So if Clinton starts to lose then where will her support go?

[Quixote1818]

Poll question: So if Clinton starts to lose then where will her support go?

I just have the feeling she peaked too early and won't be able to stop the bleeding. I she her coming in 3rd in Iowa then she will look like damaged goods to everyone in NH. So where will most of her support go at that point?

[saltpoint]

1. Have no idea, but my instincts tell me it's premature to write off her

chances.

There are many capable souls working in her behalf all over the place.

And, she's still in the lead nationally.

[ilovesunshine]

7. I agree with you, and there are a few debates to go. nt

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. I thought it was common knowledge that she was going to loose in Iowa

Edwards has been there campaigning since 2004. Obama staffed 1,000's and it was understood that Clinton was not the favorite in Iowa. What changed?

[JackORoses]

21. if it's a given she will lose, why is she trying so hard? oh, right, it is important, after all

[Evergreen Emerald]

24. I am not saying it isn't important. I am saying that I thought it was a done

deal that she was not going to win in Iowa. I do know that there should be some showing, and perhaps that is why, when it gets closer to the time, they all send in the volunteers.

[liberal N proud]

3. The corporations and their media isn't going to let that happen

They have already anointed her the nominee without one vote ever being cast and they are not going to let a little thing like public support get in the way of their progress.

[cali]

4. you must think New Hampshire voters are sheep.

Clue: They're not. They're some of the most informed voters in the country. She could easily come in 2nd or 3rd or even fourth in IA and win NH. Write her off this early at your peril. The oddsmakers still have her as a heavy favorite. In fact, none of the top three should be written off at this point. Clinton has scads of money, great organization and more support than good old denial DU wants to admit.

[Quixote1818]

8. That is just my best guess. I base it mostly on what happened 4 years ago

NH voted exactly like Iowa. Though I know that has been different in the past.

[bunnies]

9. Not exactly

IA: John Kerry (38%) John Edwards (32%), Howard Dean (18%), Richard Gephardt (11%)
NH: John Kerry (38%), Howard Dean (26%), Wes Clark ( 12%), John Edwards (12%) *Gephardt got .2%

[Quixote1818]

10. Thanks for posting that. For some reason I thought Edwards came in 2nd

in New Hampshire.

[bunnies]

15. Youre welcome.

:hi:

Of course its really hard to use the '04 data to predict outcome due to the fact that Clark didnt compete in Iowa. But the thing you've got to remember about most voters in NH is that they really dont care what anyone else thinks. I think beyond the first place finisher getting a bit of a bump... the rest Iowas results dont really make much difference.

[Quixote1818]

16. True, however if someone wins both Iowa and NH they become almost impossible to beat

it seems. It would probably be a good thing if Obama or Edwards won Iowa and someone different won in NH just to keep the race competitive.

[bunnies]

19. I agree.

I too would like to see different people win these states. And I hope that no matter what NOBODY drops out before Feb 5. I think thats a pipe dream though.

[Kucinich4America]

22. I couldn't agree more

Let's keep it competitive.....all the way to Denver. No nominee until August.

[drbob99]

26. NH already appears to be affected by the changing polls in Iowa.

[yourout]

5. Huckabee.

[Quixote1818]

6. LOL! nt

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

11. To the dismay of some, HRC will win fairly easily. But if she dropped out

tomorrow her support would go predominantly to Edwards because he is perceived by the voters as a southern moderate.

It's absurd, given his campaign stances, but that's what they think, and what voters think is all that matters. Dig into the cross-tabs of any poll and you'll see that Edwards support comes more from moderates, not progressives.

[Colobo]

12. So you think Hillary will win this regardless of this shift in momentum?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

18. Yes. I have always said Obama would win Iowa, so no change there.

And I never expected Hillary to win NH by 30 points, so no change there. And since Bill lost Iowa and New Hampshire in 2000, I'm sure they've considered the possibility.

Momentum is important, but in momentum terms one could say as easily that Obama is peaking a month too soon. (Dean made giant gains between a month and two weeks out, then gave it all back before any votes were cast.)

Hillary does have some real support under the August fluff, so she will not just slide to zero. And Edwards isn't going away.

I have backed the Obama-style candidate (the one that appeals to college educated Dems) in about five presidential primaries so far, and they always get chewed up. After a while, I've learned that the media always shows a tight race because that's a good story, but the institutional candidate always wins. In the end, it's about delegates, not headlines and polls. The exciting candidate always ends up in an impossible delegate chase in the end.

Obama has probably been wrong to focus on Clinton. To win, Obama needs a a two-way race. Chipping at the front-runner makes it a three-way or four-way race. A splintered field will keep Obama in the delegate hunt to the end. The thing is, the strategy to win and the strategy to survive aren't the same. He will not be knocked out, but will not ultimately win. As you know, the contender needs to knock out the champ... he can't let it go to the score-cards.

Obama needs to destroy evryone but Clinton. His chance has always been to first get it down to two, then ride momentum, hoping to swamp a surprisingly vulnerable front-runner. Instead, he has weakened her enough to allow everyone to play. He should have gone after Edwards' base voters and let Hillary swell up as a paper tiger, then puncture her at a time there are no alternatives.

But we will all know soon enough.

[ilovesunshine]

13. I'm a moderate voter, but here I would be viewed as conservative.

My choices have always been Clinton, Biden, and then Edwards.

[Quixote1818]

14. This graph shows that Clinton mostly hurts Edwards in NH

[EffieBlack]

17. Anecdotal observation -

Many people I know are torn between Clinton and Obama. Those who have gone with Clinton did so after a real struggle between supporting her and Obama. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who was or is torn between Clinton and Edwards.

Based on my own observations, I think Obama would be the primary beneficiary of any Clinton fall-off.

[sniffa]

20. hopefully, none of the top two

i think it will spread kind of evenly, though, with greater weight given to the Iowa upsets.

why is Dodd continuously left out of these polls?

[AtomicKitten]

23. home in a huff

[drbob99]

25. nowhere. they wouldn't recognize any of the other names.

[Carrieyazel]

27. She could come in 4th. I see Richardson beating her. It's Iowa.

A candidate like Hillary always has problems in Iowa. Frontrunner (even though she is sinking) candidate running a not to lose campaign.