New Gallup Poll: Clinton Increases Lead, Gore Entry "would not alter" basic structure of race

[wyldwolf]

With only about six months remaining before the Iowa caucuses, the races for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations remain in a steady state. Republican Rudy Giuliani and Democrat Hillary Clinton continue to hold statistically significant leads over the rest of their respective fields of competitors. Even though Al Gore would draw significant support for the Democratic
nomination, recent polls suggest his entry would not alter the basic structure of that race.

The July 6-8, 2007, poll asked Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who they are most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the next election. Gallup calculates the results both with and without Gore, who has not ruled out a bid, but has said he has no plans to run.

Clinton leads the pack of Democratic hopefuls on both ballot measures, pulling in 37% support with Gore in the race and 42% with him factored out.

Last Gallup Poll From June 11 - 14:

Clinton: 39% without Gore, 33% with Gore
Obama: 26% without Gore, 21% with Gore

Today's Gallup Poll (taken July 6 - 8):

Clinton: 42% without Gore, 37% with Gore
Obama: 26% without Gore, 21% with Gore

Overall, 61% of Democrats name Clinton as their first or second choice for the nomination -- the only Democrat above 50% on this measure. Obama is the first or second choice for 44% of Democrats, while Gore is named by 34%, and Edwards by 24%.

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28114

[Ninga]

1. The way I read those poll numbers is that Gore closed the spread by 1 point.

This happened without Gore spending one minute or one dime campaigning.

If Gore would have stayed at 33% while Clinton moved up to 43%, it then becomes a different story.

He is hot on her heals, without breaking a sweat.

[wyldwolf]

3. where, exactly, do you get that Gore is at 33%? He is at 16%

:shrug:

[BeyondGeography]

2. Yeah, Gore coming in would be just like Byron Dorgan announcing

:eyes:

[jackbourassa]

4. She leads by 12%?

That's it?

I'm supposed to jump off a bridge because Hillary leads by a measily 12%? Obama is building a strong national infrastructure, ground operation and organization. He has outraised Hillary, which means she won't be able to just outspend him when the time comes. And with six months left 12% is supposed to be "inevitable?" After all she has about a 20 to 30% advantage in name recognition and no one is really paying attention at this point. I have no doubt that Hillary leads at this point, but I just think it's irrelevant.

After all, Dean led by 20% in the fall of 2003. Bush led by 40%. Dean lost and Bush nearly lost (he had the monetary advantage to overcome early stumbles).

As an Obama supporter, this poll actually makes me happy. His only strategy now should be to continue to do what he's doing. Keep building up his organization. Keep raising more money than her. Keep the polls close.

[wyldwolf]

5. look again - she leads by 16%. And there is more misleading statements in your post

[jackbourassa]

6. Oh sorry...

I was looking at the older poll.

Anyway, same difference.

[wyldwolf]

7. How about quoting those polls you mentioned?

Dean led by 20 in the fall of 2003? Bush led by 40?

[jackbourassa]

9. Jesus...

Unlike you I don't have a whole treasure trove of DLC information at my disposal. But i've been a hard-core political junkie since the 80s and follow these things very closely. Believe it or not, this isn't my first election.

Dean was at about 35% in the fall of 2003. His nearest competitor was at about 15%. 35 - 15 = 20. Look it up at polling report.com. I'm not interested in playing follow the links with you today, but am quite sure that's what it was.

As for Bush in 1999. He had about 50% support with his nearest competitor at around 10% (or low teens). 50 - 10 = 40. I admit however that it might have been only a 35% lead.

[wyldwolf]

10. Polling information from 2003 is easy to find and your stats are wrong. So link or slink.

Unlike you I don't have a whole treasure trove of DLC information at my disposal.

Translation: You have ZERO research skills.

