Rasmussen: Hillary 37%, Obama 25%, Edwards 11%

[Colobo]

Solid lead for Hillary, solid second for Obama...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/2008_democratic_presidential_primary

[ShortnFiery]

1. Yes, it's a *solid* SNAPSHOT !

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

2. and to think this weekend DU was buzzing about Clinton's lead "eroding."

[Colobo]

3. Things haven't changed much, meaning that

things need to heat up between the TWO top candidates for changes to happen, or that Obama needs to put his marbles on seriously good advertising and hope that Edwards's people and independents go with him.

What this poll shows, however, is that Edwards's aggressiveness against Hillary and Obama on last debate didn't help him... at all...

[Fovea]

5. Not sure that Rasmussen menas much

It might have been among registered Repubs.

[Colobo]

7. Rasmussen has been the most accurate pollster in the last 2 elections

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. I agree. Obama has to try to contrast himself with HRC

The problems he faces are 1) He has premised much of his campaign on a "new politics" and going negative would damage his brand 2) Aside from the 2002 IWR, on what substantive issue does he disagree with HRC? There isn't much for him to really distinguish himself from HRC.

[rinsd]

35. As opposed to John Edwards who voted with her 90% of the time.

Indeed John Edwards voted MORE conservatively than Hillary early in the war.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. I was talking about all issues, not just the war

There are clear differences between Edwards' platform and HRC's (and even Edwards and Obama, including on health care and on ending the war or merely de-escalating it). There seem to be no significant differences between the Obama and HRC platforms. If they exist they have miraculously been overlooked by both HRC and Obama partisans.

[zulchzulu]

26. Some Clinton supporter was saying that she was leading in most polls by 20%

If that's the case, I'd imagine her campaign should be a tad worried.

[rinsd]

36. Which supporter was that?

[flpoljunkie]

4. Zogby says his recent Florida poll, with similar results is "name recognition."

Nearly 31 percent of the 326 Republicans surveyed said they would have voted for Giuliani if the election would have been last week. Slightly more than 36 percent of the 332 Democrats surveyed said they would vote for Clinton.

The telephone poll of people who identified themselves as likely voters was conducted Monday through Wednesday and has a margin of error of 5.5 percentage points.

Pollster John Zogby cautioned against drawing too many conclusions from the poll results, saying the candidates have spent little time campaigning in Florida and that the popularity of Giuliani and Clinton largely reflects their years on the national stage.

"This is a name-recognition poll," Zogby said.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2007/06/11/m1a_Prez_POLL_0611.html

[wyldwolf]

10. then Clinton must be the better campaigner... obviously

Back on 1/17/2007, a SINGLE percentage point separated the two. So, based on your reasoning, Clinton's name recognition has increased by over 15% while Obama's has by just a few points.

[Adelante]

17. Also says the race is wide open in FL

with a third of the voters undecided.

[flpoljunkie]

19. Indeed. Thanks for pointing that out, WesDem.

[rinsd]

22. Does anyone know what the final word is on FL delegates from the DNC?

I know Dean was threatening to not allow them to have delegates if they moved up their primary.

Anything happen with that?

[skyblue]

6. Good for her.

Anyone who names her child after Chelsea Morning by Joni Mitchell can't be too bad.

My candidate is the better choice tho'.

[Apollo11]

8. These polls are like pre-season stats

If you want to see some serious poll results, let's wait until October or November.

Of course - by then, Wes Clark (and maybe Al Gore) will have entered the race ...

Wes Clark http://securingamerica.com

Al Gore www.algore.com

:kick:

[Colobo]

9. LOL! The Messiah is not running... :)

[Apollo11]

11. Don't you think Obama is the messiah?

Obama is the guy who came from nowhere and inspires the masses with his fancy talk about a brighter future.

His greatest accomplishment was making a speech about having got some gay friends in the red states.

Man, that is so deep, so profound, like I never knew there were gay people living in red states. :eyes:

Al Gore is an experienced politician and served 8 years as Vice President of the US from 1993 to 2001.

Wes Clark is an experienced soldier and served as NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe from 1997 to 2000.

But then there are some people who think that experience and accomplishments don't really matter all that much.

:kick:

[Colobo]

21. Gore is the mythical figure some Dems are waiting for

The man that will win the GE easily. The man that can jump in the race a day before the first primary and still win by a landslide. The man that will save us all from global warming.

I mean, he's like Christ for some people.

[John Q. Citizen]

45. Word! One would think he's a best selling author, or an academy award winner, or

the guy whose going to stop global warming, or a noble prize winner, to hear some people talk about him.

Sheesh. His spouse didn't even cheat on him so why would anyone think he'd make a good president?

Don't they watch Springer in the afternoon? Everybody who's anybody famous has their spouse cheating on them, after all and is at least a one term Senator if they expect to be President...

