Clinton Extends Lead To 23 Points. Clinton 48%, Obama 25%

[wyldwolf]

A new Gallup Poll finds New York Senator Hillary Clinton's strengthened frontrunner status in the Democratic field for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination holding firm, following an early August survey in which she stretched her mid-July 12-point lead over Illinois Senator Barack Obama to 22 points. The latest Gallup Poll, conducted Aug. 13-16, 2007, finds public support for the Democratic nomination at 48% for Clinton and 25% for Obama, giving Clinton a 23-point lead.

Support for former North Carolina senator John Edwards, in third place with 13%, is similar to what he has received since May. However, support for the bottom tier of candidates appears to be dropping off compared with June and July. At 2%, support for New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is not lower by a statistically significant margin than the 4% he received in early August, but it is lower than his readings of 5% in June and July. Similarly, Deleware Senator Joe Biden's current 1% is his weakest showing of the year, and below his high of 4% in July. Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd remain mired in the 1%-2% range.







http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28480

[brentspeak]

1. Which should give us more incentive to work harder on Edwards' behalf

[The Backlash Cometh]

21. It's Gallup. The only thing you'll determine by their polls is who the GOP is backing.

[mzmolly]

51. LOL

Considering the Survey USA polls posted yesterday, I'd say that's a good call?

[rodeodance]

2. whow, just whow

[jefferson_dem]

15. rather...

:puke: just :puke:

[avrdream]

3. Cha- ching!

Good news, I say.

Oh right, it isn't a poll in the early states....sorry, I got overwhelmed with my excitement!

Now, how do I do that stupid SARCASM button?

[wyldwolf]

5. here ya go

August 21, 2007 Zogby Iowa poll: Clinton 30%, Obama 19%, Edwards 23%, Richardson 10% "A wide majority of those likely Democratic caucus–goers said that, should a Democrat win the White House next year, they would prefer a return to the domestic and foreign policies of the Bill Clinton presidency. While 77% said they agreed with that idea, 16% disagreed. More than a third (36%) said they "strongly agreed" that that would be a good strategy for the next Democratic President."

-----------

August 17, 2007 Rasmussen Florida poll: Clinton 43%, Obama 24%, Edwards 11%

August 17, 2007 Research 2000 Nevada poll: Clinton 33%, Obama 19%, Edwards 15%, Richardson 11%

August 17, 2007 Field California poll: Clinton 49%, Obama 19%, Edwards 10%

August 16, 2007 Public Policy Polling South Carolina poll (PDF): Clinton 36%, Obama 33%, Edwards 12%

August 15, 2007 Rasmussen New Hampshire poll: Clinton 37%, Obama 22%, Edwards 14%, Richardson 9%

[druidity33]

23. interesting phrasing...

It always seems to me that i'm viewing tons of Poll results with HRC in a Heavy favorite position... But i don't recall ever having seen the Poll questions with the Poll results. I guess i need to go to the Pollminder's site to get the full scoop.

This bit caught my eye:

"should a Democrat win the White House next year, they would prefer a return to the domestic and foreign policies of the Bill Clinton presidency. While 77% said they agreed with that idea, 16% disagreed."

I wonder if that question had any bearing on how HRC fared in that poll. Who are they calling/relying on to be polltakers? Are these truly "random" samplings?

Not trying to dump on Hil, i guess i'd vote for her were she the nominee... it just doesn't feel like she's that "far ahead" of everyone else.

:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

27. people tend to discredit findings they don't agree with.

[druidity33]

32. i don't think so...

i don't believe questioning (what i was doing) and discrediting (what you say "people" do) can really be analogous... though you are of course entitled to your opinion, as i am mine.

I was taught to Question Authority not just on the obviously questionable things, but also on the things we take for granted.

It is true though, rather than ponder aloud, i should have taken the time to find the poll questions and put them alongside the results and see how the questions were or were not leading. I am in dial-up land though and have loads of garden work to do today, so i got lazy. I'll see if i can follow through later.

You can call me cynical if you want, most everyone i know does, but in my experience when the M$M tells me something, i tend to consider the polar opposite as worth considering...

just my 2 pennies

[wyldwolf]

34. examples are all around us...

[druidity33]

35. sufficiently vague...

[wyldwolf]

36. ok.

The CONSTANT claims on DU and other "progressive" outlets that scientific polls are rigged because someone they don't like leads in them. The rejection and/or rewriting of scientific research by the Bushes because they don't like the findings.

[druidity33]

33. i don't think so...

self-delete... dupe post.

doh!

[Alamom]

4. Good news from New York and Arkansas this morning.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=132

[WillTheGoober]

6. Still Open ...

This race is still very wide open.

I think every candidate, Hillary included, will need to visit voters, make their cases, and ask for votes.