[jackbourassa]

12. Alright since you want to be that way about it...

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll. Conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Robert Teeter (R). N = 1,213 adults nationwide:

12/99

GWB 59%
McCain 18%
Alan Keyes 4%
none/other 2%
Undecided 5%
Forbes 6%
Hatch 3%
Bauer 3%

Bush + 41%

10/99

GWB 68%
McCain 15%
none/other 2%
Undecided 6%
Forbes 6%
Hatch 2%
Bauer 1%

Bush + 51%

9/99

GWB 59%
McCain 7%
None/Other 2%
Undecided 4%
Forbes 5%
Hatch 2%
Bauer 1%

Bush + 52%

7/99 (the same point we are at right now)

GWB 59%
McCain 3%
None/Other 2%
Undecided 7%
Forbes 4%
Hatch 2%
Bauer 1%

Bush + 55%

www.pollingreport.com/wh2rep.htm

Democrats in 2003

CNN/USAToday/Gallup
N=426 Democrats and Democratic Leaners MOE +/- 5%

12/11-14 2003

Howard Dean 31% (eventually came in third)
Joe Lieberman 13% (eventually came in fifth)
Wesley Clark 10% (eventually came in fourth)
John Kerry 10% (eventually won the nomination)
Dick Gepthardt 8% (dropped out after finishing fourth in Iowa)
John Edwards 4% (eventually came in second)
Al Sharpton 5% (eventually came in sixth)
Carol Braun 3% (dropped out before vote)
Dennis Kucinich 1% (came in last)
Other/No Opinion 15%

Dean + 18%

NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll

12/13-14 2003

Howard Dean 29%
Dick Gepthardt 12%
Wesley Clark 10%
Joe Lieberman 10%

Dean + 17%

www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

So it turns out my memory wasn't so bad after all. Dean led by 17 to 18% (averaging 30% support) in mid-December of 2003. Also if you follow the link to the summer/spring of 2003 you'll notice that Joe Lieberman had a 13% to 16% lead over Dick Gepthardt, which began to recede in the summer when Dean's numbers began to rise.

Bush had a 41% lead as late as December 1999. He would go on to lose the New Hampshire, Arizona, Michigan, Conneticut and Massachusettes primaries. He nearly lost South Carolina but won because he had a 15 to 1 money advantage over McCain and bombarded the airwaves with ads (not to mention his visit to Bob Jones University and the shameful smears). An advantage Hillary won't have.

At this same point in that election cycle (July 1999) Bush had an incredible 55% lead over his nearest competitor Steve Forbes. An advantage that dwarfs Hillary's current lead by just under 40 points. Hardly inevitable.

Alright?

[wyldwolf]

13. so you were wrong - Dean didn't lead by 20% and there was no "average of 30% support."

[jackbourassa]

14. So denial isn't a river in Egypt huh?

Look at the dates of those two polls (they correspond with one another).

Average?

Gallup poll...Dean at 31%
NBC poll...Dean at 29%

31 + 29 = 60 divide that by 2 and you get 30. Therefore, his average in mid December was...drum roll...30%

Dean led by 18% and 17% respectively in those polls - higher than Hillary's lead today that you're so proud of. I was off by 2%. Not bad for someone who based his post on memory of something that had happened FOUR YEARS AGO, and well within the margin of error.

But keep on believing pal. Maybe like Dorothy in the "Wizard of Oz" if you believe hard enough and click your heels three times your dreams might come true.

[wyldwolf]

16. Oh, I get it. When you quoted two polls where Dean led by less than 20 in each...

..then said "averaging 30% support," it read to me as though you were saying his polling averages were a 30% lead. Sorry. I misread your meaning.

But, that does bring another point to mind, then.

Clinton is leading by an average of 33 - 37%, besting Dean in that stat.

[jackbourassa]

18. Fine...

I concede that. Hillary's numbers have always been at roughly the 35% range. Without Gore it tends to be at the 40 to 42% range. Her numbers are unchanged from last year. That seems to be her base within the party. There are going to be variances, statistically speaking, given the margin of error. But her total averages at 35%.

The difference is that there were at least five credible candidates in 2003, compared with only 3 this time. When the numbers were more "spread out" earlier this year and last, Hillary's lead was actually larger. Her numbers were unchanged. She was still at about 35%. It was that the difference was divided between more people.

