January 5th, 2008
06:30 PM ET
10 years ago

Tight race in New Hampshire, post caucus poll shows

O'Reilly got into a confrontation with an Obama staffer Saturday.

Clinton and Obama are dead even in New Hampshire, a new poll shows.

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) - With three days to go until the New Hampshire primary, it’s dead even in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

A new CNN/WMUR New Hampshire presidential primary poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire has Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois all tied up, with each grabbing the support of 33 percent of likely Democratic primary voters in the Granite State.

Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina is in third place with 20 percent. (Full poll results [PDF])

“Both Obama and Edwards appear to have benefited form the Iowa caucuses. Each picked up 3 points in New Hampshire. Clinton lost one point, since our last poll taken before the caucuses,” says CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

The new CNN/WMUR survey was conducted Friday and Saturday, after the Iowa caucuses.

Full story

Related video: N.H. Poll: Clinton, Obama tied

- CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

Filed under: New Hampshire
soundoff (226 Responses)
  1. Mac in Nova Scotia

    Obama is a breath of fresh air. His election would do wonders for the U.S. image in other countries and move America forward in countless ways. Hillary thought she would be crowned Queen but that isn't happening yet. She will get down and act like a street fighter but that is an image that Americans shouldn't want projected throughout the world. Bush has done enough damage, I hope the American voters don't let Hillary do more harm. Obama and Edwards would make a great one two combination in that order.

    January 6, 2008 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm |
  2. Roy

    (_i_) You folks are still being hateful, what goes around comes around. Vote from your heart and mind, not the media.

    January 6, 2008 12:48 pm at 12:48 pm |
  3. Michael Guinn, Port Hueneme, CA

    Hillary is NOT Bill, and Barack Obama is the change this country hungers for. The good-old-boys (and girls) type of politics is OVER. Barack Obama beats all Republican contenders in the polls. All the HRC supporters need to get on board and let's bring America back! I'm so tired of reading comments from the Hillary supporters that she is the only candidate who can win in November.
    A friend of mine sent a fake headline this morning that said Deanna Favre was going to start for the Packers in the playoffs because she's been married to Brett for the 16 years he's been a quarterback.
    Hillary was the First Lady of the Country- her HUSBAND was President. He has the credentials- she DOESN'T! The analogy was perfect- Obama 08!

    January 6, 2008 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm |
  4. Ken

    First and foremost, I want to say that I support Hilary and I like the idea that we can get two for one in the Whitehouse. She will be able to start making the major changes a whole lot faster than Obama could ever think of. His lack of experience, and not really knowing how Washington works, he is totally wrong if he thinks that he will be able to make any changes really fast.

    Obama, I believe that he thinks that he is the next "Martin Luther"! He is so wrong for becoming President for so many reasons. The major lack of experience will be the down fall if he gets the nomination. Please people, WAKE-UP AND LET US BRING HILARY INTO THE WHITEHOUSE!

    January 6, 2008 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm |
  5. Leslie

    I agree about the Clinton administration but that was Bill and not Hillary. Also I just do not think that Hillary is electable.
    My vote is for Edwards.

    January 6, 2008 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm |
  6. C Hewitt

    Not sure why people keep conceding that Hilary Clinton has the most experience. Besides the ‘one’ election she won in New York, what other office has she been elected to? Being an assistant to a former President makes her the most experienced? The same President that was impeached. Do the people forget all the monthly scandals during the (Bill) Clinton Presidency?

    January 6, 2008 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm |
  7. Mario

    Steve, your just a Clinton lover, Romney will do well in NH, so SHUTUP!

    Clinton will lose, thank goodness for that! She is a loser, always has been, Tim Russert proeved that on national television. We already knew that, but she just helped her own cause for defeat. Sick Billhasn't helped her either, but what do you expect from a womanizer. Go Obuma! Go Mitt!

    January 6, 2008 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  8. James

    Most polls still show Hillary as the frontrunner. Hillary will win N.H.

