John Edwards surges, Hillary Clinton slips in latest New Hampshire poll

[Bluebear]

The WMUR/CNN poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton with the lead at 27 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards has surged in recent weeks to narrowly take second place over Sen. Barack Obama, with 21 percent. Obama was the choice of 20 percent of New Hampshire voters polled....

The poll shows that New Hampshire Democrats view Edwards more favorably than they did in February, but Clinton has not fared so well. Favorability measures the difference between the percentage of voters who view a candidate favorably compared to those who view the candidate unfavorably. The latest poll shows 64 percent view Clinton favorably and 24 percent view her unfavorably, down from the 74-15 percent split she had two months ago.

"So there's a fairly significant chunk of the Democratic electorate here who just don't like her, and that seems to be growing somewhat," Smith said.

On the other end of the spectrum, Edwards shows 80 percent favorable to just 8 percent unfavorable, up from a 74-13 split in February.

http://www.wmur.com/news/11512703/detail.html

[Ninja Jordan]

1. Wow on Edwards

[Snotcicles]

2. Go John Edwards Go - - - - - nt

[SoFlaJet]

3. A Prayer

Dear God,
Please don't let Hillary Clinton be the dem nominee.
Thank You and Amen

[WI_DEM]

4. Wow! It's a real horse race in NH

Edwards has such a strong favorable rating that I think he could go all the way, provided that Mrs. Edwards' health doesn't totally go down hill and he has to suspend his campaign. The way I look at it if Edwards wins Iowa (and he is either tied or ahead there according to most polls) and NH, he probably will be the nominee.

Edwards/Obama would be a great ticket! and so would Edwards/Clark

[Firespirit]

7. It really is

This is a great poll because it means a competitive primary. That's good for everyone. (And I am with you on the two tickets that you like.)

[ddeclue]

17. I prefer Edwards/Obama

Give Clark the SecDef or SecState job...

:)

[Czolgosz]

32. I'm also leaning toward an Edwards/Obama ticket (I'm assuming Gore isn't running). Edwards/Clark and

Edwards/Webb would work very well, too.

Hell, I'd even be happy with Edwards/Hillary.

[ddeclue]

40. Well except for Webb's little problem at the airport...

giving his gun to his aide who then got arrested at the Capitol with it.

Not quite as bad a "Shooter" Cheney shooting a guy but not so smart either...

Doug D.

[Czolgosz]

43. Down here in Texas, the gun incident probably won Webb two supporters for every one he'd have lost.

[benny05]

77. That's probably true...LOL

I am a Texan by birth, and while I disliked the concealed handgun law being signed into law by the his
Royal Hindchops de Chimperor, you are correct that plenty of Republicans and Independents in TX would have thought Webb was within his rights --just looking at a press release.

[blm]

58. If Gore and Clark stay out, then Obama, Edwards and Dodd move up on my list.

.

[karynnj]

76. I think the Edwards horse race numbers - which were a big improvement -

are more significant. This reflects people picking him as their favorite. Given the past few weeks, you would have to be pretty mean to say "unfavorable".

[BuyingThyme]

5. Then vote for John, ya mooks.

[Bluebear]

8. .

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

6. My big worry is that Edwards and Obama split the anti-Clinton vote

With ego keeping each in the primaries until it's too late to stop her

[Terri S]

13. It's still early, but that could be a possibility

I think at this point, everyone should take polls with a grain of salt. It's so absurd that on the night of the midterm elections already everyone is speculating on the next president. The biggest mistake is allowing the media to force-feed who the legitimate 2008 candidates are.. epspecially this far out. It's also saddening to see how they have once again made money a measuring-stick... and how so many have bought into the bs.

I'll never forget Ted Koppel calling Kucinich an 'ego candidate' (paraphrasing) because he hadn't collected what the media thinks is a respectable amount of money. He pointed out how media is determining what constitutes a valid candidate by ridiculous benchmarks, like money and polls, rather than issues important to the American people. It is happening again, and unfortunately, it seems many are buying into it hook line and sinker.

Someone mentioned how much more Edwards had raised than McCain and used that to say we had 'an advantage'. We do have an extraordinary advantage, but it has nothing to do with dollar signs. It has to do with who we are, what we stand for, and what we can and will do to restore this country. Let's not lose sight of what's really important.

[FatDave]

19. I sure hope you're wrong

I think Hillary's numbers are going to continue to drop, and what we'll see is a race between Edwards and Obama, and eventually a ticket made up of those two (though I can't say who will be prez and who will be veep, and franklly I'd be happy either way).

