<p>“.a new poll released yesterday shows support for Sen. Hillary Clinton among likely Democratic presidential primary votes has soared …”</p>
<p>What the article did not mention is that of those likely to vote in the Democratic party in NH, that only 17% have definitely made up their minds! That number is astounding.</p>
<p>From WMUR: “Although most likely voters said they had a preference for a certain candidate, most said that they hadn’t locked in their choice. Just 17 percent said they had definitely made up their minds, while 55 percent said they are still trying to decide. The percentage of undecided voters dropped from 64 percent in July.”</p>
<p>Maybe the political reporter forgot to include the fact that only 17% of the voters in NH have made up their minds? No way would the media or any political reporter try to “Mislead” the public…</p>
<p>This means that over 80% of the voters still do not know who they will vote for!</p>
<p>1SM, because it’s not particularly unusual for choices not to be carved in stone at this point in time. This is what <em>all</em> the polls are measuring in all the polling. If you’re trying to induce skepticism about Hillary, then you have to induce far more skepticism, based on the numbers, about her competitors. This isn’t going to be 2004, with Howard Dean’s spectacular collapse. All the Democratic candidates were pretty much unknowns to the public at large, a situation ripe for volatility. Whereas Hillary/Obama/Edwards are known quantities.</p>
<p>Fwiw, there is far more flux on the Republican side as measured both by certainty of choice and happiness with choices.</p>
<p>I agree TheDad. However, a “soaring lead” means nothing if only 17% of the voters have decided. I’m not sure if my comment was inducing skepticism about a particular candidate or not. However, the suggestion that she was taking a “soaring lead” was probably provided by the political reporter to induce optimism!</p>
<p>^ P.S. Ironically enough the political reporter is a Republican. There are many Republicans and Independents in NH who feel that Clinton would be a great choice in the Democratic primary. They feel that she is the one candidate that the Republicans can beat.</p>
<p>(I am one of the 83% undecided voters in NH who will vote in the NH Democratic primary. I see a lot of uncertainty amongst my friends and neighbors. I don’t really see the love for any candidate, …on either side.)</p>
<p>For that reason, this will be an interesting election. </p>
<p>Lots of activity on the Dartmouth campus today!</p>
<p>Not sure if this fact was really considered by either party:
“The new UNH poll interviewed 307 adults who said they plan to vote in the Democratic primary.”
So, both sides can take claim to the fact that 52 voters in NH will definitely be voting for Clinton. :o</p>
<p>1SM, I think the “soaring lead” comment is pretty accurate if you look at the polls longitudinally. Not to shill ID…he’s perfectly capable of doing that himself …but Hillary’s campaign has been pretty damned good in that lots of Democrats who previously had reservations are getting comfortable with her as reflected by numbers in quite a few polls, not only “support” numbers but “electability” and assessments of various attributes such as “strength.”</p>
<p>From Post 201 that only 17% have definitely made up their minds! That number is astounding.</p>
<p>The fact that only 17% have definitely made up their minds at this point of a primary campaign is not astounding, in fact it is quite normal. If at this point in a general election campaign only 17% had made up their minds I would agree, but not a primary.</p>
<p>From Post 205 .lots of Democrats who previously had reservations are getting comfortable with her</p>
<p>I agree, and I am more than a bit surprised at how well she is doing. I may have to end up supporting her, as my largest reservation was the general election electability question, and she seems to be overcoming that.</p>
<p>From Post 199 … “It’s The Economy, Stupid!”—</p>
<p>MORE…</p>
<p>“Its not bad enough to be led by one of the most unpopular presidents in American history, through the most unpopular war we have ever fought now the GOP is being hammered by bad economic news that will likely haunt the party through next years election …”</p>
<p> … The latest Gallup poll reports 64 percent of Americans harbor a negative economic outlook, the highest number since September 1992, when, just before George Bushs father was defeated in his bid for reelection, 66 percent offered negative evaluations of the economy </p>
<p> The latest Blue Chip consensus forecast of 50 top economists predicts a meager GDP growth rate of just 2 percent this year and 2.8 percent in 2008. If the forecasters are correct, 2008 will sport the 13th worst presidential-year economic growth in the last 16 </p>
<p> More frightening still, the Blue Chip economists posit a 1-in-3 chance of a full-blown recession during the next 12 months . </p>
<p>Some of the details (among likely NH Democratic voters):</p>
<p>Among definitely decided
Clinton 48
Obama 23</p>
<p>Leaning
Clinton 54
Obama 22</p>
<p>Trying to decide
Clinton 33
Obama 16</p>
<p>Among independents
Clinton 37
Obama 20
Edwards 10</p>
<p>Among registered Democrats
Clinton 45
Obama 18
Edwards 12</p>
<p>Best chance of beating Republican
Clinton 54
Obama 13
Edwards 8</p>
<p>Candidate with right experience
Clinton 47
Obama 8
Edwards 8</p>
<p>Bring needed change to US
Clinton 36
Obama 24
Edwards 8</p>
<p>Most likeable
Clinton 16
Obama 29
Edwards 37</p>
<p>Put a fork in NH. It’s done. Experience, Change, Beating Republicans. Democrats. Independents. The internals in this poll are devastating for Obama and Edwards. I expect one or both of them to crawl down in the gutter tonight and begin blistering negative attacks. Heck, Edwards might even have his wife stand in for him at the podium tonight!</p>
<p>ID, the one caveat being that she not finish lower than 2nd in Iowa (currently in 1st there as well). A third-place finish or worse would shake up the dynamic. I don’t think it’s going to happen but I’m a stickler about scenarios.</p>
<p>a) Microtargeted get-out-the-vote.
