MyDD :: New Hampshire Poll

New Hampshire Poll

by Chris Bowers, Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:06:41 PM EST

The first New Hampshire poll of the season from Suffolk is out. To my great frustration, it is also the only New Hampshire poll to be released in almost a month. It has a small sample size (212 in the Democratic sample), so it underscores the need for more polls out of New Hampshire to help put these results in perspective. February 24-28, 212 Democrats, with supposedly an margin of error of only four despite the sample size:

Clinton: 28
Obama: 26
Edwards: 17
Biden: 3
Kucinich: 2
Richardson: 2
Unsure: 17

If we could get even a single post-Vilsack poll of Iowa, we might start to have a handle on the shape of the primaries. With numbers like these, Clinton looks extremely vulnerable, especially considering the "poll found that Clinton's unfavorability rating of 48 percent was the highest of any candidate." If Obama is already this close to Clinton in New Hampshire, and significantly closing the gap in national polls, she is going to need to find something to turn the direction of the campaign around. The current course does not bode well for her.

The Republican numbers add more fuel to the to the bonfire that used to be John McCain's run for President. They also make me wonder if Romney will pass McCain soon:

Giuliani: 37
McCain: 27
Romney: 17
Ron Paul: 2
Tom Tancredo: 2
No opinion: 12

I think the Republican nomination will ultimately come down to Giuliani versus Romney. Compared to McCain, both candidates are rising nicely in the polls, have far more insider support, and generally higher favorability among Republicans who know who they are. McCain is nearly finished--already. And when it comes tot he rest of the field, the idea of an outsider, longshot type winning the Republican nomination seems highly unlikely to me.

Tags: Polls, New Hampshire, President 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 76 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I am starting to wonder if McCain may end up backing out of the race before it starts.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:10:49 PM EST

Great news for Edwards (none / 0)

He's within striking distance. Edwards used to have reason to worry that if he won Iowa and Nevada--distinct possibilities-he would still be too far behind in New Hampshire to keep his momentum going. No longer. He's made real inroads there.

by david mizner on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

If McCain comes in third in N.H. he will be dead in the water and the pressure to drop out will be overwhelming!

It's amazing evidence of how Republican voters are like the Bourbon Dynasty of France: They never learn and they never forget!

All that right-wing hate machine noise against McCain when he was making Bush look bad has come home to roost. They will never forgive him!

He can suck up to all the evangelical leaders, but the right-wing lizzard brain has been wired in: McCain = Boo! Hiss!

There seems to be a visceral dislike of McCain among grass-roots Republicans equalled only by the hatred among grass-roots Democrats for Joe Lieberman.

I'd say Guiliani walks away with the nomination, except that how can he? How can he explain away all those "liberal" positions on abortion and gay-rights?

I don't see how that stuff can be finessed. And what happened to the Republican's fiercely imposed "pecking-order" where they only choose the candidate whose "turn" it is: perfect examples Reagan, Dole and Bush.

The only hope Republicans have is that the Democrats nominate Hillary and then Guiliani only has to say: "Vote Guiliani! He's Not Hillary!"

The entire rabid right-wing base has been indoctrinated for 15 years to hate Hillary and Bill with a blinding fury. They'll do ANYTHING to keep her from being elected and if elected ANYTHING to bring her down.

You can bet that if she won and then they ever won control of the House, they'd instantly convene impeachment proceedings on some trumped up charge. "Treason" maybe, it wouldn't matter to them.

by Cugel on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:20:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Speaking from NH (none / 0)

much much too early for these polls to be meaningful in any way, imho.

I do think that HRC's early splash here was wider than it was deep, and this poll does reflect that.

Also, McCain hasn't made a big presence in the state yet, thought he will be in a week and a half. Still, it is amazing to see the McCain NH lovefest vanish so utterly.

Voter registration is shifting more to the Dems here, and much-discussed independents may not see St. John as the maverick anymore.

I still maintain that McCain's demolition of Bush here in 2000 was an early archetype of ABB voting. We saw right through the cowboy.

I even considered voting for him in 2000 just to help make sure Bush lost, but later decided on Bradley.

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

by Dean Barker on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:13:13 PM EST

Re: Speaking from NH (3.00 / 1)

"We saw right through the cowboy."

