The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

The Pollster

Clinton, Obama Tied in NH; McCain Leads GOP Field


Post-Iowa, Clinton and Obama are neck-and-neck in N.H., while Edwards, center, trails. (Photo composite/post.com)

By Jon Cohen
Blackberries across the country lit up at 6 p.m. this evening with the release of the first CNN-University of New Hampshire-WMUR poll taken after the Iowa caucuses.

The new poll shows Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton still in a tight battle for the Democratic primary, while on the Republican side, Arizona Sen. John McCain has taken his first lead since April.

McCain holds a narrow, six percentage point, lead over the GOP field, supported by 33 percent of likely primary voters in the new poll to 27 percent for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. For McCain, his lead is the first in a UNH poll since the spring, with his support nearly doubling since the fall (he was at 17 percent in September).

The Democratic contest could not be closer: Clinton and Obama both scored 33 percent in the new poll, with former North Carolina senator John Edwards trailing with 20 percent. Before Iowa, Clinton was at 34 percent in this poll, Obama at 30 percent.

In rapid response, the Clinton campaign has already e-mailed memo asking in all-caps "WHERE IS THE BOUNCE?"

The main post-Iowa shift is that New Hampshire Democratic voters are now just as apt to call Clinton and Obama the Democrat's most electable candidate. A week ago, Clinton had a 2-1 advantage on this attribute.

Similar to Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, New Hampshire voters prioritize change over experience by a large margin in the new poll, and Obama has the edge as the candidate most likely to bring needed change. (Clinton led on this attribute in September.) Clinton has a large lead on experience, while the Illinois senator has a 3-1 advantage as the "most inspiring" contender.

In the new poll, Obama runs evenly with Clinton among women for the first time (33 Clinton, 32 Obama); a week ago Clinton had an 11-point edge. The two also split men in the new poll, 33 percent Obama, 32 percent Clinton.

Among Republicans, last week Romney had a 13 percentage point advantage over McCain as the GOP's most electable candidate, but that's now evaporated: 29 percent said McCain is the one who has the best chance of beating the Democratic nominee in the general election, 28 percent said it's Romney.

The survey was conducted Jan. 4 and 5, and has a margin of sampling error is plus or minus five percentage points.

Posted at 7:08 PM ET on Jan 5, 2008  | Category:  The Pollster
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Everybody Loves a Change | Next: Romney's Early Voting Victory -- in Wyoming


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



turtle, else a pair chunk else I even then eventually and one day, came came

Posted by: whitemeclean | May 4, 2008 4:21 AM

Dear Bob22003(your comment Jan 5)
So sorry,I just saw your posting.
While you were slagging off all candidates,you "forgot" to mention MR ROMNEY???????
By the way,to all of you out there who can think for yourselves, how about this:
STATE OF UTAH FUNDRAISING:
Mr Romney (Mormon)1st Place $842,994
Mr Hukabee (Christian)7th Place $1000.
I am puzzled!Mr Romney says Mormons are Christian,yet most in Utah leave poor Mr Hukabee in 7th place for Fund raising?????

Posted by: useyourbrain1 | January 24, 2008 3:52 AM

Ron Paul. Give him a chance. Give freedom a chance. Want to see America squander it's greatness? Vote for someone else. Noone stands for freedom like Ron Paul. Not Hillary, not Obama, not Edwards, not McCain (who should be running on the Democratic ticket).

It's amazing, but for McCain to get the support of the short-term memory-challenged American public, he's had to LIE about his voting history. I just can't vote for someone who supported the Patriot Act (Hillary, McCain) or someone who lies.

Give Ron Paul a chance in 2008! You won't be disappointed.

Posted by: tax_acct | January 7, 2008 4:00 PM

FirstMouse's comments about Hillary Clinton's statement, "That hurts my feelings," seeing it apparently as a sign of weakness, is an example of how people take things out of context and distort them in order to attack a candidate. To anyone watching the debate, it was extremely obvious that Hillary was joking and being sarcastic, with her tone of voice and smiling as she said it, followed by, "But I'll try to go on," with the same tone and smile.

