Poll: Hillary Leads Dems Among Every Demographic
A new Gallup poll finds Hillary Clinton leading the Democratic field in every category you think of: Ideology, region, income level, age, gender, you name it. This isn't entirely surprising given her overall national support of 48%, followed way behind by Barack Obama's 26% and John Edwards at 12%.
Obama might want to be concerned about this number: Blacks support Hillary over him by a 51%-38% margin.
The full numbers from the poll are available here.
Comments (57)
Keith wrote on September 28, 2007 12:36 PM:Well that confirms. Senator Obama, time to pack it in, this is the umpteenth poll telling you that people with listed landlines not on the do-not-call list who are designated as "likely to vote" don't like you. All those people coming out for your rallies and donating to your campaign are a figment of your imagination. Resistance to the Borg is futile....
Anonymous wrote on September 28, 2007 12:57 PM:The Gallup organization, one of the oldest polling firms in America, just corroborated the results of a Fox News poll that was posted earlier today on TPM-EC that drew this comment:
Yeah. Great info. From a Fox News poll. And HRC just happens to be the preferred Democratic candidate of the GOP-- which just happens to be the preferred party of Fox News.The only thing "eye-opening" about this Foxaganda is that you would fall it. Yuck.
Posted without commentary, but do not "fall" for the propaganda of that biased, albeit oldest, polling firm's results either!...
dcshungu wrote on September 28, 2007 1:17 PM:Beyond the horse-race numbers, I urge every politics junkie to check out the internals of public opinion polls. There are always very interesting tidbits that can clarify seemingly strange observations. Like this one:
As was the case earlier this year, upper-income Democrats represent one of Clinton's few weak links. Among those living in households with an annual income of $75,000 or more, she leads Obama by only seven points at 37% vs. 30%. This may help explain Obama's competitiveness with Clinton in fundraising -- even though he has not been competitive with her in national Democratic nomination preference polls. [emphasis mine]annefrank wrote on September 28, 2007 1:26 PM:I have always wondered why Obama continues to trail HRC, despite outraising her in Q2 to much brouhaha. That explains it! His supporters, though not as numerous as HRC's, tend to have deeper pockets! Are they also white and male? (Yes, I will go "there"). If so, then maybe the idea of a strong, smart, and independent woman. like Hillary, being in "charge" does not sit well with them...? Just asking...
Obama is not in it to win it - and that was never the purpose of his campaign.
But those contributing their hard earned cash via Obama Girl - probably won't get it.
In 2004, Obama stated he would NOT run for prez in 2008. Then the DC elites and corporate media pundits and presstitutes began URGING him to run and PR and marketing strategists began knocking on his door - knowing he would suck resources and support from our most VIABLE Progressive candidate - John Edwards. Obama had to know it too.
Then, while plotting his prez run, he and Bill Clinton PUBLICLY endorsed warmonger Lieberman and refused to be seen with anti-war Lamont.
Follow the money...follow the ruse...
Keith, what is it with people like you who would like our leaders to be chosen by poll rather than by actual votes?
Obama may lose to Hillary and he may lose big time, but I'd rather see it at the ballot box rather than in theory.
In the fall of 1991 the candidates dominating the polls for the Democratic nomination had names like Tsongas, Cuomo, and Brown. Bill Clinton was an also-ran in the single digits.
donna wrote on September 28, 2007 1:28 PM:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/27/schoen/print.html
Douglas Schoen and Hillary's slimy pollsters
A pollster with long-standing ties to the Clintons boosts Hillary's candidacy while pretending to be an independent analyst.
Glenn Greenwald
Sep. 27, 2007 | (updated below)
One of the more baffling aspects of "political journalism" in the United States is the mind-numbing obsession which most of the political press has with "horse race" analysis. Read any of the mainstream political magazines -- The New Republic, National Review, Politico, the major newsweeklies -- or view any of the cable news shows filled with the analysts who think they are the super-sophisticated insider political types and virtually all they ever do, literally, is prattle on in the most speculative and gossipy manner about which presidential candidates are winning and losing.
Aside from all the other obvious critiques made of this practice, the resulting chatter is unbelievably boring. I say it is "baffling" because it is hard to understand why someone would want to become a political journalist and then spend most of their time engaged in this sort of petty, substance-free chatter about which campaign has inched ahead and which one has fallen behind every day. It's all transparently baseless and meaningless. Look at any of the polling data or the predominant conventional wisdom for the last several elections months before the first primary vote was cast and, in retrospect, it all ends being completely misinformed.
In September of 2003, Wesley Clark and Howard Dean led every Democratic poll, and all of the cable news and political magazine horserace chatter was a complete waste of air. For people who chose for their careers to write about political issues, don't they have any interest at all in covering more substantive matters?
In any event, the Hillary Clinton campaign certainly recognizes that, in light of how our mainstream press covers the presidential campaign, perception of polling success is one of the critical factors in determining how a candidate is discussed -- certainly far more important than the substance of what the candidate is actually advocating. That is why Clinton's campaign is dominated by the execrable pollster Mark Penn, who manages single-handedly to embody, all in one person, everything that is sickly and wrong with our political establishment.