[benny05]

78. I think it will be Obama-Clinton

Even the pundits, who recognize "mothers milk" say the election won't be all about cash.

Admittedly, some of the pundits are upset the Rethugs aren't raising Dem's money.

[helderheid]

9. to the greatest with you

[Czolgosz]

10. These early New Hampshire numbers echo the trend in Iowa where Edwards leads:

27% - John Edwards
25% - Hillary Rodham Clinton
23% - Barack Obama
3% - Joe Biden
3% - Bill Richardson
1% - Dennis Kucinich
1% - Chris Dodd

[Beaverhausen]

11. Good. The issues Edwards is addressing are important

glad to see he is getting attention!

[The Count]

12. Yeah, cuz,,,sponsoring IWR is better than just voting for it! yeay us!

John Edwards supported the Iraq war more than Bush did.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2934244

[Bluebear]

15. And Edwards has said he was WRONG. Has Bush? Yeay us. nt

[The Count]

62. Not comparing Edwards to Bush. Maybe with Obama, Kuchinich, Clark, Gore

Edwards NEVER apologized for SPONSORING IWR - just for voting for it. He NEVER said the war was wrong, just that intelligence was bad and war was badly managed. Yeay, your shifting principles!

[Cha]

72. Yeah, I don't have a link but

I swear that I read on DU that Edwards apologized for the vote and said the War On Iraq is WRONG WRONG WRONG. That's why I'm lookin' at him so closely.

[Lusted4]

16. This is a little more current

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

[The Count]

63. Yup. No mention of sponsoring IWR, war being imoral - just bad intelligence

[BeyondGeography]

18. People can be such dupes

Edwards went into the 2004 campaign to the right on virtually everyone on Iraq, completely unapologetic and criticized Dean for saying the world wasn't a safer place without Saddam. When he saw that was a disaster, he groveled to the left with a "heartfelt" apology, kissed up to the blogs and, voila, he's an antiwar candidate! He's to the left of everyone on the war now in the minds of many people who like to think of themselves as informed.

What was that PT Barnum line again...

[Bluebear]

21. 'people who like to think of themselves as informed'

Can you be any more smug?

[Nutmegger]

28. I guess you don't think people can redeem themselves?

Edwards has done far more to redeem himself than the other candidates.

[BeyondGeography]

33. All it takes is an apology and he's "redeemed"?

Other politicans are taking notes.

[Alexander]

35. How about not continuing to support this disaster of a war?

I don't consider Edwards "redeemed" but he's far better than Bush, the Republicans, AIPAC and Hillary on this issue.

[Lusted4]

36. How about getting David Bonior to manage his campaign?

Remember Him?

[Nutmegger]

42. The apology helps but he's done far more than that.

And yes, other pols should take notes. He is the only one to apologize for his actions and has come up with a comprehensive plan on how to end the destruction.

But I guess he's pandering now right? He's pretty much damned if he does and damned if he doesn't to some people.

[The Count]

64. Like what? Threaten Iran? The IWR he sponsored already allows * to go there

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

[The Count]

67. Yup. Threatening Iran was definitely music to PNAC ears

Edwards: 'Iran must know world won't back down'

Ron Brynaert
Published: Tuesday January 23, 2007
Print This Email This
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Edwards_Iran_must_know_world_wont_0123.html

[Alexander]

34. And how many Senators voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

Oh yeah, it was like 98-2.

Maybe you should tell George McGovern he wasn't really an anti-war candidate in 1972, since apparently a single vote is all that matters to you.

BTW, Gephardt and Lieberman (one of whom, at least, is still a Democrat) were both far to the right of Edwards on the Iraq war.

At this point, we're past the IWR vote - it already happened and there's nothing we can do about it now. But I'll take Edwards' position over that of Hillary or Bush any day of the week.

Granted, I'd rather have Gore, who was opposed to the war from the start, but he's not running. Yet.

[BeyondGeography]

39. The vote differential alone tells you there's no comparison between the two

Also, did McGovern run as a pro-war candidate in 1968?

It's more than just a single vote; Edwards was clearly in over his head on this one. I encourage you to read the following October 2003 interview with Tweety when he's still justifying his vote, mostly because of Saddam's non-existent nuke capabilities, after it was clear there was no WMD in Iraq: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295/

Based on the polar opposite views he has taken from one election cycle to the next on the central issue of our day, I don't know what to expect from an Edwards presidency on foreign policy and national security (and I don't know how anyone can say they do). He seems like a nice enough guy, but it's clear we have to look at more than what he is saying at this particular moment in time.

