LA Times/Bloomberg: Obama slips under 20%...Hillary up by 31...

[SaveElmer]

National Primary poll...

Hillary 48%
Obama 17%
Edwards 13%

From Todd Beeton at MyDD...

While Clinton's level of support here is consistent with her national recent average, the story here is Obama's fall, showing further evidence of an emerging crisis in confidence among voters in his campaign. The analysis expands on where Clinton is gaining and Obama is losing support.

Among the groups that give Clinton a strong margin of support are self-described moderates, voters age 45 to 64, non- whites and those who earn less than $40,000 a year.

Women are her core constituency. Women who earn less than $40,000 a year back Clinton over Obama by a margin of 40 percent to 18 percent. She has a similar lead among women making $60,000 or more.

Obama has slipped 12 points among voters age 18 to 44. He has also lost support among whites, males and college-educated voters.

Clinton picked up 17 percentage points from the last survey in June among younger voters and made big gains among college graduates, men and those who earn more than $60,000 a year.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/10/23/184559/77

[Colobo]

1. Oh God! Obama is DONE! DONE! DONE!

(Blah!)

[SaveElmer]

3. That was scary...

You sounded like BigDarryl there for a minute...JESUS!!!

[jonnyblitz]

16. we can only hope. nt

[AtomicKitten]

21. Well, say hello to President Clinton then.

Or did you think it out that far?

[jefferson_dem]

2. There's definitely some coalescing around Hillary.

Still early... Right? :scared:

[Yupster]

6. This is the least competitive nomination

I've seem without an incumbant running. Hillary is not my first choice, but I'll happily vote for her. She wrapped the nomination up months ago.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. But it's still a two-way race; just ask anybody.

Johnny who?

[durrrty libby]

5. She is doing phenomenal. I must send my birthday wish to her

tomorrow. Bill asked in a cute video. Did you get yours?

Dang that Bill. I was joking with wyldwolf a while back, that if Bill started

making donation requests on video, I'd be sunk

HAHA...Bill must read DU.........(kidding..really hope he doesn't)

[Colobo]

7. Hillary 85%, Obama 10%, Edwards 5%?

Maybe she has 100% of support. Obama and Edwards should quit.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. There's A Lot Of People On This Board Who Have Been Very Abusive

For those people I almost want HRC to win as I want their candidate to lose...

You seem like a pleasant guy...Whatever happens I hope you're not disappointed...

PEACE

DSB

[Colobo]

11. I've been more aggressive than usual today

because Obama is taking an unfair pounding for the Donnie thing.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. No Bashing From Me...

I have not bashed Obama once on the homophobic gospel singer...

I am here to tout my candiate and defend her from unwarranted attacks...

[PurityOfEssence]

32. You've had a hard day; I think most reasonable people recognize that.

Don't forget: there are a lot of reasonable people here.

PR disasters have a life of their own, but they follow some basic patterns. Trying to stem the tide at the first breach of the dam simply doesn't work. It's fine to say your piece and counter the jabs, but people need to vent and things will run their course to a certain degree. An unyielding approach often just draws more fire.

Unless you have an inside track to his campaign, your best course is probably to say your piece merely a whole bunch of times and then see how it develops.

Still, this is not a very deft move on his part, and the calculations of belief and prejudice cast one in a cold and manipulative light; it's one of the many reasons why religion should be avoided as much as possible in the public sphere.

[FlaxieB]

49. Hillary Supporters have been very Abusive to Edwards and Obama Supporters

[youthere]

55. Hillary supporters have been abusive to everyone.

[madrchsod]

17. yes he should!!

he needs to get back to illinois to represent ME! i voted for him so he owes me a few more years representing ME! yes he`s not going to represent the people of the usa because he is going to represent ME!------ i`m going to go lay down for awhile.............