The problem for Hillary is if someone emerges as the "anti-Hillary" and everyone rallies behind that person. That seems to be Obama at this point. Edwards may still emerge. I don't expect Hillary's numbers to drop, in that I don't think you'll see Hillary at 20%. She'll keep her 35%. But I strongly suspect that the anti-Hillary (or anybody but Hillary) vote is larger than you care to admit.

Hillary is leading now. I admit that. No one can deny it. My point is, as the EVIDENCE I provided shows, that it doesn't matter.

Most frontrunners stumble during the primaries. The one factor which always seems to save them is a huge money advantage. Hillary does not have that advantage.

There is nothing inevitable about her nomination.

[ozone_man]

15. Your memory was very close.

And that was December. But the DLC did it's dirty work on Dean and we got stuck with Kerry as a candidate, and the Iraq war, which all Dems were in favor of (except Kucinich and Dean).

Gore with 16% and not even running is impressive. The moment he steps in, the net roots throw there support to him along with the grass roots funding that fueled Dean's campaign. Except in Gore's case, that support would be probably be several times more than Dean's. The environmental issues are heating up, and no one speaks to them as well as Gore does.

Nevertheless, Hillary looks strong at this point, but I'm holding out for a real Democrat.

[jackbourassa]

20. I don't think Gore will run...

I think his political career is over.

[closeupready]

32. I don't think so either.

I don't blame him, but I'm disappointed that no one else has got what he's got. Oh, well. :(

[William769]

31. It's a good thing you don't have "a whole treasure trove of DLC information at my disposal".

Would not look good for Obama.

[William769]

30. With his astounding 2nd quarter haul.

He has actually dropped instead of going up. Whats up with that? Hillary has paced herself, quite well I might add.

[jackbourassa]

35. Hillary is also spending more than Obama

And Obama has more money in the bank as we speak. This despite the fact that Hillary had a $10 million head start. At this current rate, I predict Obama will have a $30 million to $50 million advantage over Hillary come January.

If you think that's okay, i'm cool with that. We'll see where the polls stand once he's pounding the crap out of her on TV and radio.

Who cares what the polls say in July 2007. Let's see what the polls say in January/February 2008.

[William769]

55. He can't even trounce her in His own State!

Good luck with that.

[LadyJD]

64. Hillary is spending more than Obama

What is your source for this statement? This is not an attack. I just haven't seen any reference to candidates' spending except I read recently that Obama was starting to run ads in Iowa, and Hillary hasn't begun to do that. Where does a person find out what each campaign is spending?

[Larkspur]

37. Dean never led by 20%

5-9% at best and that wasn't until after Gore endorsed him. Dean trailed in the polls most of 2003.

[jackbourassa]

40. Here we go again...

Did you see my post with the polls and the links? In mid December he led by 18% and 17% in two separate polls.

Jesus.

Delusion runs strong with some here.

[Larkspur]

54. I volunteered for Deans campaign in 2003 and he was NEVER the frontrunner as you suggest

Lieberman was the pre-ordained frontrunner in 2003 and he never got to 30% from what I remember.

Dean didn't take the lead in the polls until December 2003 around the time that Gore endorsed him. Gore's endorsement helped Dean rise higher in the polls, but it also signalled to the Dem Establishment that they had to torpedo Dean's campaign.

It wasn't Dean's money that caused Dean to lose the nomination. Dirty tricks by Gephardt's and Kerry's supporters helped sink Dean and Dean's inexperienced campaign staff and volunteers hurt Deans chances. Dean had to be gang tackled by the Dem Establishment in order to take him down. No one, not even Hillary, would have been able to endure the kind of attacks the Dem Establishment did on the Governor.

[papau]

8. Hillary's 13% lead over Obama increased to 16% in last month - but there is still a year left to

get to the convention - any changes will happen.

But there is no question that Hillary is wearing will (her favorables are around 60% these days) and has had a good month.

