Two New Iowa Polls: Good news for Clinton

Outlier of not? Remains to be seen. Rasmussen today:

Iowa - Likely Dem Caucusgoers

Clinton 33
Edwards 22
Obama 21

Clinton leads even among younger voters in the poll, a deathknell to Obama's Iowa prospects if it plays out on caucus night.

Strategic Vision- a GOP outfit:

Clinton 28
Obama 23
Edwards 20

No internals immediately available.

That is four Iowa polls with Clinton in the lead with at least a five point spread on her rivals. Too close for comfort, but encouraging nonetheless.

David Yepsen's Latest Jewel

David Yepsen from the Des Moines Register is developing a real reputation for being Obama's lapdog. He is a far cry from the Yepsen of past caucuses, who provided insights into the development of the campaigns in Iowa. Now, he seems to have made a career of Clinton bashing.

Hoping against hope, his latest column is wrought with one-sided analysis against Clinton. From today's DMR.

Some of my favorite parts of the column:

*In Iowa, Clinton leads the Democratic pack with 29 percent of the vote. That means 71 percent of the likely Democratic caucus-goers in the state want someone else to be their nominee, are undecided or have enough concerns about her not to commit.

True. But it also means that roughly 75 percent have decided that they want a nominee other than Obama, and roughly 80 percent want a nominee other than Edwards. These people have "enough concerns" about Edwards or Obama "not to commit."

*Of those Democrats who've decided on a preference, 53 percent say they could still be persuaded to change their minds. On the Republican side, it's 67 percent.

Of course that omits any reference by Yepsen to the analysis of the most recent Iowa poll from his own paper that indicates that Sen. Clinton's support is the strongest and least likely to change of any of the Democratic candidates.

*But early leads in national polls reflect only name recognition, and these two are well known. If others start winning, or beating expectations in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, those national surveys will shift overnight, thanks to the free media those candidates will receive.

Does any prospective Democratic Iowa caucus voter not know Obama or Edwards? Are they unfamiliar with Obama's "Edwards and Clinton voted for the war but I was against it" schtick? Do any of them not know that Edwards is now a screaming populist? The people of Iowa (bless their hearts) have endured nearly a year of incessant politicking. It seems to me to write off Hillary's Iowa support as coming from dunces who have picked her because they know her name is both incorrect and ungracious. Further, I think it is empirically disproven that Hillary's massive margin will be erased overnight if she loses in Iowa. As evidence, I offer the 1988 GOP caucuses, where George H. W. Bush lost to Bob Dole and then won out. I also offer the 1980 caucuses, where George Bush beat Ronald Reagan. This is not 2004, when we were faced with basically unknown candidates with the same message.

I suspect that Hillary Clinton is going to win the Democratic nomination for President. I don't know if she is going to win in Iowa or not. She seems to be a bit ahead, but not enought to confidently declare that a victory for Clinton is assured in these caucuses. But, I think that Yepsen's shoddy analysis does a disservice to his Iowa readers. The fact is Hillary could lose the Iowa caucuses and still win nearly every other primary with ease. What David Yepsen isn't telling is readers is that the converse is not true for Obama or Edwards. If they lose in Iowa, it is likely game over for them.

FOX News Poll: Clinton Up By 32

Confirmation of the ABC News poll from last week out today, from Opinion Dynamics / FOX:

Clinton 50
Obama 18
Edwards 11
Richardson 4

This eye-popping lead is continuing to be seen in myriad state polls, as well. From Quinnipiac yesterday: Hillary +27 in Pennsylvania, +34 in Florida, +28 in Ohio. She also leads the potential GOP nominees in each state. Again, directing our attention to the "Hillary is not electable" myth, she beats each of them in all three states. The other Democrats do not fare as well.

Electability: Clinton Ahead in Florida for General Election, Other Dems Fare Worse

So much for the electability argument. I posted a lengthy comment last week about the vitality of a Guiliani nomination in the Northeast. My thesis was that Clinton was the only Democrat, based on polling, that could retain the New York / New England Presidential base. Now, very similar numbers from Florida. These are SurveyUSA polls conducted 10/1. By far, Clinton is our most electable candidate in the Sunshine State.