It was very obvious that she was using sarcasm to try to downplay the "likeability issue," as her latest message has been an attempt to say that likeability is not what's important. Of course, in terms of the general election, she's very wrong about that, and likeability always plays a huge--and I would even argue, decisive role.

Along the same line, Hillary has tried to lump Obama into the same category as Bush, with her statement that we've already elected someone people would prefer to have a beer with. That was a really lame attempt. Obama is nothing like Bush. People would say the "have a beer with" comment about Bush because he comes across as affable but not too bright. Obama is very bright and also very serious. Bush tries to be cute and funny with his country phrases like, "this is not my first rodeo" and the like. Obama is much more serious. He does use humor, but not of the "beer drinking buddy" variety.

Obama is likeable, not because he's a "good old boy" like Bush, which he certainly is not, but because he casts an inspiring vision and makes people believe in the possibility of something better. Now, you can call that "just rhetoric" and not substance. But the truth is that an inspiring vision is necessary to elect a Democratic President and to lead a divided country. And that's really the best you can give in speeches that will mostly be aired in the media only in sound bites. You just can't deliver substance through sound bites. For those who want to know the substance Obama offers, you're going to have to do something very radical for American politics--READ!! You'll find plenty of substance in the articles and book Obama has written, and in his stances and actions over the years. You can find some of his writings at: http://books.google.com/books?as_auth=Barack+Obama&ots=LYoIIjPHjT&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=author-navigational&hl=en

The electorate is a funny thing. People complain about negative campaign ads, while guaranteeing they will continue by responding to them as expected. People complain about lack of substance and specifics, while they only learn about the candidates from sound bites and images and don't really take the time to research the substance. Of course, politicians play to all of that, such as when Hillary's campaign tries to say that Obama is just words and no action. Yet, "ready to lead from day one" is also just a slogan and not an action. And this "35 years of experience" thing is mostly experience as Bill Clinton's mate. Otherwise, the only government experience she has is her 7 years as Senator in New York. And while Obama may have only 3 years as U.S. Senator, he has many years of relevant experience, including several years in the Illinois state senate (and to a degree, politics is politics, whether at the state or national level) and a several years doing community organizing to effect change (actions, not just words). Actually, his experience doing grassroots organizing is part of the foundation of his success in campaigning, since many of the same principles apply in both instances. And in the end, it may well be that community organizing will be the only way to mobilize people to break through the paralyzing gridlock that prevents meaningful change in Washington.

In summary, as is evident from past Presidential elections, you don't win the election with substance. You win it with vision and images that grip the hearts of people. And those continue to play a major role in your ability to lead the country after elected. Still, substance and specific, concrete ideas are indispensible to the real task of governing. But unfortunately, those are not what you can communicate in the media and its soundbite culture and among the portion of the electorate that actually swings the elections but is not very well informed on the issues. For those of us interested in the substance, again I say that you won't get it from the speeches and soundbites or the campaign ads. You have to be willing to read and research. But then again, when one campaign accuses another of lacking substance, that, too, is typically just another campaign ploy.

Posted by: PastorGene | January 7, 2008 11:37 AM

It doesn't inspire confidence to see that Hillary's feelings can be so easily hurt, even among friendly adversaries and at the unwitting instigation of an analyst seeking her reaction to poll data. One may sympathize without remaining convinced that as President she could cope with any "vast...conspiracy" or with opponents abroad in a dangerous world.

