First thoughts: 95 days and counting...

Posted: Monday, October 01, 2007 9:49 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: First Thoughts

From NBC’s Chuck Todd and Domenico Montanaro
*** The first day of the rest…: Today is the first day of the 4th quarter of this campaign (did we EVER think we'd get to this point?). There's no more "it's early" excuses. In as few as 95 days, Iowans will get together and caucus. That's right, 95 days!?!?!? As for what to expect TODAY, we should get a clearer sense of where the campaigns stand regarding money. The Democratic race is status quo -- though the cash-on-hand totals will be of interest; Has Obama outspent Clinton to date and is that a good thing considering how Clinton has become more of an entrenched frontrunner since we last got money reports?

VIDEO: NBC's Political Director Chuck Todd offers his first read on problems conservatives have finding a candidate plus the Iowa Democratic primary.

*** Thompson’s first quarter: It's the GOP side of things where we're going to learn a lot. This is the first Fred Thompson quarter, and it appears his money isn't great; Compared to his current rivals, his $8-10 million seems competitive. But this is Thompson's FIRST quarter and comparing this $8-10 million to the first-quarter pulls of Giuliani, Romney and McCain, it's a relatively weak showing. But Thompson's not alone in raising a somewhat disappointing amount this quarter. Giuliani's total apparently isn't going to be great (see the finance firing last week) and Romney's having to contribute more of his own money and then there's McCain, whose money total is obviously lower than expected. Poor John Edwards, he'd be in the top tier in fundraising if he were in the GOP field, but instead he's had no choice but to take matching funds. Romney's obviously not taking matching funds, but what about Giuliani, Thompson and McCain?

*** Frontrunners under fire: There appears to be a shift in the tone of coverage for both Clinton and Giuliani. For Clinton, one could sense this last week, particularly at the debate, when she was the one under the most fire. But that tough love continued over the weekend with lots of electability questions (check out the LAT's Rocky Mountain story and the anonymous Democrats quoted in it). As for Giuliani, the big news today, of course, is the third-party threat from Christian conservatives, most notably James Dobson. No potential candidate is floated but how Giuliani deals with this threat this week will tell us a lot about his ability to win this nomination.

***

Poll position: The buzz of the weekend is the Newsweek poll showing all three Dems neck-n-neck-n-neck. The Obama folks are gloating over the fact they are leading among likely caucus goers, but Clinton isn't far behind (and leads among all Iowa Dems). The candidate hurt the most in this poll is Edwards. He's third among both likely caucus goers and all Dems. Two spins we're getting from EdwardsWorld: 1) The more polls show it close in Iowa, the more a victory will give them a boost; 2) Whenever national pollsters parachute into the state, they over-poll casual caucus goers, inflating the Clinton and Obama numbers. No matter, the buzz of dropping to third place isn't coming at a good time for Edwards, just days after he conceded he couldn't keep up with Clinton and Obama financially.

*** All eyes on the Hawkeye State: By the way, Iowa party leaders are going to be under enormous pressure regarding whether to pick Jan. 3 or Jan. 5 for the caucuses. Candidates who are worried about losing Iowa (read: Clinton and Giuliani) prefer Jan. 5 (and a 3-day gap between Iowa and N.H.). Candidates who would like to take full advantage of the Iowa bump want Jan. 3 (read: Romney, Edwards and Obama).

***

Who is Mitt Romney: the early state GOP frontrunner is the Newsweek cover boy. The article is not flattering, touching on his flip-flops, questioning some of his Massachusetts successes and spends a lot of time on whether his religion will be a primary problem. The "Romney-is-stuck" storyline seems to have some legs with various observers. The shift a few weeks ago to a campaign message that's focused on change has yet to take hold but it's only been a few weeks.

*** Watching Freedom's Watch: Don't overlook the news that Freedom's Watch, the group of Republicans who have put millions together to support Bush's Iraq policy this fall, plans to raise some $200 million for the 2008 election. Will this make them the Republicans' ACT? Or Progress for America on steroids? A $200 million goal is jaw-dropping, but if it's done via soft money, then it's doable. Could Freedom's Watch be the group that ends up filling the gap in the spring when the GOP nominee (if it's NOT Romney) is out of money? By the way, Freedom's Watch has ducked real scrutiny (or fact-checking) on their ads to date but the higher profile they build, the more likely the scrutiny will come. They got fairly little grief for linking Iraq and 9/11 in their first TV ads.