[wyldwolf]

11. using an old cliche... at least for now, the only one who can beat Hillary is Hillary

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. Obama had a 1 point lead at the beginning of June. Now he trails by 16%

That is quite a trend in the Gallup poll...

[zulchzulu]

17. "With only about six months remaining..."

That's infinity politically. But thanks for playing.

[jackbourassa]

21. Ya with "ONLY" six months...

These people make me laugh.

[Skip Intro]

19. If GOre announced and began campaigning, he would walk away with this thing.

No doubt in my mind.

[Tellurian]

22. Gore is NOT going to run..

He is happy doing something of importance, Saving the Plant!

He could never devote the time necessary to continue his good work, if he ran.

[Skip Intro]

23. or he would be in a position to escalate that work...we'll see soon, I suppose

if he is going to run or not


I'm still hoping he is because he hasn't ruled it out

[Tellurian]

26. No, If our next president is a Dem...

I believe Gore would be given a free hand to implement every resource at our disposal reversing the tide of Global Warming (catastrophe). Which may warrant the creation of a new, umbrella, agency encompassing everything to do with the environment affecting HumanKind's Welfare. Gore could be given unlimited power through a special appointment, rather than running for president, having him hamstrung fighting off the stress and worry of Republican attacks throughout his term....

[Dawgs]

28. Not if it's Hillary.

Hillary and Gore do not get along. Why would you think she would do what he wants?

[Tellurian]

36. Show me proof, they do not get along!

Funny, you should throw a dig Hillary's way... When It's Obama's support of Coal that will be at odds with our Environment, Gore and RFKJr.

[Dawgs]

59. I agree about Obama, why do you assume I wouldn't.

And, Gore and Hillary DO despise each other.

[Samantha]

60. Try reading David Mariness on this subject

he authored First In His Class (the celebrated biography of Bill Clinton) and Prince of Tennessee (biography of Al Gore). Hillary and Gore detest each other and were at each other's throats from 1992 on. She wanted to play his spot, and he preferred to play it himself. And so he did.

[Tellurian]

63. So, you're saying...

Nothings' changed over the last 15 yrs?

I find that hard to believe. Everyone involved in the Clinton Administration has a lesson to take away from the experience. Unlike Republicans, they do learn and grow from bad experiences, becoming better people because of it. Enough time has elapsed for all the parties involved to look back and think about the mistakes made and what they could have done differently to affect a positive outcome. When you have common goals, for one, defeating Republicans, you're on the same page. Bigger, smarter people can put their differences and misunderstandings aside for the common good. The radical, small minded people never do and never learn. And the reason they remain stuck in a virtual rut of their own making. You can pick them out in a crowd by their incessant, toxic, whining... Same whine, different day, same suspects.

We've been very fortunate to have gotten to know the Gores and Clintons. Gore has redeemed himself from his heartbreaking loss in 2000 bringing his planetary gift of survival to the World stage. I expect the Clintons feel the same way and are prepared to right the wrongs the Bush Administration has done to this country turning it into a shadow of it's former self. No one can stop the stars from shining, they try mightily, but it can't be done. Greatness will always rise from the ashes to shine once again.

[Totally Committed]

24. I agree.

Hillary's nomination is not inevitable yet, despite all this bullsh*t being slung around. I believe the nomination, should he enter, is his for the taking.

But, that's only my opinion.

TC

[AlGore-08.com]

25. IMNSHO the reason Gore would change the race is that the debate would change

For example, the three leading declared candidates have about one Senate term's experience in Federal elective office and (folks will forgive me for saying so) their accomplishments in office were/are average at best. The press still discusses which of the three has the most experience as if there is a real distinction between them, and they end up discussing minor differences as if they were major. I'll go on record saying I don't agree that being First Spouse is relevant experience. It's not an elected or appointed office, it has no Constitutionally mandated responsibilities. It doesn't even have to be filled - - we've had unmarried Presidents and unmarried Presidential candidates before. (Ditto for being the spouse of a Governor, Senator or Representative.) One could make a case that HRC has had more experience in campaigning, but not as a candidate. Edwards has more experience actually running a Presidential campaign as a candidate, and Obama has more total experience campaigning.

