Breaking Rasmussen: Hillary Clinton slips below 40% level for just second time since late September

[flpoljunkie]

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Thursday, November 29, 2007


The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Hillary Clinton slipping below the 40% level of support for just the second time since late September. At 38%, Clinton’s support hasn’t been lower since September 22. As with all tracking poll data, it remains to be seen whether this reflects a lasting change or is merely a temporary aberration.

Barack Obama now earns support from 24% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters nationwide. His support has generally remained in the low-to-mid twenties, although it dipped dramatically during Thanksgiving week. John Edwards is the choice for 13%, Joe Biden is preferred by 4% and no other Democratic candidate tops 3% (see recent daily numbers).

In Iowa, new Rasmussen Reports polling data released today shows that the race remains far too close to call. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are within three points of each other. Clinton has a ten-point lead over Obama in both New Hampshire and South Carolina. She also retains a twenty-five point lead over Obama in Florida. See all Rasmussen Reports general election match-ups and other key stats for all Democratic candidates.

In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, Rudy Giuliani continues to lead nationwide with 27% support. Mitt Romney and John McCain each attract 14% support, Mike Huckabee is the choice for 12%, and Fred Thompson is clinging to double digits at 10%. Ron Paul's attracts 4% of Likely Republican Primary voters nationwide and no other Republican candidate reaches 2% (see recent daily numbers).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[cboy4]

1. But at least she didn't embrace a homophobe like

Obama.

[geek tragedy]

2. No, just Colin Powell, the man who peddled Bushco's lies to lead us into war.

That's perfectly alright, I guess.

[cboy4]

4. Why would you imply that I think it's perfectly alright?

She's not my candidate.

[wyldwolf]

Obama embraced Powell as well.

[mckeown1128]

24. which at the time you and others here...

cried bloody murder over.... so are you going to show integrity and stop supporting Hillary now???

[wyldwolf]

27. The difference: Hillary hasn't met with Powell. Obama has.

[mckeown1128]

28. So if she meets with Powell will...

you withdraw your support of her???

[wyldwolf]

29. nope. Have you withdrawn your support for Obama for taking foreign policy advice from Powell?

[mckeown1128]

39. No, I don't see a problem with it.

[MethuenProgressive]

40. HooRay! At last a poll the Obamarama can believe in!!

Suddenly they can believe in polling again!
:rofl:

[CoffeeCat]

5. No, she just embraces...

...the neocon plan.

I guess we can all breath a sigh of relief that Mrs. Clinton
only supports lie-based wars (when she knows full well that the
wars are based on lies), then refuses to denounce those votes--and
then gallivants across the country touting war with Iran.

Yeah....let's all breath a sigh of relief that she only embraces
the PNAC plan for America!

[cboy4]

7. Senator Clinton is not my candidate. I'm simply making a

point to the Obama supporter who posted the news about Hillary.

[Dawgs]

9. It's a good thing he is so pro-gay rights, otherwise you might have a real problem with him.

I agree. He did make a mistake. But, acting like Obama is a homophobe himself is just wrong. I'm sorry that the only way some people can respond is to act like a grade schooler. And that includes supporters of all candidates.

[cboy4]

14. I didn't accuse Obama of being a homophobe. I said he

embraced a homophobe, despite being warned ahead of time of what he was about to do.

There's a difference.

Implying that I'm acting like a grade schooler for articulating a fact is an "interesting" use.

[Dawgs]

15. You're acting like a grade schooler by pointing out this "fact" in this thread.

[cboy4]

19. Yea, I know. Getting to the truth is pretty juvenile.

Ha Dawgs? :eyes:

[Dawgs]

33. I'm still waiting for the truth, so until you speak some I'll call it as I see it.

Ha cboy? :eyes:

[cboy4]

37. Reading comprehension 101 where are you?

I've already stated that I'm not accusing Obama of being a homophobe. (That's truth).

I'm "only" criticizing him in this thread for embracing a homophobe. (More truth).

Now Dawgs, while you're thinking of another name to call me, how about you explain why you're not capable of spotting the truth?

[geek tragedy]

16. Do you have a picture of this embrace?

Also worth noting that Obama has stated that he 'rejects' the homophobes homophobia.

[cboy4]

20. Well then he's not be particularly consistent if on one

hand he embraces a notorious homophobe who refers to homophobia as evil, and then on the other hand states, according to you, that he "'rejects' the homophobes homophobia."