Penn has the perfect long-time (now former) partner in Douglas Schoen, whose purpose in life is to argue that Democrats must accommodate George Bush and his radicalism (by, among other things, embracing Joe Lieberman) -- and repudiate their embarrassing and rabid base -- as much as possible if they want to succeed. One of the most disturbing aspects of a Clinton presidency is that individuals such as Penn and Schoen -- along with the likes of telecom lobbyist Jamie Gorelick and Iraq War cheerleader Mike O'Hanlon -- are highly likely to occupy critical positions of power in a Clinton administration, just as they did in the last Clinton administration.
But Schoen's problems go beyond mere establishment-perpetuating ideology. In light of the importance of perceptions of polling success for the Clinton campaign, Schoen -- ever since he left the Penn firm -- has been holding himself out as an independent polling analyst for Rasmussen Reports and other media venues, concealing his long-standing ties to the Clintons and writing one ostensibly objective analysis after the next which has no purpose other than to depict Clinton's candidacy as an inevitability.
The front page today of Rasmussen Report touts an "analysis" entitled "Hillary's Great Week," by Douglas Schoen:
The "analysis" itself reads as though it was written by Hillary Clinton's campaign itself -- because, in essence, it was:
The most recent Rasmussen poll shows Hillary Clinton holding a 20 point lead nationally over Senator Barack Obama. Clinton also has an 17 point lead in the Real Clear Politics averages of the most recently released national polls.
Moreover, examination of the most recently released polls in Iowa show her position improving over the last month or so, moving to a 5% lead in the last two polls to have been released. . . .
And the events of this past week are likely to do nothing that will change this pattern.
It seems pretty clear that the only groups that could conceivably deny Clinton the nomination are anti-war groups, still angry about her vote ostensibly authorizing the President to go to war in Iraq. And by pointedly refusing to vote to condemn the MoveOn.Org ad condemning General Patreaus and supporting a timetable for withdrawal, she artfully protected her left flank. . . .
Her delicate balancing act--executed deftly--stands in contrast to Senator Obama who chose not to vote at all on the resolution condemning MoveOn and Senator Edwards who could only complain that Senator Clinton had effectively lifted the core principles from his own health care proposal.
Nothing in Schoen's listed biography indicates he is in any way tied to the Clintons: "Douglas Schoen is a founding and former partner of Penn Schoen & Berland, and a Fox News Contributor." By design, anyone unaware of the role played in the Clinton campaign by the Penn, Schoen firm would read this and believe they are reading the analysis of an independent expert.
The other columns Schoen has written for Rasmussen regarding Democratic polling data are equally propagandistic in favor of Clinton. On September 19, he gushed:
The most recent Rasmussen numbers on the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination provide compelling evidence that Senator Hillary Clinton is in an extremely strong position to win for reasons that go well beyond the horse race numbers. . . .
[I]t is in the details of the Rasmussen polling that we can see how strong her position really is. . . . .
She is also seen as the most electable candidate among Democrats. This rebuts one of the top reasons cited by her detractors for her presumed difficulty in winning the election.
On September 9, he "analyzed" why conventional wisdom about Hillary is wrong and "that she may well be a more formidable candidate than many commentators and pundits believe." Conflicting data -- such as the very close race in Iowa, the historical unreliability of September polling data, the huge though artificial advantage candidates with name recognition enjoy early on -- is never mentioned by the propagandizing Schoen. His goal, like so much of the political establishment, is to crown Clinton the inevitable nominee.
The issue here is Schoen's masquerading as some sort of objective polling analyst while concealing his long-standing ties to the Clintons. In an email exchange about this issue, I asked Scott Rasmussen why Schoen is held out as objective, and why they would use someone with clear ties to one candidate as their polling analyst, and Rasmussen said: "We expect to add other commentators over the coming months and will be adding a bio page for each. We should have put Doug's up before posting his commentaries and will move that up on the priority list." But there is a biography listed for Schoen, and it depicts him as an independent analyst, not a Clinton partisan.
Schoen is no longer a partner in Penn's firm and is thus frequently held out as though he is some sort of independent observer and polling expert. Clearly, though, his mission is to boost Hillary Clinton's presidency and depict it as inevitable, long before the first vote is counted. He is anything but objective, and basic integrity in how he is held out -- by Rasmussen and media outlets -- ought to disclose his long ties to the Clintons.
UPDATE: Rasmussen has added the following to Schoen's biography line: "Schoen was President Bill Clinton's research and strategic consultant during the 1996 reelection campaign." That's an improvement, but in an e-mail to me, Rasmussen wrote this (ellipses in original):
We will have several commentators with ties to various candidates . . . all will be disclosed and all will offer their perspective . . . I will probably be the only pollster without ties to anyone. . .
Rasmussen himself clearly perceives Schoen as a pollster attached to the Hillary Clinton campiagn and anything Schoen writes in the way of polling analysis or anything else ought to include that fact prominently.
It's all baloney at this point anyway. She keeps voting for war, gets Iraq advice from Bush, and has no one pushing her yet. Once the Republican smear machine gears up, she's done. And if the other Dem candidates would go after her, she'd be done. The base hates her, no matter what Gallup says.
