Final Zogby Poll: Obama Ahead In N.H. By 13

Comments (27)

brm wrote on January 8, 2008 8:21 AM:

The NH voters
Will nominate Hillary for Best Actress for her appearance at the Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth
Not many votes for President though
Send her and her bags(with carpet) back to NY
The Bush-Clinton era ends today
CELEBRATE

Lavocat wrote on January 8, 2008 8:36 AM:

brm: Don't send her back to US, here in NY! We never wanted her in the first place. Send her back to Arkansas (who, I am sure, don't want her either!).

She carpetbagged the NY senate seat the same way she is trying to carpetbag the presidency. HOPEFULLY, the voting American electorate will see her for what she really and truly is and has always been: an opportunistic parasite.

And if America is getting rid of one such parasite, why the hell would they want another one!?

DTM wrote on January 8, 2008 8:36 AM:

To somewhat state the obvious, those late deciders will determine the margin (or could even swing NH back to Clinton, although currently that appears unlikely).

For an interesting read on what may be helping late deciders in NH go to Obama, I suggest starting here:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mellman_on_word_of_mouth_in_ia.php#comments

The upshot is that it appears Obama is getting the most favorable "word of mouth" in NH, and this can be as important a factor in forming voter preference as something like television advertisements.

audit the polls wrote on January 8, 2008 9:00 AM:

What's the point in such polls? Even if they're honest, their purpose seems to be to keep people from voting for whom they want, and change to who they think can win [usually coincidently, the one with the most money] That's not the purpose of democracy.

Keith wrote on January 8, 2008 9:04 AM:

Definitely agree DTM. There are a huge number of undeclareds that could swing the race to Clinton. One could only imagine the tsunami of press she would get. I don't think I'll be able to focus until this thing is called later today.

brm wrote on January 8, 2008 9:13 AM:

A real voter in NH
And a Democrat

Hillary is done here
Very very unpopular

Look at this from Hillary
"Obama has not done the SPADE work necessary to be President."

Is there anything she would not do or say?
Have you no decency Hillary
How is this going to play in the AA community?
Obama and spade in the same sentence

Kefa wrote on January 8, 2008 9:32 AM:

brm .....that crap is only in your gutter mind. No one can't say anything about, against, toward him or you are a racist and it's a crock of shit. He gets away with saying nothing because he's black and if you question him about anything oooooh your being mean to him because he's black. Give me a break. The press has given him a free ride and we as a party are gonna pay in the long run. Dream now, nightmare later.

HRC will fight until the end. The end is Feb 5th.

brm wrote on January 8, 2008 9:44 AM:

Kefa

Using Obama and spade in the same sentence is not racist.

What planet do you live on?

markg8 wrote on January 8, 2008 9:46 AM:

If the word of mouth in NH is Hillary comparing herself to LBJ and Obama to JFK/MLK then I know who the people of NH are gonna pick. It's not gonna be Lyndon.

Ted Atkinson wrote on January 8, 2008 9:49 AM:

I have said it before and I will say it again: there are a number of parallels between the collapse of Hillary Clinton and the collapse of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend here in Maryland.

Both had mantles of inevitability carrying them for a very long time right up until the last weeks (Townsend) or days (Clinton) before voting, and then this sort of slow-motion trainwreck that was and is, as a student of politics, simply breathtaking to watch.

I am not as off-put by the emotional display put on by Clinton yesterday, because I can only imagine how utterly gobsmacked an frustrated she must feel to see the Presidency, which hovered before her like a floating chalice ready for the taking, suddenly move out of grasp. And nothing can be done for it.

Curiously, this may be a doom of her own making insofar as she and her camp pushed very hard for a compressed schedule that she believed (erroneously) would solidify her position. Of course, once she found herself on the downslope of a collapse, she has no traction gien the schedule.

But at the end of the day, I have to say that this is an absolutely fascinating electoral cycle. I can't recall a more intriguing one since the 1992 primaries.

