Clinton Maintains Large Lead Over Obama Nationally - 2007

[Logical]

This headline shows we still have hope that someone better will come along!



December 18, 2007
Clinton Maintains Large Lead Over Obama Nationally
Leads Obama by 18 points in latest poll
by Joseph Carroll
12>
PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite extensive news coverage of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's improved position in Iowa and New Hampshire recently, there has been little change in the positioning of the Democratic presidential candidates on a national level, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton continues to have a substantial lead over the group of Democrats vying to win the party's nomination for president in 2008. Obama remains a solid second, as he has been all year, with former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards continuing to hold down third place. Clinton's support improved modestly from a dip earlier this month and is nearly back to her high levels from the late summer and early fall. Obama's support has shown a gradual improvement in the past month, and has returned to its late summer/early fall levels.

[snooper2]

1. oh damn LOL

[geek tragedy]

2. To paraphrase Rick Pitino, Barack Obama is not walking through that door.

Bobby Kennedy is not walking through that door. Ted Kennedy is not walking through that door.

Who's got the talent, money and mojo to stop Clinton this time out?

[Tarheel_Dem]

4. +1. And to answer your question, NO ONE! There are no Barack Obamas waiting in the wings.

And it certainly won't be some yokel from Montana. Been there, done that!

[DonViejo]

3. What are the actual numbers of the "large lead?"...

I'm guessing they don't compare to today's reported 73% lead over here closest opponent. Whichever, she may decide not to run or, someone could surpass her.

[dsc]

5. and no link for people to check

wonder why?

[dsc]

6. I took a look it was 18

and a gallop poll. She was at 45 to his 27 meaning her level of support then was less than 3/4 of her lead now.

[magical thyme]

9. and the polls were looking at up to a dozen potential candidates, not just 3.

Given that Pres. Obama started out with just 7% in the first poll I spotted him in, and Biden running 5-8% or so, it's hard to say what her numbers would have been had there not been so many other possibilities splitting the votes.

[dsc]

10. likely not much difference

the poll at the end of 2007 may as well have been 3 people. Clinton had 45, Obama 27, and Edwards 15, with all the rest of the candidates totaling at most 10 (that is assigning a 1 percent to all of those who had so little support they didn't register). Even if you give all of those to Hillary she still had only 55 which is less than her lead is right now.

[magical thyme]

11. the beginning of 2006 is a more apt comparison, timewise

And in early 2006, Biden ran 4-8% and Obama was not showing up yet in the polls (at least on the wiki link).

Very simply, a lot can happen in 2 years. There are 4. big problems with being a front runner (and I've been an early front runner a lot of times in my life, and have learned to hate that position): 1. everybody is gunning for you. and I do mean everybody, 2. they have plenty of time to kick you over and over looking for a weakness or flaw they can exploit, 3. there is time for the death of a thousand cuts, and 4. there is no place to go but down.

[dsc]

12. I am not claiming that she is a sure winner

but a 61 point lead is both unprecedented and quite unlikely to be lost in a campaign. She basically has both her old voters and Obama's which is a pretty potent force. Unbeatable no, pretty damn hard to beat yes.

[magical thyme]

13. what we don't (and can't) know is what her lead would have been in 2006 if there

had only been her, Biden and a single rising star, because we don't know for sure how the other votes would have split.

It may not have been as overwhelming as today's numbers, but likely headed that way.

So yes, she is certainly by far the odds-on favorite today. But there is still time for a lot of things to change the outcome pretty dramatically.

[dsc]

14. actualy we do have an idea

all the previous years, and I am pretty sure they conducted some three people polls in 2006, her Edwards and biden.

[magical thyme]

16. Edwards was a former VP candidate, so not quite comparable to a 2-year senator

In 3 way polls in early 2006, Clinton runs 44%, Edwards 16% and Kerry 14%. That only accounts for 74% total, though.

[dsc]

17. but it is 26 percent who apparently didn't want her or the others for that matter

but even if you give her all of them, which I think is absurd, she is still only up by 54 not 61. In any case at most you should be proportionally assigning the other 26 which would give her a little under another 17, which puts her at 61 and leading by 40 (she would get around 61, Edwards 21)

[magical thyme]

18. agreed. That was still a pretty decent early lead...

that was wiped out by a "dark horse" candidate who appeared -- for those of us who live outside the DU/political bubble -- out of nowhere and campaigned well to her left.

In fact, it was in tracking down an Obama quote in 2008 that I first discovered DU!

[dsc]

19. One huge difference I forgot to mention

Hillary was under 50 percent in that poll. That is a massive difference. She actually ended up with a higher percentage of the primary vote than in that poll (49 vs 44) but still lost. In any multi person election in which it will eventually be winnowed to 2, there is a massive difference between being over 50 and being under 50 due to the undecided voters and the voters whose candidate drop out being likely to vote against the leader. She is way over 50 now. Any campaign manager will tell you that they would rather have a 51 to 35 lead is such a primary than a 49 to 20 lead in the same style primary.

[magical thyme]

20. Yes, I've read about the 50% tipping point.

I don't deny she has a huge advantage coming into this. I think we're all pretty aware of that. But it all could still change due to variables outside out control. We still would do well to have something resembling a good primary.

[magical thyme]

8. In 2007, she held ~20-30% lead over Pres. Obama.

the higher lead earlier in the year; he gained ground later in the year.

Obama first showed up in the polling in late 2006 with ~15%, except one poll I just spotted him in 2005 with 7%.

Note that back in 2005-2007, the poll #s were split between 7 and 11 possible candidates: John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Al Gore, along with Wesley Clark, Bill Richardson, Mark Warner, Evan Bayh, Tom Vilsak, Tim Kaine, Howard Dean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_candidates

[JoePhilly]

7. Sounds like folks need to get busy finding the next Obama then.

[Fumesucker]

15. There Can Be Only One!

[SidDithers]

21. Who's the "Obama" in your current, hopeful scenario?...nt

Sid