New Gallup poll: Clinton surges to 48%, Obama 26%, Edwards 12%

[draft_mario_cuomo]

Clinton 48% (+8)
Obama 26% (-2)
Edwards 12% (-1)

To put this into context here is how things looked just two months ago (before the June CNN debate, memogate, and the Rezko stories finally getting some national coverage):

Obama 30% (+4)
Clinton 29% (-6)
Edwards 11% (-1)


The first poll after the debate and memogate (mid-June):

Clinton 33% (+4)
Obama 21% (-9)
Edwards 11% (E)

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/08/latest-usatgall.html

The rest of the field needs to shake things up fast. HRC's lead is only growing and she is approaching the important 50% mark. If they don't do anything soon it may prove to be too late to catch the Clinton juggernaut.

[marylanddem]

1. I like what Stephanie Miller said this a.m.

Rupert Murdoch gave $$ to Hillary's campaign because, guess what, they WANT her to run. This really scares me because I truly do not think she's electable by the general populace. I question the veracity of theses polls, too - I think New Hampshire/Iowa will tell the tale.

I truly think that Edwards is our best chance.

[wyldwolf]

6. Stephanie Miller, then, is repeating a myth

[peacebird]

7. agree 100% - the RNC wants HIllary as our nominee.

I think the hatred of her felt in the Bible belt and the rust belt will bring people out in droves just to vote against her.

And having her as nominee will discourage if not drive away a number of progressives who will not vote for her as well. I know some who will hold their nose and vote "Any Dem is better than a Repub" but I also know many who will write in candidates or simply not vote. Me - I don't know what I would do in that situation. Hopefully it won't come to pass that HRC is our nominee.

[durrrty libby]

9. The RNC doesn't know their ass from their elbows

They are unable to come up with their own viable candidate

When are people going to stop falling for "they want Hillary" horseshit?

[peacebird]

15. they don't NEED a viable candidate if we field Hillary....

she will bring out the repub faithful in droves to vote for anyone with a pulse and an R after their name.

[durrrty libby]

16. No they won't . Stop drinking the RW kool-aid. You sound silly

[redstateblues]

71. bingo

[dugggy]

79. I have more repuglican friends than any one at DU

because I belong to a private golf club. And what I
hear there is that they are deathly AFRAID of Hillary.
They know she can win. So whoever is pushing this myth
about RNC wanting HRC is just that..a big hollow myth.

[laugle]

52. Amen to that! Even Fox (faux) news is predicting

Hillary the winner!

[William769]

8. That meme has been debunked over and over and over and ...

Just because you constantly say it does mean it's so. Just ask Obama.

[ronnykmarshall]

11. Stephanie also supports Obama.

Loves me some Momma. But we don't agree on this one.

[tiptoe]

64. Agree. Same pollster names...but not the same pollsters. (Like "Sears" & "AT&T" credit cards)

So far, agree about Edwards. He's practiced going after special interests.

(I can't believe Hillary said about lobbyists: "They represent Americans, too.")

[redstateblues]

69. Insightful analysis

[peacebird]

2. Edwards message will resonate, his call to give up feeding at the corporate trough was GREAT!

Too bad some dems just refuse to do so. The more I see of him, the more I like.

[calteacherguy]

3. The Edwards numbers are incredibly static. He's not going anywhere. nt

[marylanddem]

4. A bit early to write anyone off, dontcha think?

[calteacherguy]

29. It's a seven-month trend of status quo. Not writing anyone off, but it's a pretty strong trend. nt

[jgraz]

57. Absolutely not! This primary is all but over.

Just ask President Dean.

[redstateblues]

72. Edwards is the one the rethugs are most afriad of

[durrrty libby]

5. Impressive. Obviously, the woman knows what she is doing .

[William769]

10. Hillary will stay where she is up until the Iowa Caucus.

Obama will will take a nose dive (he's already in a holding pattern for it), Edwards though is another story. He will slowly move up take the lead from Obama and come Iowa the race will be between Edwards and Hillary, and a good one it will be.

[rinsd]

13. Obama's problem will be a bored media.

That will seek to explain the poll disparity by writing nonsense stories about what Obama is doing wrong etc.