Anyone supporting a candidate out there should continue to fight hard, in my opinion.

Thanks for these numbers; always good to see.

[gaiilonfong]

7. I wouldn't pay attention to these polls just yet

They don't take into consideration all the voters who just use cell phones and the internet(s). I have a feeling that after the first primary, people are going to be bewildered by what happeneed....just a hunch so don't flame me, but I think the grassroots, activists, who will be voting in higher numbers in the primaries this time are not being considered properly in these polls...Let's see!

[wyldwolf]

8. so you think people who use cell phones have a significantly different voting pattern?

[gaiilonfong]

9. NO, they haven't been contacted

Therefore the poll is skewed to an older age group, which likely favors Hillary.
Look at all the on-line straw polls, I know that is also skewed towards younger voters, but add the two together, I say that will be the more likely result!
just my .02 cents, I could be wrong, I just don't believe the polls...UH remember the exit polls....need I say more!

[wyldwolf]

16. ok, I understand that, but if they don't have a different voting pattern, it doesn't matter

...

[madrchsod]

10. according to this clinton has the thing all wrapped up

how can anyone catch up to let alone pass her numbers? by febuary of next year she will be over 90%

[Tellurian]

12. It's great...

Finally, we have a Democratic candidate that can successfully break through to the masses because their experience of running a flawless, or nearly flawless campaign, is getting the message out of not only Hope but... Resolution.

[durrrty libby]

11. Excellent. By the looks of the last chart, she is leaving Obama in the dust

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[zulchzulu]

13. Sept. 2003 ABC Poll: Lieberman 21%, Dean 15%, Kerry 14%, Gephardt 14%

As you can see, national polls months away from the first votes are always accurate...

ABC News Poll. Sept. 10-13, 2003. Registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents. Fieldwork by TNS Intersearch.

"If the 2004 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were , for whom would you vote?"

Joseph Lieberman 21
Howard Dean 15
John Kerry 14
Richard Gephardt 14
Wesley Clark 6
Al Sharpton 5
Carol Moseley Braun 4
John Edwards 3

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

[Tellurian]

14. Your last excuse was: "Unless a poll is showing a moe/+-3%" it's worthless..

From the OP:

"Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,019 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted Aug. 13-16, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points."

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28480

[durrrty libby]

17. She keeps getting closer to the 50% mark. Love it!

:applause: :applause: :applause:


Edit to add K & R and Thanks wyldwolf

[cascadiance]

40. I think this poll shows that the REAL MOE is FAR MORE than 3%...

when done at this point of the campaign. Where did Lieberman finish up? Even CLOSE to the number put in this poll? That's why this corporate poll that tries to show Clinton with a big lead is rather meaningless. There are also polls on the ground in Iowa that showed Edwards with an 8% lead there as recent as a week ago. The polls that count start beginning next year. Jimmy Carter showed how that worked back in '76.

[zulchzulu]

44. If you look at the national polls and see the comparison, you see a trend

The 2003 poll had Lieberman on top with Dean, Kerry and Gephardt about 6 points behind, which gives you an indication that the combined numbers of Dean, Kerry and Gephardt was "anybody but Lieberman" with clear defined messages to differentiate those behind Lieberman.

So what happened once the name recognition wore off? Lieberman and Gephardt sank like stones...

[rinsd]

47. What kind of logic is that?

"which gives you an indication that the combined numbers of Dean, Kerry and Gephardt was "anybody but Lieberman"

No, that gives you an indication of the respective support that Dean, Kerry & Gephardt had at the time.

You think Dean's support was driven from anybody but Lieberman? How insulting to his supporters.

"If you look at the national polls and see the comparison, you see a trend"

Yes, until Dec not one candidate had a lead or even support larger than the undecideds.

That is not the case now.

[wyldwolf]

18. yep, 7 BIG points compared to Clinton's itty bitty 23 point lead. Exact same thing!

[zulchzulu]

28. One day you quibble about the validity of national polls this early...

...and the next day, it's different...

I can't wait until the votes are actually cast. You will see a far different story than the polls (like those at about this time in 2003) are.

President Lieberman?

:rofl:

Enjoy the polls now while they last...

[wyldwolf]

31. WHEN did I quibble about the validity of national polls this early?

[zulchzulu]

50. I think you mentioned it a week ago or so...

If you didn't suggest it, maybe I'm mixing you up with someone else. Either way, even Zogby suggests that national polls this early are not accurate... whatever...

[wyldwolf]

52. LOL! Oh, yah think? You should have no problems finding the quote then.

[Apollo11]

19. Gore + Obama + Edwards = 47%

I don't believe that Hillary has the nomination in the bag.

There is probably a majority of Democrats who are ready to support a credible candidate who has been a consistent opponent of the Bu$h-Cheney regime, including the invasion of Iraq.