[ddeclue]

66. This is a ridiculous reply...

Four years is a LONG time in public opinion terms. TWO years is a long time.

In 1964, LBJ beat Goldwater in a landslide and Vietnam was a popular war.

In 1978, LBJ announced he would not seek nor accept another term as President because of the war and even if he wanted to he couldn't.

In 1964, Bobby Kennedy was for th Vietnam War - indeed he was a "cosponsor" in that he helped architect it in the Kennedy White House.

In 1968, Bobby Kennedy was one of the foremost opponents of the war who spoke out publicly in his Presidential campaign.

In 2003, John Edwards made the same mistake as Bobby Kennedy in 1963. In 2005, John Edwards apologized for it just as Kennedy did in 1968.

People can change their minds as new facts come to light over 4 years. It's Hillary Clinton I blame for being the last one to figure it out on the Democratic side.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[BeyondGeography]

75. I knew Bobby Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy was a friend of mine...

Re-read the Hardball interview. None of the giants you cite ever sounded so lame.

[ddeclue]

79. Oh give me a break...apparently people are agreeing with me not you

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25384

Edwards Schools Obama updated & bumped

This is what I'm talking about. This is exactly what's needed from our candidates. Mr. Obama, take notes, because you could learn a thing or two from John Edwards.


In an interview with UnionLeader.com today, John Edwards today called on the Democratic controlled Congress to ratchet up the pressure on President George W. Bush to accept a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The Democratic presidential candidate said that if Bush carries through on his threat to veto legislation that funds U.S. troops in Iraq while also calling for withdrawal next year, Congress should “send the bill back to him” as many times as necessary.

"Then, it’s the President who’s responsible,” he said. He said the troops are well-funded for the next several months, “so there is time to do this.

“I think the President has to accept responsibility for a decision not to sign a bill funding the troops,” Edwards said. ... ..

Edwards calls for Congress to pressure Bush on Iraq


Obama's plan is evidently to not only cave to the cretin in the White House, but to telegraph it before you even get the chance to do it. Let's see, how exactly would that work in the foreign policy arena? See John Edwards above. It wouldn't.

As for Mr. Bush's little tantrum today, Reid laid him out. That's where our message must stay.

Senator Edwards is a smart man. I finally made contact with his campaign and was put in touch with the senator. John Edwards is willing to listen and is a passionate man about foreign policy, someone who understands the challenges we face. I appreciated the conversation we had and I hope his campaign continues to grow in strength over the months.

The differences between Edwards and Obama are real. Again, see the quotes above. Edwards says what he means straight out. Obama is triangulating. It's Mr. Bush who is not funding the troops if he vetoes this bill. But in the end, no matter what develops, the point is that you never tip your strategic hand to your adversary, not ever. Edwards knows this instinctually. Mr. Obama obviously does not. Watch for a serious bit of backtracking on Obama very soon, because his comments the last couple of days have hurt him, especially coming so soon after his anemic health care forum performance. Obama simply has to say something stronger, because his inexperience continues to show. However, he can certainly learn. He can start by reading what Edwards said yesterday and finding his own way to deliver a message that goes beyond self-serving triangulation. Edwards can show him the way.



UPDATE (5:15 p.m.): Look out. Edwards is "surging" in New Hampshire; passes Clinton, who has dropped like a rock, and he's within the margin of error on Obama.


The poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire, showed support for New York Senator Hillary Clinton dropping eight percentage points from two months ago, to 27 percent. Edwards is at 21 percent and Obama at 20 percent. Former Vice President Al Gore, who is not a candidate, received 11 percent. All other Democrats running were in the single digits.

[BeyondGeography]

82. Flavor of the day...go ahead, gorge yourself

on that Edwards fast food. Like I'm impressed by his mini-bounce in the polls 9 months from primary time.

I'll stick with the guy who was against this war from the start, who wrote the bill in January that now serves as the basis for Reid-Feingold and who was against this unholy nightmare from Day One. "Caving in to Bush?" That's funny. Reid-Feingold calls for a total withdrawal of American troops by March 31, 2008. Where have we heard that date before? (Hint: Read Obama's initial bill.)

By the way, did Edwards ever write a bill when he was Senator that actually passed...I'll save you some time, the answer is no. Did he ever even sponsor a bill that wound up being passed? When we put him out there as VP last time he lost his own state by 14 points and couldn't come up with a good reason why he had the worst attendance record of any Senate Judiciary committee member during his term, which was, by any objective measure (bills written/sponsored/causes championed) mediocre. Let's trot him out there again so he can explain to the world how he went from one of the war's great defenders to one of its most vocal critics.