[geek tragedy]

21. Again, 'embrace' is hyperbole.

They set up a concert series and didn't do their vetting. Then they were stuck with the guy for a variety of reasons.

It was definitely the low point in his campaign.

[cboy4]

25. No, they were not stuck with him for a variety of reasons.

Stop making excuses.

Obama could have made McClurkin disappear with one phone call.

I would have given Obama a break if he found out about him at the very, very last second.

However, Obama was warned in time, repeatedly, yet decided he was going to do what he wanted.

That's fine. But now I, along with others, have license to criticize him.

And I will because it was unacceptable.

[geek tragedy]

31. How do you know that Obama could have made him

disappear with one phone call?

You're assuming that the campaign had final say over who appeared at those concerts. Remember, campaigns aren't concert promoters and producers. They have to have someone else do it for them.

[cboy4]

32. You must really underestimate the power and authority

of a United States Senator being able to use his influence to drop a controversial figure at his own fundraiser, who might harm his campaign.

If it were true that it had been out of Obama's hands, don't you think his campaign would have jumped on that reason to use as an explanation?

[jefferson_dem]

12. Sure.

Whatever.

[cboy4]

13. Well jefferson, he did. Come on now.

Telling me "whatever" doesn't change the facts.

Right?

[jefferson_dem]

18. He did what?

If you mean he did "embrace a homophobe"... I would respectfully disagree. Obama was very clear at the time of the "dust up" that he in no way supports or endorses McClurkin's views on LGBT issues. Obama's previous statements and professional record demonstrate that he is as good on such issues as any of the Dems in the race, DK notwithstanding perhaps.

My "whatever" comment was regarding the total irrelevance of the "embracing a homophobe" reference to the topic of this OP. I stand by that.

[cboy4]

23. Well jefferson, if someone makes it very clear that

they "in no way" support people who drink and drive, and then has a notorious drunk driver perform at a campaign fund raiser, how do you think Mothers Against Drunk Drivers should react?

Come on.

(And the reason I brought this up is I noticed it was an Obama supporter who posted negative news about arch-rival candidate Hillary Clinton).

[Dawgs]

35. He wasn't performing as a homophobe.

And your remarks still have nothing to do with this thread.

[cboy4]

38. "He wasn't performing as a homophobe"

:spray:

Whatever you say Dawgs.

[CoffeeCat]

3. This was inevitable...

Hillary's lead in early polls was based on her name recognition.

As more people begin to really pay attention to all of the candidates
and what they say--Hillary's numbers will slide.

In the end, her support is soft. Name recognition doesn't exactly
foster long-term loyalty for a candidate. When voters plug in and pay attention--
the other candidates---who actually stand for something and are passionate
about real reform (Biden, Edwards, Obama, Kucinich)--shine in comparison.

Hillary will continue to slide as voters turn their attention toward
these primaries.

[rinsd]

17. How do you explain Obama dipping to his lowest levels all year in the last 3 daily tracking polls?

Until this one.

How will you explain it when Hillary's numbers go back above 40%?

:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

22. Statistical outlier days are inevitable. n/t

[rinsd]

30. Exactly.

The national numbers have been fairly stable for the past few month with Hillary in the low 40's, Obama in the mid 20's and Edwards in the mid teens. There have been some rises and dips but that is basically where they have regressed to.

I think we may have to wait until the voting starts to see any real movement in the national polling.

Though a gaffe by one of the campaigns is still a possibility.

[ilovesunshine]

6. Clinton is my first choice, but I will be voting for Obama if he wins the primary.

Having said that I don't wish to put either of them down considering one might just be our candidate.

[denem]

8. (self delete)

[BootinUp]

10. So true. n/t

[denem]

11. Yes, but it does not belong here.

All these buzz words, get on my last nerve. And not in a poll thread. But if I hear corporatist one more time ...

[Freddie Stubbs]

26. Wow. At this pace Obama should catch up to her by next December

[ilovesunshine]

34. I don't understand all the excitement over Obama being behind by

double digits.

Am I missing something?

[Dawgs]

36. The excitement is that Hillary is falling, while Obama is climbing.

And, they are near tied in the early states. If Obama wins Iowa, he should get a big boost nationally; maybe as much as 10-15 points, which may put him over the top in other states.

That is why it matters.