Other candidates like Richardson, Dodd and Biden have tried to make their greater experience in office a major point in their campaign, but because they are "second tier" candidates, the press has pretty much ignored them and their arguments. Richardson has gained some traction with his argument, but he still hasn't broken through to the "top tier".

But if Gore got in the race, by virtue of him being a "top tier" candidate, the debate on experience would totally change. He served eight years in the House, eight in the Senate and eight as Vice President. In all of those offices he served with distinction and has a very long, very full resume. He is an internationally recognized leader in the environment, arms control, economics, civil rights and government. He's now also an international celebrity in a way that most politicians, even Presidents, never are.

If Gore got in the race, it would be almost impossible for Edwards or Obama to argue that they were as experienced or more experienced than Gore. I know that the Clinton campaign would argue that her being First Spouse gives her equivalent experience as his being Vice President, but as I said, I think that's a difficult argument to make effectively. The (slightly) difficult problem for a Gore campaign would be to find a polite way of pointing out how little the other top tier candidates have accomplished in office (including the office of the First Lady), and how little judgment they had displayed on some of their Senate votes.

And that's just the debate on experience. The difference between Gore and the others on policy would shake up the race even more...

[Uncle Joe]

33. I agree with your analysis, the dynamics of the race would change,

however, I believe the corporate media would slant against Gore because he empowered the American People when he championed the Internet. The way I see it, by empowering all of us, Al Gore hurt his chances with them. So he would have the same media that enabled Bush to power against him as well, this is not to say I hope he doesn't run or is drafted. I believe he is by far the best qualified and most needed candidate for the job, it's just that what the corporate media want and what the American People need are two different things.

[Larkspur]

51. I agree with your analysis, but the Media will attack Gore again

and Hillary's pollster, Mark Penn, is ruthless.

If Gore enters the race, I hope he has an aggressive media campaign and strategy that will bowl over the Maureen "Dud" Dowd's who relentlessly attacked Gore with lies and distortions in 2000.

I hope Gore does enter the race. He's the only one who is qualified to be President in these times.

[rinsd]

27. While I think Gore would be a formidable candidate, I don't think he would be a sure thing.

[garybeck]

53. you are correct.

tea leaves (and logic) says so.

[OHdem10]

29. I love how these people running polls analyze situations.

(I was being saracatic).

Think about it. Thompson is not in race and the pundits
say think how much he would do if really in race.

Gore not in race and they assume nothing would change.Bias
or what?????

[last_texas_dem]

46. It seems like the media has always underestimated Gore

when they haven't been outright attacking or mocking him. No subject brings out the junior high-school age bully in pundits better than 2000 President-Elect Al Gore.

[churchofreality]

34. Just watch, by the end of summer she will be up 20% or more

She's going to walk away with it.

She's too smart, and too good.

[Larkspur]

38. If she does, I'll vote Socialist in the general election

There is no way I'll vote for Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

39. that's about what I expected of you, anyway.

[Larkspur]

42. Thank you for the compliment

[wyldwolf]

43. you're welcome to take it anyway you'd like.

[churchofreality]

44. Even if your state is in play?

[Larkspur]

48. If Hillary can't win CT, then she is doomed to lose the nation in a landslide

[churchofreality]

49. She should win CT handily. Even without your help.

[Larkspur]

52. It's still early and Hillary has lots of time to screw up

[calteacherguy]

45. I was never a fan of Clinton, but after what Obama said about merit pay I'm ready to support her.

Obama just isn't ready.

[Schema Thing]

47. What did he say?

what have I missed.


As for the op, I think Gore would shake things up big-time, and it wouldn't take long for the polls to look very different than they do today. Unfortunately, I don't think he's running.

[ProudDad]

50. Big Whoop

61% of Democrats couldn't tell you who number 3 is...

