More Democrats favor Clinton over Obama, poll finds

[Omaha Steve]

Source: USA Today

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has significantly widened her lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in the wake of a dispute over handling foreign policy, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.

The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, puts Clinton at 48% — up 8 percentage points from three weeks ago — and Obama at 26%, down 2 points. Among Democrats and independents who "lean" Democratic, former North Carolina senator John Edwards is at 12%.

The 22-point gap between the two leaders is nearly double the margin found in the July 12-15 poll.

"People are seeing her as the one ready to be president," says Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, a perception he says was "accelerated" by the recent debate.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-08-06-poll_N.htm

[SoFlaJet]

1. who is taking these polls and who are they asking?

there is this inevitability thing going on that I am not buying into-what about John Edwards?

[Roland99]

4. What a CROCK!!

[liberalnurse]

7. I favor Clinton over Obama.

In case anyone cares.:hi:

[lojasmo]

15. No kidding? Wow. EOM

[liberalnurse]

36. I do and here is why....See this thread...Scroll down to the pictures.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=172x22165

I saw first hand the level of organized power that Senator Clinton has garnered. She has wisely worked with the pivotal states, Ohio being one of them. My soul mission this election is to get a Democratic President elected with a pulse. I actually love all the top tier Democratic Candidates as they all would be terrific Presidents. Hillary fills my simple goal. I believe we can hold our Democratic Congress to the fire then and actually make changes at that time.

[avrdream]

39. Ditto, baby, ditto.

We MUST get a Democratic president elected! Period.

[llmart]

43. Agree 100%....

Though Hillary isn't my first choice, as a woman who is the same age as her, something basic inside this feminist just wants to see a woman be President in my lifetime AND something even more basic is I just want to see the freeper types have a complete meltdown when this happens! Come on, you all know it. The hatred and bile they feel for the Clintons will eat away at them. Don't you remember how raving mad they were when she became a Senator??? Wouldn't you love to see them have a collective stroke?

I would revel in gloating over her becoming President. We need to stand behind ANY Democrat who's nominated no matter how you feel about her war vote, etc.

[Exiled in America]

45. How exactly will be holding our democratic congress to the fire?

Because it won't be Hilliary doing it.

Not as a candidate well on her way to being the most corporate-owned candidate in history. Typically anytime forbes magazine runs a front cover that exclaims "Business loves Hillary!" its time to raise the red flags. They're interests go directly against those of the majority of americans - the working middle-class and working poor.

[Yupster]

49. I believe this race has been over for a year now

Hillary will be the nominee in one of the easiest nominations of a non-incumbant in generations. She's not my first choice, but I'm fine with her. Doesn't matter anyway as the race has been over for months.

[durrrty libby]

9. It is not a CROCK to me. I love it honey.

[Roland99]

11. Well, you go on and support who you want. Personally?

I can't stand anyone that kisses lobbyist ass and is a proud member of the DLC.


F*** Hillary. She's GOP-lite.

[ryanmuegge]

16. Indeed.

Although anyone is better than a Republican proper, but the differences between a Clinton and a Republican are minimal.

[Liberal Lassie]

50. Love your stickers, check out mine.

I hate Hillary. Her voice is grating just like *. I really got sick knowing she will take lobbyist money. I know that is a hard habit to break but government swamps really do need to be drained and gutted. I don't think she has a bit of integrity and when I see these polls I want to cry. I do cry. She is NOT "my girl" for fighting the republican machine because voting for war is not fighting in my book. She will be spending a lot of time in the oval office sucking up to repugs and no time on issues. I do not think she is strong, I think that she is a bully and since I live with a bully I know one when I see one. Haven't we been bullied long enough? Somebody tell me the polls are wrong.

[Lorien]

12. Once again the MSM is picking our candidate for us

I know of exactly ONE Dem here in town who is pro Hillary. Everyone else is either for Obama, Edwards (both of whom already have visible support in our city-Hillary has none)or is holding out for Gore. As Fortune magazine says; business LOVES Hillary. She works for them, therefore they'll see that she becomes the Dem nominee.

[Triana]

22. Business LOVES Hillary - the Corprat (ie: business) media LOVES Hillary...

..that ought to give a hefty whack upside the head with a clue-by-four to anyone paying any attention at all.