So much so that the state voted for "the cowboy" in the general election 9 months later and those 4 electoral votes were the difference in the race. New Hampshire didn't see through shit.

by Double B on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:44:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apples and Oranges (none / 0)

That's the general, not the primary, when there was one candidate to chose from for Repubs, and they sure weren't going to go for Gore.

NH went for Bush because of the hubris of a certain Ralph.

Plenty of people all across the country who disliked Kerry during the primary worked their butts of for him in the general. Does that mean they didn't see through him too?

Wonder if Sununu's fired now.

by Dean Barker on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:15:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Apples and Oranges (none / 0)

You're the one making the claim that the people of New Hampshire saw right through Bush. The biggest indictment of that claim is that between a moderate Democrat and a reactionary Republican, NH chose the latter. How is that seeing through anything? Glad to know they preferred McCain, but when push came to shove when it mattered they chose Bush.

by Double B on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:36:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Margin of error on this poll (assuming proper sampling) is 6%. Wikipedia tells you how to compute it here. The 4% claim is just wrong.

by Monkey In Chief on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:19:53 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Nah, that's even low. I'm getting more like 10%. It would be in the neighborhood of 7% or so even if p=.5, and p is more like 1/4.

by RT on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:49:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Nevermind, you're right. I multiplied when I should have divided - or was it the other way around? - with the offcenter p adjustment.

by RT on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 06:03:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (1.00 / 1)

Cain is finished! If you still have any doubt, wait till he jumps on board with Ted Kennedy and Roger Mahony on their AXIS OF AMNESTY train, attempting to reward 30 million illegal aliens residing here in America, for their illegal behavior. He might as well shoot himself at that point.

by DfD on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:20:14 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

McCain will win the GOP nomination.

Join us at Show Me Progress!

by clarkent on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:21:16 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I think the odds are against him, but the 37-27-17 split looks eerily like the Democratic field (not nec. in this poll), and I think its too early to write any of the top Republicans off.
I think Romney is the most vulnerable of the top three, so I'm glad to see him appearing to surge.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Romney is very known in NH, half the state gets teevee from Boston, and he's already running teevee ads. So, this isn't necessarily great news for him. Though a McCain implosion would make things easier for Romeny

by MassEyesandEars on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:19:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (3.00 / 0)

Obama has higher ratings among independents than Clinton, giving yet another piece of evidence to contradict the claim that independents prefer more centrist candidates.

by Matt Stoller on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:25:00 PM EST

Hillary is the worst candidate (3.00 / 1)

among the top 3 dems for a general election.

no two ways about it.

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

If you don't consider Obama a centrist. I see Clinton and Obama actually very close in policies. Obama opposed the war in 2002. But other than that, they both are rather centrist. I guess it depends on perspective. Someone closer to the supposed center might see Obama as less centrist. He's not left enough for me.

by littafi on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He's a centrist to me. (none / 0)

But according to the new rankings he is the most liberal (serious) candidate running. I think he's the 10th most liberal senator.

by cilerder86 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:09:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's a centrist to me. (none / 0)

Littafi is one of those people who will not actually educate themselves and pretty much post out of ignorance to support their own candidates or opinions. He won't be swayed by fact.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:24:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's a centrist to me. (none / 0)

Lets not be throwing stones.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's a centrist to me. (none / 0)

I rarely say a bad thing about Edwards... In fact the only thing I have ever said about Edwards is that I question the timing of his apology and want to know why it took so long. I also want to know if he knew the White House was full of shit as suggested by the head of the committee he was a part of who wrote an editorial a week after Edward's apology. THose questions have never been answered by the candidate.

I have never called Edwards a centrist or a conservative (even though one could argue his early record was that) because the facts are he isn't one now. Just like the facts are Obama isn't a centrist or a conservative. Calling him one does not take the facts into account.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's a centrist to me. (3.00 / 1)

Thanks for the ad hominem attack on me. Yitbos, it sounds as if you are unable to defend your views, so you engage in personal attacks. Not very impressive.

You call your biases fact and when someone disagrees, you insult that person. That is exactly what you are doing here.

