Poll: Hillary, McCain Lead In New Hampshire

Comments (35)

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 1:05 PM:

They also announced they are starting a tracking poll, which should be interesting to watch.

Tara wrote on January 1, 2008 1:15 PM:

I would like to know why they are not updating the latest polls list to the right. There were several new polls released today which were positive news for Hillary yet the last poll on the list is the Register poll from last night that shows Obama leading by 7 in Iowa. Hmmm..This poll has an article but is still not listed. Is everyone sleeping in?

dcshungu wrote on January 1, 2008 1:29 PM:

The "Holiday Effect" continues with this InsiderAdvantage Iowa poll:

Reallocated Numbers Based on Second Preferences Gives Edwards A Solid Lead

InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Poll: Clinton and Edwards in Virtual Tie in Iowa
Compiled from InsiderAdvantage and Southern Political Report staff reports

December 31, 2007 — Using the same polling methodology that successfully predicted the outcome of the 2004 Democratic Caucus in Iowa, InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research has been conducting a daily tracking poll among likely voters in the Jan. 3 Iowa Democratic Caucus, and it shows a statistical tie between Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, with Barack Obama starting to lag.

Clinton has 30%, Edwards 29%, Obama 22%, with 14% committed to other candidates and 5% undecided.
The survey was conducted Jan. 28-29 among 788 likely Democratic voters in Iowa. The poll has been weighted for gender and age. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4%.

Critically, Edwards was the second choice of 62% of those who supported other candidates that did not receive the required 15% of the vote. Clinton was the second choice of 21% and Obama of 17%.
Using the reallocation methodology InsiderAdvantage used in 2004 – which correctly indicated a fairly comfortable win for John Kerry – our new poll reveals that, if the caucuses were held today, the reallocated final outcome would be:

Edwards: 41%
Clinton: 34%
Obama: 25%
[...]

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 1:35 PM:

As we noted previously, Insider Advantage also had a poll earlier in December where it made a big difference if they looked at "likely voters" or "highly likely voters".

DemAC wrote on January 1, 2008 2:01 PM:

The relations between the mainstream media and their (former?) darling Obama is showing further tendencies to change, indicating some hard times to come for camp Obama. Some time ago the Washington Post caught Obama in a repeated lie.

As today’s Washington Post shows – this just won’t go away Richard Cohen now openly questions Obama’s integrity.

Says Cohen: “I and others have written that Obama -- as he himself says in the introduction to this book -- invented composite characters and altered chronology. But as the Chicago Tribune also reported, some of the events Obama passionately details seem not to have happened at all. Maybe his memory played tricks on him. Mine sure does. But I am not running for president. And if I were, I'd pay particular attention to the truth -- to the nagging facts that sometimes get in the way of a good story.”

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 2:13 PM:

For those who aren't aware, Cohen is concerned about the veracity of Obama's statement: "I don't want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college."

I can't speak for Obama, but I know that in 2000, a Justice Policy Institute study found there were more black men in prison than in college. Now it is possible that has changed, but it seems the big difference is that the Post factchecker limited his search to black men in prison through ages up to 35, and did not look at all black men as the JPI study did.

And I suppose that is somewhat fair since Obama said "young black men" as opposed to just "black men". But if that is the worst Cohen can come up with, I am not sure he should be too worried.

DemAC wrote on January 1, 2008 2:24 PM:

The problem is not the occasional slip of the tongue. The problem is Obama’s repeated use of flawed facts when the falsehood was explicitly pointed out to him. Then it becomes a lie.

The larger picture on Obama’s problems with the truth is the foul stench from GWB.

Says Cohen: “After all, it ought to be true that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. It ought to be true that he had ties with Osama bin Laden. It ought to be true that aluminum tubes were intended for a nuclear weapons program, and it ought to be true, really, that none of this mattered since what mattered most of all was a larger truth: Hussein had to go and the Middle East had to be urban-renewed for the sake of democracy.”

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 2:27 PM:

DemAC,

That is the sort of false equivalency that has brought shame on the "mainstream media".

DemAC wrote on January 1, 2008 2:36 PM:

DTM,
You think it’s a “false equivalency” that if Obama lies of little things he’ll also lie of big things like GWB.

Sure, that might be so. Or it might not. How are we supposed to know? And if you’re wrong, aren’t the chance that the bill will be on the voters?

At least we know that Obama’s perfectly capable of adjusting the reality to suit the audience he’s addressing at the moment.

roo_P wrote on January 1, 2008 2:39 PM:

DemAC,

Wow. Cohen casts doubts on the entire book as "Obama's tendency to manipulate facts" because the article he cites from when he was 9 (yes, nine, although maybe it is fair game being post-kindergarten) was not actually in Life magazine as he retells it but possibly Esquire or perhaps may even have just been an advert that his imagination ran wild on in, say, Jet or Ebony (who to this day run whitening product ads.)

