December 14th, 2007
01:32 PM ET
7 years ago

Poll: Clinton's lead vanishes in New Hampshire

Obama has a 1 point lead over Clint in New Hampshire, according to a new poll.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Democrat Hillary Clinton has lost her once-comfortable lead over rival Barack Obama in the crucial primary state of New Hampshire, according to a poll released Friday.

In the new poll conducted by the Concord Monitor, Obama surpasses the New York senator by 1 percentage point: 32 percent to 31 percent. Meanwhile, John Edwards comes in a distant third with 15 percent support among likely Democratic voters, while Bill Richardson is fourth with 7 percent.

Speaking to reporters in Iowa Friday, Clinton commented on several recent polls both in Iowa and New Hampshire that show she is tied with Obama.

"I guess I've been in enough campaigns over a lot of years to know that there is no predictability and there certainly is no inevitability," she said. "You have to get out and work for every single vote. That's what I have always done. I don't know any other way to do it."

Meanwhile, at a separate event in Iowa, Obama commented on his rise in the polls, saying, "people are receptive to this message of change."

"I am confident in my ability to lead this country," he said. "And increasingly we are doing well. Not just here in Iowa but across the country."

Obama's chances of success in the Granite State will likely hinge on how many independents show up at the polls. Unlike many states, New Hampshire allows unaffiliated voters to vote in either the Republican primary or the Democratic primary - an allowance that often can give a boost to candidates who are viewed as outside their party establishment.

Of independent voters who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary, the poll shows Obama has a wide lead over Clinton, 40 percent to 23 percent. Meanwhile Clinton holds the lead over Obama when it comes to registered Democrats in the state, 36 percent to 27 percent.

The poll also shows Obama is making inroads with women in the Granite State. The Illinois senator now edges out Clinton in that demographic, 34 percent to 32 percent.

The poll carries a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

– CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

soundoff (126 Responses)
  1. Amanda Orlando, FL

    I see a lot of griping from people about how CNN supposedly favor's Hilary over Obama. But I haven't seen a truly positive or biased story about Hilary come up on this ticker for quite a while. I've noticed that on all the cable news networks, even Fox News, have nothing but good things to say about Obama and sound almost excited about his increasing popularity and how he has run his campaign. In contast, all I've been hearing about Hilary is how much of a screw up she is and how much people don't like her cackle.

    You all need to take a step back, take a deep breath and look at the big picture. Stop looking for things that aren't there that support your opinions and prejudices.

    CNN is giving Obama a load of good press. And I'm sure as soon as Hilary does something right for a change, that will make headlines too.

    OBAMA 08!

    December 14, 2007 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm |
  2. scarlette

    CAN'T IMAGINE 25 YRS OF BUSH CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, I SIMPLY WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY, I AM A WOMAN, IN THIS DAY, WE ARE NOT READY FOR A LADY PRESIDENT, ALTHOUGH I RESPECT HER AND HER AMBITIONS. WE ARE AT WAR, WE NEED A PEACEKEEPER FOR PRESIDENT, PERHAPS OBAMA IS OUR TICKET TO GET THIS COUNTRY IN THE LIMELIGHT. WE HAVE LOST OUR SUPERPOWER STATUS TO JAPAN! WHAT A SHAME, MANY OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE US BEAT TOO!! ECONOMY WISE, ENVIROMMENTAL REFORM AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS. WE NEED TO ELECT A WINNER!!!!

    December 14, 2007 12:08 pm at 12:08 pm |
  3. Steve, Hartford, CT

    The eggs are covering numerous Hillary supporters' faces now. Obama's support among independents (the crucial factor in any election) is WAY higher than Clinton's.

    And Obama is turning out to be the new Teflon candidate–nothing sticks. Probably because there isn't any dirt to find.

    As for experience, he doesn't need any more than he already has–he has great judgement (google his 2002 Iraq speech and tell me he doesn't!) and he knows how to surround himself with intelligent people that will tell him things he may not want to hear, unlike some Presidents I could name. Also, only crazy people and racists don't like him, whereas Hillary is absolutely hated by almost half the nation. Good luck getting HER elected.