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. Although she is not my preferred candidate (at this point).....

I have to hand it to her, she's had some really good debate performances, and I think that has helped her tremendously. She really comes off as knowledgeable & dare I say it, "sincere".

[illinoisprogressive]

13. looks like her lead is ebbing...a crack in the machine possibly???

[SaveElmer]

14. This isn't "1984"...

When a persons lead increases, it usually isn't considered "double plus Un-good"

[wyldwolf]

15. ebbing? This lead is the biggest for her in three months

[rinsd]

16. Huh? The Rasmussen #'s for Hillary and Obama have been the same for 4 weeks (nt)

[Tellurian]

18. A crack in Obama logic would be more accurate..

[zulchzulu]

20. National polls with 4+MoE seven months away from Iowa are meaningless

An MoE of 4% gives any candidate 8% of wiggle room with numbers. So it could be Clinton at 29% and Obama at 33%...

Polls will really start counting as the fall comes in and leads into December. Then, once Iowa votes and then New Hampshire, people will start paying attention.

Also, remember that early frontrunners usually don't pan out in the long run.

[Bullet1987]

23. POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS THIS EARLY!!!!

[SaveElmer]

24. NO THEY ARE NOT!!!

They simply are not predictive of final outcome...

They show trends

They show whose message is catching on

They show the nature and depth of support

They show where the race is currently

They aid the candidates in fundraising and targeting campaign efforts

They don't tell you who will win in Nov. 2008...anymore than the score at the halftime of a football game will tell you who will win in the end...but do tell you has the current advantage

But they are not meaningless

[BeyondGeography]

28. Hillary has a message?

Beyond, "I'm still married to the guy who used to be the last elected Democratic President"?

Do tell.

[SaveElmer]

29. Only to those who pay attention...

I could make a similarly snarky, ill-informed comment about Obama, but won't because you know, I am a Democrat, and tend to like other Democrats!

[BeyondGeography]

30. Obama has staked out the ground for voters who want change

Hillary, not so much.

Her supporters are convinced she has what it takes to fight the VRWC, which may or may not be the last war. As an individual, she promises to reinvigorate that hopelessly divided entity AKA the Republican Party like no one else we can offer.

We shall see if the Democratic primary voters figure it out.

[SaveElmer]

31. Obama has provided little in the way of concrete proposals...

And has not made a case he is different than Hillary on any important issue...he tends to talk in platitudes with little behind them....

Hillary is one of the very few Democrats who don't fold like a cheap tent under the onslaught of the Right Wing sleaze machine. The more they attack the stronger and more popular she gets...

She is the one candidate whose ability to deal with them I have full confidence in...

[zulchzulu]

32. I love her health care plan...oh wait...um...

:rofl:

[SaveElmer]

33. She has made more concrete progress on health care...

Than the rest of the candidates combined...if you had bothered to research the matter...

And if the Congress had had the guts to stick with the Clinton's on health care in the 90's, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now...

What I find really interesting is how so many of the elements of Hillary's plan have shown up in various candidates plans this cycle...

She was right then and she is right now...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. "The more they attack the stronger and more popular she gets.."

Which must be why her favorable rating has fallen from 58% to 46% (the lowest of any candidate for prez!) since February...

[rinsd]

38. As opposed to the candidate waylayed by a haircut?

Where has Johnny boy been? Still licking his wounds after Obama took him to the woodshed?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

44. Edwards, too, has suffered from attacks

Perhaps it is no coincidence that his poll numbers nationally and in NH have fallen over the past month or so. The difference is that no Edwards--or for that matter, Obama, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson, or Gravel supporter--claims that their candidate magically gets stronger after being attacked. Only supporters of one candidate do so, and that myth is based on what happened to another individual, not that candidate.

[ElizabethDC]

41. "Change"? Can you specify?

Just wanting "change" is so nebulous - it's not a real, concrete message. How are his policies so different from those of Clinton and Edwards? All the Democratic candidates represent a change from what's in the White House now.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. "How are his policies so different from those of Clinton"

I can't wait to see a reply to this... Great question, Elizabeth! There is a lot of talk about trivial issues regarding both of them but no discussion of what, if any, real differences there are in their policies. I've suspected this is because it is convenient for supporters of one candidate to not compare their platforms and records because it weakens the carefully cultivated myth surrounding this candidate.

[BeyondGeography]

47. The classic Democratic mistake: looking for the answer in policy differences

Both the Obama and Edwards campaigns have grasped a simple truth: Americans don't elect Presidents because of their 20-point energy plan and their 1,200-page health care plan! They are looking for a leader, not a PowerPoint presentation.