[The Count]

65. Past IWR vote? Even if it allows W to go in Iran? (Sy Hersh sez it, not I)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x568210

[AshevilleGuy]

73. I didn't realize that McGovern voted for Tonkin.

I voted for him when I was 22. I do not remember anyone bringing up that vote to him then - it would NOT have been well received by his supporters; we would have said, "ANCIENT HISTORY!! He is trying to stop the fucking war now!!!".

[Alexander]

31. Your post screams ignorance and dishonesty.

"John Edwards supported the Iraq war more than Bush did."

:eyes:

Ground control to The Count; Edwards stopped supporting the war a long time ago. Life didn't stop with the 2004 elections.

[The Count]

68. Speaking of the 2004 elections - he'll be fighting for my vote when?

Am I entitled to the truth on that from any of the 2 candidates I voted for? or they just repackage themselves and demand another vote, cuz...life goes on...

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

81. Don't know what you're talking about but tearing down Edwards reflects badly,...

,..on you.

When people make a mistake then learn from it and correct their behavior, they are admirable, in my view.

Your test of human character/potential/leadership seems to have no room for error: therefore, your test is impossible to ever pass.

I wonder if, you could pass your own test. If so, why aren't you a winning candidate for the POTUS?

[The Count]

83. reflects badly on me? Is there some limit to my speech? Some official rule?

This is the second time I meet this attitude here ; "If you are not with us" - so I have to ask: WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU AND WHY SHOULD I CARE????

[Pharaoh]

14. Go John Go!!

:dem:

[Czolgosz]

20. The complete polling data set is very interesting. Link:

http://www.wmur.com/download/2007/0403/11512360.pdf

[MethuenProgressive]

22. "339 New Hampshire residents"

..who didn't have an answering machine on, who weren't trying to feed three kids supper, who weren't off at their second job, who weren't cell-phone-only, who weren't students off at college, who weren't parents off running errands, who weren't in elderly housing, who weren't off serving in the military... just 339 folks who had nothing else to do but answer some questions over the phone.

Getting excited over this is the same as folks who get all worked up about DUing polls...

[Bluebear]

24. Yes, a sampled scientific poll is the same thing as "DUing an online poll"

:eyes:

[MethuenProgressive]

48. No bluebear, thats not what I said, and you know it.

I said "Getting excited over this is the same as folks who get all worked up about DUing polls..." The only "scientific" thing about this poll was the way it excluded a huge portion of voters.

[Bluebear]

49. You just said the same thing

Who's "getting excited" anyhow?

[MethuenProgressive]

51. Not the same. Look:

Me- Getting excited over this is the same as folks who get all worked up about DUing polls
You - a sampled scientific poll is the same thing as "DUing an online poll"
I'm talking about the reaction, not the polls.
And "just who is getting excited"? Jeez.. look around.

[Bluebear]

53. OK not into arguing over this thanks

Just posted the article I saw. Make of it what you want.

[Bucky]

60. Having worked in polling as a professional market researcher, let me say this

You are a poo poo head. No wait, that's not what I mean.

Out of a universe of about 250,000 voters, a sampling of 339 would give you a 5.3% margin of error. That's pretty rough for what looks like a three way heat (and as many as four possible comers). But it's still ballparkish enough to let people know who's getting heard.

[Bucky]

23. Just a blip, so I won't gloat. But a poll slipping Clinton can still unleash a nightmare scenario

Whenever she drops a few points, she can (as she has already) play her trump card--her husband. She can deploy him to wherever he's needed to shore up support; hug, charm, armtwist, rally, or cajole support in any region of the country; and drive her numbers back up to leading range again. Expect Bill to show up soon in Iowa over this. Clinton's in a position where she must maintain front runner status almost nonstop thru February. The "inevitability" argument is the hardest to sustain. But they have the funds needed to keep her numbers pumped up.

She won't be able to go down in the polls, ever. Any slip is fatal so expect any further trailing down in the polls to trigger her "hardball" game--including possible negative campaigning by surrogate--against anyone who might threaten her lead horse position.

This is already where it starts to get ugly, friends.

[Alexander]

37. That's why HRC won't win the nomination

And also why many front-runners today will drop by the wayside when the dust settles.