Well, there is no point in conversing with soemone like you. I will not lower myself to your level of personal insults.

by littafi on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:27:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's a centrist to me. (none / 0)

No I attack trolls who make trollish attacks like the ones you have made all over. THE FACTS support that Obama is not a centrist. He is the most liberal of the current senators in the presidential race and also the most partisan as well. THis is supported by congressional scorecards. He was against the war... A VERY LIBERAL position from the start. The man is not a centrist and you keeping making those posts is either because you DON"T KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT, YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO LOOK UP AND RESEARCH HIS POSITIONS AND RECORD or YOU ARE ATTACKING HIM IN FAVOR OF YOUR CANDIDATE.

DO your research if you are gonna post. Otherwise, stop posting trollish bullshit about Obama.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:03:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He's a centrist to me. (none / 0)

Clinton and Obama have nearly identical ADA ratings which range from 95 to 100%. There is very little difference between their liberal rankings.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton's Mythic Liberalism (3.00 / 1)

I know you've been using that to muddy the waters, but the front page piece used National Journal rankings and found quite different results.
Composite
HC: 70.2 (32nd)
BO: 86 (tie for 1st)

Economic
HC: 63 (tie for 36th)
BO: 87 (tie for 1st)

Social
HC: 80 (tie for 15th)
BO: 77 (tie for 22nd)

Foreign Policy
HC: 62 (tie for 37th)
BO: 85 (tie for 13th)

Barack Obama is much more "liberal" than Hillary, according to the NJ's ranking for last year. Particularly on economics and foreign policy.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:22:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Mythic Liberalism (none / 0)

ADA is the oldest liberal ranking system and has been widely used since 1947. There are various other liberal and conservative rankings systems by groups and publications. My opinion would be there is not a lot of difference in the liberal rankings of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards. You can pick out specific votes and find where any of the three of them voted "conservative" at some point in time but overall they are very similar.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:40:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Mythic Liberalism (none / 0)

You can argue that arbitrary rankings based on undefined ideas of what "liberal" and "conservative" mean are unimportant, or don't present distinctions, but you can not argue that they are the same on policy. Hillary clearly is more socially liberal than John and Barack, who clearly are less economically liberal than Hillary, which is definitely a good thing to me. You may like free markets, but you should realize that most Dem. activists are not big fans.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Mythic Liberalism (none / 0)

I will put it this way. There are positions that I may disagree with for all 3 of them but I am satisfied with their liberal credentials. The same goes for most of the candidates that are in the second - third tier.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:26:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Mythic Liberalism (none / 0)

And the same for me. I just don't understand why you, or anyone else, support Hillary.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:36:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Mythic Liberalism (none / 0)

I like things about all of the top 3 and some of the second tier. I am in somewhat of a minority in the netroots that I am not anti-anyone and do not feel that is productive.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:48:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Then you don't know anything about Obama and have not taken the time to do your research.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:21:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (3.00 / 2)

Actually I do and I have.

Obama appears to support the Hamilton Project, the epitome of centricism in the Democratic Party.

Obama voted no on the Kerry/Feingold/Boxer bill to withdraw over one year, with firm deadlines/timetables. He voted no in summer 2006 with Clinton. The bill had full withdrawal by summer 2007.

Obama refused to support Murtha's Plan. Obama refused to support the Kennedy bill to defund the escalation.

Obama supports coal. Not good for the environment.

Obam will prop up the right through "bipartisanship" and "new politics."

Maybe what you think is "liberalism" is not.

Maybe.

Obama is running to the "middle" as fast as he can. You may not like that, but don't insult folks who see it and call it for what it is.

by littafi on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:35:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Well put, littafi. (3.00 / 1)

Edwards is clearly the most progressive of the Big 3.

Stoller seems surprised that independents like Obama, but he's been running just the sort of vague, group hug, let's-all-sit-down-and-hash-out--our-pro blems kind of campaign that appeals to the middle.

Another thing about Edwards: he's been vetted. Obama? Not so much: go read the cover of the NY Times. Not pretty.

by david mizner on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:13:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well put, littafi. (none / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/3/8/05439 /70981#4

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Thu Mar 08, 2007 at 01:42:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

The DEMOCRATIC PARTY position on the Kerry/FEINGOLD/BOXE AMENDMENT (Get the legislation type right at least) was NO. That's why most Senators voted against it. You ignore the fact he voted on the partisan Democratic amendment that was supported by the party, which most would consider a liberal bill... not as liberal as the Kerry et al amendment, but still liberal.