[harun]

25. Yes they are. The primaries are just a vetting process controlled

by the media. I bet living in a Democracy would be pretty cool, hopefully someday we will experience it in the United States.

[waiting for hope]

2. I agree with SoFlaJet ....

Edwards has more support than some of these polls are showing.

[Justyce]

3. They're doing their best to minimize him. I think that says volumes.

[SoFlaJet]

37. When he wins in Iowa

the likes of Chris Matthews won't know what to do with himself...

[Peregrine Took]

5. Neither one of them can win the general election. EIther would send the Dem

party down to flaming defeat.

I would vote for Obama (I'd prefer Gore and then Edwards) but if he were the candidate I would support him.

Her? Never! She's a rethug - began as one and now, she's the darling of corporate America.

If I were to vote for a rethug I'd vote for Ron Paul.

[William769]

6. Posts like this really crack me up.

:rofl:

THANKS!

[TwilightZone]

8. Unlikely.

Which of the Republican clones do you suggest is going to beat ANY Dem in '08? There isn't a solid candidate in the bunch.

As far as Hillary being a Republican, I suggest you look at her record: http://ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

According to her record, she's a "Left Liberal". Unless you live in Bizarro World.

Ron Paul is a conservative on everything but the war: http://ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

If that's what you want in a candidate, you might be on the wrong website.

[ryanmuegge]

18. I think Rudy is going to be tough if he wins the nomination.

He can play that retarded 9/11 card with the public. After all, he's got a lot of experience in national security, apparently. I guess as long as you're for cutting taxes for the elite being a mayor of a city that's attacked by terrorists gives you a lot of credibility on national security, according to Republicans. He's a very convincing distorter of facts, as well. He's a straight shooter with his lies. Granted, the guy has sexual skeletons in his closet, but I don't think that'll harm him. The public's so cynical that they believe every politician is a philanderer these days.


I think the 9/11 card has some legs left, but only if Rudy's pulling it.

[TwilightZone]

19. I'm not sure he can win the nomination

Contrary to his claims, he's pretty liberal for a "conservative", and I'm not sure the conservative base is going to vote for him in the end.

But then, they don't really have any solid alternatives.

[ryanmuegge]

20. It'll be interesting. I would love to see Fred Thompson get it.

Because there are some serious things that he can be attacked for (his ties with a pro-abortion group, his lobbyist past, connections with Nixon and Watergate).

[TwilightZone]

34. It'll definitely be interesting. Fred may have already peaked, and he hasn't even announced.

One of his defining characteristics is laziness, so he may not want to put in the effort required to compete. He can't win the nomination by driving around in his truck.

[darnelljohnson]

31. All you have to do is count to 270

I worry more about Rudy Giuliani lately than anything. It would be a total disaster to have him as president, if you hate this quagmire our troops are in in Iraq. Not to mention this bullshit of his lately of basically giving a nod to appoint Federalist Society judges!! Oy vey.

I worry because a Rudy GOP nomination brings California and New York into play, maybe even my home state of Illinois or even Florida. Places I want the Dem nominee to be able to have in the bank upon getting the nomination.

Its just like football, friends. You want to play the game on the other teams side of the field, not your own. I say bring on Romney!!!! LOL. :)

[harun]

26. I think they can beat Hillary or Obama with Romney

or Giuliani. Edwards would crush any of them.

You have to realize that the media hasn't painted a target on the Dem's yet for elimination. Their sole focus right now is promoting Hillary and Obama to get rid of Edwards. Once they do that they don't even have to try that hard.

I don't think it is some big conspiracy, just the way MSM culture operates now. If they can get Hillary vs. any Repug they already won. Status quo. Hillary is still a neo-conservative in my book and I don't really see anything from her telling me any different. If any of the dozen or so Hillary supporters here can point me to evidence to the contrary I would be glad to watch/read it.

[TwilightZone]

28. Romney? No chance.

Romney is a weasel. He may "look" presidential, but he's an empty suit. He's like the second coming of Dan Quayle. He also has problems with the conservative base. Unless he can convince them that he's not a liberal, he won't win the primary.

Edwards would "crush" any of them? Based on what?

