January 6th, 2008
05:49 PM ET
8 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. Bill W - PA

    "unelectable", huh? Like I said, Clinton is the one who is unelectable.

    January 7, 2008 09:49 am at 9:49 am |
  2. Al in Wpg

    Wow Mike, how much does the Clinton/Bush administration pay you per post?

    January 7, 2008 09:57 am at 9:57 am |
  3. Matt

    Hillary's stance on health care is even dubious at best considering the AMA was one of her biggest campaign contributers when she ran for senate. She is absolutely unelectable, there is far too much negativaty associated with her. The democrats should select Obama or Edwards if they really wish to win the white house. And anyone that really thinks a republican stands a snowball's chance this time should really take another look at where Americans stand on issues that "dubya" has completely blundered.

    January 7, 2008 09:59 am at 9:59 am |
  4. Kimberly Peacock

    The media keeps saying and Oama keeps saying he is a uniter. For me Ia plarize within the democratic party. I will vote republican before I vote for Obama.

    Why is it that the fact that republicans are supporting Obama for strategic reasons not being talked about.

    January 7, 2008 10:10 am at 10:10 am |
  5. Bill W - PA

    "How in the world do people think that Obama ismore electable than Hillary? "

    Let's put it like this – being married to an airplane pilot does not make one qualified to fly an airplane. Being married to a surgeon does not qualify one to operate on a person. Being married to a priest does not make one qualified to hold mass and hear confessions. Being married to a rock star does not mean one can play guitar.

    Is any of this getting thorugh?

    January 7, 2008 10:17 am at 10:17 am |
  6. Axel

    Lookout Scout:

    Your comment "Hillary is the only candidate ready to handle international affairs. " does not stand the test of the field. I'm Dutch and have worked for the Dutch ministry of Foreign Affairs during the 90s. I can tell you from own experience – and this opinion is shared by a lot of my colleagues and in different foreign ministries for Foreign affairs worldwide, that Hillary Clinton is extremely bad in internationational negotiations (uninformed; without a coherent position; flip-flopping; basically clueless). I've witnessed several situations, where – as soon as the cameras had left the room – were nothing other than embarrassing for Hillary!
    Nothing against her as a person or against her domestic achievements, however, her reputation AND abilities for handling international affairs do not AT ALL look promising if she becomes the next president!

    January 7, 2008 10:25 am at 10:25 am |
  7. Casey B

    Obama will select Biden as his VP-game over!

    January 7, 2008 10:28 am at 10:28 am |
  8. Sensible Cape Coral Fl

    Hey Michael! Get your facts straight. Georgie Boy Was NOT elected twice. He was appointed once by Daddy's friends and elected (?) once. Remember I live in Florida and really know what I'm talking about. I was poll watcher during each election. "nuf" said.

    January 7, 2008 10:31 am at 10:31 am |
  9. Jr., California

    I for one am a Bush supporter. But I must say that on the Democratic side, Obama concerns me. Since the debates he has been consistent and has a posture of confidence I don't see in any of his peers. The experience thing doesn't fly in most eyes. If the Repubs. aren't careful they will lose in November:

    Hillary = Mrs. crazy
    Edwards = Mr. corporations are bad
    Richardson = Mr. let's all get along
    Kucinich = Mr. crazy

    January 7, 2008 10:37 am at 10:37 am |
  10. John, OH

    I find this quiet interesting. All the Republican attack machines are quiet happy and please with Obama IA win and NH lead. The guy on Fox news Bill Kistrol, man his face looked like he just won a jackpot. Sean hannity and all those attack gang looked pretty pleased with the IA results. Now do they really love Obama? I’m not sure about that. The guy on MSNBC Chris Matthews, he was so excited that I felt he was Obama campaign people. None of the news media has really focused on what Obama has really done in his short political career. He may have not done any mistake but what is it that he have done? Remember people we don’t want a president who is a good on talking, we want president who is tough and and with experience. Change is a great word but it can suck really bad if Change goes wrong. It’s not the local reprehensive election here, it’s the election for President of the United States.

    January 7, 2008 10:38 am at 10:38 am |
  11. linda

    If everybody due for social security benefits would have listened close to last nights republican cure for saving social security is raising the age limit. Sure, raise the age and keep going till no-one lives long enough to draw on the money that they paid into the system.Let's think of the tax dollars spent on the wars,, enough to make every head of household here in the United States an millionaire.
    Hmmmmm,,, sure cure for poverty and healthcare.. You see, it wasn't hard for me to cure two large issues facing Americans.

