Obama Grabs The Lead In Mason-Dixon Poll Of New Hampshire

Comments (43)

M wrote on January 6, 2008 11:23 AM:

Let me beat everyone to the punch here:

Clintonistas- This website is obviously biased against our candidate!

Obamaniacs- Fired up? Ready to go!

Edwardsites- You didn't note that 7 point bounce in our favor!!

I, of course, side with the second position.

bridoc wrote on January 6, 2008 11:31 AM:

Very fired up, very ready to go here.

It is definitely in line with the polls showing Obama making huge gains since his decisive win in Iowa. If the entire poll had been taken post-Iowa, it probably would have been more in line with those recent post-Iowa polls showing Obama with a huge lead over Hillary to the tune of 10-12%. I think people are finally getting the message and are finally coming to see a huge Clinton defeat in NH, with the same happening in SC after African American voters realize that America IS ready for a black president. I think NH and SC are going to be a one-two punch to Hillary that is going to finish her chances (although she won't give up), especially if Edwards finally admits he isn't going to win, and throws his support behind Obama after SC and before judgment day.

Yes yes, very fired up, very ready to go.

Can't wait =)

heretic wrote on January 6, 2008 11:43 AM:

For weeks, Obama supporters have whined every time a headline said Hillary was ahead when she was really within the MOE (and they were right). Now, same thing with a slight twist and utter silence. These headlines should refer to the race as a dead heat.

Michael wrote on January 6, 2008 11:50 AM:

Well, heretic, as they say, "whats good for the goose is good for the gander" (or in this case, it'd be the opposite order, but w/e). Those complaints were valid, but since we've already set the standard here of ignoring MOE when discussing "leads" in polls in the headlines, Obama deserves the same treatment that Hillary got.

BTW

Bill Bradley to endorse Obama

Kennedy, Kerry, and Gore have yet to endorse, but they all seem like the types to go with Obama. Kennedy has had issues in the past, having to brow beat Clinton into supporting big bills of his...whereas he and Obama have worked together closely on at least one joint "pet" bill. Obviously, Obama's rise is somewhat directly attributable to Kerry, one of the first in the Dem establishment ot recognize his talent (supposedly John made the call to get him as the keynote speaker) and has definitely been a friend/ally in the Senate. And Gore is just much more a natural fit in terms of approach to issues (both look at things from a systematic level) and approach to politics (both think the soundbyte pettiness hinders politics).

I wouldn't be surprised of Obama starts rolling them out, one by one, whenever he needs a good headline; or even, saving them for right before "Super Tuesday"

Hal wrote on January 6, 2008 11:52 AM:

I place more faith in the political futures markets right now than in polls taken both before and after Iowa. Right now, Obama is at 78.9% to win in NH on Intrade. Hillary last traded at 31, but is now 22.5 bid, 25 asked. There seems to be a lack of bidders.

The idea that Obama has the political chops to win in November takes a while to sink in, and polls won't capture it right away.

One of Hillary's selling points is that only she can withstand the Republican attack machine. But the Republicans come out of Iowa in disarray, so Democrats can feel easier about choosing Obama.

PointGuard wrote on January 6, 2008 11:54 AM:

Well it's most likely not a dead heat as the trend is pretty significant. Tomorrow if the trends holds up the furtherest back day's data will dropped in favor of a new day's data. The most recent two days have showed such a bounce that it erased the negative numbers from the pre-Iowa days. I'm guessing BO has a 6-12 point lead right now. No telling what it will be Tuesday night. Could me more could be less though I'm leaning toward more than 6.

audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 12:00 PM:

Another reason not to believe th polls. What kind of idiot believes in Clinton, then because Obama did well in Iowa, changes his vote?

M wrote on January 6, 2008 12:04 PM:

Good Auditor,

The type of "idiot" that doesn't really decide until a couple days before going to the polls (or a couple minutes before). Not everyone is as attuned to the race and campaign dynamics as we are too.

Besides, everyone in America (or most everyone) likes a winner. They also like the underdog. In my mind, to many, Obama embodies both of those concepts.

Now, whether that is a true perception or not is certainly up for debate. What matters, however, is what most people perceive to be true, not what is actually true.

Zif wrote on January 6, 2008 12:06 PM:

"Clintonistas- This website is obviously biased against our candidate!

Obamaniacs- Fired up? Ready to go!

Edwardsites- You didn't note that 7 point bounce in our favor!!"

You forgot Richardsonites. Might I suggest: RESUME!

M wrote on January 6, 2008 12:09 PM:

I apologize for my nearly indecipherable previous post. I am trying to keep track of this and my law course, as it happens.