Voters don't like ugly, bruising primary wars. Iowans in particular were bothered by the Dean-Clark-Gephardt feuding and looked for less negative candidates. I expect to see a similar Clinton-Obama-Edwards feud, with primary voters looking for someone else. If Edwards is wise he will stick to his guns and not go negative.

If Gore shows up, he wins the nomination, not only due to the late entry but also because he's already beating Edwards in the polls without even running.

[Bucky]

38. But will be incredibly divisive up until she does. And don't underestimate Bill

Odd example. Clark wasn't feuding in Iowa ever in 2004. He never campaigned there.

[Clark2008]

25. And Dean was ahead, too.

[Nutmegger]

26. Yes, Clinton may be ahead now but she'll fade soon.

:kick: for Edwards.

[Bluebear]

27. Yes, he was.

I personally still think it's interesting to see snapshots of the race along the way.

[Lex]

29. Me too.

Thanks for posting it, Bluebear. :hi:

[Bluebear]

30. Thank you very many,

Sheesh, you'd think I wrote the article lol!

:hug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

41. shame on all those anti-hilliarious voters who decided on their own

that the DLC, the Hillarian infiltrators here who attack those of us who don't won't can't like or support her. Shame on all those voters who don't realize that because of all her focus groups, her political consultants, her polling, her primping, her triangulation, her great leadership positions on critically important topics like , . . . flag burning. . . . prayer in schools. . . . John Kerry's jokes. . . . and supporting the Bush plan in Iraq, that she is the ONLY one that can win. Shame on the voters who DARED deny the MSM who wanted to annoint her as victorious a year ago.

heh heh heh. Way to go, John!

[SoFlaJet]

45. You know what....I think that's it....

I've been trying to understand why I can't take her anymore and I sort of forgot to factor in the way she went after John Kerry and it's been since then that I can't stand her-thank you antifasch,for helping me understand....ABH

[rinsd]

44. 339 is the sample size and the MOE is 5.3%

[IndyOp]

46. The sample size is fine - but the large MOE does tend to blur the picture. (n/t)

[rinsd]

47. A sample size of 339 is rather small isn't it?

Even for a subset like likely Democratic primary voters, it still seems small.

Then again the Field Poll (for CA) that just came out basically relied on a subset sample of 417 likely Democratic primary voters with the MOE also around 5.

[IndyOp]

57. If a sample is a true random/representative sample of the population of interest,

and the questions are not "leading," then sample size matters little. The smaller the "effect" - such as a difference in candidate preference, the larger sample size must be to come to a firm conclusion about what is true of the population.

On the other hand, a non-random and/or non-representative sample could be huge and give completely misleading results. Example: Sheri Hite published "Women & Love" in which she reported really high values for the number of women surveyed who experienced emotional harassment from their husbands, who had had an extra-marital affair within 5 years of marriage... She had 1,000's of completed surveys - a big sample. Unfortunately, she had sent out 100,000's of surveys and had less than 5% returned - a clear indicator that she had a biased sample.

Sorry if I sound like an Intro Statistics prof - that is what I do.

I have no expertise in survey research, so I can't say with any confidence how large this type of sample should be to be valid.

:hi:

[rinsd]

59. Thanks for the education.

:toast:

[zulchzulu]

74. Ick! Ya call that a poll?

Any poll that is fairly decent has an MoE of 3% or less...anything else is PJC (Political Junkie Crack)...

[Swamp Rat]

50. Geaux Edwards!!!!!

:kick:

[Colobo]

52. Good for John.

I can vote for Obama or for him without any hesitation.

[rec_report]

54. Awesome!

:bounce:

[Bucky]

55. Interesting to look at full results. Gore took 11%. Guess where that 11% won't go.

Richardson in 5th place at 4% (A Richardson vs Edwards race would be a delight to watch).

Biden is the 3rd most disliked (at 9%, compared to his 2% preference number)

The War in Iraq is among the top three issues for 65% of voters. Health care is in the top 3 issues for 46%.

[Lusted4]

56. The mere fact that the corporate media dislikes him should be worth a few points alone. nt

[rndmprsn]

61. go John!

i just left the same exact message on another poll thread

[ruggerson]

69. Bluebear -

Is this getting a lot of play on New Hampshire TV? (hopefully)

[Bluebear]

70. A lead story on the 6pm news from Boston and Manchester both

[ruggerson]

71. Yahoo!

n/t

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

80. As much as admire Rodham, I just don't want her as my first woman President.

I'd rather have Pelosi.

I'm sorry Hill. You're husband was President. I want another strong woman to have a shot at it. Pelosi has proven her strength to me,...far moreso than you.