• 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.

Obama Tops Clinton For The First Time

P

Pabster

Lifer
Story here.

This is from a new Washington Post/ABC News Poll. Obama at 30%, Clinton stumbles to 26%. This race is getting mighty interesting.

I thought Obama would lose a bit of ground after his stumbles at the last Dem debate, and Hillary perhaps gain a point or two, but it appears just the opposite. She's losing steam at a rather frightening pace (for her campaign) and Obama seems to be hitting his stride.

Could this be the leadership realizing that Hillary is too polarizing to be electable? Obama certainly doesn't share her ability to debate (read: shout and sneer) but his laid-back professor
monotone and "change" mantra might just be winning hearts and minds.

The consensus I gathered from the various Sunday shows seems to be that Hillary HAS to win Iowa. If she stumbles, it could be the nail in the Clinton coffin. Obama doesn't HAVE to win here, but even a strong second place finish might be enough to make the "inevitable" tag disappear completely...
 
Is one poll all that important? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Clinton shoot herself in the foot but it seems that more pollsters will have to come out with the same changes for it to be meaningful.
 
I don't think a loss in either Iowa or NH would put an end to her campaign. Most politicos I see don't seem to think either. She's too strong, has tons of campaign money.

Seems to me for far too many prior election cycles the polls have proven unreliable. Yet, polling about "experience v change" is massively in Obama's favor. So, I tend to think he's gonna win notwithstanding some surprise.

I still don't understand why HRC is considered the "experienced" candidate? I just don't see being First Lady as any kind of real political experience. Then, she won't even release her records from that period. Sort of a "I have experience, but you can't know what is" thingy.

Fern
 
One poll in and of itself, no. But even Rasmussen has them 1 or 2 points separated which is a steep reversal from not-so-long ago.

Rasmussen says Iowa will be important only if Hillary wins, or if she is defeated by double-digits. We shall see.
 
Just so you guys know all these differences are within the margin of error. It is statistically the same as when Clinton was beating Obama last week.
 
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just so you guys know all these differences are within the margin of error. It is statistically the same as when Clinton was beating Obama last week.
Click to expand...

The margin of error for this WP/ABC poll is 4 points. That would put them dead even.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just so you guys know all these differences are within the margin of error. It is statistically the same as when Clinton was beating Obama last week.
Click to expand...

The margin of error for this WP/ABC poll is 4 points. That would put them dead even.
Click to expand...

It's 4 points for each candidate.
 
The poll is significant only that it appears Hillary's campaign is starting to lose momentum...if Obama takes an early primary, or a significant primary, things could get interesting very quickly.
 
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

This is from a new Washington Post/ABC News Poll. Obama at 30%, Clinton stumbles to 26%. This race is getting mighty interesting.

I thought Obama would lose a bit of ground after his stumbles at the last Dem debate, and Hillary perhaps gain a point or two, but it appears just the opposite. She's losing steam at a rather frightening pace (for her campaign) and Obama seems to be hitting his stride.

Could this be the leadership realizing that Hillary is too polarizing to be electable? Obama certainly doesn't share her ability to debate (read: shout and sneer) but his laid-back professor
monotone and "change" mantra might just be winning hearts and minds.

The consensus I gathered from the various Sunday shows seems to be that Hillary HAS to win Iowa. If she stumbles, it could be the nail in the Clinton coffin. Obama doesn't HAVE to win here, but even a strong second place finish might be enough to make the "inevitable" tag disappear completely...
Click to expand...

My understanding has been the opposite. Hillary never had the following in Iowa that she does in NH, and the Clintons don't have the ties there from Bill b/c he didn't campaign there when he ran. Hillary never had to win Iowa, she just had to do well. NH she is expected to maintain a large lead, which has closed significantly recently, but she's still up about 10 points IIRC. It's Obama who MUST do well in Iowa, as a 3rd place finish will likely end him, since NH is still most likely to go with Hillary. Two primary losses in a row will pretty much end the campaign of someone trailing so far behind in the national polls. The place Hillary MUST win, because she's expected to, is NH.
 
No matter who wins for the democrats, I see few permanent rifts and the democrats will likely be behind their nominee 100%.

For The GOP, I see big moderate vs far right wing split coming in 08 no matter who the Republican nominee is.

Meanwhile polls will go up and down and down and up week to week. We are getting close to the real polls that matter

Meanwhile foreign and domestic events may well favor one candidate while discrediting another.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

This is from a new Washington Post/ABC News Poll. Obama at 30%, Clinton stumbles to 26%. This race is getting mighty interesting.

