Time for Joe Biden to do more weekend drinking parties in New Hampshire

That's an interesting dynamic - an age disparity in support for Clinton and Obama. Also not good news for Obama, as older folks are reliable voters.

So what?

Edwards' Crumbling Campaign is Bad News for Clinton

By John McIntyre of Real Clear Politics ( RCP )

Back in January when Barack Obama officially announced his presidential exploratory committee, I suggested it was "bad news for John Edwards, which in turn is good news for Hillary Clinton."

At the end of 2006, with Mark Warner out and former Vice President Al Gore on the sidelines, John Edwards posed the greatest threat to Senator Clinton's hold on the Democratic nomination. Obama's formal entry into the race immediately split the substantial anti-Hillary vote, which worked to Senator Clinton's advantage and John Edwards' detriment.

On the surface the Democratic race has remained rather static over the last three months - at least as far as the horserace numbers between Clinton and Obama. But not enough attention has been paid to Edwards' crumbling campaign and its consequences on the Democratic contest.

Back in mid-April Edwards peaked in the RCP Average at 17.8%, while Clinton held a 12.8% advantage over Obama, 35.8% to 23.0%. Today, the Clinton - Obama race is virtually unchanged, with the New York Senator holding a 12.4% edge, 36.0% to 23.6%. Edwards, on the other hand, has lost over 30% of his support and has seen his national numbers fall to 12.4% in the latest RCP Average. The most recent Washington Post and Los Angeles Times polls have his national numbers in single digits at 8%. In the InTrade prediction markets Edwards' odds to be the Democratic nominee have plunged from 25% at the beginning of the year to only 5% today.

So while the national horserace numbers between Clinton and Obama have remained unchanged during the last quarter, Edwards' implosion has strategically weakened Senator Clinton's hold on the nomination. The Clinton campaign wants to neutralize Edwards and to limit the odds of him breaking out with an early win in Iowa. But they don't want to see Edwards' campaign totally implode and allow the anti-Hillary forces to rally behind an increasingly powerful Senator Obama.

With the second quarter fundraising numbers due out over the next week and with the rumblings that the Obama campaign is poised to release a monster haul, the potential elimination of Edwards as a serious candidate, coupled with the Obama campaign's ability to not only compete with, but to beat, the vaunted Clinton machine, could be the catalyst that allows Obama to consolidate his position as the sole anti-Hillary candidate. He would then be in a very strong position to tighten those horserace numbers both nationally and in the key early states over the next quarter as we head into the fall.

Jerry-  You are all over the map today.  Sometimes I can accept some of your well thought out conservative inputs, but too many times you go 'Savage & Coulter' on us.  Maybe you should take to heart Mrs. Edwards' plea for a more civil dialogue, and then you would not see so many critical posts to your input.  Your comment on the immigration bill defeat was acceptable.  But knocking Senator Biden like you did above was needless.

LOL, look Steve; All I seem to read about Joe Biden on here was all these wonderful parties that people were throwing Joe Biden in New Hampshire.  Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt they were serving Tea and cucumber sandwiches.  These were known as mixers.  So, my deductions were that, Every weekend for awhile, there was a lot of political talk and drinking going on at these mixers.  2 +2=4.  In regards to Elizabeth Edwards, I will use the quote of one of the greatest police officers in the history of San Franscisco california(fiction as it may be)Harry Callahan.  "If she is going to play lumberjack, she'd better handle her end of the log!"  She decided to take something that was written three years ago by Ann Colter (and I read the article on the internet, it is a very good piece about how democrats use the death of a family member to gain votes).  Why she would go after somebody for writing the truth is beyond me, but is she wants to play the game, she better be prepared better next time she decides to go on the attack.  Instead of attacking, she should be out there trying to get her husband elected, the latest polls show it's not going to happen.  She is no better then me, at first I tried to play nice, but some of the left wing nutjobs in here(too many to mention)came out swinging and I'm just playing the game.  So love me or hate me, I'm not some candidate trying to BS you into getting you to vote for me.  What you read is what you get!

Steve give up on jerry skim over what he writes and write him off.
He has no idea what is going on, he is a parrot for
the PARTY OF DEATH AND WAR.
Seems to be a tea tottler never goes to cocktail parties, cucumber sandwiches indeed!
He is hot for ANN COLTER.