[FlaxieB]

50. Nope he needs to be in the White House

[The Ghost]

8. Sigh

Hillary WILL be a disaster of a candidate. Its very simple. Dems really are stupid enough to nominate her. *Siiiigh*

[SaveElmer]

10. Same poll has her beating every Republican candidate...

By between 6 and 15 points...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Don't Confuse The Ghost With Facts...It Will Only Scare Him

Boo

[durrrty libby]

26. lol.....I love The DSB

:rofl:

[The Ghost]

14. Those who trust so much in these polls

need to get out and really talk to people, and stop analyzing this constantly shifting data. These polls are useless, completely useless. Did you not pay attention to, i dont know ... 2004?! You just dont get it, you really dont understand, im sorry to say. I like Hillary a lot, and if nominated, hope she wins, but she will be a total fucking disaster of a candidate. The power of the GOP and their right wing machine as Hillary has called it is always under-estimated by the Democrats, and always to their peril.

[SaveElmer]

15. It is precisely becauser I do get out and talk to people...

That I think these polls are close to accurate...

"The power if the GOP and their right wing machine as Hillary has called it is always under-estimated by the Democrats, and always to their peril."

And what is their record against the Clinton's? The answer... 2 - 10

The Republicans are batting.200 against a Clinton...Bill lost a House race in 1974 and lost one election as Governor(1984 I think)...

At the national level, the Clinton's have never been beaten...so what makes you think Hillary Clinton would underestimate the Right Wing? She is one of the few people in our party adept at beating them...

[The Ghost]

19. Because...

Lets be honest here. The Clintons have won races where they got lucky.

First, Bill won in 3-way elections (vs Bush and Perot) in 92 and 96. Pretty much every person who speaks on those elections all say without Perot in the mix, Bill would have lost them both.

Second, Hillary was up against very weak candidates in a pretty blue state. Not exactly a tough race. She has never run nationally before. But now she is, where half the country or more is sick of the Clintons and/or HATE Hillary. Its really that simple. The hatred towards her is very genuine, very strong, and very real, and once the GOP goes full throttle on her, its gonna get ugly. I mean, they hate her more than Kerry, and remember what they did to him?

'The Clintons.' Just part of your reasoning is why Hillary will not win, and why people are sick of them. They dont want a 2 for 1 deal here. In the eyes of many voters, that shows a weakness of Hillary, that she needs a co-president.

As well, ok, you very well may talk to people, but I gotta tell you im here in Boston, as liberal as it gets, and I dont know anyone who likes Clinton. At all. Im not trying to bash Hillary for the sake of another candidate. I am pretty much undecided at this point. I like Hillary, but I'm just trying to say people really need to come to a real understanding of how much people do not like her. You may not see that in these ridiculous polls, but in the final vote, you will.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. How Could He Have Lost In 96?

That's just playa hating... He got 49.3% of the vote in 96... Is your argument that if Perot wasn't in the race he couldn't get have got seventh tenth of a perecent more?

As for 92:

In 1992, Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton defeated incumbent President George Bush. Almost every analysis or reference to the 1992 presidential race claims that Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush the election. No facts are cited, it is merely asserted.

Perot did a lot of damage, it is true. During the spring primaries in the big industrial states like New York and Pennsylvania, when attention might have been paid to Clinton and former California Governor Jerry Brown as they fought each other and debated a domestic agenda for the new administration, all the media covered was the "undeclared" candidacy of Ross Perot.

< Digression - What is an undeclared candidacy? Especially when there were already several independent parties qualified to be on the ballot, but which were not considered worthy of coverage: The New Alliance Party, LaRouche for President, the Libertarian Party, the Socialist Party, the Prohibition Party and the Independent Voters Party. Why was Perot, who was not running, receiving more coverage than the candidates who were running? The answer is money. The American press is not a free press, it's a bought press. Perot promised that, if he ran, he would spend $100 million in media advertising. The press supported the undeclared candidacy of Ross Perot to fatten their own pocketbooks. The minor party candidates, who had no money to spend on media, could therefore be ignored.>

But did Perot defeat Bush? First, look at the turnout. Perot got 19,660,450 votes. The total turnout was more than 13 million higher than in 1988. So, even though Perot got a lot of votes, 13 million of those voters didn't vote in 1988. Clinton ran 3.1 million votes ahead of Dukakis, but Bush received 9.7 million fewer votes than four years earlier. The two party vote fell by 7 million. So, Perot only took 7 million votes from the two parties combined. If Perot had not been in the race, would those 7 million Perot voters who voted for Bush and Dukakis in 1988 have voted for Bush by a sufficient margin for him to overcome Clinton's 3.1 million vote lead. Those 7 million Perot voters would have had to favor Bush over Clinton by 5 to 2. Or, even if all 19.6 million Perot voters had voted for one of the major party candidates, they would have had to favor Bush by a 58% to 42% margin to overcome clinton's lead and tie the race. Was this likely in view of the fact that the other 84 million voters were favoring Clinton by 7%, 53.5% to Bush's 46.5%?

