Clinton Widens Lead In Poll (33 points over nearest rival)

[onehandle]

Source: Washington Post

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her place as the front-runner in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, outpacing her main rivals in fundraising in the most recent quarter and widening her lead in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

For the first time, Clinton (N.Y.) is drawing support from a majority of Democrats -- and has opened up a lead of 33 percentage points over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.

The new numbers come on the heels of an aggressive push by Clinton to dominate the political landscape. She unveiled her health-care proposal and then appeared on all five Sunday news shows on the same day -- all while her husband, former president Bill Clinton, went on tour to promote a new book. Within the past month, at least one Clinton has appeared on television virtually every day, increasing the campaign's exposure among millions of Americans.

Yesterday, her campaign announced that it had topped Obama for the first time in a fundraising period, taking in $22 million in the past three months in funds that can be used for the primary campaign, to Obama's $19 million.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202365.html?hpid=topnews

[deacon]

1. Inflation numbers are phoney too. n/t

[aggiesal]

57. I don't trust ABC News for anything...

Remember, they refused to ask Kucinich any questions during the debate
on ABC, then cropped out his picture.
ABC also aired the 9/11 fake movie, trying to make King George look like
he was actually leading.

There is an arterial motive with ABC. I think that if they can get
Hillary to win, they'll have a better chance at defeating her in the
General election.

If she doesn't win, they'll have a harder time winning.

Just my opinion.

[Demeter]

2. There's Many a Slip T'wixt the Cup and the Lip

Don't count your chickens before they hatch!

[journalist3072]

3. Terrific news! Congrats Sen. Clinton. eom

[ileus]

25. All the others are running for VP...congrats Hillary.

[robcon]

4. Classic DU responses.

The first two posters react in the two forms of denial on DU

One claims the poll is phony.
One claim someone is counting chicken too early, although not one person posted that, or counted any chickens.

Neither one of those posts address the real issue: the fact that Clinton's double-digit lead is growing.

The campaign is not over. Big leads have been squandered before. But her lead is pretty impressive.

From the link...

"...Despite rivals' efforts to portray her as too polarizing to win the general election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4, 2008. The percentage saying Clinton has the best shot at winning is up 14 points since June. By contrast, 20 percent think Edwards is most electable and 16 percent think Obama is, numbers that represent a huge blow to the "electability" argument rivals have sought to use against her.

One of the central claims of Obama's campaign is that he is best suited to lower partisan tensions in Washington. But, in this poll, more see Clinton as best able to reduce partisanship.

On major issues, Democrats are far more likely to trust her than her main competitors -- 52 percent trust her most on Iraq, compared with 22 percent who trust Obama most on the war and 17 percent who trust Edwards most. On health care, 66 percent trust her most to handle the issue, compared with 15 percent for Obama and 14 percent for Edwards. Half see Clinton as the candidate who best reflects the "core values" of the Democratic Party.

Democrats remain roughly evenly divided over whether they want a candidate of change or of experience, the dichotomy that has been widely used to sum up the party's race so far. Fifty percent said they prefer a candidate who emphasizes a new direction, and 42 percent said they want a proven, steady leader..."

[Dawgs]

13. How can you claim that people are paying attention when they give her more credit on Iraq?

[depakid]

5. How stupid does Pravda think people are?

Sometimes, all one can do is laugh.

[robcon]

7. Couldn't be stupider than you, depakid

Are you saying all these polls are fixed??? (In order: date, poll size/type, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson)


Rasmussen 09/27 - 09/30 750 LV 44 22 15 2 Clinton +22.0
ABC/Wash Post 09/27 - 09/30 592 A 53 20 13 -- Clinton +33.0
CBS News* 09/14 - 09/16 Adults 43 22 16 -- Clinton +21.0
Gallup 09/14 - 09/16 531 A 47 25 11 5 Clinton +22.0
Reuters/Zogby 09/13 - 09/16 LV 35 21 10 3 Clinton +14.0
Pew Research 09/12 - 09/16 568 RV 42 25 14 3 Clinton +17.0
Cook/RT Strat 09/13 - 09/15 405 RV 36 23 18 3 Clinton +13.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

[depakid]

9. I'm saying that 33% is laughable

and anyone who believes that is a fool.

But of course, so called "moderates" will believe almost anything.

[Carrieyazel]

16. Absolutely. I dismissed this poll the minute I saw it. Its ABC/Wash. Post. The worst.

It routinely has Shrub's approval ratings 10 points above other polls. Other pollsters when talking about this poll privately, (as well as a few other polls conducted by big media), note its bias in favor of the big, famous media-dominant candidates like Hillary. Throw this one out.