With their hundreds of millions Clinton and Obama have eclipsed all the others on the MSM...

Public Financing...the only cure for this insanity...

[papau]

57. I agree - Public financing would at least decrease the ability of the rich and corporate to own our

government.

[mzmolly]

56. Gore is at 16% and he's not announced.

Interesting.

[ProudDad]

61. I thought that too

In fact, He's said he's not interested.

I'll bet he's polling a lot higher than Hillary or Obama would if they weren't in the race... :evilgrin:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. His real level of support is higher

The 16% are the die-hard Gore supporters who will not support another candidate until it is clear Gore is not running. There are other Gore supporters who would support him if he ran but are stating their support for their current candidate in these polls. The real base of support he would start from is at least 25% as the second group of Gore supporters switched to him in the polls.

[MalloyLiberal]

58. These polls mean nothing

Imagine all the press Gore would get if he jumped in. Come on.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. History isn't favorable to early frontrunners in Democratic Primaries

Unless that frontrunner is an incumbent President or VP. Granted we've never had a former first lady run before. We've also never had a woman candidate and a black candidate polling as the top two.

[Tellurian]

66. Well, then, this is history in the making... n/t

[zulchzulu]

71. President Gephardt and Muskie agree with you

What fine presidents they were...way ahead in the polls in July of the previous year before the primary season.

:crazy:

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Yup and President Hart and President Scoop Jackson

[Tellurian]

75. And? Were either one of these candidates comparable to Hillary? n/t

[saltpoint]

65. I bet if you asked state Democratic organization people the impact of

a Gore entry into the 2008 presidential nomination race, they'd tell you it would be huge.

With due respect to these Gallup pollsters, I think Al Gore would be a very, very considerable formula-altering impact player if he decided to jump in.

[Tellurian]

67. No doubt about it..

Gore's only weakness is he's bad on defense and the media would think nothing of tearing him to pieces. That is what they are paid to do to anyone that dares interfere with corporate profits. They are well aware the threat he poses to corporate welfare and the money he will cost them, forcing them into compliance with a huge reduction of CO2 emissions, clean water and air.

Gore can succeed with his plan of curing the Earth's ills by helping a *favorite* Dem get elected.

[saltpoint]

68. I think Gore is real interested in the top job, having won it already in

2000. Bush cheated. I believe that offends Gore's personal sense of dignity as well as his sense of national history. He's been consistently faithful to both aspects of his identity -- the personal and the political.

And he's better at both now than ever. I say this as a former Bradley delegate. Once Gore won in New Hampshire, the primary race was essentially over. I had some quibbles with the way the campaign was run, but it was Gore's campaign, and not post-Clinton-driven.

The bad blood between Gore and Bill Clinton has been addressed and somewhat cured between then and now, but not enough for Gore to give his enthusiastic blessing to New York's junior senator. Gore has become a more fiery version of himself. Some folks don't care for the pedantic side, but Jesus, why not give the job to someone who's intelligent for once? Bush is dumber than concrete and far less useful. Gore isn't a Clinton Democrat, so to speak. He's a Gore Democrat, and absent the nomination, I think he'd be an Obama, or Edwards, or even a Dean Democrat. The Gore/Clinton link is tenuous at best and subject to significant disruption at the drop of a hat.

And if the hat is Gore's and that hat is whirling toward the 2008 ring, it will be after long contemplation and quiet planning.

I think he's in. Definitely.

[Alexander]

69. Totally agree.

I expect he'll jump in sometime in October, when his old boss finally announced a run.

[Tellurian]

70. I appreciate your analysis..

I just don't see Gore pulling together the best offensive and defensive team necessary to ward off the RW hate machine, at a moments notice. I may be underestimating him, but I don't think I am. I think he is deeply committed to a cause that rings positive and suits his persona to a "T"... Anyway you look at it, Gore has carved out a place in history almost by himself... supporting the legislation for the creation of the Internet and Saving the Planet are two accomplishments that are nothing to sneeze at.

[Dinger]

72. Good, Me Too : ) n/t