Obama supports coal to liquid as a short term solution. He also supports Ethanol. Gee, he is a Senator from Illinois.. a place with coal and corn. This plan would benefit his state very much, WHICH IS THE FIRST GOAL OF A SENATOR! I wonder why he would support this as a short term solution. He also supports long term plans to combat global warming. This is one of many solutions to help rid us of our dependence on foreign oil. Many would argue that the ONLY way to pass some of the more aggressive plans on global warming is by getting rid of dependence on foreign oil and the influence of BIG OIL out of the government. These are some solutions put forth. Besides, the issues with Coal to Liquid is in the conversion. Traditional methods are bad for the enviroment. However, there are new techniques such as biomass gasification that are carbon neutral and make the impact on the enviroment much much less... which last I checked, fuel and energy with less of an enviromental impact is a liberal position. Most of the greens who have come out against Obama on this bill are looking at the traditional process and not the biomass gasification... some see it as coal is coal, while many scientists disagree with that position.

Obama never came out against Murtha or Kennedy. He didn't say much about them. He instead offered his own bill calling for an 18 month withdrawal window. But of course proposing a bill to leave Iraq is a moderate po... oh wait NO ITS A LIBERAL POSITION!

"Obama will prop up the right through "bipartisanship" and "new politics." " And your proof of this is... this is fact how????? Oh its not... its a misunderstanding of his core message. Obama calls for "compromising without compromising values." By talking about reaching out to Republicans, IT ISN"T ABOUT THE DLC CAVE IN HALF ASSED COMPROMISE. It is finding an issue such as Ethics or Raising Pell Grants and THEN looking for a Republican that has the same position. THAT is what he has called for... that people from Red and Blue states work together towards passing issues they agree on. It doesn't mean FINDING A MIDDLE PRAGMATIC AGREEMENT. He doesn't agree with the GOP as a whole on barely anything. But there are individual senators who have the same belief on certain issues... and he works with them on those issues. THAT is what he has done for two years in Washington and that is what he did in the state senate in Illinois and that is what he is calling for... especially for we the people... the more we do it and work together with citizens from the right on the issues we agree with, then we create a more powerful force than the lobbyists and special interests.

As for the Hamilton Project, Obama spoke at their launch. As far as I know (and I googled it and did not come up with anything) he has not talked to them again. He said he hoped that they would help bring us back to the economic success of the 90's a feeling many Dems have, both liberal and moderate. For the record, JALLEN did a fairly comprehensive comparison of the top 4 candidates Economic policies and determine Edwards and Obama were very similiar.

Now let's look at the Liberal John Edwards...

He is Pro-Choice... Same as Obama.

He supports civil unions and not gay marriage, which is not a liberal position... and is the Same as Obama.

He had a 60% ACLU voting record... not really liberal.. I am assuming much of this is because of the patriot act... not really a liberal bill to vote yes on, which he did. I can't seem to find anything on Obama's view on the Patriot Act when it was first past so I am not sure how he compares in regards to the original act.

Is against Gay Marriage Amendment... Same as Obama.

Supports Affirmative Action... Same as Obama.

Against Flag Burning Amendment... same as Obama.

Supports closing tax loopholes to keep companies from moving jobs overseas... same as Obama.

Edwards voted yes to restrict rules on Personal Bankruptcy in 2001... Obama voted against the final passage of Bill S 256 or the Bankruptcy Bill that most of us despise. On this issue, Obama is definately the more liberal.

Edwards supports Death Penalty... Obama is against it. On this issue, Obama is definately the more liberal.

Supports increases in CAFE, although I can not find how much... Obama supports an Increase to 40 MPG. Both support an increase.

Edwards voted yes on the defunding of renewable and solar energy... Obama has supported legislation calling for the increase in alternative energy sources.

Edwards is against drilling in ANWR... So is Obama.

Edwards had a 37% rating by the LCV, which is not a great rating... Obama supports many initiatives hailed by enviromentalists as well as some that aren't.

Edwards voted for Iraq... Obama was against it.

Edwards is against NAFTA... Obama voted against CAFTA.

