January 6th, 2008
05:49 PM ET
7 years ago

Poll: Obama jumps ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire


A new CNN/WMUR poll shows Obama has a 10 point lead over Clinton. (Photo Credit: AP)

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) - MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) - Two days before New Hampshire's Democratic primary, Sen. Barack Obama has opened a double-digit lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in that state, a new CNN-WMUR poll found Sunday.

Obama, the first-term senator from Illinois who won last week's Iowa caucuses, led the New York senator and former first lady 39 percent to 29 percent in a poll conducted Saturday and Sunday - a sharp change from a poll out Saturday that showed the Democratic front-runners tied at 33 percent.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina is at 16 percent in the new survey, down four points from Saturday. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico is in fourth place, with the support of 7 percent of likely New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio at 2 percent.

Full story

Full poll results [PDF]

Related video: New poll sends shockwaves

Related video: Stakes high in New Hampshire

- CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser

soundoff (516 Responses)
  1. Spencer

    Here we go again...electing someone who will need four years to figure out what on earth they are doing, just like Clinton and Bush. When will a candidate of substance stand up? There are zero candidates for the Presidency right now. This is so distressing.

    January 6, 2008 09:21 pm at 9:21 pm |
  2. April

    I am ashamed of some of the comments people have left on this posting. Has anyone ever been given an opportunity to start a job with no experience and excel past all the other lazy long time average workers that were already existing? At least this guy is not reading from a script written by his counterparts, do we really want Huckabee for president? A preacher who has his hand out 24-7? I want a seperation of state and religion. Huckabee may sound good but if this country has another republican for president, my generation will end up homeless because the average person can't keep up with the inflation. I surely hope this country wants change. If it isn't Obama let it be Clinton or Edwards!!!!!!!!! I have hope that our country will look past his skin color, however is surely doesn't seem that way looking at some of these prevous posters.

    January 6, 2008 09:24 pm at 9:24 pm |
  3. Dx

    I can't believe Obama is winning in NH after that debate. If he's our candidate for President, I'll vote R. Can't believe I just said that.

    Where's the logic, I have friends in Chicago and they can't believe he's leading for his track record in Ill. We're all stunned for a man who said nothing of concrete. He ripped off the MLK basic speech w an edit...

    Wake up America, R want Obama, they can beat him...

    January 6, 2008 09:25 pm at 9:25 pm |
  4. John, NC

    The slide has begun.

    January 6, 2008 09:26 pm at 9:26 pm |
  5. Justin

    Well, this is just more proof that people don't vote on qualifications or experience.

    (He's "likable" so...what do you say we elect him President?!!)

    January 6, 2008 09:28 pm at 9:28 pm |
  6. Sandra Montisci

    How many of Obama's supporters know this?! I'm a fan, but he does not have the experience.

    Steven Maviglio
    Hillary Hits Back - Finally
    January 06, 2008 @ 5:51 PM

    This is the Hillary Clinton I've been waiting to see for months.

    In last night's debate, Clinton didn't "go negative." She simply pointed out the facts: neither John Edwards nor Barack Obama can match her accomplishments nor experience.

    Obama can thank his lucky stars that Charlie Gibson didn't ask HIM what his major accomplishment has been in the U.S. Senate; John Edwards struggled with an answer, only coming up with the Patients Bill of Rights that never made it out of the U.S. House of Representatives. That's more than Obama's done in his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate. Inexperience is Obama's Achillees heel (as the Republicans pointed out last night as well during their debate), and Clinton is right for raising the issues with voters.

    Clinton also pointed out that Obama voted for The Patriot Act and for an energy bill supported by Dick Cheney, and also that his New Hampshire campaign chairman is a lobbyist (though the Obama campaign struggled today to say he was a state lobbyist, not a federal lobbyist, so that's okay. Talk about splitting hairs - not to mention that Obama's South Carolina director is a federal lobbyist). My guess is that most Obama supporters knew none of those things.

    The Obama Kool-Aid drinkers say this is going negative. But Clinton has never attacked Obama personally. And if he can't take this kind of heat, how can he possible stand up to what the Republicans will throw at him if he's nominated?

    Print this report | Send to a friend

    About Steven Maviglio | All Reports by Steven Maviglio


    Browse in : [ Reports ]

    There are no comments attached to this item.

