• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New poll shows Obama in a statistical tie with Hill

Whoozyerdaddy

Whoozyerdaddy

Lifer
Linky

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's popularity has grown among likely voters, according to a poll released Monday which suggested he was gaining on rival frontrunner Hillary Clinton.

The poll by the Rasmussen Institute predicted Obama would get 32 percent of the vote in February's primary, compared to 30 percent for Clinton, who until now has been the consistent favorite for the Democratic party.

While the report noted that it marked the first time a candidate other than Clinton came out on top, it nevertheless pointed out that Obama's percentage gain was "statistically insignificant."

In addition, the results were culled through a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey that was conducted April 23-26, with most answers given in advance of the first Democratic debate which was held Thursday, April 26.

Another poll next week would gauge the candidates' performance in the debate, the report said.

However, the survey has shown a steady decline in Clinton's support base. The same poll in March showed the New York senator and wife of former US president Bill Clinton had a 12 percent advantage over Obama.

Differences were also emerging in the demographics of the two candidates' support bases.

Obama, 45, the mixed-race Illinois senator who was born to a white American mother and a Kenyan father, leads among voters under 40, it said.

Clinton, 59, is strongest in the 65-and-older bracket.

Clinton has a two-point edge among Democrats. Obama has a nineteen-point lead among independents likely to vote in the Democratic primary, which is eight months away.

Clinton piled up 26 million dollars in campaign contributions according to campaign finance disclosures released earlier this month, while Obama came in a close second with 25 million dollars.

The nearest contender to Obama and Clinton was former senator John Edwards with 17 percent of the likely vote in the primary, which determines the Democratic candidate in the US presidential election scheduled for November 2008.

None of the other eight main Democratic contenders garnered more than three percent.
Click to expand...
Two things...

1. It's way too early to make any judgements other than Hill's goons are going to have to work a lot harder than they planned on three months ago. And if Obama's momentum continues it won't matter.

2. NOBODY cares this much about the Republican candidates. Which right now might not be such a bad thing...

Interesting how the Dem race has deteriorated to a two man race so fast.
 
Originally posted by: Shivetya
Originally posted by: WhoozyerdaddyInteresting how the Dem race has deteriorated to a two man race so fast.
Click to expand...


Nah, whats more interesting is that there still is the appearance of a race.
Click to expand...

What's even more interesting is people think she has a chance of getting the party nod. While anything can happen, I just don't see her winning. Too polarizing.
 
Originally posted by: MobileLoser
This polling agency I've never heard of before. I'll wait until ABC/WSJ/NBC/Zogby/USA Today/etc. release their polls.
Click to expand...

I would say Rasmussen is more credible than most of those listed...especially Zogby and WSJ.

I followed them entirely through the midterm elections last year and they were the most credible in polling Senate and Governor seats.
http://rasmussenreports.com/
 
Originally posted by: MobileLoser
This polling agency I've never heard of before. I'll wait until ABC/WSJ/NBC/Zogby/USA Today/etc. release their polls.
Click to expand...

Rasmussen is about as accurate as they come. Much better than any of the major media and usually more accurate than Zogby.
 
Still real early. The Clinton machine will dig up dirt on Obama and any other threat to be used at an opportune time.

Already reports of attempts to dig up dirt on Sen Fed Thmpson in case he decides to join the Republican contenders. Not sure if it is Clinton, but that is the nature of politics today. Don;t worry about ideas, just throw more dirt than the other guy.
 
Chances are one or the other one of them will be the VP for the other. Because women make up about 50% of the country and black people make up about 27% they have a good chance of winning. The problem is that they will try to appeal to too large of the population which will prevent them from making sweeping changes on important issues like social security.

Gulliani is probably their top contender. If he manages to pull the Eastern States that normally vote blue, it will be a close race. There is enough dirt on him, however, that the average voter might shy away.
 
Originally posted by: Superrock
Chances are one or the other one of them will be the VP for the other. Because women make up about 50% of the country and black people make up about 27% they have a good chance of winning. The problem is that they will try to appeal to too large of the population which will prevent them from making sweeping changes on important issues like social security.

Gulliani is probably their top contender. If he manages to pull the Eastern States that normally vote blue, it will be a close race. There is enough dirt on him, however, that the average voter might shy away.
Click to expand...

It's not the dirt that makes people shy away... It's the surprise dirt that loses you elections. Look at your front runners... Who has more dirt on them than Hill and Rudy? Everyone knows and yet, there they are.
 
Originally posted by: Superrock
Chances are one or the other one of them will be the VP for the other. Because women make up about 50% of the country and black people make up about 27% they have a good chance of winning. The problem is that they will try to appeal to too large of the population which will prevent them from making sweeping changes on important issues like social security.

Gulliani is probably their top contender. If he manages to pull the Eastern States that normally vote blue, it will be a close race. There is enough dirt on him, however, that the average voter might shy away.
Click to expand...

Because every women will vote for Hillary and every black person will vote for Obama :roll:.

I think both of them will lose favor once it gets closer to the primaries.
 
Originally posted by: dphantom
Still real early. The Clinton machine will dig up dirt on Obama and any other threat to be used at an opportune time.

Already reports of attempts to dig up dirt on Sen Fed Thmpson in case he decides to join the Republican contenders. Not sure if it is Clinton, but that is the nature of politics today. Don;t worry about ideas, just throw more dirt than the other guy.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Obama has already let the skeletons out of the closet about his past. I figure if he's admitted to using cocaine then he'd likely be straightforward about other mistakes he's made. Time will tell, but that's my prediction.
 