Talk about scraping the barrel. I will say, here and now, that I promise not to hold anything non-felony-grade Clinton or Edwards did before age 25 against them.

I was thinking about it, though. If I were to write an autobiography, I think a lot of people would have a vastly different view of the situations described and my actions.

Hell, I bet my wife would completely contradict my interpretation of the little argument we had last night.

In short, trying to make hay out of this means you are either a hypocrite or just an ass.

roo_P wrote on January 1, 2008 2:46 PM:

The black men in prison vs. college is an interesting question. It is hyperbole -- but it was definitely not immediately obvious to a lot of people. White people, that is. The black folks he was talking to probably knew.

Hyperbole for the sake of rhetorical expediency is not something to be encouraged but in this case it illustrates something interesting about race relations and -- in particular -- media portrayal of black youth as well as some deep troubles the black community is going to have to work through.

I would be hard-pressed to believe he was actually trying to convince someone that his statement was factual.

DemAC wrote on January 1, 2008 2:53 PM:

roo_P,
I’m not a bit concerned if Obama’s lying his ass off or if he’s hypocritical in his autobiography. I’m however concerned that Obama keeps lying to audiences just because a particular lie is comfortable for pandering to that audience at that particular moment.

And it’s not as if the the Rethugs haven’t found out either.

Is all this indicative of a propensity for lying of big things too? I don’t know. I don’t want to risk find out either.

roo_P wrote on January 1, 2008 3:06 PM:

DemAC,

You really, really want to play the fact-checking game?

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=topnews

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/exaggerating_help_for_troops.html

http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_vs_obama.html

http://www.factcheck.org/clinton_wrong_on_cancer_stat.html

Those took about two minutes to dig up -- and mind you, you will probably find similar things from Obama, Edwards, Biden and the rest of them, too. The difference is that I do not pretend these are earth-shattering things.

DemAC wrote on January 1, 2008 3:18 PM:

roo_P
You don’t listen nor read do you? I said I don’t care about autobiographies. I said I don’t care about the occasional slip of the tongue; that will happen to the best of candidates in every long campaign, everybody knows that.

I said however that I’m concerned that Obama keeps lying to audiences just because a particular lie is comfortable for pandering to that audience at that particular moment. “Keeps lying” as in keeping presenting flawed facts after you’ve been presented with unequivocal proof that they’re wrong.

hello_world wrote on January 1, 2008 3:22 PM:

Hillary supporters going relentlessly negative in light of bad news?

Say it ain't so.

NCSteve wrote on January 1, 2008 3:42 PM:

DemAC,

Though it makes me complicit in a thread-jacking, I have to say I find it somewhat confusing how you and Cohen find this bit of hyperbole by Obama to be so profoundly disturbing, but you are both apparently utterly unmoved by, say, this instance of Hillary repeatedly misstating important facts on a matter supposedly within her area of expertise on TV interviews:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_errs_on_Pakistan_.html

Cohen's fixation on the fact that Obama's recollection of which magazine he saw a dramatic picture in when he was nine frakkin years old was faulty, and his repeated attempts use it as evidence that Obama is a serial dissembler is kind of reminding me of, well, the way Cohen used the exact same kind of "reasoning" to argue that Al Gore was a serial dissembler back in 2000. The man's a sad joke. He did good and honorable work twenty years ago, but now he's just another Beltway cocktail weenie-addled peddler of last year's stale CW. And pushing his stale CW on a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject seems kind of, well, let's see, what's that word that Hillary's supportes keep bandying about here? Oh, yeah, desperate.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on January 1, 2008 4:00 PM:

Clinton and McCain lead in a poll put out by ABC. Walt Disney would be shocked that the corporate favorites are winning in a poll put out by the corporation the mouse built.

john mccutchen wrote on January 1, 2008 4:14 PM:

All the News thats Unfit for TPMElectHillaryCentral to Print

Ben Smith, the Politico.com
What Foreign Policy Expertise
Hillary doesn't know that Musharaff is President of Pakistan http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_errs_on_Pakistan_.html

HAPPY NEW YEAR ERIC!!
xoxoxoxo

roo_P wrote on January 1, 2008 4:20 PM:

DemAC,

Did you actually read the links? NCSteve points out another one. It is rather silly to pretend that one of the campaigns does not use hyperbole or try to present everything in the best light for themselves.

Peggy McGilligan wrote on January 1, 2008 4:22 PM:

What goes up (Hillary's numbers), must come down: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Tara wrote on January 1, 2008 5:01 PM:

I hope this is not a dup post by me, but in mid comment I decided against my better judgement to look at your link. Peggy, you seem to be a bitter women. Is it all about looks to you. You as a women should be ashamed. One day you too will reach the age of sixty (If you are lucky). That was a bad picture and who cares if she gets old. Old means wise.