***

He won't leave: Larry Craig is still in the Senate. Just how aggressive will Senate GOPers get in trying to drive Craig out? Now that he's NOT followed through on his Sept. 30 resignation promise, it could become open season on him. Republicans are petrified of having Craig get a high profile during this battle. This is turning into a nightmare scenario for the party, which is struggling to keep its family values mantra.

***

On the Trail: Biden speaks to county Democrats in South Carolina and holds a press conference in Columbia; Clinton lays out her “urban agenda” at a community college in Oakland; Giuliani campaigns in Cape May, NJ and Philadelphia; Obama campaigns in Columbus, SC and Tampa; Richardson raises money in New Mexico; Romney campaigns in Missouri; Thompson makes four stops in Iowa, including a coffee, a lunch, a walking tour of Iowa Falls and a meet and greet; and Bloomberg is in London, where the New York Mayor meets with the mayor of The Big Smoke.

Countdown to LA GOV election: 19 days
Countdown to Election Day 2007: 36 days
Countdown to LA GOV run-off (if necessary): 47 days
Countdown to Iowa: 105 days (or is it 95 days or 97 days or...)
Countdown to SC GOP primary: 110 days
Countdown to Tsunami Tuesday: 127 days
Countdown to Election Day 2008: 400 days
Countdown to Inauguration Day 2009: 477 days

EMAIL THIS

Comments

On Romney: It's okay for a Republican to flip-flop.

What isn't okay is for the word "Republican" to be in the same sentence with the word "freedom".

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:06 AM)

The Clinton's had a pretty rough week last week. Hillary's debate skills really need some polishing and her answers really got her into a hole at times. Offering $5000 for every baby born is just going to make the poor go into baby mode and expand the welfare state that Hillary loves so dearly. Bill Clinton was just as bad, threatening a restaurant owner and trying to destroy free speech by forcing GQ to cancel a story about infighting in the Clinton campaign. The story in the LA Times also did them no favors as well. Hopefully this will continue to drag down the democratic party and my guys will bring home the victory in 08. Hillary is loved in the east and hated in the west, so the south(and probably Florida) will be the line drawn in the sand again for the democrats.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:09 AM)

95 DAYS!!!!!Is their any wonder why American voters are so turned off by politics and voting. Everyday now we are going to be bombared adnauseum.

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:09 AM)

* * * * B U S H S U C K S * * * *

z (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:11 AM)

JIrby-You are not kidding. Just finished reading John Dean's book Broken Government. SO SCARY!

juan,ft lauderdale, fl (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:12 AM)

Chuck & Domenico-

"considering how Clinton has become more of an entrenched frontrunner". Why are you two so entrenched with HRC? I have sensed all along that her polling numbers are inaccurate, as evidenced by the latest Newsweek poll. Is it true you really want her to be the nominee? I feel Senator Obama's numbers are more accurate, and a win by him in Iowa will propel him past HRC to the nomination. Unless you two have other media ideas.

Chuck, NY (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:12 AM)

Since when has Newsweek been flattering to any GOP candidate. Based on the obvious bias of the Newsweek reporters who frequent MSNBC's Hardball and other left of center programs like Countdown I wouldn't expect anything less than unflattering from Newsweek or MSNBC.

NotALemming (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:17 AM)

so chuckie, Clintons poll numbers are wrong, Obama's are correct, and Edwards?

Geez....Could you let your emotions control your opinions any more? You're sounding like a republican.

Tuck, Realityville, Kansas (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:18 AM)

I really don't have anything to say because I'm just not knowledgeable when it comes to politics. Just call me stupid.

z (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:19 AM)

Re: The Clinton Electability Issue

The media loves the narrative and her desperate opponents are playing to it with their unattributed comments.

The fact is the numbers are the numbers. Clinton head to head against the GOP front runners leads them in all the blue states. She leads them in purple states like Minnesota, New Mexico, and Iowa. She leads them in red states like Arkansas, Virginia, and Ohio.