Posted by: FirstMouse | January 7, 2008 7:47 AM


The Presidential Race, My Take

By Alexander P. De Filippi
Sunday, January 06, 2008


Mainstream republicans have reasons to celebrate and to worry, from the news coming from the Iowa caucus this past Thursday January 3. In effect, Mike Huckabee, the mainstream candidate and future presidential republican nominee, won easily the election. The media calls Mitt Romney "the establishment candidate" because he has money, the true is; the real establishment candidate is Huckabee, who represents the George W. Bush line in all matters, from free trade, to immigration plus his pro-life stance. The mainstream or establishment candidate in the Republican Party is not determined by the amount of money or name recognition of the candidate, but by the base of support within the Republican Party that the candidate has. Governor Mike Huckabee has on his favors the two main factions of the Republican Party, the Christian right and the business community, no one of the other republicans in the race count with those two elements of support. Giuliani, McCain, Ron Paul, have to divide among themselves the fiscally conservative, non religious right, which is located mostly in the east and west coast, and that does not surpass more than twenty percent of the republican electorate across the country.

The second good news for republicans came from the democrats results, the establishment candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, came on third place. I call her the establishment candidate because she counts with the media support and the money coming from the business community located mostly in California and New York. It is very difficult to foresee that Barack Obama could win a presidential contest against Mike Huckabee, therefore if the democrats nominate Senator Obama they would be loosing the presidential election, a presidential election that based on the results coming from the 2006 congressional election is up to the democrats to loose.

The sobering or sour note for republicans came from the Iowans participation in the caucus, Iowa isn't New York, Iowa is a conservative state that went for George W. Bush in 2004 and slightly for Al Gore in 2000. Therefore, the fact that the people participating in the democrat's caucus was two and a half greater than those participating in the Republican caucus is a bad news for republicans. Iowa has only seen benefits for the last seven years from the George W. Bush administration, Iowans should be grateful of republicans, also, in that state, the grass root republican machine is almost as good as the one they have in the south, in fact the Christian republican grass root machine runs well even in New York City. The Iowan local press isn't liberal either, therefore that massive participation of people, including independents, in the democrat's caucus, is impressive and should put the republicans on notice that something as unusual as the awful results of the congressional and gubernatorial race of 2006 could happen again this year.

The democrats conundrum. The democrats have the momentum with the American electorate this year as they had it on 2006, therefore wining the presidential race should not be a problem for them. Nevertheless, in spite of the favorable winds, the democrats find themselves unable to nominate a good candidate; any of the three main contenders, Obama, Edwards and Clinton is an easy target for republicans. Any of those three should loose in a race against Huckabee, any of those three democrats will have to name a vice-president that can help them, maybe Al Gore? Vice-president again? I do not know. I believe the democrat establishment will be able to save Hillary Clinton becoming her the democrat nominee, unfortunately for democrats, she is a poor candidate, as any of the three just mentioned. Therefore, the democrats' faith depends of two factors, the vice-president they name and a repetition of the 2006 phenomena where independents and moderates, nationwide, broke for the democrats. The democrats could make easier for them to get the independent and moderate votes if they play the "minister card" against Huckabee. Independents and moderates, that make up easily twenty percent of the electorate, tend to be non religious, the reason they tend to be moderate or independents is become they do not take any position to the extreme, whether we talk about politics, environment or religion. In addition, in this occasion, the republicans, apparently, won't have the Hispanic support as they did in 2000 and 2004, the media has manipulated the immigration subject in such way that Hispanics, unfairly though, perceive republicans as anti-immigrants.


Posted by: apdefilippi | January 6, 2008 7:20 PM

Has anyone actually seen THIS!:

CNN has a new amigo

scary poll

Posted by: rfpiktor | January 6, 2008 7:03 PM

I hear Mrs. Clinton extoll her track record of bringing about change but I wonder why no one has challenged that statement using the fact that her highest profile role of leadership for change is when her husband gave her a leading role in health care reform and, because of her failure in that role, the opportunity for health care reform was buried for the duration of the Clinton administration.

