Cook Poll: Hillary ahead by 22 over Obama...increasingly seen as electable...

[SaveElmer]

In the presidential race, Sen. Hillary Clinton leads Democrats with 41% nationally, followed by Sen. Barack Obama with 19% and John Edwards with 17%. According to the pollsters, there has been a significant increase in the number of Democrats who view Clinton as electable.

http://www.cookpolitical.com/races/report_pdfs/2007_poll_tl_apr3.pdf

http://www.politicalwire.com/

[Colobo]

1. Let's see next week...

Polls should be interesting after yesterday's announcement.

[Tellurian]

28. I'm of the impression...

the majority of Obama's donations were received early on- the single $100 donations. Clinton announced, and they went to work to top her total, perhaps via a big corporate donor, someone mentioned General Dynamics on another thread. I believe the polls are reflecting Obama's slippage over his "rookie" mistakes. And as I predicted before, in the last poll, he may have peaked. His popularity, (not here), is not as strong as it was at the time of his initial announcement. imo- of course.

[Debi]

2. Great....how did our last 'electable' candidate fare in a national election?

There has got to be a better term for 'able to defeat the republican nominee'.

But then again, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel, Kucinick, Obama and Richardson all could fit that description.

[wyldwolf]

4. ... he got more votes than any Democrat in history.

[Debi]

14. Didn't more people vote overall than in any election in history? n/t

[wyldwolf]

24. based on total people eligible to vote, the answer is no.

1968 holds that distinction.

[Debi]

26. What? Was your first comment based on people eligible to vote as well?

I'll admit my mistake. But if less people voted in 2004 than in 1968 how did Kerry receive more votes than any other Democrat in history?

[peacebird]

3. hmmm - weren't they saying just last week that she was winning the money primary?

Talking about the unprecedented sums she had raised? Basically trying to say the race was sewn up and she had won? - then Obama's numbers came in equal?

[SaveElmer]

5. Who is they?...I never said any such thing...nt

[peacebird]

10. msnbc for one

WASHINGTON - Shattering previous records, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton collected $26 million for her presidential campaign during the first three months of the year and transferred an additional $10 million from her Senate fundraising account, aides said Sunday.

The New York senator's total included $4.2 million raised through the Internet. The campaign did not specify how much of the $36 million was available only for the primary election and how much could be used just in the general election, if she were the party's nominee.

The amount outdistanced past presidential election records and set a high bar by which to measure the fundraising abilities of her chief rivals.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17900938/

[SaveElmer]

11. And how is that an inevitablility argument?

It was simply stating fact...

[Cassandra]

21. Some people.

They are just lips flapping in the breeze but they say all sorts of things; like Hillary would have one hell of a time topping 50% of the voters.

[wyldwolf]

6. except...

Obama's numbers did not come in equal. They came in $1M less. And for the just ended reporting period, Clinton is 11M ahead.

[w4rma]

9. Obama's were higher for primary funding, though. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

13. yes they were, but that isn't what was contended

And to be honest, in a blind taste test between candidate A and B, I would rather have more money in the general.

[Debi]

15. Money for the general is great for the winner of the primary

but money for the general doesn't do much for the people who aren't the nominee.

Better to have money a candidate can spend during the primary race than money a candidate 'hopes' to spend later on down the road.

[Old Vet]

7. Take a breath................

Only a fool would discount Obama.

[rinsd]

16. "Talking about the unprecedented sums she had raised"

She did raise unprecendented sums.

"Basically trying to say the race was sewn up and she had won"

No, they were basically sayin the sums were unprecedented.

The previous record for the 1st Q was around $8M. So yeah, it is a big deal.

Obama did extremely well.

As it has been for at least 2 month, it looks like a race between the big 3 of Clinton, Obama & Edwards.

[Czolgosz]

8. National name id polls are useless. In Iowa and New Hampshire, it's a tight three-way race with

Hillary falling and Edwards rising and Obama holding even.

