December 19th, 2007
08:45 AM ET
10 years ago

Clinton recaptures lead in New Hampshire

Clinton is on top in New Hampshire in a new poll.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - It appears Hillary Clinton has recaptured the lead in New Hampshire, according to a new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire presidential primary poll out Wednesday morning.

After slipping into a virtual tie with Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois in last week’s New Hampshire poll, along with several other recent surveys, the New York senator now has a twelve-point lead over Obama in our new poll, 38 percent to 26 percent. Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is in third place at 14 percent. The remaining Democratic White House hopefuls are all in single digits in our new survey, which was conducted by the University of New Hampshire.

Voters in New Hampshire, home of the nation’s first primary, head to the polls on January 8.

“Nearly all of Clinton's gains come among older voters. She also is ranked higher than Obama on every issue tested, with health care and the economy her strongest suits,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

While Clinton retains a comfortable lead in most national surveys, polls so far show a much closer race between Clinton, Obama and Edwards in Iowa, the first state to vote in the presidential primary process. The Iowa caucuses will be held on January 3.

Full story

soundoff (174 Responses)
  1. Stopwatchingfoxnews, Rochester, NY

    agree with "Bush Republican"…she is a socialist and the worst thing that could ever happen to this country.

    That's funny, the far left are calling her a Bush republican. When both the far left and far right are clling her names, that must mean she is somewhere in the middle like 80% of this country.

    Hillary in 08!

    December 19, 2007 10:32 am at 10:32 am |
  2. kerry,St.paul,MN

    The big bounce out of Iowa happens when the candidate has a connection to New Hampshire. For example, Dukakis (Governor of Mass.), Kerry (Senator from Massachusetts). The same may happen this year for Romney (former Governor from Mass). But remember Bush 41–big Mo out of Iowa, slammed in NH. And there's no reason to think that Obama will get a bounce out of Iowa that will melt a 15% lead in only five days. And, if you look at all of the Iowa polling–not just the outlier from ABC/WashPost–its unlikely Obama will win there, either,but has a chance. But this sure is a lot of fun for the media types.

    December 19, 2007 10:34 am at 10:34 am |
  3. Lee M, Egg Harbor NJ

    All that negative campaining worked, and the mainstream media helped. Can we say "Hussein" again? LOL!

    On the Republican side. there has been tremendous blowback against Huckabee, as he was not "chosen" by republican "leaders" that tell the sheep they really need phony Mitt or Rudy.

    Hoefully people in both parties can wake up and stop being used. No Hillary, no Mitt, no Rudy, no establishment slippery characters!

    December 19, 2007 10:34 am at 10:34 am |
  4. frank,burlington,vt

    I think Iowa shakes up everything. It seems like there's a ton of Democrats who want anyone but Hillary, so as the early primaries start to force some of the also-rans to drop, that group could consolidate around the main Clinton opponent.

    Plus, if Obama wins Iowa, watch South Carolina numbers move. Winning one early state – okay, could be a fluke. Look at Pat Buchanan. But winning a second forces everyone to reconsider the race.

    December 19, 2007 10:35 am at 10:35 am |
  5. dancan,des moines,Iowa

    I very much doubt that there has been any concrete evidence that Clinton will not win. She will be the next President. Her VP picks will include Gen. Clark and Gov. Richardson. I suspect that she will go with Clark and give Richardson the spot on the Cabinet (Education). That's it.

    The GOP will be defeated in all 50 states. GOP will be the Mondale of 2008.

    Accept it. As a supporter of Obama, I am surprised at his relaxed manner. I have contributed to his campaign but I get no emails of more requests. I get Clinton (from previous contributions) all the time these days. Her team (supporters, reporters, criminals like Norman Hsu, international mediocre pols like Tony Blair, actors, etc.) all are organized. They want to use Clintons to get to the power, and Clintons want to use them to get to the power. Each is a parasite and each is a host.

    December 19, 2007 10:37 am at 10:37 am |
  6. Johson,greensboro,nc

    I can't think of anyone who has run an effective campaign in the United States under the National Socialist party.

