Post Iowa NH Rasmussen Poll: Obama 37%- Hillary-27%- Edwards-19%

[Joe the Revelator]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

[MadBadger]

1. Yea!!!!

Gobama!

[skipos]

2. Good. Now Edwards needs to get above Hillary. nt

[Dems Will Win]

86. If he doesn't, he should drop out and endorse Obama

How much Cash on Hand does he have right now?

[Laelth]

100. Not enough.

While I would prefer Edwards/Obama, looks like I'll have to settle for Obama/Edwards. Obama has incredible momentum. Absent a "Dean scream" media event, he wins the nomination if he holds on to win New Hampshire.

imho

-Laelth

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Wow...

Just... wow.

[iamjoy]

4. Frickin' Sheep

what the heck is wrong with a competitive primary that is not a two person race or a race decided before half the states have had a chance to vote?

[thesubstanceofdreams]

5. Expected numbers

This is far from decided though.

[Joe the Revelator]

7. Keep spinning

Hillary didn't expect a ten point deficit.

[thesubstanceofdreams]

11. They are logical for me

A substantial Iowa bump for Obama was widely predicted, including by hillary supporters. The polls were close even before Iowa.

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. Which way will they move now is the question

I expected Obama would win NH if he won Iowa, it was close there already and he had momentum. In 2004 Dean took a big hit in NH polls right after Iowa and then regained some of his lost ground a week later in the actual voting. Obama will win New Hampshire, the question now is will his momentum keep building up until the actual vote, or do these numbers (assuming they are accurate) reflect the high water mark bump he got from NH in the immediate afterglow of a sound victory and immensely positive following day press coverage which that brought him?

[Quixote1818]

6. Awesome! nt

[Colobo]

8. Oh shit! I love it!

[jefferson_dem]

9. Wow.

Even better than I could have dreamed! :wow:

[Quixote1818]

10. I think people have decided they don't want to take a chance on Hillary

They worry she can be beat. I really don't think she has much of a chance now.

[Colobo]

12. People want Obama. America wants him.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[smoogatz]

47. A shrill?

What dat?

[NYCGirl]

49. I think it's something like a "shill" in quasi-journalist speak.

:rofl:

Good thing journalists have copy editors!

[Kahuna]

58. Must be like "spill":...

when our <cough> un-shrill <cough> "journalist" meant "spiel." Consider the source. :eyes:

[Arugula Latte]

65. But let me guess. Someone who speaks for your candidate is probably a

passionate, committed participant in the democratic process, right?

[Sulawesi]

77. Wow, he/she is an enthusiastic former republican that is on our side and backing a great candidate..

[smoogatz]

54. I want Al Gore.

But I'd settle for Obama. Or Edwards, who would make a hell of a good AG, if it came to that.

[LordJFT]

81. yea because if we nominate her we'd be rolling the dice :rofl:

[ellisonz]

97. Voting for Hillary is like rolling the dice.

[bunnies]

13. NH has always been Obamas to lose due to our indy bloc.

These numbers dont surprise me at all. Im more surprised they werent like this sooner.

[GodlessBiker]

23. I think people wanted to be reassured that he could win one. Now that he has...

[SaveElmer]

14. Good numbers for Obama...

Not entirely surprising after Iowa...will see if campaigning over the next 3 days has any effect...and if these numbers are borne out in the other polling that is taking place...

[TwilightGardener]

16. Awesome. Totally upends the race.

[jpak]

17. 37+27=64 100-64=....36???? For Edwards???

:shrug:

[MadBadger]

19. There is also Richardson/Kucinich/and probably an undecided category.

[Colobo]

No, 19% for JE

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

[FogerRox]

52. I wish but no

[Dawgs]

84. Why not 27+19=46, 100-46=54 for Obama???

or, 37+19=56, 100-56=44 for Hillary???

[thesubstanceofdreams]

18. It's official (link)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

Edwards at 19%

[MadBadger]

25. These numbers are phenomenal for Obama

All the numbers.

[suston96]

20. All of a sudden Rasmussen is a good pollster?

You people are too funny....

[Colobo]

21. No, what is funny is how polls are spinned when Obama's ahead

DMR poll, now this one... :)

[Joe the Revelator]

22. Its the first post Iowa thread.

Keep trying.

[Zynx]

24. Diss him all you want. His numbers in 2006 were dead on.

I know his 2000 numbers were terrible when he was Fox's favorite pollster, but he changed his methodology.