Heck even Tennesee looks very competitive should it be Clinton vs. Giulinai.

Clinton isn't only electable she is looking at a 300+ Electoral College victory.

Want to talk down the ticket? If Clinton is supposed to be so much trouble there, why is she leading in endorsements all across the country, among state and federal lawmakers? Are they committing political suicide? Are all these people dumb? No. Of course not.

The Edwards camp is pushing a lot of this stuff. This is the same camp that says they can win in the south. Seen Edwards South Carolina numbers lately?

Look at the numbers and ignore the off the record B.S. from campaigns that are going nowhere.

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:19 AM)

It's about time Freedom's Watch got some attention. Their $25M ad campaign pretty much manufactured the President's recent mini-bump in the polls out of thin air and propaganda. They pretend to be a grass-roots organization but with Ari Fleischer in top management and a $200M goal for this campaign they're clearly the GOP pretending to be something else.

John B, Des Moines, IA (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:20 AM)

If certain voters(you know who you are in this blog) still believe that Republicans are the party of moral/family values vis-a-vis Craig and Vitters your stupidity, denial, and mindset is more scarier than these desbicable lying politicians.

juan,ft lauderdale,fl (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:24 AM)

Who are these repuke candidates and why don't even the bushies care about them? All we hear is how much the bushies don't like the dem candidates, you know the ones the would never vote for anyway...but yet the bushie/chickenhawk crowd stays silent on their crop of preachers and leachers...I don't get it..actually I do

The current candidates haven't preached enough hate and war for the bushie/chickenhawk crowd...even mitt the flip flopper who says he would gladly start a nuckear war for your vote isn't excitting you guys...lmao

Rick, WS. NC (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:30 AM)

I think the reason that much of the media has been "entrenched" with HIllary is that they know her nomination will be good for business: a dirty, personal campaign that the media loves. And if she is elected, there will similarly be constant combat, polarization, scandals, etc - the stuff that pays the bills of political reporters and pundits. It's unfortunate that the interests of the media and the interests of the country are at cross-purposes. We shall see whose interests prevail.

RKA, IL (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:39 AM)

What's so surprising about Freedom Watch's ads not being scrutinized more closely for facts? The MSM hasn't scrutinized much of anything said about this war going in, during or staying in. About the only mantra I hear from the media is "support the troops." Everyone, even us against the war, supports the troops. Why don't you support us and do some fact checking on everything this Administration and its attack dogs say? The MSM has been complicit in prosecuting a war we should've never been in, aided in outing a CIA agent and given little coverage to anything but sex scandals. The MSM should win the Joseph Goebbels Award for Best Pandering Propoganda for its coverage of the US entry into the war in Iraq.

Robert Catalano, Salem, OR (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:41 AM)

What ever I think about the Clinton's, I have to admit that they were smart by capturing all of the media for the last 2 weeks. Hillary appeared on all of the Sunday shows last week, and Bill had his Global Inititive this week. That guaranteed that he would be on all of the shows throughout this week. Two weeks of press coverage and the media fell for it, crowding out all of the other candidates. All of the other candidates were lucky to get in a 5 second sound bite.

Al, KS (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:46 AM)

I will vote for my party,whomever wins the primary-----to vote for any of the Bush party I would consider a sin against humanity.I cannot think of one good deed that this bunch has given to this country.Murder and war,a rotten economy,home foreclosures,joblessness,why go on.We arealreadyseeingthe flip-floppingRomney using hismillionsto buy theoffice of president---same as Bush did----Sure I know he was born in MI but he is sure not a favorite son.

HMT-MI (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:49 AM)

This is the LA Times story they were talking about:
Hillary will be toxic toxic for Democratic chances in the West.
From the LA Times:

Local Democrats in West fear impact of unpopular
ticket leader

By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 30, 2007

'BOZEMAN, MONT. -- Election day was still more than a
year off when Sen. Max Baucus ......'
...as he prepares to run for a fifth term next year,
Baucus is entering treacherous territory. Despite
recent gains by Democrats in the Rocky Mountain West,
party officials across the region are increasingly
anxious that their congressional candidates may get
dragged under by Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential
campaign.