    Secondly, I seem to remember seeing a poll just the other day that showed Howard Dean with a huge national poll lead going into December. I believe polls were showing leads for Dean in Iowa and New Hampshire. Far too much is made of "the scream" as if it was the moment that everyone in America finally realized Howard Dean wasn't ready for primetime. Isn't it possible that the entire time he really didn't have that much support and polling methodologies were suspect?

    Polls are useful, but they're not holy writ. Really, I think national polls of primary contests are entirely useless. You're comparing apples and oranges. The primaries will be decided in the several states. In fact, national numbers will be only a footnote the entire presidential race. Because of the electoral college and how our conventions work, national polls are basically useless. Hell, we had a fairly accurate national poll in 2000 that said Al Gore was the winner-see how that worked out?

    But polls do provide a storyline that's easily digestible. It doesn't take alot of work to put numbers in a story. Doing research about field organization and the nitty-gritty of campaigning takes work, and most of our journalists seem to be too lazy to do that. They'd rather comment on how candidates look in a swimsuit (though a swimsuit competition as part of the primaries would be hilarious).

    As eorse, I get plenty of emails from Obama's team–I used to get lots of mail but I moved and haven't updated my old address. My old roommate tells me he throws out plenty of Obama mail (he's a Clinton supporter). I guess part of it's being in Virginia, where my vote doesn't mean anything (and the system works, really...) so I don't get the full-court press, but I certainly have felt like his team is working. I don't get as many phone calls anymore, but I changed my phone number when I moved too.

    I dunno. I'm biased, obviously - I want Obama to win and I see the race that way; however, I don't see what's so "impressive" about Clinton's candidacy. She's played to her strengths (which any candidate would do) and in a primary where nobody's trying to be the bad guy (except for MAYBE John Edwards, whose biggest sin seems to be willing to say Clinton's not honest) she's not taken too many hard licks. Her debate performances bore me. She speaks in doublespeak that would make any spineless politician proud. Even if it's self-satire, she straddled the fence on the dang "pearls vs. diamonds" question.

    She's openly antagonistic to the base on a number of questions, and not ones where she's right. It's disgusting that we've declared another country's military a terrorist entity. Has anyone read the state department's definition of terrorism? You have to be a non-state actor to be a terrorist–so that's just stupid. Clinton's biggest asset is that she represents a return to the 90s, which seem like the promised land after 8 years of Bush.

    But she would never be able to do even the incremental things that Bill did. She'd be hamstrung by the hatred on the right and her own inability to stand for anything of consequence. You can't claim support for policies you don't run on.

    Finally, I hate the idea of a "mandate" for health insurance. It's a great hand-out to the insurance companies (just like mandatory car insurance) that really won't help anyone if the system still works the way it does. My health insurance costs me thousands of dollars a year - and I've been to the doctor once for a physical this year. My daughter has been once as well. If it weren't for my daughter, I'd probably stay without health insurance. It gives me no benefit and costs far more than a doctor telling me I'm health after a 30 minute examination is worth.

    On top of that, what place does the federal government have telling me I "must" purchase health insurance? It's totally outside the rights of the federal government and totally unnecessary. If universal coverage is your goal, single-payer is how it's done. Otherwise you're coming up with a less-than-best solution that serves everyone poorly (except the insurance companies that have given Clinton more than any other candidate).

    In short (because if you've read this much you deserve a summary) - Clinton is not unbeatable. Her policies aren't that great. Her debate performances have failed to impress me. Her best line is "they're attacking me because I'm the leader" which anyone who WAS the leader could and would have said.

    January will be far more interesting than all this conjecture. Voters have shown a real capacity for proving all our pundits wrong.

    Who was it that said the Democrats would get the Senate and House? In early 2006, wasn't George Allen going to cruise to re-election on his way to the Presidency?

    Hell, if our pundits were in Vegas they'd be walking home to the house they lost.

    Posted by James Hare | November 20, 2007 10:05 PM

    Re: Expections of the Clintons and their team to lose, I am afraid I do not agree.

    I am an Obama supporter. From the beginning. I will vote for him in the primary.