    December 14, 2007 12:10 pm at 12:10 pm |
  4. Robert, Houston TX

    Why must we have a daily report of polling numbers? This has a huge effect on people's idea of who to support.

    People are sheep. It shouldn't be legal to publish numbers like this so frequently. It is tampering with the election by influencing people's vote.

    Just let people listen to the candidates and vote when it's time. We'll find out who won when the votes are counted!

    December 14, 2007 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm |
  5. Alfred, Memphis Tn

    In the beginning a lie might always take the lead but the truth always catches up and surpasses in the end.

    Obama 08!

    December 14, 2007 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm |
  6. John Smith New Jersey...a real state

    What can you say? Its beyond belief that a shi%$y little state like Iowa and laughable New Hampshire can influence the rest of this moronic country who goes with the flow of latest flavor of the month. Primary voting should be held natioanlly on just one day...the same day. I can't believe the idiots in South Carolina will let what happens in Iowa and NH influence them. Mind boggling. No wonder we rank 25th in education

    December 14, 2007 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm |
  7. insider

    Trustworthyness is a problem for her. I mean you can fool some of the people some of the times…….

    She paniced today when she saw the new IA poll showing Sen Obama leading. Hum…….the American people aren't stupid. I for one, am still waiting to hear an answer to any question asked of her.

    Now folks, lets see how dirty the lady will get to bring her poll numbers back up.

    December 14, 2007 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  8. Eileen, Oley, PA

    This news comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed Barack Obama's campaign. But I find it very entertaining that it is surprising the so-called "pundits" who called this race for Hillary all year long.

    December 14, 2007 12:15 pm at 12:15 pm |
  9. Jeff, The Republic of Illinois

    Bad news for Republicans, Good news for Democratic White House hopes.

    I don't believe Democratic support for Clinton will be all that strong, with her combination War-Hawk/Socialist agenda, but a Clinton nomination would be just the tonic the Republicans need to fire up their base.

    "Clint" on the picture text. heh

    December 14, 2007 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
  10. Lance,Monrovia,CA

    Funny how you have to read all the way down to the bottom to find ONLY 24 percent of this three hundred some odd voters polled have ACTUALLY PICKED A CANDIDATE. If they're all still undecided, they certaintly won't go with the known commodity Hillary Clinton, she's old news.

    The only reason 70 percent of that 300 voters think Hillary is inevitable is because CNN is saying so. This is classic Emperor has no clothes politics. If they tell the lie long enough, maybe people will believe it.

    But then again, maybe people will be smart enough to see through the lies and actually elect a leader they can trust for a change.

    That's why I'm supporting Barack Obama. I'm working my tail off for him. We've collected canvass data from around California and out of 5000 samples, 30 percent are Obama, 7 percent Hillary, 40 percent undecided.

    Those numbers sound more like the truth to me.

    When Obama speaks, I believe it. When Hillary speaks, I run for the air raid shelter.

    December 14, 2007 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  11. Blayze Kohime, Columbus, OH

    Hilary has made some critical errors in her campaign, and it is costing her. I really hope Obama gets this; since he is more middle-of-the-road than Clinton he will be more ought to best a Republican opponent. I also thinks he has fewer things in his past that can be used against him in the main election by the typical Republican mud-slinging platform.

    December 14, 2007 12:18 pm at 12:18 pm |
  12. Lev Klinemann, Redondo Beach CA

    I am so sick of states like Iowa, New Hampshire and even some southern states deciding our elections. If it wasn't for the economy of California (6th largest economy in the world) this country would be in much worse shape than it already is.

    California should be where the first election happens, not the Iowa, or New Hapshire caucuses.

    Until they give California the first vote, we should get back every tax dollar we Californians put into the Federal budget. Today we get back 75 cents on every dollar, where as states like Alabama and Alaska get back over 2 dollars for every dollar they put in.

    Its about time California flexes its muscles.

    If they don't give it to us, I say California seccedes from the US, becasue we can't let politicans from the south or midwest or whoever else bring California down with them.

    December 14, 2007 12:23 pm at 12:23 pm |
  13. iva18

    Obama just became my second choice after Ron Paul.

    My man... That is you respond to clowns like Hillary.

