Barack Obama has pulled even with Hillary Clinton in a new national Rasmussen poll. In the span of a month, a 17-point lead for the junior Senator from New York has disappeared. John Edwards is still in third, but he's up 6 points from last month. And keep in mind this poll was taken before Obama's announcement from yesterday that he's officially in the race. Also today Zogby released a new Iowa poll showing John Edwards with a healthy 10 point lead. Obama, Clinton and former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack are in a three way tie for second place. What's really impressive about this showing by Edwards is that those other three candidates all have Midwestern roots.
So how long until the MSM stops referring to Hillary Clinton as the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination? (well, ok, everyone but Fox News... sometimes it seems like Hillary could be polling negative numbers and they'd still be trying to scare their Republican viewers with the specter of President Hillary Clinton.)
If I were forced to pick a frontrunner right now, I'd go with Obama or Edwards before Clinton. But naming one this far out is pointless. National polls mean nothing because the nominating process just doesn't work that way. And caucuses are not like typical elections so it's very hard to accurately poll. What these polls do show is who's winning the soon-to-be-irrelevant name recognition contest and who has momentum.
Rasmussen poll conducted 1/8-11. Dem primary voters. MoE 5% (11/8-12/4 results)
Clinton 22 (34)
Obama 21 (17)
Edwards 15 (9)
Gore 7 (9)
Kerry 4 (3)
Biden 4 (3)
Zogby poll conducted 1/15-16. 596 likely Dem caucus-goers. MOE 4.1%
Edwards 27%
Obama 17%
Vilsack 16%
Clinton 16%
Biden 3%
Kerry 3%
Kucinich 1%
Richardson 1%
Not sure 13%
Obama has had unremitting and positive media coverage for two months, and will until he announces Feb 10...their relative positions will shake out following that
Edwards is most certainly not the frontrunner except in Iowa...
But an entire generation of voters under 30 have emerged since then for whom Hillary is not a polarizing figure...and for whom the 90's is ancient history. And as Dick Polman points out here....went for Kerry with 55% of the vote.
I don't know if she will win, or even if she will run - I hope she does...but I do know that her popularity in the party and country is consistently underrated by commentators...
Her ratings approval/disapproval numbers are no worse than most of her potential competitors...and better than Gore's, Edwards and Kerry's as recently as last month. Obama is the only one who currently scores higher, and he has been the beneficiary of nearly unremittingly positive coverage for almost two months...
Obama is a compelling figure, who I have always believed would one day be President - I hadn't expected a run this soon...and you can bet if he is the nominee I will enthusiastically support him...but I think it is way too early to call him the frontrunner. Lets see what happens when he makes it official next month and the press turns on him...
Last is something that cannot be quantified...there is just something about the Clintons that makes opponents want to: 1. Go overboard in their attacks thus creating a huge backlash, and 2. Consistently underestimate their political skills....Hillary Clinton is one of the most skilled politicans in the country, and she is being advised by perhaps the only politician more skilled than she is...it is usually a losing proposition to bet against them!
But I definetly agree with you about the overboard attacks on her. But in terms of her political skills? She's a very poor speaker. She's nasal and shouts into the microphone. Someone tell her she doesn't need to do that. The microphone amplifies your voice on its own.
By your logic 79% don't want Obama and 85% don't want Edwards...
In fact everyone has a preference...doesn't mean they would not consider another candidate...
Obama has popped up on highly favorable media coverage...lets see how it shakes out once he has announced...and once Hillary has announced...
If it is still close , than I will agree the fundamental dynamics have probably shifted...
But I am so sick of this highly favorable media coverage talk. Now that he's a candidate, the gloves are completely off. Conan O'Brian could have asked Brian Williams a million questions about the presidential race. What does he ask? Obamas past admission of cocaine use of course. Not to mention every blog in the past few days has accused him of being Joe Lieberman. And apparently having more experience than Lincoln, Carter, and BOTH Roosevelts means he's "inexperienced." Oh yeah, it's a real lovefest.
I understand your consternation at the questions Obama gets...I agree the media is usually more interested in the gotcha moment than anythin else....but his coverage has been quite favorable overall
As to his experience...I have never been one too criticize him on t his. As you say he had about the same amount of experience as Lincoln...