Hillary a neo-con? Hyperbole. She's one of the most liberal members of the Senate. http://ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

As far as the media's "sole focus" being to eliminate John Edwards, methinks you see a conspiracy, contrary to your protestations otherwise, where none exists.

[harun]

32. Based on a lot

Edwards would "crush" any of them? Based on what?

Ummm,
He is male
He is white
He is from the South
He is rich
He speaks Southern
He is not a woman
He is not black
He is not poor

All of this and other reasons means only he can do ok in the South. Hillary and Obama cannot. While they would do overwhelmingly good in the rest of the country the South would swing enough electoral votes to defeat them. Anyone who is not rich freaks out the bourgeoisie of this country and they work to defeat them. Edwards passes their test, even though he is willing to talk about poverty.

I hope I am wrong and the candidate I would most like to see win would be Kucinich, but after that Obama.

If Hillary was really one of the most liberal members of the Senate she would not be getting the support she is from Murdoch, Wall Street, the Corporations and the rest of the neo-con's. I hope I am wrong on that, but hope aint going to cut it this election. To much is at stake.

[TwilightZone]

33. It's not just Edwards.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

Obama's head-to-head numbers are nearly identical to Edwards'. He beats everyone, most of them handily.

Obviously, polls mean little at present, but your assertion that Edwards can win, but no one else can, seems a bit misguided.

[harun]

35. I didn't assert no one else can win, just who I felt (my opinion) had

the best chances to win at present.

January 14, 2008 is the Iowa Primary. Everything will be serious after that, I agree right now the poll numbers aren't worth anything, no one is really paying attention yet.

[Exiled in America]

46. Do people realize how dumb they sound when they say stuff like that?

Do you know that every time we have an election, no matter who the candidate is, we always have some fools who start trying to argue against every concerned raised about a candidate by saying "whatever, he/she is one of the most liberal members of the house/senate!"

This is such a total farce.

Here are just a handful of the logical fallacies that:

1. First and foremost, these "listed as one of the most liberal members of the house/senate" always come from some private organization. No one ever asks who these people are or what the criteria is for determining what "liberal" means or even the methodology used in calculating the information. Half the time, the information comes from right wing sources and the label is not intended to be a compliment. When it isn't coming from right-wing sources, there is still no clear explanation for how these ambiguous claims were reached or what they mean.

2. Second, "look at his/her liberal voting record?" Common people. It's not just about what gets to the house or senate floor for a vote - its what truly "liberal" or "progressive" bills never make it to floor at all because they don't have the support of so-called "most liberal members of the house/senate"

3. The important thing missing from this "polls" done by independent and private organizations who don't give you any information about how the define their terms is any look at what kind of legislation the congress person or senator in question introduced or co-sponsored. That is one of the most important things out there. It is WAY more important that just a person's vote. There is way too much political maneuvering in someone's basic voting record. Someone can vote liberal at times when it isn't difficult and doesn't matter. Bills that the public isn't paying attention to that aren't highly controversial are easy to vote for. But its not so easy to vote no on something like the Iraq War Resolution, or NAFTA or CAFTA, or the Banking Bill or the Patriot Act, or federal budgets that writing in massive subsidies to big business, or bills that codify tax breaks to corporations, etc.

It isn't the twenty easy "liberal" votes that matter. It's whether or not the candidate voted "liberal" when it was difficult or might have cost him/her but was the RIGHT thing to do.

When you look at these "liberal voting records" you see a long list of bills that are nothing but the most obvious and non-controversial votes. Of course a democratic congress person or senator is going to vote no on bills attacking abortion. That's important for sure, but its not exactly "liberal." Liberal would be introducing legislation that mandated a federal living wage, for example. Now that's liberal.

[19jet54]

10. I supported all three in early July...

... but recent attacks by Obama/Edwards have moved me to Clinton as the only adult in the group. I am part of the baby boomer AARP types that look for actual experience; Maybe that is why these polls show this expanding gap? It is hard to BS Iowa farmers!

[ihelpu2see]

13. The lobbyist comment speaks volumes, she is inside the belt way. And for

the same reason I liked Gov. Dean... Who is doing a great job as DNC chair!!! I prefer Edwards and an Edwards/Obama ticket would be terrific...

I like to listen to former Senator Gravel though, he sure says it like he sees it!!!