I thought Obama would lose a bit of ground after his stumbles at the last Dem debate, and Hillary perhaps gain a point or two, but it appears just the opposite. She's losing steam at a rather frightening pace (for her campaign) and Obama seems to be hitting his stride.

Could this be the leadership realizing that Hillary is too polarizing to be electable? Obama certainly doesn't share her ability to debate (read: shout and sneer) but his laid-back professor
monotone and "change" mantra might just be winning hearts and minds.

The consensus I gathered from the various Sunday shows seems to be that Hillary HAS to win Iowa. If she stumbles, it could be the nail in the Clinton coffin. Obama doesn't HAVE to win here, but even a strong second place finish might be enough to make the "inevitable" tag disappear completely...
Click to expand...

My understanding has been the opposite. Hillary never had the following in Iowa that she does in NH, and the Clintons don't have the ties there from Bill b/c he didn't campaign there when he ran. Hillary never had to win Iowa, she just had to do well. NH she is expected to maintain a large lead, which has closed significantly recently, but she's still up about 10 points IIRC. It's Obama who MUST do well in Iowa, as a 3rd place finish will likely end him, since NH is still most likely to go with Hillary. Two primary losses in a row will pretty much end the campaign of someone trailing so far behind in the national polls. The place Hillary MUST win, because she's expected to, is NH.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Hillary has been running on her inevitability for a while, and if she loses Iowa, that could be a big blow for her. The race in Iowa has always been tight, but I think most people still expect her to win, even with Obama leading in the polls. Also, it could be a problem for her because Obama would also be picking up steam at the same time, especially if he wins somewhat convincingly in Iowa (possible because he also leads the candidates as a second choice).

However, these polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Iowa voters are an odd bunch of coconuts and they generally don't make up their minds until the very end. They often change their mind right at the very end as well.
 
Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

This is from a new Washington Post/ABC News Poll. Obama at 30%, Clinton stumbles to 26%. This race is getting mighty interesting.

I thought Obama would lose a bit of ground after his stumbles at the last Dem debate, and Hillary perhaps gain a point or two, but it appears just the opposite. She's losing steam at a rather frightening pace (for her campaign) and Obama seems to be hitting his stride.

Could this be the leadership realizing that Hillary is too polarizing to be electable? Obama certainly doesn't share her ability to debate (read: shout and sneer) but his laid-back professor
monotone and "change" mantra might just be winning hearts and minds.

The consensus I gathered from the various Sunday shows seems to be that Hillary HAS to win Iowa. If she stumbles, it could be the nail in the Clinton coffin. Obama doesn't HAVE to win here, but even a strong second place finish might be enough to make the "inevitable" tag disappear completely...
Click to expand...

My understanding has been the opposite. Hillary never had the following in Iowa that she does in NH, and the Clintons don't have the ties there from Bill b/c he didn't campaign there when he ran. Hillary never had to win Iowa, she just had to do well. NH she is expected to maintain a large lead, which has closed significantly recently, but she's still up about 10 points IIRC. It's Obama who MUST do well in Iowa, as a 3rd place finish will likely end him, since NH is still most likely to go with Hillary. Two primary losses in a row will pretty much end the campaign of someone trailing so far behind in the national polls. The place Hillary MUST win, because she's expected to, is NH.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Hillary has been running on her inevitability for a while, and if she loses Iowa, that could be a big blow for her. The race in Iowa has always been tight, but I think most people still expect her to win, even with Obama leading in the polls. Also, it could be a problem for her because Obama would also be picking up steam at the same time, especially if he wins somewhat convincingly in Iowa (possible because he also leads the candidates as a second choice).

However, these polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Iowa voters are an odd bunch of coconuts and they generally don't make up their minds until the very end. They often change their mind right at the very end as well.
Click to expand...

Not sure which of the various contentions I made that you "don't know about" 🙂 I was primarily countering OPs notion that if Hillary loses Iowa, it's over for her, as opposed to Obama losing, which would fail to provide the momentum that he needs as a springboard into NH where Clinton's lead is large, most likely ending his chances.

But as you say, them Iowans is crazy yo.
 
Originally posted by: Fern
I don't think a loss in either Iowa or NH would put an end to her campaign. Most politicos I see don't seem to think either. She's too strong, has tons of campaign money.

Seems to me for far too many prior election cycles the polls have proven unreliable. Yet, polling about "experience v change" is massively in Obama's favor. So, I tend to think he's gonna win notwithstanding some surprise.

