internal polls show much worse for Hillary than the public polls right now. Of course it's less about precise numbers and margins, and more about trends. In Iowa and NH as voters focus and see and her Hillary, they turn to other candidates. Oh my. And the primary (causcus) dates are coming quickly now. This week, Hillary's downward spiral is showing in the national polls too. Oops. Hillary the Inevitable is becoming Hillary the Vulnerable before our very eyes and in her panic with horrible advice is going going negative in the mean, dishonest way that voters reject.

So Hillary staffers like pacc, DemAC, dcshungu, colonpowwow, if you are thinking about jumping ship, here's the number for the GOP National Committee (202.863.8500), that's where your values, outlook, loyalties, tactics and special ways with words might be most compatable and welcomed.

Let the Democractic party champion democracy again, not the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton corporate-driven, profiteering, warmongering status quo. Maybe the GOP will take Hillary in and let her run for VP?

Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 5:07 AM:

pacc said "Dear Stupid,When one is ahead in the polls, they are, in this moment, the one to beat."

Dear Hillary staffer, when one is trending down in the polls one is being beaten. When one is part of a desperate and decling campaign, one resorts to cheap shot name-calling like "stupid."
Name-calling doesn't change the trend, but that kind of attitude just fuels it.
Mean never really pays in the long-run. Mention that when Hillary the "Inevitable" stops by the office.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 7:36 AM:

Just a quick observation:

When you average the leads in the Marist poll (13) and the ABC/Post poll (6), you get 9.5. That happens to be almost exactly the overall average at the RCP (9.6 as I write this). So taken together these polls are broadly consistent with the overall trend, which is that Clinton's peak lead of about 20 has been reduced to about 10.

By the way, Clinton's recent peak lead on John Edwards was about 29.5. That is now down to about 17. As I noted elsewhere, Edwards has been closing on Clinton in Iowa as well (reducing her recent lead of 10 down to about 2.5).

All this may explain why Edwards seems to look pretty happy these days: his strategy of attacking Clinton directly seems to have paid off not only for Obama but also himself.

GordonsGirl wrote on December 6, 2007 8:46 AM:

There's still one variable out there: NH independents. I may need to reread the WaPo piece but it appeared to be based on a poll of Democrats.

NH is a fiercely independent state. It's very possible that independents will turn out for Obama. If so, and especially if Obama wins Iowa, Clinton will be crapping in her pants because SC will go to Obama as soon as its black voters see white people turning out for Obama.

If this scenario comes to pass, the real campaign will begin. Clinton still believes she'll win, depending on the big states to back her. What the Democrat race will then be is a referendum on her candidacy.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 10:33 AM:

GordonsGirl,

It is interesting (but perhaps unsurprising) that both of the New York candidates in this race may end up in the same position: not winning any of the early states but hoping to pull off a convincing "comeback" victory on Super Tuesday.

And that is not entirely implausible, although I do wonder how likely it is if a single opponent wins all or most of the early states.

Jan wrote on December 6, 2007 11:08 AM:

NCSteve wrote on December 5, 2007 5:56 PM: "So, basically, she's back down to her core true-believers and she's lost everyone else. Anyone on Hillary's side who tries to spin this as good news for her is delusional. Not that I have a problem with that--delusional opponents are beatable opponents."

NCSteve, you keep calling me delusional. I'm interested in your data, because I'm getting ready to call you an idiot, and I'm going to give you my data:

Has WaPo actually done a NH poll on the Democrats prior to this?
Has ABC?
Has ABC/WaPo?

Because I can't find one.

So, you are now down to comparing any poll that shows Clinton leading in NH by any amount, with a poll that shows her "ONLY" leading by six.

And you take from that that she's "back DOWN" to her core true-believers, and she's "LOST" "everyone" else.

I'm delusional? OK.
And you're an idiot who has absolutely no idea what information it is that polls reveal, but you're still arrogant enough to go ahead and banner them about anyway -- to predict the future of Senator Hillary Clinton a year from now.

And, calling other people "delusional" while you're at it.
L.M.F.A.O.!

Jan wrote on December 6, 2007 11:23 AM:

GordonsGirl wrote on December 6, 2007 8:46 AM: "There's still one variable out there: NH independents. [..] NH is a fiercely independent state. It's very possible that independents will turn out for Obama."

