RASMUSSEN REPORTS: Clinton Nomination is Not Inevitable

[ariesgem]

Monday, October 01, 2007

Over the past week or so, the pundits narrative of the race for the for the Democratic Presidential nomination has revolved around the question of whether Hillary Clinton’s nomination is inevitable. Those who say yes point to her large and growing leads in the national polls and in early primary states such as New Hampshire, Florida, and South Carolina (see summary of weekly poll results).

Those who take the opposite view point to Iowa and Howard Dean’s temporary status as frontrunner in the 2004 campaign.

In Iowa, polls suggest a much tighter race than anywhere else. This, plus the fact that caucus polling is less reliable than primary election polling, means that just about anything could happen when voters finally get to participate in Election 2008.

What all this means is that Clinton is a far more serious frontrunner than Howard Dean. She has more organizational depth, support, and other resources than Dean ever imagined. Also, while Dean had a committed following, he was hardly anybody’s second choice during the run-up to Election 2004. Clinton is more acceptable to those who see other candidates as their top choice.

But, her nomination is not inevitable. Self-inflicted wounds are always a threat to any frontrunner and the Senator from New York proved that point last Friday—by a 2-to-1 margin, voters oppose her proposal to provide a $5,000 savings bond for every child born in the United States. More unforced errors might provide just the break needed by her challengers.

And, of course, there is always Iowa. Supporters of Barack Obama and John Edwards are quick to remember that Howard Dean was the polling frontrunner everywhere until he lost in Iowa. They are right to point out that a loss in Iowa would probably have an immediate impact on Clinton’s polling and prospects in other states.

But, the magnitude of the impact will likely depend on the magnitude of the defeat.

In 2004, Howard Dean didn’t just lose in Iowa, he lost very badly. Kerry won 38% of the vote and John Edwards came in second at 31%. Dean couldn’t even reach half of Kerry’s total and finished a distant third at 18%. If Clinton loses that badly in Iowa 2008, her status as frontrunner would be in serious jeopardy. A more narrow loss in Iowa would be a challenge for Clinton, but not necessarily a challenge that would undo her campaign.

At the other end of the spectrum, a Clinton victory in Iowa would likely end any hopes for Obama or Edwards to wrest the nomination from her. As noted last week, Iowa has become a must-win state for the challengers.

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

[Jack Bone]

1. this deserves a Rec!

:kick:

[avrdream]

2. Even those of us who support Hillary don't think her nomination is inevitable.

That term comes from somewhere else.

I'm pleased with where she stands right now - it's good enough for me.

[wyldwolf]

3. never heard one Clinton supporter make the claim

[aquart]

4. What a surprise.

Can the hysteria subside now?

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. Without Gore, A Clinton Presidency Is Practically A Guarantee!!!

There is ZERO CHANCE that a repub will win in the general election.

A Clinton candidacy will however, make it a much closer race, so that there will be plenty of fundraising for both sides, plenty of Corporate Whore Media coverage for all to watch over the 10-11 months, and lots and lots and lots of campaign promises to corporate Fuckheads during all the campaigning.

But make no mistake about it, she will win. And the repubs will be relatively o.k. with that, since she's actually closer to their thinking, than someone like Obama, Edwards or Gore would ever be.

Plus, they will have the chance they've been looking for....ANOTHER CHANCE TO BASH A CLINTON FOR 8 LONG YEARS!!

[kimmerspixelated]

8. I agree with the majority of what you've said,

However, one thing that is unknown-whether or not the rethugs will try to win-unfairly- AGAIN!!! We forget about the little thing called election theft....and just cuz Rove is leaving the WH doesn't mean he can do "the Math!" from wherever his ugly big fat ass decides to be on election nite.

[zeemike]

9. Remember that you said this

There is ZERO CHANCE that a repub will win in the general election.

And we will revisit it a year from now when the rethug candidate (Mc Cain?) is reported to have closed the gap to make it too close to call.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

13. Well, It Could Well Be Too Close To Call....

There is no doubt that Clinton's presence will make it a statistical dead heat. But that's EXACTLY what the corporate powers that be want. So they can get all their promises from both desperate candidates. I'm still thinking the repubs only chance is with 9/11 Rudy running as the 9/11 candidate, who was the mayor of New York on 9/11, and who carried a bullhorn around on 9/11, and was America's Mayor on 9/11, and who cried as the towers fell on 9/11.

Anyways.....in the end, the conservatives will be fine when Hillary is "Given" the presidency, as it has probably already been decided, by people that matter, in positions that matter, and are capable of making sure that it does happen.

But yeah, I should hedge my statement, since there will certainly be the opportunity for the repubs to steal it from Clinton, since they will see to it that she doesn't run away with it, like Al Gore might have.

[ripple]

6. K&R! n/t

[TwilightZone]

7. I suspect that very few people actually believe that it's over.

Dean's performance in '04 has cured most people of that, I would hope.

[SaveElmer]

10. Who said it was inevitable?...nt

[HeraldSquare212]

11. Go ask the Mets...nt

[XemaSab]

12. Or Michigan...

:P

[bagimin]

14. Yeah, ask the Mets..

ooh..