The New York senator and Democratic front-runner was
by a wide margin the most unpopular of 13 potential
presidential candidates in Montana, according to a
June survey by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research for the
Billings Gazette; 61% said they would not consider
voting for her, compared with 49% who would not vote
for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and 45%
who would not vote for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. The
most unpopular Republican candidate, former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, was rejected by 51%.

Recent polls in Colorado, Nevada and Arizona have
found similar distaste for Clinton.

"She's carrying huge negatives out here," said Floyd
Ciruli, an independent Colorado pollster who said
Democratic congressional candidates would have to
highlight their differences with the national party to
be successful next year. "It's that liberal East Coast
image that is so hard to sell in the West....'

'....One key advisor to a prominent Democratic
congressional candidate, who asked not be to
identified discussing tensions within the party, went
even further. "It's a disaster for Western Democrats,"
he said. "It keeps me up at night....'

Most people remember the scandals and corruption of the Clinton administration.
The Clintons lost us our Democratic majorities in the Senate and the House.
No problem they screwed the Congressional Democrats and 'triangulated', cutting out Democrats and dealing exclusively with Republicans to craft a Republican agenda.
Is that what we want ?
An invasion of Iran (which Hillary has already voted for, see Lieberman-Kyl).
No withdrawal from Iraq before 2013 !!
More outsourcing of American jobs.
Corruption, scandals and cover ups rivaling the Bush Administration !

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandals and divisiveness

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:50 AM)

It still amazes me that after all this time so far, that Chuck, Mark & Domenico still have their collective heads so far up Hillary's rearend, they can't Fathom the idea Barack is coming. He outraises her, outpoles her (the ones she does'nt control)& still no Good news to report from this bunch.Why No reporting on Hillary's impromptu speaking engagement that drew 10-20,000 supporters( oh wait there's been None). Ya know why she has none? It's because she's just like bush, if you are'nt there to scream & yell her name ( like an idiot) she wants None of You. It's very telling of her ( claiming to be the anti-bush) then doing the very things we've despised for the last several years.Politics as usual, I THINK THE AMERICAN VOTER HAS GOTTEN WAY PAST THAT & not a moment to soon.All you hillary fanatic's have been asking, " Will you not vote for her instead of a Gay Ole Pedophile", I ask, " Will you vote for Barack instead of a gay Ole Pedophile?

rick,ky (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:50 AM)

From the Huff Post
This is a blog about the dishonesty and denial of Hillary's supporters.

'... Richard Gizbert

London Calling: Memo to Hillary Supporters -- Tell It
Like It Really Is
Posted September 30, 2007 | 05:42 PM (EST)

I have a favor to ask of some of you Hillary Clinton
supporters, particularly the females among you. And
you are legion.

"Yes, I know Hillary was wrong to vote for the Iraq
war. But I'm going to overlook that because she's a
woman, and so am I. And it's time we had a woman
president in the U.S."

I suspect that a lot of women, most of them committed
Democrats, feel precisely that way. But they won't
admit it, at least not the ones I talk to.

I understand why Ms. Clinton has decided not to come
clean on why she voted for the war, and why she feels
she can't apologize.

To disclose the former would reveal the kind of
political calculation she'd rather not be known for,
but is. And when candidates apologize, that can be
seen as a sign of "weakness."

But I would hope that some of her fans could be honest
enough to say what really happened in the Iraq vote.
And why they still support her, despite hating the
war.

But rather than do that, Hillary's supporters subject
us to these absurd verbal contortions in trying to
justify their candidate casting the same vote as the
Republicans she's running against.

(And please, stop with the semantic, hair-splitting
canard about the difference between voting for
authorization and voting for the war. That's a
ridiculous argument, always was.)

Hilary's supporters won't acknowledge that, in voting
for the war, their candidate was still pandering to
her New York constituency, well after the 9/11
attacks.

They won't admit that, like Cheney, Hillary has linked
the Iraq war to 9/11, as recently as earlier this
year....'

So, why can;t Clinton cultists ADMIT that Hillary voter for the Iraq war ??
Does denial make this vote go away ?
This is a basic dishonesty of Clinton supporters ?
Maybe the common dishonesty of the Clintons draws those supporters to her.