We've already seen hints of that, when he has done so well in fundraising and has yet to make a dent in Hillary's national numbers.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Even worse than not making a dent he is rapidly losing ground to her

Just look at the Gallup poll. About two months ago he had a 1 point lead over HRC and now he is behind by 22 points. In the Rass poll HRC is similarly pulling away (Obama once led HRC 32-30 in Rass' poll but now trails by 21 points) and Edwards is closing in on him (Obama once enjoyed a 19 point lead over Edwards but it has dwindled to 8). The latter is important since much of his support comes from the perception among some of him being the only alternative to HRC. If Edwards catches him that will be destroyed. BO's problem is he is running a personality-driven campaign, aside from the 2002 IWR, which few people are going to vote on (ask Dean and Clark). He is identical to HRC on the issues. There is no compelling reason to vote for him over HRC if you are not mesmerized by his personality.

[rinsd]

24. I wanna see the poll first before making any pronouncements.

Such a rise to me suggests that Gore support dropped big time since their last poll.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. Gore apparently was not in this poll

The last poll had a set of numbers with him and without. The +8, -2 come from the set without Gore.

I don't think Gore was ever included in a Rass national poll this year. As far as Gallup goes, Gore was in both of the earlier Gallup polls I cited, and he was stable. In the one in which BO led Gore was at 17%. In the next one (after the June debate, memogate, Rezko stories) he was at 18%. So Gore does not explain what is happening between HRC and BO.

[rinsd]

28. That's why I want to wait until Gallup posts it on their site.

They mention Edwards in 3rd and I want to know if this is w/out Gore or with him.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

31. Almost certainly without

I looked at their last poll. The numbers for the gain HRC has made and BO's 2 point drop come from the set without Gore. RCP has this poll up in their collection of polls and there is no number for Gore.

[dugggy]

81. yes, that comment by Romney is a mortal blow to Obama

"Obama has gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove".
If Jay Leno picks that up in his routine, Obama is gone.

[laugle]

53. I was predicting the same thing, except it seems to be a close one for all!nt

[Colobo]

56. Edwarites and Hillarites: United Against Obama.

[slick8790]

59. Yikes. That's no good.

I think if either of them wanna stand a chance we need to band together to oppose the HRC machine.

[William769]

61. We know a winner when we see one.

:)

[Yukari Yakumo]

70. Given the nature of the beast (the campaign trail), should that surprise anyone? {nt}

[Meldread]

12. Don't worry.

Hillary right now is ahead purely on name recognition. What matters is how people in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina plan to vote. The races are MUCH closer there.

I can already tell you what is going to happen. All of these polls are only hurting Clinton. One of her major selling points is that she is the most "electable" (how anyone tortures logic enough to get that reasoning is beyond me) out of all the candidates. As the election draws closer Hilary's lead will start to shrink. It probably won't happen until the primaries are right upon us, but when it does happen the media will begin proclaiming doom and gloom for her. It will further force down her numbers and destroy the electability myth. Pundits will begin saying, "If Hillary's own party is turning against her, what does that mean in a general election?!"

Every misstep she makes (real or perceived) will be under a microscope. Effectively, they are building her up right now only to rip her down later. That's how the media works. They are out for ratings. They will manufacture reality if they have too.

The only thing to worry about in regard to Clinton is how much money she can spend. She has a truck load of cash that she can use allowing her, in effect, to buy the elections. The good thing about it is that it most likely won't work in Iowa and New Hampshire. If she loses there she is in trouble going into Super Tuesday.

[William769]

14. Edwards does not have name recognition?

Will Obama ever?

[Bullet1987]

18. NATIONAL POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS!!!!

Tell me? When is the national Democratic primary? I want to make sure I vote for the non-existant national election.

[rinsd]

21. Of course, they're meaningless when you guy is getting his brains beat in 2 to 1.

What really matters is an outlier poll in a caucus state that show your guy has grabbed the lead after spending the mots money there. Or polls at the county fair.

[William769]

23. And this has what to do with name recognition?

[Bullet1987]

51. It's all name recognition...

because Dems don't even caucus in most states. They stick mostly to Iowa, New Hampsire, and South Carolina. They occasional go elsewhere, but never put the same amounts of money in it. Which makes the vast majority of states name recognition...effecting the national polls. Case in point...Howard Dean.

[durrrty libby]

25. National Polls mean something alright. They get you all atwitter

[Meldread]

27. You can't compare Edwards to Hillary in the name recognition department.

Being a Clinton is the equivalent of being a rock star. Everyone wants to know you and be in your business. You are the subject of endless gossip.