Losing Edwards from the race would be a loss. He touts real issues and a populist agenda. He has tried to make himself a candidate for the unions. I prefer him (except for his legacy of voting for the Iraq War), but, I'll certainly be glad to see Obama win. I really am afraid of a Clinton victory. She would polarize the nation and give the Republicans a real shot at the Presidency in '08. Heaven help us.

What a Clintonesqe distortion of the actual poll.  http://www.suffolk.edu/research/20751.html

Polling only 232 people (and with only 106 saying they will vote in Dem primary) results in statistical noise ... Clinton 85 people , Obama 44 people, Edwards 22 people, Richardson 21 people.

Of the 500 people asked favorable/unfavorable shows the Clintons have high unfavorable ratings which is a continuing concern.

Hillary 47% unfavorable, 43 fav, 9 undecided
Bill  43% unfavorable
Obama 34% unfavorable, 47 fav, 16% undecided

This poll is too small to draw any meaningful conclusions from.   You can make anything sound important by reporting percentages and misstating the margin of error.   The margin of error among the subgroups is far higher than reported in the article.

Romney beats Giulani %26 to %22.   Important?   Well, actually there were 52 people for Rommney and 44 for Giulani.   Romney had a whopping lead of EIGHT people!

The poll found that 106 people would vote in the Democratic primary, yet they asked 232 which Democratic cnadidate that they preferred.   They had 85 for Clinton, 22 for Edwards, 44 for Obama, and 38 undecided.   If I stood on a street corner and asked 106 people how they would vote it would be a better poll.


http://www.suffolk.edu/files/SUPRC/June_24_07editedNewHampshireMarginals.pdf

There is a great book called "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff.   I recommend that any political reporter should read it.

things - first, as to the Elizabeth-Ann tussle, in fairness to Mrs. Edwards, her point was not the three year old quote but Ms. Coulter's more recent quip about John Edwards being killed in a terrorist attack.  They got to the old quote through Coulter's loud talking, ignoring and interrupting ways.  However, I believe Ann Coulter is also correct - she is the best friend the Edwards have.  They raise beaucoup dollars pillaging Ann Coulter, and this week is the best fundraising week in some time.  It's almost like the Carville - Matlin show.

As to the poll, the other interesting note is this poll puts Richardson firmly as part of the top tier, or at the least, Edwards and Richardson at the second tier, and the remaining candidates somewhere in never never land.

Mary and George, thanks for the info. I should have known... I'm used to seeing a 3-point margin of error and this one was over 4 points. Plus interesting about the negatives question. Even in New Hampshire Clinton is in the high 40s, though this number also is suspect because of the margin of error. But assuming for a second they are right, she is in trouble there if the Democratic field is whittled down before hand (especially if Edwards drops off) and also assuming that as people get to know Obama his favorable/unfavorable percentages don't turn for the worse. If Edwards does wane, another question is who picks up his support in Iowa. If its Obama, Clinton is in real trouble. That would put her into an almost must-win in New Hampshire, where again she is going to find it hard to attract new supporters with those negative numbers. Well, maybe not true - I'm spouting conventional wisdom from cycles gone by. With the new front-loaded schedule, maybe the initial frontrunner can afford to lose both traditional firsts and still do alright in the following weeks.

Paul, I promise I'm not stalking you.  :)  I agree, thanks so much for the information Mary and George.  God Bless you both.  This poll is just one in million that continues to spin the truth.  I'm glad someone posted this information.

I've always thought that Iowa or whoever is first I saw an article saying that South Carolina might chance is Primary to Jan. 14th.  Talk about changing the landscape.  Anyway, if Clinton loses Iowa to Obama she is done.  She can't let Senator Obama win Iowa.  

Stalk away, Lynn. I don't see Clinton gaining much traction in Iowa, though the usual 'its early' caveat applies. I do think Edwards won't hold his support there, and it will be interesting to see where those numbers go.

Richardson was awesome last night.  He (and Kucinich) were really the ONLY ones who answered the questions DIRECTLY (and with substance).  Hillary was her normal monotonous self, (her delivery is awful) Obama is all hype and Edwards doesn't excite.  And Gravel got in a great one-liner at the end, slamming the poor judgment of the Hillary's of the world, who voted to give Shrub everything he wanted on the war.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):