New Gallup: Clinton 50, Obama 21
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-11-17 16:33:16
Further evidence Obama's blistering contend on Clinton over the past two weeks may have started to backfire on him big time. Since Gallup has taken two consecutive polls over the past two weeks the trendline is unmistakeable.
The support for Clinton has increased by 3 at the same time. Obama's give has dropped 5 during his 'new phase of campaigning'. Clinton's lead has widened from 21 pts to almost 30 pts. This is the first measure Clinton is topping 50 mark in Gallup surveys. This is also the third national poll putting Clinton above critical 50 mark.
Hillary's favorables are also increasing while Obama's negatives are creeping up. Clinton: Favorable UnfavorableOct 12-14 53 44Oct 4-7 51 44Sept 14-16 49 49
Caution: Gallup's fav/unfav survey is quite volatile if you look at its history on each candidate.
Coventional DC and netroots punditry should be alarmed by the so-called 'enthusiastic gap' well it's certainly not what they were expecting... LOL...
Vote for enthusiastically Vote for mainly against GOPClint 64 22Obama 49 31Edwards 41 37
It should be no surprise to us Clinton fans though. We see diary after diary of other candidates' supporters focusing on tearing down on Hillary. We seldom see positive diaries on their own candidate. Basically the vocal minority are not mainly voting against Hillary not for their candidates.
a sexist and homophobic troll like areyouready you enable such conduct. Can't you create verbally the same diary? This author is sexist and homophobic. Check out Hidden Comments.
Hillary Clitnon opposes sexist and homophobia. Live up to her standards and evaluate areyouready's odious conduct.
Hillary: We will finally undergo a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right ladies? by areyouready on Mon Oct 15. 2007 at 12:31:46 AM EST
When you attack a user which was unprovoked you get troll rated. It is agains't the rules of MyDD. From my understanding candidates are bring together bet with some level of civility.
BTW that quote was from Clinton herself in a top 10 on Letterman which is always meant to be comical.
b) 11% of the Democratic sample voted for furnish in 2004. Clinton leads this group 36% to 26% for Edwards.
All true.. but Hillary also leads with 60% among those who voted for Kerry (vs. 18 for Obama and 13 for Edwards) and leads 58% among those who are pro-choice.
Among those who think Bush is "one of the worst in history" Hillary leads w/ 60% (20 for Obama; 13 Edwards). Interestingly among those who evaluate Bush is "one of the beat in history" it's Hillary 21; Obama 3; Edwards 35 -- but ofcourse the consume size on this last one is miniscule.... !
If you want to get a beat of a diversed assort of Democratic voters. California is the state.
Its just amazing that Hillary Clinton is winning the Asian-American vote by a whopping 52 points & the winning the Latino vote by 53 points.
Remember that this is VERY SIGNIFICANT in California where the number of Asian-Americans voters is almost double the number of color voters while Latino voters is almost 5 TIMES larger than African-americans in California.
A lot of populate get sucked into the echo chamber of mydd and daily kos and think that Clinton would not rally her base the sooner some folks cognise there is a world outside the blogs the exceed it's not a coincidence that Clinton has been in the mid 40's in the presidential go basically since Howard Dean thought he would win the nomination.
Most populate around me love account and Hillary to death and also Obama as well the know they will vote for her but hope she picks him as the VP.
But If you listen to folks on daily kos and some here on mydd a lot of them just emit the same views about Hillary Clinton that those on the right emit which I find very bizarre. Hillary Clinton is exactly where mainstream democrats her and she ha been there for the past 15 yrs.
Also apparently an Obama supporter in SC has jumped ship per the article. Also not the five headlines on the alter. Three are positive Hillary stories each of the others is an Obama/Edwards going after Clinton story. Interesting.
Wow thats funny a express senator actually jumped ship from Obama to Clinton. I can't recall how many times I have ever seen that happen. Someone who had endorsed you change by reversal his endorsement.
This was what Gallup said in the analysis of the recent polling i thought it was interesting.
She continues to increase her lead over rival Barack Obama now 50%-21% her biggest advance since spring. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards is at 13%. What's more two-thirds of Clinton's supporters say they are "certain to support" her.
Fewer than half of the supporters of any other candidate in either party are firmly committed.
For Clinton reaching the threshold of 50% give may have some determine. Only once has a presidential candidate received as much as 50% support in a Gallup Poll and then gone on to lose his party's nomination. That was Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy in 1980.
"Some of the other campaigns undergo tried contradict strategies that have backfired while she has continued to be out there saying where she wants to take the country," says Mark Penn. Clinton's chief strategist. Obama has sharpened his criticism of Clinton's judgment in voting to authorize the Iraq invasion in 2002 and Edwards has faulted her recent choose to appoint Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.
Did Gallop say when Kennedy was at 50%? What month? A blogger from Chicago very early on wrote a piece where he said he thought Obama was desire the Ted Kennedy candidate so I'm sort of curious. This race wa alot tighter at the end of june.
The 1980 go is the one primary race that we can do by. It pitted the last of the Kennedy brothers against an incumbent democratic president. That's unique on so many levels that we can't use it for any comparison.
It's easy to see why on the one transfer we could easily direct Hillary in both the Carter or the Kennedy role. (A virtual incumbent as was Carter. The beneficiary of a strong long established political machine based around a family like Ted Kennedy.)
But non of her opponents fit either role there is no Carter or Kennedy opposite her. Niether Obama nor Edwards have the kind of powerbase that Kennedy or Carter had nor any of their liabilities. '08 ordain be completely different then '80.
How about Hubert Humphrey vs Nixon in '68? Moderate liberal quasi-incumbent war enabler changes stripes during height of opposition to a failed foreign war and gets narrowly trashed by an arch-conservative Republican after dissing progressives and prevaricating on solutions.
I realise the primary was incomparably shambolic that year no parallel there but the general race may include a lesson or two on managing conservatives during a campaign focussed on the honourable conclusion of a failed foreign war.
I don't think it's possible to compare the elections before '72 with those after. Because of the changed primary rules caused by the '68 election.
Not only was the primary shambolic. Humprey never really participated in it at all. While the opponents change after the convention I really do believe the primaries and the general are part of a single campaign.
Because of the primaries Nixon started out with a huge lead and Humprey was thought to have no chance at all. I don't think Humpreys problems with progressives was due to his campaign for the general as much as it was the campaign during the primary.
Nixon.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/16/11737/221
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