Summary of Results Florida (follow link above for detailed results):

Clinton defeats Guiliani
Guiliani defeats Obama
Guiliani defeats Edwards

Clinton defeats Thompson
Thompson defeats Obama
Edwards defeats Thompson

Clinton defeats Romney
Romney defeats Obama
Edwards defeats Romney.


This electability argument is interesting. At first blush, it is easy to be compelled by the "Hillary-is-so-disliked-and-most-men-will-never-vote-for-her-and-she-could-never-win" mantra. The only problem with this tired framework is that it just isn't so. It is fine to be motivated by electability. I, too, was disheartened to see two great potential Presidents- Gore and Kerry- go down to defeat to a lackluster Republican candidate. But, if we are going to use electability as our paradigm for choosing a nominee (again, perfectly valid in my view) we should at least know the facts. The election is a long way off and a great deal could happen, but right now, based on the only evidence we have (polling) Hillary Clinton wins the electability debate hands down. There are some good reasons to believe that Edwards and Obama would underperform their already lackluster polling numbers in swing states.

The electoral college is the whole enchilada in presidential politics. If the Democrat loses NY (for example) in any given election, it is more or less a definate loss. Competitivness in Florida is icing on the cake at this point, but it is an electoral vote rich cake.

Post on Guiliani and Northeast

Des Moines Register: Clinton Leads in Iowa

Another bit of good polling news for candidate Clinton out today: the hometown Des Moines Register shows a substantial gain for her campaign since their last poll in May. Current numbers from DMR poll:

Clinton 29
Edwards 23
Obama 22

As I have noted before, Hillary Clinton's campaign is in a really good position: If she wins Iowa, it is all but over for her leading rivals. A strong showing, short of a win in Iowa, and her campaign can come barrelling into New Hampshire and February 5th still as the favorite for the nomination. A good hand to hold, to be sure.

The Red Northeast?: Guiliani as Nominee (Why Hillary Must Win)

See below (10/2/07) for an analysis of the absurdity of Rudy Guiliani's memo claiming that he is a lock for 210 electoral votes were he to be the GOP nominee, versus Hillary Clinton's lock on MA and VT in a hypothetical "subway series" Guiliani - Clinton matchup. So they claim. It's rediculous in a number of ways, outlined in that previous post.

However, there is a certain peril presented to the Democratic party if Guiliani is ultimately the GOP nominee. It is simple: certain states that are reliably blue will be in play if he is the GOP nominee and Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee. Guiliani, a New Yorker, cuts into the Democratic base in New York / New England in a way that, for example, Mitt Romney from Massachusetts does not appear to do. If he were to be nominated, the electoral map and the strategy that the Democratic nominee would have to employ would be radically different from any recent election.

Look at New York. I believe strongly that in a head-to-head matchup, Hillary Clinton would win the home state she shares with Guiliani. All of the one year out (roughly) polling supports this. As evidence, I offer Quinnipac's NY poll released today. That poll asked the central question that I am exploring here. Answer: she beats Guiliani in NY by 11 points. Obama would tie Rudy. Edwards would lose NY to Guiliani. A Democrat cannot, by any reasonable calculus, win the Presidency having lost New York. Hillary Clinton is the only Democrat who can win NY against Republican Guiliani. (Also, see SUSA on this point. Recent poll, Clinton 22 points over Guiliani in New York. This survey is another example of Hillary winning New York against Rudy, while Obama and Edwards lose to him.) The 31 electoral votes that NY brings to the Democrats should not be lightly treated by those who would support another Democratic candidate.

New England, generally, follows the same trend as New York in this Clinton vs. Guiliani scenario. Massachusetts, the most populus state in the New England region, is not competitive if Romney is the Republican nominee. In spite of his one-term stint as governor of that commonweath, Romney loses handily to all potential Democratic nominees. (Example: yesterday's SUSA poll of MA likely voters. Obama vs. Romney: Obama wins handily, as do Clinton and Edwards.) But if Guiliani were the GOP nominee, the numbers change a bit. According to SUSA (the most recent polling data from MA), Clinton beats Guiliani by 24 points, which is roughly the norm for a Democratic presidential nominee in MA. With Edwards and Obama, a race against Guiliani are too close for comfort. The Obama and Edwards leads are not large enough to put Massachusetts' 12 crucial electoral votes in their pocket and move onto more traditional battlegrounds. Interestingly, this is a point where Guiliani's memo was correct. He is not competitive in Massachusetts against Hillary Clinton. He is competitive against the other two.

