Clinton Double Digit Lead over Obama

A USA Today poll has found that Hillary Clinton has established a comfortable lead over Barack Obama. If former Vice President Al Gore is included in the poll, Clinton leads Obama 33%-21%. If Gore is excluded she leads with 39%-26%.

Furthermore, “if the Democratic contest came down to Clinton or Obama, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents chose Clinton, 53%-42%.”

The results for the GOP (candidates):

Giuliani leads the field at 28%, down 4 points from two weeks earlier. Thompson is second at 19%, up 8 points. McCain is at 18%, 1 point lower. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney is fourth at 7%, down 5 points.

Interestingly enough, “if the GOP contest came down to Giuliani or Thompson, Republicans and Republican-leaning independents chose Giuliani, 53%-41%.”

At the moment Thompson formally announces his candidacy, he is expected to rise in the polls, at least for a short amount of time.

I expected Romney to have risen in the polls – he did well in the last Republican debate. He defends his positions well, and he is – of course – the #1 Republican fundraiser.

One thing everybody should remember: this is a nationwide poll. Nationwide polls are less important than state polls. It is all about individual states right now, and in the most important states, Romney does great – he leads both in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Regarding the Democratic nomination, I think that Hillary Clinton will win, possible even quite easily. The GOP race is, in that regard, far more exciting. As far as I am concerned, three people can win it: Romney, Giuliani and Thompson.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Clinton Double Digit Lead over Obama

  1. DAS San Diego says:

    I hope things shake up in the Democratic field. While I admire Clinton, I do wish some of the other candidates would become more competitive with her. This has started to feel too predictable & even rather boring. Some of the fatigue is due to the inadequate approach by the media. Besides the last couple of debates the rest has been polling, polling & more polling. Polling is good but seeing broader info on a host of candidates (on the TV) would be much more interesting.

    Once the public is bombarded for weeks upon weeks with polling on the same top three from each party, that may be all they consider relevant. Feels like more of a popularity contest instead of people getting the opportunity to focus more clearly on substance. Or maybe that’s what we want?

    As always, we’ll have to wait and see. After Bush, what do we really want? It may seem obvious (ANYTHING BUT BUSH), but looking at our choices among candidates…what is it that we really want?

  2. Darrell Prows says:

    What I want is a leader who will talk first and truly use force only as an extreme last resort. I’m not sure why I would relly like to see Hillary indicate that that would be her leadership style but she mostly is not giving out any kind of signals like that. I guess I’m still nostalgic for Bill going to Europe and pulling out a saxaphone. That and the fact that peace and prosperity (and especially sharing both) felt good for a change.

  3. BlueWashington says:

    I am tired of the Clintons (as well as the Bushes). I am tired of the soap operas, the conspiracy speculation, the magic pants, the girls, the divorce talk, the pardons granted. The Clintons had their moment in the White House – time to move on. Give me Obama, give me Edwards, give me someone else…

    Fred Thompson – that’s the guy that scares me. People have seen him on TV and the movies, everyone thinks they know him; very Ronnie Reagan to me.

  4. Earvolution says:

    Obama leads in South Carolina, I that is just as relevant as this generic national poll. I wouldn’t hand this to Hillary just yet.

  5. Jim Withee says:

    I happen to believe that Hillary is very difficult to beat from a drive standpoint. Both she and Bill share that quality of striving, of course for the rest of us it will matter most what she is striving for instead of just trying to achieve power. In a way it would be good to have a woman president, but we know that women like Margaret Thatcher were not good heads of state for the majority under their rule. Hillary has surrounded herself with some powerful people who may not be the best influence on her.

  6. Buzz says:

    In my humbel estimation, the nomination of Hillary Clinton for President will assure the third consecutive Democratic defeat. She comes with entirely too much baggage such as: Arkansas wheeling and dealing, her failed universal medcicare plan, Bill’s unaccepted divorce requests, Bill’s adultery, her perception as being bossy and hard to deal with, her rumored sexual attraction to women, etc. etc.
    Furthermore, a lot of the electorate is just sick of our current two family executive dynasty. If Hillary were to become President and serve for two terms, it would mean that either a Clinton or a Bush will have been a part of the executive branch for 36 years. (George H.W. Bush-8 years vice-president, George H.W. Bush-4 years as President, Bill Clinton-8 years as President, George W. Bush-8 years as President, and then Hillary Clinton-8 years as President. Is this really the best we can do? Do American’s secretively crave for a monarchy? We need new blood as evidenced by someone with new ideas and approaches. Give me a Biden, Edwards, or Obama. Anything but another Clinton!!

  7. Buzz says:

    If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination, Democrats will assure their third consecutive presidential defeat. She carries with her entirely too much baggage as: Bill’s denied requests for a divorce, their Arkansas wheeling and dealing, her failed universal medicaid program, Bill’s adultery, her reputation as being bossy and hard to deal with, etc. etc. If she were to win and serve for eight years, we will have a Bush or a Clinton as part of the executive branch for 36 years. (beginning with the vice-presidency of George H.W. Bush for 8 years) Do Americans secretively crave for a two family executive monarchy? We need a new face, new ideas, and fresh approaches. Give me a Biden, Edwards, or an Obama, anything but another Clinton! We have had enough of White House soap opera.

  8. Earvolution is right – this race is not ready to be handed to Clinton at this point. It’s anyone’s race and the frontrunner has always been known to stumble. I have no idea how the frontloaded primaries will affect things but let’s not forget Kerry in Iowa in ’04.

  9. Ginny Cotts says:

    The comments here have covered well what I have concerns about. Jim Withee, welcome to the Dem Daily and thank you for articulating some things that I hadn’t been able to. What Hillary is striving for concerns me a lot. My impression is she says the right stuff and she does things that seem inconsistent or counterproductive. For someone whose strength is more of a policy wonk rather than a visionary leader, this makes her even less viable as a leader.

    There was another op ed on the demographics of women who support Hillary and those who don’t. Judith Warner’s discussion of the WaPo-ABC news polls veers off on the higher percentage of boomer age, educated women who don’t like Hillary.

    I worry that there may be among some elite women a certain disregard for, even a certain distaste for, the bread and butter middle class family issues that Hillary has placed front and center.

    -snip-

    Is it possible, now that stay-at-home momdom has become a fixture of the suburbs and when wealthy women have bailed out of the workforce in the face of family pressures, that the image of one who toughed it out – uninterruptedly, and with little or no publicly expressed angst – is less than welcome?

    I know that way too many people use emotion more than reason in evaluating politicians, purchases and many other important apects of life. The responses to this op/ed indicated to me that a lot of us in the educated boomer category have some very solid reasons not to support Hillary. Life’s lessons learned from having toughed it out in our own ways.

    Could we just focus on what the candidates are actually saying and have done, rather than polling and speculating on what the voters are thinking this early on?

  10. Michaelvdg says:

    we know that women like Margaret Thatcher were not good heads of state for the majority under their rule.

    Excuse me? When Thatcher came into office, Britain had major, major problems. There was only one way to deal with them, namely by pushing through reforms that hurt. Thatcher’s policies may have hurt in the short run, but in the long run they greatly helped Britain.