However Carter was in the State Senate and was Governor of Georgia... Teddy Roosevelt was Commisioner of Police in New York(a powerful post at the time), on the Civil Service commission, Governor of New York, Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Vice President...FDR was Assistant Secretray of the Navy and Governor of New York and a previous Vice Presidential Candidate...so I would say they had more experience...
Do you honestly think Joe Lieberman was the frontrunner at any point in 2003 despite his lead in many, many, many national polls?
Also you say that the coverage of Obama will be positive until Feb. 10? Where have you been? I don't know many times in the past 48 hours I've heard people say:
1) Obama is inexperienced
2) Obama is just a media darling, with no real substance
3) Obama is using Lieberman-esque language
And this is only the beginning.
Where the fuck did that come from!? He could have asked a million questions about the presidential race, and he chooses that.
Ever hear of George W. Bush? He refuses to answer the question about his past cocaine use. Meaning the only difference between him and Obama is that he won't admit it.
Spare me this pro-Obama media love affair bullshit.
As you well know primary elections are more than just about the number of votes one gets, it is about perception...
Bill Clinton lost the New Hampshire Primary in 1992, yet his strong second place finish propelled him along. If Edwards wins Iowa for example, and Hillary comes in a fairly close second beating the former Governor of that state, perception will be on her side...
It's a nice try attempting to characterize Obama's coverage as anything but overwhelmingly positive...but I have been paying close attention, and it has been overwhelmingly so.
I don't know if you are an Obama supporter or not, but I know when you support someone, every criticism seems like a big deal...
Obama set a date certain for his decision precisely to extend his current favorable media coverage...a very smart move actually. Once he is an announced candidate, the media will really swarm.
The Left Coaster: "I am getting tired of this ongoing Liebermanesque "different kind of politics" canard. This country has been driven into a ditch, and is being led towards another war in Iran, yet what we get from Lieberman and perhaps now Obama is the salve of a bipartisan "let's just all get along" campfire sing-a-long."Firedoglake's Taylor Marsh: "Barack Obama has not been nearly as strong on the escalation, evidently preferring "symbolism" to action, or confusing one as being as strong as the other. (I won't say "I told you so," but I did warn you.) But Obama did strongly push back against escalation after Mr. Bush's speech last week. Certainly the fact that Obama was against the Iraq war from the start helps, but he wasn't in the Senate, so it's difficult to know what he'd have done if he were."
MyDD commenter MNPundit: "This is a bit worrying if Obama turns out to be a DLC type because that will mean he not only hurts our movement but is good at it which most DLC types... aren't."
CNN's Bash: "Whether he can turn media attention into a credible candidacy is the question" ("AC 360," 1/16).
GOP strategist Mike Murphy: "I think his big problem is right now the people are in love with the idea of a Barack Obama, but they don't really know much about who he really is. ... The question is will it sustain in the reality he faces, which is the Democratic primary" ("AC 360," CNN, 1/16).
NPR's Liasson: "At some point he's going to become -- I won't say an ordinary candidate, but he will start coming down to Earth and I think the process is starting right now" ("Special Report," FNC, 1/16).
Washington Post's Robinson: "I don't think Barack Obama is Bambi, you know? I don't think he is some total naive who is unaware of the way politics is practiced. And I think he will reach out to the right people" ("Hardball," MSNBC, 1/16).
Newsweek's Alter: "He likes to evoke that Lincoln comparison, not just because he's from Illinois, but, as Obama says, if he were elected, he'd be the least-experienced president since Lincoln, who served one two-year term in the House of Representatives before becoming president" ("Countdown," MSNBC, 1/16).
FNC's Cameron: "Clinton, Obama and Edwards, a woman, and African American and a white southerner, lead the early pack, but each has their problems. Clinton's Democratic critics say the she's too polarizing. Obama's say he is untested and too young. And Edwards detractors say he had is chance back in 2004" ("Special Report," 1/16).
In 2008 Obama will have been a Senator for 4 years. Carter and FDR were Governors for 4 years. Teddy Roosevelt was Governor for 2 years and VP for 8 months. Every presidential election experience gets brought up. And every four years it doesn't matter. Kennedy, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush II were the "inexperienced" candidates.
And no I'm not an Obama supporter. I'm leaning that way but am not committed. I've exhausted myself defending Hillary in recent years because some of the attacks on her have been preposterous and I feel like setting the record straight.