CBS Poll: Clinton leads Obama by 15...

[SaveElmer]

And this poll is DEFINITELY recent :-)

Hillary 39
Obama 24
Edwards 21

This up from an 8 point lead in the last poll....

Edwards and Hillary have gained, Obama dropped back a touch...

http://www.mydd.com/bb#4016

[ruggerson]

1. What matters is Iowa, NV, SC and NH

National polls at this stage are name recognition, by and large.

But you knew that. :)

[renie408]

2. Yep. Edwards, at least, has been concentrating on those states

and not so much on the national stage.

[Tom Joad]

3. Hillary must be defeated. No question about that.

[emilyg]

25. totally

disagree with you.

[MonkeyFunk]

56. No

The only candidate who MUST be defeated is the republican one.

[SaveElmer]

5. Well...

Hillary leads in New Hampshire, Nevada, and possibly South Carolina...

[ruggerson]

12. If I were a betting man

I'd say Edwards will take Iowa, NV and SC. And he takes second to Hillary in NH.

Polling in those states are currently all over the place, so we'll have to wait a few months for opinion to start coming into focus.

[SaveElmer]

14. Actually...

I think Edwards will take Iowa, Hillary NV and NH, and Obama SC...though narrowly

[ruggerson]

16. If your scenario is correct

super duper Tuesday, or whatever the hell they're calling it, will be very, very hard fought.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. The campaigns are not focusing on Nevada yet

That is why Nevada's polls reflect polls in states that have been neglected thus far. Once campaigning begins in NV the polls there will start to resemble polls in Iowa and NH. Whoever wins Iowa will probably carry that momentum to victory in NV.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. She Deserves To Win!

After all, she moved the ball forward on so many important issues!

For example, there was... uh... um... somebody help me out here...

[SaveElmer]

7. Help yourself my friend...

Log onto Raising Kaine Blog radio this Sunday...and take the time to look around...

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Already Done The Research

If you can't even produce evidence that your candidate has been a leader on anything at all in the Senate - then it's not likely that there's much, if anything, to see.

[SaveElmer]

13. Well I know there is...as I have researched it as well..

Take a look and the other link I gave you...

Some nice stuff there...also hunt down the Atlantic Monthly article on Hillary in the Senate...some good stuff there, even though I disagree with the conclusion of the article...

All easy to find...

ANd you did ask for people to help you out...so I am helping....

[Honeycombe8]

69. So who? Which candidate has spearheaded some key issues in the Senate? nt

[SaveElmer]

8. Here's something for you...

My friend over at Dnnkey Digest posted a nice synopsis of some of the good reasons to support Hillary, with a discussion of the many fights she has led...many under the radar...

I know you will give it a look...

http://donkeydigest.com/?p=319

[MannyGoldstein]

30. Visiting A Military Base is Leadership?

Virtually everything on that list is the bare minimum for being a Senator. Visiting a military base? Serving on a commitee? 'Fighting' for monies already promised?

Yawn.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. Wow, very weak

Can we really expect any leadership from the apostles of triangulation, though? The only things she has semi-led on is flag-burning and video games (yes, video games! We know the threat Sonic the hedgehog poses to freedom!), and those are things which the polls and focus groups obviously told her she could net a lot of points on. It was similar to Bill Clinton's "leadership" on welfare reform, where he joined hands with Newt Gingrich to screw the weakest members of society because the polls overwhelmingly favored it.

[Clarkansas]

6. Too bad.

She is a weak general election candidate.

[SaveElmer]

11. How do you know...?

General election hasn't started!!!

Bill Clinton was in third place in the polls right before the Dem convention in 1992 and had a 47% disapproval...

Al Gore had a 43% disapproval in 2000 before winning that election...

Mike Dukakis had a 20 point lead on George Bush I in 1988 coming out of the Dem convention...

Campaigning matters!

[BlueStater]

18. Bill Clinton wasn't well known back in 1992

Hillary Clinton has been in the public spotlight for 15 years and many people, me included, are sick to death of her.

[SaveElmer]

19. And very many are not...

As many of these polls obviously indicate...