Originally posted by: slash196
Originally posted by: dphantom
Still real early. The Clinton machine will dig up dirt on Obama and any other threat to be used at an opportune time.

Already reports of attempts to dig up dirt on Sen Fed Thmpson in case he decides to join the Republican contenders. Not sure if it is Clinton, but that is the nature of politics today. Don;t worry about ideas, just throw more dirt than the other guy.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Obama has already let the skeletons out of the closet about his past. I figure if he's admitted to using cocaine then he'd likely be straightforward about other mistakes he's made. Time will tell, but that's my prediction.
Click to expand...

You are probably right.
 
The nearest contender to Obama and Clinton was former senator John Edwards with 17 percent of the likely vote in the primary, which determines the Democratic candidate in the US presidential election scheduled for November 2008.
Click to expand...

The Edwards "effect" could be interesting if he realizes he can't win and tries to throw his support to one or the other for some benefit.

Personally, I don't see HRC as all that interested in the VP role. But she may do it if only to be the first female VP.

I can more easily see Edwards throw his support to Obama in return for being VP or some other role. He's been out of office for sometime now and must regain some high-profile role to remain relevant in the future.

I could easily be wrong, but I sense some friction between Edwards & HRC over the whole "apologise" about the war vote thingy Edwards keeps bringing up at every opportunity.

Fern
 
It's not the dirt that makes people shy away... It's the surprise dirt that loses you elections. Look at your front runners... Who has more dirt on them than Hill and Rudy? Everyone knows and yet, there they are.
Click to expand...
Most of the dirt clinging to Guliani anchors around his marital situation, which I think many voters would overlook. Given the favorable opinion of Guliani in the NE, he probably has more of chance with blue states familiar with his achievements as mayor of NYC as opposed to the Red State Republican core.

 
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It's not the dirt that makes people shy away... It's the surprise dirt that loses you elections. Look at your front runners... Who has more dirt on them than Hill and Rudy? Everyone knows and yet, there they are.
Click to expand...
Most of the dirt clinging to Guliani anchors around his marital situation, which I think many voters would overlook. Given the favorable opinion of Guliani in the NE, he probably has more of chance with blue states familiar with his achievements as mayor of NYC as opposed to the Red State Republican core.
Click to expand...

You must not be familiar with Giuliani dirt. Granted, you cannot spell his name, either.😉

His consulting, financial services, and law firms have sketchy clients. His known associates (Kerik) have sketchy backgrounds. Aside from cleaning up the seedier areas of NYC (quite an achievement), he has few actual achievements of note. In fact, he largely received the same post-9/11 boost that GWB acquired. Neither got those boosts based on merit. Rudy managed not to choke after an unnatural disaster. That's certainly a positive characteristic in a leader but not enough to earn the top job.

And for the record, Rudy had FAMILY problems. Some can overlook a failed marriage OR two . . . but the notion that your kids are estranged . . . will not win over many 'values' voters.
 
I don't like Obama's gun control stance, but other than that I'd rather see him as president than Hilary. We're not supposed to be a monarchy, but the Bushes and Clintons seem to to like the idea of ruling families.
 
This is good for us Republicans. Let them throw mud at each other for a year, it can only help us in the long run.

Dukakis would be a good example of this happening. He was so beat up by time he got the nomination that he just sort of feel apart in the general election.

Meanwhile on the Republican side Fred Thompson appears to be getting ready to run and members of the Reagan admin are getting behind him. This would give him a HUGE boost I think. Reagan is a hero to many conservatives and if Thompson can demonstrate that he is the ?heir to the throne? you might say he could jump in late and still win it all.
 
TextThis is good for us Republicans. Let them throw mud at each other for a year, it can only help us in the long run.
Click to expand...

Reminds me of Ross Periot.Obama has way more votes than Periot did.This cannot be good for Mrs.Clinton.
 
I think they may both be done; Hillary has the Watergate reporter about to expose her real life story, and I heard an unsubstantiated rumor today that Obama's name is on that client list of that Madam that got busted, going to have to wait and see on that one though.
 
Originally posted by: Socio
I think they may both be done; Hillary has the Watergate reporter about to expose her real life story, and I heard an unsubstantiated rumor today that Obama's name is on that client list of that Madam that got busted, going to have to wait and see on that one though.
Click to expand...
I'd wait on the madam thing, that would be to explosive to keep quite.
Most likely started by someone on the other side so to speak.
 
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is good for us Republicans. Let them throw mud at each other for a year, it can only help us in the long run.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen much "mud" so far. Mostly hints at it.

In a way i think the mainstream media is "sheltering" Obama. I don't think HRC's gonna be able to sling mud at him without consequence. The press does "love" Obama.

Also, the press seems to portray her as head of the a very powerful political war machine, that's she's tough (if not outright mean) and willing to play dirty. It's almost as if they looking for evidence of it.

I think she feels she's gotta be careful with Obama as long as he keeps it above board.

Also, prehaps there other interesting dynamics. Would anybody care if these were two white guys slinging mud at each other? Would we expect no less and just accept it as politics as usual?

But we have a female and a black candidate.

Can HRC go on the offensive without alienating the Black vote that she will absolutely need ?

Can Obama attack HRC without alienating the female vote he will need?

I think they will hold off on the mud slinging until it won't really matter: if you're behind when it's close to the primary what have you got to lose? Things could get real nasty then.

Fern
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top