Posted by: register | January 6, 2008 6:36 PM

Barack is too idealistic to support our best option to keep Pakistan's nukes in check, a man that uses military force to keep power. No one likes Musharraf's iron hand, but the alternative nuclear armed fundamentalists (Bhutto supporters have numbers but no weapons) would be devastating to US security.Musharraf plays both sides recruiting non paid fundamentalist fighters for Kashmir and the limited engagement by his troops in the northwest. Some gains have been realized with high end captures but overall the newly opened fundamentalist madrassahs are fertile ground for terrorist recruitment along with recruitment fed by drug money in the northwest processing and shipping centers make Pakistan more terrorist than before the necessary Aghan invasion. If we don't stop poppy production, we will not win in this war theater. Win the people, win the war is understood by Petraeus, but this executive seems only interested in how much profiteering it can pass to friends.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 6, 2008 3:14 PM

With 12 million illegal aliens in this country, how hard is it for the heroin selling Taliban to send agents in with the drug runners? The FBI should be expanded to vest the illegals for a 10 year photo-id work permit. The penalty for being here illegally is a lifetime citizenship ban (not their children), and a fine of their and employer social security payments. Any IDed illegal found working for less than min. wage gets deported. I have no problem with vested illegals working on the books contributing to the social security deficet in any capacity that does not undermine min. wage. Combine this with a national ID program and only cons and terrorists won't have ID. Lets bring illegals into the taxable economy instead of their and our problematic current situation.

Posted by: jameschirico | January 6, 2008 2:48 PM

Boy! Some of the comments here sound like spin straight out of a Republican campaign or out of the Hillary Clinton campaign--point by point.

I've followed Presidential elections closely since the 1972 race and have studied them back through the 1960 race. Certain patterns carry through with a fair consistency. The Democrats tend to nominate people of ideas and intelligence. The Republicans tend to nominate people of personal charisma and "likeability." All other things being equal, the charisma/likeability factor comes out on top.

Usually the only way to elect a Democratic President is to combine both intelligence and the ability to inspire. Bill Clinton had both and won twice. Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry all were intelligent but uninspiring and lost (though it remains a question whether Gore actually lost--still, in the light of Republican dirty tricks, anything less than a convincing win for the Dems gets turned into a Republican victory).

Hillary is not Bill. She is not inspiring. Obama is inspiring. Both he and Edwards have personal charisma, though Obama has the edge in generating an inspiring vision. Edwards also undercut his populist message with the haircut debacle. Moreover, his message is a bit one-track.

But Obama is not, contrary to the Hillary campaign spin and that of much of the media, just a person of flowery language. He is also a deep thinker and has innovative ideas. And he has been in the trenches doing community organizing to actually effect positive changes. Sure, he speaks in more general, visionary terms in his campaign, because that's what voters grasp, rather than the detailed application. Still, you can read some of his writings and find the details. His experience as a professor of constitutional law is also significant, given the last 7 years of abuse of the Constitution by the Bush Administration.

To elect a Democrat as President requires both intelligence and what the elder Bush called "the vision thing." Obama has both and therefore is electable.

And don't give me that nonsense about how a black man can't win the votes of southern white men. Guess what? With few exceptions, the Republicans have a lock on that vote anyway. That's not where the Democrats will win the election, and Hillary certainly would fair no better there anyway.

The election will be decided in places like Ohio and Florida, with possibly some of the traditionally red states that have large Hispanic populations like Arizona and Colorado up for grabs this time--at least unless John McCain is the Republican nominee. After the Bush Administration's utter failure on Katrina, Louisiana could also be in play this time. Virginia is also evolving. But basically, if the Dem. nominee can win Ohio or Florida, it's over. And there, as in other places, the battle will not be won among ideological conservatives or liberals. Those folks are already aligned. It will be won in the hearts and souls of people who range from uncertain to clueless about what they believe in. That's where the inspiring, compelling vision wins the day.

The "undecided voters" and "independents" will not be won through a campain of ideas (the typical Democratic strategy which does speak to me but not to these folks who actually decide the election). Those voters, and the election, will be won by "the vision thing." That's the nature of Presidential politics in America. That's why Obama is the Democrats' best shot at this--and the right person to lead our nation past the paralyzing partisan gridlock that has such a grip on our political process. A win by Obama just might even inspire some positive changes in the Republican party in its hopes to win in the future.