Jinchi wrote on September 28, 2007 1:33 PM:I have always wondered why Obama continues to trail HRC, despite outraising her in Q2 to much brouhaha. That explains it! His supporters, though not as numerous as HRC's, tend to have deeper pockets!
That statement is the exact opposite of reality. Clinton has more donors who can afford the maximum legal donation of $2300. Obama has more total donors, but most donate smaller amounts of money. That's why she leads him slightly in the total amount raised.
Keith wrote on September 28, 2007 1:55 PM:Jinchi:
My comment was made with my tongue firmly in cheek.
dcshungu wrote on September 28, 2007 2:01 PM:That statement is the exact opposite of reality. Clinton has more donors who can afford the maximum legal donation of $2300. Obama has more total donors, but most donate smaller amounts of money. That's why she leads him slightly in the total amount raised.
The poll numbers belie that statement, however. You would think that if he had more supporters (even small donor ones), he would be polling better, and not trail by an average of 22%. HRC had more cash on hand primarily because she mixed in funds from from her Senate campaign coffers. Otherwise, Obama was the far away leader in money raised in Q2 (we hear that she would outraise him in Q3). It would be inconsistent for him to raise funds from more people than HRC and then to have those people support HRC!
It would interesting to sort this out just as an academic pursuit.
elrapierwit wrote on September 28, 2007 2:02 PM:Mount Prospect, Ill.: How do you reconcile the apparent wide gap between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (according to recent polls) and the significant reaction (both in donors and total dollars) that puts Obama at the top tier, above Clinton? Is it possible that despite those polls, this grassroot movement for Obama is something the media is missing that will show its strength at the voting/caucus settings, and that is why Obama continues to avoid any strident criticisms of Clinton?
Anne E. Kornblut: It's a great question,and one we spend a lot of time scratching our heads over here. Your theory is entirely possible; it is, after all, about three months until we see actual voting begin. And let's not forget who was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination four years ago (hint: it was not John Kerry). The Clinton campaign, though, would say that Obama's support donation-wise is a reflection of his support from elites who can afford to help him (and donors overall make up a small portion of the population), whereas Clinton has broad popular support... We will find out soon enough.
How Hillary voted on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment confirmed to me how she will run the country as President. Clinton doesn't know how to fight Republicans. She knows how to mimic their campaign methods, but deep down she is frightened to the core by them.
She may be better than any of the Republican candidates, but that does not mean she is even the 6th best of the Democratic candidates.
vicissitude wrote on September 28, 2007 2:12 PM:OBAMA needs to remind voters that Hillary left Black people hanging; in Rawanda (800,000,000 dead), (Somalia 200,000 dead) Haiti (45,000 dead).
Billary put 150 Billion dollars toward jails to keep blacks behind bars rather than schools to keep them out! And left the (innocent) peace loving journalist MUMIA ABU-JAMAL on death row while he gave Mark Rich (an unquestionably guilty) rich white man a pardon!
I find it insulting and demeaning to say that Bill was the first Black President because he loved women and fast food. There is nothing tangible Bill did for African Americans nor Hillary will do for Black People Worldwide that any other democrat would not minimally do.
Please anyone of the other candidates is a better choice. What the hell is wrong with the Democrat party? Looks like their true racist roots are coming out! If Obama was a shade lighter this would not even be a question for voters. He is vastly more intelligent and more experienced at successful progressive legislation than Hillary is.
The question is 'is Obama white enough?'
bjobotts wrote on September 28, 2007 2:12 PM:I don't buy it either. Usually when a candidate is this popular in the polls it's easy to find people who support her in your everyday environment. I've yet to find ONE...one person supporting Hillary. Most are supporting Kucinich...so what gives here? Hillary seems like she's getting pushed as the next president as if some contract has just been signed ensuring her that victory.
Something is very wrong here. The suggested poll numbers don't match the reality that I am finding. I don't know why she is being held up as the best choice when a survey given to democratic voters in Ohio on how they would want a candidate to vote on all the top issues Clinton was one of the worst to match up to representing how the voters claim they would want their candidate to vote. Kucinich was the run away winner on matching the issues.
Clinton's popularity in the polls seems to have risen after she has made it clear she will keep us in Iraq and possibly go along with attacking Iran...the democratic public does not support these stands but the GOP does...and now Clinton is presented as leading on all the issues.
Something is very wrong here...I just don't buy it. I don't believe the numbers.
I think the weakness of the polls is that they are extrapolating without considering the possibility that they are missing a significant portion of the population. Plus, the definition of "likely voter" will not include those not previously eligible to vote in the most recent cycle or those who haven't voted in the past (voter apathy), a number of whom may be motivated by Obama's candidancy (as reflected in his fundraising numbers and crowds).
HRC does not lead him in any fundraising categories (be that donors or funds raised). Also, a good portion of her funds on hand are not accessible until the general or were borrowed from her Senate campaign.
The polls are about one thing right now: Name Recognition.
phil james wrote on September 28, 2007 2:36 PM:The republic party machine has pushed 2 things succesfully, the War in Iraq and Hillary's inevitability. I guess there is nothing for me to do at this point but wait to go to my voting place and blindly push the HRC button.
dcshungu wrote on September 28, 2007 2:39 PM:The polls are about one thing right now: Name Recognition.
