Outside Iowa, polls find Hillary maintaining large leads

[Alamom]

http://washingtontimes.com/article/20070923/NATION/109230046/1001


Outside Iowa, polls find Hillary maintaining large leads
By Donald Lambro
September 23, 2007


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has built double-digit leads over her chief rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination in four of the five major party preference contests in January.

>

If her large leads hold up in later contests, it would send her into the "Super Duper Tuesday" battles on Feb. 5 with significant momentum and a strong chance to capture the bulk of the delegates at stake in more than 20 states.



According to polling averages tracked by the Real Clear Politics Web site, the New York senator now leads in the Jan. 15 Michigan primary by 16 percent, the Jan. 22 New Hampshire primary by 20.5 percent, the South Carolina primary by 11.3 percent and the Florida primary by 25 percent. The South Carolina and Florida primaries are Jan. 29.

>

"Gallup's latest poll finds Hillary Clinton maintaining the better-than-20-percentage-point lead for the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential nomination that she has enjoyed since early August," the polling organization reported late last week.

>

A compilation of all the major national polls conducted this month gave Mrs. Clinton an average spread of 18.8 percent over her three top rivals, according to Real Clear Politics. A breakdown of the polling data showed that among Democrats, she now leads with an average of 41.8 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois with 23 percent, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina with 14.3 percent and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico with 3.7 percent.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. If She Loses Iowa, She's Finished

If she loses in Iowa, your "resistance is futile" strategy evaporates and the long knives will come out.

[Alamom]

6. Maybe, Maybe not

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

If she loses in Iowa, the caucus winner will have a brief moment to capitalize on the event and make his case. But, the Clinton campaign does possess something that none of her challengers can claim—a chance to win the nomination even if Iowa doesn’t work out as planned. She remains the most popular candidate among Democrats and is perceived to be the most electable. Clinton has a huge head start in New Hampshire and a solid demographic firewall due to her overwhelming support from women.


http://www.observer.com/people/hillary-clinton?page=7

From Mason-Dixon pollster Brad Coker

"People forget that Bill Clinton lost New Hampshire, lost Iowa, and still won the nomination (in 1992) because he had set up a lot of backup states, and he bounced back," Coker said. "The Clintons realize you can lose Iowa and New Hampshire and still win the nomination."

Can we please, please, please stop citing the 1992 Iowa Caucuses as if that meant anything? If you need a refresher, Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination that year. As soon as he entered, his fellow candidates ceded Iowa to him. No one campaign there. No one spent money there. Almost no one showed up on caucus night, when Harkin took 79 percent of the vote (second place went to “uncommitted”). And Harkin got absolutely no bounce from his “win,” since no one noticed it. He finished a distant fourth in New Hampshire the next week and was soon out of the race. For all practical purposes, Iowa didn’t happen in 1992.

Coker’s claim that a candidate can drop Iowa and New Hampshire and still win the nomination remains untested. With Nevada moving up, it seems possible it could happen in 2008 – but outside of the absurd ’92 example, it has yet to happen in either party.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2007/06/is_the_primary_calendar_dimini_1.html

>
This should make clear that Iowa and New Hampshire have not historically been as critical as many might think. From this list, we might infer three facts about these contests:


1. A win in Iowa is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success. You can lose Iowa and still win the nomination (Clinton, Dukakis, Carter, Bush, Reagan). You can win Iowa and still lose the nomination (Harkin, Gephardt, Dole, Bush).

2. A win in New Hampshire is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for success. You can lose New Hampshire and still win the nomination (Clinton, Mondale, Bush, Dole). You can win New Hampshire and still lose the nomination (Tsongas, Hart, McCain, Buchanan).

3. A win in Iowa and New Hampshire is not a necessary condition for success. You can lose both states and still win the nomination (Clinton). However, a win in Iowa and New Hampshire is a sufficient condition for success. If you win both states, you win the nomination (Gore, Kerry).



edbr

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Gee - You Left Out One Important Stat

That polls four months out from the primaries have zero predictive value. Just ask Dr. Dean, who was up almost 30 points only one monthe before Iowa.

[Ethelk2044]

9. You keep forgetting she is not Bill. People were crazy about Bill

It is just the opposite for her.

[Alamom]

10. This thread is about several candidates who have lost or won Iowa & NH

It is not about Bill Clinton.





Reading comprehension...a lost art.

[wyldwolf]

8. Another MannyGoldstein statement that reveals his lack of knowledge

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Please Elucidate (nt)

[wyldwolf]

12. " If She Loses Iowa, She's Finished" says it all, Mannie.

A six word statement straight out of "progressive" dreamland, completely void of any historical perspective or current "state of the race" knowledge.

To the anti-Hillary contingent: Beware the ides of California...

[jefferson_dem]

2. Moonie Times? Donald Lambro?

Given the source and author, one has to be curious about the motivation behind this piece.

[cosmik debris]

4. Curious my ass! it's obvious. n/t

[jefferson_dem]

5. I appreciate the kick in the pants. My natural inclination is toward gentility.

:evilgrin:

[BeyondGeography]

3. Other than that, how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?