Zif,

Yeah, good point. But between HIS indecipherable comments yesterday and his interminable table pounding, I think it best not to include him in any discussion about the election. He's a joke, in my mind.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 12:09 PM:

audit the polls,

Actually, it is perfectly rational. Polls show that Democrats basically like both Clinton and Obama. But they are also naturally concerned about winning the general election, and a good number of Democrats who otherwise liked Obama had at least some concerns about whether he could translate his fundraising, crowds, stirring speeches, and so on into actual votes. Of course that is the sort of question which can only be answered by real results.

And in fact the outcome in Iowa strongly suggests that Obama can translate all of his resources and support into actual votes. With that new piece of information, it is natural that a number of people who previously liked Obama but were concerned about these issues have been reassured and are moving to support him.

Ni Daye wrote on January 6, 2008 12:10 PM:

audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 12:00 PM:
Another reason not to believe th polls. What kind of idiot believes in Clinton, then because Obama did well in Iowa, changes his vote?

--- audit the polls, you are actually incorrect in your assessment. some people may be weakly committed to Mrs. Clinton and are subjected to the results of Iowa. This is now no longer a contest of substance but a popularity test. When everybody you know likes the songs of Britney Spears, you may question why you do not like hers. People are easily cojoled to become a part of so called something big.

It is very difficult for Clinton to stop the momentum train of Obama in NH because there is not enough time. The good thing so far is that Obama's NH bounce appears not to be that strong. As long as Mrs. Clinton finished within 10 points, hopefully 5 points behind Obama, she lives to fight another day, so do we believers.

Hopefully, eventually cool heads will prevail. In time of peril, are we really ready to throw a dice on someone who talks good but is untested.

“Words do inspire. Don’t discount that power.” That's right. Words can also get people to buy lemons from used car salesmen and Hilter's inspiring words take the whole world into WWII. I know Obama lovers will jump all over me on this Hitler thing but I never intend to say obama is an evil man like Hilter. I just want people to think hard about the inspiring words coming out of the mouth of politicians.

dajafi wrote on January 6, 2008 12:12 PM:

That the overall trend here is "plus 14" suggests that a lot of people have very recently made up their minds. Presumably the 12 percent not captured here is either still undecided or with one of the minor candidates.

That 13 of the 14 is for Obama or Edwards further suggests that the candidate of the Democratic status quo is in serious trouble. Will that 12 percent decisively break for Clinton? Very hard to envision.

I've read a lot of commentary, here and elsewhere, that followed last night's debate. The Clinton supporters thought she did great--which isn't surprising, nor is there anything necessarily wrong with that. But I haven't read many, if any, comments from people whose minds were changed much one way or the other.

M wrote on January 6, 2008 12:14 PM:

DTM,

Good analysis.

Ni Daye,

Apt comparison for the subject-matter you are discussing. An intellectual can understand your parsing of politics from group dynamics and linguistics.

As an Obama supporter, I understand your point.

Keith wrote on January 6, 2008 12:15 PM:

As long as Mrs. Clinton finished within 10 points, hopefully 5 points behind Obama, she lives to fight another day, so do we believers.

If she loses by 10 points, she's DONE. She may continue through February 5th, but she will have very little chance of winning the nomination.

hello_world wrote on January 6, 2008 12:27 PM:

Fired up, ready to go!

Ni Daye wrote on January 6, 2008 12:28 PM:

We Clinton supporters should be thankful of Mr. Edwards. At this point, he is nothing but a gadfly and he has nothing to lose to continue this fight. His presence in the race only serves to divide the so-called vote for change. Most of Edwards' votes may well have gone to Obama if he is not around. His continued presence in the race will continue dividing votes for "change".

Last night, the way Mr. Edwards teamed up to hit Clinton from the left field is so blatant that everybody is seeing through it. I'm not sure how women will feel for these two young fella piling on Mrs. Clinton but the way she defends herself from Edwards' attack, while may appear angry to somebody, should be a net positive for her. Have women not taken enough crap from men before?

I think Mrs. Clinton missed an opportunity when bill richardson talking about the youth of Jack Kennedy. Yes, Jack was 42 when he ran for the president. but he was a Senator for eight years and a house member. Before that he fought in the War II and was a military leader. he wrote "Profiles in courage". Is it better than "audacity of hope". Obama supporters can give you a good assessment.

M wrote on January 6, 2008 12:29 PM:

Keith,

I beg to differ. I will agree with you once I see the poll numbers in New York and California begin to move in Obama's direction.