A recent poll in NH debunks that claim: Only 5% of the respondents hadn't heard of Obama. Modern polling is an extremely good craft, and can capture a snapshot of the prevailing opinions or views at the moment that they are taken. These polls accurately tell the story right now. What they will reflect 2-4 months from now is a different story altogether. The danger is that opinions will solidify unless HRC's opponents do something soon to shake things up.
DonnaG wrote on September 28, 2007 2:40 PM:I thought it was of note that the poll of democratic [this site changed 'democratic' into 'demographic']subgroups specifically left out a subgroup for college students, even though it included a category for non-college folks and another category for college graduates. Perhaps that omission has to do with college students being the least likely to have land-line telephones.
Anyway, this poll seems to suffer the problem of not being able to include the categories most likely to choose Obama over Clinton.
1] college students,
2] rally attenders....If the pollsters could find a way to poll 'those most likely to attend a political rally', we all know how vastly different the results would be. [ Last night, Obama drew 24,000+ to a rally in Hillary's backyard, NYC, and Hillary supporters help me out here, but I believe she has never drawn more than around 5,000 with Bill in tow]
3] investors of personal time and money: the pollsters could canvas according of those most likely to volunteer for and/or donate to a campaign........
In sum, the polls are measuring categories reflecting yesterday's world [exception: seniors who remain a large relevant block] of voters. It remains to be seen whether the significant ground organization of Obama camp categories will upend the predictions. If so, the pollsters will need to upgrade into this century with their canvassing.
Jillian wrote on September 28, 2007 2:41 PM:
The denialism by Obama and Edwards people is getting really old.
Pitted against individual Republican candidates, Edwards and Obama out-poll Hillary. Edwards even garners more than 50% against Thompson. Thus, Edwards and Obama are more likely to prevail in November 2008 based on the data available at this time. This article seems to be written with a Hillary bias. Democrats should more concerned about how the candidates fare against the Republicans than how they fare against other Democrats.
keith wrote on September 28, 2007 3:06 PM:I seem to recall a lot of the polling leading into the 2004 election showing a Kerry victory. It was backed up by exit polling that confirmed Kerry victory. We all know what happened. How mamy of you have been polled in the last 2 months? (Just curious)
At the end of the day, there's something for all of us in these polls.
Steve wrote on September 28, 2007 3:18 PM:I hate to break the string of Hillary hate but I'm not surprised by the polls at all. I think the one factor that has propelled her into this dominate lead she has now is her toughness. She comes across as more resolute and in charge than the other candidates. I love Obama but while he is brilliant his demeanor is that of a thinker and not a leader. Every time I have seen Hillary in one of these debates she seems like the leader. Her answers are resolute and matter of fact. Obama, Edwards, et al act more like debaters trying to convince you that their argument is the right one while Hillary behaves like a Judge who listens to arguments and hands down decisions. The Judge is the leader the others are just there for the show.
America wants a leader. The Republicans have long understood this. Which is why time and time again they have taken the Democrats the the wood shed in Presidential elections. Democrats like to think this is about who has the best ideas or who is the most experienced or who is the smartest. Perhaps it should be about those things but really it's about who you feel is the strongest leader. Right now Hillary is head and shoulders above the rest of the Dems in that category.
colonpowwow wrote on September 28, 2007 3:33 PM:Pokes yet another hole in the leaky, sinking, and swirling rudderless raft peopled by the ever-dwindling number of "Hillary can't win-ites."
elrapierwit wrote on September 28, 2007 3:47 PM:Giving well thought out answers and being deliberative is the hallmark of great leadership.
Individuals who give quick quips and 30 second bites are not demonstrating leadership but the ability to parrot canned answers that do not require any thinking on their part.
Hillary lacks leadership and there is nothing on her resume that demonstrates she has held a leadership role ever. She has not lead on the Iraq war, when she could have been a real voice opposing the war given her national stature she chose to not stand up and simply went with the wrong headed experience of the washington insiders.
Hillary has not demonstrated she can lead on universal health care, all she has done is become the biggest recipient of healthcare lobbyist dollars. That is not leadership it is capitulation.
Hillary has not demonstrated leadership on foreign policy she is afraid to talk to our enemies and she believes that America is safer by going to war which is why her poor judgment led her to once again trust Bush and vote to give him the power to attack Iran. Her last vote on the war allows Bush to attack and hunt down anyone who is deemed a terrorist. The Kyl-Lieberman bill deemed the Iranian Revolutionary Army a terrorist organization, that is like a country calling our US military a terrorist organization. Hillary once again authorized GWBush to take us to war and he plans to do precisely that before he leaves office we will be at war in Iraq as well as Iran.
Barack Obama, told Americans this when he said he would hunt down terrorists in Pakistan and he said then that was what the authorization Hillary gave Bush empowered him to do. When Obama said he would use that authority to go after real terrorists...Hillary called him naive and experienced.
The only person who is naive and inexperienced is Hillary. She is not a leader, she is a warmongerer and if she becomes President our country is doomed.