As far as universal health care... take it from a doctor... the only real shot is Medicare part B for all... It could be done fiscally and the plan could start next month just don't allow it to be privatized let the Insurance companies fight for the 20% + $133 deductible that Medicare does not pay for!!!


Dr.Fred

[19jet54]

17. Nice plan!

I seem to remember wanting to expand Government Health care group plans to everybody by the Hillary task force mid 1990s? Sounds the same to me, as does the Bush/GOP current proposal? Am I missing something? I'm sorry, I do not fully understand Medicare part B well enough to speak intelligently on it. But thank you, I will research the issue. I have heard the nurse shortage is partly do to the fact they can receive higher pay working for Health Care Insurance Companies fighting for profits thru Doctor health cost payments. Sounds as if something is wrong with that picture? I never understood mandating insurance for everyone(vehicle or other) but not regulating it somehow like utilities or Postal rates are? I have had s little experience supporting office computer technology for pharmacies, medical groups/offices and small hospitals and somewhat understand the overhead necessary in fighting the insurance payment issues.

The Honorable Gavel & Dean are awesome! Regardless of who gets the party nomination, I will support them.

[harun]

27. Agreed. Edwards/Obama would be awesome, that would get

me out working for them.

[Middle finga]

14. I don't hate Hillary but I would rather Obama or Edwards win

the nomination. Besides the country got to move forward and we are in need of drastic changes and Hillary isn't the person to bring about those changes, she's a part of that status quo and is Bush and Clinton's families the only people we feel that can run this country.

[Triana]

21. PLEASE do not buy the lamestream, corprat media's "hillary is inevitable" throat-ramming...

...the media is RAMMING HILLARY DOWN OUR THROATS.

WE KNOW the Repigs want her to be the nominee and THAT is what's behind this - WHO OWNS THE MEDIA?

Hello?

Don't buy this bu$hit. Puhleeze. Don't swallow that jizz.

[NaturalHigh]

23. That's wonderful. All hail Mrs. Clinton.

I'm still not voting for her, wouldn't with a gun to my head.

[deacon]

24. The GOP wants her to be the nominee- no thanks. n/t

[BigDDem]

29. like the swallows to Capistrano...they flock back

with denial and excuses

I don't know ANYONE who supports Hillary!
The corporate media has picked her!
Who are they polling? They never ask ME!

Reality: She's (way) ahead ladies and gents, get use to it.

[darnelljohnson]

30. Obama made rookie mistakes

I like him, but I'm not sure he's ready for the big chair yet. I'd like to support his candidacy in 2012 or 2016. I'm for Hillary.

[jkg4peace]

38. I love the little disclaimer at the bottom of the poll results

"In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls."

Can't imagine what that could be...

[The Sushi Bandit]

40. WTF??

here is the question...

If god said you only have 2 people to choose from .. is it Obama?.. who never had any experience doing anything or clinton? who's only qualification is being a woman... and you live on a desert island and have no brain at all. cause the sun is sooo hot...

[NotGivingUp]

41. More Democrats favor Kucinich and Edwards over Clinton and Obama.

That's my own poll I just made up. I'm sick of MSM picking our candidates for us.

[ohio2007]

42. Soon it will be time to "lock step" behind canidate "X" or be banned

for talking negative about the chosen one , Hitlery

[Javaman]

44. Face it folks, the corporate overlords have spoken...

they have chosen the candidate most likely to further their agenda.

There hasn't been a single fucking primary yet and here we are being for fed our choice.

eat hardy my fellow dems because this might just be the last meal you ever get.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

47. Al Gore towers above all these people....

I wish he would get in...

[humbled_opinion]

48. OMFG.... Hillary and Bill don't need to be in the oval office to get a BJ...

They just need to come over to DU.....

Give me a break... No more Bushes No More Clintons.... Its time for real change....

Wait ok lets get this straight ... Hillary wins... 4 years of Clinton part deaux... (Not bad) however... During her term...

Repugs frothingly investigate everything under the sun, blindly hypnotize Amerikah into thinking that it got a bad deal... you know like the 90's (Sarcasm).... anyway... lather rinse repeat election year 2012...

Gonna get JEB... then in 2016 or 2020 we gonna get ??? CHELSEA ??? then we gonna git... Barb and Jenna... then we gonna get...

You get the picture right?