Now the effect the current race and situation having on those large states are polls I would love to commission, had I the time or money.

Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on January 6, 2008 12:30 PM:

Obama lovers will jump all over me on this Hitler thing but I never intend to say obama is an evil man like Hilter. I just want people to think hard about the inspiring words coming out of the mouth of politicians.

I'm not a lover of Obama, I'm a supporter.

And I did read his words -- in fact, past the '04 speech at the convention, I didn't listen to Obama until the Selma address. What drew me in, after a lot of reading on a lot of candidates, was his article in Foreign Affairs, in fact. I do strongly admire his rhetorical abilities; coming from a Southern Black background, but support him because of the thought and analysis he's put into the issues, as per his writings and positions.

Words do matter. As does action. And I respect that Obama, time and again, chose work that put his feet on the street, practicing what he preaches -- voter reg. drives, civil rights lawyer, things that made a difference to ordinary people, day-to-day. To imply that he doesn't mean what he says, that this is somehow new, and hollow territory, for him flies in the face of the evidence a through reading of his interviews and work shows, in my opinion. He brings a substance to the change argument that I feel no one else on the table really has.

There is a point -- a strong point -- about how he can negotiate the corridors of power, but that is, with respect, another discussion.

audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 12:30 PM:

Most people are not real 'members' of a party. They register with one party or another because you have to to vote in a primary. As such they don't really care about whether the Democrats win. If the Republicans put up a better candidate, they will vote for him.

The purpose of primaries for most people is to get the best president, not so a particular party can win. I don't buy that people will change their preference based on Iowa's horse-trading. I, and most people still want the best candidate.

Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on January 6, 2008 12:38 PM:

Before that he fought in the War II and was a military leader. he wrote "Profiles in courage". Is it better than "audacity of hope". Obama supporters can give you a good assessment.

They are both great books, and very different in tone and subject. I would not compare them, no more than I'd compare THEODORE REX and the book BAND OF BROTHERS.

Perhaps the best person to ask is the rumored ghostwriter of COURAGE, Ted Sorensen, who is backing Obama in this race, to the point of comparing him positivity to JFK. I personally feel his comparison might be a bit overblown, but you know, kids today. :)

Keith wrote on January 6, 2008 12:39 PM:

M:

We are all entitled to our opinions. February 5th will be about media and money. He's got the media, leading in primary money and the momentum. If he wins NH by a landslide, his advantages in those three areas grows exponentially (at least that's my guess). But it's all speculation on my part and concede that you could be right.

Ni Daye wrote on January 6, 2008 12:40 PM:

audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 12:30 PM:
Most people are not real 'members' of a party.

--- I truly hope people don't have the "herd mentality". The pundits appear to totally disagree with you. I really want to see eggs on their fat faces, especially that of chris Mathews'

M wrote on January 6, 2008 12:43 PM:

Keith,

Yep, I understand your opinion. And you have very good points. But, I will remain undecided on his real chances at victory until I see some change in those large delegate states.

I believe that here in Minnesota, he still has a mountain to climb in the polls. Then again, I haven't seen a Minnesota poll in about two months.

You could be right as well. Either way, I am still going to work my tail off to convince Minnesotans to caucus for Obama. Cheers!

Long Time Democrat wrote on January 6, 2008 12:43 PM:

I think Josh Marshall and TPM should come out and endorse Obama openly! It is obvious that Josh likes him and wants him to win. At least at Huffington Post they are open about their support for Obama!

M wrote on January 6, 2008 12:45 PM:

LTD,

See my post at top. Everyone is going to complain about TPM if the information doesn't agree with their particular worldview point. Instead of attacking the purveyors of information, why don't you interpret that information, or, even better, provide your own.

M wrote on January 6, 2008 12:57 PM:

Note that I am also a "Long Time Democrat."

Does anyone out there believe that certain, consistent points of view may not actually come from supporters, but instead from the campaigns themselves?

The four-line responses are always generally suspect in my mind.

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 1:05 PM:

Long Time Democrat said: "I think Josh Marshall and TPM should come out and endorse Obama openly!"

Good idea. But they are already very committed to Hillary.

Kelly wrote on January 6, 2008 1:07 PM:

Hillary is desperate and trying to go negative against Obama. Last night in the New Hampshire debates she accused Obama of having made statements years ago and now is changing his opinions. I am a feminist, but all I could hear was a seventh grade girl saying "Jenny said that you said that.....", and it appeared really pathetic to me. Obama handled it like an adult and didn't get into gossip. I am so glad that we have a candidate who can discuss the issues and the way foreword, rather than petty, typical, political fighting, and I am afraid that Hillary is desperate and going to try to continue with the sophomoric negative campaigns.
Fired up!