As a registered NH independent, I support Clinton. But my prediction is that most NH independents are voting for Ron Paul. His presence in the state so far (signs, etc.) is sort of astounding.
----
Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 5:01 AM: "For pacc, DemAC, dcshungu, colonpowwow and the other Hillary staffers assigned to make TPM/EC comments:..."
I wanted to check in as being proudly on the side of the "staffers" for Hillary Clinton here at TMC/EC! LOL!

And...
May I have your PROOF for this statement:

"Hillary's mean machine is in a panic because their internal polls show much worse for Hillary than the public polls right now."

Or are you just blowing smoke out your ass?

Kefa wrote on December 6, 2007 11:34 AM:

Let's not mention the Marist poll either.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Clinton%2c+Romney+still+ahead+in+new+NH+poll&articleId=04464c71-9281-41af-b9fd-62e89077ba28

up by quite a bit ending the 2nd. 14 points. Have a nice day.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 11:42 AM:

On the issue of NH Independents:

Most of the NH polls I have seen are already including Independents to the extent they qualify as likely voters in either the Republican or Democratic primary. So far the majority appear to be intending to vote in the Democratic primary. And so far Obama is actually winning among Independents intending to vote in the Democratic primary.

So I think the evidence supports the thesis that Obama is attracting valuable support from NH independents. On the other hand, to the extent this is already reflected in the polls, that support has not yet been enough to swing the state his way.

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 11:44 AM:

Kefa,

We have already been discussing the Marist poll (see, for example, my 7:36 post above).

Elliott wrote on December 6, 2007 11:55 AM:

You guys LOVE Obama. Do you people really read all this stuff. Your boring. I wish I could read thought out comments as opposed to Hilary sucks, Obama good.

You all know know they are both good candidates. Lighten up a little and try out a little thinking.

Elliott wrote on December 6, 2007 11:57 AM:

Okay, some of the later posts aren't so bad. But, for the rest of you. My commnet is still good!

Jan wrote on December 6, 2007 2:11 PM:

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 11:42 AM: "On the issue of NH Independents:
Most of the NH polls I have seen are already including Independents to the extent they qualify as likely voters in either the Republican or Democratic primary."

I'm not sure what you mean by "to the extent that they qualify as likely voters in either the R or D primary.

Are you talking about what a poll would call D or R "leaners"?

Because in NH, the unaffiliated voters choose an affiliation (not just R or D, of course) at the polls on the day of the primary.

The only polls I've seen that are polling Independents as a separate line are national polls.

I'm not questioning your honesty whatsoever, but I'm wondering if you can send me a link to a NH STATE poll that breaks out Independents.
Thanks!

Anonymous wrote on December 6, 2007 2:32 PM:

re:" Let the Democractic party champion democracy again, not the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton corporate-driven, profiteering, warmongering status quo. Maybe the GOP will take Hillary in and let her run for VP?"

So, tell me, when was it that Democrats were last in a position to actually champion Democracy from the President's bully pulpit?

Ummmm...
So, how has THIS looked to Democrats for the last half century?

Republican
Republican (re-elected)
Dem (killed)
Dem (run out of town)
Republican
Republican (re-elected)
Dem (run out of town)
Republican
Republican (re-elected)
CLINTON
CLINTON (RE-ELECTED!!!!)
Bush
Bush

Let me just say that if the Republicans ran Hillary as VP, imo, they'd treat her a WHOLE lot better than her Democratic Party treats both of the Clintons.

(And, I've never voted for a Clinton in my life. I was a REPUBLICAN when he ran... and I unfortunately believed the bullshit from the Clinton Haters, to my lifelong regret.)

Jan wrote on December 6, 2007 2:48 PM:

DTM wrote on December 6, 2007 7:36 AM:
"[...] By the way, Clinton's recent peak lead on John Edwards was about 29.5. That is now down to about 17. As I noted elsewhere, Edwards has been closing on Clinton in Iowa as well (reducing her recent lead of 10 down to about 2.5). All this may explain why Edwards seems to look pretty happy these days: his strategy of attacking Clinton directly seems to have paid off not only for Obama but also himself."

So, what do you do about the numbers from the first poll out of Iowa, which showed that John Edwards led the field by 20 points?

Instead of leading by 20 points now, John Edwards is currently losing Iowa.
Does your post make sense to you?

So, you think he's attacked Clinton, he's gone down to third place, and he's pretty happy now to help Obama win Iowa?

Sorry, I'm going to have to opine that Edwards is NOT happy right now.

I admit I haven't seen his face lately; he blinks too much for me.

CalD wrote on December 6, 2007 8:21 PM:

I wasn't going to say anything, but Kos wasn't as bashful.

Post a comment

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