Watch the Best Political Team on TV analyze recent poll numbers.
WASHINGTON (CNN) - A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll shows Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, leading the race for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-New York, leading among Republicans vying for the White House.
Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider reports on what the results mean for Clinton. Then, fellow Senior Political Analyst Gloria Borger talks with Wolf Blitzer. Borger takes a deeper look inside the polling numbers and what they might mean for a possible head-to-head contest between Clinton and Giuliani in 2008.
Related: With majority support, Clinton passes major milestone
The fact that Giuliani is running neck and neck with Hillary is nothing short of amazing for the Republican party.
With an unpopular war hanging over its head and a leading candidate who refuses to bow down to Christian conservatives, it is almost beyond belief that Giuliani can be where he is right now.
This can't be good news for team Hillary because the more time that passes the more Republicans and Independents will unite behind Giuliani.
I think it's vitally important that CNN and other news outlets start reporting the SOURCES of these polls.
Get this through your thick skulls:
A poll is not an election. Hillary and Giuliani haven't won ANYTHING yet.
Polls are inaccurate, especially with Democrats. Howard Dean, anyone?
We (the people) don't care. We just don't care. You wonder why nobody votes anymore, after four years of nonstop Election 2008 coverage and constant bombardment and manufactured cynicism.
In short, CNN, thank you for destroying America.
I don't accept Hillary as the leader nor the silly tag of inevitible. she is so widely hated in her own party and distrusted. Because the media is obsessed with the clintons and talk and gush endlessly over them, people just pick her name when the pollsters call. Maybe it there was more even coverage and Hillary was not touted as the second coming, the polls would reflect more even as well.
Real Clear Politics has a good article on this and how the media is coloring people's thinking in this race.
but, then, wasn't that the point?
With HRC supporters such as Vin.od Gup.ta and Dou.glas Scho.en running the major polls, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that Hillary is leading.
Hillary should enjoy her poll lead while it lasts. Barack Obama is going to win Iowa and then he's going on to win the nomination.
I question quite frankly the validity of these polls. While I would be a bit concerned if these numbers had any legitimate consensus, for the most part, if I was in the Clinton camp, I would be a bit worried because of the numbers. However, if this poll is a valid poll, this can change so this is not cast in stone that Guilliani will defeat Clinton.
In tech world, these form of statistics mean nothing, what matters is the user base, in this case, the actually people who are for a candidate and some gray area that is purported here in this analysis by CNN. So these numbers/statistics can be and I do believe are misleading.
Once again history is repeating itself before our very eyes and since we are so blind to see and never learn from the past, let’s prepare ourselves to be disappointed again. We may not get another opportunity to break the cycle next time, so be smarter and read on dear folks.
Have you ever wondered why Bush won 2 times the nomination of the white house? Well, turn on your TV and see for yourselves, you might notice something familiar. Remember; a good thing sells itself – A bad one advertises itself.
When it came time to sell the Iraq war to the public, some journalists went as far as admitting openly that they were biased when their country was at war. When Bush had to be re-elected, the same journalists turned the terror indicator to red. And now with 2008 getting closer, the same Media is desperately trying to sell us yet another product. Do you notice any patterns? Watch again, but pay attention this time.
Every move Senator Clinton makes is massively reported and glorified. They even spent a full day covering Bush's desire to see her be the democratic nominee. When Obama drove more than 20 000 people to Washington square, there was no mention of it. When she raises $27 M, she's the headline of every news paper. While Mrs Clinton appears to be immaculate over and over, the same media is busy painting Obama, Edwards and the other candidates with a dusty brush.
Something just doesn’t add up, does it?. If Americans really favour Mrs Clinton, then how do you explain those big crowds that Obama has proven himself so good at attracting over and over? How do you explain the fact that he receives more grassroots donations than all other candidates combined? Dou you get the picture now? Excellent! Welcome to the real world then. I’m glad you’re awake. As Mike Gravel said, follow the money, you will know where these candidates are headed. Mrs Clinton, folks, is from far the largest recipient of PAC money and if you don’t understand the influence those groups have on the government, then I’m afraid we’re not getting out of Iraq any time soon.
The war with Iran is imminent and the establishment, aka status-quo-elite, just need the right envoy to carry the message and Clinton is the chosen one. If you doubt it, watch how the media is manipulating the polls to hide Clinton’s failed leadership on Iraq and health Care.
Prepare yourself to be disappointed once again and it might be too late when that happens. You may ask “why?”
I shall respond “because many still blindly trust everything the media reports.”
Free up your minds, free up America.
Guiliani and Hilary leading ??? Hahahaha//that's one heavy load of bull.