Edwards? He's just a politician.

That is, in essence, the main difference between the two when it comes to name recognition.

[William769]

38. So I guess being the VP nominee means nothing from 2004?

Yea right. :eyes:

[Meldread]

43. That wasn't what I was saying.

Sure, people know who BOTH of them are but it is on a completely different level. It is like comparing Alanis Morissette to Madonna.

[William769]

44. Who is Alanis Morissette?

[Meldread]

47. I rest my case. :P

She is a famous singer. You probably have heard at least some of her songs. Remember the song Ironic from the 90's?

"An old man turned ninety-eight
He won the lottery and died the next day
It's a black fly in your Chardonnay
It's a death row pardon two minutes too late
And isn't it ironic... don't you think

It's like rain on your wedding day
It's a free ride when you've already paid
It's the good advice that you just didn't take
Who would've thought... it figures

Mr. Play It Safe was afraid to fly
He packed his suitcase and kissed his kids goodbye
He waited his whole damn life to take that flight
And as the plane crashed down he thought
"Well isn't this nice..."
And isn't it ironic... don't you think"

People might remember Edwards, they might know who he is, but they aren't familiar with him like they are with Hillary. Everything she does and says is big news because she is a Clinton.

That's what I'm trying to say, I'm not trying to down play Edwards, just being honest.

[William769]

60. Actually I thought it made my point. NT

[rinsd]

17. I think you have inevitability & electability confused

The former has to do with her "assured" position as the nominee, the other deals with her GE chances.

[Meldread]

30. Hillary is not inevitable.

That is wishful thinking. People said the same thing about Howard Dean last time, who I supported. Care to ask how that turned out?

[rinsd]

34. I wasn't saying she is. I was merely correcting some confusion that seemed to arise.

"People said the same thing about Howard Dean last time, who I support"

People here at DU and some of the left blogosphere maybe.

But Dean didn't go above 30% and his lead was never larger than the undecided vote.

2004 was one name running with a bunch of unknowns.

2008 is one huge name and two smaller names.

[Meldread]

41. That is correct.

Hillary has three main advantages:

1. Name recognition. Everyone knows her so she is in some ways almost like an incumbent.
2. Great campaign skills.
3. Huge war chest.

However, there is always a point at which her numbers will peak and they should (theoretically) begin to drop. As the election draws closer and the candidates become more well known the gap should shrink. Hillary may still command the lead because I expect the votes that leave her camp to splinter between Edwards and Obama. However, the drop in numbers WILL cause the media to begin to go after her... they love building candidates up and knocking them down. They love to manufacture scandals. Over all the primaries have been bland and lacking red meat, they will have to invent something. Suddenly calling Hillary defeatable COULD (again theoretically) push her numbers down further. If she loses Iowa then that gives whoever wins it the momentum to go forward in New Hampshire (where I believe the polls are literally tied at this point).

Hillary is also threatened by the large number of candidates. Being the clear front runner has its disadvantages, mainly being that everyone is going to want to go after you. We are already seeing this with Obama and more recently Edwards. I am seriously waiting for Biden to speak up any day now and say, "Hey, hey wait a minute Hillary. The experience mantle belongs to me!" I am not sure if he will do it, he might be hoping for the VP seat, but he should if he desires to be President. That is his main selling point. It is almost laughable to watch Obama, Hillary and to a lesser extent Edwards to fight over the experienced title when anyone who even looks at the candidate list knows that it belongs to Biden. However, as they say, the silence is deafening.

[SaveElmer]

19. November 5th, 2009...

New York Times...

"Hillary Clinton Makes History, First Woman Elected President in Landslide"

DU...

It's all name recognition

[Meldread]

32. That is possible, yes.

Though it mostly depends on her winning the primaries first and who the Republican Nominee will be. I have little doubt, though, whoever wins the Democratic Nomination will go on to win a land slide victory against the Republicans. However, that is hardly something to brag about considering the current state of affairs.

[calteacherguy]

36. Hillary is not a landslide candidate. nt

[redstateblues]

73. landslide defeat maybe

[jgraz]

58. Of course, then we'll have November 8th 2016...

New York Times...

"John Edwards Wins Presidency, Vows to Finally Enact Universal Healthcare, Bring Outsourced Jobs Back to US"



(BTW, is there an election in 2009 I don't know about?)

