Post/ABC Poll: Hillary with wide lead for Democratic Nomination...

[SaveElmer]

Released yesterday, conducted Jan 16-19, after Obama's announcement...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/postabc_poll_clinton_giuliani.html


NET LEANED VOTE:

1/19/07 12/11/06
Hillary Clinton 41 39
Barack Obama 17 17
John Edwards 11 12
Al Gore 10 10
John Kerry 8 7
Joe Biden 3 2
Wesley Clark 1 1
Bill Richardson 1 2
Dennis Kucinich 1 NA
Chris Dodd * *
Mike Gravel * NA
Tom Vilsack * 1
Other (vol.) 1 *
None of these (vol.) 2 2
Would not vote (vol.) * 1
Evan Bayh NA 1
No opinion 3 4

[Clark2008]

1. Wait - didn't another poll just say Edwards was leading?

:shrug:

(And Elmer, I don't like Edwards at all. I'm just stating a fact. Which is it? Why the discrepancy between polls?)

[SaveElmer]

3. I think that one was general election head to head....

Of course last month it showed Hillary was the best general election candidate....

Polls change with the news coverage etc...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

4. The polls seem to respond to whoever is getting the most media attention

whenever the poll is taken. Edwards and Obama were big news for the last couple of weeks; now it's Hillary. Seems like people will bite on whatever name they heard most recently, which is one reason why polls at this stage are meaningless.

[SaveElmer]

8. That is partially correct...

They do switch as media coverage varies...they need to be taken as a whole and tracked over time to be useful...

[PresidentObama]

2. Another meaningless poll.

Call me in a year, then we'll talk.

And you're right, wasn't Edwards just leading?

These things change so fast, and a year out. So much can and will change.

[SaveElmer]

6. None have shown Edwards leading nationally among Democrats...

That was a general election head to head poll...

I agree one poll is meaningless...many are needed to establish trends...and they do show the effect of media coverage etc...

They are not predictors of outcome a year out, but do show the current relative strength of candidates when taken as a whole...

[bigdarryl]

5. these polls are meaningless i wouldn't want to be a front runner at this point..

because they don't have good luck.

[SaveElmer]

7. Sometimes they do sometimes they don't...

Depends on how the candidate reacts to them...if she starts acting like a frontrunner then that would be bad...

[PresidentObama]

9. I'm still waiting to hear from Senator Clinton

About why she thinks she should be the Presidential nominee.

I'm willing to listen and see her vision, with open eyes and ears.

But right now she seems to be relying on year-out polls, her Clinton name value, and media hype.

Hopefully we'll get more substance in the next few months.

I'd love to see how these polls change or flip once the real debate about issues among the candidates occurs.

[SaveElmer]

10. Well if you are willing to do some reading...

Here is a pretty good (though not perfect) article on Hillary's work in the Senate...

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200611/green-hillary

I disagree with the conclusion, but it does provide some insight as to why she has become popular in New York...and her capacity to learn from her mistakes and the mistakes of others...after Bush that would be refreshing

I also suggest you tune into her video conferences...first one is tomorrow

[harveyc]

11. The $$$ right now says ...

2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination:

Hillary Clinton ... 48.2%
Barack Obama ... 20.0%
John Edwards ... 15.9%
Al Gore ... 7.8%
Remainder are less than 3%

In link > Politics > US 08 Elections

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/