home

CNN/UNH Poll: Obama Up 10

Now we see the Iowa bounce:

In the survey, conducted by the University of New Hampshire on Saturday and early Sunday, 39 percent of likely Granite State Democratic primary voters back Obama as the party’s nominee — that’s ten points ahead of Clinton’s 29 percent. Obama is up six points and Clinton down four points from our survey conducted on Friday and early Saturday. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is at 16 percent in the new survey, down four points from Saturday. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is in fourth place, with the support of 7 percent of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio at 2 percent.

BTW, (speaking for me only) this poll demonstrates, yet again, the utter stupidity of Edwards' debate strategy yesterday, as Obama is taking the hide out of his support. Edwards is closer to Richardson now than he is to Clinton. If he is not careful, he'll end up 4th in New Hampshire.

< JFK Was No Obama | New Hampshire: Fox Republican Debate >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Yet (none / 0) (#1)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:21:49 PM EST
    Edwards says he's in till the convention, no matter how he does. It is hard to see the logic of what he's doing, except to hang onto a platform where he can keep raising his issues or to help Obama (or both).  

    Harold Stassen style (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:43:59 PM EST
    Let's hope it doesn't go that far (none / 0) (#11)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:52:18 PM EST
    He has much, much better hair though, you have to admit.

    Parent
    Not to mention better issues to raise (none / 0) (#18)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:27:12 PM EST
    I had to google Harold Stassen to find out what he actually ran on - I'd thought of him as a vaguely Ron Paul obsessed-type. In fact his sole issue seems to have been becoming president. So in that case your comment is much snider than I thought. Shame.

    Parent
    Obama's numbers will only (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:28:06 PM EST
    go up.  Today he coopted Richardson's assertion we need arts in the public schools.

    Edwards is on top of it (none / 0) (#3)
    by Evergreen on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:34:01 PM EST
    Edwards is on top of what is destroying America and our earth....which is multi national corporate greed run amuck (deregulated).

    Over the past 20 years we have had increasing deregulation.  This has allowed for the buying of too many of our politicians and in the past 7 years the corporate powers have actively been writing our laws in favor of corporations vs people.   Corporate deregulations have also been impacting global warming to a large degree...not to mention our looming recession.  Corporate monopolies and "free" trade are destroying our middle class and impoverishing our people and the earth. (read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Kline).

    Obama is very uplifting, but I don't know if he can fight the fight like Edwards can and will.    

    Too bad he is not runnig for PRez (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:43:40 PM EST
    anymore.

    Parent
    dh thought he ran away with it (none / 0) (#14)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    Strange.

    Parent
    Darn Armando, you beat me to it. :-) (none / 0) (#6)
    by Aaron on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:45:01 PM EST
    Hillary advisers fear N.H. loss

    CNN politics Latest State Polls, January 5-6, 2008

    Obama -- 39%

    Clinton -- 29%

    Edwards -- 16%

    I hope you guys realize what this is going to mean for the national election, I believed that Hillary would've walked away with it pretty easily.  Obama is going to crush the Republicans, it's going to be more than a landslide, it may perhaps be the most lopsided victory for the Democrats in US history.

    When this election is done, the RNC will be sucking their thumb and begging for Mama.


    But, then what? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:46:21 PM EST
    God only knows :-) (none / 0) (#13)
    by Aaron on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    But hopefully, with an overwhelming consensus, Obama will actually be able to get things done, overriding the obstacles the Republican obstructionists will try to put in his way.  With this consensus, those who engage in that kind of behavior will soon lose their seats in the Senate and the house, and the representatives who are left will be those who will have no other choice but to work with this president, because the people won't stand for that BS anymore.

    Now that's something worth shooting for, and I'm so glad Barack Obama is running this kind of campaign because it's what the American people have been screaming for, and finally someone listened and had the courage to believe in us, WE THE PEOPLE.

    Parent

    Let's hoper so (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    Internals (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:45:35 PM EST
    Most of his gains are coming from shifts in the electability argument.  She was winning before Iowa, in the last poll he had closed the gap, now he has solidly won.

    42 percent now think he is most electable compared with 15 percent in sept.

    31 think Clinton is compared with 36, in the last poll,5 before Iowa, and 54 back in Sept.