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 10:56 AM)

z- I really don't have anything to say because I'm just not knowledgeable when it comes to politics. Just call me stupid. ;;;;

Excellent! This is the first step in the recover process.

l (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:02 AM)

How dare those Republicans move in on MoveOn.org territory? I thought only the DEMS were allowed to put out propaganda. Next thing you know they’ll want to allow views other than our own in the main stream media. When will they learn that the only views that should be allowed in this country is the Progressive view – how dare them.

Hanoi Sally, Madison, WI (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:04 AM)

Mike Murphy, Republican campaign analyst: 'the national polls mean NOTHING until AFTER IOWA'

The Iowa results will give a MAJOR bump to the winner.

Combine this with a win in NH, and it could blow away the tacky Clinton machine.

This week end, conservative analyst, Pat Buchanon opined that Obama would be better positioned to take on Hillary.

After an Iowa victory, Obama could match Clinton in campaign funds/advertizing.

He thought that Edwards doens't have the campaign funds to defeat Hillary in the Democratic campaign.

After the early primaries, Iowa, NH, SC, big bucks are needed for advertizing in the compressed primary environment.

It was interesting that nobody was buying the Clinton 'inevitability'.
Apparently, this transparent hype is obvious to most that are following the campaign.

PS Hillary flopped in her week end Bay Area appearances.
No crowds, no enthusiasm, no dice !!

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:08 AM)

Larry Craig - "This is turning into a nightmare scenario for the party, which is struggling to keep its family values mantra."

HA! That was lost long ago.

SMH, Atlanta GA (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:11 AM)

BUSH CONTINUES TO SUCK ! THAT IS ALL.

Z (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:11 AM)

This is crunch time. With no one sure as to when the primary season will begin, it's time for the campaigns to get their act together and hit high gear. That means Fred is done.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

matt (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:13 AM)

GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE, INCLUDING THE "PERSON" WHO USED MY NAME TO MAKE A COMMENT. YES , IT IS MY CONTINUED OPINION THAT "BUSH SUCKS". THANK YOU.

z (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:18 AM)

Ha...Ha..Bush Sucks !

z (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:19 AM)

Edwards campaign is right about the polling by national organizations (and even the Des Moines Register)is not valid polling. Any one who has taken a statistics class knows there are certain rules that must be followed in order for a poll to have any validity. The first rule is to conduct your poll on the proper sample. A poll on a invalid sample CAN NOT become valid. A poll on the quality/value of pampers which consists of 80% people who have never changed a diaper would clearly be invalid if represented to reflect the opinion of pampers users of the product. This is where all Iowa polls fail, it isn't the polling companies fault that they don't start with a valid sample, however the media either doesn't understand the invalidity of the sample, or doesn't care. Neither option is acceptable.

The overwhelming number of Registered Democrats (& GOP) have never attended, and will not attend a caucus. If you get in and out of a Caucus in 2 hours you are happy it went so "quickly", in a state where it rarely takes a voter longer than 5-10 minutes to get in and out of their polling place in a Presidential election, committing 2+ hours of time to help select the parties nominee isn't something most Democrats want to do.

Caucus attendance among registered Democrats has NEVER reached 21%! In 04 and 88 caucus attendance was 20% of registered Democrats, most years it was in the low teens. Over 90% of the registered Democrats who attended the 04 caucus were prior caucus attendees.

Statistically a poll that is intended to show what "likely caucus goers" will do at the caucus needs to consist of at least 90% verified prior caucus goers. A proper poll can't determine whether the person being polled fits the required sample by asking that person questions. To be a proper/valid poll your sample has to be valid to begin with, and only the political candidates internal polling starts with the proper sample, that being independently verified prior caucus goers. The political parties own the caucus lists and to defray the cost of the caucuses (which are political party not state obligations) they sell the caucus lists. The Iowa Democratic party is charging 100,000 for the 04 list, and has sold the lists only to the candidates (except Gravel and Kucinich who haven't purchased lists)

Because the polling companies have not purchased the caucus list the poll sample is of random registered Democrats. Which is what Edwards campaign means about over polling. The Newsweek poll included 42% of its sample as likely caucus goers, that alone invalidates its poll. It is statistically impossible what 42% (more than 2 times Iowa's two highest caucus attendance years) of randomly selected registered Democrat would be likely to attend a caucus. If a undergraduate student at U of I turned in a poll with those results on a poll assignment, they'd flunk the class. Even if Newsweek limited its sample to the 20% who self identified themselves as definitely going to attend the caucus, it would be an invalid poll sample, merely because it relies on the participants self identification to determine whether they belong in the sample.