Connecticut offers the same scenario. Clinton and Guiliani are competitive-ish, but Clinton would probably win. Obama and Edwards would probably lose. Rhode Island is probably much the same, though polling is scarce. Polling data for a general election is equally scant in upper New England, but assuming that the same conundrum faces Democrats other than Hillary Clinton, the seven electoral votes held by those two states are electoral votes that I would like to see remain in the Democratic column. New Hampshire is an anomoly in the region. NH voted for Bill Clinton twice, Bush in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. It is a close purple state that both Republican and Democratic candidates are going to have to spend money to win, no matter who the nominees are.

The 61 electoral votes that New York and the New England states (excepting NH) reliably offer to the Democrats are crucial. Without them, neither Gore nor Kerry would have been close to the Presidency. We should consider the impact of a possible Guiliani nomination on these votes, and what we can do to keep them in our column.

The outcome of elections is often a function of resources. New York and Boston are incredibly expensive media markets. The less money a candidate has to spend there, the more they can spend (and get greater bang for their buck) in places like Denver and Cincinatti and Sarasota. Hillary would have the luxury of spending the money elsewhere, playing offense in previously red states, and winning some of them. The other Dems would have to play massive defense in the expensive Northeast markets, and would likely lose some or most of these states in the end. This would be a disaster.

President Bush's cruel and strange veto of the SCHIP bill today illustrates the immediate importance of a Democratic president. It amuses me that so many Democrats are concerned about electability, which is valid, but then use that point as an warrant for nominating Obama or Edwards. That line of argumentation flies in the face of reason or current facts on the ground. Regardless of whom the Republicans choose, I believe that Sen. Clinton is the best choice because of her principles, demonstrated leadership, proven record of winning by beating the Republican filth machine, and her electability. If someone other than Guiliani is nominated, maybe another Democratic candidate could win. It would be closer and messy. Hillary would be the best choice in that circumstance, as well. But, if Guiliani is the Republicans' standard bearer, only the Senator from New York can win that competition. Democrats who are concerned with electability should with that consideration very carefully when casting their primary ballots.

Clinton Opens Up Expansive Lead

Wow. The ABC/WaPo poll out today shows a marked improvement over Sen. Clinton previously very solid poll numbers. 33 points is an enormous margin, especially given the relatively strong field she faces as rivals. The nomination is not sewn up for Clinton (after all, no one has voted yet) but a moderate catastrophe would have to occur to get her into very serious trouble.


NH looks great, Iowa looks better now for her than it has in months. Three months is a long time in politics, but it speaks volumes that as the year has progressed, her lead has expanded. Also note that for the first time, her poll result is a majority of respondents, not a plurality. Being over 50% is a huge deal in a multi-candidate field. This result, coupled with Clinton's victory in the third quarter fundraising battle, is great news for the Senator's campaign.


ABC - POLL: Clinton Advances, Strong in Base; Giuliani’s Lead has Less Oomph
The Fix (WaPo) analysis

Rudy Guiliani is Delusional...

if he thinks that he would produce a landslide against Hillary Clinton. In a memo released today from his campaign, he is willing to give her MA and VT (plus 3 from DC).

Via My DD, this is Guiliani's "state of the race" map. I don't know who his pollsters are, but they are not worth what he is paying them. A few issues with this map, aside from obvious methodological flaws:

1. Hillary will carry Arkansas- no doubt in my mind.

2. Putting FL in the Guiliani column is silly. All recent demographic and election data show that it is a competitive state and getting more competitive.

3. CA is probably not up for grabs. The most recent poll I have seen shows a 20 point Clinton advantage over Guiliani.

4. While I believe that Guiliani would run stronger than, say, Mike Huckabee in the Northeast, I think that RI, CT, ME will definately be blue in '08. NH probably will be.

5. MN was the rare blue state that John Kerry carried with a larger margin than Al Gore. It will produce its electoral votes for Hillary, or whomever the Dem nominee is.

6. IL, a state I visited yesterday, is home turf for Hillary and is reliably a Dem state. No dice on that one either.

7. NY is the home state of both Clinton and Guiliani, but all the polling I have seen shows that Hillary is far ahead and would carry the state. Huge margins in Manhattan, coupled with the work she has done to make herself acceptable to moderate Republicans upstate will work in her favor.