Edwards appears to be for Free Trade as long as there are benefits for America (so not Free Trade for the sake of Free Trade)... So does Obama.

Edwards supports guns with some limits... Obama appears to go further with his gun control measures, although neither has a lot to go on to get a clear cut view.

Edwards supports the US leading the way on combatting AIDS... so does Obama.

Edwards supports Universal Healthcare... Obama does as well.

Edwards wants to do more to get rid of old Russian Nukes which are sold to other nations and possibly terrorists... Obama does as well.

Edwards supports programs to allow illegal workers a path to citizenship... Obama does as well.

Edwards supported minimum wage hike... Obama voted for the bill (Edwards obviously would have if he was a current Senator.)

Edwards is pro Union... Obama is also (To be fair, I would consider Edwards to have a longer record on Union support than Obama, but both are pro-labor/pro-union.

Edwards is not taking lobbyist or pac money... Obama is not taking it either.

Edwards is against most of the Bush Tax cuts... Obama is as well.

Edwards voted No against the Inheritance Tax... Obama voted No against the Permanent Repeal of the Inheritance Tax (same position, voted on different bills)

Edwards position has changed on the war several times... He was for it at the start, he said that voting for it was OK, but the war was poorly run in 2004 and then FINALLY near the end of 2005, he admitted he was wrong. He deserves credit for apologizing but has never adequately explained why it took so long to admit he was wrong. Obama has been against the war from the start.

So looking at ALL THIS, there really isn't all that much difference between Obama and Edwards position. In fact on the positions where there is an ability to actively compare the two, On the few they disagree, Obama takes the more liberal position on a majority. So if Obama is a moderate, then so is Edwards... and if Edwards is liberal, then so is Obama. If you feel more comfortable with one over the other, then that's cool... I can respect that... If you think one has a better chance of winning and you support because of that, then that is cool too...but to blast one as less liberal than the other DOES NOT SUPPORT THE FACTS. Both support some non liberal positions, but the vast majority of both their views are LIBERAL.

And I will call out trollish remarks when I see them. It seems like you and several others on here usually don't try to encourage debate, you try to tear down and piss off the Obama supporters. FWIW, Most of the ones that have made those types of trollish remarks have been called out about it... and they usually have tried to make more critical posts designed to foster debate rather than trollish posts which unintentionally or intentionally start flame wars. This post you just made is a step in the right direction.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:53:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I would still bet on McCain if I had to bet on someone. Its way early, he is still the choice of a very significant part of the GOP establishment and will have plenty of money. Also, I don't share Chris'es enthusiasm about the meaning of polls at this point. If I had my way there would be no polling till the late fall but free speech is important, even if its meaningless. Polls at this point are only slighly more meaningful than meaningless.

by howardpark on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:28:53 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I don't know man. the GOP insiders poll we looked at over the weekend spelled really bad news for him. His favorability rating was a paltry 56-38, placing him behind non-candidates like Pataki, Thompson, and Hagel. I think he really is in trouble.

by Chris Bowers on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

McCain is only slightly (none / 0)

more popular with the GOP netroots than hillary is with the lefty netroots.

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:10:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I wouldnt bet on McCain; he seems to be slowly spiraling downward. Its not just that Giuliani is gaining, its that Romeny, and everyone else is gaining as well.

McCain seems to be tired and devoid of the spark that fueled his 2000 campaign. He runs a great insurgent campaign, but not as a frontrunner.

by okamichan13 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:59:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

72, Iraq, 72, Iraq, 72, Iraq (none / 0)

"Lobbyists Represent 'Real' Americans" - Hillary Clinton

by TarHeel on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Not sure where you get THAT! Everything i have seen has McCain NOT all that favored by the GOP establishment.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:25:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I'm not too fond of Hillary, so I really like these numbers, but that small sample size worries me.

Agreed. Time for some real polls in Iowa and New Hampshire.