The only chance America has to elect a leader is with Barack Obama, who has a 20 year track record of effective leadership. Barack walks the walk. He walks it at the grassroots level, the legislative level as well as being a Constittutional Scholar with the bipartisian ability to create consensus and move issues forward.
Hillary has none of that and her record of public service is empty when it comes to leadership or successful on any massive complex issue.
vwcat wrote on September 28, 2007 4:06 PM:the nation is learning what we in Illinois have known for the past few years. this is an extreemly special and gifted man.
politicians like Hillary are a dime a dozen. Obama is a rare gem. Democrats need to wake up and not make a foolish choice in Hillary when they could energize and fire up a nation with Obama.
The media has tried hard to bury this man’s campaign and promote the queen’s inevitability. Until now they could get away with it as people were not paying that much attention. but, now that the primaries are coming close, the people are getting sick of the media obsession with the Clintons and their shoving Hillary down our throats.
When Hillary can only muster at most, 2,000 people to her NY rallies and Obama has 25,000 come to see him, you know the country is pushing back against business as usual.
Senator Obama is showing what a real leader is.
GOBAMA
Tonight was an amazing experience…and yes, it sure felt like 24,000 people. I have never seen so much excitement and passion in people in my life. It was a beautiful sea representative of this country…young, old, Black, White, Latino, Asian, men, women etc. Barack Obama is going to change this country and the world…those who aren’t convinced will soon be. I even brought friends of mine who are not much into politics, they’re kind of jaded. They left tonight not only Obama fans, but inspired by his words.
JW wrote on September 28, 2007 4:08 PM:Standing with thousands of folks from New York in Washington Square park tonight, I felt like I could believe in the American political process. It’s not just that Barack is a good speaker, or that he is charming, or that he talks about hope. He actually seems to have hope, and his hope is contagious. I’ve never seen my generation quite so hopeful as it was tonight, gathered in one place, looking at the possibility of a different kind of America.
colonpowwow wrote on September 28, 2007 4:10 PM:elrapierwit said:
"Individuals who give quick quips and 30 second bites are not demonstrating leadership but the ability to parrot canned answers that do not require any thinking on their part."
Here's from his latest posting profile of Hillary Clinton, his well-thought-out-not-just-quick-soundbite analysis:
"nothing on her resume"
"afraid to talk to our enemies"
"empty record of public service"
"elect Hillary president and our country is doomed"
elrapierwit, aren't you the guy last week who was claiming some kind of conspiracy by the media and blogosphere, including TPM, to not print any good news headlines about Barack Obama?
It is my lifelong dream to someday be as concise and insightful in my political analyses as you think you are.
wolverine wrote on September 28, 2007 4:12 PM:Leadership is providing purpose, direction, and motivation. There is not another candidate who could draw such a diverse group of 24,000 Americans to stand for hours to see a campaign speech.
OBAMA is a MOVEMENT! The media can’t spin the photos!
elrapierwit wrote on September 28, 2007 4:16 PM:no colonpowpow
that was not me claiming any conspiracy.
I am the one who rebutted your efforts to smear Oprah when she backed Barack and you wanted to assert she did nothing about the war.
I showed how all your blabbering and blustering was completely false.
Keep dreaming about doing thoughtful analyses.
vicissitude wrote on September 28, 2007 4:19 PM:A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/obama-rallies-huge-crowd-in-new-york/
I dont see Republicans wiping anything but there eye’s when they see Obama beat them hands down. No matter how much Republicans down play his power. They have no solution for him, a man that can get every vote possible. Votes from Democrats,Independents and yes Republicans. Maybe you havent been following this campeign, but Obama is a force and a great leader. Dont let the media lead you wrong. Obama 08!
— Posted by velle
This is just the beginning..the tip of the iceberg. Don’t let those ridiculous poll numbers the media spews brainwash you. Look at those crowds. Look at the HUGE numbers who have donated to his campaign so far, and how many more are converted whenever they spend 5 minutes REALLY listening to him, as opposed to listening to the pathetic punditry that passes for journalism these days.
This man will win the nomination and will wipe the floor with anyone on the other side of the aisle. Then we will finally get our country back.
colonpowwow wrote on September 28, 2007 4:24 PM:another soundbite from elrapierwit:
pointing out what Clinton says on her website = "blubbering and blustering" to elrapierwit
Hey, I like Obama. He's so much not a hater like you are. I would vote for him in a second if he won. I generally trust the judgement of my fellow Democrats.
You? Not so much.
Dee Anna Roberts wrote on September 28, 2007 4:26 PM:Actually, it was 24,000 but hey. What’s a few thousand ? LOL.
This is the HIDDEN VOTE the campaign is talking about. Watch how many people show up in Iowa to caucus.
I can’t wait.
Jerri wrote on September 28, 2007 4:27 PM:I just do not believe these poll. The MSM wants it to be Hillary. You check people support by three things:
1. Traffic on Candidates sites vs rest(OBAMA)
2. Money Raised(OBama).
3. Turnouts to Campaign events(Again Obama)
I'll take a crowd of 24,000 over polls anyday. Take that polls!!! 24,000 crowd standing all for hours listening to what Obama has to say with volunteers working day & night for weeks are a much more reliable evidence of support than ANY RAMMUSSEN, OR WHATEVER POLLS OUT THERE!!!
