Obama leads Hillary in Iowa — and New Hampshire
posted at 2:15 pm on December 12, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Not sure why the CNN poll showing him within one of the Glacier in New Hampshire is getting big press this morning. Rasmussen has him up by three, a 10-point swing in two weeks. He’s currently a 60% favorite on InTrade to take Iowa and an even bet in New Hampshire. And in South Carolina, which Hillary led by double digits a month ago? He’s a 65% favorite. Plus, this from the CNN story. The Oprah factor?
Clinton is now at 31 percent to Obama’s 30 percent. New Hampshire’s primary is set for January 8.
Clinton’s 5-percentage point drop appears to have been largely due to the loss of support among women.
I’m assuming the attacks on Obama have hurt her, although if so she hasn’t learned her lesson yet. With Carville possibly joining the campaign and Billy Jeff acting the alpha male who’s about to get hosed by a bigger alpha, it is, officially, panic time. I’ve noted before how Edwards is killing Obama right now by sucking away leftist voters on an increasingly quixotic upset bid. Under any other circumstances, Obama would/could offer him the vice presidency in exchange for dropping out, but Silky’s already been there and done that. Exit question: Are there any cabinet positions he could offer him instead? Labor secretary, maybe? Silky’s totally unqualified, but then he’s totally unqualified for everything except delivering closing arguments at personal injury trials.
Update: To be clear, not every poll shows Obama leading Hillary in Iowa. In fact, Rasmussen has her up by three points. The two most recent polls before that give him the lead.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I can hear Obama repeating the line from the fan dub of the X-men cartoon right now…
liquidflorian on December 12, 2007 at 2:20 PM
I’m watching the chaos with glee…. it helps blunt the out and out bloodshed on the Republican side.
That said, I don’t know who I want to win the Dem nomination. Hillary is the most vulnerable in the general… yet she might win. I think Obama is the least scary (well, outside of Biden or Dodd, but they have competence, so of course they won’t win). So what to do? Root for the one who would be beatable but a disaster if we lose, or root for the lesser of all evils there?
I will say, if it’s Obama versus Huck, I’d have a hard time choosing. What’s the difference?
Vanceone on December 12, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Pull for Obama because he is not electable.
swami on December 12, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Don’t you think Hillary has a better chance of swaying the middle of the road swing voters in the general? I suppose that depends on who the GOP candidate is. I don’t think either of them would fare too well against Rudy, Mitt, or Thompson. If we can keep Huck out of the equation, this religion bashing nonsense will go away and our guy can run on issues in the general.
a capella on December 12, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Given his adversarial relationship with doctors, hospitals and the insurance industry, perhaps Edeards could wreak some havoc over at HHS.
Speaking of “sucking away leftist voters”, if it wasn’t for Nan’s pork power, wouldn’t St. Cindy beat Pelosi in a landslide?
eeyore on December 12, 2007 at 2:38 PM
The Opra effect
bnelson44 on December 12, 2007 at 2:44 PM
It’s a long process and Hillary should be able to recover but……. assuming she doesn’t get the nomination after all this time and all the assumptions that she is the heir to the Clinton dynasty……..
Does she accept defeat gracefully or does she and her “husband” spend the rest of the campaign season being bitter and nasty the way John McCain was in 2000?
highhopes on December 12, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Minister of hair salon safety?
Hening on December 12, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Introducing Ambassador to France, John Edwards …
doufree on December 12, 2007 at 2:54 PM
I’d rather have Clinton than Obama for two reasons. First is that Clinton is more beatable IMO. Second is that Clinton is almost a moderate if you look at her positions. Obama is WAY out there on the left. One of the top-5 liberal Senators, probably. He’s practically Edwards-esque.
RW Wacko on December 12, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Hillary is now trying to run as an outsider, new this whole politics thing:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2007/12/12/what-does-hillary-mean-by-quot-experience-quot.aspx
pedestrian on December 12, 2007 at 2:58 PM
In 2004 it was the “2 Johns” power duo.
In 2008 it will be “BJs for everyone” (Barrack & John)
AlexB on December 12, 2007 at 3:19 PM
The question is, who is the Howard Dean of 2008? Obama or Clinton? I say Obama. He’s riding a wave of glowing Oprah-related press (not that he’s ever gotten bad press) but I think he still blows up down the stretch.
I think Iowa Dem voters ultimately won’t vote for Obama because he’s black. That’s not because they’re racist - but they believe the rest of the country is too racist for Obama to win the general. I say Iowa Dems wuss out and go with Hillary.
You were all wondering what I was thinking, right? :)
Enrique on December 12, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Doubt it. Recent CBS/NYT poll shows that the Oprah factor helps him among 1% and hurts him among 14%. Net loss on the Oprah factor. Maybe it’s just because he’s such a hunk, and Hillary is the kind of woman that other women spread malicious lesbian rumors about. I’m christening that the Hunk/Bitch factor.
Mark Jaquith on December 12, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I had to do a double take on that pic of Obama and
Edwards. . . Edwards looks more like Shep Smith then
Shep himself.
Texyank on December 12, 2007 at 6:27 PM