Of the 42% who Newsweek considered Likely caucus goers 64% claimed to have attended a prior caucus. If the polling Company knew the facts of caucus attendance, this would cause them to realize their results were invalid. It would indicate a very large number of those polled (over 50% of the 42% of the "likely caucus goers") falsely stated they have previously attended a caucus. The false statements were either an intentional effort to throw the poll off, or because people polled often answer in a light that makes them appear better. Good citizen are active in voting/caucuses, therefore they claim they will attend, and have done so before. When you have a poll result that clearly indicates an extremely large number of respondents were untruthful on a question the poll is invalid.

I don't doubt the top three are Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, but whether Edwards is #1, or #2 (highly unlikely he's three) I don't know. But I do know that the poll is meaningless, and Newsweek had an obligation to explain why the poll wasn't worth what they paid Princeton Survey Research. The fact that the poll increases its margin of error from plus or minus 5% of all Democrats, to plus or minus 7% of likely caucus goers reflects the understanding inherent in the respondents self identification of likely caucus goers, however the margin of error of likely caucus goers (the only relevant group in a caucus) is far more than 7% (or 9% with the GOP)given the group of likely caucus goers is more than double what it could be statistically.

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:23 AM)

Fav/Unfav

Obama 51-43%

Edwards 48-43%

Clinton 52-46%

Her numbers are just about the same as the other 2 now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/election_2008_democratic_candidates_running_in_2008_presidential_election

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:28 AM)

It's so confusing reading this site. Wasn't it just last Friday that First Read quoted the eminent political consulting firm Lombardo Consulting Group, LLC who reported this definitive statement:

"The Obama campaign is becoming less and less relevant with each passing day."
Wow. But wait, less than three days later we're told that Obama is LEADING the Iowa likely caucus goers.
It's a waste of time reading sites like this when they are breathlessly quoting political gurus who don't know their *** for a hole in the ground.

Bob, Denver (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:37 AM)

(((I will vote for my party,whomever wins the primary-----to vote for any of the Bush party I would consider a sin against humanity.I cannot think of one good deed that this bunch has given to this country.)))

What's it like, you know, being totally ignorant, and being a lemming?

Pat Russo (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:38 AM)

I think I'm bipolar. ****I LOVE BUSH***

z (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:39 AM)

It's about 80-20 AGAINST here, but this Gallup is interesting;

Gallup: Who likes Hillary Clinton, and who doesn't?

by Mark Silva

Public opinion about Hillary Clinton is split down the middle.

Looking at an aggregate of more than 7,000 interviews in which Americans were asked to evaluate the New York senator and Democratic candidate for president between June and September, the people at the Gallup Poll found a 48-48 split in viewpoints.

That’s 48 percent favorable, 48 percent unfavorable

That was no surprise. The question was, who is most likely to have a favorable opinion of Clinton, and who is least likely to have a favorable opinion?
The party's front-running candidate for the White House in 2008 fares better among women than men, better in the East than in the rest of the nation, better among the lower-income than among the higher-income. Better among the youngest and among the oldest.

The survey found that African-Americas are most likely to favor Clinton: 84 percent. No surprise there: Black voters tend to support Democrats by about that margin. The survey found that 81 percent of Democrats favor Clinton, ‘nuff said.

But the numbers start to get more interesting, the further down the list of subgroups Gallup goes: 72 percent of conservative Democrats favor the senator, as well as 71 percent of moderate Democrats.

Among those making less than $20,000 a year, 60 percent have a favorable view. Among $20,000 to $29,000 bracket, it’s 55 percent."

