At MyDD, Jerome Armstrong analyzes the most recent polling numbers out of Iowa and New Hampshire. In brief: For the Dems, Iowa is up for grabs. Senator Clinton is ahead by a nose, but her support is soft. Her position in New Hampshire is stronger, but much of this support comes from her perceived electability. I agree with Jerome that if she loses Iowa, which is very possible, New Hampshire could slip away from her also.
But I admit that I have a terrible track record at predicting what voters will do.
Just for some perspective, see Democratic candidate rankings for the 2004 nomination, taken in November 2003:
Not Sure 34%
Howard Dean 15
Wesley Clark 10
Dick Gephardt 9
Joe Lieberman 9
John Kerry 7
Al Sharpton 4
John Edwards 3
Dennis Kucinich 2
Carol Moseley Braun 2
Other 6
(Zogby America Poll, 558 Likely Democrat Voters Nationwide, Conducted 11/3-5/03, Margin Of Error +/- 4.2%)
New Hampshire only, also November 2003:
Howard Dean 38%
John Kerry 24
Undecided 21
Wesley Clark 4
Joe Lieberman 4
John Edwards 4
Dick Gephardt 3
Carol Moseley Braun 1
Dennis Kucinich 1
Al Sharpton 0
(American Research Group Poll, 600 Registered Democrats And Undeclared Voters, Conducted 11/2-5/03, Margin Of Error +/- 4%)
Here are the final results for New Hampshire, 2004.
Kerry 39%
Dean 26%
Clark 13%
Edwards 12%
Lieberman 9%
Kucinich 1%
Sharpton 0%
And the moral is, pre-election poll results are like dust in the wind.
For the Republicans, Mitt Romney is ahead in both polls. In Iowa, Rudy Giuliani is only 4th (after Romney, Huckabee, and Undecided). In New Hampshire, he’s tied for second place with John McCain.
So tell me again why the bobbleheads keep talking about a Clinton-Giuliani race in 2008?
As I remember, all through 2003 many professional television pundits kept saying Dick Gephardt or Joe Lieberman would be the nominee. And now exactly the same crew, albeit a tad more wrinkled, are talking up Clinton and Giuliani. And they get paid for this. I make wrong predictions just as often, but I do it for free. Such a deal.
At the Washington Post, Michael Shear writes about the Hillary phenomenon among the GOP.
They mock her proposals, utter her name with a sneer and win standing ovations by ridiculing her ideas as un-American, even socialistic. She has become the one thing the Republican candidates for president can agree on.
Hillary Clinton.
Earlier this year, the senator from New York was the subject of an occasional laugh line from former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani. Now, the trickle has become a torrent as the leading GOP candidates seek to one-up one another in a Clinton-bashing contest aimed at energizing their party faithful.
“The competition inside the GOP for who’s the most anti-Hillary is going to pay dividends,” said Greg Strimple, a GOP pollster and consultant who is not working with any presidential campaign. “Looking for that piece of anti-Hillary energy is what you’re seeing right now.”
I’m glad to see Republicans running an honest campaign for a change. But what will the eventual nominee campaign on if Senator Clinton is not his opponent? The poor dear will have to run on issues. Iraq, health care, the economy? God, guns, and gays?
Heh.
The “perceived wisdom” is that Giuliani is not spending time or money in any of the small runup states before the big splash (Florida? for Reps). So he polls lightly in the harbinger states. Just the opposite strategy taken by Bush, and by the Dems in ’06.
Dan — I read that also, but if the lesson of 2004 still holds, if someone gets decisive wins in Iowa and New Hampshire that candidate will gain an advantage in the other primaries as well. I think Giuliani’s strategy is an admission of weakness on his part.
I have a girlfriend who on several major election days was asked by a press person who she voted for (exit poll, I guess). She told me she told that person she voted for X when in fact she had voted for Y. She thought it was funny to lie to the poll takers. I wonder how many other people do that.
Mah said, “So tell me again why the bobbleheads keep talking about a Clinton-Giuliani race in 2008?”
Because that is who these bobbleheads want in the race. They will do any thing to get what they want even very bad journalism. I wish if these guys got degrees in journalism in some college that that college would take their degrees away from them since they are using them improperly.
But what will the eventual nominee campaign on if Senator Clinton is not his opponent? The poor dear will have to run on issues.
You’re kidding, right?
wes clark admitted on charlie rose after he bowed out that he was pushed into the race by senior democratic people (guess from which camp? hint: he’s endorsing one of the candidates now running.) to enter the race late to act as spoiler. guess who he took votes away from?
i just adore the clintons lust for power and how they think they can manipulate and hold the party hostage for their own ends. i mean why even bother with a primary? let’s just crown her nominee. how can we deny what is owed to her?
“I’m glad to see Republicans running an honest campaign for a change.” So, you think when Republicans “mock her proposals, utter her name with a sneer, say her ideas are un-American” that that is an ‘honest’ campaign. I am totally confused. I’ve been reading this blog for about three years and thought you were an intelligent person. But this is about as ignorant as you can get.
hettiemae — Chill. I didn’t say I agreed with them. I said it was honest because it’s what they really think.This is called “snark.”