Has Hillary Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination for president in 2008? Not yet, but Chris Cillizza explains why she's very, very close.
Taken as a whole, the poll's topline questions as well as the information contained within the crosstabs show Clinton simply dominating her opponents at the moment. While Clinton spent most of the summer holding her lead, she now appears to be lengthening it even as the caucus and primary season draws closer.Campaigns can, of course, turn on a dime and we're nowhere close to the end of this one. But, today's Post poll shows the challenge confronting Obama, Edwards and anyone else hoping to unseat Clinton between now and next February.
Even though I've always said, "never underestimate a Clinton," I must admit that I am surprised at Hillary's increasingly strong showing in the 2008 presidential race. Essentially, she's been extending her lead for months and is now on the edge of leaving everyone else in the dust. One more interesting point is that Hillary has done this in spite of not having been a progressive netroots favorite. Having just finished my book, "Netroots Rising," I've been thinking a great deal about what this might mean. Any ideas?
P.S. Even now, Hillary has forced Obama and Edwards into "must win" situations in Iowa. Particularly in Edwards' case, if he loses Iowa, it's all over. In contrast, Hillary can lose Iowa because she's leading just about everywhere else (New Hampshire, South Carolina, Michigan, etc.) and certainly has the money to go the distance. What can Edwards and Obama do to shake up this dynamic? Got me.
If obama wins Iowa he may get enough of a boost to pass clinton in other states. don't see edwards gaining enough momentum even if he wins iowa
Hillary is very impressive, though not my first choice simply because of the reality that half the country hates her. Can she overcome that? I hope so. What does the "netroots effect" have on her? None that I can see. What, are democrats *not* going to vote for her if she's the nom? And, while I think the impact of the net is rising, it's not quite to the point where it alone can change an election, particularly one at this level. Local elections, maybe. National? I don't think so, not yet.
I still lean to Obama. I just feel he'll be a better leader with the right blend of idealism, pragmatism, and wisdom.
So far, he's gotten things smack-on right, as far as I can tell. The comments about him and Pakistan and meeting with world leaders just solidified my lean to him because he is 100% correct!
Of course, I needn't mention the other thing about which he has been 100% correct--IRAQ!!
...Conventional wisdom has all but awarded New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton the Democratic nomination, and it is true that she is a very strong, though not quite prohibitive, favorite.If Clinton were to win Iowa, she would be all but unstoppable as she already is looking very strong in the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.
At this stage, the Iowa contest is a very competitive, three-way affair between Clinton, former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Clinton might be the only candidate who could lose Iowa and either New Hampshire or South Carolina and not necessarily be mortally wounded. Her rivals do not appear to have sufficient strength to survive such a blow.
However, losing all three would knock her out.
Edwards has to win in Iowa. Even a second-place finish would probably send Edwards to the showers. He has little national infrastructure and his decision to accept federal matching funds, a sure sign that fundraising has not gone well, would severely limit his ability to capitalize on a victory in Iowa.
Clinton or Obama would be able to dwarf his spending in subsequent states, very likely dooming his prospects even with a breakthrough Iowa win. In short, Edwards is now a longer shot than ever before, even with his competitive numbers in Iowa.
The Obama campaign is touting a recent Newsweek poll, conducted Sept. 26 and 27, that places their man ahead among likely Democratic Iowa caucus attendees.
It should be noted, though, that the poll showed Obama at 28 percent, Clinton at 24 percent and Edwards at 22 percent, so the top three are all within the 7-point error margin. Obama has the resources and infrastructure to capitalize on a victory in Iowa. A win there would likely make this an even-money race with Clinton, but he would still need to run the table to win.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson is not surging as dramatically as he was before, although he is still moving up. The only realistic scenario for Richardson is that either Obama or Edwards finishes ahead of Clinton in Iowa, then the Iowa victor loses in New Hampshire and Richardson manages to come in either second or third place in each. This is a very long shot, but theoretically it's possible.
I like Obama, but Edwards is a leader (and is well within all of the poll margin of error) when reviewing his standings.
In reference to Iowa, I think it's pretty clear that the main reason the Clinton folks are framing Iowa as a "must win" for Obama and Edwards (a narrative which the MSM has picked up), is because they know that there's a pretty good chance that Hilary will lose Iowa == it's managing expectations and spinning bad news in a more favorable light.
Truth be told, I think there's a pretty good chance that Clinton may lose New Hampshire as well (her campaign should probably try to get the Washington Press corp to swallow the narrative that Obama and Edwards need to win Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, California, Georgia, Virginia, etc, etc, etc, in order to stop the inevitable nomination of Hilary).
I'm willing to wager (loose change) that the large swath of independent voters who broke for McCain in 2000 (people like me), will not even give a GOP candidate a second look in this election in New Hampshire. The question is, will this support follow one candidate or several. If several, Clinton will benefit. If one candidate, Clinton loses.
I think there's a pretty good chance though that Clinton could take Nevada and South Carolina.
With these things, of course, time will tell. We still have a some months to go.
Each campaign has its own dynamic. At this point, Iowa is a three way tie. Whoever wins there gets a disproportionate boost that carries him or her into the next primary and so on. Just think how the media would play it if Clinton came in third in Iowa. I heard somewhere that Clinton has the highest negatives of any presidential candidate in history. Like Clinton, Obama has the money to go the distance. Edwards is a good man, but it doesn't look like he is gaining traction.
My personal preference would be Obama/Richardson, with my second choice Clinton/Obama. I don't think Edwards or Clinton would accept the VP slot.
The current poll out in Iowa is interesting - Obama didn't start his television advertising there until September 19, 2007 and the poll was taken after the advertising began, which means it resonated quite well with Iowas Dems.
In addition, when first and second choices were added into the Iowa poll, Obama's lead increased to 8 points, which is OUTSIDE the margin of era in the poll.
Clinton will probably always lead in the national polls due to superior name recognition and the fact that some voters are unfamiliar with Obama. But what can she do to increase her lead or change additional minds? Probably nothing - she's probably peeked.
But as Obama continues to raise money at a record pace, he will continue to have the funds to roll out ads state by state introducing himself and his numbers will continue to rise in each state poll.
And Obama's field structure is awesome and appears to be under the radar of the other camapigns as well as the national press. I don't think people realize the psunami that is building but is coming - and they won't know it until it hits.
I think if Obama wins in Iowa, he will rocket to the nomination the same way Kerry did in 2004 - he will be unstoppable.