I would like to see a Gore-Obama or Clark-Obama ticket in 2008.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Zogby says "national numbers based on name recognition and media coverage."

[wyldwolf]

22. how long ago and how many debates ago did he say that?

[flpoljunkie]

29. Zogby said this in early August.

[wyldwolf]

30. So Obama has failed to gain name recognition but Clinton's is continuously rising?

[rinsd]

45. So Hillary's name recognition is now 110% while Obama's hasn't moved?

[cobalt1999]

24. At this stage the only thing this tells us

Is Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich are toast. Polling at only 1% at this stage, means your campaign is over.

Between Hillary and Obama, the variance between them changes quite a lot over a short period of time, so no lead is safe.

Edwards has an outside chance still, but with is lack of money and not even in double digits, he is going to have to hope Hillary or Obama screw up royally.

[IndianaJones]

25. the fix is in. nt.

[SaveElmer]

26. Hillary 61 - Obama 34...wow...nt

[Broke Dad]

37. This is the preseason

Rah Rah . . . the same three Hillary schmoes keep beating us over the head with their preseason polls.

In football, we play the game because until the clock hits zero, the polls, the spread, the talking heads, and even the score at half-time doesn't mean a thing.

With any luck, I will help my fellow Iowans wound if not end Hillary's bid for the White House in 2008 by picking Edwards, Obama and Richardson ahead of her.

Twist and shout all you want Hillary drones, the season starts in Iowa and I am one of the Iowa Democrats who are working to insure that Hillary loses the first game of the season.

[cascadiance]

38. June 2003 poll bears looking at...

[wyldwolf]

39. no it doesn't

Lieberman led Kerry by 3 pts., not 23 pts.

[cascadiance]

41. But did Lieberman get even CLOSE to that number in the final analysis?

NO! That's why even 23 point lead when we don't know how it's being sampled, etc. and many of these polls have a corporate serving agenda, doesn't mean a lot either. Just last week there were polls in Iowa showing Edwards with an 8% lead there. Polls are just a campaigning tool these days.

Subtract Kerry's final poll numbers by what Lieberman got and compare that to the -3 in this poll. THAT is the margin for error!

[wyldwolf]

42. no, because he dropped out. But trying to equate a 3 pt. lead with a 23 pt lead is ludicrous

[cascadiance]

43. And claiming that polls this early are THAT meaningful is also ridiculous too...

If you look at this poll...

http://www.politicalforecast.net/2007/06/04/new-polling-confirms-edwards-romney-leading-in-iowa/

Who do you believe?

Lieberman didn't quit because he was ahead or even close in the polls. The poll then was FLAT OUT wrong as a predictor, as many are at this stage of the game no matter what margin they claim to be in place.

[wyldwolf]

46. wait... who has claimed they're meaningful?

:shrug:

[cascadiance]

48. Whoever started this thread and its echo chamber seem to think so...

If none of you think that this poll is really meaningful, then so be it. But I think we're just reminding people that they aren't really meaningful, in case some out here are trying to interpret what you guys are saying is translated in to them BEING meaningful.

It's like the old adage goes. You repeat lies enough and they become "the truth". I'm not saying these are lies and that there's any kind of bad agenda with talking about this. But the same principle applies, as it does in marketing for a lot of things. If a message gets repeated enough (whether grounded in truth or not), it becomes its own truth. It is therefore up to many of us to remind those that these "truths" are really just noise at this point, and nothing more than that.

The important thing for us as Dems to talk about now is not so much "polls" and who's ahead, but what each of these candidates' stances are on issues that are meaningful to us as progressives and Dems, and where each of these candidates falls on these issues. Once we all get to know these candidates we can later apply these to how we wish to vote, not just following a herd mentality of voting for someone "because they are ahead".

I still have a big problem with corporatism and how it runs our government through both parties and that is a primary issue for me in 2008 that needs to be addressed by ALL candidates I'm being asked to vote for. Hillary hasn't spoken to me very well on that issue yet.

[wyldwolf]

49. I started this thread. This poll's only meaning is here and now.

[LaPera]

53. Means absolutely nothing....Not a vote has been cast! Only fools put any

amount of time in such controlling bullshit....wake me when the voting starts...instead of these ridiculous, night & day media with their meaningless polls....day in and day out, forcing the (surge is working Bush bullshit) DLC, republican donated, corporate media pushing moderate Clinton down my throat!

[gorekerrydreamticket]

54. OK, no need to have these primaries and elections, whatever, ....

The polls are final. This thing has been decided. Everyone just move along now...

[BigDDem]

55. Well, this cant be right

from what I read around here, DK should be way up.

Oh, wait, ... it's the corporate media/corporate polling/corporate(fill in the blank) holding him down again.