Anonymous wrote on January 8, 2008 9:51 AM:

Kefa -

Hillary has less experience as an elected official than Obama. She has four more years in the Senate than Obama, but besides that she's riding Bill's coattails to push the experience angle. If you say they've been easy on Obama, why hasn't Hillary's record been questioned more? Why has it been acceptable for her to paint herself as the most experienced candidate, when in reality she has less political experience than Barack? When did Hillary ever have to be a uniter as a First Lady (and, more importantly, when was she ever successful at doing so?) While I agree Obama lacks in experience, he's not much less experienced than Hillary, unless we're talking about experience at White House functions. Why has the press bought into Hillary's experience without question? The Clinton machine has a lot more sway than the color of Barack's skin on this one, I'd say.

bridoc wrote on January 8, 2008 9:58 AM:

Kefa, I haven't seen Obama play the race card a single time in the entire campaign. No one who makes legitimate attacks on him is going to get accused of being racist, don't be ridiculous. When Hillary's people insinuate that he is unelectable because there will be questions about his past drug use and about whether or not he was a dealer (when nothing of the sort was mentioned about white Bill or Dubya), that can be seen as racist without a huge stretch of the imagination.

markg8, Yes, Hillary basically said that MLK Jr couldn't get anything done because talk is cheap, and it took white LBJ to actually get things done in the civil rights movement. She thinks this backs up her talk vs action line. Hmm, who was of more importance to the civil rights movement? MLK Jr vs LBJ?

Just because people were too racist back then to elect a black man doesn't mean that he couldn't have made things happen if he was white skinned and president. She makes the fatal flaw in her arguments incredibly apparent, you can talk and inspire AND take action, just as Obama has if you look at his record. In fact inspiring and energizing people is necessary to make progress. All of our greatest presidents have been known for their eloquent addresses. Hillary is just pissed that she doesn't have a fraction of the charisma or the ability to inspire, lift up and energize that Obama has. He is a natural leader, and she hates that. She thinks that she has some divine right to this nomination and she'll ruthlessly attack anyone who gets in her way.

Liam wrote on January 8, 2008 9:59 AM:

No one seems to be paying attention to another very important aspect of this poll results. If the poll results are close to accurate, then John Edwards is also collapsing, much like he did after his second place in Iowa in 2004

Liam wrote on January 8, 2008 10:15 AM:

Hillary may have the experience. So did Gore and Kerry, but she also has something else in common with them; a lack of charisma. Hillary, like Gore and Kerry, is very stiff and not a natural outgoing person.

We know from past experience that the majority of voters will opt for the "most likable" candidate for President. That is why they rejected Gore and Kerry, and opted twice for a amiable guy without much else to offer. Hillary has run into the charisma wall, and there is nothing she can do about that. She can not obtain a charisma transplant or act as if she had.

People are not going to vote for someone that they do not first have a sense of comfort with. They do with Obama, and not with Hillary. That leaves her with no where to go to find more support beyond her hardcore supporters.

Michael A wrote on January 8, 2008 10:20 AM:

I too am sick of the press giving clinton a free ride on her limited experience. It really is pathetic. She has as much as obama, and some of it not so good, see iraq and iran votes. However, now the clintons are blaming the media, one wonders who else they will blame for the collapse as well because it's always somebody else's fault, and want the media to "probe" more into obama's experience. Well, I want a gd probe into clinton's experience as well. It's only fair. By all means lets vet them both. There has been no vetting of clinton and her bogus claims are taken at face value.

If she continues and continues with this experience mantra, I want to see some front page stories about her voting record, like obama's recieved. If anything he is more vetted and checked out than she is, by a long shot.

Pepp wrote on January 8, 2008 10:23 AM:

So the neo con press is picking the next nominee for us they declare Obama Prince of the Dem party and partisans in two tiny states flock to the polls and admittedly say they know nothing of Obama personal history or record other than what he has told them, that he is charming, that electing a blackman is historical and they all believe he gives good speeches that make you chill sometimes when he is not tired, and Newsweek declares a women cant win because its a sexual thing guys have with voters on the rope, now interestingly enough 52 percent of the electorate is female. Oh yeah and anyone over 50 is yesterday not tomorrow. What absolute crap and wrong as always. Anyone bother to really consider Obamas electability or isnt that what this is about, what State dose he bring certainly not Ohio or Fla not to many young voters in those States, again what group of reliable voters that Kerry or Gore could not, what group can he maintain that they did not, NONE if fact there are some he loses. How are all these independent and young voters going to act and vote when as Framer reminds us the right wing attack machine spent 500 Million last election in advertising to paint a War Hero thrice decorated into a coward it worked they ran and Obama todays voters know less about him then they did Kerry who at least had a record and history of service to our country in his youth. Insert foot and shoot again, go hug a republican the next Untier not a Divider is being crowned and we are headed for 4 more years of non democrat rule.

frankly0 wrote on January 8, 2008 11:34 AM:

What seems pretty clear is that nowadays there really is no effective independence between results in Iowa and NH, especially given the mere 5 days between the two primaries.