Posted by: PastorGene | January 6, 2008 2:47 PM

Having studied and studied, and studied some more, about all the candidates and their positions, Obama is my choice. I switched from the Republican party years ago and now consider myself an independent. I have waited for years to have someone in my generation (age 43) in the White House, rather than my parents age. This may not be important to most, but I'm tired of politicians still from the Vietnam Era that have no clue as to my generation's issues and concerns.

I never thought I would see a woman or african american man as viable presidential candidates in my lifetime. While I admire Hillary for being the first woman, Obama is my choice hands down. I'll leave the policy debates to the rest of you in this blog, but wanted to put my 2 cents in!

Remember this; ANY candidate we vote for is a roll of the dice. I'm willing to give Obama the chance and if he's elected President and fails miserably, then I'll move on. But I'm willing to take that chance.

Posted by: suzannew001 | January 6, 2008 1:11 PM

No poll, especially the one cited, has had ample time to get a large representative sample after the Iowa Caucus. Tomorrow will be telling. I quote the Zogby comments after releasing thier poll early today.

"Pollster John Zogby: "Make no mistake about it, there is movement here. Only 50% of this sample is after the Iowa caucus results were known and there has been a 5-point swing on the Democratic side. Clinton started out leading 32% to 26% over Obama and now she is in a dead heat at 31% to 30%. Obama has won in that part of the sample taken since Iowa - and just this past one day alone Obama led by 8 points"

Posted by: Smokescreen | January 6, 2008 9:03 AM

Vote for Obama and elect a republican president. Obama's lack of experience and insight are astounding. He will be eaten alive by the republican nominee unless it's Huckabee, which is doubtful. Republicans are careful not to elect someone who analyzes situations...they take drastic action and then look over the facts. IQ of their nominee obviously does not matter. They are not interested in the middle class and manipulate people who are classified as "evangelical," a buzz word for "ignorant." Most independents have republican leanings ... a few lean towards the very left. They should not be determining the democratic nominee. New Hampshire voters are intelligent and will make a good choice if they weigh the facts carefully and not vote based on emotion as Iowans did in both parties. Too many women and "girlie men" voting there .....

Posted by: hazwalnut | January 6, 2008 8:13 AM

It has long been discussed that to win the Democratic nomination, one must be a social liberal, but then must morph into a conservative to get elected in the general election come November. It would appear that the liberal part of the "wisdom" is true, now it remains to be seen about the latter part.

I think that people have Clinton fatigue. Sure, Bill is still popular, but I wonder if politics is not a matter of timing and while his time has come and gone, her time may never be. Just because you have a popular president as a husband, does not translate into popularity for oneself.

Take for example, the late Franklin D. Roosevelt and his wife, Eleanor. I doubt that she could have even been elected a representative from New York, the home of Bella Abzug. I think the myth of Hillary is about to come undone and it sould not happen soon enough. She is evil in my view, but then we have lived through eight years of the most evil and civil liberties stealing administration this country has ever seen, so even if she wins, we cannot lose compared to GWB and company. For my money, John Edwards is far and away the best candidate on the trail.

Posted by: ezrest2004yahoocom | January 6, 2008 6:45 AM

If you think Obama is now a shoe-in you're nuts. He won Iowa and collected 18 delegates compared to Clinton's 16. Whoever wins NH will win just a share of 22. If you look down the road folks you will see that Clinton has a 23 pt lead in Michigan where there are 128 delegates at stake. In Nevada she has a 20 pt lead with 25 delegrates at stake. In California and Florida she has 20 pt leads and there are more than 550 delegates at stake. Don't be swayed by the press hype. This race ain't over till it's over.

Posted by: lounatick8 | January 6, 2008 6:18 AM

If you think Obama is now a shoe-in you're nuts. He won Iowa and collected 18 delegates compared to Clinton's 16. Whoever wins NH will win just a share of 22. If you look down the road folks you will see that Clinton has a 23 pt lead in Michigan where there are 128 delegates at stake. In Nevada she has a 20 pt lead with 25 delegrates at stake. In California and Florida she has 20 pt leads and there are more than 550 delegates at stake. Don't be swayed by the press hype. This race ain't over till it's over.