[suston96]

29. I don't diss pollsters. I use averaged polls for trends and never as predicters..

..like no one expected poll numbers to change after Iowa.

[Joe the Revelator]

32. Who cares if people expected a change in polls or not?

The thing is, this is the worst case Senario for Clinton and Edwards

[thesubstanceofdreams]

26. Obama leads among independents AND democrats

By 5% among democrats and by 16% among independents.

[LVZ]

42. self delete - wrong place in thread

[SaveElmer]

27. Good to see no bounce for Edwards...

Despite his attempt to ride Obama's coattails into contention...

[surfermaw]

31. With out someone like Edwards in the GE..obama is gone

[SaveElmer]

34. Not sure if I understand...

Are you saying Edwards is the only candidate that can win the GE

[Adelante]

53. He sure is working it, Elmer

It's too bad he can be convincing with his bullshit line of patter :crazy:

[surfermaw]

28. Last evening Novack, said he thought Edwards would do well

Only encouragement coming from CNN...

[Azathoth]

30. Holy shit

:bounce: :bounce:

[JVS]

33. yeeeehhhhaaaawww!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

35. Wasn't Edwards below Hillary Clinton in IOWA polls? I don't remember. nt

[thesubstanceofdreams]

36. Polls were all over the place

Except for DMR, most polls anticipated a very close race among the 3 candidates, and Edwards was even leading some.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

Yeah I think so. Polls are often way wrong. Let's see what happens.....

... either way I think it's GREAT that the people are SPEAKING OUT against power, corporations and the rich! And they are speaking with their votes!

[IowaGuy]

99. depended on the poll......

pretty much the last 2 weeks or so had all 3 of them within the margin of error for each other, virtually a tie. To those of us on the ground, it had been obvious for awhile that Hill was not going to win the caucus. Edwards supporters would show up for certain...the only question was if Obamas would....he was either going to fall on his face (like Dean in the 2004 caucus) or win spectacurlarly. He had a potential higher high and a potential lower low than the others.

[Hope And Change]

38. Gobama 08!

:bounce:

[mckeown1128]

39. WOW!!! GOBAMA

What is really interesting is the meat of the polling.

Eighty percent (80%) of Obama voters say they are certain they will vote for him. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Clinton voters say the same along with 64% of Edwards supporters.

Eighty-five percent (85%) of Likely Primary Voters have a favorable opinion of Obama. Seventy-eight percent (78%) say the same about Edwards and 69% offer a positive assessment of Clinton.

Obama is seen as the most electable Democratic candidate. Eighty-seven percent (87%) believe he would be at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. Seventy-six percent (76%) say the same about Clinton and 75% think Edwards would have a chance. Fifty-one percent (51%) of the Likely Democratic Primary Voters believe Obama would be Very Likely to win. Just 38% have such confidence in Clinton.

I mean ....WOW:wow: I hope this isn't just a fluke.

[Colobo]

40. "Can you feel it? Can you feel it?"

[MadBadger]

41. I'm feelin kind of Fired up.

And maybe just a little Ready to Go.

[FrenchieCat]

85. Well hang on!

[Sparkly]

43. Exactly why the "NH voters are independent-minded" myth is a MYTH!

They "me too" Iowa. (Nothing against Obama -- I'm still pissed that they did it in 2004. Nothing against Kerry.)

[bunnies]

46. uhm. Obama IS the candidate that independent voters like.

We "me too" Iowa? Yeah.. twice in 30 years?

[Sparkly]

51. I can't recall the Democratic vote going against Iowa since 1992?

I may be wrong.

[maxanne]

48. horse hockey

Your resentment against NH is getting the better of any good sense you may possess.

Since a many as 60% of NH voters are reporting being undecided, anything could happen.

You may return to your scheduled bile spewing program.

[Sparkly]

55. That may be true.

I just don't like a process that has the whole thing decided by a tiny fraction of voters, in Iowa.

I'm fine with Obama. I was fine with Kerry. But I'd like to see an actual race that involves a lot of other states and a lot of other voters. When NH changes to go along with Iowa (as is happening again, it seems), then the next tier changes to go along with Iowa and NH, it's over before it began.

At least NH should stop representing itself as independent and not influenced by Iowa. It may be true for some, but not for many.

[maxanne]

61. given

that you don't live here, have probably never even been here, and your views are shaped by what you read in mainstream media - I'm thinking you aren't qualified to speak as to whether NH is independent or not.