[BlueStater]

22. Those polls don't mean much in a national election

Frankly, I don't know anyone who's enthusiastic about a Hillary campaign.

[SaveElmer]

24. Well I guess that is definitive...

Since you don't know any....and my parents couldn't figure out how McGovern lost cause everyone they met said the voted for him!

[Hardrada]

38. I might go to church again if Hillary is defeated!

And Edwards or Obama gets the nomination.

[SaveElmer]

39. Maybe you should go before...nt

[Hardrada]

53. No, I need proof of God's existence.

[Clarkansas]

21. You've seen the polls.

John Edwards and Barack Obama win against republicans more often, and win by larger margins.

You can cross your fingers and hope that changes, maybe it will. Can you admit that right now, she doesn't look as strong as other democrats in the general election?

[SaveElmer]

23. Well as I have shown...

They change quite frequently...probably every election...

The primary is a different animal than the General...candidates campaign differently etc...

You wouldn't suggest Democrats make their candidate on the basis of polls this far out would you?

I mean most are telling me how meaningless they are...I guess they only mean those favorable to Hillary!

[Clarkansas]

29. I

don't ask that "democrats make their candidate on the basis of polls this far out" but I ask them to consider the general election before they vote in the primary. My number one priority is not having another republican president, and I do not think Hillary is strong in that department. In fact, like most people on this board, I do not think Hillary is strong in any department, but that discussion is pointless. I don't hate Hillary like so many people do, but I don't think she has anything on any of the other candidates. She is your candidate, that's great. You prefer an unapologetic IWR voter, I don't, but I think we can agree that we don't want a republican president.

Could you answer my question from the previous post please?

[SaveElmer]

34. Yes...

In some polls she is not...but she is not far off in these...and she runs ahead in some...within MoE...which is just fine right now...

I suppose if she were in Kucinich territory or something I would think twice...but you know, the Clintons don't run for offices unless they think they have a good shot at winning....

With a 10 and 2 record...it's hard to question their political instincts

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. The Republicans will definately factor in electability

That is why they are bending over backwards to give Giuliani the benefit of the doubt on all of their sacred social issues. They know the 2008 election will be tough for them if the Democrats field a decent candidate so they want to have their strongest candidate nominated in a desperate attempt to retain the White House for four more years. We are naive if we don't do the same and field a losing candidate. If we want to lose we should at least nominate someone who stands for something like Kucinich.

[venable]

60. you seem to care more that HRC gets the nomination than that a Dem wins in 08

i get the feeling that you taunt those who say she can't win by suggesting that it doesn't matter because she'll still get the nom.

what are your feelings about a Dem, any Dem, winning the general election?

[MGKrebs]

47. Yes, if the election were held today, polls indicate that HC would not fare as well

as some other Dem candidates in the general. Fair enough?

Some interesting dynamics though:
- Edwards was out by March 3 last time. What is it that makes him a better candidate this time?
- People still don't know much about Obama. Will they like him more or less as they get to know him?
- While HC has name recognition, much of it is negative due to the right wing hate machine targeting her for the past 10 years. In most cases, candidates with high name recognition have no place to go but down in popularity, but this may not be the case with HC.

[gulliver]

9. She's the odds-on favorite to replace President Dean ...

... in Universe 42.

[Bucky]

27. Dean's mistake was not replacing Vice President Imus for his '04 reelection

[renie408]

33. ROFL!! THANK YOU!! n/t

[Poiuyt]

15. Do you think that Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-Clinton vote?

IS there an anti-Clinton faction?

[renie408]

20. I think Edwards and Obama appeal to different people. And I think that the anti-Clinton

bias runs deep and mostly on the other side. I think that Hillary might could win the nomination from Dems. And that will be the end of that. I think she, for whatever reason, raises more viciousness in repukes than Bill does. They would come out in droves to vote AGAINST her. Which I know wouldn't happen with Edwards and I don't *think* would happen with Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Edwards' Voting Record is Very Similar To Clinton's

Both voted for the first no-predatory-lender-left-behind bankruptcy bill (2001)... both voted for most job-obliterating 'free' trade agreements... and so forth.

