Poll: Hillary, Romney Ahead In Nevada

Comments (32)

Billary wrote on January 18, 2008 8:58 AM:

I am mad! They were mean to me. Send more reporters so I can whine and complain.

wwjb wrote on January 18, 2008 9:02 AM:

Haha, Edwards is now in the 2nd choice range, how sad, he is the new Richardson. Time to hang up your hat John, word on the street is you don't have a ice cube's chance in hell.

Liam wrote on January 18, 2008 9:27 AM:

"Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America."

Wow. Hillary has been telling us how she has been working hard for 35 years to get it done. How the hell can she claim that she has been at it for 35 years, has not got it done, and still claim that she "get impatient" about not having brought change to America!.

The only change that the Clintons bring is their ever changing fairy tales.

LaWanda wrote on January 18, 2008 9:33 AM:

Why are Obama peole so angry all of the time? Maybe it's that Reagan optimism. ughhhh

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 18, 2008 9:46 AM:

Does anyone think Obama's pro-Reagan comments hurt him? The Media has sort of made them go away but Obama praised Reagan and his policies as opposed to Bill Clinton's presidency. Is this smart or good policy for a future Democratic president? John Edwards who unloaded on Obama about this obvisouly doesn't think so.

It is too bad that TPM made the link to Obama's statements disappear so quickly.

Ken P wrote on January 18, 2008 9:56 AM:

Obama did not praise Reagan or his policies. He said that Reagan had changed the political trajectory of America. This is not a right wing talking point. This is a fact. The incremental, triangulating nature of Bill Clinton's presidency was in many ways a reflection of this fact. One does not have to agree with Reagan's policies to acknowledge that the did change the political landscape in a profound way. I don't understand how this can be such a difficult concept to grasp in the so-called reality based community.

Jorge wrote on January 18, 2008 10:08 AM:

Ken,
Facts are biased againt the Clintons

John Y wrote on January 18, 2008 10:12 AM:

Does anyone think Obama's pro-Reagan comments hurt him? The Media has sort of made them go away but Obama praised Reagan and his policies as opposed to Bill Clinton's presidency.

Daniel, Obama never praised Reagan or his policies. He said Reagan saw how ready the country was for change and seized the opportunity. Obama obviously doesn't like the changes Reagan made. He merely recognizes, quite astutely I might add, how he was able to make them. We're still playing by Reagan's rules today. Why else do you think Democrats are always so defensive and triangulating? Obama wants to smash that paradigm and make conservatives play by OUR rules. Just remember: Obama Republicans.

jbentley wrote on January 18, 2008 10:23 AM:

It seems that Hillary's negative campaigning, nasty ads and flyers, and Bill's tirades are once again working. No matter what happens, the Clintons will spin it as if their result is akin to the '69 Jets beating the Colts. However,the fact that a newcomer like Obama is giving a candidate with the establishment creds of Hillary a run for her money at all is a credit to Obama as a man and a candidate, and a testament to Hillary's own weaknesses and faults. (And yes, Bill, 35 years in the Estblishment does make Hillary the "Establishment Candidate.")

goldberry wrote on January 18, 2008 11:26 AM:

I'm not sure I would give this poll a lot of weight for the reasons stated and also because of the volatility of the race so far.
But if it is true that Hillary is this far ahead, it would be a bad sign for Obama. Not only that but we will never hear the end of it from the Obama supporters who simply can't fathom why we are not all as irrationally exuberant as they are.
I wish they'd work on anger management because it ain't going to be pretty if Hillary wins.

Daniel Bruno wrote on January 18, 2008 11:35 AM:

While these poll statistics are fun to look at and discuss, their predictive power is pretty much void with such big caveats. Obama will win and here's why. www.WhyTheDemocratsWillWinIn2008.com

goldberry wrote on January 18, 2008 11:36 AM:

To jbentley: I only wish it had been the nurses union that had filed the lawsuit. Teachers don't have much to complain about but imagine if you were a nurse on shift on Saturday and couldn't take 3 hours off in the middle of the day to 1.) Drive to your home district. 2.) Stick around for the 2 hour caucus and 3.) Drive back to the hospital.
Do you see the problem now and why some people might be a tad PO'd over why they won't be able to vote but that others will be overrepresented?
It's not that the casino workers shouldn't have special districts if that's what works for them. It's that it gives them an advantage over everyone else.
In this case, Nevada should really sit down and rethink this bizarre system that seems to perpetually favor one group at the expense of another. This year it is the casino workers, but before they were disadvantaged.
Why not go for a primary with flexible voting hours?