It also now has Ghouliani 17 points above the rest of the Repukes, wildly different than other polls. I know Ghouliani's their frontrunner, but he isn't up by this much.

[NotGivingUp]

56. funny...polling places are not even including kucinich in their polls. n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

6. For The Last Time, National Primary Polls At This Stage Are Garbage

Because there are no national primaries. State-wide polls are better indicators IMO.

[robcon]

8. I truly hope it's the last time we hear that nonsense.

n/t

[GeorgeGist]

10. From next-to-worst to worst ...

and then on to next-to-worst's partner.

JFC on stick, will America ever get out of reverse?

[Captain Hilts]

11. There's the 'A' word again, she's "aggressive." Other candidates aren't? nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. no the other candidates have "strength" and are "assertive" she

is aggressive. Traditional sexism.

backwards and in highheels.

[Dawgs]

12. "her strength on key issues" - translation, 'Democrats are not paying attention'

[robcon]

14. except that Democrats like me are paying a lot of attention

Projection, anyone?

[Mugsy]

17. Problem is, too many still equate dollars with public support.

When the news announces how much more money the Clinton campaign has raised, in many peoples' minds, that translates into "popularity"... "more people supporting her campaign than any other candidate".

Well, No. It just means she has more CORPORATE donors. Candidates that get most of their funds from individual campaign contributions raise FAR less, but when people hear how little they've raised, they automatically tend to think that the voters are not there, so they end up supporting the candidate they assume more people support. It's a vicious circle.

This nation DESPERATELY needs "Instant Runoff Voting", which would allow people to pick the candidate they REALLY want and not just vote for the person they think has the best chance of winning. It also assures that we'll never have to endure anything like what we saw in 2000 ever again.

[papau]

18. For the 3rd qtr Clinton had 100,000 new contibutors to Obama's 93,000 - both are doing

quite well -

no need to dump on either on this score.

Obama does have a new position on atomic weapons - it contradicts a prior Obama position - but I like the new more leftest one.

[ronnie624]

20. I'm no Clinton supporter,

but in fairness, the article does say:

"For the first time since Clinton launched her campaign in January, her financial success appears to have turned much more directly on the support of small donors...".

Though it isn't clear what a "small donor" is.

It is kind of surreal, reading the poll questions and answers and knowing that most of those who participate in these polls, know next to nothing about any of these issues. What exactly does it mean that "52 percent trust her most on Iraq"? Her stance "on Iraq" has hardly distinguished her from anyone else.

And all of the questions are couched in the terminology of the ruling political system, and therefore designed to perpetuate a particular world view. Discussing health care in terms of insurance coverage and advancing the "US campaign against terrorism" meme, are the most obvious examples.

For me, this poll is useless as a tool for understanding anything, except perhaps how political propaganda is disseminated.

[dbonds]

19. I am doubting these polls.

Just like the faked polls to make bush and kerry seem about tied so the steal of the election would seem valid. These numbers don't feel right and don't jive at all with the people I talk to who not one support her.

[Divine Discontent]

27. I agree about the FAKED b*sh & kerry polling!

In Ohio, you'd be hard pressed to find more than 3 people out of 10 who said they voted for b*sh, the only way to get those numbers even is to go into sparsely populated areas where dumbya would do well, like Mt. Vernon, Delaware, Hillsboro, and outside of Cincinnati, all the major population centers were heavily Democratic. I feel the same way about FL, I believe it was neck and neck there, and OH was a definite Kerry win by 5 points, but you sure couldn't get that from any counts of the general election! Exit polls? Baaaaah! Worthless Science by smartypants!


So yeah, I don't buy that HRC is up by 33 points except in NY.

She's very polarizing. She's highly disliked by Repubs. She's lukewarmly liked by Ind. And as far as any Dem I know who KNOWS issues, she's not wanted as Pres. Now, my best bud who has doesn't pay much attention to the issues, he was all for an HRC presidency, until I informed him she's not much different than a Giuliani/Paul.

Full withdrawal now! I'm tired of little pricks like Mr. Prince getting billions for his mercenary army.

[yellowcanine]

43. "She's very polarizing." Not anymore than any other candidate, according to latest

WP poll.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302036.html?hpid=topnews

"Many Republicans have said that they are eager to run a general-election campaign against Hillary Clinton, describing her as a highly polarizing candidate who would unite and energize the opposition. But, as of now, Clinton appears to be no more polarizing than other leading Democratic contenders. Nor is there a potential Republican nominee who appears significantly less polarizing.

Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they definitely would not vote for Clinton in the general election if she were the Democratic nominee, one of the lowest "reject rates" among the leading candidates in either of the two major parties. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) registers the lowest definite opposition, at 39 percent."

And I am a Dem (since 1972) and I think I know the issues - I voted Dem that year and have voted Dem in every presidential election since. I think she would make a good President. My first choice is Obama but I think she would be an ok second choice. What I would like to know is where are you getting this certainty about how well HRC is liked by different groups? Her Senate campaigns show that she can garner strong Dem and Independent support as well as peel off a significant number of Republican votes. She carried all but four counties (out of 62) in New York state in 2006. She held her own in upstate New York, which is hardly Democratic territory. And New York State had a Republican governor as recently as 2006 and New York City still has a Republican mayor (yeah I know he says he is an Ind. now - he was elected as a Rep)after two terms of Guiliani.

[yellowcanine]

40. "don't jive at all with the people I talk to"

You realise of course that this is not sound logic? You talk politics to people who for the most part agree with you. It is a lousy way to judge the soundness of polls.

[dbonds]

46. Its the best method we all have.

I don't trust the polls. I trust experience. And the people I talk to are not of one ilk. I don't just means friends chosen because they think similar, I mean people I'm in contact with from any source.

[yellowcanine]

47. Actually it isn't. There are enough different polls out there that one can make a reasonable

inference based on all of the polls being done. Our little window on the world is virtually useless in judging opinion in our state let alone the country. "Nobody I know is going to vote for ________________" is such a common response to polls that it has become a standing joke in political circles.

[dbonds]

49. Actually I think the 'you cant trust what you see, just our polls'

is just a way to make people not believe their lieing eyes and accept the reality that we are told to believe. It is a joke to think real world experience doesn't mean anything, but someone else gets to tell me what color the world is. Polls don't mean a thing. I worked for a year for Nielsen (the tv ratings people) and saw first hand how easily data was manipulated to say anything you want. And it starts with a sample size that is questionable to start with. I know polls 'can' be a reflection of reality - none of these come close to getting actual samples sizes to accurately poll. They will say they will of course - but it is all statistical manipulations. The sample size on these polls are no better than what my own eyes and ears tell me.

[yellowcanine]

50. "The sample size on these polls are no better than what my own eyes and ears tell me."

You can't seriously believe this. If you do, I don't think you know very much about statistics or polling. Number one, how the questions are asked and who asks them will change the results. Polling companies know that and account for it. If you do your own private poll with people that know you their response is going to be colored by the fact that the know you and the nature of the relationship. If the relationship is such that they don't want to diasppoint you they are going to tell you what you want to hear. If they have a lot of respect for your opinion they are going to tell you what you want to hear. On the other hand if they don't care what you think they may tell you the opposite of what you want to hear or may give you a straight up answer. Add to that the fact that we tend to associate with/converse seriously with people who think like we do - everyone does this. In any case, your "real world experience" is not going to give you an accurate reading of the true opinions of your group of acquaintences, let alone your state and even less so the whole country. A well constructed and statistically sound national poll is going to be way more reliable. The polling business is highly competitive. Polling firms who do crappy polling are not going to have many media clients buying their polls. Most newspapers do not do their own polls. They hire an independent polling firm. So the fact that it is a WP poll or Wall Street Journal poll really says nothing about how biased or non biased the poll is. Anyway, any poll is a snapshot in time. If Hillary Clinton doesn't get nominated it will not mean that the current polls are wrong. It will mean that things changed after the poll was taken or maybe that enough of the actual primary voters were not polled. Predicting who will actually vote is particularly difficult in primary elections.

[dbonds]

52. I guess we have different experience with these type of things.

I do know about polling and statistical manipulations, and how you can make a poll say about anything the person that contracts it wants. The only way to insure good data is a good sample size, and 5,000 people is not a good sample size to represent 300 million. But anyway, I will bow out of this thread - don't really feel up to talking about merits of polls when there is so much else. Lets say we have a different perspective on them.

[yellowcanine]

53. 5000 people randomly selected nation wide is a helluva lot better sample than the

dozen or so friends and co-workers you are polling. And if you really did know about polling and statistics you wouldn't have insisted otherwise.

[hogwyld]

21. Well, hell, all of the other Dem candidates

ought to drop out right now! It'll save them some sleep, and all that travel, and fundraising that could all go to Mrs. Clinton. Heck, lets just cancel all of the expensive primaries, and ordain her the chosen one...