[paulk]

45. oooh! you mean the bankruptcy bill that passed 82-18?

bad, bad, Clinton and Edwards!

btw - Clinton has voted for 3 trade agreements and against two. So, I guess that's "most", in your world. However, the biggest one, one of the one's that she voted against, CAFTA, involved multiple nations, so I would argue that she's voted against most free trade agreements. Her statements against CAFTA clearly show that she understands that NAFTA and CAFTA are not working and need to be changed.

Not that you give a shit about her real positions on these issues, since your only purpose on this board is trashing her, even if it means making things up...

[SaveElmer]

46. You can add she did NOT support the more onerous...

2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act...

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Yes, That One - What's Your Point?

Looks like 18 Senators showed leadership on that bankruptcy bill. Not Clinton or Edwards.

Mrs. Clinton was (and is) an on-the-record supporter of the biggest job-obliterating 'free' trade agreement of all - her husband's permanent most-favored-nation-status bill for China. Edwards was also a supporter. This bill is nothing but sodomy of the Middle Class for Wal-Mart et al.

re: making things up - by your own admission, I haven't. If I do make a mistake - which I see no sign of here - do call me on it, with evidence, not name-calling.

[renie408]

17. Hillary will get us killed in the GE. Jesus, can you just imagine the ads?

The GOP would come out swinging and by time they were done with her, they could run Osama Bin Ladin and he would beat her.

I am NOT talking about ability to do the job, I am talking about ability to get elected (which, BTW, you have to do before you can do the job). Hillary cannot win a general election.

[mtnsnake]

57. renie, do you know how hysterical that sounds?

Seriously. Have a little more faith. The lady knows how to fight and she knows how to play the game, too. If she gets the nod, it's the Republicans who will be in for the fight of their lives.

First Hillary has to get by Obama. I hope Obama gets the nod, but if he doesn't, I've got all the confidence in the world that Hillary Clinton will handle herself just fine in the general election. A Democrat in going into the WH in 2008. The real battle will take place before that in the Democratic Primary. Why do you think every heavyweight around is in the Democratic Primary this time? They know whoever comes out of it is likely to become President.

[renie408]

63. You think we can't be beat? What were you saying in 2003? Cause

a lot of people thought we couldn't be beat then, too. I wouldn't blow this election off. I can't imagine how we could be beat, but I couldn't imagine that then, either. Right now, people are polling on the IDEA of having a Republican vs. the IDEA of having a Democrat in the WH. Have you seen the polls which show that the majority of people prefer some 'generic' Democrat to the ones that are actually running? Another thing to remember is that BOTH candidates can say 'We are moving forward from George Bush.' A lot is going to depend on who the general public wants to move forward with. You can laugh it off all you want, but it is conceivable to me that there are a lot of people who are not going to want to go forward with Hillary Clinton.

And I wonder how many more people think it sounds 'hilarious' that you think Hillary would be able to waltz through a GE and into the White House if she wins the nomination. I hear a lot more people who think she would get beat nationwide than think she would win. And the evidence I see in my hometown makes me tend to agree with them.

[elizm]

28. If you are going to constantly tout polling info....

Should you not be concerned about THESE numbers in the general matchup?? Why would you ignore these numbers??? SO WHAT if Hillary wins the nomination....why in the world would Democrats want to nominate a candidate who can't even beat McCain for pete's sake? The REPUBLICANS don't even like McCain but will vote for him over Hillary!! I just don't get it??? Can SOMEBODY please explain it to me???

Pres '08 Time Apr 12 McCain (R) 46%, Clinton (D) 44%
Pres '08 Time Apr 12 Obama (D) 47%, McCain (R) 42%
Pres '08 Time Apr 12 Giuliani (R) 48%, Clinton (D) 43%
Pres '08 Time Apr 12 Obama (D) 45%, Giuliani (R) 45%

[SaveElmer]

31. ...

Well first of all...looks to me like Hillary is within the MoE in each of those scenarios...as is Obama...