GO OBAMA!!
DonnaG wrote on September 28, 2007 4:34 PM:"she comes across as" [a leader] is really the operative phrase, Steve.
There's an old poem I cannot remember word for word, but it was about a woman who spend her life holding up a maskin front of her face, until one day, someone dared to look behind the mask......and discovered there was 'only a hand holding a mask'.
It would be nice to look behind Hillary's 'come-across-as-a-leader' mask and find some actual evidence of Hillary's leadership abilities. Yep, she is very smart and a quick study on memorizing data and organizing three points per issue rhetoric. But ask her for specific leadership, and she won't answer 'hypotheticals', even on social security. Look at her Senate career and over three quarters of her so-called 'leadership' is in shepherding fluff legislation. Expect her to personally do her due diligence on the AUMF matter? Without her staff being able to do it for her, she herself was not capable of reading and digesting 90 pages of relevant material. Without her husband's name, popularity, and built-up connections, Hillary herself would never be able to pass the muster for national 'leadership'........and, to me, that coat-tails situation bespeaks the opposite of leadership.
But, you are correct that most folks see that 'she comes across as a leader', and don't bother to look behind the crafted appearance, any more than did all those who backed the other image/name connected one named George B. 'just a hand holding a mask'
pauletta wrote on September 28, 2007 4:38 PM:Plain and simple: If 24,000 people showing up to hear one person speak doesn’t represent a true movement, then nothing else matters.
Sorry, but it takes more than attack maneuvers during debates to distingush yourself from other candidates. To loudmouth MSM commentators and the bloggerati, that’s considered to be the best move: utilizing instigated conflict and red-meat one-liners to show supposed leadership. That triangulator mentality, thankfully, is becoming passe to forward-thinking voters. Why? Because they realize that that’s exactly how we ended up with saber-wielding warlords and incompetent theocrats in public office.
The facts on Obama’s experience are sacrosanct. He has 10 years of political experience, and will have 12 in 2008. That’s more political experience than either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton (sorry, the First Lady isn’t a legislator last time I checked). Obama has written more bills that have been passed into law than either Hillary or John Edwards. A total of 14 of Obama’s bills have been passed into law.
So like the thousands who are showing up to support Senator Obama, we’re banking on the majority wanting change instead of more of the same. Empty suit? An “empty pantsuit” is more like it.
Globalcitizen wrote on September 28, 2007 4:42 PM:Clearly the lazy and conniving mainstream media is trying to ram Hilary down our throats this primary. Anyone with an open mind can see that the attempt to Coronate Mrs. Clinton as the democratic nominee is just manufactured by the media and reinforced by the political incumbents who owe too many favors to the Clintons (the old timers). These old timers are not representing their constituents – they are just protecting their jobs. Note that the majority of new representatives are not backing her candidacy. In the debates, even when another candidate does better and the ordinary people say so, the pundits will try to spin in it Hilary’s favor. We have to stop this game-playing and rigged system.
Thus far, the NYTimes is the only major media source to cover this(kudos, btw). 24,000 people and all the cable news channels seem to be on blackout mode.
Obama still stands a good chance of prevailing: 24,000 people in one rally(that’s the conservative estimate). By far the largest crowds any candidate has gotten. Well over a quarter of a million donors(345,904 as of this posting) who he can go back to again and again and whose numbers continue to surge. A virtual army of volunteers on the ground.
This is a movement. Grassroots politics on an unprecedented scale is what is going to carry Obama from here on out. The media is not going to give him anything. They are the reason Hillary has been so built up, and if they weren’t, then I ask: Where are her 20,000 adoring supporters? Has she ever gotten more than 5,000 people to hear her speak, even with Bill in tow?
Obama’s campaign has continued to show an amazing ability to get people to turn out for him and do it repeatedly. That gives him a huge advantage at the Iowa caucuses.
darla wrote on September 28, 2007 4:57 PM:Obama just drew a crowd of 24,000+ people to a rally in the heart of Hillary’s adopted home territory. If Hillary Clinton had drawn a crowd of 24,000 in Obama’s home town of Chicago, it would have been splashed across the television screens and on front pages of newspapers.
If ever you needed proof that the corporate media is colluding with Washington insiders to further the status quo agenda, just watch how the media withholds attention from this latest story of Obama’s popularity. In order to prop up the ‘image’ candidancy of insider/status quo/corporate-compromised Hillary Clinton, the media will mostly just barely mention this story about Barack drawing such a huge crowd in Hillary’s backyard.
This almost black-out from the corporate media reminds me directly of how the media gave short shrift coverage in 2003 to the huge crowds who were then out protesting the march to war. Instead of listening to the message of those crowds in 2002-2003, the corporate media was cheerleading and colluding to help that war get accomplished, OVER the protests of hundreds of thousands.
Look at this situation with a bit of perspective. Why do you suppose the same media which helped beat the war drums in 2003 will downplay the message of this latest huge crowd coming out to see Obama? Yes, use your head.
Abigail wrote on September 28, 2007 5:01 PM:God forbid we vote for somebody who can garner more than 50% of the vote.
God forbid we vote for someone who actually inspires people.