    But, there is a reality. And, that is, the entire establishment is for Clintons. Ever read the stupid Gail Collins in NYT (former columnist, former editorial lead, now columnist). Her columns are free advertisement for Clintons. Who reads NYT? All people who vote. Did you see the idiot Blitzer? He cannot even ask hard questions to Clinton.

    Bottom line: Clintons have the media (atleast the ones that matter – NYT, CNN, PBS, NPR); Clintons have all the women vote, etc.

    Can Clintons be beaten? Yes. Obama has to be tougher. More organized. And, Edwards must be expected to critize Clinton further.

    Obama/Edwards ticket will be great for the country, and will help to defeat GOP.

    December 19, 2007 10:38 am at 10:38 am |
  7. logan,wi

    People will vote for Hillary for three reasons:
    1) Out of fear of missing out on a seemingly shoe-in of a presidential election. After all, her baggage is all old hat, whereas with Obama, we're waiting for the Repubs to hammer him into submission on something as of now unknown, concocted or not...
    2) 90's nostalgia...However, they forget the vitriol and political-emotional exhaustion that resulted from the myriad battles (budgets, investigations, impeachment, et al). And Hillary, unlike Bill, is devoid of any bonhomie. Compassion is not her strong point, like Bill's. She is a disciplined, policy-wonk, who has no business being President. The 90's are gone. She cannot bring them back.

    3) Obviously, many women will cast their ballots for Hillary just because she is a woman. It's unfortunate she is the first credible woman running for the nomination. It would be my pleasure voting for an inspiring female candidate, I only wish that Feinstein or Boxer ran instead. Hell, I'd take Pelosi over Clinton any day.

    4.They are afraid of a black men leading the country.

    December 19, 2007 10:40 am at 10:40 am |
  8. winnie,ft meyers,florida

    Did this poll include independents and republicans that are going to vote democrats? It reads as Democrats only. What are the repercussions if independents are added to the mix? As I understand it, they can also vote in one of the primaries

    December 19, 2007 10:41 am at 10:41 am |
  9. tim

    Take a look at deficit, with Clinton in we were in the black, now this country way in the red. If Obama is claiming change then put Hillary in the house. We are on the verge of poverty. If we keep going the way we are it will be our children on those paid advertisements looking to be adopted because we as citizens can not afford health care, food, clothing. Open your eyes people we are heading towards a recession. We need someone in office that can concentrate on the United States and not every other country and thier needs.

    December 19, 2007 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  10. edwardsupporter

    I would like to introduce you to a candidate that will make a difference for a Better America – please take consideration to know a candidate a little better and understand the heart of his campaign – In America, everyone should have a fair opportunity to realize their dreams, no matter where they came from. John Edwards is running for president to build One America where every American can work hard and build a better life, the same opportunity that Edwards had. At the same time, America's leadership role in the world has grown out of our moral strength as an example for the world, not just our economic and military strength. In today's Two Americas, it is no coincidence that most families are working harder for stagnating wages when there are nearly 60 lobbyists for every member of Congress. America's image overseas has been tarnished by the war in Iraq, our refusal to join the world in working to halt global warming, and repeated violations of Americans' constitutional rights. Building One America will take strong, bold steps, not incremental steps and half measures. Edwards has proposed detailed plans to put Washington back on the side of regular families.

    December 19, 2007 10:49 am at 10:49 am |
  11. Ryan, New Jersey

    This election had better not be decided by the older generations, their election sense has brought us too much Bush/Clinton for decades!

    December 19, 2007 10:50 am at 10:50 am |
  12. Ginny, Byron, CA

    I see the Obama plants and the Republicans are coming out in force condemning Hillary and this CNN poll. Funny, they were all crowing about earlier CNN polls when Obama was supposedly ahead, and at the same time hurling hate and lies about Hillary, hoping some of it would stick. You really are a pathetic bunch, demeaning this poll which is all good news for Hillary and her supporters. If Obama were leading Hillary by 12 points with a 5 point margin of error, you'd be touting the polls as sure-fire evidence of Obama's inevitable election and Hillary's demise. When Hillary was ahead, y'all said polls didn't matter, and then when Obama "surged" ahead of her by ONE point, suddenly polls were reliable measures of a candidate's electability. Well, I'm thrilled to finally see some good news for Hillary in the polls. She is ahead for good reason: voters are listening to her clear message and it is obvious that she is by far the best candidate to lead our country in this critical time. GO HILLARY!!