In any case, you are wrong. Hillarys numbers ARE NOT going down.

Dan wrote on January 1, 2008 5:02 PM:

Kucinich just just semi-endorsed Obama by asking his supporters to caucus for Obama if Kucinich is not viable in their precincts!

CalD wrote on January 1, 2008 5:20 PM:

Speaking of Pakistan -- as long as we're thread-jacking -- Obama was asked Friday on CNN if he supported an international investigation into Bhutto's assassination along the lines of what Clinton had called for and gave what sounded like a kind of knee-jerk, if-Clinton-is-for-it-I'm-against-it sounding response:

Clinton also called for an independent, international investigation into Bhutto's death, "perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations have been doing with respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon." Obama said he doesn't share that view. "It is important to us to not give the idea that Pakistan is unable to handle its own affairs," he said.

(This was apparently before his handlers could get to him and tell him what he really thought because the very next day he seemed to think that the U.S. needs to come down hard on Musharraf)

The CNN thing didn't attract much attention at the time -- I think Politico picked up on it but that was about it -- but I found myself wondering today if it might get revisited, in light of reports that Bhutto was about to release a report alleging that Musharraf was plotting to rig elections, and also that Doctor's who treated Bhutto have been told to keep silent.

CalD wrote on January 1, 2008 5:27 PM:

Oops, here's the link to that Huffington Post piece I forgot to include in my previous comment:

Bhutto Was To Release Report Saying Musharraf Planned To Rig Elections On Day She Was Killed

I knew I was forgetting something.

TPS wrote on January 1, 2008 6:44 PM:

A typical Obama supporter's "objective analysis" at TPM: "Obama is god! He can make no mistake. Every mistake, verbal gaffe, lie from him is instantly forgiven because he is god! Or they are a figment of everyone's imagination."

This is exactly like how Bush's supporters talk and think. This is how they went about promoting an inexperienced second-term Governor. Now the same language is being used to support an inexperienced first-term Senator whose entire appeal is based on books about him written by himself.

This is scary for our country. This is why even though I am a Democrat, I will never support Obama! You judge a candidate by his supporters! I am not willing to support another Bush in Democrat's clothing!

NCSteve wrote on January 1, 2008 7:49 PM:

Umm, not so much forgiven, but we are just a tad uninclined to give a zero credibility Iraq War supporting Gore-dissing gasbag like Cohen gets more cred than Obama. Especially when, at it happens, Cohen and the Post are wrong. There are, in fact, more black men in jail than in college. At least as of 2002.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2223709.stm

Penpal wrote on January 1, 2008 8:25 PM:

NCSteve: To have anything to do with Obama lying about young black men in jail vs in college, that British link of yours would have to say that there are more black men of all ages in jail than there are black men of all ages with college education. Thank God that’s not the case. So just accept the fact that your saintly candidate lie when it’s convenient for him and quit blustering about it.

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 8:38 PM:

DemAC,

Again, the issue is apparently whether or not Obama should have included the word "young" in the line "I don't want to wake up four years from now and discover that we still have more young black men in prison than in college."

On the other hand, Bush led the nation into a disasterous war in Iraq by doing things like omitting key dissenting views from the declassifed NIE and using debunked intelligence in his State of the Union.

So, yes, that is a false equivalence.

Generally, everyone campaigning is going to sometimes make minor mistakes when it comes to factual assertions. But unless that mistake is plausibly part of a concerted effort at deception, no one will care.

For example, in this case the gist of Obama's statement is that he believes too many black men are going to prison and too few black men are going to college, and he wants to try to do something about that. Even if he did in fact get his statistical statement slightly wrong, I doubt many people are going to feel deceived given the basic point he was trying to make.

Again, for contrast, Bush convincing people Iraq was close to developing a nuclear weapon when in fact they had no such program is the sort of thing many people do rightly feel deceived about. And it is frankly sad you are trying to treat these two things as equivalent.

heretic wrote on January 1, 2008 9:48 PM:

I'll tell ya. I find Barack Obama to be so disreputable a person that, while a lifelong Dem voter in national elections, there is a very good chance I would vote against him if McCain was his opponent. And the main reason is that I can trust McCain to keep religion out of politics. Clearly not a religious bone in the man's body. I certainly don't agree with his warmongering, but push come to shove, I don't think he would lie to get us into a war. His whole argument for the surge really centers on the fact that we are there and he genuinely believes we need to win it with a massive show of force, something he advocated from early on. Again, I disagree, but of greater concern to me is whether he would have attacked in the first place. My gut says that if he knew at the time what Bush surely knew, the answer would be a resounding no. But, it is really the religion thing to me. Obama flaunts his christianity, which just makes me want to puke. If the Democratic party panders to the god crowd to get elected, we are done for as a country. So, I'd rather take my chances with someone who is either a non-believer or would set the rhetoric aside. (Hillary, BTW, is apparently quite religious herself—long attending a prayer group that includes many repugs—but she doesn't make a federal case out of it. I can live with that as well.)

