Harris Poll: Hillary 52%, Obama 29%

The media is loving talking up Barack Obama's chances in Iowa. But nationally, Hillary is easily maintaining her big lead over him among Democratic supporters -- those most likely to vote in a primary or caucus. In fact, she's up 7 points from September. From the latest Harris poll:

More than half of Democratic Party supporters in the United States think Hillary Rodham Clinton should become their presidential nominee next year, according to a poll by Harris Interactive. 52 per cent of respondents would back the New York senator in a 2008 presidential primary, up seven points since October. Illinois senator Barack Obama is second with 29 per cent, followed by former North Carolina senator John Edwards with 11 per cent.

She has a three point lead over Rudy Giuliani.

Taylor Marsh notes Hillary's leading in Kentucky.

< Australia's John Howard is Out | Pro-Business Rudy: Less Regulation, More Tax Cuts >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary Clinton = Fear Monger (none / 0) (#1)
    by Aaron on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 05:38:23 PM EST
    We're talking about the big mainstream media providers who for the last six months have all been declaring the Democratic nomination a lock for Hillary Clinton, right?

    Well I've seen these mainstream media folks up close and personal, and they sure don't seem to be very receptive to Barack Obama or the Obama campaign, more like openly hostile, viewing him as a threat and a spoiler to the Democrats/Hillary's acquisition of the White House.

    And I've also seen and talked to a number of Iowa voters and caucus goers personally, in regards to who they support, and who they'll be caucusing for, and in my experiences last Saturday, Hillary seems to be the choice of those who are voting out of fear.  Fear that Hillary Clinton herself and her campaign have been pushing from day one, and continue to push today in her statements and campaign ads that seek to promote and expand a climate of fear across this country.

    I wonder how she feels about increasing her lead through the use of the Republicans favorite tactic.  The worst part is that it wasn't necessary, this promotion of fear in the electorate, she and her campaign advisers have done it for no other reason than to increase their lead.  I for one am glad to see that it's backfiring, and coming back to bite them, and may cost them Iowa and perhaps other states in the race for the nomination, because that's what they deserve for helping to create and promote an ugly climate of paranoia and defeatism in the US.

    Americans have had a belly-full of fear, and we don't like it, we're sick of it.  What we need is positive energy, and a leader that will show us the way to a new future where we can banish irrational fear and put the boogie man back in the closet, where he belongs.

    Hillary and her campaign are pandering to the worst impulses of human society, and if she becomes president, I have little doubt she will continue to promote this environment, while she keeps this country on the course that the Republicans have set for it, as opposed to putting us back on the path of reason and hope.

    For me I say no thanks, been there done that, and I've had enough.  Time to right the ship of state, before the fear-mongers and warmongers pile us up on the rocks and rip the bottom/heart out of our nation.

    Fear? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by RalphB on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 08:02:57 PM EST
    You could not possibly be more wrong or we're watching completely different campaigns.  I see no indications of fear mongering on the part of Senator Clinton's campaign at all.

    Perhaps you should check for that paranoia in your mirror?


    national polls? (none / 0) (#3)
    by mindfulmission on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 08:55:34 PM EST
    national polls mean little if Hillary loses early in the primaries...

    Couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#6)
    by DA in LA on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:25:52 AM EST
    National polls are pointless in our system.

    Obama is moving up in Iowa and NH, Clinton is moving down.  Those trends are most important.  Whoever picks up Edwards voters when he fades after SC will win the race and I would not be surprised if they shifted to Obama.


    exactly, mindfulmission (none / 0) (#4)
    by skippybkroo on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:58:05 PM EST
    if obama shows strong in iowa, many will switch to obama.

    i always thought that the national polls were silly, putting the cart before the horse.

    national polls tend to trend state-by-state polls, (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:03:53 AM EST
    so there would be a correlative effect. probably not the same %'s, but probably not too far off either. of course, the only poll that really means anything is the one on election day, everything else is pap for the pundits.

    aaron, i've clearly missed all those fear mongering hillary ads, could ya point me in the right direction?

    Great news! Thanks. (none / 0) (#7)
    by masslib on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 12:47:11 PM EST