    January 6, 2008 09:29 pm at 9:29 pm |
  7. will

    Obama 08' FIRED UP! We did it in Iowa when they said it couldn't be done. NH Tuesday's your day. Everyone, young and old call a friend, someone from your book club, poker night, ... anywhere, and bring them along. Double your voice. Rise up and drown the voice of establishment stagnancy. Bush has led from fear for 7 years, Clinton is promising 8 more. Raise your voice and be heard. 1/8/08. The course of a new American history awaits us. READY TO GO!

    January 6, 2008 09:30 pm at 9:30 pm |
  8. Jaqueline

    The real zombie is the people who voted for Obama so far. What else would you call it when people vote for change and they have no idea what change Obama will bring. Maybe just maybe, the change is a African American George Bush. Go on the Internet and listen to Bushs speeches from 2000 and Obamas now. So similar its scary. Be careful what you wish for voters. You just might end up with another 4 years of Bushee. And who will be to blame then?

    January 6, 2008 09:32 pm at 9:32 pm |
  9. summus

    You would think Democrats would learn something after losing the last two presidential elections to a complete idiot/jingoistic psycho. But Democrats are stupid so let me give you the education you were supposed to get in high school:

    In the United States we have something called the 'electoral college'. Considering Obama's background he has NO CHANCE of winning in Ohio, Iowa, Florida or Pennsylvania. Which means yet again we will be stuck with some stupid crazy Republican lunatic in the White House.

    Be pragmatic if you want to win. There hasn't been a non Southern Democrat in the White House since Harry Truman (not counting JFK who had LBJ 'fix' things so that he could get the electoral points for Texas and win)

    Believe it or not Clinton is one of the most moderate Democrats which plays well in some purple states.

    As a southerner Edwards puts Tennesse, Arkansas, South Carolina, and Florida in play.

    Get a brain Democrats- an election is a terrible thing to waste. And the the crazy Bible pushing nimrods are eager for WWIII with Iran.

    January 6, 2008 09:33 pm at 9:33 pm |
  10. Seam, Philly, Pa

    Yes- the time is now.

    hell yeah!

    Obama 08'

    January 6, 2008 09:35 pm at 9:35 pm |
  11. Andrew


    Bloorb January 6, 2008 8:27 pm ET
    I think we can all agree, Lincoln was a superb president who entered office just at a time when the country faced monumental challenges. The nation was divided, and conflict was eminent. Through his leadership, the United States of America was able to overcome sectional differences and become that much more free. Now, was Lincoln an experienced politician? Had he held many executive positions? No, Lincoln served only one term in the Congress. It just goes to show you that experience is not necessarily a required trait to be a viable president.

    ----- ------– ------- ------- -------

    I love how Barack Obama and his groupies compare him[self] to Lincoln. I think the problems facing our country are a tad different than the ones the country was facing when Lincoln was running. Two completely different times...could be we don't need a president with the inexperience of Lincoln right now.

    January 6, 2008 09:38 pm at 9:38 pm |
  12. Billy

    "Hope triumphs over fear, future over past and a positive message over sleaze and personal attack. Change the country and change the world NH!"

    Well said Joe, it is (wonderfully) simple as that. We are good people in this country, let's get to work.

    January 6, 2008 09:39 pm at 9:39 pm |
  13. Iraq Yomama

    Hil is more qualified

    January 6, 2008 09:41 pm at 9:41 pm |
  14. Chalie, San Diego, CA

    The choice is clear: fear versus hope. And hope is winning.

    January 6, 2008 09:47 pm at 9:47 pm |
  15. Eric, California

    John Edwards 2008! Don't you forget it either!

    January 6, 2008 09:48 pm at 9:48 pm |
  16. Julius

    It is time we take our country back. Time for serious change,time to move away from fearful campaigns and follow hope. Obama is right on target and is ready to give this country back to the owners whoare the American people.

    Who does not want change? Change for the better, change for a better country, change for foreign poilicies, change to put an end to the continuous death of the men and women in Iraq.

    The time is now and Iwill urge the American people to stay on target and do not make mistakes.

    Thank you all for reading this message.

    January 6, 2008 09:49 pm at 9:49 pm |
  17. Cable King Pittsburgh PA



    Who cares?

    I'll be happy to vote for either one in the general!