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 1:08 PM:

Hillary attack dogs post here consistently under a variety of names:

pacc, CalD, DemAC, colonpowwow

Their distortions have so compromised their credibility, Long Time Democrat may be used a new lable for the same ol' spin.

brm wrote on January 6, 2008 1:09 PM:

The Bush-Clinton era will end on Tuesday
All Americans will celebrate that

Say your goodbyes to the Goldwater Girl

Anonymous wrote on January 6, 2008 1:12 PM:

add Ni Daye
To the Hillary attack dogs

The Bush-Clinton era will finally come to an end on Tuesday

CELEBRATE

Bursting the Obama Bubble wrote on January 6, 2008 1:19 PM:

Did Obama lie in the debate about his New Hampshire Co-Chair not being a lobbyist for drug comapnies?

http://thepage.time.com/

"In Saturday’s debate, in the face of an explicit charge from Clinton, Obama denied that his New Hampshire co-chair Jim Demers is a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry: “That’s not so.”
Watch the exchange here.
In fact, as you can see here, it is a true fact that Demers is registered to lobby for Pfizer and PhRMA.
In an exclusive interview by The Page with Clinton aboard her campaign bus Sunday she says, “You can talk a great game about how you are really standing firm against the special interests and then when it becomes inconvenient that you actually have a lobbyist running your campaign, you deny it.” Click below to watch."

Apparently, the Messiah can lie too!

audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 1:33 PM:

Most people don't, but the press does have a 'herd mentality'. Their careers depend on access to power. Or at least they think it does.

Chris Mathews will follow anyone who appears to have momentum for fear of backing the wrong horse. [as long as his owners say it's OK] This would be bad enough, if the polls were independent and honest. Unfortunately, I see no reason for them to be, so I have to assume they aren't.

If a poll gets you on Chris Mathews, why not buy one?

Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill wrote on January 6, 2008 1:35 PM:

Bursting,

He's not a freaking Messiah, no more than anyone else -- hell, even the quasi-sainted MLK was just a man.
That said, this information is disappointing. I'd expect Obama to know more about his Co-Chairs, and to deal straight-on with the issue.

AJ in Hogtown wrote on January 6, 2008 1:53 PM:

Today's Rasmussen nationwide tracking poll hasn't been posted on this site yet, but it shows a rather remarkable climb for Edwards over tha last 3 days. It shows him at 23 vs Obama's 24. Maybe just a blip, maybe not.

DTM wrote on January 6, 2008 1:59 PM:

No matter what happens in NH, I think the state to watch is going to be California. Fortunately, I think we will get a decent number of polls in California as Super Tuesday approaches.

c wrote on January 6, 2008 3:15 PM:

The Edwards climb nationally is really interesting and it would be nice to see more on it.

Audit, while you wouldn't know it from these forums, many possibly most Democratic voters, and that includes me, like all three of the top candidates.

And many of us loyal party folk want down-ticket wins. You look at Obama's Iowa success in bringing in young people and independents, and you say yeah, we could use some of that. Bring those folks out in November and they also vote in state and local races, no?

Right now a lot of cynical folks who looked at Obama and say, right, it's a nice dream but it's never gonna happen are now rediscovering hope.

There are smart and honorable reasons to support Clinton and Edwards as well.

Everyman1 wrote on January 6, 2008 3:24 PM:

One of Hillary Clinton's problems is being too nice too long with Obama folks name calling, avoiding his record, and blaming her for Bhutto's death.

lestatdelc wrote on January 6, 2008 3:48 PM:

" I think NH and SC are going to be a one-two punch to Hillary that is going to finish her chances "

I don't entirely disagree, but you are forgetting Nevada which comes before SC and Hillary (if she loses in NH) will likely score her first win that counts there in NV (MI comes before that but she is the only one on the ballot since the DNC has stripped MI's delegates from being seated since they violated the schedule by moving their primary up).

Michael A wrote on January 6, 2008 4:28 PM:

DTM, you are right again. California will be interesting, but I will bet you a lunch if obama wins nh, he takes california. Clinton's iraq vote is devastating concerning dems. Throw that in the mix with obama wins and he takes california.

carrenderb wrote on January 6, 2008 4:38 PM:

Kefa? dcshungu? Where are you? Awfully quiet since Iowa.

audit the polls wrote on January 6, 2008 5:30 PM:

Don't mean to sound cynical. I like all the Democratic candidates not just the 'top 3'.

Post a comment

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