Posted by: lounatick8 | January 6, 2008 6:18 AM

If Hillary does not get the nomination, she should run as an independent.

Posted by: prabir1960 | January 6, 2008 5:40 AM

Some headlines about Barack Obama from around the world:

"Sometimes miracles do happen" -- Jamaica Observer

"Obama's rise, America's renewal" -- Toronto Globe and Mail

"UK politicians should listen to Obama's message of change" -- Sunday Herald

"Obama-mania in New Hampshire as new poll shocks Clinton camp" -- Independent (UK)

"Panicked Hillary is tempted to turn dirty" -- Times Online (UK) Also ... "Obama bursts out as the liberal Reagan who can reunite America"

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | January 6, 2008 3:00 AM

Obama's lack of experience shows when he makes comments about taking unilateral action in Parkistan, thus destroying the a vital and delicate relationship with a muslim country that has a nuclear bomb. He doesn't seem to be able to see the greater picture and grasp the serious repercussions this action would cause. If this is the kind of decision he is going to make as a president, we as a nation would be in great trouble. Haven't we made enough mistakes under George Bush? The next president should be level headed, experienced, possess a solid track record and true leadership abilities. We shouldn't vote people into the oval office based on personal charm, populist declarations, and empty promises. If we learn anything from George Bush's blunders, we should know that it is critical to choose wisely for a president who will lead the only remaining super power, both for our own sake and for the sake of the world.

Posted by: mschiffm | January 6, 2008 2:54 AM

The theme:

According to General Semantics, cognitive sciences, it's the frame STUPID! The frame is the network of associations that spring from the sub-conscientious with the brand.

Obama has a brand of hope and change - a people lost in the wilderness about to cross to the holy land. The collection of tribes of all the people lost in the dessert looking across to the promised land of milk and honey. The leader is a guide and prophet, a coach getting the team into the supper bowl.

Clinton is the good mother or sheep herder taking care of her children or sheep. The sheepherder will provide - health care, financial stability, jobs, welfare, prosperity, world peace, the whole laundry list of democratic promises. The focus is on HER, me, I, the government, the process, and in material benefits of voting.

The Republican image of the strict father offer security and freedom from reason. The people is to follow and believe and not question authority. Ditto Heads...

Democracy in America:

There are some popular myths about the nature of the American civilization. The nation was a child of enlighten not a Christian revival. The Deists and Freemasons who organized the "committees of public safety" and created the propaganda that let to the "rebellion of the American Colonies" and was all about CHANGE. The established order of CHURCH, KING, and State was gothic v. the modern world which was rational, logical as opposed to faith based doctrine based on tradition and authority. The idea that people could manage their own affairs depended on people being sensible, not driven by superstitions, and passions. The people must have a higher sense of the common good and see beyond just personal, regional, racial, ethic, class or religious prejudices. The "people" were property owners and educated. The masses were not to be trusted. Without the balance of power, public education, and a stable middle class Imperial tyranny would be replaced by the rule of the mob.

If Mr. Edwards wants to change "the system" he will have to convince the states to call a constitutional convention to redesign the balance of power. The system we have has been successful designed to prevent Democracy because popular rule would endanger civil liberties and state sovereignty - Democracy only requires majority rule within a parliamentary system. The American design was to prevent the state from doing much, for better or worse. The balance of power design was there because the founding fathers did not trust the people or majorities that would abolish slavery, over tax or regulate, tax trade to the disadvantage of one region or industry or another. Our limited democracy is another result of our original sin of slavery.

Posted by: pflaump | January 6, 2008 1:45 AM


Hey, Hillary!
How's that Kyl-Lieberman bill working out for you?

Posted by: chasemonster | January 6, 2008 1:31 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:53 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:53 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:53 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:49 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:49 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:49 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:49 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:46 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:46 AM

Obama is a populist that does not represents any positive change in US politics, his nomination as democratic candidate will mean a continuation of a Republican presidency. Numbers don´t lie, 76%, 12%, 10% and 2% will eventually result in a Republican Presidency if Obama wins the democratic nomination, no matter what remorse white liberals have.