"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis

by MBNYC on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:50:23 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Don't count Huckabee out of the GOP field. The far right doesn't have a candidate yet. When the mud starts to fling, they'll flock to someone who shares their social conservatism. There is an extreme possibility that Romney/ Mccain/ Guiliani splinter the moderate vote and lose to a single dominant social conservative.

by AaronE on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 08:55:03 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I am surprised that Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo are polling higher than Huckabee in NH. On paper Huckabee would be one of the best GOP candidates but no one in the GOP sees that. NH has something of a liberterian streak so we may see increasing poll numbers for Paul who will run something of a maverick campaign.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:45:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

There's a pretty substantial libertarian element in NH GOP circles, and they are plugged in, so they'd know who Ron Paul was. iirc, he was pretty active in NH in 1988 when he ran on the Libertarian ticket; I was pretty young, but I remember him a bit.

I'd guess Tancredo gets a measurable number of GOP respondents is every state; his leading role as an anti-immigration bigot makes him popular among another segment of the GOP activist base. There's a decent shot he could rise, too, if immigration becomes a more central issue over the course of this year and folks outside the activist base get a sense of him.

by BriVT on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:02:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

If I were a righty, I'd be for Brownback. If I were choosing someone who was not only a good conservative, but also could get elected (arguably), I'd chosse McCain. Huckabee is wishy washy.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:25:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (3.00 / 1)

Poll shortcommings reinforcing what we already know

1a.) Hillary is not electable in a general election

1.b) John Edwards will win New Hampshire because he will be victorious in the Iowa Cacus.

2.)Republicans are disastified with Mccain and he will not garner the gop nomination.

3.) The republican primary is a three way race between Rudi, Rommney, and Newt.

by Djneedle83 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:30:58 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (3.00 / 1)

Not a chance on 1b. Edwards will not win New Hampshire because he wins Iowa. Edwards will win Iowa by a small amount, Obama will win NH, They will finish 1 and 2 in NV and SC and then Obama will garner 2/3 of the candidates available on Super Tuesday, firmly putting him as the front runner and he will have the nom by mid March.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Well, I'm glad you know, so we can just accept Barack's inevitability and submit.

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:26:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (1.00 / 0)

Again, Mr. Bowers and his ceaselessly anti-Senator Clinton coterie attempt to create a reality out of gossamer wishing. At long last, you in the rival camps look utterly ridiculous.

The sample size makes the poll virtually irrelevant; secondly, in that poll, Senator Clinton yet leads, whereas just a month earlier Mr. Bowers and his coterie were all agog because it was assumed that Senator Edwards had a lock on Iowa, and Senator Obama was the senation of New Hamsphire.

Senator Clinton is doing superbly, on every front, and she leads quite convincingly in all national polls and among the Democratic activists, where it counts most. I am confident she will not merely be the Democratic nominee, but the next President.

What is tragic is that the Bowers coterie, their vitriol showing, persistently struggle to find some evidence to buttress their own vaulted fantasy.

The reactionaries have long defined the Clintons on their own terms. They murdered Vince Foster! No hard evidence, you say! Why, then, prove they did not!

Senator Clinton attempted a Southern accent! But, it was for effect, as is obvious from witnessing her speech! No, maintains Tucker Carlson--she must be phony, even if Patrick Buchanan thought the speech most convincing and sincere.

And, the endless tirades of those poisonous bloggers--who love Senator Obama, or, rather, anyone else but Hillary, and so grasp at straws to proclaim her falling, when in fact she has never ceased to lead, in hard cash, party activists, and indeed polls.

Senator Obama is a fine man and a brilliant orator. But he is a neophyte. Alas, he and his supporters have something in common with former Mayor Giuliani--they believe their own vaulted media images, they live in their own unrealities.

by lambros on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 09:44:22 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (3.00 / 2)

Wow--that is truly deranged.

by Chris Bowers on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:16:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (3.00 / 2)

Yeah, but aren't you glad to have a coterie? I want a coterie. Where can I get me a coterie creating reality out of gossamer wishes?

by BriVT on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:06:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I am confident she will not merely be the Democratic nominee, but the next President.

May I suggest meds? You're going to need them by the time the NH primary rolls around. And just in case you don't know, this is a contest, not a coronation.

Dare to be free.

by misscee on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:01:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I think it's impressive that John Edwards has such a strong showing in the poll. New Hampshire has never been a place of strength for him.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:09:11 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I was thinking that as well, especially after the announcements of Hillary and Obama and the attention they have received there.

by okamichan13 on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:16:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I don't think it is. No one else in the field is known much at all in NH. Richardson maybe makes a blip, but that's all. Edwards is very well known in NH, so I don't think 17% and solidly behind the top two is a great showing for him.