    December 19, 2007 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  13. Andrew

    Truth be told, if Obama was a white man, this wouldn't even be a contest- he'd be the defacto nomination. Race is the only reason I can figure out why people believe Hillary is somehow "more electable." More electable? Half the country won't vote for her NO MATTER WHAT. And I'm, quickly joining the ranks-> I think I'll vote vote for McCain or (dare I say it) Guliani, if either are paired against Clinton in a general election. She's just way too divisive for this country – we need to move beyond the Clintons and the Bushes.... Who's next? Bush's pet dog in 2012?
    And if the democrats don't have the courage to nominate the more qulaified, more genuine, more capable, and nevermind more inspirational candidate (Obama- who has made the brave and right choices his entire life, vs the corporate/real estate lawyer who is trading off her spouse's resume), then shame on the democratic party for pure cowardice in shying away from Obama because they fear he's not "electable" in the United States.

    December 19, 2007 10:59 am at 10:59 am |
  14. Jenn, Evergreen, CO

    Wow, the Republicans (and certain media outlets) must be relieved. She's the candidate they think they can beat in '08.

    December 19, 2007 11:00 am at 11:00 am |
  15. Andrew ,NY

    Truth be told, if Obama was a white man, this wouldn't even be a contest- he'd be the defacto nomination.

    Race is the only reason I can figure out why people believe Hillary is somehow "more electable." More electable?

    Half the country won't vote for her NO MATTER WHAT. And I'm, quickly joining the ranks-> I think I'll vote vote for McCain or (dare I say it) Guliani, if either are paired against Clinton in a general election. She's just way too divisive for this country – we need to move beyond the Clintons and the Bushes…. Who's next? Bush's pet dog in 2012?

    And if the democrats don't have the courage to nominate the more qulaified, more genuine, more capable, and nevermind more inspirational candidate (Obama- who has made the brave and right choices his entire life, vs the corporate/real estate lawyer who is trading off her spouse's resume), then shame on the democratic party for pure cowardice in shying away from Obama because they fear he's not "electable" in the United States.

    December 19, 2007 11:01 am at 11:01 am |
  16. r sisk, nevada

    I don't even care anymore. After all the racist and xenophobic attacks against Barack Obama by rival "DEMOCRATS" or shall I say "Dixiecrats", if Hillary is the nominee, I'm voting for Huckabee.

    That will show everyone won't it? Get over your archaic views. You think Huckabee gives a crap about you? This from someone who wanted to encamp people who were ill? That's real Christian of him isn't it? Obama isn't ready to lead this country and correct all the HORRIFIC mistakes this current loser president has made.
    Hillary can win the general election if ALL democrats band together. You Christian Conservatives need to look at your lives a little closer and ask how much better off you are since you voted this "religious" president into office. Oh, and while I'm on a roll here, you might want to be a bit more tolerant of others.....a fundamental part of being a religious person.

    December 19, 2007 11:07 am at 11:07 am |

    Surprised at the language and brainlessness of TB here, who said he (or is it she) hates Clinton.
    In my own case, and as a Black American, I never believe in Obama's hope. He is definitely being oushed around by Clinton haters in both the Democratic and Republican parties who are NOT going to vote for him against any white Repub;ican. The republicans prefer Obama to any other because of their confidence of doing him in. Obama can not win, forget about all the present hooplaa about his 'rating' against others.
    I am voting Huckabee too, if Obama wins. Being black does not mean you can do better than someone of other color. Those supporting Obama because he is balck should think deeply.

    December 19, 2007 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  18. Randy S. Lawton, OK

    Clinton has long endured those criticisms whether rightly so or not and yet she does not blame the media or her Clinton haters, she just goes on with the campaign.