Second, are you seriously suggesting that poll right now are predictive of final outcome...and are you suggesting supporters should base their support on that...?

I have NEVER claimed polls were predictive of final outcome...because they are not...polls typically vary widely between the primary and general election campaigns...

Mike Dukakis came out of the 1988 Dem convention with a 20 pt lead on Bush I

Bill Clinton was in third place behind Bush and Perot going into the 1992 Dem convention, with a 47% disapproval rating...

Al Gore had a disapproval of as high as 43% during the 2000 campaign...

Polls show how a candidate is doing right now...just as the score of a football game shows how a team is doing at that moment...that is all it means, and all I ever claimed it meant...

It is the responders that get all in a tizzy about them...they seem very defensive for some reason!

[elizm]

32. I am suggesting that....

...50% of voters say they WILL NOT vote for Hillary!

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/27/poll_50_would_not_vote_for_hillary

So I am just wondering how anyone can be so delusional as to think her numbers can improve???? I'm not defensive....I just get SICK at my stomach when I think that Democrats are going to nominate a candidate who CANNOT win...And would LOVE it if someone could explain WHY????

[SaveElmer]

35. ...

Well since you insisted I be honest about polling methods earlier...Interactive polls, such as this, are notoriously unpredictable, and vary wildly...

The recent Diageo poll on the other hand had her negative rating at 41%...too high right now, but she has 20 months to lower it...

Hard to see how 50% say they wouldn't vote for her, yet she tops 50% in matchups against Romney for example...

Hillary is well within plausible range in all of her numbers to conclude her shot at being President is not a long one...

And since I don't vote based on polls, I don't really care at this point. I have seen enough of the Clinton's, and have a healthy respect for their political instincts (10 victories in 12 attempts), not to worry too much about that

[elizm]

36. For one who 'doesn't vote based on polls...

..And who doesn't really care at this point....You sure do have an awful lot of threads here today based on polling. :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

37. I didn't say I didn't care...

Well I guess I did...but not like you mean it here...I don't care in that I am not concerned with some negative poll numbers...but

Like a football fan who turns to the game at halftime to check the score, and is happy at finding his team ahead...I am happy when I see evidence that Hillary's campaign is going well..

That's all it is...

Stick around for a while...I am posting them today, others will be posting tomorrow...it is a political site after all...

[snowbear]

40. When I was on here a few days ago & someone posted a poll show HRC down..

You told them polls didn't mean jack chit.

So.. do they only count when your candidate is up?

You are silly Mr. Elmer.

[SaveElmer]

41. I said no such thing...

I said what I said here...they are not predictive of outcome...and I certainly argue vociferously that they are not a good reason to decide who to support at this point...

If you can find a post where I said polls didn't mean "Jack Chit" let me see it...

[snowbear]

42. OMG...

I KNOW you didn't use the term "JACK CHIT" --- Good Grief!!!

I'm just getting my point across that you slammed the person who posted a poll showing your candidate down and indicated polls are meaningless.

Elmer.. Do you ever take a break from this place?

[SaveElmer]

43. I didn't say they were meaningless either...

In fact I say just the opposite...they are meaningful...just not as a predictor of final outcome...

Which is why I argue with those that tell me polls showing her behind a republican candidate is not a valid reason not to support her...

You know...I probably should take a break from here...but actually I own my own business so work some very strange hours...so it just seems like I am here all the time...but I assure you I am not..

[snowbear]

44. I'd go stir crazy if I was here that much..

Love DU.. but hot dayum. I'd seriously lose my marbles if I was here reading lame polls all day.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. "recent Diageo poll on the other hand had her negative rating at 41%"

Why don't you tell the whole story and point out her negative rating is about 20 points worse than every other candidate in that same poll?

[renie408]

64. STOP!! Stop with your crazy, common sense talk!! We will not have

any of that around here!

[SaveElmer]

65. Because that is not the point I am making...

When will you get it through your head that I am not supporting Hillary because of her poll numbers...I am supporting her because I think she will be the best President...

I don't need her to have the lowest negative numbers...I need her to have numbers that show she can win...she does, and in my opinion she will...