b) Theresa Vilmain</p>
<p>Heres what UMaryland poli sci prof and poltical demographics expert Thomas Schaller wrote last week about the Clinton campaign:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Schaller is familiar with the voter database, microtargeting, polling, field organizations, fundraising, and get-out-the-vote infrastructure Clinton has been building for the last six years. On CSPAN Sunday, he called it the most impressive Presidential campaign operation in history.</p>
<p>The clucking pundits aren’t paying attention to that. They are going to be as surprised on caucus night in Iowa as they were when Clinton won her NY Senate races by more than the election eve polling said she would. All because of her womens turnout operation. Kark Rove called her 2000 Senate race the best get-out-the-vote operation in the country. </p>
<p>Clinton’s people have been field testing for 2008 in 16 states during the 2004 and 2006 elections – field tests that involved contacting 2.5 million single women voters in 2004 with comparative tests of ad messages, number of phone calls, direct mail, etc. It won’t be field testing in 2008. It will be national…putting to use the six years of field testing, voter database building, microtargeted polling, etc. For example, I expect Clinton to direct mail every young woman turning 18 in the United States in 2008. And, that’s one of their lower cost plans.</p>
<p>WASHINGTON - Whatever happens over the next 16 months, President Bush will leave office having presided over one of the fastest accumulations of government debt in the history of the United States.
During his time in office, federal debt held by the public Washington’s equivalent of a credit-card balance will have increased by more than 50 percent, to about $5.5 trillion. Uncle Sam will be paying interest on that sum for years to come.</p>
<p>Post 211 is an impressive recounting of an impressive campaign organization. </p>
<p>As impressive as Sen. Clintons campaign organization is, I am not surprised. Sen. Clinton is a very smart and capable person, who surrounds herself with smart and capable people. </p>
<p>However, campaign organizations cant make up for a flawed candidate, and this is where Sen. Clinton has really impressed, and somewhat surprised me. The Rs have planed all along to run a very high noise negative campaign against her as if she is the devil incarnate, yet everywhere she goes people come away feeling much better about her. It is Sen. Clinton ability to connect with people that has really impressed, and somewhat surprised me. </p>
<p>If things keep going the way they are now, Sen. Clinton will do more than win the nomination and election, she blow the Rs out in the fall of 08. Something I would never have believed I would be saying 90 days ago.</p>
<p>She has gone from, she cant win in the fall to talk of blowing the Rs out, in 90 days, I am impressed.</p>
<p>In the debate last night, Hillary Clinton was the ONLY candidate to say that, once taking office, she would U.S. troops to defend “our bases” there. In fact, she was the only candidate to acknowledge that there would be bases at all. </p>
<p>The Hillary position is just not that different from GWB’s. She will draw down troops when conditions on the ground warrant, maintain a permanent presence in Iraq, complete the building of the U.S. bases on the Iran border, and continue to use U.S. troops to protect our “long-term strategic interests” (read: oil) in the region.</p>
<p>That is simply a false statement. Actually, Obama is the only candidate who talked of protecting US bases. Here is the transcript of the debate:</p>
<p>I did a search and there are two references to “bases”. The first is Barack Obama saying that he would keep troops in Iraq to protect bases. The second is Dennis Kucinich saying that he would close the bases and have all US troops out in 90 days (plus presumably a chicken in every pot).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Kucinich does not explain how he would “set in motion a plan of reconciliation” without an embassy or any US diplomatic presence in Iraq, but that’s for you to ask him since he’s your guy.</p>
<p>Here is the full transcript of Sen. Clinton’s remarks on Iraq so that you can see if she used a synonym for military “bases” that I am missing:</p>
<p>To be fair, Obama DID also say he would continue to protect the bases.</p>
<p>Edwards rejected both Clinton and Obama’s approach.</p>
<p>Note that George Bush says he will begin bringing troops home BEFORE Clinton or Obama are inaugerated - so what’s the big deal. Gates says the same thing. The positions are just not that different.</p>
<p>No. Not also. Barack Obama was the only candidate who pledged to continue protecting US bases. I gave you the link to the transcript. Search for yourself.</p>
…but Hillary’s campaign has been pretty damned good in that lots of Democrats who previously had reservations are getting comfortable with her as reflected by numbers in quite a few polls, not only “support” numbers but “electability” and assessments of various attributes such as “strength.”</p>