I still don't understand why HRC is considered the "experienced" candidate? I just don't see being First Lady as any kind of real political experience. Then, she won't even release her records from that period. Sort of a "I have experience, but you can't know what is" thingy.

Fern
Click to expand...

She's seen as experienced because she wasn't just a normal first lady, Bill always said they were a 'team' - you may recall her infamous 'We are the president' quote.

She was involved in a lot of policy discussion, and very familiar with what Bill did.

I think your observation is fair that that's still pretty questionable for calling her the 'experienced' candidate. It's not as if she had to get elected, to raise the money, to be the front person, to make the hard decisions, and all kinds of other things other candidates have experience doing. But it 'sells well', and it's hardly the first time a candidate has been packaged with a label they didn't deserve - look no further than GWB.

My concern with her is less the experience issue than the 'aligned with the corporate side of the democratic party' issue.

Then again, Barak concerns me as a 'cult of personality' and ego, though I give weight to his ndorsement by Ted Sorensen, JFK's top aide and speechwriter.

He's also less entrenched with the corporate interests than Hillary.
 
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: CellarDoor
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Pabster
Story here.

This is from a new Washington Post/ABC News Poll. Obama at 30%, Clinton stumbles to 26%. This race is getting mighty interesting.

I thought Obama would lose a bit of ground after his stumbles at the last Dem debate, and Hillary perhaps gain a point or two, but it appears just the opposite. She's losing steam at a rather frightening pace (for her campaign) and Obama seems to be hitting his stride.

Could this be the leadership realizing that Hillary is too polarizing to be electable? Obama certainly doesn't share her ability to debate (read: shout and sneer) but his laid-back professor
monotone and "change" mantra might just be winning hearts and minds.

The consensus I gathered from the various Sunday shows seems to be that Hillary HAS to win Iowa. If she stumbles, it could be the nail in the Clinton coffin. Obama doesn't HAVE to win here, but even a strong second place finish might be enough to make the "inevitable" tag disappear completely...
Click to expand...

My understanding has been the opposite. Hillary never had the following in Iowa that she does in NH, and the Clintons don't have the ties there from Bill b/c he didn't campaign there when he ran. Hillary never had to win Iowa, she just had to do well. NH she is expected to maintain a large lead, which has closed significantly recently, but she's still up about 10 points IIRC. It's Obama who MUST do well in Iowa, as a 3rd place finish will likely end him, since NH is still most likely to go with Hillary. Two primary losses in a row will pretty much end the campaign of someone trailing so far behind in the national polls. The place Hillary MUST win, because she's expected to, is NH.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Hillary has been running on her inevitability for a while, and if she loses Iowa, that could be a big blow for her. The race in Iowa has always been tight, but I think most people still expect her to win, even with Obama leading in the polls. Also, it could be a problem for her because Obama would also be picking up steam at the same time, especially if he wins somewhat convincingly in Iowa (possible because he also leads the candidates as a second choice).

However, these polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Iowa voters are an odd bunch of coconuts and they generally don't make up their minds until the very end. They often change their mind right at the very end as well.
Click to expand...

Not sure which of the various contentions I made that you "don't know about" 🙂 I was primarily countering OPs notion that if Hillary loses Iowa, it's over for her, as opposed to Obama losing, which would fail to provide the momentum that he needs as a springboard into NH where Clinton's lead is large, most likely ending his chances.

But as you say, them Iowans is crazy yo.
Click to expand...

I was just saying that I could see a situation in which Hillary lost Iowa and couldn't recover. I also think Iowa is very important for her, just as it is to the other candidates.
 
You really hate Hillary, don't you Pabster? Any time there is any negative news at all, you come in and make a topic. You're as bad as the Ron Paul spambots, who make a thread every time Ron Paul finds a dollar.

For what it's worth, I don't like Clinton myself. She's not terrible, just a two-faced political weasel who goes whichever way the political tide is going. I don't trust her. I hope Obama gets the nod, he seems a much better candidate. Maybe it's time for another young president; everyone seemed to love JFK.
 
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
You really hate Hillary, don't you Pabster? Any time there is any negative news at all, you come in and make a topic. You're as bad as the Ron Paul spambots, who make a thread every time Ron Paul finds a dollar.
Click to expand...

Does the news of the day bother you that much?

I don't care for Hillary, and I've made no secret of it. That has nothing to do with this being news which is appropriate for a Politics And News forum.

 
I wouldnt take that to the bank.
I'd say reality, Hillary will get a solid 65% of the vote off the top.
Face it, she's in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top