If that's true, well all I can say is that Americans either never learn or are so incredibly dumb, that they do actually deserve the morons they elect.
Earlier this year, CNN decided not to use an outside polling organization and started doing it themselves. CNN is a crock and becoming more like Fox. Except Fox is the only station that polls viewers after each of the presidential debates and discuss their opnions. CNN is trying to hoodwink us into nominating HRC. You fooled me once with those imbeded reports in the Iraqi war, your not going to fool me again.
Americas' best chance is Hillary. Just keep in mind how sucessful were the 90's
I would never vote for Obama. Even Al Sharpton is voting for Hillary. Maybe he knows something we don't.
People saying they dont beleive in polls generally are the losers in the polls, as Obama said so himself. Besides, what else can they say? They just bury their head in the sand.
Giuliani is not running neck in neck with Hillary. He is actually behind Hillary and falling. I anticipate that he will keep on falling and, if nominated, falling further. The reason is that he has yet been scrutinized under a microcope by the voters, as Hillary has been subject to for decades. More importantly, he is just a former city mayor without federal and international political experiences, not to mention his messy marriages and poor family relationship. Yeck! Even most republican voters (70%) say that Giuliani's platform does not represent the republican values.
On a personal note, it is interesting to note that the dem candidates have married once, while some republican candidates have married two or three times, or with much younger wives. That shows personal character defects(insecurity, vain, poor committment or communication skills, poor relationship skills, etc.) which may affect poltical decision if becoming president.
Hillary leads and her lead will widen in weeks to come because of her experience, change ideas, heart or passion towards public service, effective and efficient election machine, and having the best campaign strategist and advisor ever (Bill Clinton). This is the 3rd presidential bids by the Clintons, after 2 previous successful bids. There are certain election strategies that other candidates do not have a clue or just running in circles.
The only way that she will lose this election is someone play with the voting machine.
If the choice comes down to Hillary or Rudy, I will not vote.
We need real change in America!
Posted By Observer : October 4, 2007 2:52 am
Very "observement" of you!
How very observant of you!
Attention Republican Voters:
If you are unhappy with your pool of candidates and if you are angry that the media is marching toward a coronation of Hillary Clinton, you can make your voice heard and stop this from happening.
Republican voters can temporarily switch party affiliation in order to vote against Hillary Clinton in the primary elections. Check with your local Board of Elections for instructions as to how you do this and to check the deadlines.
Independent voters who are not allowed to vote in the primary elections can do the same thing.
Other polls also show Hillary beating Guilliani by double digits in their home state of NY...and Hillary beating him nationally! Oh, and if Hillary wins more than 50% of the support of her own party, then prior comments stating that she's widely hated in her own party is totally baseless.
HRC is widely hated by Indpendents and Republicans who have more voters combined than the Democrats. I am a democrat but will never vote for Hillary. Even if she gets 100% of Democrats votes, which she won't, she will stil lose in the general. The Clinton never had long coattails and even with the Republicans failures, most people like their own congress men, she would help risk losing the Congress to the Republicans or help keep the status quo which is divided and divisive. There is no scenario that HRC can win the general in a landslide or with a huge lead. She may be able to squeak in a win but she will be in office in a similar situation as bush- a divided country. If Democrats don't learn from past mistakes and nominate this loser, shame on us. I will not under any circumstance support HRC, she is wrong for our country. And her new 9/11 healthcare video is a crock and makes me feel like taking a shower.
Watching the CNN correspondents' report of the national polling numbers makes me wonder whether CNN knows very little about the science of political polling, or simply doesn't have time to report what is behind the numbers. At this stage, national political polling is reflective of national media coverage since that is all that national voters are exposed to. This piece is an example of how a bandwagon trend can occur in these numbers due to a lack of intensive campaigning by the candidates. However, CNN fails to report the following: (1) in some key states, "caucus" attendees will determine the outcome of the vote (not reflected in broad national polling samples because they require pinpoint samples of likely attendees in a small state, i.e., the tiny national sample doesn't pick up nuaces of Iowa); (2) in other key states "independents" will determine the outcome of the vote (another nuance that a national poll cannot detect since independents have no idea which party primary they will participate in at this stage).
Finally, and by far most importantly, when I have researched the deeper findings of these polls (especially those showing Clinton with a wide lead) it is consistently found that nearly 60% of those polled may be "leaning" toward a candidate but are still weighing their options. Nevertheless these leaners are counted as supporters for the candidate they are leaning towards. Does anyone believe that nearly 100% of voters have made up their minds - which is what these national polling reports imply?
In other words, 50% does not mean much if Obama or Edwards have yet to spend their resources in a persuasion battle. In the state by state persuasion battles, the true strengths and weakness will emerge.