    Also on the question of who has the right experience, though he still only gets 16 percent that is double the 8 percent he got in Sept.

    I can barely contain my excitement!!!

    No he is taking ity out of Edwards' hide (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    You seem not see that.

    Parent
    what planet are you from? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 05:55:35 PM EST
    Edwards and Clinton have each lost 4 points.  Edwards is off four points from his high, about average to where he has been running, and ahead of his low in sept by about 4 points.

    she is off 14 from her high in sept.

    Obama is up 19 points from his low in Sept.

    If all his gains came from Edwards, Edwards would be at zero.

    Your hate for Edwards is clouding your rationality.

    Parent

    But Edwards was never likely to win NH (none / 0) (#15)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:03:18 PM EST
    he's out of his element there for the most part.

    Edwards is riding "risk" in this election season.  He's taking his high energy across the nation and bringing people's kitchen table issues to the forefront.  That is why he says he is in this until the convention.

    We could have a brokered convention... who knows.


    Parent

    Brokered convention? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:35:50 PM EST
    My gawd. You do not realize the campaign ends Tuesday do you?

    Parent
    Chris Bowers doesn't seem to think so (none / 0) (#21)
    by trillian on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:39:46 PM EST
    Interesting read (none / 0) (#22)
    by DA in LA on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:58:18 PM EST
    But to bank anything on Super Tuesday numbers at this point is idiotic, to say the least.

    I'm in California.  We have yet to see much of the candidates or view the ads on TV.  Right now most people I know have not looked at the candidates much.  They know a lot about Hillary and are not sure, to make an understatement.  The only people I know who are really supportive of Hillary are women and will only be voting for her because she is a woman.  They have stated so.  My  manager is a Republican and she will vote for Hillary in the general.

    But many are undecided and they will go, as they usually do, to the candidate with momentum and who sparks an interest.  Right now that person is not looking like Hillary.

    But if you want to look at polls a month out and make sweeping statements, take a look at Iowa a month ago.   How'd that work out?

    Parent

    My gawd... are you seriously telling me that (none / 0) (#23)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:09:49 PM EST
    you believe two little states... Iowa and NH... control the destiny of the next 10 months of our presidential campaign?  At least give it until Super Tuesday.

    Now A, there are undercurrents to all of this that can alter the dynamics.  It's just too soon to be making these predictions.

    Bloomberg had his bipartisan "conference" today (or maybe it was yesterday... I dunno). Gary Hart, of all people, participated in that. If Bloomberg runs... he pulls from the Democrats IMO.

    And Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Lindsey Graham, and Charles Grassley will be conferencing at the end of this month to unite Baptists in a bipartisanship effort.

    Major political figures from both parties are tentatively planning to come to a conference in Atlanta next month that aims to unite Baptists from more than 30 denominations, organizers say.

    Former Vice President Al Gore, former President Bill Clinton and Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Charles Grassley of Iowa, are scheduled to appear at the event, organized by former President Jimmy Carter and others.

    Among the conference topics are evangelism, criminal justice, preaching, interfaith relations, racism, HIV/AIDS and religious liberty. The meeting is scheduled for Jan. 30-Feb. 1.

    The gathering is part of an effort, called the New Baptist Covenant, that's meant to pool the resources of the many Baptist groups and escape the shadow of the conservative Southern Baptist Convention.

    "For the first time in more than 160 years, we will have a major convocation of Baptists in America with neither our unity nor freedom threatened by differences of race, politics, geography, or legalistic interpretations of the Scriptures," Carter said in a statement this week.



    Parent
    Oops... I meant to cut that down before posting (none / 0) (#25)
    by bronte17 on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:12:47 PM EST
    Can you alter the text of that article from the Atlanta-Journal? I've used too much of it.

    My apologies.

    Parent

    What are the statistical chances a (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM EST
    Dem. Presidential primary candidate who wins the majority of delegates in Iowa and New Hampshire fails to capture the nomination, i.e., is CA, with its huge amount of delegates, irrelevant after Tuesday?  

    Parent
    The campaign (none / 0) (#28)
    by RalphB on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:00:56 PM EST
    will not end Tuesday.  That's really dumb parroting of conventional wisdom.  There are 2 candidates which are too well funded for this to end before Feb 5th at the latest.