[Bryn]

77. Remember, Remember the 5th of November

reminds me of V for Vendetta movie

;)

[dugggy]

82. You have it all wrong, pal!!!

That date will be Nov 2008, NOT 2009.
But other than that typo, you are exactly right.

[durrrty libby]

22. You may wish it and hope it, but you can't make it happen

Please give out your psychic number. I'm sure there is a sucker here for you somewhere

[Meldread]

35. It's not a psychic reading.

It's looking at past trends. Hillary has the most name recognition out of all the candidates. It is almost like running against an incumbent. The media has a history of building democratic candidates up and then ripping them down. Rupert may be able to shield Hillary some, but really the Democratic voters do not pay attention to his media outlets so that doesn't really help her in the primaries.

Also, candidates who peak early DO see a drop in their numbers. The media will begin declaring doom and gloom for her, which will further push down her numbers as people run away in fear. Where will they go? I don't know. They will most likely split between Edwards and Obama. The split may still allow Hillary to keep the lead.

What is mostly important is what happens in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The primaries are designed specifically to pick a candidate early. I've discussed this in another thread, but in essence it is all about momentum. It is the same primary scheme as last time.

Deaniacs (myself included) would have said the same thing you are saying now. Look how that turned out.

[durrrty libby]

40. I didn't pay close attention to the polls in the last election

I liked Dean, but knew and wanted Kerry.

From what I remember, Dean was the internet guy, just like Obama is this time around

So things are the same but different.

There is no denying that Hillary has a huge presence. I just don't see that going down

[Meldread]

46. It won't go down.

She's a Clinton. It isn't like she will disappear from the political or national stage. However, that does not directly tie to poll numbers.

By the way, Obama does not have the inter tubes locked up. Edwards has his fair share as does Hillary as evidenced here on this forum.

I am looking at Hillary as I would an incumbent. She is hard to beat because EVERYONE knows her name. It's true that people know John Edwards as well but it is like comparing Alanis Morissette to Madonna. Some people can like both, others can like neither, while some like one more than the other. In the end, though, EVERYONE knows who Madonna is and when she does something it is big news. (Well not so much now-a-days, but you get the picture.)

Hillary is ultra famous and therefore in National Polls she will lead. What is MOST important right now is how she is doing in the first primary states because they will set the tone for Super Tuesday. Remember how things went for Kerry once he won Iowa? How it just seemed he steam rolled through? Well, the primaries are set up just like last time.

Right now it looks like Hillary is undefeatable. However, we are still a long way off from election time, and eventually her poll numbers must peak and begin to drop. It is likely that they will rise and fall several times before the primary.

As I said elsewhere as well, Hillary is disadvantaged by the number of people running for the nomination. Since she is obviously perceived as the clear front runner that puts a huge target on her back and the media is going to want the other candidates to attack her. We are already seeing Obama and to a lesser extent Edwards beginning to go slightly negative. It is a minor tussle, but there will be more of them before the primaries begin. It is also likely to get worse as each candidate wants to pull her down, she will have to spread out her attacks, thus knocking her off message. She will be forced to not respond or spread herself thin if too many of them go after her at once.

[robcon]

33. I've said it before on DU: Hillary is a great campaigner.

She is my senator, and she will be my president.

[nancyr]

37. Dream on.

Never under-estimate the depth of sheer hatred that this woman has among Republicans and Independents...and even some Democrats. The right-wing smear machine would have a field day with her. She might make a great President, but I sincerely doubt she'll ever have the chance.

[William769]

39. Says you. NT.

[durrrty libby]

42. Why do fools give the RW so much credit. They are a mess.Just stop

believing in the bogeyman

[robcon]

48. Hillary won strongly Republican upstate NY easily.

She is a great campaigner. She will win.

[emilyg]

45. And mine.

[redstateblues]

74. won't happen

[IndyOp]

49. In August 2003, Lieberman was ahead. By 1/11/04 - Dean lead. Kerry won.

Polls this early don't mean bupkis. People start paying "attention" around Labor Day - and things can shift quickly right up until the primaries. Winning the first primary or two can change everything...

August...

