New national poll: HRC gains, up to 42%, Obama slips to 19%, Gore at 14%, Edwards at 10%

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Current poll: HRC 42% (+6), Obama 19% (-4), Gore 14% (same), Edwards 10% (-2)
Last poll by this firm (6/6/06): HRC 36%, Obama 23%, Gore 14%, Edwards 12%

Interestingly, Obama is now below where he was in the first poll after he announced his candidacy (23%). Edwards also slipped from his consistent 12-13% he had received prior to this.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2007/06/28/clinton_giuliani_stay_in_front.html

June 28, 2007
Clinton, Giuliani Stay in Front
A new Fox News national survey finds Sen. Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic presidential race with 42% support, followed by Sen. Barack Obama at 19%, Al Gore at 14%, and John Edwards at 10%. Without Gore, Clinton leads Obama 47% to 21%.

Among Republicans, Rudy Giuliani leads with 29%, followed by Sen. John McCain at 17%, Fred Thompson at 15%, Mitt Romney at 8%, and Newt Gingrich 8%.

[William769]

1. Thanks for posting.

I still can't figure out how there is that meme out there that half of America won't vote for her, even a poll that makes that assertion is just ludicrous.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. Her chief rival seems to be in a tailspin

Obama is now where he was before he began campaigning. This is not an anomaly but has been borne out in several polls. This seems to be because he finally received some negative coverage in the press after memogate and the Rezko stories. The decline began right after memogate.

Still, national polls mean little, aside from assessing trends. The race is much closer in states where they are campaigning. The trend, though, for Obama is nose-diving. For all his alleged charisma, how could he be doing worse after months of campaigning than he was before he said a word about what he intended to do as president? Edwards, too, has lost some ground from his highs, but he has recovered some from his low point of about 2 weeks ago in most polls when he was down to 8% in some polls. The key thing is that Obama's rate of decline is faster than Edwards. Obama's key strategic advantage is that he is perceived by many as the only viable alternative to HRC. If Obama and Edwards become essentially tied for second place nationally (they already are in the early states, on average) that advantage evaporates.

[tridim]

5. Yet I still don't know anyone who supports her.

Sigh.

Edit: Sorry, responded to the wrong post.

[William769]

7. People have used the meme name recognition is why he is where he is.

Well he's getting name recognition and it's causing his downward tailspin.

I have been saying for weeks now by the first primary Edwards will be right behind Hillary.

[zulchzulu]

15. We'll see what kind of "tailspin" Obama is in with June contributions

Seriously, this is all too early, but once the fall comes, look for actual data that starts making some meaningful sense.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. 2Q earnings are a double-edged sword

I am sure he will experience a bounce after the fund-raising results are reported, like he did last time (he even took that lead in one or two polls). However, being the front-runner or a strong second place candidate (as opposed to a distant one who has not seriously threatened for the lead, aside from after 1Q and 1-2 stray polls afterwards) will inevitably lead to increased media scrutiny. That may negate the gains of 2Q. If memogate and the Rezko controversy are any indication, Obama is very vulnerable to any negative press. This is not surprising since his candidacy revolves around his image. Anything that damages the Obama brand costs him. Memogate and the Rezko stories were relatively minor affairs in the CMSM. If they really go after him, like they have with HRC and Edwards, who knows how much damage that would do to the Obama brand. In short, be careful what you wish for. ;)

[Tellurian]

24. your analysis is right on target..

I venture to say, Obama is not only vulnerable, his image has attained an air of fragility. It's becoming abundantly clear, all he represents are nuanced platitudes, aimed at pie in the sky ideals of which he has not idea of how to represent their attainability. Obama is basically preaching (which he does best) to the choir but unable to lead anyone to the Promised Land.

[LBJDemocrat]

29. Well-said

:toast:

[Adelante]

28. Rate of decline

Edwards national high was in April at 17.8% and he is now at 12%, according to RCP poll average charting, so he's down 5.8%. Obama was then 22.3% and is now 22.8%; up slightly, but not significantly.

Obama's high was in March at 25.7%; now at 22.8%; down 3 points. Edwards at that point was at 11.7%; now at 12%; also up slightly, but not significantly.

If Obama is "nose-diving," as you say, then so is Edwards "nose-diving."

I'm not one to take any of this terribly seriously, because anything can and will happen between now and the elections, but I do think your statement on rate of decline is not accurate.



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

[churchofreality]

39. I call him Captain Kirk now.

The way he pauses between every word. Watch for it... Hysterical!

[sandrakae]

10. Barack Obama supporters keep saying this.

I talk to one everyday. It amazes me how they think they know this.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Resistance is Futile.

All your votes am belong to Mrs. Clinton.

(I, for one, welcome our new windsock overlord.)

[TheWatcher]

12. You say that as if there was ever going to be a choice.

There wasn't

Hillary Tyranny or Rudy Tyranny?

America: The Downward Spiral Continues in '08.

Catch It.

[davidwparker]

4. the only poll that I'll believe is the exit polls during the primaries

[elocs]

6. I think it is way too early for polls to mean a lot, either within the Democratic Party or

against the Republicans other than to possibly present us with de facto nominees as we go into the primaries. As far as Senator Clinton goes, or any of the other candidates, probably 45% or more will not vote for them. It's which candidate gets that 10% or so of the electorate in play who will win. I think it is a possibility that there may be some Republican women who in their heart of hearts when they get alone in the voting booth may just decide they would like to see a woman as president no matter how their husbands feel. But I think there is no denying that Senator Clinton is a very divisive candidate and will certainly motivate some Republicans to get out and vote for their candidate when they otherwise might not have.