That said, I don't think it's all that important. He's in striking distance, so while he doesn't have much growth potential over the course of the next quarter or so since he's already well-known, imo, he's got enough support that if he can win Iowa decisively (outperform expectations) and do well in Nevada, he'll have an excellent chance to be in the top two in NH at least.

by BriVT on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:11:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Agreed. I was also interested in the fact that undecided tied with him for third place.

Dare to be free.

by misscee on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:04:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I am glad this polls isn't pushing undecideds, which many do. It's ridiculous at this stage when you see a poll with 3% undecided. I suspect that generally artificially pumps HRC's numbers.

by MassEyesandEars on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 11:39:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

About a year ago I thought Romney would be the GOP nominee. I based that on the 2002 governors race. He had plenty of image friendly garbage and won a race we were supposed to take, based on all the trends at the time. Every other state was turning tothe out party in 2002 governorships, if no incumbent was there to state his/her case. Massachusetts was the notable exception, and Romney won by several points. I know the theme is Shannon O'Brien won a terrible race, yada yada, but that was also true of many nominees who prevailed simply because the same trend was at their back.

But when I started mentioning Romney on political forums of sports-based sites, I was shocked at the anti-Mormon reaction. Every Romney thread would quickly and shockingly turn into, "I'm a Republican but no way I'm voting for a Mormon..." It showed up so often and with such fury I had to conclude there was plenty to it, and it would disqualify Romney.

IMO, Huckabee is an invention of progressive sites and posters. Kind of like '96, when I refused to believe the GOP would nominate Dole and kept trying to make a case for Lamar Alexander to emerge out of nowhere.

by Gary Kilbride on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 10:59:35 PM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Tend to agree but they have to nominate someone and it is really difficult to figure out who is the least worst option from their perspective. Right now it looks like Giuliani but he must be the most vulnerable frontrunner I've ever seen. There are just so many issues on which to attack him. No doubt some of his rivals will do just that over the summer and into the autumn.

by kundalini on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 05:57:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I agree with you, but I keep coming up with excellent reasons why each of the GOP candidates can't win. The GOP field sucks, it really does. Romney is Mormon and the "Multiple-Choice Mitt" theme has taken hold. McCain is cratering and has really large problems with the base. Giuliani is wrong on almost every issue besides "being a tough guy" and has a personal history that's pretty twisted. And the rest just don't have the money to be competitive.

So, who wins? I think McCain's team of unethical smear artists will probably nuke the other two in the top tier so badly that McCain will be the last man standing and will limp to the nomination. The GOP is going to have a serious case of "holding your nose while voting" during 2008, imo.

by BriVT on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:21:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

I agree with this. If there's going to a hard right candidate, it'll be Brownback, because if there's a hard right candidate his supporters won't care about electability in the general, they'll care about dragging the party as far to the right on social issues as they can.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:06:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton (none / 0)

Here's the thing -- as long as Clinton isn't humiliated in IA/NH by going third or lower, then there's a chance that she develops a sufficient fundraising edge such that she wins it in 2-5-08 regardless. If she can compete in more places than Obama/Edwards, she may be able to weather an early storm or two.

by Adam B on Tue Mar 06, 2007 at 11:47:56 PM EST

Re: Clinton (3.00 / 2)

I think she will be humiliated in IA and NH by going third or lower.

I've been saying Clinton will finish no better than fourth in IA, assuming that the top three would be Edwards, Obama and Vilsack in some order. With Vilsack out, I see Clinton as possibly coming in third here, but not necessarily--I would not rule out a strong move by Richardson that could put him in third place.

You need more than money to do well in Iowa. You need a volunteer army. Edwards and Obama will have that. Will Clinton? So far the only people I know supporting her in Iowa write checks. They don't knock on doors, phone-bank, etc.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:29:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

You are seriously out of touch with politics if you think Clinton is going to get worse than a first or second place in Iowa or New Hampshire. John Edwards is old news and Bill Richardson will most likely drop out by the fall. You underestimate the importance of money and getting media attention. It's Clinton vs. Obama, deal with it!

by bsavage on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Why should we? We actually like John more than either of them, and he's still ahead in Iowa, and close in NH. So why can't we support him w/out your ridicule?

