A new CNN/WMUR poll taken Jan. 5 and 6 has been released. I got the actual poll results by e-mail.

Interviews with 341 New Hampshire residents who say they will vote in the Democratic primary and 268 New Hampshire residents who say they will vote in the Republican primary conducted by telephone.

The margin of error is 5 points for the total vote and 8 points for the Registered Democrat/Independent voters and men/women voters.

The results are below, and there are some interesting contradictions:

Taylor Marsh has a good post on the media's gender bias against Hillary where a show of passion or a flash of anger or forceful self-defense is deemed shrill and a laugh is deemed a cackle.

While Big Tent doesn't agree, I think Kevin Drum nails it:

Am I feeling bitter? You bet. Not because Hillary Clinton seems more likely than not to lose — I can live with that pretty easily — but because of how she's likely to lose. Because the press doesn't like her. Because any time a woman raises her voice half a decibel she instantly becomes shrill.

I'm disgusted and embarrassed by the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton. And their fawning over Barack Obama and his mantra of "change."

Kevin goes on to say: [More...]

Another Republican debate in New Hampshire is now on Fox News. Is anybody watching? I am. I'm not going to live blog, but I will add some thoughts here or in the comments. Hope you join me.

6:12 pm. Romney and Huckabee are fighting. Romney to Huckabee" "You make up facts faster than you talk and that's pretty fast."

Giuliani is a terrible debater. He's all statistics and nothing loses a tv audience faster than stats and percentages. It's TV 101.

6:34 pm: McCain says he knows how to get Osama bin Laden and he will get him. If he does know how to get him, isn't it his patriotic duty to tell George Bush?

6:55 pm: Huckabee: The prisoners at Guantanamo are being treated "too darn good." Fred Thompson says, well they have certain rights.

Now we see the Iowa bounce:

In the survey, conducted by the University of New Hampshire on Saturday and early Sunday, 39 percent of likely Granite State Democratic primary voters back Obama as the party’s nominee — that’s ten points ahead of Clinton’s 29 percent. Obama is up six points and Clinton down four points from our survey conducted on Friday and early Saturday. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is at 16 percent in the new survey, down four points from Saturday. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is in fourth place, with the support of 7 percent of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio at 2 percent.

BTW, (speaking for me only) this poll demonstrates, yet again, the utter stupidity of Edwards' debate strategy yesterday, as Obama is taking the hide out of his support. Edwards is closer to Richardson now than he is to Clinton. If he is not careful, he'll end up 4th in New Hampshire.

What a great find from a host of people.

Given the importance the media is attaching to the New Hampshire primary (as it did with Iowa) I'm wondering about the state's population and demographics. Who are these people who may be so influential in picking the Democratic nominee? Here's some reference points:

• Total population (2006 census): 1.3 million.
• Percentage over age 65: 12.4 (same as national). 95.8 of residents are white, 1.1% are African-American. 6.6% live below the poverty line (compared with 12.7% nationally.)
• There are 234 incorporated cities and towns.

More...

Kevin Drum and Ezra Klein are bemoaning the pack coverage of Hillary's meltdown. Well, um, I expected it, but I must admit it never materialized. Not sure what Kevin and Ezra are talking about frankly.

I thought the coverage was pretty fair. What did I miss?

Well there was this from wonkette, Ana Cox, but not in anything that was in print or mattered.

Their latest tracker:

Clinton 35 (36)
Obama 33 (29)
Edwards 14 (13))
Richardson 5(5)
1/4-5

Obama is surging. Clinton stagnant. Edwards dead in the water at 20 points behind. What effect will the debate have? We'll see.

On the GOP side, Romney up 4 in this poll over McCain. Ron Paul in 3rd.

John Edwards was on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos this morning. The money quote:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You've made such an issue on lobbyists, and we've talked about this in the past. But I have to press this a little bit. You're very careful. You say no corporate lobbyists in the White House, no lobbyists for foreign governments in the White House. Some of your biggest contributors are trial lawyers, and the Association of Trial Lawyers for America is the sixth largest lobbying group in the country, $6 million spent on lobbying. Six of your top fund-raisers are on the executive committee of that organization. Eighteen of your top fund-raisers are on their board of governors.
Will they be barred from the White House as well?
EDWARDS: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Really?
EDWARDS: Yes.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Even though they have given you money? (CROSSTALK)
EDWARDS: There will be no lobbyist who's worked for the trial lawyers, no lobbyist who's worked for big corporations that will be working in my White House, period.

Is he saying it's okay to take the trial lawyers' money so long as after the election he doesn't hire their organization's lobbyists to work in the White House? Is that really the the issue?

One of the things that bothered me about last night's debate was Barack Obama's answer to the final question: "Tell me one thing you've said in those debates that you wish you hadn't said. And it's your chance to take it back."

He began with Hillary who said there were one or two things, didn't specify what they were and then went on to give a closing statement.

Edwards and Richardson answered with specific examples (Richardson wished he hadn't named Wizzer White as a great Supreme Court Justice and Edwards said he wished he hadn't criticized Hillary's jacket at an earlier debate.)

Obama, seizing on Hillary's refusal to name an error and give a closing statement instead, said "there have been all kinds of aspects to my debate performance that I'd love to correct or sharpen," and used the final seconds to give his closing statement.

Below is what Hillary said and what Obama said. Hillary's answer is issue-specific. Obama's is generalities and buzzwords. [More...]

Zogby, who is a charlatan imo, says:

Clinton 31 (32)
Obama 30 (28)
Edwards 20 (20)

Remember, Zogby is a charlatan imo. This is a 4 day tracker, so it includes January 2-5.

Update [2008-1-6 11:56:14 by Big Tent Democrat]: Rassmussen shows Obama up 12. Since Rass is doing a two day tracker, the overnights are easy to calculate. Obama pollled 41 Friday night and Saturday morning, and 37 Thursday night and Friday morning. Clinton was 27/27. Edwards was 17/19. Obama takes from Edwards at this point. He is toast. Especially after his idiotic performance last night.

That's the NYTimes spin on the debate:

Senator Barack Obama and John Edwards went after Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as never before in a televised debate here on Saturday night. . . . When it became clear that Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards, sitting side by side across from her, were teaming up, Mrs. Clinton sat up and pulled her coat tight as if preparing for battle. A few minutes later, though, she softened when one of the debate’s moderators took note of the fact that Mrs. Clinton was getting double-barreled criticism from her rivals. “You noticed?” she said with a smile.

Now for the life of me, I do not understand John Edwards' thinking here. In what scenario does he win the nomination by pumping up Barack Obama? Harold Meyerson said Edwards helped Obama and himself. How is that possible? There can be only one nominee! Obama is the frontrunner and will be a bigger one if he wins New Hampshire. And then Edwards runs as a change candidate against Obama? Okaaay.

I can reach only one conclusion - John Edwards is no longer running for President. He is merely a stalking horse for Barack Obama. Indeed, Ezra Klein wrote:

In the debate over health care mandates, rather than argue for his plan, or against Obama's, Edwards went after Hillary as a force "of the status quo" fighting those trying to bring about change. It backfired. Clinton had looked a little tired accusing Obama of flip-flopping, but Edwards riled her up enough to elicit a furious recitation of the change Hillary had actually fought for: S-CHIP and National Guard benefits and on and on. It was quite impressive, and impassioned in a way Hillary rarely is.

The answer Ezra is Edwards is merely running now to stop Hillary, not to win for himself or for his positions. Tonight was a nadir for Edwards imo.