8/4-6/2003

Lieberman 23
Gephardt 13
Dean 12
Kerry 10
Edwards 5
Moseley Braun 5
Sharpton 4

Wow. But then Labor Day happened, and people started "paying attention". Then look at what happened:

9/8-10/2003

Gephardt 16
Dean 14
Lieberman 13
Kerry 12
Edwards 5
Moseley Braun 4
Sharpton 2

The whole field was shuffled around. Lieberman never recovered.

Now you want to be blown away? Look at the numbers before, then after Iowa (January 19) and New Hampshire (January 27):

1/9-11 1/29-2/1

Dean 26 14
Clark 20 9
Kerry 9 49
Lieberman 9 5
Edwards 7 13
Gephardt 7 n/a

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3326722

[Yukari Yakumo]

75. I don't think the Dems of '08 will parallel the Dems of '04

If you want to parallel someone with the Dems of '04, use the Repugs of '08.

[Moderate Dem]

50. If you'd told me a year ago

that I'd be supporting Hillary, I'd have though you were crazy, but a year later, I AM supporting Hillary.

I like Biden, but Hillary will be a responsible President, and is already acting like it. I'm pretty moderate though, and I'll bet that a lot of people on the left won't care for her Presidency that much, but hey, we have simply GOT TO HAVE A DEMOCRAT IN THE WHITE HOUSE RIGHT NOW!

[nolabels]

80. Yea, but responsible for what?

I am always relearning not to wish for anything because it may appear but not the way it was envisioned.

Paulo Coelho, The Alchemist, A Fable About Following Your Dream
http://www.jjraymond.com/books/fiction/coelho.html

[illinoisprogressive]

54. and she is not leading in one of the early states. too bad

[dmallind]

62. That would be those early states with what - 19EV between them?

That's not going to help get a nomination much when Hillary has 31 in the bag before she starts. Next year, momentum only begins 2/05.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

65. If you cherry pick polls, yes. If you look at the aggregate numbers she leads in all the early state

[durrrty libby]

66. Wow DMC That is freakin awesome. Just wow. I hope it continues

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

67. Well, I don't

;) However, I would much rather have HRC win than Obama so it is good to see HRC beating Obama in each state, even though he has spent twice as much as her in Iowa (he has 28 field offices in IA. Clinton and Edwards combined have 29...) and I believe thrice as much as her in South Carolina. Presumably, he has also spent the most in NH as well.

[durrrty libby]

68. I always enjoy your poll dissection. I know you aren't the biggest

Hillary fan, but damn you do a great job and I appreciate it.

I am truly astounded by her progress.

I had no clue he was spending that kind of money in those states.Amazing, It must

be Obama 24/7

[draft_mario_cuomo]

76. Thanks

:hi:

I am too. I believed that as the other candidates became more well-known her lead would gradually be reduced. Instead, the opposite has happened. Edwards has been static in the national polls all year, largely because the CMSM does not cover him and many believe only HRC and BO are serious candidates (how many times have you been asked "So, are you supporting Hillary or Obama?"). Obama is the real surprise. As the OP shows, instead of him gaining he has been losing ground. I think his fundamental problem is the only issue on which he is different than HRC is the IWR--and few people are voting based on the IWR. So if they are identical on the issues, and you don't believe Obama's personality traits will allow him to work magic in Washington, why not support the experienced version?

[AtomicKitten]

55. I never know what to think of polls.

If this is true, dayum.

Impressive.

[Nedsdag]

63. Why bother have primaries and caucuses?

If she's up by 250 percentage points, why bother voting?

If she becomes the nominee, I'm not canvassing or putting any bumper stickers on my car. Nor will I care less about who she picks as her vice presidential nominee nor will I care about her convention speech or the debates. Just tell me when Election Day is. I can care less.

[IndianaGreen]

78. The polls showed an irrational support for Bush in 2000 and 2004

and even today, the polls still show a remnant of irrational support for Bush.

Just as there is a Bush cult of personality, there is now evidence of a Hillary cult of personality, which translates into irrational support for her in the polls. Irrational because Hillary's support, like Bush's, has nothing to do with their record or stand on the issues, but on the belief of a myth that Bush and Hillary have created about their own personalities.

It seems that we may well be replacing the Bush dictatorship with a Hillary dictatorship.

Hillary Dictatorship, I say? Hillary has not said a word about restoring the Constitution and surrendering all of the powers that Bush has taken for himself in that un-American "unitary executive."

We won't be any safer under a Democratic tyrant than we are under a Republican one.