January 31st, 2008
10:25 PM ET
7 years ago

People meter: undecided Democratic voters weigh in

Voters reacted to Thursday night's debate in real time.
Voters reacted to Thursday night's debate in real time.

(CNN)—Thursday night’s CNN/LATimes/Politico Democratic debate was a historic event not only because the field has narrowed - leaving a choice of an African America or a female Democratic nominee - but because Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton appeared to have called a truce. The two seemed to combine their efforts and threw their punches at the Republican Party.

Immigration, healthcare and the war in Iraq took center stage at the Kodak Theatre. All the while, a group of undecided male and female Democratic voters reacted in real time to the candidates’ responses.

The red line graph represents voter approval or disapproval of their responses as the debate progressed.

Overall, 60 percent of the undecided voters weighing in thought Clinton showed more strength Thursday night than Obama. However, they did feel Obama did best on the topic of Iraq.

People meter: Watch Obama and Clinton battle their healthcare packages

People meter: Watch Obama discuss his plan to curb illegal immigration

People meter: Watch Clinton discuss her Iraq war strategy

People meter: Watch Obama pitch his plan to handle foreign threats

Related: CNN's Erica Hill reports undecided voters had the strongest response over criticism of the Republicans

–CNN's Emily Sherman

soundoff (162 Responses)
  1. Donald P

    OBAMA O8! He clearly took her down on Iraq, and the future of our country.

    February 1, 2008 04:43 am at 4:43 am |
  2. Donald P

    Oh, almost forgot... Hillary, like Bill will dodge every question, then coat thier answer with so much icing, you can't see the cake. Must we forget how many government officials were under scrutiny during the Clinton Administration...One things for sure, Bush lies, McCain Lies (Romney Iraq issue), the Clintons LIE (under oath).

    I need answers not politics and lies, GO BARACK GO!

    February 1, 2008 04:54 am at 4:54 am |
  3. David

    if you can't say invader, at least say illegal alien

    quit saying immigrant

    there is a difference

    February 1, 2008 05:07 am at 5:07 am |
  4. jack11

    I just don't see Obama as VP but presidential. Maybe Obama / HIlary ticket might work.

    February 1, 2008 05:47 am at 5:47 am |
  5. hickb

    This was a nice, civil debate... both did really well tonight
    From following the whole news & media coverage for Obama & Hillary campaigns since 2006, I think Obama has run a genuine and positive message. Hillary has ran a more divisive message that changes strategically each week. If people want real change in this country, they would vote for Ron Paul. Obama is my 2nd choice.

    February 1, 2008 05:54 am at 5:54 am |
  6. Jen

    Hillary clearly won.

    February 1, 2008 07:37 am at 7:37 am |
  7. EJ

    Both candidates did well, but I give the edge to Obama and here's why. It is ridiculous to think that thinking on your feet has anything to do with the Presidency of the United States. The Commander in Chief makes thought out decisions (and yes, 43 thought about invading Iraq for a long time, however his thought process was flawed). No President has ever had to "think on his feet" except when talking to the media, but that has nothing to do with running a country. We need someone who is willing to make sound decisions and surround himself with people who will allow him to do that. The most important thing that was said during the debate was when Obama stated that if and when he's the President, he'll surround himself (his Cabinet, etc.) with intelligent people, that may not necessarily agree with him "because I am not right all the time", so that sound decisions could be made for the benefit of the country. THAT IS LEADERSHIP, first acknowledging that your ideas may not always be the best ideas. I think Mrs. Clinton still represents the "go it alone", "I will do what I want when I want because I think its right, let history be the judge" politics, which is not good for the country.

    February 1, 2008 09:28 am at 9:28 am |
  8. jason

    Hillary being attacked even by the moderator draws more sympathetic voters to her; I don't like seeing a woman attacked, without having Obama's Rezko and Giannoulias mob ties questioned.

    And yes, I'm from Chicago.

    February 1, 2008 10:00 am at 10:00 am |
  9. an independant

    To people who want to bring on issues why Hillary Clinton vote "yes" in 2002, then listen carefully. She clarified thoroughly yesterday that the vote is for a "Resolution" not "going to war" giving the information was given at the time and from intelligence gathered throughout during 90's. US President need such resolution to weigh in against Terrorism regime during the time that america was under attack. However america had a Bush who is so absessed to war and did not do his job in the best interest of America. That is why Hillary regrets that if she knows what happend later, she would not.

    If people ask Hillary's judgement on Bush's capability to execute his role as president, then think about, US elected this president twice, why?. That is a trust given by majority of US citizen. When US faces a threat from outside, a US president need his own citizen's trust. However it happens later that Bush misuse the trust given by US citizen and congress and senate house. I believe Demacrats can use impeachment and will definitely throw Bush out of White House, but for sure Demacrats have strategy and priorities.

    Dem'08

    February 1, 2008 10:51 am at 10:51 am |
  10. Independent California Voter

    no doubt .. BO was underwhelming .... HC came out as more organized in the delivery of her thoughts and understanding on the complexity of issues and what that implies for how problems need to be addressed and in how solutions need to be approached.

    February 1, 2008 10:57 am at 10:57 am |
  11. charlotte

    Either one, is better than a Republican. Giving the fact that Congress was fed over 900 lies. The Iraq War vote was based on available information at the time. At least Hillary votes more than Obama. Missing 1/3 of the votes is unacceptable. Missing very important votes, ex: Iran. Where was Obama when that vote was taken? If he had of been a Senator at the time the Iraq Resolution was being voted on, who's to say he would have even been present to vote

    February 1, 2008 06:34 pm at 6:34 pm |
  12. ness

    I don't trust Hilary Clinton, no more than I do Bill Clinton. They both seem to be sneaky, and neither impress me in their quest for the white house. It's time for something refreshing, not anything we've had in the past. Enough of the "stale" leadership. Besides she seems to boastful and proud, and her heart does not seem to be with the American people. It seems to be all about her, and for that I could care less. Obama, on the other hand, seems to have a genuine concern for the people, and his desire is to see America better off than it is today. As for the Clintons, they have a personal issue with the Bush family, and the way I see it, the Bushes will always have their foot on the Clintons' necks. So get over it! We don't need anymore drama in the White House than there already is. We all know Hilary feels she has something to prove, because she were made to look like a fool on national tv, when her "beloved" husband were accused of extra marital affairs, as well as smoking pot. Now, he wants to pretend he's loyal and dedicated to her. Gimme a break!

    February 3, 2008 09:35 pm at 9:35 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7