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/gallup_who_likes_hillary_clint.html

Disclaimer:
(You can read the entire entry by following the link. I am trying to balance my posts between those who complain that they are too long when they are complete, and those who complain that I am, "distorting the facts", when I leave the reader to their own devices.)

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:40 AM)

You guys don't get it...the Clinton's have enough power to have HRC become the nominee whether America wants her or not...just watch. Now if that ain't scary, wait til she's president. Everything put before us will be unethically passed if she wants it. Why? Because her and her husband (as shown in his presidency) have no ethics. Watch out! Big Brother, er Sister is coming!!!

J Lyon Silverdale, WA (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:42 AM)

Dear Z, we know that already. Don't be a whiney dem who can only complain and can't have a plan or vision. It's becoming old. Get over it and say something intelligent!

j Lyon Silverdale, WA (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:45 AM)

Sara, Cedar Rapids, Iowa:

Thanks for the info !!
We can all be sure that the national polls will change dramatically after Hillary loses in Iowa.
Right now, national polls are just about name recognition/infamy. ;-)

You'd previously noted that Hillary is afraid to take direct, unfiltered questions from voters.
That can't help but be noticed by caucus goers.
It can't help make voters wonder if she's pre-programmed.
The tactic is similar to the Bush SOP.
A programmed candidate who knows little or nothing.
It's a sign of weakness, because her campaign is afraid of her speaking off the cuff.
Let's hope Iowa caucus goers notice

Sara, WE CAN WIN !!

Sierra, SF (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:46 AM)

NEWSWEAK's POLL HAS A 7% MARGIN OF ERROR ON LIKELY DEMS.

My kingdom for a journalist who actually took a political science course.

John, Raleigh, NC (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:47 AM)

LARRY CRAIG CONTINUES TO SUCK. AND BUSH SUCKS TOO.

Z (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:52 AM)

Ok, I've had it. Same ole garbage. Time for a 3rd Party. Minnesota has a good 3rd Party and if people would give them a call they would see they are interested in getting things done and not just sit and talk about it. Like this smoking ban. There were other things that needed taking care of but the State tought it more important to get that ban pushed through over school, roads, police and health care.
The Independence Party is a party that will do what is needed over talking about it. This could be done Nationally as well. Maybe shake up what is going on now and have the People listened to over big business.
What do you say? Email me!!

Joe, Crystal, MN (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:54 AM)

I'll bet there are some great photos somewhere of larry craig and some of the family values crowd...perhaps a video of him and vitter talking about their personal family values...when are the reps going to start talking about their coterie of liars and deniers anyway? none of them intends to vote for billary or osama anyway...

Rick, WS, NC (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:56 AM)

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC writes:

"Re: The Clinton Electability Issue
The media loves the narrative and her desperate opponents are playing to it with their unattributed comments.
The fact is the numbers are the numbers. Clinton head to head against the GOP front runners leads them in all the blue states. She leads them in purple states like ... Iowa. ignore the off the record B.S. from campaigns that are going nowhere."

Dickie I really wish you knew what you were talking about, I would sleep a lot better at night if I believed, or could convince myself that Clinton could win the general election. She might win it, but the idea she will do so easily, is not reality based. The idea that electability is not a real concern is not reality based. I live in reality, hence the sleep issues! Take a look at the poll numbers (not the meaningless candidate preference) 94% of randomly selected registered democrats in Iowa said they would vote for a women if she were the parties nominee. 6% registered democrats would not vote for Clinton if she's the nominee, that alone is a problem. But that isn't the number you look at, because poll participants will normally not want to reveal any bias. When asked if they think the country is ready for a women President the # drops to 63%. 22% felt the country wasn't ready, and 15% didn't know. 3% more of Iowa Democrats believe the country is ready for an African American President than a women, and only 18% (versus 22% with Clinton) felt the country is not ready for an African American. Those numbers alone reveal a lot. Interestingly less than half the Democrats (42%) believed the country was ready for a Hispanic President 14% didn't know and 44% believed the country wasn't ready!

Poll match ups between Hillary and any GOP candidate right now are meaningless. I have no clue regarding the other purple states, but unfortunately Hillary can not win the general election in Iowa. And if the poll is accurate regarding general election Democratic voters neither could Richardson. All other candidates (other than Gravel and Kucinich) would be favored in Iowa, and would need to lose Iowa not to carry it.