There are some very real, and very important differences between NH and Iowa.

NH isn't full of evangelical Christians.

NH does have a fair sized libertarian leaning presence.

NH is a PRIMARY state. We do not stand in corners shouting and horse trading our votes. We vote, secretly, on paper ballots. All NH elections are required to be done on paper ballots.

The candidates who were marginalized in the Iowa caucus will do better in NH.

The supporters of the candidates who dropped after Iowa are up for grabs. Where they go is anyone's guess.

I understand that there is great resentment about the primary process, and much of it is aimed at NH for having the first in the nation primary.
Be careful what you wish for. Changing the primary system to include bigger states guarantees that only corporate sponsored candidates that can
afford huge campaigns and media buys will be the result.

That said - the whole primary/election process goes on much too long. We need some real reform. BUT - that won't happen if all we get are corporate funded candidates.

[Sparkly]

64. I'm just responding to facts

I'm responding to measurable shifts in NH pre-Iowa and post-Iowa. The one thing I don't know is what will happen on Tuesday, since I can't tell the future; but it's looking like another "me too."

You see the primaries as going on too long; I see them as over with too soon.

I haven't brought up any changes to the primary process (except to say I wish NH really were all as independent as the claims say). But including "bigger states" isn't the only way it could be changed.

[maxanne]

68. you are responding to polls

polls are not facts. Polls only reflect the views of those who have land lines and listed phone numbers. A generation of young people are not represented in those polls.
Some of the polls are deeply flawed. I've been called by pollsters who only want to give me choices of certain candidates, not all of them

Any polling done in NH by Andy Smith at UNH is suspect. He was so wrong in November of 2006, I can't believe anyone takes him seriously any longer.

You are unwilling to listen to any information about the reality of NH. I'm sorry about that.

Enjoy your preconceived notions. I suspect there will be some surprises for you on Tuesday.

[Sparkly]

70. Dang -- don't take it personally.

I'm willing to listen to anything!

Yes, I'm responding to polls, and past elections. And yes, as I said, I don't know what's going to happen on Tuesday.

I don't know what else to say about "the reality of New Hampshire." :shrug:

[maxanne]

78. try looking at the 2006 election

in 2006, NH went from being a red state to a blue state.

In 2006, NH voted out two incumbent GOP Congressman (one had been in office for 12 years, the other for 4 years) and replaced them with Democrats.
In CD 1, the winner was a no-name grassroots candidate named Carol Shea-Porter. CSP beat the 2 term GOP incumbent, with less than a quarter of a million
dollars. She did it with no initial help from the Democratic Party establishment. The DCCC put a lot of money and support into a different primary candidate.
No one had ever heard of her - but she won, because of a powerful grassroots candidacy. The other Dem beat the 12 year incumbent - and raised more money than
any Dem ever has in NH.

Both remain very popular.

In 2006, the Democrats took control of the NH state senate. We retained the governor's seat. Most interestingly, the Democrats took control of the NH House for the first time since the Civl War. For over 150 years the NH House was controlled by the GOP. The Democrats took control with a huge margin.

NH is the fastest growing New England state. We may still look very white on the surface, but that is changing fast. Over 70 languages are spoken in the schools of our largest city.

The 2006 elections should indicate that there have been big changes here - and that anything can happen. This ain't Iowa. This ain't the same NH that voted for Pat Buchanan or John McCain.

That's my final lesson in the reality of NH.

[Sparkly]

98. What's any of that got to do with NH's tendency to shift dramatically after Iowa's caucuses? nt

[Tactical Progressive]

91. That all sounds like what we've seen in NH over the years

I don't think you've given us much inside scoop we didn't already know, whether we've been "qualified" to speak about New Hampshire or not.

And of all of it, the one thing that is most true, and disappointing, is the whole 'libertarian' streak.

Libertarians deserve little respect if any from progressives. They are basically Publicans who can't quite buy into the whole ugly mess, but still more than enough of the really bad underlying economic concepts to make up a cult of ideological crackpots that does *plenty* to help sell this country down the right-wing toilet. I'll grant that New Hampshire's libertarian streak seems somewhat less assholish than the libertarian community at large - kind of an irascible independence that can't quite make up its mind on anything and so *settles* on a label of libertarianism - but still, it's nothing to be proud of.

I'm hoping that one other aspect of New Hampshire voters that has always come through to me, but you didn't mention - a certain, almost pained cynicism - sees through Obama's empty preachery speechifying. But I'm not counting on it.