"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR

by jallen on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:09:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

do you know more Iowans than I do? (3.00 / 1)

We'll see how Clinton fares here. I stand by my prediction. No one in their right minds thought Gephardt could possibly finish fourth in Iowa.

Few people even knew who Dean was at this point in 2003, but there was a niche and he filled it. I think there is a niche for Richardson here if he can put together a good operation.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:27:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

I am in no way out of touch with politics, and I think it's very possible for Clinton to finish out of the top two in all of the first three states. Edwards is very strong in Iowa, and Obama is from the neighboring state, inspires more activism than Clinton, and will be competitive financially with her. Richardson is strong in NV, and if Edwards can get formal union endorsements, he can be in the top two in that labor-strong state.

Obama is enormously popular in NH among Independents, and if Edwards wins Iowa and does well in NV, he can pull ahead of Clinton in NH.

It's not likely (I think it's most likely that her money and the Clinton name will pull her into second in NH behind Obama), but it's clearly possible. Hell, it's even possible for a Richardson surge in NH to put him past Hillary. I think there's a small chance of that, but it's possible.

by BriVT on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:28:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton (none / 0)

Except I wonder if you would have said the same of Kerry vis-a-vis Dean in 2004, and I think you underestimate the groups to whom Hillary appeals.

by Adam B on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 08:08:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

McCain 2008 = Kerry 2004?

The presumptive front runner for the nomination two years before the election, with diminishing credibility due to his stance on the war. As the year before the election rolls along, an insurgent candidate gets big leads in the polls, only to have it collapse at Iowa, and the original front-runner gets the nomination...

by Ramo on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 12:08:54 AM EST

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Does the fact that Brownback and Huckabee and Hunter aren't even mentioned mean they weren't asked about or that they polled 3% collectively? I'm surprised that Tancredo and Paul are doing better than Huckabee or Brownback.
On the Dem side I'm also a little surprised that Shays doesn't register given that he's from a neighboring state.
I guess with a pool of only ~200 you can't put much credence in the validity of a couple % points.

by jujube on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:40:35 AM EST

I meant Dodd, not Shays... CT confuses me. (none / 0)

by jujube on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 01:43:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Hampshire Poll (none / 0)

Has anyone thought the message has been sent to us:

"That "Lieberman DLC" is our majority leader and not Reid?

Gang of 14 leader to Majority Leader of the Dems?

by SandThroughTheEyeGlass on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 02:49:20 AM EST

Suffolk Polls (none / 0)

I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. During the Governor's race in Massachusetts, Suffolk was continually about 10% in the wrong direction and waaaaaaaay off from the 3-4 other polls keeping track of the race (which ended up being very close to the actual numbers at the end).

by Ryepower12 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 03:56:58 AM EST

PS: Am I missing something? (none / 0)

Just the other day, people were openly talking about how Mitt Romney was only considered in the top tier because media and insiders put him there > that's what kept him there. Suddenly, people are placing him as their bets in at least doing better than McCain?

I doubt it.

Having lived in Massachusetts all my life and having witnessed Mitt Romney as a Bay State Blogger, I can't fathom how he wins.

Why? He's the most conservative candidate in the race. But, he's also more in favor of gay rights than Ted Kennedy. He's flip flopped so many times, in such obvious ways, it's not even funny. He left such a sour taste in Massachusetts that his Lt. Governor was C.R.U.S.H.E.D. in office after 16 years of Republican Rule in Massachusetts.

I also have a tough time believing Guliani as the eventual nominee, but I think he has a better chance than Mitt. Everything in my head and heart tells me Mitt Romney has next to no chance. He was forced to ship in all sorts of college students to win that conservative straw poll... and a Suffolk poll (and Suffolk = god aweful) of New Hampshire at this point in the campaign

by Ryepower12 on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 07:38:32 AM EST

Hillary's unfavourables (none / 0)

I think that 48% includes Republicans, and is therefore not so relevant. It means the general in NH would be hard, assuming said numbers are accurate and remain constant, but it doesn't mean that there's significant grassroots Dem distaste for her in NH.

Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog

by Englishlefty on Wed Mar 07, 2007 at 09:10:31 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login