    It's certainly possible, though not probable, that California may have a role this time around.  I'd love it if they did.

    Parent

    I think you mean Feb 5 at the earliest. (none / 0) (#31)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:38:12 PM EST
    The fat lady isn't even in her dressing room yet.

    Not every upcoming primary allows 'Dems for a Day' to cross over so easily and have non-Dems pick the Democratic candidate and Democrats in NY, Fla and Calif may want to have a word or two in the discussion.

    Parent

    we sure do! (none / 0) (#33)
    by Judith on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:41:43 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    The campaign (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:37:08 PM EST
    for Edwards ended last Thursday.

    Parent
    Yes. Very likely. But he won't go home (none / 0) (#32)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:41:35 PM EST
    until the last dog has died...he has no job/career to go back to.  If he loses this time (and it does look for all the world like a done deal) he'll have to retool bigtime to reinvent himself for a newly chosen future.

    Parent
    Again? (none / 0) (#35)
    by illissius on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 12:25:05 AM EST
    According to the Iowa entrance poll (none / 0) (#20)
    by illissius on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:36:38 PM EST
    it was actually Edwards who won among the electability voters. Hillary was second IIRC. So the two are not mutually exclusive necessarily.

    Parent
    Edwards hoping for Obama VP? (none / 0) (#16)
    by trillian on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:13:23 PM EST
    I can think of no other reason for him continuing to  go after HRC

    He probably (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jgarza on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 08:40:29 PM EST
    Just doesn't like her.  His campaign ended Thursday, and Obama didn't need him there, so i don't see what  he thinks he can get out of it.

    Parent
    Why he goes after HRC (none / 0) (#36)
    by Evergreen on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    I think it is because she is part of the problem that Edwards has identified as dragging down America and which he is trying to combat from taking over our government, our politicians and our democracy: HRC has BIG corporate donors...period.    

    Parent
    I wish Hillary would have asked (none / 0) (#17)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 06:14:57 PM EST
    Obama the following: "If you are against mandates, then what about Social Security?"
    I think it's a very valid question.

    Assuming HIllary Clinton had not voted for (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    the AUMF and K-L, would she be ahead of Obama at this point?

    Parent
    Well, too late to think about AUMF (none / 0) (#27)
    by MarkL on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 07:56:53 PM EST
    Kyl-Lieberman hurt her, obviously.
    Without the AUMF vote, Obama wouldnt' have a chance.

    Parent
    Those votes are inside baseball... (none / 0) (#34)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 10:47:03 PM EST
    largely unknown to the voters.  Only highly partisan Dems and leftwingers are focused on such things...even in a Democratic primary...and even then, there is disagreement about what she intended and what weight to give them.

    I doubt the leftwing of our party would have supported her no matter what she did or said.

    Parent

    From George Vreeland Hill (none / 0) (#37)
    by George Vreeland Hill on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:17:31 AM EST
    The next President will be a Democrat!
    Congress will also have more Democrats.
    No one wants a Republican in charge of anything.
    READ THIS:

    The Republican Party is a sick joke, and the people of this country are fed up with them.
    From Nixon to Bush, and from Scooter to Larry "Toilet Stall" Craig, the Republicans have proven themselves to be a bunch of lying, corrupt, evil, perverted, over-spending crooks.
    When you look at all the money Bill Clinton left this country, it makes us all cry to know that Bush spent it all.
    When the money was gone, Bush went to China for help.
    Just think, we owe money to China!
    That is the Bush way.
    Cheney is no better.
    You can't trust either of them.
    No one does.
    Why are we in Iraq?
    The war should be on terror, not in Iraq.
    Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and yet Bush has spent all that money to fight "his" war.
    Yes his, because many Republicans have backed off from the war.
    By the way, the war in Iraq has cost the U.S. almost five hundred billion dollars.
    Forget Rudy.
    Rudy Giuliani is no hero.
    While he is often called the hero of 9/11, the truth is that Rudy was a terrible leader during his years as mayor of New York City.
    He made bad decisions and took a girlfriend while being married.
    In fact, he even wanted his lover to live in the same house with his wife.
    Most people would call this perverted.
    New Yorkers were so sick of his antics, that they wanted him out of office.
    Then came 9/11.
    The only reason people call Giuliani a hero today, is because he just happened to be NYC's mayor during that bad time.
    Any mayor would be looked at as a hero if they showed their face under those circumstances.
    If there was no 9/11, Rudy would have become a joke.
    This is not the kind of leader we want in the White House. In closing, the New York Post reported in their paper on April 23, that Giuliani spent more than 48,000 dollars of campaign money on posh hotels while claiming to have spent the least of all the Republican candidates.
    Rudy is a good time leader, and does it with other people's money.
    Forget Mitt.
    His ads look bad.
    He can't seem to get his facts right, and will say things to make himself look good.
    Red flags go up around him.
    I spoke with his son Tagg at the New Hampshire debates back in June (2007), and while he seemed like a nice man, Tagg could not get his facts right either.
    The worst Republican as of late, though, is Larry Craig.
    He is a lying pervert who wanted gay sex with a strange man on a dirty toilet seat.
    He pled guilty, then said he was not guilty.
    Say what?
    He is another Republican moron.
    Did you hear about Washington State Republican Rep. Richard Curtis?
    He offered $1,000 to a young man for unprotected sex while dressed in women's lingerie.  
    This sort of thing just goes on and on with them.
    Remember Mark Foley?
    Here is a letter I wrote that was in many newspapers and Web sites:

    Once again, the Republicans have turned my stomach with shocking and repulsive behavior.
    Mark Foley, a Republican member (now ex-member) of Congress, has sent many e-mails with perverted sexual content to a sixteen year old boy.
    This is the same man who while in Congress, backed a bill that was meant to protect children from child predators.
    Foley himself, is a man who preyed on a child with lust.
    What is also incomprehensible, is the fact that some Republicans knew of Foley's behavior, and yet, did not take a hard stand against this until it became public news. If I had a teenage son and/or daughter, I would not want them to go near any Republican leader for fear of either or both becoming a victim of a sick Republican pervert.

    George Vreeland Hill

    There were more than three hundred such letters in newspapers in 2007 alone.
    Many of them in New Hampshire.
    There are thousands on the Internet.
    No lie.
    THOUSANDS!
    This does not even include articles, ads, radio, TV and other areas where the public takes notice.  
    In fact, one Republican in California wanted me stopped once, because I was hurting some Republicans in their elections.
    I just want to do my part in helping to get rid of every Republican scumbag.  
    From phone scams to the Union Leader (NH) covering up for Republicans, the garbage never ends.
    But the Republican Party will end.
    Did you know that George W. Bush once made fun of the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction?
    He did, and in front of some shocked people during a black-tie event in 2004.  
    He said.... (While looking under a piece of furniture) "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere."  
    Then, while pretending to look out of a window, Bush laughed as he said..... "Nope, no weapons over there."
    While he was laughing, there were men and women fighting and dying in Iraq because of WMD.
    George W. Bush should be removed from office because of that alone.
    Face it, Bill Clinton lied about having sex, and was impeached because of it.
    George W. Bush however, did far worse, as he laughed at the very people who are fighting for the United States of America!
    That about sums it all up!
    (By the way, this Bush/WMD was part of an article and letter I wrote as well.)
    This leads us to John McCain.
    All he seems to do is attack other candidates.
    His Woodstock ad against Hillary Clinton was boring and without the facts.
    He tells of Hillary wanting to spend a million dollars on a museum while he (McCain) supports spending more on the war in Iraq.
    He wants you to believe that the Democrats are the big spenders, while it is McCain's Republican Party that has spent all the money Bill Clinton left us to a point where Bush had to borrow money from China.
    Think about that again.
    We owe to China.
    That is the Republican way.
    Also, it must be noted that McCain even laughed at war.
    Remember when McCain changed the words of a Beach Boys song to Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran?
    McCain even laughed when he was done.
    He thought starting a war with Iran was a laughing matter.
    That is the real John McCain.
    He just can't be trusted.
    He is another George Bush, and you know what we got with him.  
    The Republican Party is a mess, and getting worse.
    People do not trust any of them, and we are all tired of their act.
    I am doing my best to make sure that no Republican wins an election.
    Thank you for your time.

    George Vreeland Hill  


    I gather blogs aren't immune from spam? (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 12:18:50 AM EST