[ShortnFiery]

22. I guess Dear Leader will call a Press Conference - and with a "signing statement"

make HRC our Democratic Nominee.

After all, no need to waste OUR DLC RULERS' time allowing us "little people" to actually vote when our glorious corporate polls DICTATE that she already has been anointed. :eyes: :thumbsdown:

[Frances]

23. I think the polls are an accurate snapshot of where we are

now, but, of course, no one knows where we will be on election day.

Personally, I think part of Hillary's current success is that people think Hillary will bring the country back to the middle. And traditionally the majority of the people have been most comfortable being in the middle.

I think that when FDR was president the majority of people supported him because they thought he was looking after the majority of the people. FDR brought the country from the far right (a few people rich, most far from rich) to the middle.

Because of the economic boom during and after World War II which enabled unions to get good wages, good health care, and good pensions; the GI bill and the National Defense Education Bill (great programs for paying for college); and Social Security, the majority of the country was comfortably middle class in 1980 when Reagan came along.

The majority (not me!!!) left the party that had helped them because the majority, which was now quite comfortable financially, didn't want those on the bottom of the ladder to climb up to where they were.

Reagan's speech about the welfare queen driving a cadillac (a story that wasn't true)allowed people to feel OK about shutting the door to greater prosperity for everyone. And when Reagan broke the power of the Air Traffic Controllers union, people didn't realize that when unionized workers lose, so do non-unionized workers.

Now the majority of the country is reaping what it sowed when it left FDR philosophy for Reagan/Bush philosophy.

[mvd]

24. Hmmm..

"growing perception among voters that she would best represent change." I don't know where that is coming from. I like Hillary, but she does not have the most innovative policies. I would support her 100%, and maybe when Hillary wins, the Freepers will know how we felt for eight years (though their dislike is irrational.)

[Carrieyazel]

28. That should tell us right there that this poll is worthless.

The growing perception among Dem voters is that she best represents the 100% name ID candidiate that everybody's known for 15 years. Hillary has had wall-to-wall saturated media coverage the last couple of weeks.

She cannot win the general election, unless they nominate a hapless Freeper-like candidate.

[Neshanic]

26. Nice, now if she can overcome that two point lead over Rudy we would all be set.

Get ready for next Republican era.

[ProudDad]

29. The corporate capitalist masters win again...

they always do...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp

[Yavapai]

30. Something to think about

Even if she gets the nomination, there are a lot of gun owners out here who will not vote for her. Al Gore lost the election because a lot of left leaning gun owners voted for King George II rather than lose their 2nd amendment rights. You can thank Clinton and Sara Brady for that!

Believe me! I was a strong democrat from the campaign of JFK until 1994 and then voted Republican until after King George’s first election. I wasn’t alone, remember how the Republicans took both the House and Senate in 1994? The first time they controlled them in 40 years. Why you ask, would I vote Republican?

---> Stupid gun laws taking guns from law abiding citizens
---> NAFTA, (it couldn’t have been passed without a Democrat president) the biggest screwing the working class ever got
---> Don’t ask-don’t tell compromise (a promise just to get votes)
---> Line Item Veto Act The Repubs still drool over this unconstitutional tyranny maker!
---> Digital Millennium Copyright Act
---> Defense of Marriage Act, allowed states to refuse recognition of certain same-sex marriages, and defined marriage as between a male and female for purposes of federal law.
---> Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 in reality Tax cuts for the wealthy (Capitol gains tax fell from 28% to 20%, The 15% bracket was lowered to 10%)
---> Iraq Liberation Act Precursor for the Iraq War.
---> Extraordinary rendition got approval for the first time in the USA from the Clinton administration.
---> Signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, more screwing of poor by the Republicrat Clintons.

We might as well have a Republican in office that we all can hate instead of a Republican in Democrat's clothing. Do you seriously think that Hillary will be any different?

Do some internet research and you will find that she is the number one receiver of contributions from the health industry and big pharma (sure, we will get universal health care from Hillary), she is number one receiver from big banks, ect. Only Mitt Romney is close to her from the same money sources.

Oh yes please vote for Hillary! Then you can watch a repeat of the Clinton years.:sarcasm:

[llmart]

32. Something tells me you belong somewhere else.......

like on the freepers site.

Go, Hillary! I can't wait to see all the freepers blow a stroke when they have to deal with her. Them there God fearin', gun totin' good ole' boys ain't gonna cotton to havin' no edjecated woman in the White House.