God forbid we nominate somebody who isn’t beholden to lobbyists.
God forbid we nominate somebody who drives the debate forward with trendsetting ideas.
God forbid we nominate someone who had the judgement to oppose the war in Iraq even when it could have lost him an election.
God forbid we nominate somone who believes diplomacy is not a reward for pre-agreement but a means by which agreement is brought about.
God forbid we nominate someone who polls have shown can garner broad support from democrats, independents, and yes, republicans.
God forbid we nominate someone who refuses lobbyist money, has gotten multiple ethics reform bills passed, and promises to clean up a politics that is quite clearly corrupt and inept.
You’re right, God forbid we nominate Barack Obama.
No, let’s nominate the person who screwed up healthcare, caused the Democratic collapse in 1994, was wrong on the Patriot Act, was wrong on Iraq(and refuses to apologize), is the largest beneficiary of money from the same drug and insurance company lobbyists she claims she’ll fight, has numerous ties to people who have been convicted of white-collar crimes(and currently has one, Sandy top-secret-documents-in-my-pants Berger, working on her staff), repeatedly contradicts her own positions, is opposed to “hypotheticals” even though she has no problem making them herself(”Terrorist attack? Vote for me!” and "when I'm President"), rehashes her opponent’s plans and casts them as her own. . . and that’s before we even get into all of Bill’s problems.
So yeah, let’s nominate Hillary. Makes perfect sense. She’s experienced(no, really, junior senator is very experienced!), extremely intelligent(she’s like a titanium bulwark against unwanted questions!), and she’s clearly done her homework. Well, except for the NIE. . . and her position on torture. . . and her position on the use of nuclear weapons–nothing too important, anyways.
See, Hillary understands the fundamental rule of truthiness: The more times you repeat and have repeated complete nonsense, the more that complete nonsense becomes true.
Congratulations, Hillary-Haters!
For the 4,000th posting in a row that said something encouraging about Hillary (who've I've liked since the early 90s, not had her recently jammed down my throat by the MSM LOL).
Anyhow, for the 4,000th time, the dumbfounded Hillogynists who can't understand how the rest of us Democrats can be so thick, have managed to hijack a TPM comment thread following a bit of positive news re Senator Hillary Clinton, the soon-to-be first woman Pesident in the glorious progressive history of our great nation.
You should be very proud!
colonpowwow wrote on September 28, 2007 5:46 PM:Congratulations, Hillary-Haters!
For the 4,000th time in a row, you have managed to hijack a comment thread following a post that held some positive news about the soon-to-be first woman President in the great history of our progressive nation.
You should be very proud Democrats.
The rest of us are just unbelievably thick to support Hillary Clinton. I can't understand it, can you? Oh yeah, that's right. We take our marching orders from the MSM. Oy vey! You all are a piece of work. Really you are.
But, we love you and wish you could develop the same feeling we have. That is, Hillary is an excellent, proven, liberal Democrat in an outstanding field. I would vote for your preferred candidate if he happens to secure the nomination.
I trust my fellow and sister Democrats a bit more than claiming that they're being led around by the nose somehow because they like a certain candidate for whatever reasons. You?
Anonymous wrote on September 28, 2007 5:51 PM:sorry about the semi-double post, but the site administrator thingie told me the first one didn't "take."
sorry
colonpowwow
Miri11 wrote on September 28, 2007 9:19 PM:The bad news for Obama is that the polls contradict his "electability" argument. He claims he is more electable than Hillary but where is the evidence? The polls show Hillary is doing as well and in some polls better than Obama against GOP candidates.
I can see John Edwards making the electability argument. That would make sense. He is probably the most electable Democrat.
totallynext wrote on September 28, 2007 10:40 PM:I would like to know who they are polling because I am pretty active in the "likely voter" categories and party politics and no body likes her for President.
dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 1:29 AM:I would like to know who they are polling because I am pretty active in the "likely voter" categories and party politics and no body likes her for President.
Frankly this sort of comments has gotten stale already. Get out more often, socialize, seek people who are different from you for a change...?
Heck, for a candidate to be getting nearly 50% support in polls (public opinion polling is now so good that it is almost "scientific") and for "real" people to be claiming that they do not know who that candidate's supporters are is quite unsettling to me. Where do you live? Utah? That would explain such comments... Here in NYC, Rudy is the "bad" guy, not HRC...
Cheers.
Tim wrote on September 29, 2007 3:16 AM:+ Voted for the War
+ Voted for the Lieberman Amendment to Attack Iran
+ Unable to admit a mistake
+ Use of Rovian campaign tactics
+ Friend o' Murdock
+ Husband a friend o' W's daddy
+ Favorite of the Fox News Network
---------------------------------------
= Increasingly Hillary is the New W.
slcathena wrote on September 29, 2007 3:42 AM:Paying attention to polls at this point is futile (to echo the Borg reference above). Polls are regurgitating the noise of the chattering classes, right now. I'm pretty sure half the people who are voting couldn't tell you the difference between Edwards/Obama/Hillary beyond gender/race. No, it does not matter that there have been multiple debates, because the only people watching them are posting here.
Give it a couple months. She'll slide.