Posted by: Alexandrovich | January 6, 2008 12:46 AM


Hey, Hillary!
How's that Kyl-Lieberman bill working out for you?

Posted by: chasemonster | January 6, 2008 12:38 AM

Jeez, I didn't know so many of Karl's kockroaches even read the WaPo! Magellan, are you having trouble getting your own Klan to listen to you?

Posted by: kmkirlin | January 6, 2008 12:24 AM

Uh, hello Bob22003. Did you just wake up from a very long nap??? Al Gore did not choose John Edwards as a running mate in 2000 - he chose Joe Liebermann. John Kerry chose John Edwards as a running mate in 2004. If you're going to call people names instead of offering something constructive, at least get your facts straight.

Posted by: skpedersen | January 6, 2008 12:08 AM

magellan1 says
"But the real reason why Obama will take the Democratic nomination goes to the heart of liberal politics - white liberals see Obama as their "get out of jail card".

Could it be that this statement is really a reflection of how you feel about yourself and behavior?

Posted by: sbundley | January 5, 2008 11:53 PM

FIRED UP!! READY TO GO!!

Posted by: benbullochjunk | January 5, 2008 11:39 PM

Good point about using Realclearpolitics.com as a source for this stuff. That said, ARG whiffed on their poll by 17%...they weren't even close. Not sure that we should take their Obama +12% at face value either (although it frankly wouldn't surprise me...I think he's looking at a 8-10% victory just based solely on demographics.)

Posted by: SWB2 | January 5, 2008 11:11 PM

Poor Hillary. First she thought she could stroll into the Oval Office running on "experience." Then, she starts lifting the Obama and Edwards theme of "change" when she bombs in Iowa. But after seeing tonight's debate, there is really one word to describe her campaign: desperate.

Posted by: philroeder | January 5, 2008 11:00 PM

The cold hard fact is that none of the people currently running for president is especially impressive. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be where she is except that her husband was president. Obama would still be a little-known state senator except for a sex scandal that wiped out his opponent for a Senate seat. Edwards is a sleazy trial lawyer who wouldn't be where he is except that Al Gore selected him as his running mate in 2000. Dodd, despite a background of privilege, has accomplished very little in the Senate, and Biden is best known for stealing speeches from a British politician and making stupid remarks like the statements he made about Obama. The Republican side is even worse. Giuliani and Huckabee are corrupt frauds and hypocrites. Fred Thompson is a joke (what has he EVER done that has been worthwhile?) and John McCain is an exceptionally partisan, extreme right-winger. All of this, and most voters are entirely disenfranchised, as we have a system in which two small, insignificant states hold the early primaries. No wonder we end up with idiots like Bush in the White House. We need Lincoln, FDR, or Truman -- even an Eisenhower or Kennedy -- but we get this dreck. Too bad we can't vote "none of the above."

Posted by: Bob22003 | January 5, 2008 10:28 PM

Obama wins!!!!!!!!!

Sure the debate isn't over yet but, make no mistake, Obama wins New Hampshire and everywhere else. Yes, he is charismatic. Yes, he can do a nice impression of Martin Luther King. But the real reason why Obama will take the Democratic nomination goes to the heart of liberal politics - white liberals see Obama as their "get out of jail card".

After years of guilt over slavery and the oppression of black people, liberals now have a legitimate black candidate for President of the United States whose election will wipe away their collective guilt and secure them a place in the liberal version of the afterlife.

Praise be Obama!

Posted by: magellan1 | January 5, 2008 10:11 PM

What hilariously shoddy journalism this is. A slew of polls have come out over the past couple days since Iowa, and all of them show Obama well ahead. So what does th Post do? Why cherry-pick the one that suggests it's still a horse race, of course. Sell those papers... sell those papers... sell those papers...