The 1992 presidential election was an analyst's dream. Usually, the presidential candidate runs far ahead of the rest of the ticket. Perot's presence in the presidential race combined with an absence of running mates for lesser offices meant that Clinton and Bush ran behind their respective party's nominees for Governor, Senator and the House. Consequently, it was easy to follow Perot's voters as they voted for other offices. They voted for Democratic and Republican Governor, Senator and House of Representative candidates in sufficient numbers to give them higher vote totals than Clinton and Bush.

This assumes that all Clinton's supporters voted for the other Democratic candidates and all Bush's supporters voted for the Republican candidates for Governor, Senator and the House. Since Republican candidates for other offices received more votes than Bush, and Democratic candidates for other offices received more votes than Clinton, this is a statistically valid assumption. The higher vote totals for the non-presidential candidates had to come from Perot's voters.

In the Governor's races, Perot's voters cast 18% of their ballots for the Republican candidates; 56% of their ballots for Democratic candidates, 17% for independent candidates, and 8% did not bother to vote for Governor. If Perot's voters had voted for Bush and Clinton in the same proportion that the voted for the Republican and Democratic candidates for Governor, Clinton's lead would have increased by 7.5 million votes.

In the Senate races, Perot's supporters voted 27% for the Republican candidates, 24% for the Democratic candidates, 23% for the independent candidates, and 24% skipped the Senate races entirely. (This does not include states that did not have Senate races.)

In the House races, Perot's voters cast 22% of their ballots for Republican candidates, 19% for Democratic candidates, 18% for independent candidates, and 40% did not vote in House races.

Perot's voters voted overwhelmingly for Democratic Governor candidates, and only marginally in favor of the Republican candidates for the House and Senate. Perot's voters favored Republican Senate candidates by 2.28%, and Republican House candidates by 2.69%. Because Perot's voters were only 1/5th of the total, that translates into about another 500,000 votes or 0.5% for bush if they had voted in a two way presidential race the same way they voted for the Senate and House. That is about 1/7th of the margin by which Bush lost.

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.

http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

[The Ghost]

24. But ...

Can we stick with Hillary here please? Hillary is not Bill. Those were not her races. The races she won were cakewalks, because of very poor opponents, in a blue state.

[SaveElmer]

25. Why do you suppose the Republicans could not find stronger candidates?...nt

[SaveElmer]

23. Uh no...

Perot had no effect on the outcome in either 92 or 96...exit polls clearly showed that Perot voters would have nearly split their votes between Bush and Clinton. Possibly one state would have shifted to Bush, nowhere near enough to change the outcome. He had even less effect in 1996

Hillary ran against two weak candidates. Yes this is true, and why do you think the Republicans could not find anyone stronger willing to take her on? Because they knew she would lose. Guiliani ducked a confrontation with her, and by 2006 the machine Hillary, Spitzer, and Schumer had built has nearly decimated the Republican Party in New York...

"But now she is, where half the country or more is sick of the Clintons and/or HATE Hillary. "

Wrong again, polling clearly shows Bill Clinton continues to be the most popular Democrat in the country, and Hillary's negatives are about where any general election candidate ends up...and lets be frank, Hillary is like a general election candidate having been subject to attack for 15 years...and as I have pointed out, she is polling ahead of all Republican candidates, and right now would switch between 3 and 8 previously red states...

Look here... http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=10&year=2007&base_name=how_polarizing_is_hillary

And of course the Republicans are going to attack...they would attack any candidate that we put up. As you point out they smeared Kerry into losing. Sorry, but Kerry was inept at dealing with it...Hillary clearly is not...

"'The Clintons.' Just part of your reasoning is why Hillary will not win, and why people are sick of them. They dont want a 2 for 1 deal here. In the eyes of many voters, that shows a weakness of Hillary, that she needs a co-president."