    January 7, 2008 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  12. PrObama

    what is most obvious from the above comments is that everybody is trading the candidates talking points. Clinton has made her signature theme experience, specifically some dubious "35 years of service/experience." She has worked for the children's defense fund, and has spent time working for children's causes, and she was first lady. But what comes with that is 28 years of unelected service (staff lawyer, law partner, first lady, various children's/social causes) that I'm not sure really rivals or impresses more than Obama's work before gaining political office (community organizer, civil rights lawyer, law professor). this is undeniable fact. Now looking at their elected experience. Obama has served two state senate seats in hard fought races, and lost a run at the primary for a US House Seat. He in 2004 as we all know jumped on the national stage, wowed at the convention, became a bestseller, after one speech and pretty much overnight. His US Senate run was a cakewalk, but it is undeniable how likable and more importantly infectious he is. Clinton is an accomplished, dignified, and impassioned politician. Unfortunately she's not bringing new people into the fold, and many have bad first and lasting impressions of her, that has created an irrational and oft sexist rejection of her. And, in particular, on this issue of experience, while it has hurt Obama to some extent, change won over experience, and there has been an undeniable blowback as people try to figure out these 35 years. 35 years comes with baggage, and as people investigate further, can anyone say her rise to *elected* office was more hard fought or improbable? And also very important to many voters, that she is more in touch with the average American?

    January 7, 2008 10:44 am at 10:44 am |
  13. AB

    To the people who claim that senator hillary is more experienced: can any one tell me how she is more experienced than barack obama? And please don't tell me she was the first lad, because that means nothing. She had no executive role as a first lady and did not attend any of the national security meetings. so, stop all hype about experience because neither hillary nor obama is more experienced than the other. What should set them apart should be other other qualities NOT EXPERIENCE!

    January 7, 2008 10:46 am at 10:46 am |
  14. Cory Bowlby

    win you have two win we need you

    January 7, 2008 10:47 am at 10:47 am |
  15. Lisa Lee Erikson

    What's wrong with all of us....don't the hundreds of thousands of disfigured soldiers living a life of pain mean anything to us? Shame on you for bringing experience into this election....I trust Senator Obama to do the right things for us all...and the last time I looked, conscience and pride mean a heck of a lot more in our middle class lives than politicians who rule by dipping into the pork barrels spread across this great country of ours. Every day I come home from work and see the streams of homeless people searching out a warm haven to sleep...while the parade of limos drive by completely oblivious to the to what is really happening to our country. George Bush proved that by catering to the money, catastrophe happens to people who only wanted a decent life for themselves and their children...not a world that celebrates heartache and failures. Senator Obama is our last hope...and I for one will be voting for him because like Neo in the Matrix, he is the one!

    January 7, 2008 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  16. abby

    Enough with the experience argument. Who says that being married to someone is experience? If I marry an airplane pilot and sit next to him in the cockpit can I fly the plane? Discounting that, all Ms. Clinton has is work as a corporate lawyer and a couple of more years in the Senate than Obama. Also, who says the only good and real experince is "inside the Beltway"? Isn't it good experience to have a President who has actually worked in the inner cities dealing with day to day problems of real people? And, who was in a State legislature learning how decisions from the federal government impact localities? And who is multicultural and has lived outside the US? And most importantly, was right on the most important issue faced by all recently: whether the war in Iraq was the "right decision" ?

    January 7, 2008 10:48 am at 10:48 am |
  17. Margaret

    while obama is a charismatic and inspirational leader, i fear that he does not yet have what it takes to take this country forward at such a crucial moment in our history.

    hillary does. i know because i met her. she is intelligent, focused, and prepared to move this country forward after 8 painful years under bush. and let it be known that she has a wonderful personality, she has a good sense of humor and she truly cares about the american people. we need a leader who is a strong, intellectually curious, and a capable decision maker. clinton can and, if given the opportunity, will lead this country out of these difficult times and help us to gain back the respect of the world.

    January 7, 2008 10:49 am at 10:49 am |
  18. ~Tiana`

    your picture look really nice!!!!!!!!!!

    January 7, 2008 10:56 am at 10:56 am |
  19. Lorraine

    Would it be possible for someone to run Barack Obama's 2004 democratic convention speech?? Or where can I can get a video of that speech??? Thanks

    January 7, 2008 10:58 am at 10:58 am |
  20. Seam, Philly PA

    People that don't want Obama are those that live in fear. If you think a Republican will be President if Obama carries the nomination, you are clearly wrong, and out of touch with America. Do you people realize that once a Democratic nominee is selected, he/she gets the support from mostly ALL Democratic leaders? If you are truly a Democrat, you will push for the nominee. We the people will make it happen.