    Posted By Joe, Boston : December 19, 2007 9:47 am

    You're not serious, right, Joe?
    The Clinton's have been blaming the right wing attack machine (whatever that is) since Bill was President. They have for years now not accepted responsibility and looked for scapegoats.
    Go back a couple of decades and follow the trail of ruined reputations, ruined careers and, yes, even dead bodies that lie in the wake of the Clinton's "rise to power".
    It's like something out of a dime store novel.

    The Clintons and especially Hillary give a whole new meaning to the phrase 'entitlement menatlity'.

    December 19, 2007 11:08 am at 11:08 am |
  19. bob, IOWA

    This is great news, right now she is tied for my second choice along with Edwards.

    December 19, 2007 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  20. Fred, Greenwich, CT

    I am happy to see that other African Americans are disgusted with the racist stereotyping of Barack Obama.
    I am from a long line of Texas "Yeller Dog Democrats," but Billary Clinton changed my mind with their nasty, mean spirited attack on Barack Obama.
    Billary is mistaken if she thinks African Americans have nowhere else to go. Well, ask Jimmy Carter what happened in his quest for a second term. African Americans stayed at home because they did not like the way there were taken for granted and that Carter appointed no minorites to his cabinet (except Andrew Young to the UN position for which he was not qualified).
    I voted for Clinton twice but it will be a cold day in Hell before I would vote for Billary Clinton.
    I hope other African Americans will reject Billary and her stereotyping.
    If Billary is the candidate, I will note vote for her. In protest, I will vote for Mike Huckabee.

    December 19, 2007 11:15 am at 11:15 am |
  21. John Smith

    I always knew people will find out that this woman is what the country and world need right now.She's been attacked by Obama and Edwards for so long.But truth is thiese two guys will really start to go after each other for the second place.Obama don't convince me on most issues developped.The Republican right wing is pushing for him because they know that Obama is not the real deal.You all take time and watch Foxnews you'll see what I am seeing. Make no mistake they will eat him alive. HRC will best any of them in this election.

    December 19, 2007 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  22. Shannon, Nashville, TN

    During Hillary Clinton's six years as a member of the Board of Directors of Wal Mart she did not succeed or even attempt to obtain a minimum in decent health benefits for their workers. She was in support of NAFTA and now when its politically expedient, she thinks it needs to change. She says she truly was in support the war, and does not need to apologize. She signs in support of the Kyl -Lieberman Amendment, so that we are marching to another useless war. How does this make her the best person to be our President. Sounds like the same old same old. Wow, hail to 24 years of two families ruling the USA. Sounds really depressing to me.

    December 19, 2007 11:17 am at 11:17 am |
  23. ras,newjersey

    Barrack is the big change we've been waiting for. Hope he's not going to let us down. So far soo excellent.Go Obama!

    December 19, 2007 11:18 am at 11:18 am |
  24. Cody Harding, Kinsley, KS

    The second type of political zombie, the 'Blame Billary.'Common wherever you find an article about Sen. Clinton, and highly prolific throughout the internet, though the polls show a different tale.

    To clear up one big misconception, Hillary has over forty years of experience, the records stating that her career in politics dates back to 1964 and Barry Goldwater, and she was elected to her first government position in 1974.

    Her vision for America includes a comprehensive health-care plan, opposes the Bush Social Security massacre, and has sensible views to match her experience.

    And the planting questions scandal, and the 'personal attacks? We have had many presidents use similar, if not worse, tactics to ensure their election. What she is doing, though immoral, is not new and should not be touted like she just invented it. Credit where credit is due.

    Currently, I am undecided. But one thing I hate to hear is the constant beratement and put-downs directed toward Clinton because of her husband's affair in politics.

    The least you could do is use logic.

    December 19, 2007 11:19 am at 11:19 am |
  25. Franky, New York, NY

    Go Mama!

    You have to find pride in how she's refocused herself and her message to get people to see the softer side of her. It's not an act – it's who she really is.

    Go Hillary '08!!

    December 19, 2007 11:22 am at 11:22 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7