Show me any evidence this is true...in fact just the opposite is the case...most people believe Bill will be an asset to Hillary. And far from being viewed as being weak, she consistently is seen as the strongest of the candidates...

I live in Virginia...where Hillary is outpolling all Republican candidates...and I hear quite a positive buzz about her here...

[The Ghost]

28. "There you go again"

POLLS, POLLS, POLLS. Get over them now, please, seriously. Those who rely in polls are only going to end up disappointed when the votes come in. Did you not pay attention at all in 2004, for example?

And evidence about the co-presidency thing. You're reading one right now. It bothers me. Lets not get into that discussion, thats just my gut feeling.

And Giuliani did not DUCK the race against Clinton. He had prostate cancer, and had to drop out of the race because of that. And just because the Republicans cant find anyone to go up against Hillary does not mean she knows how to beat Republicans. Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick have 'decimated' the GOP here in Mass, so does that mean they can then run nationally and beat the GOP? NO, and Kerry proved that.

[SaveElmer]

29. Right...

So your circle of personal acquaintances is far more accurate eh?

Polls in 2004 were not far off, all showed the election very tight...which it ended up being...

[The Ghost]

31. ...

Didnt say that at all. You just asked for ANY evidence, and I gave you one. And if theres one, theres a lot more than that, we can be sure of that.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Kerry Was A Good Man And A Hero

But he sucked at political hardball, like Dukakis....

The Kennedys can play hardball...Remember how Ted Kennedy slapped around Mitt Romney...

But nobody could play hardball like my hero, Robert Kennedy...God bless him, he would have ate glass for his brother, John... Poor Hubert...He didn't know what hit him in 1960...

[kenfrequed]

45. Oh yeah

And for petes sake it is New-friggin York!

No conservative Republican is going to win that state anytime soon. That said, New York is not America.

[youthere]

56. If polls were always right we should be under the administration of President Dean right now.

[surfermaw]

57. And Jimmy Carter would never become president

Clinton would have only a slim chance, and what were the polls showing after the refurbs tried to kick him to the side, wasn't it something like 65%

I think Edwards will be the man, and he has the plan.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. The Power Of The Clinton Machine Is Underestimated

When it comes to hardball politics Hillary Clinton is Michael Corleone with a uterus... I am so looking forward to this campaign...

Payback for making Dukakis look like an alien...Payback for making Al Gore into a serial fabricator and oddball...And payback for swiftboating John Kerry... We finally have someone who will fight as dirty as her opponents...

[durrrty libby]

27. "Michael Corleone with a uterus" oh geezus...but all in all..fabulous post

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. When It Comes To Political Hardball...

He rarely lost his temper...He was never gratuitously violent or vindictive (except for poor Frado) and he always won in the end...

[durrrty libby]

33. Yes ..I'm not a huge Godfather fan..my sons are, but I guess

she must take it to the mattresses? or something like that

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Could You Elaborate On The Mattresses ...I Don't Get It...

I'm just saying Hillary Clinton is very strong and goal oriented... Her focus would make her a success in any endeavor... She would have been a heck of a CEO...

on edit- no sexual reference at all...Michael Corleone was just very smart...Very shrewd...Knew when to attack and when not to...

I added the uterus part because HRC's a woman... From now on I will excise the uterus part...I must even can the analogy...

When it comes to hardball politics she makes Lee Atwater and Karl Rove look like choirboys...That's the ticket...

[durrrty libby]

36. "Go to the mattresses" was a line Tom Hanks used in the

movie "You've Got Mail" ( The name of the movie alluded me last night)He was a ruthless businessman

and he said it came from The Godfather.

You made me think of it with your analogy..That's all

No offense taken ;)

[cobalt1999]

37. wow, so much fear of the republicans...

The republican party is not the same anymore. Bush has gutted their support and money. Slam dunk win in 2008 for us.

[CyberPieHole]

59. Yet, Bill Clinton won. TWICE.

What happened to the RW machine then? Did they fall asleep at the wheel? Papa Bush was an asshole and a failure, not even the RW machine could grant him a second term.

[kenfrequed]

41. and thats it

You support a candidate because they poll slightly better (almost entirely due to name recognition) this far out from an election?

