Clinton and McCain lead in New Hampshire

[rodeodance]

Source: reuters

Clinton and McCain lead in New Hampshire

By Steve Holland 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain hold leads in New Hampshire four days before the state's presidential nominating contest, according to a Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll released on Friday.


The poll was taken before Iowa's caucuses on Thursday, when Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mike Huckabee easily captured the first big prizes in the state-by-state battle to choose candidates in November's presidential election.

In the New Hampshire poll, Clinton, a New York senator and former first lady, led Illinois Sen. Obama 32 percent to 26 percent among likely voters in the state's Democratic primary. Former Sen. John Edwards, the runner-up in Iowa, was at 20 percent, and no other Democrat was in double digits.

.........This time, the poll found 60 percent of New Hampshire's independents planned to vote in the Democratic primary, with 40 percent looking to the Republican contest..............

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080104/pl_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc;_ylt=Al5R5.BpB57CivP0ngOk94is0NUE

[papau]

1. If only 40% of indies vote GOP, McCain loses and Obama gets leg up on a win

[Delphinus]

2. This perhaps isn't the place,

but when I heard the results this morning, my first thought was to both Clinton's and McCain's endorsements by the Iowa papers. And neither of them took it. I find it interesting - don't know much about Iowa, whether the papers there are quite corporate and trying to influence the people, but the people went an entirely different way. Some kind of little rebellion?

[question everything]

6. Apparently the ones that the Register recommends

do not win the caucuses. (I hate to say "never" but this was something mentioned after that endorsement). You don't have to frame every issue in flaming terms. Iowans, in general, are level headed people, though the caucus goers are more extremes - of both sides.

And Clinton and McCain are pretty centrist with experience in foreign policy which we really cannot ignore which must have been a factor in that endorsement (I did not read it).

If Obama is our candidate and McCain is theirs, we will lose the White House, again. Which is why the departure of Biden and Dodd may prove disastrous for us.

[aquart]

8. They're rural. Maybe they also think "corporate" is a dirty word.

Or maybe they're used to sending their money to rousing televangelists. Will we ever know?

[pipoman]

3. More completely manipulative and meaningless polls

I am beginning to think being a poll winner is the kiss of death. It seems that they used to pretty good indicators, now they feel like an attempt by interested parties proclaiming their disinterest to manipulate voters. Have polls always been as wrong as they have been during the last couple of election cycles?

[Le Taz Hot]

4. I believe this poll was taken before the Iowa caucus,

though, traditionally, there really hasn't been much of a boost from Iowa to New Hampshire. I think NH is still anyone's for the taking AND it's the first REAL election.

[Drunken Irishman]

5. This isn't really a traditional election.

Last time around, it was much like this election. A front-runner losing big in Iowa (finishing in 3rd) and then slipping in New Hampshire. Dean's lead over Kerry in the NH polls prior to Iowa was far bigger than the lead Hillary has over Obama. Don't be surprised if people start questioning the viability of Clinton and quickly shift their allegiance to Obama.

One of the biggest mistakes people can make is comparing this race to others, because it really doesn't compare.

2000 - You had Gore who won both NH and Iowa, but he was with an incumbent party and that was expected.

1996 - Incumbent.

1992- Tsongas - However, he did lose Iowa, but every candidate conceded Iowa early to Harkin. I know many use this as proof you can lose Iowa (even finish a distant third or fourth) and win the presidency, as Clinton did. However, outside of Harkin, no one was expected to do much there. Harkin, though, couldn't use the success in Iowa to push his campaign through NH and Clinton finished a surprising strong second to Tsongas, the neighbor expected to win the state.

1988 - Dukakis - Much like the 1992 race. Gephardt was expected to easily carry Iowa and he put pretty much all his eggs in that basket, only to have nothing left after the Iowa victory.

The difference here is that A) Obama was not expected to take Iowa and B) Obama didn't bank his entire candidacy on Iowa. He has enough money to really compete in New Hampshire, something Harkin and Gephardt did not in the past.

[aquart]

7. Clearly, Obama is inevitable. All concede now.

[SammyWinstonJack]

9. ...

:spray:

[qwlauren35]

12. No... but.

What is says to me is that Clinton is NOT inevitable.

And I think that my statement a pretty realistic conclusion... compared to yours.

Not saying that I can't recognize sarcasm...

But the entire "Obama isn't electable" argument does need to be back burnered, and possibly thrown out.

[hughee99]

10. This is the same group that had Hillary up in Iowa

30% to Obama and Edward's 26% each just before the Iowa caucus, right?

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_reuterscspanzogby_iowa_ca_1.php

[OKthatsIT]

11. Now THAT wouldn't surprise me.