Clinton Hangs Onto New Hampshire
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Edwards, Hillary, New Hampshire, PollsWith New Hampshire voters set to go to the polls on Jan. 8, Clinton (N.Y.) got 35 percent in the new poll, with Obama (Ill.) close behind at 29 percent. Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) ran third with 17 percent and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was fourth at 10 percent. Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (Ohio), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) each registered 3 percent or less. [...]Although Clinton’s edge has shrunk, her supporters are more enthusiastic and loyal than are Obama’s or Edwards’s, and she scores better on measures of strength, experience and electability than any rival. She was also the most trusted on six out of seven issues tested in this poll. But New Hampshire voters said Obama is the most inspiring candidate in the field, by a 2 to 1 ratio over Clinton.
But what happens if Barack wins Iowa? How much of a bump would that give him? Certainly 5%. Probably 10%. Either way, that means New Hampshire goes to him.
And what if Hillary comes in 3rd in Iowa? Everybody acknowledges that Edwards has an amazing ground game there, and remember what happened to the frontrunner in 2004. He went negative late, the polls tightened, he placed 3rd behind Kerry and Edwards…and then he screamed himself into political infamy.
I guess we’ll see…
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 6th, 2007 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Edwards, Hillary, New Hampshire, Polls. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 6th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Something else to consider: Gore might make an endorsement very close to the primary kickoff. It’s probably not going to be Hillary, so either Obama or Edwards could get a big boost at a crucial time in the campaign. If Gore endorses Obama, I think he wins by a surprising margin in Iowa, which puts him over the top in NH.
But if Gore endorses Edwards, he could take Iowa, and then we have a whole new ballgame.
December 6th, 2007 at 10:07 am
I know this site does not think much of HRC, but I wanted to post here what I thought was a good and brave answer she gave in the NPR debate re immigration. In the debate she argued strongly, and as far as I can tell its the only time any candidate has made this statement this clearly, that there can be no contemplation of the forced deportation of 12 million people in the context of immigration reform, that it would require a police state and the surrender of civil liberties to achieve and would be completely inconsistent with what American stands for. I have long felt this to be the case, and discussion of such deportations sickens me. It took the Nazis a police state of unprecedented strength to deport a few hundred thousand jews before they gave up and just started to murder them. It took police states in Russia and China to deport undesirables, but never in the history of human kind, I believe, have we ever seen a massed, forced deportation of the size and nature being discussed in this supposedly free country to get rid of illegal immigrants. I would oppose such a deportation with every fiber in my being, and I think that HRC deserve praise for a distinctly non-pandering, non-triangulated position of courage based on principle, stated clearly and without qualification. Maybe Obama and Edwards have said the same, just not that I have heard in any debate, and I have listened to them all.