    January 6, 2008 01:01 pm at 1:01 pm |
  9. Steven Stevens, Lincoln Park, michigan

    It is my feeling that expirence is what counts in a presidential election...and i beleive that hillary has that expirence....obama would be at the mercy of his advisors...and we see what that can lead to in the way the bush presidency was handled..by handlers. i thin k tht hillary would be able to put together a better group of tried advisors that would have th einterest of the country at heart....

    as for obama...he claims that he did not vote for the war ..of course he did not...he was not in the position to vote for the war ...he was in the ill. congress at the time....but he did support the votes for funding....and was not present for the last few funding votes...he did not want to go on record as not funding the troops...

    hillary is the best bet for lthe hard row of the presidency...she is tough and compasionate.....
    new hampshire voters will come out for hjillary unlike those in iowa...who just went along with the flow of those that pushed them forward

    January 6, 2008 01:03 pm at 1:03 pm |
  10. Suzie

    The polls I see this morning broken down reflected a great interest in Obama, by younger people, who typically do not vote in great numbers. The over fifty crowd is solidly for Hillary – they say. But then again, – according to CNN she and Obama were to win Iowa. I otoh knew instinctively that Edwards would come in either first or second. We have issues that are not being confronted by the entrenched politicians – Obama and Hillary. I think Edwards will get rid of the paid lobbyists who are really running America into the ground. It takes a lot more than "hope" and talking about "hope" to get things accomplished. John Edwards does get things accomplished. And he will continue to accomplish great things as president. If I really thought anyone could straighten out the mess we are in, I'd put my money on John Edwards. Unfortunately...we are on a downhill slide, and I fear no-one can undo Bush's mess.

    John Edwards 2008

    January 6, 2008 01:06 pm at 1:06 pm |
  11. Steven Stevens, Lincoln Park, michigan

    can anyone show me where obam voted against the war....i cant find any quote to the effect that he did not vote for the war....or for it either...he was in no position to vote either way..he was in the ill. congress at the time and such vote was taken.

    January 6, 2008 01:07 pm at 1:07 pm |
  12. Saalik

    It's time the government is given back to the people. I don't believe that Mrs. Clinton would do that. People have to realize that just because she was married to Bill doesn't mean that she is Bill Clinton. It's true that Bill Clinton was a decent president, but Hilaary will divide the country more than ever. We need someone who can bring us together. I'm looking forward to SUper Tuesday when Obama will win.

    Remember "Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth. "
    Abraham Lincoln

    January 6, 2008 01:31 pm at 1:31 pm |
  13. Terence

    I can't believe how much weight is being given to these two tiny states that happen to hold their primaries/caucuses first. Is the news media really trying to sell me on the notion that Iowa & New Hampshire are a barometer for the rest of the nation? That the results in IA & NH make or break a candidate's bid for the presidency? I haven't decided who I will vote for, but I get the sense that the media wants to limit my choices by essentially saying that winning in Iowa virtually locks the nomination for one candidate, and is a devastating loss for another. Are you kidding?? Are you serious??! It's IOWA!!!!!! I'm not certain of this, but didn't McCain beat Bush in Iowa? Didn't Paul Tsongas beat Clinton in New Hampshire? How did that all work out for Tsongas and McCain over the long haul? I really wish we would adopt a national primary election day- say, sometime in May- when every state votes, and thus, has an equal voice in determining the Democrat and Republican nominees for President, leaving 6 months for those two to make their cases for the general election in November.

    I know how excited everyone is about Iowa, and how jazzed everyone is for New Hampshire, but excuse me, 48 other states have something to say about all this, and most of them have way bigger populations...

    January 6, 2008 01:37 pm at 1:37 pm |
  14. Paul

    Congratulations Senator Clinton! As our friends, my wife and I watched you in the NH Debate we were appalled at the way you became negative towards the fellow Democrats, upset in what was being said about you, and angry when confronted with issues regarding past challenges you may have endured. We were strong Clinton supporters of both you and Bill, but after seeing that you cannot keep your composure with a simple debate, we feel worried of what could happen with world leaders who are not of sound mind. We do not need a President with a huge head or on a power trip, to lead this country any farther down hill. We are now along with 11 of our 15 friends (who were also dissapointed as we watched together) going to vote Democrat,, and right now, it appears not for you. Unless something you can do to change our mind this will be our decision. Im sure you do not care as we are just a small percentage of a California vote anyways. Thats too bad.