Neal K wrote on January 18, 2008 11:59 AM:

Goldberry:

I think you make some valid points, but to my mind, the key is the fact that the current system was approved by everyone. No one thought the issues you raised were important until the Culinary Union endorsed Obama - then, magically, the "injustice" of it all was played up.

In other words, the concerns you raise should have been addressed in the beginning, not just when it became obvious that the system might benefit a particular candidate.

HarpoMarxist wrote on January 18, 2008 12:14 PM:

"The Media has sort of made them go away but Obama praised Reagan and his policies as opposed to Bill Clinton's presidency."

That's not what he said. Maybe if you paid attention you would also realize that whoever you are supporting (unless it is Kucinich) strongly backed the war when to not do so meant you were a traitor and not a serious contender for the presidency.

Obama, when it most counted, stood on principle.

His argument regarding Reagan is that there are some rare elections which represent paradigm shifts in the consciousness of our society (1932, 1960, 1980 were ones). Reagan's was one such shift (though for the worse). Obama wasn't making a value judgement on Reagan, he was pointing to his effectiveness. Obama represents a paradigm shift away from The Reagan revolution of the last 30 - 40 years (it began with Goldwater).

Pay attention! Democrats are close to nominating a stealth Neo-Con. Obama is the only chance we have to stop her.

Campion wrote on January 18, 2008 12:42 PM:

I'd like to say that we can stop the neo cons, but that is quite impossible.

As Krugman said: Clinton is more liberal on domestic issues than Obama. (Please remember that this admirer of Reagan is the man who can bring the level of distrust down and work well with even pharmaceuticals. His health plan is optional (read non-existent) for adults.

Kucinich meanwhile points out that Obama's actual voting record on the war is IDENTICAL to Clinton's.

So why this free ride for Obama? Let's fight for the commons as is our life. But let''s not give sophistry anything but a raised eyebrow followed by a raised voice demanding facts and commitment to defeating, not working with, the greedy bastards who run the show.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 12:59 PM:

"Pay attention! Democrats are close to nominating a stealth Neo-Con. Obama is the only chance we have to stop her."

Good God. This is the same fear-mongering crap we hear from the current batch of Neo-Cons. It's just another example of Fascists calling other people Fascists.

Obama and his people started whining about race, then blamed Clinton for bringing race into the discussion. Now Obama praises Reagan and his people are pretending like Clinton is the Reaganite.

If this guy can't win the freakin' primary on his own merits, how could he ever beat McCain? Will he have Al Sharpton accuse McCain (or Huck) of fathering a black love child, thus proving his opponent's disdain for African Americans?

Obama needs to stop whining and preening, and come up with an actual idea.

markg8 wrote on January 18, 2008 1:13 PM:

It's interesting that Hillary supporters disregard all the polls that showed their candidate far behind in NH but cling to this poll in a state and caucus race that is much harder to canvass. Below is an update on the NH recount that ought to really open your eyes. I'm an Obama guy and far as I can tell that election was all screwed up even though the hand count so far doesn't necessarily favor my candidate.

Most people are ignoring the recount because, well, I don't know why, amnesia? Because Josh and Markos said so? Did we forget Ohio?

Despite what we hear from NH Sec. of State Gardner who'd like to keep his job and WMUR who apparently get their info directly from his spokesmen instead of looking at the results there are serious discrepancies that are showing up in the NH recount.

From Bradblog take a look at Manchester Ward 5:

By Diebold By Hand
CLINTON 683 619
EDWARDS 255 217
OBAMA 404 365

There are discrepancies all over the state.