8. NJ is a state that no Republican has carried since 1988. I doubt that Guiliani, neighbor to NJ that he is, would be especially competitive there.

9. Not all the mistakes are in Guiliani's favor. LA is a conservative state save New Orleans. With the demographic shift after Hurricane Katrina, it should be a GOP lock in a presidential. Curious that it is purple in Guiliani's rubric.

10. OR and WA are always close-ish in pre-election polling and end up being reliably blue when the returns are counted.

Just a few of the many issues presented by this poll. I still think that Guiliani is unlikely to be nominated. If he is, I think that it will be a tougher race than otherwise. I don't think it is a given that Sen. Clinton would beat him, although I do think that it's likely. This map / memo is absurd. Rudy Guiliani should fire his pollsters immediately.

Later in the week, I will be posting some general election analysis, focusing on the Northeast. The coasts are our base at this point. They are must wins. I personally believe that if Guiliani is nominated, Hillary must be the candidate of the Democratic party if we are to win next year. The truth is, this cockamamie map aside, that Guiliani would run stronger in the Northeast than most other Republicans. If Hillary lost the nomination, and Obama or Edwards were the nominee, NY, NJ, CT and several other "base" states would be perilous for Democrats. She runs stronger and will win these states where other Democratic candidates will lose them. I'll expound on that thesis in greater detail soon.

Hillary Wins Third Quarter Money Race

Today, the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton unveiled its 3Q fundraising totals. Her $27 million take-in was by far the largest of any candidate in either party.

Totals, early reporting:

Democrats
Clinton - 27M
Obama - 19M
Edwards - 7M (though a lot of this is useless, since he is taking matching funds, and is capped.)
Richardson - 5M

The GOP candidates have yet to release totals, but it is clear that the Democratic candidates are far outraising the Republicans.

FOX poll out: Hillary Leading GOP Contenders

FOX News, even with its conservative bent, is showing Hillary Clinton ahead of all of the leading rivals.

LINK to the poll

Clinton is at:
+6 over Guiliani
+13 over Thompson
+7 over McCain

It is worth noting that Obama does not garner numbers nearly as strong as these. Edwards is not polled.

Sen. Bayh Endorses Hillary Clinton

In her weightiest endorsement yet, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana endorsed Hillary Clinton late last week.

Bayh is a former Indiana governor and a two-term Senator from that deep red state. Figured to be on her VP short list when the time comes to formulate one, he would possibly bring his home state into play, and would help in Ohio, Kentucky, and West Virginia. Sen. Bayh has appeal and gravitas. He is John Edwards with actual substance. He and Clinton are clearly comfortable with one another.

While it is true that it has been 47 years since two Senators on the same ticket have won, I have for a long time believed that Evan Bayh would be a great running mate for Hillary Clinton. His endorsement was the first step.

Home town coverage: Indianapolis Star

UPDATE (6:41 pm) - I'm not the only one pushing a Clinton / Bayh ticket...Politico from yesterday. (Sorry; still catching up from vacation...)

"I hope and expect some day I'll be voting for Evan Bayh for President of the United States."

- President Bill Clinton
May, 2000

Wesley Clark Endorses Hillary Clinton

Gen. Wesley Clark, former Presidential contender and NATO Supreme Commander, endorsed Hillary Clinton today.

What most Americans don't know is the extent of the respect that Sen. Clinton has garnered among military brass in her years on the Senate Armed Services Commttee. Joe Klein had a piece in Time months ago (5/10/07) with this telling quote:

"I once asked a well-known general if there were any Democrats running for President who understood the way military leaders think, and he said, 'You mean, aside from Hillary?' "

This challenges conventional wisdom. Anyone who thinks that this is not an asset in a post- 9/11 general election campaign is wrong. Oh, and then there is the whole thing about being commander-in-cheif being a huge partof the President's job description.

Estrich: Hillary Likely to be Elected, Etc.

Susan Estrich's online column: Hillary Clinton is likely to win not only the nomination, but also the election.

LINK

Hillary Clinton with a massive lead in Arkansas. She's visiting today. Her tenure as First Lady of Arkansas was a hit, and it is paying dividends.