[renie408]

66. Hey, in all seriousness

I have never been able to get excited about Hillary Clinton. In a lot of ways, I find her close to our opponents. Could you offer a link that describes her positions and plans? I have been to her website, but it doesn't offer a lot of specifics.

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. Go Hillary

!

[mvd]

55. Edwards is really one to watch IMO

After Kucinich, I'm back to being undecided between Edwards and Obama. I'm not sure I can make a firm choice until later in the year at the earliest. If Hillary gets the nomination, though, I will back her 100%.

[Ethelk2044]

58. Polls Clinton has only 5 pt lead

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Obamavs.McCainRomney20070412.htm

Obama is viewed favorably by 59%, McCain by 55%, Romney by 22%. Obama’s rating is now the highest favorability of any Presidential hopeful—the first time anybody other than former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has topped the list (see summary of favorables for all Democratic and Republican Presidential candidates).

In the Democratic primary match-ups, Barack Obama now trails Hillary Clinton by just five points. As Obama put it on a recent "Late Show With David Letterman," he's not running for second place. He jocularly hinted if they were both on the same ticket, it would be Hillary Clinton in the VP slot.

[BenDavid]

59. I am doing my best to alert

all the haterizers of HRC that Obama soon will have to explain hisself and it will not be pretty....It is coming....WHAT? Remember the Connecticut Senate race of 2006. Remember that Obama supported Lieberman in the Democratic primary and when JoeMO lost and then ran as an Independent, guess who Obama campaigned for in the General....uh huh Joe Lieberman.
And guess who HRC was supporting in the General Election....YEP! The true anti-war democratic candidate Ned LaMont....Oh and I guess Obama gets a pass on this too.....Well, all I can say is be prepared and lets see how well Obama tries to wiggle out of this.....

[mckeown1128]

61. What!?

Your big beef with Obama (the presidential campaign destroying blunder) is that he supported LIE-berman in Connecticut instead of the anti-war candidate. Hillary voted for the war and has dragged her feet in trying to stop it. You would rather vote down Obama because he supported a war hawk senator(probably not for that reason) instead of Hillary who was a war hawk when the political winds were blowing in that direction. Why? really?

[Honeycombe8]

67. He did? That's bad. Really bad, IMO.

To support Lieberman was to NOT support the Democrats in that state, who elected Lamont to be the Democratic candidate.

I read that Lieberman may support a Republican candidate for Prez, and is considering changing to the Republican party.

[zulchzulu]

73. It's incorrect. Obama supported Lamont after Lieberman lost primary

The poster is lying.

[mckeown1128]

68. I decided to research your claim...

What I have found is that Obama supported Lamont in the election. Where do you get that he campaigned for Lieberman anyway???? Here is my link I would like to see your link please! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_United_States_Senate_election%2C_2006#Democratic_reaction_to_Lieberman.27s_independent_run It is down at the bottom of the page under endorsements.

[zulchzulu]

72. Welcome to DU! And nice job showing some truth!

As you mentioned, Obama supported Lamont after Lieberman lost to him.

[zulchzulu]

71. Wow. Nice lie...

Prove to me ANY links where Obama supported Lieberman after he lost to Lamont. Obama actually endorsed Lamont in October...but facts...yunno...hurt.

Nice lie! Way to go!

[wyldwolf]

62. but it's CBS... and, well... they'll think of some to discredit it.

[zulchzulu]

70. More in the poll about Favorable/Unfavorable data...

Hillary Rodham Clinton favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Hillary Rodham Clinton yet to have an opinion?
Favorable 37
Not favorable 46
Undecided 15
Haven't heard enough 3

Is your opinion of Barack Obama favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about Barack Obama yet to have an opinion?
Favorable 36
Not favorable 18
Undecided 25
Haven't heard enough 21

Is your opinion of John Edwards favorable, not favorable, undecided, or haven't you heard enough about John Edwards yet to have an opinion?
Favorable 32
Not favorable 23
Undecided 27
Haven't heard enough 17

There was no mention on margin of error that I could find, which kind of makes this poll questionable...