Clinton is not only "not invevitable," there is no reason to think she is even significantly favored at this stage. If, for example, Obama invests heavily in organization in Iowa, he is likely to pick up that state. If he invests heavily in personal campaigning, organization, and media campaigning, he is likely to turn the huge number of "leaners" in New Hampshire and surpass Clinton after an Iowa win. South Carolina, in this context, could easily fall to Obama given the African-American vote, which may turn to him at an 75-80% level by the end of this state-by-state educational process.
These are not hopeful, wishful dreams–this is what the polls (if you would report the underlying data and the inadequate samples) predict may likely happen. If these results in the early states come to pass, does anyone predict that Clinton will ride to an easy victory?
P.S. CNN's parade of eventual winners who led in the polls early, is also meanginless. Look at the "candidate fields" during those years - Among the Democrats there was no Obama-type hopeful, except in 1984 - Gary Hart. And remember, had Gary Hart not botched his chance to win the New Jersey primary in 1984 ("my wife has to campaign in New Jersey while I get to campaign in California), Mr. Mondale likely would have been defeated.
I know you don't have much time for these stories, but a deeper and more accurate picture is right there in the back-up data if you would read it– and you could tell the correct story without doing a min-documentary..
Gee, what timing for Hillary, the morning immediately following her 3rd quarter fundraising numbers a new poll pops up with mega poll numbers for her. I think her campaign has take-a-number-any-number poll placards they extract and post in their own 2 minute poll post just like their planted pro Hillary writers making articles about her every 10 minutes. If Hillary lands in the white house, it won't be judicious unfortunately, it won't be any different than the other politicians who got there with lies, cheats, steals and deceits!!! Why does Hillary Clinton want to be president? Has anyone asked her that? She's not interested in the people, she's interested in POLITICS! A big difference. And notice those supporting her are the same way - politics as usual!!!
Isn't the washington Post and ABC owned by the rich and political class? Or should I say socialist/communist clans?
Blah, blah, blah, polls schmools.
What was the sampling, 10 people from downtown NYC?
For a man to be only $1 million dollars behind in tottal money raised, how is it that the polls show hillary dominating??? obama should have john edwards money or hell Guliani's money raised. They down play the cash thats raised and just fixate on the polls. When you have more big spenders then grassroot spenders of course your gonna raise more. why dont they count the amount of donors to see who is really pulling the most national support.
Bottom Line: NOTHING has changed since the beginning of the year. Polls are the SAME! The only thing that has SURGED is the Media's spin to make it sound like Hillary is doing something. Nationally she is in the SAME place with poll numbers were in January. She has slight lead because of her name recognition.
The only states being targeted for poll changes are the 1st 4 states, Iowa, NH, SC, and Nevada. Obama leads in Iowa, slightly trailing in NH and SC. Both Obama & Hillary have enough cash to compete for the Primary with Obama leading in the most cash raised for Primaries. We are just at the start line and no one has won this race. Let the games begin!
These polls may be a nice bonus for the candidates who "win" them, but they are largely meaningless in the long run. Most voters in Iowa and New Hampshire aren't going to make up their minds until a WEEK before the actual caucus/primary. Also, most of these polls don't poll nearly enough people to be considered scientific or even, in some cases, reliable (the recent newsweek poll showing Obama ahead in Iowa only polled 200 people!!)
The race is still anyone's game, and I'm sick of media outlets trying to figure out who to crown the victor already.
That was a great post by Sasha from Buffalo, NY. Take heed folks, what she writes here is truth. Just look at this: The very next morning after Clinton's 3rd quarter fundraising totals were announced (which she lied about, deceived about weeks earlier) suddenly her poll numbers surged to 53%? HA, and which pocket did they pull that number out of? The Clintons and Clinton campaign are duplicating the Karl Rove sales tactic and strategies, hard-core manuevers that Rove used for Bush, like telling him to keep that Bible in his hand and keep thumping it, and he will draw every Evangelical Christian, and he did. And to come out 6 months ahead of elections and hammer away repeatedly that your candidate is the inevitable winner, it will inflate the frontrunner balloon, and those McDonald's-gorging, live-to-work, do-as-the-Joneses-do Americans will turn toward the tube just as it's announced the president says Hillary Clinton will win the dem nomination and all hands will be thrown up in the air and say it's all over, and they must vote for Hillary then. Yes, it's all SELLING, SALES, and Clinton's campaign and her husband know this best. So watch out. This very familiar stomach-turning trend is happening here with the media, and the public, the same trend that landed Bush in the white house, so wake up America, don't be fooled by the Billary-hype!