    January 6, 2008 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  15. Susan

    Could someone please give Obama's background, substance, political leanings three years ago? I see a celebrity catapulted into stardom on nothing but a speech about healing this country. While I want change from the Bush administration, any of the candidates can provide that, thank goodness. However, I keep hearing that Obama is going to "heal" this nation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we didn't suffer a civil war. We have had no race riots. We are not lining up at the soup kitchens because of a depression. Why can't he talk about issues in a substantive way instead of spewing this warm fuzzy nonsense about healing?

    HIllary Clinton, no matter what you think of her politics, has gotten a raw deal from the press. They have printed nothing but negatives since she began to run. All her issues are issues she has been dealing with for years and Obama just took on, using the old Clinton crew to form his platform. Rarely an original thought there.

    We elected someone without substance and intellectually-challenged eight years ago. Now we are going to put our eggs in an unknown's basket when we are facing real issues globally and at home.

    It's sad to think Democrats are rallying round a flag of nothingness. Hope is nice but action is better.

    January 6, 2008 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  16. Adam Smith

    Edwards is the man to vote for.hillary will only sit down with special interests and give them what they want then try to sell it as something for the benefit of the American people, NAFTA is a good example of her kind of politics.

    January 6, 2008 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  17. maynard

    we do not need hillary clinton for president. if she makes a statement about
    anything when if she get the job who is doing the talking her or BILL.

    January 6, 2008 01:55 pm at 1:55 pm |
  18. michael graham

    Hillary has a lot of experience,should she become president,she will have to lead the most difficult America of all time,that means she will have to lead this great
    Country according to all those good leadership principles our founding Fathers founded this great nation upon.

    January 6, 2008 01:56 pm at 1:56 pm |
  19. Alex

    Herold, Obama has no problems concerning his electability. Do see the results of the Iowa caucuses.

    Let's vote for some real change and not more of the same. Obama 08!

    January 6, 2008 02:01 pm at 2:01 pm |
  20. michael graham

    Hilary has a lot of experience,should she become President of the U.S she will have to lead the most difficult America of all times,that means she will have lead this great Country according to those good leadership principles our founding Fathers built this great nation on.

    January 6, 2008 02:13 pm at 2:13 pm |
  21. FAIR TAX,LA.

    Have any of you heard of the Titanic? Well that will be Hillary as president!!!

    January 6, 2008 02:24 pm at 2:24 pm |
  22. scott in Cincinnati

    I disagree with Herold. I suport Obama and believe that its impossible to pick up where Bill left because its been years since he was in office, times have changed and so has America. We are at a different state than we were then. Obama has the potential to changed America and I believe he will do so. Hillary dosen't believe in comprimise, she seems to feel that what she says go and its AMERICA and our goverment is based on democracy. Thats wht Edwards and Obama seem to get along well, they both are able to use there ideas to come to a conclusion about what to do with certain subjects. I wouln't mind seeing the Obama/ Edwards president/vice president in the genaral elections!

    January 6, 2008 02:25 pm at 2:25 pm |
  23. MQK

    Obama seems to be winning support based on the promise of change. But what exactly does Obama need to change about experienced Democrats. What was so wrong with the Bill Clinton years that we feel a major change is necessary? It has been the failed policies of the republican party that has taken us to our current situations, not established democrats. If any party should be running on the platform of change it should be the republicans. The simple act of putting a democrat in office with a democrat congress will account for the overwhelming majority of any change that will take place during a democratic presidency. I'm gonna hold off on the Obama band wagon until I get to hear more about these "changes". Especially after watching the New Hampshire debates last night. Obamas foreign policy on Pakastan sounded eirely like Bushs on Iraq. Just barely left of the neocons is not the change I am looking for in a democrat pres.

    January 6, 2008 02:29 pm at 2:29 pm |
  24. Bubba

    if you actually look over the poll there are a lot of inconsistencies. from edwards being more favorable than clinton, but having less people likely to vote for him, to the margin of error. if you take the poll as a whole, there should be three pictures at the head of this article not two.

    January 6, 2008 02:36 pm at 2:36 pm |
  25. pam Eugene OR

    Again folks, Hillary has no REAL experience of her own. Possibly you could count her work on health care when she was the Presidents wife, but she failed miserably at that. She is too divisive and can not bring differing side together. She is a divider and her negatives are far too high. She can not win in a general election.

    January 6, 2008 02:39 pm at 2:39 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10