Hillary's inability to carry Iowa ( a state Gore carried) doesn't only relate to her very real electability issues nation wide in a general, but unfortunately no women has won a federal race (or the Governors race) in Iowa, no matter how superior they were to their opponent. Jim Nussle was so convinced Iowa wouldn't elect a women to congress that in 1996 during the summer, while running for re-election he filed for divorce from his high school sweetheart. This would normally be bad enough (especially given the high number of Democrats and Catholics in the district) but they had two young children Mark who was 5 and Sarah who was 7 and has downs syndrome. If a GOP candidate (who always ran as the family values guy) feels free enough to file for divorce in the months prior to the election in a heavily Catholic Democratic district that speaks to the difficulty a women would face in Iowa. It's sad, and hopefully will someday change, but it won't be in 08.

Also Edwards campaign isn't pushing it, and it isn't a figment of the media's imagination, it is reality. She might be able to win, but if you don't believe she has an electability problem you just don't know what you are talking about. Why else does the GOP want her to be the nominee? The GOP are a lot of things, but politically stupid isn't one of them. They want Hillary, because they believe she is the one they could beat.

Molly, Iowa City (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 11:57 AM)

The first real stink came when Carl Rove endorsed Hillary as the dominate choice and when I heard Bill Krystal and Britt Hume on Fox basically endorse Hillary Clinton this past weekend as the most prominate candidate the odor really kicked up. Basically Hillary Clinton has already been selected by big business (The Republican Party) and the wellfare state (The Democratic Party)and like it or not she is going to be the next President. Some say the Republicans are pushing her because they can beat her in the general election, Bull sH--! She has been chosen by both parties to carry on "The Iraqi Conflict" with a trade off on social programs and massive tax increases. The Dogs of War have also already decided on attacking Iran, it's just a matter of when, before or after Christmas. Once this is done and they don't need Congress's approval since they will be attacking terrorist to continue Bush's "War on Terror", the United States will be so deeply rooted in Middle Eastern conflicts it will take us 20 to 30 years to even begin to see the light of day, if they don't destroy us and our nation first.

Paw Paw, NC (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 12:03 PM)

Paw Paw, NC (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 12:04 PM)

very insightful comment from Sara of Cedar Rapids Iowa.

Justin, Manassas, VA (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 12:07 PM)

Here we go again with Mr Sierra and his obsessive and repetetive, same old hateful statements about the Clintons,over and over until one wants to puke. And again, I say to you that Hillary and many others voted for this phoney war that Bush and Cheney cooked up. She admitted that if she had to do it all over again, she would have voted against it and it STILL would have occured with or without her vote. Sierra,perhaps you are not a democrat- and pretending to be is disengenuous to say the least. It might be nice if Mr. Sierra admitted the REAL reason he hates the Clintons so much.. or is it Hillary(woman) being in charge that brings out all your male insecurities. Your venom against her seems over the top. True democrats know she is quite left of center in reality. What are your issues? Jerry... is that you?

Susan, Miami (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 12:09 PM)

"Dear Z, we know that already. Don't be a whiney dem who can only complain and can't have a plan or vision. It's becoming old. Get over it and say something intelligent! "

A very bizarre statement coming from the Gay Old Party. How about "Mission Accomplished"? Or "they'll greet us as liberators"? They were very positive statements. Make things better for you, little pookie?

JJ, Movin' Uptown (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 12:14 PM)

It's not just the "big three" anymore. Biden's been gaining steam and his campaign is neck and neck with Clinton & Edwards, especially in Iowa.

ErinM, Ft. Lee, NJ (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 12:21 PM)

Pat Russo, you must be kidding. Don't look down because you just followed your delusional leader off a cliff. BBBOOOOMMM!!!!!!

bb (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 12:25 PM)

Larry Craig - poster boy for the "no shame, no responsibility " party. "Do as I say, not as I do."

In conjuction with the most addled and corrupt president in history, proving that God has no interest in American politics or the right wing would get boils in places to make gay sex impossible.

Satan (Sent Monday, October 01, 2007 12:31 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=388329