New Gallup Poll: Clinton - 34%, Obama - 25%, Gore - 16%, Edwards - 9%

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=28144

First Choice for Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2008
(Based on Democrats/Independents Who Lean Democratic)
July 12-15, 2007
With Without
Gore Gore

New York Senator Hillary Clinton 34 40
Illinois Senator Barack Obama 25 28
Former Vice President Al Gore 16 --
Former NC Senator John Edwards 9 13
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson 4 5
Delaware Senator Joe Biden 3 3
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich 1 1
Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd 1 1
Former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel * *
Other * *
None/No opinion 6 8
* = Les than 0.5%
"Other" from includes candidates asked about, but who have not announced an official running.

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,001 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted July 12-15, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 483 Democrats or Democratic leaners, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

The Democratic Field

The Democratic race has been generally stable in July, with Clinton maintaining her lead in the field, now by a nine-percentage point margin over Obama, at 34% to 25%.

Clinton's current level of support is slightly below the 37% she received earlier this month, and Obama's is up slightly from 21%. Neither of these changes is statistically significant.

Al Gore's July 7, 2007, Live Earth concert -- designed to bring attention to global warming -- might also have been expected to raise Gore's profile with Americans. However, the percentage of Democrats (including Democratic leaners) who favor Gore for the nomination has not changed. Currently, 16% of Democrats say they would like to see him nominated. This is identical to the early July figure -- and is similar to the 18% found in the previous reading from mid-June.

Gore has not completely ruled out a bid for the presidency, but some of his recent statements indicate he is moving rapidly in that direction. Removing Gore from the Democratic preference list -- and substituting the second choice of his voters in his place -- Gallup finds Clinton picking up six percentage points and Obama three percentage points. The result is that Clinton's lead over Obama stretches to 12 percentage points, 40% vs. 28%. Support for Edwards expands to 13 percentage points.
Fourth place Democrat Sen. John Edwards dropped to 9% in the latest poll from 13% earlier in this month. This is not a statistically significant change, but is the first time since early March that he has registered below 10%. With Gore preferences excluded, Edwards' support is 13%. All other Democrats are at 5% or lower regardless of whether Gore's support is included.

More broadly, Clinton's current edge over Obama (in the ballot that includes Gore) is similar to the average 10-point lead she has held since May. Within that period the gap has widened and narrowed, but for the most part the changes have not been significant.

They are not be trusted.

:silly:

:silly:

:silly:

They didn't call ME!!

:silly:

I figured I'd get the expected responses out of the way to save people time.

It will widen more and more.

It is clear Gore does more damage, "pound for pound" to Edwards in the polls than to any other candidate. I wish they stopped including him in polls. He is not running. If he does run, then include him but the window is quickly closing for Gore. It is almost August. He cannot wait much longer.

"Al Gore's July 7, 2007, Live Earth concert -- designed to bring attention to global warming -- might also have been expected to raise Gore's profile with Americans. However, the percentage of Democrats (including Democratic leaners) who favor Gore for the nomination has not changed. Currently, 16% of Democrats say they would like to see him nominated. This is identical to the early July figure -- and is similar to the 18% found in the previous reading from mid-June."

Unless I'm reading that wrong, he's been included all along.

I misread the OP.

Former Vice President Al Gore 16 --
Former NC Senator John Edwards 9 13

The "--" was not from the last poll but the numbers without Gore.

9 if you count Gore.

Didn't the last Gallup poll have Hillary up by 16%?

Consider her numbers stagnant, and Obama's climbing. Hillary is barely the frontrunner at this point, much less inevitable.

Obama is positioning himself well.

GOBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!

More like up and down for both at least when it comes to Gallup though Obama made some modest gains since the last Gallup was taken



And its different depending on the poll.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Here's MysteryPollsters interpretation thus far



And then there's RCP which does poll averages

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.html

A 12 point lead IS NOTHING! It is very easily overcome and I am not the least bit worried. If anything, I am relieved. I was afraid that once she began campaigning with her husband (who I am sure attracts half her support already), that her numbers would rise.

They don't seem to be.

So you can go into post overkill all you want. You can post every TWELVE POINT LEAD all you want. It actually shows how limited Hillary's support actually is. It means she has no where left to go. What's obvious is that Hillary's "inevitability strategy" isn't working. She's tried to use the same strategy Bush used in 1999, but has not had the same luck. Bush had a 55% lead, as I showed in a previous post. That allowed him to collect all the insider support and money. Hillary has a VERY SMALL 12% lead and is already at a disadvantage in the money race.

None of it matters anyway. Because the fact is, as I said yesterday and many times before, very few people are actually following this election. Obama has a lot of money, which will allow him to be competitive when it actually matters. I'm willing to bet you that most people "supporting" Hillary are only "parking" their votes with her, because hers is the name they recognize.