Again from Brad: "An early review of the error forms turned over from the public record request made by Election Integrity experts overseeing the counting, has revealed that in Stratham there were some 550 ballots that were not read by the op-scan at all. They were seen as blank ballots. Officials there noticed the problem, and then hand-counted some 3000 ballots after the error was discovered.

Apparently, as we've seen elsewhere, voters were given the wrong pen to use and the op-scanners did not "see" this particular type of ink."

If this had been fewer ballots than a whopping 1/6th of the total would they even have noticed?

Brad says:
"I'm told that the manufacturers of the optical-scan machines (in this case, Diebold) have estimated an expected error rate of 1% on this type of tallying device which, as noted by one of our contacts in NH, is ridiculous, if you consider that most states and counties only kick in "automatic recounts" when the margin between the two leading candidates is less than .5% or so."

The memory cards are missing. The SoS doesn't keep track of them after elections leaving that up to LHS Associates who probably took them back to MA. Election night vote printouts might be the same as what is -or was - on the memory cards or they might be...who knows? If you don't secure the memory cards immediately after the election there's no way to compare them to the paper ballots. Even if you do
that comparison could be flawed by self destructing code.

The SoS state's office says they're finding few if any problems. Almost all the votes are match up on the scanners with the ballots.

Again from Brad:

"But many more vote counts were not at all the same, ranging anywhere from 5 to 8 votes off in regular cases, across almost all candidates.

And before you say that's no big deal, we'll remind you that in 2004, had just 6 votes per precinct been registered in Ohio for John Kerry instead of George W. Bush, we'd have a different person sitting in the White House right now."

goldberry wrote on January 18, 2008 1:36 PM:

markg8: While I am a Clinton supporter, I am not at all relying on these polls. I think them very UNreliable.
BUT, I have to say that Clinton has been using the media very effectively and has come off looking very presidential in the last week. Obama, OTOH, has made a series of statements that have left me scratching my head.
I have seen him in person and I have seen him on TV and for the life of me, I can't understand what all of the supporters see in him. He was even lackluster at the personal appearance I saw him at.
Whatever this change is, he'd better define it pretty quickly because it's starting to feel more like his supporters are projecting something on to him. If I were to guess what it's all about, I might say that the root of it is the Iraq War and the fact that the so-called "establishment" Dems sold the country out. Obama is benefitting from this because he gave a speech. But he never had to vote so he's still a blank slate. Anyway, I'm very concerned that this is going to end badly. If Hillary works her ass off and snags the nomination, all of these gung-ho Obama people are going to fade away. I expect Obama to do the right thing and endorse her but I have no confidence that he will actually do so. And if he doesn't do so graciously, it could be a disaster for all of us.

LeDecider wrote on January 18, 2008 1:51 PM:

Goldberry's post needs a tagline: I'm Hillary Clinton and I support this post. Come on, man, you can be a Clinton partisan but you're just being silly. All that's missing is calling Obama a "fog of a man." I'm just as tired of people saying all Obama did was give a speech, as those who say Clinton is Bush-lite. Both views are ridiculous. Obama might win this thing, and unless you take the time to listen to him with an open mind, it's going to be a very rough year.

Liam wrote on January 18, 2008 1:52 PM:

In the last debate, Hillary was the one who refused to say if Obama and Edwards are qualified to be President. She was asked a direct question, and she would not answer it yes or no. She is the one who is creating the rift.

markg8 wrote on January 18, 2008 2:05 PM:

Goldberry you obviously haven't bothered to read anything about the man. You can either keep scratching your head or actually do a little research. Of course all supporters project their hopes and dreams on the candidate of their choice. A lot his supporters you demean have never even taken part in the process before. That accounts for a lot of the exuberance we're seeing that your candidate would be wise not to ignore.

It's smart of Hillary to finally stop treating the reporters on her plane like they're contagious. Helping them do their jobs will help her get better press. Playing flight attendent the other day was cute.

That doesn't change the fact that
she'd be a triangulating, beaten
up and beaten down president who wouldn't be able to make the vast changes this country needs due to Republican intransigence and her own backing from Wall St.

Obama isn't just trying to win, he's trying to change the whole
political calculus in this country. If it goes as planned we will be talking about
"Obama Republicans" for the next thirty years like we've heard about "Reagan Democrats" since 1980. And frankly I can't wait.

digapony wrote on January 18, 2008 2:14 PM:

Liam,

If Clinton's response had been: "If Bush's qualified to be president, then my dog's qualified, let alone Edwards and Obama." then she'd be trending upwards.

Mark

tinisoli wrote on January 18, 2008 2:25 PM:

Most of the common criticisms of Obama are based on false premises:

1. "He brought up race and then blamed it on Clinton!" That's a laugh. It was the Clintons, Bob Johnson, Andrew Young, Billy Shaheen, Andrew Cuomo, "an unnamed Clinton staffer", and Mark Penn who jammed their feet in their mouths by saying things that were either explicitly racial or obviously aimed at race-baiting. The most Obama said in response to those things was that some of those comments were "ill-advised" and unfortunate, etc. Anyone who suggests that Obama "started it" is simply lying or misinformed. The record and time line are both easy to find and confirm.

2. The "He's a great speaker, not a real leader!" meme. This is just a false choice, a bogus either/or that appeals on some intuitive level but is utterly retarded upon a moment's inspection. Clinton has of course based her entire post-Iowa campaign strategy on perpetuating this meme, but it's totally baseless. A candidate can be both a motivating speaker and the purveyor of nuanced, complex, detailed policy positions. If you think Obama has no ideas or substance behind his eloquent rhetoric, just go to his web site and read through his positions. Do some research! If you simply sit there on the couch and wait for Anderson Cooper or Chris Matthews or Brit Hume to do this homework for you, you'll be waiting forever. The horse race is everything on the boob tube; you need to put some effort into learning what these candidates are actually proposing or advocating. Their positions are actually not all that dissimilar—as we learned in the last debate—but their leadership styles and the visions they offer America are extremely different. But please don't assume that because Obama is inspiring, he must be compensating for a lack of depth or intellect or skill. Likewise, just because Hillary is more boring and stern and stiff and hectoring, don't assume that she compensates for this, or evens things out, by being some genius at getting things done. The fact that she encourages the electorate to think in these binary ways is a testament to what she thinks of our intellect. I don't blame her for being cynical and jaded, but I don't respect her for it, either. Nor am I impressed by her battle scars from the Starr/Gingrich years.

3. "He praised Ronald Reagan". I watched Tucker Carlson and Pat Buchanan spin that video clip nicely last night, all the while ignoring the fact that what Obama was actually saying was that Ronald Reagan had been a transformational figure, for a variety of reasons. This has been pointed out already by other commenters, but it bears keeping in mind as the media plays with this new meme for a few days and Obama's candidates figure out how to make it work for them.

A.W. wrote on January 18, 2008 2:37 PM:

HERE IS A QUESTION I WOULD LIKE ANSWERED

I am trying to decide who to vote for and I have a question that will help me decide. I know Clinton says she has experience and Sen. Obama's response is that he has something more important, good judgment. I was reading an article in Forbes magazine that made me think Obama is right. The article is: http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/16/commentary/birger_clinton.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008011617

To me the article suggests that Sen. Clinton's plan on the mortgage mess could only hurt the economy worse. I had suspected that her new plan was pandering to voters caught in the housing mess but do you think it true that her plan would undermine the housing market further?

AJM wrote on January 18, 2008 2:47 PM:

Obama is so sure that he is going to 'change the paradigm' that he has taken an election that we should not have been able to lose and split two constituencies to the point where it may well damage Democratic chances in the fall.

I am not interested is seing that level of arrogance and risk-taking in the Oval Office.

SOH wrote on January 18, 2008 2:59 PM:

Hey, AJM:

You're accusing Obama of being an excellent candidate. How, exactly, does having another excellent candidate in the field hamper the Dems chances in the general election? To the contrary, doesn't another excellent candidate actually strengthen those chances, no matter who gains the Dem nomination?

Also, please explain, if you can/would, how running for president makes Obama more arrogant and/or a greater risk-taker than any of the other candidates?

SOH

ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 3:01 PM:

I like Hillary, but I think the criticisms of Obama for the Reagan thing are off base. Anyone who doesn't think Reagan changed the politcal landscape couldn't have been around then. He was part of the movement that made "liberal" a dirty word, and put the Dems on the defensive for many years. And to give the devil his due, he did project a sense of optimism that the country needed at the time. I think a large part of the President's role is as communicator in chief, and Reagan was a master at it, as was Clinton. Look at Bush's first address to the nation the night of 9/11. He looked like a scared rabbit, and mumbled about "the children". I've always maintained that either Reagan or Clinton would have had the people of the US ready to run through a wall to get at the people who did this.

Regarding Reagan in general, it's important for Clinton supporters to remember what I'm always lecturing Obama supporters about: it's not necessary to have a red faced hatred for everyone you oppose politically.

And tinisoli, you point to comments by all sorts of Clinton surrogates and supporters, then let the Obama campaign off the hook because Obama himself hasn't made inflammatory statements. I think if you look at the record, Hillary hasn't made any racially inflammatory statements, either. If you're going to make Hillary responsible for everything her supporters have said, the same goes for Obama. Right now (from what I read), the Culinary Union is running ads in Nevada saying Hillary is disrespecting Latinos. Does this not qualify as racially inflammatory? And this isn't the only example of Obama supporters fanning the flames.

Anonymous wrote on January 18, 2008 3:14 PM:

So AJM, you're saying that Her Inevitableness showed no signs of arrogance in the last couple of weeks, let alone the last year?

ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 3:36 PM:

I actually don't think that Obama has done anything to divide the party. He certainly has as much right to run for the nomination as anyone else, and would make a great candidate in the general. The Nevada debate was very heartening to me, because I had been quite depressed in the previous couple of weeks, watching the party tear itself apart. After that debate, I am convinced that we have three great candidates, which is three more than the Republicans.

I just finally decided to support Hillary this week, and one of the things that tipped the scales for me was Obama's supporters. I shouldn't even bother saying this, because no Obama supporter will admit it, but the comments directed by his supporters toward Hillary are incredibly more vicious than those directed by her supporters at Obama. I also see a lot of Obama supporters claiming they won't vote, or will even vote for McCain, if Hillary is elected. I don't recall seeing a single comment (as in, not one) from a Hillary supporter saying they won't vote for Obama. That says something to me about who is more interested in party unity. I'm not talking about the supposed use of "code words" by Hillary's camp, or bringing up topics that will remind voters about negative things about Obama. I'm talking about out and out viciousness, including everything from judging how she should have conducted her marriage, to claiming that evry single move she makes is calculated, she has no emotions, she's a conniving bitch, she's arrogant, she's "a stealth Neo-Con," etc. There is literally no difference between these comments and what the Republicans say about her. Do we really need to do the Republicans' work for them?

As I've said before, I attribute much of this to the fact that Obama has brought in a lot of voters who are new to the process, and don't understand that you don't have to hate the opponent, particularly in a primary. I have no doubt that Obama will move quickly to support Hillary should she get the nomination, and Hillary will do the same should Obama win. I only wish Obama's supporters were as sophisticated in how things work.

By the way, my secondary reason for not going with Obama is his decision to blame my generation (talk about a broad brush) for the problems in this country. Pitting generations against each other is not exactly what I would call being a uniter.

ChrisO wrote on January 18, 2008 3:38 PM:

In response to anonymous, perhaps you could provide some examples of Clinton's "arrogance"? This is one of those words that gets thrown around, usually without a single example accompanying it.

SOH wrote on January 18, 2008 3:48 PM:

I just finally decided to support Hillary this week, and one of the things that tipped the scales for me was Obama's supporters.

ChrisO, in a general election would you apply the same criteria for selecting the next president? E.g., if McCain's supporters are deemed less vituperative, would you vote for McCain? Or, say, Bloomberg (should he run), or Nader? Would anything a Hillary supporter say/do turn you off of her candidacy? Or are sweeping generalizations the domain solely of the other guy's candidate?

lestatdelc wrote on January 18, 2008 3:49 PM:

Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 18, 2008 9:46 AM:

...but Obama praised Reagan and his policies

Liar. He specifically said he did not agree with Reagan from a policy perspective.

Post a comment

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