An aside: Any self respecting democrat who is voting for her after Kyl-Lieberman needs their head checked.
dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 8:27 AM:Any self respecting democrat who is voting for her after Kyl-Lieberman needs their head checked.dcshungu wrote on September 29, 2007 8:32 AM:Reductio ad absurdum:
Since that "saber-rattling" resolution passed with the support of 30 Dems, including Sens. Levin and Durbin (the Senators everyone likes to point to admiringly when discussing those who'd voted against the AUMF), are you suggesting that we vote out of office all 30 Dem Senators and hand control of the Senate back to the Repubs? If, so have you head your own head checked lately?Inquiring minds wanna know...
Sorry, I forgot to close the 'blockquote' just before Reductio ad absurdum in the preceding comment... So, to repeat for legibly:
Any self respecting democrat who is voting for her after Kyl-Lieberman needs their head checked.
Reductio ad absurdum:
Since that "saber-rattling" resolution passed with the support of 30 Dems, including Sens. Levin and Durbin (the Senators everyone likes to point to admiringly when discussing those who'd voted against the AUMF), are you suggesting that we vote out of office all 30 Dem Senators and hand control of the Senate back to the Repubs? If, so have you head your own head checked lately?
Inquiring minds wanna know..
Kevin C. wrote on September 29, 2007 10:57 AM:I don't see what the big deal is about 24,000 people attending a rally. It seems like the Dean thing all over again, but on a larger scale. Yes, young people - particularly college students - will show up for large rallies. They have something that most adults do not: free time.
I went to a Gore rally in Nashville in '00 when I was in college. The idea of going to one now is out of the question, with my work and family obligations. So, while Union Square (right by NYU) is a short train ride away from me, I wouldn't take the time to go there to listen to Hillary, whose vote has been mine to lose since she entered.
I've been voting Democratic ever since I've been old enough to, and picking a primary choice was ridiculously easy this time around. Personally, I can't wait until she is president and we have a return to competence. How has Clinton fatigue turned into Clinton nostalgia over the past seven years? We've had a government that is fundamentally incompetent.
I think those who are making the claim that Obama's aura of change is an advantage for him are mistaken. Hillary's been solidifying and adding to her lead the more that voters have looked at this race closely. I think Democrats, and Americans in general, want a return to sanity and are looking for something that they know will work, and Hillary represents that, as the last functioning White House we had was occupied by her husband.
People haven't forgotten what it felt like to have a booming economy and a sense of security, and after seven years, they want it back.
elrapierwit wrote on September 29, 2007 3:58 PM:Kevin,
you can't get that security back with a candidate who is already authorizing war with Iran.
you can't get the booming economy back either with a candidate that gave us NAFTA not universal health care and who recieves more corporate lobbying dollars than the entire presidential candidate field combined.
Hillary is not Bill and she is a warmonger who supports outsourcing jobs, just ask the folks in upstate NY that are her constituents.
We need a bridge to the future not the past and Hillary is not offering up anything but more war, and more corporate outsourcing of jobs....
BTW, the big deal about the 24K at the rally is that HRClinton can't even draw 5K people with her husband Bill, a former President on the campaign trail with her.
America is longing for leadership and they know it when they see it, that is why Hillary can't get the votes. Those polls are rigged and biased. The media is simply using them to influence voters attitudes about who is electable. Hillary's negative are the highest ever in history for a Presidential candidate which also accounts for her inability to pull large crowds. despite having been on the national scene for 16 years, she is being out fundraised by a rookie who had to start from scratch.
Hillary is not a winner and the American people know it. The media refuses to cover how well Obama is doing they just keep pushing those polls, but no one knows folks in their social circle who is supporting her. The polls are fake and manufactured by people who formerly worked for the Clintons but tout themselves as independent pollsters, they aren't.
DonnaG wrote on September 29, 2007 4:32 PM:Elrapierwit, you state that the polls are fake......I have never gone so far as to think they are fake, just that they are missing something important in the canvassing methods.
Here is another anecdote. In my last visit to Iowa to do some door to door canvassing [already equiped with names/addresses of Democrats likely to caucus], I was out for about 3 and 1/2 hours. I met one and only one person who said said 'I'm voting for Hillary'. That is one person out of the dozens of people I actually found were home and able to talk to me. By contrast, I did find lots of Edwards and Obama leaners or decideds, and two for Richardson. One guy, not from the neighborhood, but driving down the street, actually stopped after seeing my Obama tee-shirt, and wanted my literature and a sign-up card.
So, I don't know what to make of the polling, and at this point, I am just going to keep on operating on the assumption that the real world out there is neither being reflected in the polls, nor does the real world seem to be vulnerable to being swayed by the polls at this time.
Kevin C. wrote on September 29, 2007 7:58 PM:
Elrapierwit,
I don't really know what to say to all of that, other than I guess we'll see if all the polls were rigged once actual voting starts.
I disagree with your characterization of the Kyl-Lieberman legislation, which took the language I found offensive out before it went up for a vote. I find the idea that Hillary will be a "warmonger" as president as ludicrous as the right's frothing assertions that she's looking to turn America into a socialist state. The NY Post actually ran a story on their front page today about her bonds plan for newborns and used the term socialist in it. Hilarious!