[LVZ]

44. poll image

[ananda]

45. If Obama wins..

I hate to have to be forced to vote for
a corporate/religonist candidate..

but I sure can't vote for a Reep.

So I'd hold my nose and vote for Obama
if I had to.

I tell you what, though.. I'm getting very
tired or corporate stench.

[smoogatz]

50. With the exception of Bernie Sanders, Obama's probably the most progressive

sitting U.S. senator. I'll take that in a heartbeat.

On edit: I'd have to put Russ Feingold slightly higher on the progressive meter, too. Sorry to forget you, Russ.

[Cameron27]

56. I don't know how you're rating him,

but his voting record is pretty much the same as Clinton's.

[smoogatz]

59. You mean since 2005?

After the IWR and the Patriot Act? And with the obvious exception of Hillary's yea vote on Lieberman-Kyl? Yeah, except for those small disparities, they're pretty similar. Sheesh.

[Tactical Progressive]

90. Yeah, if you count not being present and voting "present"

[cali]

57. Actually, you'd have to add Boxer

and Kennedy and Leahy, at the very least. Accomplishment over the years does count.

[smoogatz]

60. Boxer?

Do I have to have to?

[Zynx]

72. Obama plays the religion thing well, but he really isn't.

I just don't see a religious nut in Obama.

[IndianaGreen]

62. Rasmussen's numbers were way off the mark in Iowa. Why should I believe their NH's numbers?

What say you folks in the Granite State?

[MadBadger]

63. How were Rasmussen's numbers way off the mark in Iowa?

When was their last Iowa Poll?

[usregimechange]

67. As I recall they showed movement toward Obama

[Perky]

75. Iowa was harder to guage becauc of the caucus model

I would thinkNH would be easier to poll because there are few variables.

[usregimechange]

66. The link is dead, anyone verifiy this? I've been waiting for post IA NH poll

[MadBadger]

71. Real Clear Politics has figured it into their average and put it on the front page

http://realclearpolitics.com/

[Flabbergasted]

73. Rasmussen is down for me too.

[Egnever]

69. Lord let this be true

I think ill probably piss myself if he pulls this thing off.

[Scurrilous]

74. K & R

:kick:

[sampsonblk]

76. Now THAT's a bump!

Unbelievable!

[Anouka]

79. We'll see. It would be phenomenal if it's true.

But we'll see what happens when everything is said and done.

If he does win, what happens with the superdelegate situation?

[babylonsister]

80. I don't trust rasmussen, but if this is true, it's incredible. Gobama! nt

[annie1]

82. fk. how depressing. oh well. i guess if that's what the people want. :(

[Major Hogwash]

83. When Obama wins NH, will Hiilary claim she was never the front runner again?

I can't believe she thinks the American electorate is that stupid.

She was the front runner all summer long, yet after she loses in Iowa, she claims that she was never the front runner!?

Gimme a break!

By the way, it's the 10th anniversary of the Lewinsky scandal - congratulations, Hillary!

You said in 1992 that you weren't like that song that Tammy Wynette sung and that you weren't just a woman "who would stand by your man"!

Looks to me like you are "standing by your man" now.

Guess what, Hillary?
I like Tammy Wynette and I used to listen to her records all the fuckin' time!

[Jai4WKC08]

87. When did she claim she wasn't the front-runner?

She was never strong in Iowa, unless you go back to the very early race when only she and Edwards had name recognition. But I have never heard her say anything about not being in front overall.

I guess truth isn't important when you're slinging mud at a Clinton.

[loveangelc]

88. GOD I HOPE THIS IS RIGHT

[Beacool]

89. I think that Obama will win in NH because of the Independents.

I also think that he'll win in SC, but I'm sure that Hillary will eventually prevail and win the nomination. We'll see how things turn out on Feb. 5th.

[David Zephyr]

92. The earth quaked in Iowa. Obama is the one.

:bounce:

[Tactical Progressive]

94. The One Empty Suit

Whose grandiose speechifying is - how did Shakespeare put it - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".

[David Zephyr]

95. I'm saving a good seat on Obama's train for you, TP.

You will be welcomed when you come over.

[Tactical Progressive]

96. Well thanks David

That's very gracious of you.

We'll hold your place too.

[ButterflyBlood]

93. Woohoo! Death to corporatism! Destroy the DLC candidate!

Go Obama!