Why would you even bother voting? Just go with whoever is most popular.

What about the important issues of the day?
War?
Healthcare?
Civil liberties?
Media Monopolies?
Global Warming?

Well the heck with all that I am going to vote with the candidate that the media says is best and that seems to be polling best.

I say it again, why do you even bother voting?

[SaveElmer]

43. You haven't been here that long apparently...

Rather than repeat myself yet again, try a search on active and archived threads and you can see why I support Hillary...

As to the immediate thread, my comment was directed at a poster who made the assertion that Hillary was so widely hated she could not win...merely pointing out evidence that contravenes that...

As I will with you...

If Hillary's support is all name recognition as you claim, then explain why her support is rising as the name recognition of her opponents increases. By your reasoning her support should be dropping while Obama and Edwards gain...

I'll be waiting...

[kenfrequed]

44. Right....

and next you will tell me that repitition, advertising, name brand, and bandwagoning don't actually work.

Give me a break.

[cuke]

46. You made a BS accusation and got called on it

I'd have more faith in your BS predictions of the future (ie "next you will tell me...") if you showed an ability to predict the past

[SaveElmer]

47. Funny...

But typical... of course we know that Hillary has 50% of Democrats bamboozled...because as we know it is impossible she might actually be the one people support...

[durrrty libby]

20. "siiiiigh" my ass...she will be fabulous. Stop letting the dumb repukes

brainwash you

[BootinUp]

38. DU isn't bashing her enough

Come'on, lets go y'all.

/sarcasm

[Imagevision]

39. OMG! the sky is falling? -> getthefuckouttahere, - Obama the man with the plan!!!

[Adelante]

40. Interesting

Obama's loss appears to go to Clinton, indicating, in contradiction to netroots claims, that Obama and Edwards do not share a constituency.



(This graph is from just before the poll in the OP)

[William769]

42. Thats our gal!

K&R!

[ecstatic]

48. the media built him up to tear him down

The initial premise that the media latched on to.... "Obama is so articulate! Such a dynamic speaker...!!" And then when people realized that he is human, with flaws... the numbers began slipping, immediately.... Suddenly Obama was saying to many "umms" and "uhhs" during the debates. Suddenly he wasn't black enough. Suddenly he had relatives who were slave owners. I can't say I didn't see this coming, because I did.

[zulchzulu]

51. Has President Gephardt made a statement about the poll yet?

Perhaps at the Edmund Muskie Presidential Library in Bangor, Maine right off the President Dewey Expressway...

[SaveElmer]

52. When have I ever said...

A poll today translates into the same result tomorrow...

I'll save you the trouble...I haven't. And in fact have said the opposite on many occasions...

I understand you need something to hang onto here...because as of right now, it is not looking good for the rest of the field...

But since you like to compare polls...show me where Gephardt ever had such a wide and consistent lead in the polls four years ago...

[zulchzulu]

53. Here...

Perhaps President Dean or Lieberman might make a comment...

DMR poll: Gephardt takes Iowa lead
by kos
Sun Nov 09, 2003 at 01:33:26 PM PDT

The latest Des Moines Register poll gives Gep a growing lead in Iowa. MoE +/- 4.4%. (Late July results in parenthesis)

    Gephardt 27 (21)
    Dean 20 (21)
    Kerry 15 (14)
    Edwards 5 (5)
    Lieberman 5 (10)
    Clark 4 (-)
    Kucinich 3 (3)
    Braun 1 (1)
    Sharpton 1 (1)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/11/9/163326/266


http://www.pollster.com/blogs/flashback_the_polls_in_july_20.php

[SaveElmer]

54. Again...

Show me where Gephardt or Lieberman had as large or consistent lead as Hillary has had...

This simply shows me that Gephardt was ahead in Iowa on November 3rd 2003. I never said he didn't ever lead in any poll...

How many months did Gephardt and/or Lieberman lead their opposition by the margins Hillary has maintained ?

[Tellurian]

58. He can't and he won't.. because the Hillary Campaign is run like it's 20 pts behind!

Zulu has yet to admit, it's only a figure of speech.

GO HILLARY!

[BootinUp]

60. Iowa loved Geppy too

that comparison is ludricous.