[BeyondGeography]

8. The good news for Edwards is this poll is meaningless

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. Ever since memogate and the Rezko stories he has been closing in on Obama

As I said to William, if Obama loses the perception that many have of him being the only alternative to HRC, that will cost him dearly. He needs to retain a solid second place in the national polls (which he does not have in the early states, which are far more competitive across the board). If Edwards and Obama both become more or less equal in national polls in 2nd place that will cause some people who are supporting BO as the anti-HRC to shift to Edwards.

It is funny to hear some BO fans claim he is competitive against HRC when he trails her by 23% but write-off Edwards, who is 9% behind Obama and gaining. :rofl:

[BeyondGeography]

11. The good news for Edwards is this poll is meaningless

[cosmik debris]

13. 52% won't consider voting for HRC

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17468.html

42% for, 52% against. HRC is a loser and that's a fact.

[SaveElmer]

How many elections has she lost?...nt

[cosmik debris]

20. How many times has she run for a NATIONAL office? n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. How many times has Obama won a competitive election?

Answer: 0

Fortuitous scandals against his primary and GOP rivals and the Alan Keyes farce allowed him to coast to the senate seat.

[SaveElmer]

22. Irrrelevent...you can't be a loser if you've never lost...

Now can you?

[cosmik debris]

23. Ah, the semantic argument!

If you read my post you will see that I didn't say that she was an election loser, just a loser.

But then you might think that "42% for" is BETTER than "52% against". Maybe you think that makes her a winner. If that logic is representative of HRC supporters, it will only make her more of a loser.

[SaveElmer]

26. Definition of loser...

Someone who has lost...what has Hillary lost?

You used the word loser...


My definition of "loser" is someone making decisions on who to support based on a poll, particularly a poll 18 months from the election... and a poll that isn't even consistent with numerous other polls...

[cosmik debris]

30. Not everyone agrees with your definition

Perhaps a loser is someone who has lost the confidence of their followers. After all, Bush has never lost an election and he is CERTAINLY a loser. But then, you might be right, HRC never had the confidence of the American people so she couldn't lose it. But if 52% nation wide won't even consider voting for her, she is sure to become a loser.

And your implication that I am making a decision on who to support based on polls is totally unsubstantiated. You are just making shit up to cover up for the weakness of your argument and the vagueness of your semantics.

[SaveElmer]

32. Well...Hillary obviously has not lost the confidence of her followers...

Polls clearly indicate this, she has never lost an election...therefore she is not a loser under either of your definitions...

So you are basing your contention that she is a "loser" on the results of one poll...

Lame!

[cosmik debris]

33. How can you lose what you never had?

Bush never lost an election and never will. Therefore Bush and HRC are equally winners. You're funny, I like you.

[SaveElmer]

34. Actually, you are the amusing one...

Constantly shifting the definition of "loser"....

However, this has become pointless...so come on back and find me next November, and we will revisit the topic....

[cosmik debris]

35. But it is so much fun

Watching the die-hard supporters of a lost cause deny all evidence of their demise. It reminds me of those Republicans still claiming that victory in Iraq is possible. That war is a loser. Even if we haven't lost yet, it is still a loser. Likewise, HRC is a loser. Even if she hasn't lost yet, she is a loser. And following her down the primrose path is just like following Ahmed Chalabi's WMD stories. LOSERS all!

[SaveElmer]

37. If it helps you sleep at night...nt

[w4rma]

25. She'll lose this one with 100% certainty. (nt)

[SaveElmer]

27. ...

:rofl:

[zulchzulu]

14. Wow! Murdoch's Fox Noise has a poll with Clinton leading...who woulda thunk?

Rupert is good friends with Senator Clinton. Heck, he's done fundraisers for her. And he likes to cop a look down her blouse. What a guy!

:puke:

[William769]

16. Great picture, thanks for posting!

So I guess this poll is useless also?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1208598#1208618

[zulchzulu]

17. I guess you saw the high negatives for Clinton in the poll...

Nah, prolly not...

[David__77]

19. Even if my candidate were leading, I'd discount polling right now.

I support a candidate other than Clinton, but it is simply too soon for this to matter. The polling is reflecting "soft" tendencies that can be realigned rather quickly. We saw what became of Dean, for instance. In December, I'll be paying attention.

[Stop Cornyn]

31. Hillary does best with voters least familiar with her platform; Edwards does best with voters most

familiar his platform.

Polls in areas where the candidates aren't campaigning are meaningless (that includes all national polls and all polls other than Iowa, New Hampshire, and -- not yet but soon -- South Carolina and Nevada) because the poll participants aren't yet responding to the campaigns or the campaign messages.

In ALL states where the candidates are actually meeting the voters and educating the voters on their campaign platforms, Edwards rises a lot, Obama rises a fair amount, and Hillary falls.

Just compare the Iowa and New Hampshire polls to the national polls or the polls in states where the candidates aren't seriously campaigning yet.

Hillary does best in states where voters have the least exposure to her and her campaign platform while she does worst where voters know her best and have the most knowledge about her platform. The exact opposite is true with Edwards who does best in states where voters have the greatest exposure to him and his campaign platform while he does least well where voters know him less well and have less knowledge about his platform.

[natrat]

36. she is tied at the hip with the right wing power structure

shame on anyone who buys into this corporate rule and domination--shame

[churchofreality]

38. SWEEEEEEEET!!!

hehehe...