    December 14, 2007 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  14. Ben,Iowa

    Very nice "save" by Obama. Her cackling turned into an embarassed chuckle of denial

    December 14, 2007 12:27 pm at 12:27 pm |
  15. henry,boston,ma

    Hillary reminds me of the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz....
    Go Obama

    December 14, 2007 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  16. zak,alabama

    My fellow Ron Paul supporters, this article has nothing to do with him so please shut up about him. Everyone on Digg knows about him. Go out and campaign and stop spamming stories that have zero relevance to him.

    December 14, 2007 12:29 pm at 12:29 pm |
  17. Iowa debate viewer

    If you just listen to the question, it seems like it puts Hillary in a worse light than Obama. I mean, all these people who worked for President Clinton are now putting their support behind Obama, and not Hillary. What does that say?

    December 14, 2007 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |
  18. EE, syracuse, ny

    Hillary wins the nomination if it is held today. She averages 19 points ahead of Obama nationally. Obama has yet to make a dent in many later states with larger electoral votes.

    December 14, 2007 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm |
  19. Algernon, Los Angeles, CA

    There is nothing newsworthy about this report. A one percent lead is well within the poll's margin of error; and at any rate, the media's emphasis on daily opinion polls instead of issues, policies, and ideas contributes to the further dumbing down of our discourse. Voters should really boycott these polls by saying, "I only have time for two polls this year: my party's primary, and the general elections." Those are the only polls that should count.

    December 14, 2007 12:37 pm at 12:37 pm |
  20. Will, NYC

    Here's to real choices and real debate. I give Obama credit for not going negative when he was lower in the polls. He stayed true to his word. Keep up the good work, maybe you really are a candidate for honest change!

    December 14, 2007 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  21. SFC Chicago

    Please stop de-emphasizing the polls and focus on issues, differences in opinion, and strategies of the various candidates. You are adversely effecting the democratic process by focusing on polls that are gathered from people that in truth haven't made up their mind yet. The only poll that matters is on voting day. The political spin doctor's play into the media's addiction to polls. Nobody wants to vote for a "looser". And polls tend to lead to misrepresentations of candidates and/or public opinion as being more popular/unpopular than they really are. If I were Karl Rove, I'd be spinning poll results like crazy and behind-the-scenes conducting some polls on my own, in order to manipulate public opinion.
    If pollsters were around, say, during the Civil War, we wouldn't have an Abraham Lincoln. Help to educate the public on the candidates, so that they can make an educated decision at the polls, instead of encouraging the mob mentality by encouraging the public to vote for who is popular.

    December 14, 2007 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm |
  22. Hillaryhater

    Why even pretend we are a democracy anymore? Lets just run Jeb vs Jillary and decalre it the "Return to Aristocracy" election!

    December 14, 2007 12:41 pm at 12:41 pm |
  23. Mondale

    Well to heck with the Dems who want to nominate Hillary. If they want her - they can have her. If they think yet another Northeastern Liberal Establishment Senator with zero warmth and no passion is going to win a general election - they deserve her.

    41% is staggering given her flaws and recent history of losing Dem nominees. Sure hope Dems wake the heck up and soon. Edwards and Obama are so very attractive. What is wrong with 41% of Dems.

    December 14, 2007 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm |
  24. James, Phoenix AZ

    Tom – Albuquerque
    TheInsider
    Kyu Reisch
    Steve Lyons, CO
    Wynter, Loudon, NH
    Pixie – Murphysboro, TN
    Hillarylover in SA

    And the rest of the Hillary-apologists that have repeatedly criticized all others suggesting Hillary's victory has been "inevitable"...

    PLEASE explain to us just how it is that Hillary Clinton managed to BUNGLE her "sure thing"??

    Bahhaaahaahaha

    December 14, 2007 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm |
  25. Naom,nyc,ny

    Reference UGH's post, that is exactly the thesis of my new book, "Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America's Demise." Just reflect on what a two term Hillary presidency would mean; 7 consecutive presidential terms or 28 years dominated by two families in a nation of 300 million (and 9 terms or 36 years if Bush senior's two terms as Vice President are counted). This is de facto aristocracy.

    December 14, 2007 12:43 pm at 12:43 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6