[Pastiche423]

33. Good lord!

Where have you been for the past seven years, in a cave?

"Al Gore lost the election because a lot of left leaning gun owners voted for King George II"

Is utter bullshit. Have you heard of a thing called the SUPREME COURT?

[Yavapai]

38. Then please tell me why the 1994 Repug revolution happened.

Also explain why the Gore/Bush election was so close? Gore couldn't even carry his own state...

[Pastiche423]

41. My apologies

that you are so incredibly uninformed.

Might I suggest a book (it's only 153 pages) that will help you understand what happened in the 2000 election:

The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi

A warning: It will state that the 2000 election was decided, not by the voters, but by the Supreme Court. I know this may come as a shock to you, but it's time to WAKE THE FUCK UP.

[benEzra]

44. What role did SCOTUS have in TN and WV?

Even with everything else going on, Gore would have won had he carried those two states that would have been his but for his support of new gun bans.

In 2004, the pro-gun DEM candidate carried this state (NC) 55/45%. The presidential ticket, with a charismatic North Carolinian in the VP slot, lost the same election 45%/55%. Ten-point spread. Dems won in NC across the board, except nationally known Erskine Bowles ran on a strong ban-more-guns message and got clobbered by a no-name repub who didn't. And so on...

The 2006 elections showed how to win on the gun issue, when Jim Webb beat George Macacawitz Allen in a pro-gun, heavily repub state. Tester in MT, a number of governorships (Casey, Strickland), our own state elections here in NC, also illustrate that a pro-choice stance on gun ownership can defuse the issue.

1994, 2000, and 2004 showed how to bomb on the issue. Was the DLC-driven ban-nonhunting-guns thing the only factor in those years? No, of course not. Was it a major factor in swing states? Hell, yes.

Staying the heck out of people's gun safes shouldn't be so hard, but (for the DLC, at least) it apparently is.

[Pastiche423]

45. The SCOTUS had the only role in deciding the election

[benEzra]

48. The SCOTUS decision only affected the outcome in Florida, AFAIK.

Had the DLC not thrown away TN and WV, those states alone would have made the SCOTUS Florida decision irrelevant.

[benEzra]

39. Gore lost TN and WV on the gun issue...

and FL wouldn't have even been close enough to recount had not gun bans been such a huge issue in flyover country in '00. They don't call Florida the "Gunshine State" for nothing.

TN (his own home state) and heavily union, very blue WV would have given him the electoral votes to win in the electoral college WITHOUT Florida. But the ban-more-guns DLC'ers threw those states away.

Alienated Rural Democrat (by DU's virginiamountainman)

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[Pastiche423]

42. Please see my post #41

[Chomskyite]

37. So you voted Republican because . . .

. . . you like your gun but you otherwise think the Democrats went too far to the RIGHT?

Mercy.

[olddad56]

31. Government sponsored polls.

The plan is to set up Hillary with the nomination. Then slander her like they did Kerry, so that Guiliani can make the election close enough that when they rig the election, it won't look so obvious. Worked last time. It will work this time. No way the fascists are letting go of the executive branch of government.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

34. Funny.

[tabasco]

35. On today's date in 1991, Bill Clinton announced his candidacy.

A lot can change in a year.

[laureloak]

36. Hogwash! n/t

[melm00se]

51. just as a reminder

* 2003: In August 2003, Joe Lieberman led the national polls, in September, Howard Dean led, in October, Wesley Clark led, and in December – one month before the Iowa Caucuses – a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showed John Kerry, the eventual nominee, in fifth place trailing among others Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt.
* 1992: According to a November 1991 Los Angeles Times poll, Bill Clinton was in 3rd place with less than half the support of the then-front-runner, Jerry Brown.
* 1988: A January 1988 New York Times/CBS Poll showed Michael Dukakis in fourth place with 6 percent.
* 1980: An August 1979 poll showed President Carter trailing Senator Ted Kennedy by 36 points

Early polls mean, to be blunt, shit. Polls are like the betting lines for a sports event, it is just a guess...and as Chris Berman says "that's why they play the game".

There are too many open issues for this to be a Hillary slam dunk, most notably the growing voices asking: Do we want a dynastic presidency? Hillary wins, that puts a Bush or Clinton in the Whitehouse for potentially 28 consecutive years.

[ryanmuegge]

54. No one thought Kerry had a chance in hell in '03, either.

It's still early. Given recent history, I'd be reluctant to annoint anyone as the inevitable nominee.

[NotGivingUp]

55. funny...many people here can't stand her...yet she has a 33 point lead. bullshit. n/t