In fact, the real differences between Obama and Clinton are in their approach to politics and their personal character. The question is less what is the Democratic agenda than who is most capable of promoting it. A grass-roots oriented politician with a history of ground-up politics and bringing people from both sides of the aisle together, or a polarizing, poll-tested, consultant-driven, closed-door pol like Her Highness? A politician who goes beyond the letter of the law when it comes to personal integrity or one who takes the low-cost private jet trips from wealthy contributors because she can? Someone who makes intelligent decisions on big issues such as Iraq or one who can't be bothered with reading a National Intelligence Estimate because it might clash with her decision to strike a fashionably hawkish pose?

OK, that's a little cartoonish, but I'm sure you get the drift; Obama and Clinton are very different people who agree on a lot, policy-wise. They're both Democrats, after all. You're asking the same question a lot of people ask (how are their policies different?); my answer is you're asking the wrong question.

As I say, it's not just Obama who is campaigning on leadership and character; it's Edwards, too. From this Sunday's NYT magazine:

<“Presidential elections are not just about issues — they’re about character and integrity and values,” Edwards told me when we met for coffee in Chapel Hill last year. “I didn’t realize when I went into it that what you stand for is more important than all the rest of it put together. I believe that very strongly now.” In other words, whatever one might say about the details of Edwards’s proposals, he is betting that voters will see two things: first, that he is a serious thinker who has offered detailed plans for the country (something they did not necessarily see in him in 2004), and second, that he is a man of such character and resolve that he is willing to talk about poverty in rooms full of wealthy lawyers and Iowa farmers, whether or not they share his passion for the poor.>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/10/magazine/10edwards-t....

Which is similar to what David Axelrod said about the Obama campaign in an earlier NYT feature:

<After the consecutive presidential losses of Al Gore and John Kerry, patrician candidates who ran ill-fitting “people versus the powerful” campaigns designed for them by the consultant Bob Shrum, many Democrats began to suspect that part of what was wrong with the party was its formulaic consultants. The party has suffered, Axelrod says, from a “Wizard of Oz syndrome among Washington political consultants who tend to come to candidates and say: I have the stone tablets! You do what I say, and you will get elected. And they fit their candidates into their rubric.”

Axelrod’s is a less grand, postideological approach, and his campaigns are rooted less in issues than in the particulars of his candidate’s life. For him, running campaigns hitched to personality rather than ideology is a way of reclaiming fleeting authenticity. It is also, more and more, the way of the Democratic Party. Its 2006 Congressional campaign strategy — run by Axelrod’s close friend Emanuel, with the Chicago consultant acting as principal sounding board — did not depend on any great idea of where the party ought to go, like the last political cataclysm, Newt Gingrich’s 1994 House “revolution.” As they have reclaimed power, the Democrats have done so not by moving appreciably to the left or the right; rather, they have done so by allowing their candidates to move in both directions at once. “What David is basically doing — and this is somewhat new for Democrats — isn’t trying to figure out how to sell policies,” says the Democratic media consultant Saul Shorr. “It’s a matter of personality. How do we sell leadership?”>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t....

On edit: What's striking about Hillary, once you turn the conversation from policies to the personal, is no one can figure out who the hell she is. You hear this repeatedly, most recently from Bernstein the Biographer. She's complicated, oh so complicated, a total mystery, etc....one NYT writer recently said (read it on an airplane yesterday; no link) Hillary was smiling, engaged and informed on policy, but when the conversation turned to personal questions, Hillary, "put up several layers of plexiglass." It remains to be seen if America will elect someone who even people who want to like her (i.e. many Democrats) can't warm up to and, after all these years and not for lack of trying, don't really understand.

[zulchzulu]

25. Polls with an MoE of over 3.5% with small sampling are like political crack cocaine

Some find them relevant...others know that it's fairly inaccurate this early in the game.

A month is a lifetime politically.

The primary season begins in seven months.

[bushclipper]

27. well, now that we know how the make you scream, we'll be sure to post more of them

[motocicleta]

39. That's too bad.

As much as she grows on me when I sit still and listen to her talk, she will never be our President. Fred Thompson, Mitt, freaking Cthulu could beat her with her backstory and the right-wing media in this country. Sucks, but it is what it is. We need a sunbelt governor.

Or Gore.

[mnhtnbb]

40. Edwards is viewed more favorably and is only one to beat top Republican candidates

"Among all voters, Edwards is viewed favorably by 52%, Obama by 50%, and Clinton by 47%."

"When matched against the top four Republican hopefuls, Edwards outperforms both Clinton and Obama. Edward leads all GOP hopefuls including Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, and John McCain.

Obama trails Giuliani by double digits but leads Thompson, Romney, and McCain.

Clinton trails Giuliani and McCain point but leads Thompson and Romney."

One of these days, I hope, the Democrats are going to wake up.

[bonito]

42. A circus is entertaining for sure.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: