Poll: Clinton gets significant boost over Obama

[onehandle]

Source: CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, has increased her lead over the Democratic field in the race for the presidential nomination, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll released Monday afternoon.

In the past month, Clinton's support among Democrats rose to 38 percent from 30 percent, while support for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, dropped by two percentage points to 24 percent, according to the poll taken this past weekend. Former Vice President Al Gore continues to draw strong support even though he has not announced plans to seek his party's nomination. Gore and former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, each received 12 percent.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/

[rodeodance]

1. interesting. very interesting.

[ohio2007]

2. She spoke in Cleveland Ohio recently

...nobody showed up actually.
Ok maybe 100 but the rest were the family of the HS kids and

...the media.

[still_one]

3. Let's analyze this:

Clinton 38%
Obama 24%
Gore 12%
Edwards 12%
Richardson 5%
Biden 2%
Dodd 2%
Kucinich 1%
Gravel *No opinion 6%

Note they have Gore listed as a candidate, and he isn't even running, that makes this poll suspect in my view. In my view you can group the Obama, Gore?????, and Edwards together as the same block, because eventually those will unite behind one candidate, which I don't believe will be Hillary. That candidate would then have 48%.

Giving the other remaining percentage to Clinton would give her 47%.

The Kucinich and no opinion/Gravel group, 7%, I will leave out

That means as the primaries get closer the two top candidates today would be Clinton with 47%, and candidate X with 48%.

I think it is still anyones guess who will actually be the Democratic nominee, but the way they spin it would lead one to think otherwise. Then again these were the same MEDIA PEOPLE WHO helped lead us into Iraq

[merwin]

8. I think you're making a pretty big leap that everyone who would vote Gore

would be behind Obama, and not anyone else.

I personally would vote for Gore if he were running... but in the absence of Gore, I'm leaning towards Clinton.

[still_one]

10. The reason I am making that leap is because I believe the IWR vote is a big deal

that is a main point of Obama's campaign, and if Gore endorsed Dean, who also thought the war was a big deal, I would bet dollars to donuts he would endorse someone who voted against the IWR before someone who did

This is all pure speculation of course, and we are both just expressing our views

In the end I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is, but as you can probably ascertain, I am not thrilled at all by Hillary, or the Bill for that matter

[Honeycombe8]

17. Hmmm. I'd vote for Gore....

because of the environmental issue. If Gore isn't running (as he doesn't seem to be), then I would vote for....I don't know. Haven't decided yet.

Partly depends on environmental stance (Clinton doesn't mention that on her website), who Sharpton endorses (I will NOT be inclined to vote for whoever Sharpton endorses), on the IW stance and prior vote, and on illegal immigration (I want something done about the border and the continuing influx...not sure about what to do about the illegals already here).

As you can see, who exactly I'd vote for in Gore's absence is up in the air. But I think you're right about a lot of people...they'll probably vote for Obama mainly. But not all of them.

[still_one]

24. I guess I am in a very similar vote as you, I sure would like Gore, but it isn't going to happen

I am also no fan of Sharpton, but if you recall he eventually did endorse Kerry so that in itself doesn't seem like a good criteria

Right now I am inclined toward Obama, but Edwards sure seems to be saying the right stuff in my view.

Though Hillary isn't my first choice, if she did win the nomination, and then go on to win the general election, that right wing republicans would go bonkers, and that in itself would make my day, after what they have done to the country the past six years

[Honeycombe8]

34. Ha! LOL....making the republicans go bonkers....

I hadn't thought of that as a reason to vote for HLC, but it is a good one.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

9. Corporate media will do whatever they can to see that...

...Hillary is the Dem nominee. She's the one Neocons think they can beat.

[still_one]

11. I believe the media would like to see Hillary, but not for the reason you think

I think it is because she brings more controversy to the table

The media is worthless anyway. There big issues are American Idol and Brintney Spears

The most important thing is WHOEVER the nominee is, we should do whatever we can to see we take back all three branches of government. The stakes are too high not to

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

15. I certainly agree that she brings more controversy.

I could be wrong, but I believe the Neocons are banking on her to reinvigorate the hate mongering base.

[still_one]

12. I believe the media would like to see Hillary, but not for the reason you think

I think it is because she brings more controversy to the table

The media is worthless anyway. There big issues are American Idol and Brintney Spears

The most important thing is WHOEVER the nominee is, we should do whatever we can to see we take back all three branches of government. The stakes are too high not to

[melm00se]

4. 7 months

7 months until the 1st presidential primary and folks are watching polls like a stockbroker watches the ups and downs of the stock market.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

27. The way I see it it's their hobby

Mine is watching them watch the polls. Fascinating behavior that, simply fascinating.

[Flatulo]

5. I'm hoping Obama can close the gap...

When I hear him speak I am inspired. When I hear Clinton speak... well, not so much.

[aquart]

6. Inspired? To do what? Vote for him? THEN what?

I don't want to be inspired. I want to hire someone who can do the job and not need indicting. Talking about being inspired makes me feel ill. THIS IS AN ELECTION NOT A RELIGION.

[AliceWonderland]

14. I wish I could recommend a post.

"I want to hire someone who can do the job and not need indicting." Yep, pretty much. I don't want concepts or mojo or rock stars or focus groups or coronations. I want someone who will lead the executive branch of government competently, addressing issues that need to be addressed. No fireworks needed.

And for crying out loud, this is so early in the game, we have plenty of time to talk about **all** the candidates and their positions/policies.

[never cry wolf]

19. I have just the article for you

as a matter of fact, it echoes your post... please peruse:

All that said, though, I can't imagine why we're talking about this stuff when we haven't even had the 2006 elections yet. There are a number of people I could imagine getting behind, and I'll decide which of them to go for when the election is closer, and the question a bit less hypothetical. But I do want to add one little data point while people are talking about him, because it's something I haven't seen people say. And it's this: a lot of people are going on about how Obama has not sponsored legislation on any of the Vital Issues Of The Day. Personally, I think that he'd have to be delusional to introduce, say, his own solution to the health insurance crisis: no bill on such a topic introduced by a freshman senator from the minority party would have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding, and the only reason to introduce one would be to grandstand. For that reason, I think that his failure to do so tends to speak well of him.

(Besides, consider how many Senators must have been watching for any hint of self-importance when Obama arrived in the Senate, given the press he had coming in; how many of them would have had to have been waiting for any sign that he was thinking: here am I, the wondrous Barack Obama, ready to set the Senate straight! The fact that he seems to have disarmed most of them is, I think, an achievement in its own right; it would have been impossible had he introduced his own comprehensive anti-poverty program, or something.)

But I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn't wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.

His legislation is often proposed with Republican co-sponsorship, which brings me to another point: he is bipartisan in a good way. According to me, bad bipartisanship is the kind practiced by Joe Lieberman. Bad bipartisans are so eager to establish credentials for moderation and reasonableness that they go out of their way to criticize their (supposed) ideological allies and praise their (supposed) opponents. They also compromise on principle, and when their opponents don't reciprocate, they compromise some more, until over time their positions become indistinguishable from those on the other side.

This isn't what Obama does. Obama tries to find people, both Democrats and Republicans, who actually care about a particular issue enough to try to get the policy right, and then he works with them. This does not involve compromising on principle. It does, however, involve preferring getting legislation passed to having a spectacular battle. (This is especially true when one is in the minority party, especially in this Senate: the chances that Obama's bills will actually become law increase dramatically when he has Republican co-sponsors.)

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

[never cry wolf]

18. So, what do you want in a candidate?

You don't want to be inspired and just want someone who will not be indicted? (I admit I may be confused, no language nazi here.)

[aquart]

20. I'm not looking for someone to worship and adore.

We have humongous tasks ahead of us. And no money. I want someone who knows how to make democracy function. WHICH CANNOT BE DONE IN A STATE OF GRACE. A good president has to make deals with the devil every hour of every day and has to know which devil is the better deal for the American people...not so easy to decide. Which is why we have oversight. But we are about to have a huge Democratic majority AND a Democratic president.

The last thing I ever want to see is the Democratic equivalent of Bushies running my government. I want ALL the loyalty to be to the constitution and to the people, ALL the people, of the United States. Which means NO cult of personality.

I am profoundly uneasy at the idolatry that greets Obama and the loathing that greets Hillary here. They are both smart people. Hillary is the more practiced schemer, but I see a good future for Obama. I don't for a second believe that all of this just happened to happen to him. They are both driven, both focused. Obama wasn't in the Senate for some of the crappy votes that snared Hillary and Edwards. This gives his supporters the opportunity to canonize him for what he was never asked to do. Have fun with that. If you wrap him in a golden light you are going to be so disappointed later.

If we elect someone we idolize, that gives us the excuse to slack off, like George's supporters did, and not watch our choice like the all-seeing eyes we must be in a democracy. Our current president has too much power. I don't hear any plan to give less to the next Dem in office.

What do YOU plan to do when your choice doesn't do things your way?

[never cry wolf]

25. I wrap no one in any golden light, it is not idolatry in the least

The man has principals, strongly progressive principals that have been demonstrated throughout his life history by his actions. After graduation with an undergrad ivy league degree he took a low paying job as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. After a few years he went back to law school at Harvard and became the first black president of the Law review and graduated Cum Laude and was arguably THE top recruit in the nation. He literally had hundreds of offers and instead opted to return to the south side to work for a relatively nondescript civil rights law firm and again do community organizing. He worked on voter registration and signed up an unprecedented 100,000 new voters for the 1992 election. This is all long before he entered politics himself. No, he was not in the Senate for those crappy votes. However, he was in the Federal Plaza in Chicago at an anti-war demonstration and spoke strongly against it. He was also interviewed on local television prior to the war and correctly predicted what the problems would be, probably long before you knew the difference between Shite, Sunni & Kurd.

It is not idolatry in the least, it is respect for the substance of the man. Just because someone has "charisma" does not mean that they are all hype. To in ANY way compare Obama and his supporters to the bushies and bushites is completely ignorant and frankly insulting.

[Nedsdag]

26. Undecided.

But I'm distressed at your post about not being inspired. Unfortunately, that is what gets people to the polls. Sure policy helps but you need a certain oomph to get people to vote.

[Arugula Latte]

29. When I hear Clinton speak I'm inspired ... to change the channel. nt

[Raine]

35. You're telling me...

I can't tolerate her.

[happygoluckytoyou]

7. GO

Gore / Obama would be AWESOME....

First W would walk out of the whitehouse and the average iq in the place would go up
Then Gore-Obama would walk in and the iq would continue to rise

I "may" back Hillary if she wins the nomination, but it would make me check out who is the GOP offering.

If Gore Obama Edwards is on the ticket...no question they get my vote

AND with Obama/Edwards in the backseat, we may find 16 years of support for the REAL americans


------what is the difference between the tainted salmon from WALMART and WOLFOWITZ ?
----one is a crap eating bottom feeder.... and the other is a fish

[Patsy Stone]

13. Obama and Edwards beat Hillary among Republicans

so the Democrats like Hillary the most, and the Republicans like her the least. That's not a winning combination.

Hillary has to sell more Republicans and Obama has to sell more Democrats, which is much easier. They both have some work to do.

[aquart]

21. We cannot make our choice based on the Republicans.

If our candidate doesn't offer what WE want, US, not THEM, what the hell good will he/she be? Oh, goody, we got someone Republicans will vote for. EXCUSE ME?

I plan to vote in the primary based solely on what I want.

[Patsy Stone]

28. Bully for you.

However, a person wins an election based on getting the most votes, not just your vote. If your candidate has a wider appeal, you get more votes. Not too difficult to understand. Also, a candidate with a wider appeal means less opposition to the candidate's ideas and larger coattails to bring more people from the party into the Congress. But I'm sure you knew that.

[Riverman]

16. Democratic Wash Elites are crowning Hilary,

The point was made by Howard Fineman on Tweety tongiht that with the early primaries, the Repub and Dem nominies will be selected by Feb '08 and then six months of boring the public and crating buyer's remorse. That will leave a big opening for a strong challenge from a third party candidate. Sorry, all you good progressive dems out there, but Hilary is not the best choice for the democrats 2008. She is even more conservative then Bill Clinton and in another era she would be a moderate republican, at best, kinda of like Nelson Rockefeller. No friend of progressive democrates, Green and liberal independents. If nominated I will have a very ahrd time voting for her. Likely depend on who is the Repub candidate - the country and world cannot survive another right wing corporatist. So we will see, but please - Almost anybody, but Hilary!

[Raine]

36. I agree and

if she gets the nomination there is no way I can vote for her.

[IndianaGreen]

22. However, in a head-to-head match against the GOP top tier, Hillary comes in third

behind Edwards and Obama. Hillary also has higher negatives than any of the other Democrats running for President.

[olddad56]

30. Karl Roves boys will make sure that a candidate they can beat wins the Demo primary.

I think Hillary wil be the target.

[JimDandy]

23. No Democrat I've talked to

is for Hillary, UNLESS she's the party's nominee. It's usually Obama/Edwards or Gore/Obama and every once in a while Richardson. Now, living in Utah might account for that, I don't know. What I find really interesting, though, is that my Republican friends are intrigued by Obama!

[Raine]

37. I'm in CA and I have found the same

thing so it's not just Utah. I have yet to come across anyone in real life that wants Hillary and infact no one even on the internet except a minority of people here in DU.

[JimDandy]

38. Thanks for

passing that on. I thought I was in the twilight zone seeing polls on DU indicating that she is preferred for the nomination, when nothing in reality was confirming that for me!

[jackstraw45]

31. Same "poll" gives Dumbya a 38% approval rating...TOTAL JOKE

Gallup is NOT a reliable poll producer.

[SKKY]

32. If Gore does jump in the race, I suspect many from the Hilary camp will jump ship...

[onehandle]

33. Gore would change everything.

Sadly, he's not coming in.

[brentspeak]

39. I hoping for a Edwards/Clark ticket.

[onehandle]

40. That would be a nice ticket indeed. nt