Here's a good place to see all the recent polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

Posted by: B2O2 | January 5, 2008 9:39 PM

Do you you know that America has one of the largest illegal alien populations in our prison system? Currently their are 354,780 illegal immigrants incarecerated. The upkeep since 2001 is $1,371,623,708 and climbing! That money could be put to great use, for the poverty in our land. Not illegal immigrants but our own citizens, who are hurting? It is shameful thate men and women, who came back from Korea, the Vietnam, the gulf are homeless? What about our own single Mothers. then their are Senior citizens, who are likely to suffer if Royal Bush signs into law a Social Security Agreement with Mexico? Then their is the huge sums of money, sent abroard for Nation building, while our own infrastructure of bridges, roads and tunnels collapse around us.

Both Democrats, Republicans and the citizens are to blame for the erosion of this great nation!

Taxpayers must stand with any official, who is willing to go that extra mile; no matter the political consequences. Very few politicians have the backbone to consumate the majority will of THE PEOPLE. They have become panderers to corporate and globalist open-border, unfair free-traders favors. America can no longer afford the $2 trillion dollar a year, to support the pariah contractors and businesses that hire illegal immigrants. They themselves receive all the profit, and the taxpayers gets the bill for hospitals, education and the massive prison appropriations. With between 12 to 20 million illegal aliens already here, with another estimated 17 million turning up on our shores by 2010, we are forced by federal law to subsidise these low income families. Taxpayers fall for this trick all the time, because the government doesn't tell us about food stamps, subsidised housing and a whole cornicopia of other free goodies. Its so easy for the citizen-taxpayer to carry the burden of cost's while the employer walks away. Free trade entities are behind the Bush administration unfettered movement of illegal cheap, foreign labor which is undermining our citizen workers wages. Most U.S. citizens have no concept of tomorrow, with outsourcing of jobs and business to foreign lands, along with the import of millions of people who can't speak our language and most have no wish to assimulate into our society. All but a few of our presidential contenders are not multi-millionaires, that show little interest in proposing laws protect our country from a globalist agenda? Both political parties are to blame, along with the american people for allowing this International globalist plan to continue. Our Industrial base is withering, unless you prefer a service nation? Big business must be held accountable for the destruction of our living standards. Hopefully, THE PEOPLE will show their intentions, starting with the state Caucases and the upcoming Primaries! Are we going to have more of the same, with a depletion of our wealth and an erosion of our society. Or are we going to have fair free-trade and our national borders sealed for security and our prosperity?

Posted by: infinity555 | January 5, 2008 9:11 PM

The Clinton camp is waiting for a bounce, and they've been zinged by a wicked, down the line passing shot.

How long until it's game, set, match... Obama!

Posted by: jade_7243 | January 5, 2008 9:08 PM

Umm Cannings, don't you mean the actual foreign policy mistakes of the senior league (Cheney/Rumsfeld)?

Posted by: mjo1 | January 5, 2008 8:33 PM

DRAFT BIDEN BACK ! Who else will correct the foreign policy debate mistakes of the junior league?

Posted by: cannings | January 5, 2008 8:22 PM

Go, B.O.! Crush the 2-headed 4-flatfooted Billary Sleaze Monster!
Go, Sen. McCain! Ask those other guys where THEY were while you and so many unsung others suffered for us!

Posted by: sawargos | January 5, 2008 7:53 PM

There have been two other polls after the Iowa caucuses that have Obama up by at least 10% (Rasmussen and ARG). Now comes this poll, with a HUGE margin of error (5%? that means a 10 point swing is possible in any way).

So this means Obama could be leading by well over 10%, or Clinton, or even Edwards could be leading (which shows you how silly such a huge margin of error is).

Meanwhile, the Rasmussen poll (obama ahead by 10%) and the American Research Group poll (obama by 12%) each have margin of errors of +/- 4%. So Obama's lead in both those polls is well outside the margin of error. It looks more like the CNN/WMUR poll is an anomaly than the standard.

Posted by: jgerbs711 | January 5, 2008 7:28 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company