In the University of Iowa poll released this week:

Edwards remains the leader among likely Democratic caucus goers, competing primarily with Clinton for caucus support. Edwards led by a substantial margin with 34.2 percent. Clinton followed with 28.5 percent, and Obama with 19.3 percent. No other candidate reached 2 percent. Twelve and a half percent of Democratic caucus goers were undecided.Edwards led by a substantial margin with 34.2 percent. Clinton followed with 28.5 percent, and Obama with 19.3 percent. No other candidate reached 2 percent.

Edwards' support among Democratic caucus goers appears to be linked to perceptions that he can win the presidential election. When given the statement "Edwards is electable", 89.0 percent of Democratic caucus goers agreed. This was the highest percentage in the survey. 86.6 percent of Democratic caucus goers believe Obama is electable; 76.5 percent feel Clinton is.

http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2007/april/040307poll.html

Here's the most recent New Hampshire polling:

Poll Shows Democratic Race Tightening Up Edwards Gains Ground As Clinton Slips

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- A new poll released Tuesday shows that the Democratic primary race in New Hampshire has tightened.

The WMUR/CNN poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton with the lead at 27 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards has surged in recent weeks to narrowly take second place over Sen. Barack Obama, with 21 percent. Obama was the choice of 20 percent of New Hampshire voters polled.

http://www.wmur.com/news/11512703/detail.html

Complete New Hampshire polling: http://www.wmur.com/download/2007/0403/11512360.pdf

[Radical Activist]

20. Those are the polls that matter.

National polls are meaningless.

[SaveElmer]

27. No polls matter...

Polls do not predict outcome, they give a snapshot of current conditions, and taken together may indicate trends...

They are significant however for analysis, and for candidates to gauge support and raise money...

[Czolgosz]

31. Polls in states where the candidates are actively campaigning can provide a semi-useful snapshot of

how well the campaign is succeeding at getting out its message to its target audience.

Polls of a national scope, including predominantly poll participants in states where none of the candidates are campaigning and predominantly poll participants in states who will not get a chance to vote until after the nominee has already been chosen, are not a snapshot of anything relevant to the primary.

[Ninja Jordan]

12. Well good, Hillary should do well in the national primary!

Oh wait, there isn't such a thing.

[Debi]

18. Actually February 5th is pretty close

With Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and Utah holding (or planning to hold) their primary contests.

More voters will be making their nominee choice on that day than in all the other primary contests combined.

[Ninja Jordan]

33. Ha, you may be right

but events on the ground in Iowa, NH, NV, SC will still, in large part, control what happens on Feb. 5.

[Debi]

35. I agree to a small extent

What happend in Iowa and New Hampshire in the past did give the 'winner' of that state some momentum in the next contests (yet both Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton proved that it didn't always have to happen that way. Dukakis didn't win in Iowa in 1988, but placed third and Clinton placed 2nd in Iowa AND New Hampshire in 1992). That's why a drawn out calender is better, the momentum cannot last forever unless the candidate has what it takes (support/charisma/ideas etc.) to keep it going. (Harkin in 1992/Gephardt in 1988). The crowded calender stops the vetting of candidates by the voters.

However, Iowa/Nevada/New Hampshire/South Carolina are all small states and a collective 'win' on Feb. 5th could wipe out any idea the first four have about dictating the outcome. (Heck, a win in California alone could do that)

I've heard pundits and political strategists saying that the front loaded calendar makes the fist four more important, I actually believe the converse. Since the flood of contests comes on so quickly (Nevada five days after Iowa and New Hampshire three days after that) that it's conceivable that a different candidate could 'win' each of those three states heading into the contest in South Carolina. That leaves the Super Duper Tuedsay contests to determine the front-runner.

We'll know soon enough won't we?

[PATRICK]

17. Technical question

It seems they were talking about a recent poll of hundreds of registered dems but the stats only mention about a hundred. And it does matter where the voters live. I am not sure the point made in the analysis is quite legitimate, safely vague as it also is.

We need a debate or two and an actual vote and, even if Hillary LOSES, that point of her perceived legitimacy could still be true- just not enough to overcome her rivals as being better. We are still largely talking about judgments made by media spin, media perception and name recognition.