    It's time for change. Obama 08'.

    January 7, 2008 11:07 am at 11:07 am |
  21. Carol Miskin

    I'm so thrilled to see Obama doing well in the early going. He appeals to me because he does have a message of hope for this country. I feel like he will be able to reach across party lines and get this country to work together for change.

    And most importantly, I believe what he says. Even though he doesn't have the most experience of the candidates, I believe he will consult with experts and make a decision on what he feels is best for this country, and that is all I can hope for from a president.

    Hillary is much too bitter over events from her husband's presidencey to ever be able to work with republicans to get things done. Her top priority is to one-up the republicans at every opportunity. And she wants to take credit for all the good things that happened during his tenure . . . she was first lady then, not actually making policies or getting things done.

    January 7, 2008 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  22. Seam, Philly PA

    Republicans fear Obama, so don't let them fool you. Hillary is an easy win for Republicans because she has a lot of baggage. Also, Hillary divides the country; as a result, Republicans will come out in full force to defeat her. She is hated. On the other hand, Obama unites people, and can cross party lines. Republicans and Independents are more likely to support Obama, because he doesn't create friction.

    January 7, 2008 11:11 am at 11:11 am |
  23. MG

    I feel like I'm in that episode of The "Twilight Zone", where a guy falls asleep, then wakes up, and he's the same, but everyone else is different, thinking and doing the opposite of what is logical. Again, folks, if you were to look to hire for ANY job in this world, you would look for experience. Would you hire an inexperienced mechanic to fix your car, that will carry your family? Would you purposely seek out an INEXPERIENCED surgeon to operate on your son's complicated brain tumor? Would you recruit an inexperienced CEO to run your company? It all doesn't make sense. Obama has the charisma, the inspiration, but NOT the experience to be President. It is that simple. He is playing on our emotional vulnerabilities, that we are tired of the current washington politics, and that he is something different: CHANGE. But he does not have the monopoly on Change, do you understand that? ANY candidate will be different from Bush. He has used his smiling face to convince you that he is the only one who can bring about change. I am stunned and shocked that so many of you otherwise intelligent and educated people have fallen prey to his hypnotism. We are not electing a Homecoming King folks; we have ONE chance to bring a competent leader to lead our country, during a very complicated and dangerous time. You are voting not just for popularity, not because you LIKE him, not because he is a good talker; you are voting for someone who WILL PROTECT YOUR FAMILY. And when it comes to my family, if you threaten their safety, then I will fight back like a wildcat. Why you would choose to find the most inexperienced person to protect your family, shocks me more than I can say. Please, vote for experience, it really does matter. I am for Clinton, but I am not saying you should agree with me, there are many other candidates that fit that bill too; Obama is probably LOWEST on that list, and I have no comprehension whatsoever why he is so incredibly popular. Please please please......think of my family, think of your family. The wrong choice for inexperience can kill us all, literally.

    January 7, 2008 11:26 am at 11:26 am |
  24. MG

    BTW, HIllary may not be popular or "nice", but she has the goods to lead the country. Again, we are not looking for the nicest person out there, we are looking for the leader. I again ask you to think of what you would do if you were looking for someone to protect your family, if their safety is threatened. Think carefully please, and I can assure you that you would not find the least experienced person.

    January 7, 2008 11:27 am at 11:27 am |
  25. Joann, Cranston RI

    He can have the small states – trust me, he will lose to the big states; those are the states that care about "putting your money where your mouth is"; he hasn't but Hillary has. She's "been there done that". He may be a great Senator, Great husband and father, Smooth talker etc. but that doesn't qualify him to be president of the entire US. Really, think about it rationally, and lets not get rude. I'm being honest. This is a hugh "life changing" decision. We all know we have had it with the Republicans so we're going Democrat right? It now boils down to who can produce change; who has the experience and who is ready now – not who can talk about change, who makes "great inspirational" speeches about change – don't forget Bill was a great president. There was money in out accounts when he left (and don't forget he got elected both terms), so why wouldn't we continue with what was best for all of us. If that means another surge of Clinton's – why not. Let's just think rational now before we jump on the Obama bandwagon – a wheel is about to fall off of it!

    January 7, 2008 11:28 am at 11:28 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21