    January 6, 2008 09:51 pm at 9:51 pm |
  18. metis from California

    Nice to see someone else who appreciates Kucinich! There' s a man who has been right for the last six years and is still "not electable" because the national media has minialized his record and his platform.
    I suggest that all of you check out his website and his position papers that are thoughtful, articulate, address both national and international needs of our nation and spring from a main street political philosophy that reflect what, in their hearts, most Americans believe in and want in a leader.

    January 6, 2008 09:52 pm at 9:52 pm |
  19. Connie, Richmond, CA

    If Hillary is more qualified, then why didn't she run a better campaign? She had everything going for her: name recognition, Bill Clinton, the Clinton machine, the main stream media, white skin.

    Obama is superior and brilliant. I'm not in the least bit surprised by what is happening and what is going to happen: President Obama.

    January 6, 2008 09:53 pm at 9:53 pm |
  20. BEAMON

    Dear New Hampshire,

    Please don't make the mistake. Please remember that the last candidate that was going to be a uniter and not a divider – the last candidate that was not a Washington insider was named George Bush. Look what happened.

    A good speaker is not the same as a good leader. At some point Obama is going to have to get off the stage and sit down behind a desk and figure out how to do this job. He is just not prepared to be the leader of the free world.

    Why when he was named Chairman of The Foreign Relations Committee a YEAR ago has he not called a single meeting? Why does he either not show up to vote or vote present? How is that leadership?

    My decision who to support was made when watching last night's debate and seeing Hillary's MASTERY of every issue that was discussed. I will be proud to vote for her.

    January 6, 2008 09:54 pm at 9:54 pm |
  21. anonymous


    I have a direct connection with God and I am praying for your run for presidency, your safety and your family safety. I will always pray for you guys. You are truly an inspiration for all Americans who dream of HOPE!

    May God bless you,

    January 6, 2008 09:54 pm at 9:54 pm |
  22. eric


    Please examine what you are writing before labeling others "sensationalist." +/- 5 as a margin of error means that it is just as likely that Obama is at 44 and Clinton at 24 (statistically, this is unlikely, just as a 34-34 tie is unlikely). If the media had reported these numbers your accusation might have been justified. The polls have been consistent over the past 24 hours. Obama is leading by 10-13 points. And just like in Iowa, he will outdo the polls by 10 points. We are looking at a staggering victory.

    January 6, 2008 09:55 pm at 9:55 pm |
  23. Iraq Yomama

    Movements suck, one fool gets up and another group of fools follow. Obama is a great campaigner, wistfully delivers speeches night after night. forget his experience, after george W. ... could he do any worse?????????????????????????????????
    Just pick the lesser of the evils in the general election.
    Too bad Congressman Paul is not getting the attention he deserves
    he's the only candidate who will adhere to the constitute and protect your liberties

    January 6, 2008 10:00 pm at 10:00 pm |
  24. Scott

    We need to compare the Lincoln years and currently year, During Lincoln presidency, we struggled big time, America was divided and was in civil war. Look at us today. America has many issues, economy, jobs, housing, homeless, business and etc. Obama can't can't deal with all of them it would be so overwhelm for him to deal with all of them.

    DO you all think that likeable is good reason for office, You all better think again!! Likeable is not good answer about to be president of US. OH PLEASE!! YOu all need to wake up and smell the coffee. THis is REALITY and dreamland. We are in bad position. Obama is about dream, he dream how to help us and dream is not REALITY!! We need person in office that is reality and experience to help us pull out of big situation we have right now in America.

    YOU need to think before vote, is likeable good reason for office?? if you answer yes, then I feel sorry for you all. We will be in big big hole and possible have to face imeachment. Hope all you will come to sense soon before you all will feel sorry like we are right now with George Bush 8 yrs of tenure.

    January 6, 2008 10:01 pm at 10:01 pm |
  25. Frank P.

    Mrs. Hillary Clinton has 35 years of experience.? So, why didn't she run for President 4 years ago? Because she was scared to run against Bush. She talks tough, but she did dare run against Bush. She tought she was going to have an easy road to tow after Bush term was up. She might eventually be the Democratic nominee, but one cany only hope not.

    Go Edwards or Obama or Richardson!

    January 6, 2008 10:02 pm at 10:02 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21