[Radical Activist]

19. This is a great poll for Obama.

The more Hillary is leading in national polls, the more devastating it will be to her campaign win she doesn't win the early primary states like Iowa and South Carolina. She will come crashing down harder than Dean did when he finished third in Iowa.

[PresidentObama]

22. I don't trust national polls. Sorry. And the road is long to the nomination.

No telling how these numbers will change.

We will see!!

I've seen polls that indicate she is electable. I've seen ones where it indicates she's not. So many polls my head is spinning.

[Learn2Swim]

23. yeah yeah yeah...

Poll: Hillary Clinton's unfavorability ratings high

The Associated Press ran the results of this New Hampshire poll. What's interesting is Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., continues to gain on Democratic frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. It's also interesting to note how high her unfavorability rating is - 48 percent.

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/seattlepolitics/archives/112462.asp?source=rss

“However, Clinton’s unfavorability ratings are negatively affecting her competitiveness against the top Republican candidates.”

http://www.suffolk.edu/18016.html

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/25/145319.shtml

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/4/5/102356.shtml?s=icp

http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/sg_distro/comments/poll_fred_thompson_tied_with_hillary/

http://www.ovaloffice2008.com/2007/03/why-are-clinton-and-obama-trailing.html

Time's pollster Mark Schulman suggests that Clinton, with her high unfavorability rating, has "limited upward potential," while "Obama and Edwards suffer from low awareness." Meanwhile, the two Republican frontrunners "have an independent streak that plays well in certain traditional Democratic bastions." And then there's the perennial belief that "Republicans stronger on issues involving national security."

"Time's analysis suggests that Obama (or even Edwards) may be better poised to beat a Republican candidate than Clinton, who is a divisive figure. Americans presently know very little about Obama, and as they learn more, Republicans will likely attempt to press what national security advantage they have left by painting him as dangerous for the war on terror. Democrats may emphasize his opposition to the war in Iraq, his positive vision, and his message of change."

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/print.asp?entryID=112462



Just depends on what polls you look at. Of course, these don't support your goal, I mean these deal mostly with the candidates general election strength, i.e., the one that counts.


I'll be interested to see what the polls in the next few weeks and months look like.

[Jennicut]

25. I bet Hillary will win. But not all will be happy with the outcome.

I think some of us around here need to stop denying that Hillary is electable. Look at the last one we elected. Even if both elections were stolen by Bush he still had to have a lot of support. When Hillary is elected I won't be clapping my hands in joy though. But her corporate donors will. It will be lovely to see the trend of corps controlling the White House continue, because they won't stop with Hillary.

[AnneD]

29. And this DEM

keeps feeling like Hillary is being crammed down our throats. We haven't even had a primary for cripes sake.

[Learn2Swim]

30. The more they try

to shove HRC down our throats, the less chance she'll have within her own party.

She does still consider herself a Dem, yes? Seems her and her supporters lately hate the left far more than the right.

[Contradistinction]

32. You have to be kidding

Neither Clinton or Obama are electable. Sure, they put on a good show, but they'll never hit the top spot.

[TwilightGardener]

34. Money=momentum. Look at Romney in NH. These polls will

start changing in Obama's favor, I predict. People are sheep--if a bunch of other people bet on a horse, then it encourages later folks to do the same. You want a return on your investment.

[bigdarryl]

36. Charlie Cook was also predicting in 06 before the Nov. election the dems....

couldn't pick up twenty seats because of the republicans redistricting states in there favor.my bet is still on Edwards taking the nomination. you have to remember we still haven't even had debates yet

[OHdem10]

37. Whooee, is it now time for the ELECTABILITY

discussion?????

[Forkboy]

38. I think the people on the left or right that say she's unelectable are wrong.

I think she is electable.

I think we'll still be driving over a cliff,only at a slower speed.The only good thing about that is maybe it will give someone else time to work on the brakes.

And that's my one tiny dose of optimism for the day.Back to the cynicism!