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 10:05 PM:

"I would probably have to say yes, that the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

-John McCain,

Ni Daye wrote on January 1, 2008 10:09 PM:

I question the stupidity surrounding this 2nd choice in Iowa. For all the people who support Biden, Dodd, Richardson, why do they like them? I suppose they like them for experience. Do you think they will change their votes to Obama with no experience if their first choice does not make it? Gimme a break!

Michael's Mom wrote on January 1, 2008 10:32 PM:

"heretic" is just a Hillary supporter masquerading as someone who had been open-minded; you know, a troll.

How is it that Iowans, even Hillary supporters, don't have the strictly negative views of Obama expressed here and in other online venues? Could it be they aren't getting paid to shill or aren't being promised anything to support her, and are therefore free to think well of her opponents as well?

After HC's Shaheen attack on Obama, I guarantee you the damage she's done herself in the black community will make it difficult for her to approach John Kerry's numbers among African Americans. So, Obama won't get "heretics"'s vote; Hillary won't get 50% of the black vote as the nominee. Those of us who listened to the reaction on Tom Joyner's radio show afterward think that will be dispositive in terms of her genelec propspects.

DTM wrote on January 1, 2008 10:47 PM:

Ni Daye,

Well, the problem is that the second choice questions usually restrict the field to the people currently polling over 15%, which is just Obama, Clinton, and Edwards. None of those three has anything similar to the experience of Biden, Dodd, or Richardson. So, supporters of those three candidates basically have to find new criteria to make their second choice when it is limited in that fashion.

timnlisa1 wrote on January 1, 2008 11:14 PM:

Heretic,

If you are a lifelong democrat I know you would never vote for a GOPer in the 2008 election. If you did, you are essentially saying that you are supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the gutting of all business regulations, the prohibition of civil unions, and every other ruling that would happen if a GOPer was allowed to appoint the next 2 replacements on the US Supreme court that will surely happen in the next 4 years. So either you are not a lifelong Democrat, or you were before but now actually you are a wingnut, or you are lying for dramatic effect.

I personally support Obama and would want to work strongly to get him elected in the general. I would also feel comfortable working to get Edwards, Kucinic or Dodd elected. And despite the fact that I long for a change of the Bush/Clinton dynasty, I would still force myself to go out and vote for Clinton in the general (but nothing more than that) because I know the damage that would occur if another GOPer were able to pick the next two Supreme replacements. I find it completely ridiculous the way progressives here are trashing our candidates over such little nit-picky stuff. ALL THE DEM CANDIDATES WILL WORK TO GET US OUT OF IRAQ, MOST PEOPLE INSURED, GET THE CORRECT PEOPLE ON THE SUPREME COURT, ELIMINATE BUSH'S RIDICULOUS TAX CUTS FOR THE ULTRA RICH, RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, ETC. To say that any GOP would do this more to a progressive's satisfactions is completely disingenuous!!

Desider wrote on January 2, 2008 3:38 AM:

One point is that these candidates' current jobs are 1) running for President and 2) being Senators. They'll make minor mistakes on details, and it's up to the public to deal with how "minor" is minor. I have no problem with Obama's observation that way too many black men are in jail, however the specifics of the statement and statistics go - it's more true than "truthy".

Similarly, Hillary should have known it was a parliamentary election in Pakistan, but in fact the elections are a type of referendum for who will be PM - certainly there would have been an immediate vote of no confidence on Musharraf had Bhutto's party won, and certainly she would have been PM. Her party boycotted presidential elections in October, and one of the tools for keeping her from being PM was to make her ineligible to run for Parliament (in 2002 and earlier in 2007). The fluff about "knowing Benazir" is fairly irrelevant - certainly will do no good with a dead leader, is a small jump start with live leaders.

What is more important is the issue of how to deal with these countries in terms of hands-off or hands-on and what exactly "hands-on" means. With Pakistan, I'd suggest a different kind of hands-on than the Bush "I can read his soul and he's a good man" approach, and not a hands-off policy. But there's a certain amount of real politik required. None of the leaders in Pakistan are clean. We're balance US and regional security and stability along with human rights and democracy both for short and long term. Leaving Pakistan to its own devices is not an option - it's a nuclear power with a grudge against India and strong military support for religious fanatics. As well as a strong remnant of a very intelligent well-educated part of the British Empire. I.e. with 2 conflicting groups we can make a difference, whereas with a unified anti-US bent our efforts would likely be irrelevant. This all said, which candidate says what?

Post a comment

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