Under these circumstances, NH effectively simply creates a slingshot effect for whatever happens in Iowa, picking up on and probably exaggerating its effects.

This is really the only reason at base that Obama is poised to win big in NH. What do people in NH know about Obama now that they didn't know about him before the Iowa primary, when he was trailing? Obviously, nothing.

It's just the slingshot.

Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 8, 2008 11:40 AM:

Hey Pepp,

Guess what? I'm broke! Obama's going to have more money than I do. THe attack machine is going to be running on fumes.

Seriously though, Swift Boat is exactly why we need an Obama and not a Hillary. GOP supporters were able to paint Kerry in such a way because he allowed it, lacking the charisma and campaign skills to brush aside the attacks. Obama has the charisma to brush aside attacks. The idea that it was the "Republican attack machine" that killed Kerry's campaign is a load of bullshit, Kerry killed it for himself with a horribly run campaign. Obama has shown an ability to run a great campaign.

Do not allow these people to continue to intimidate you. Electing Hillary out of fear of the Republican attack machine is like electing Giuliani because you're afraid of Osama. You're handing them victory with your fear.

frankly0 wrote on January 8, 2008 11:51 AM:

Obama has the charisma to brush aside attacks.

Jesus. It's always the Obama Pixie Dust with you people.

Sorry, but another cringe inducing round of "Fired up! Ready to go!" isn't going to blunt the effect of the right wing buzzsaw.

mooster wrote on January 8, 2008 11:51 AM:

Kind of off topic perhaps, but isn't it time to give up on this Zogby poll? It's so out of step with other polls so often, I have to wonder how scientific Zogby's work is. I always take these polls with a grain of salt, but frankly, I think it's time for the media to just start ignoring them.

Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 8, 2008 12:07 PM:

Frankly0,

Pixie dust might have something to do with it, but Kerry's total lack of charisma and general ineptitude at running an election are what allowed Swift Boat to be successful. I don't see how that can be denied.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 8, 2008 12:15 PM:

Sorry, but another cringe inducing round of "Fired up! Ready to go!" isn't going to blunt the effect of the right wing buzzsaw.

So you say. I guess that we will see. I think that you might be pleasantly surprised.

Mary wrote on January 8, 2008 12:17 PM:

Clinton campaign getting ugly. I read on huffpo how some guy held up a sign saying "Iron my shirt". Ok so there are no shortage of chauvenistic pigs out there, but what is amazing when you watch the vid is how quickly the lights are turned up (someone manning the light switch?) and Clinton giving everything she's got to the guy. It is just way to convienient. It is a hmmmm moment..similar to the planting of questions scenario. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt until just a few minutes ago when I saw her on Morning Joe on MSNBC. She brought up the "Iron my shirt" thing again! Way to play the gender card with the "look at what these horrible people are doing". It is truly disgusting. So all of you junkies out there - a challenge. Try to list how many times Hill says the "Iron my shirt" theme. Every time she does it, it looks more and more planted. Rovian politics anyone?

Liam wrote on January 8, 2008 12:26 PM:

Enough with all the idle blather about how people should not vote for Obama because of what the "Republican Attack Machine" might do to him. They will try that against who ever we nominate.

We already know that Hillary can not even hold a lead against Obama, and that is in her own party, so she would have no chance against the Republicans. If she is not strong enough to win in her own party, after squandering a huge lead in Iowa, New Hampshire, and the Nation, then claiming that she would be the best one to put up against a Republican is utterly absurd, and illogical.

As for John Edwards; we saw how poorly he did in the 2004 debate against Dick Cheney.
He came across as weak and intimidated. Cheney made Edwards his jail cell bride. Edwards has already shown that he is not up to the job.

If Obama is capable of coming from behind and knocking off the Inevitable Hillary, and the guy who was on the ticket in 2004, that alone proves that he has better fighting credentials and skills than the others.

Now go find yourself a candidate to support that the Republicans will not attack. Better still, put down the bong, and get a grip on the facts and reality.

frankly0 wrote on January 8, 2008 12:39 PM:

If Obama is capable of coming from behind and knocking off the Inevitable Hillary, and the guy who was on the ticket in 2004, that alone proves that he has better fighting credentials and skills than the others.

And McGovern beat out the inevitable Muskie.

How'd that work out, by the way?

Republican Attack Machine wrote on January 8, 2008 12:54 PM:

Frankly0,

Has history proven that Muskie would've won?

werner cohn wrote on January 9, 2008 12:50 AM:

Just to state the obvious: Zogby, like the other pollsters, were WAY off. I do hope that they will adequate resources on finding out why.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)