Horse race numbers don't matter six months before an election. All that matters is building organizations and raising money. Obama is doing JUST FINE on both those counts. All he has to do is keep it close, so he won't have to make up too much ground when he begins bombarding the airwaves with ads. 12 points is easy to overcome because all Obama has to do is to get SIX PERCENT of Democrats to switch from Hillary to him and the race is tied, and Hillary will have no advantages at all.

Enjoy your 12-point-lead while it lasts...because it won't. If Bill Clinton can't help her, no one will.

You may wish to batter Obama supporters into despondency with these never ending poll threads, but this Obama supporter knows better.

either of them, and I was leaning towards Obama, but your post sounds like sour grapes.

That's just stupid. You were thinking of supporting Obama but won't because of what someone, not even afflitiated with his campaign, wrote on a message board?

You think that's smart?

That and most of your other made up knowledge doesn't really contribute much.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup

8/25-26

Lieberman 23%
Gepthardt 13%
Dean 12%

CNN/Time

7/16-23

Lieberman 23%
Gepthardt 11%
Dean 10%

Comprende?????

Yet another fact: You made mistakes in your CNN/Time poll.

Lieberman was at 16%, Kerry was at 14% & Gephardt was at 12%

not back Obama, I stated that poorly. I'm persuaded by very little that gets dished around on a message board.

That's higher than any of the poll leader in 2004.

"So you can go into post overkill all you want."

Yes, all those pesky facts vs scoops from Inner Rectum News.

"It means she has no where left to go."

It means no such thing as evidenced by head to head polls with Obama, 3 ways polls with her, Obama and Edwards and polls including 1st and 2nd choices.

"None of it matters anyway. Because the fact is, as I said yesterday and many times before, very few people are actually following this election."

That's the problem with calling your opinion fact. Because while its obvious there will be more attention in 6 months from now, people are paying attention.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20070627_POLL.pdf

10. How much attention have you been able to pay to the 2008 presidential campaign -- a lot, some, not much, or no attention so far?
Alot Some Not much None DK/NA
5/18-23/07 All adults 20 46 23 11 -
6/15-23/07 Age 17-29 14 44 25 16 -

Who are paying attention a little or none at all shouldn't be considered a lot?

So how was my statement untrue?

In a poll taken in May, among all adults it was found that 20% were paying alot fo attention and 46% were paying some attention. 23% were paying a little attention and 11% were paying no attention.

So roughly 34% are paying little or no attention to the elections right now while 66% were paying some or alot fo attention.

They also have the figures for young people aged 18-29 from June (numbers were similar with a few more in the paying little or no attention category) but they are usually not a factor in the primaries.

Only 20% of people are paying a lot of attention...compared with 46% saying that they're paying some attention, 23% paying a little attention and 11% were not paying any attention at all.

What's the problem here?

46 + 23 + 11 = 80.

So again, 80% are paying some or no attention to the election. How does that contradict what I wrote earlier?

Should we define the word "some"? According to the Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary: It's "an unspecified amount of." (p. 1217).

"None of it matters anyway. Because the fact is, as I said yesterday and many times before, very few people are actually following this election."

"Who are paying attention a little or none at all shouldn't be considered a lot"

Its called goalpost moving and its not the first time I have seen it.

"I'd be happy with either of them". I mean if this was a two horse race I'd probably go Hillary but I remember the first time I saw Obama speak in person I said "that guy will be president some day". This was of course neither an original nor unique reaction to him. He has, in his way, relied just as much as Hillary on "inevitability", just in a different facet thereof. He's one of those one or two per generation natural politicians with charisma overload - with his immeidate predecessor of course being the "other" Clinton. It works for him. Frankly I wouldn't expect either to lead any administration all that differently. I don't buy the BS that Hillary is waiting to invade Iran just because she (wisely) refused to say that she never ever would under any circumstances at all. Nor do I think Obama will pull troops from Iraq any more quickly. A "everybody pull out tomorrow all at once" pipedream is just that - there is simply no way to do anything BUT a phased withdrawal, logistically let alone tactically, especially if we don't want to sign the death warrants of anyone who has helped us. Where are the huge differences on economic policy? Social policy? Not there - both are simply moderate Dems.

I'd be happy with either. I prefer Richardson to both. I probably prefer Edwards to both but frankly not sure yet. My nod to HRC in a 2 horse race would be because of her proven ability to withstand brutal campaigns not because of any great policy advantage. Plus, I suspect a white woman can pull in more and turn away fewer wavering moderates (especially suburban women) than a black man would. Once one of them is in power (as seems probable) I don't think you'll see any but the most trivial differences in voting/bill support.

Three reasons why this poll is totally worthless.

Because there won't be an election for six months.