According to a new NYT/CBS poll, Hillary Clinton's electability number has plunged from 64% a month ago to 47% today, despite her win in New Hampshire, while Barack Obama's number has more than doubled, from 14% to 35%. According to NYT/CBS, only 42% of likely Democratic primary voters plan to support Clinton (5% of those who think she's the most electable will vote for somebody else anyway).
Good news for Obama? Far from it. Just 27% of Democrat voters said they planned to vote for him, a number that is unchanged from a month ago. Worse, according to the poll a shockingly low 49% of black Democratic primary voters supported him. A black columnist for the Washington Post points out, without seeming to understand the significance of his own point, noted that just "a month ago, Clinton held a big lead among African Americans." When Obama considers how badly the polls in New Hampshire overestimated his support, he (and his supporters) must get chills reflecting on that puny number.
A WaPo/ABC poll, though, puts Obama's primary vote number much higher, at 37%, while giving Clinton the same 42%. It has Obama's electability number up 20 points (while NYT/CBS has him up 21). Kind of sort of looks like the Democrats almost think they are having to choose between the lesser of two evils, doesn't it? Which one is the least likely to have his/her head handed to him/her by the Republicans in a general election, they must be wondering, the Farrakhan supporter or the Clintonian shrew, neither with elected executive experience, neither from the south. To win they'd have to be the new JFK. Gulp.
Meanwhile, Obama's resurgence has induced the Clinton camp to open fire upon him, splitting the party and squandering resources that might otherwise be used in a general election. Even more devastating, it's apparently induced New York City Mayor/Billionaire Mike Bloomberg to consider an independent run that could totally undermine the whole Democrat field just the way Ross Perot did in 1992 (he's the only reason Bill Clinton became president).
John McCain now leads the Republican polling, but with just a thin 28% plurality, as Rudy Giuliani has take a major nosedive. One of the most fascinating dramas in recent primary voting history is building, whether Guiliani's "Florida plan" will work or not. Given the Republican incumbent's lack of popularity and the Republican field's lack of luster, how could the Republicans be any more pleased than to see the Democrats ripping themselves apart and spending themselves into the ground over issues of race and gender, their supposed strong points.
Social Bookmarking:
del.icio.us | 
digg | 
technorati | 
stumble upon | 
furl | 
reddit
Artfldgr says:
wow... another all democrat, all leftist post... and of course at the end... the easiest people to beat... again thompson left out.
thompson won the last debate making the others look bad, but there is ZERO coverage of him. he WON a debate, NO coverage.
fox news this morning covered hillary, and obama... then three of the republicans, and omitted thompson completely...
out of all the republicans, if thompson gets heard he will sweep...
he is also the ONLY candidate that is not playing some game. there is a 17 minute video that he put out covering each issue. not one other candidate has similar. every smear campaign has come to naught since he lives by old principals which were designed to keep you clean socially and honorable. he has experience... his kids arent fruit bats... his ex girlfreinds love him...
to keep arbitrarily omitting a contender, and one that wins debates, IS manipulating the american voting system.
[do note that guiliani has physical problems that in a race will come up (like fdr hiding his inability to walk). so he is favored given that he is short and has this situatino and in hardball it would have an effect. mcain has his screaming fit, and so people think kruschev and his shoe... anotehr candidate may be in a crisis with a lady friend.. (but threats for legal action against the times has them holding off reporting till they get more - though the story is out anyway).
here is a report by forbes, that mcain is surging and obama too.
http://blogs.forbes.com/trailwatch/2008/01/whoa-mccain-oba.html
John McCain’s resurgence in the polls comes at the same time as slides for Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, who were polling first and second, respectively, for much of the summer and fall. Thompson took a turn for the worse when Mike Huckabee emerged as a popular candidate. While Thompson might have put in his best performance yet in the Republican debate last week, the poll data haven’t shown any bounce.
the reason i put that up is notice that prior to this surge it was guiliani and thompson in first and second..
so during all that time they were reporting guiliani, mcain, huckabee, but leaving out the guy that floated between first and second place!!!!!
and note that they pointed out that he did great in the republican debate.
however, if Fox refuses to mention his name no matter what he does, what does that do to a place like NY which has 8 million people, and rely on such news for coverage?
is it any wonder that he didnt have any bounce if they are not telling people that he is winning when he does!!!!!!!!!!
if you follow what the majority in america say they want, and ignore what the leftists say the majority wants (after all leftists love abortion, but the majority are against it the way it is. so who is representing who?)
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/01/019541.php
jan 14 2008
thompson moves up seriously from his debate with the other republicans. since he left mcain alone mcain came out well by not having a change in his relative position.
the strategy is interesting in that mcain is easy to beat later... (you only have to rile him, and he will hurt himself). and so by working on the others, he moves up, and doesnt get a fight back. so if you look at it, thompson has one less person to fight than the rest of them. and later after things starts paring down, he has been through less dirt and such from players no longer playing.
though refusing to cover him and such is unconcionable for news services with such responsibility and such... too bad centralization and such has insured that owners can seriously influence things by making such choices, and do so in huge market without problems.
