Is Hillary Imploding? Rasmussen, she now is @ lowest level of the season

Rasmussen: "Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire Primary has fallen to its lowest level of the season
By Zim Sidney - Newsandpolicy.com | Today's Top News

Is Hillary Clinton imploding in the Democratic presidential nomination race? Polls seem to suggest so. Here's Rasmussen's take.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire Primary has fallen to its lowest level of the season.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone poll of the state’s Likely Primary Voters shows Clinton leading Senator Barack Obama by ten percentage points, 34% to 24%. Former Senator John Edwards attracts 15% of the vote while New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson earns 8%. No other candidate tops the 3% level of support.

At 34%, Clinton’s current level of support is the lowest measured in any Rasmussen Reports poll this year. Four previous polls in New Hampshire found her consistently in the 37% to 40% range.

This is the first poll of the race conducted since Senator Hillary Clinton’s debate gaffe concerning drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. In the last poll before that debate, Clinton held a sixteen-point advantage over Obama. A month earlier, Clinton was ahead by twenty-three percentage points.

The current poll also shows that Clinton’s favorability ratings have dropped. Among New Hampshire’s Likely Voters, 72% now offer a positive assessment of the frontrunner. That’s down from 81% prior to the debate. Obama is viewed favorably by 82%, Edwards by 76%.

Link: http://www.newsandpolicy.com/news/2007/11/is-hillary-imploding-rasmussen-senator-hillary-cli.html

`Well, this is grand!' said Hillary. `I never expected I should be a Queen so soon -- and I'll tell you what it
is, you media,' she went on in a severe tone (she was always rather fond of scolding herself), `it'll never
do for you to be lolling about on the grass like that! Queens have to be dignified, you know!'

Through the media looking glass. By Lewis "Botany" Carrol

DU HillHaters flipflop on their support of polls more than Mitt Romney on abortion...

Reminds me of the old saying: "If everybody thinks you're an asshole, do you think you might be an asshole?"

Trying to impute practical significance (as opposed to the statistical variety) to numeric twitches like this is a pointless exercise in random noise generation whose only value is annoyance value.

I could never understand the distinction.

Hill's numbers going down indict that the other deadender campaigns are "in their last throes."

Obama has seen some benefit though.

On edit: Edwards did see a small increase in the Marist poll and Rasmussen National.

Clinton lost 5, Obama gained 5, Edwards gained 3. At least, to my recollection.

Interesting thing about the Marist poll is that in additional to likely Dem primary voters they also ask Indies and GOPers who plan to vote in the primary their preference.

There was not as much change in that poll with Hillary losing a point, Obama picking up 3 and Edwards picking up 1.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=3711443&mesg_id=3711523

Of course we expected it to tighten up.

You men are sexist.

The Hillary haters are grasping @ straws.

It is a long race and we are in it to win it.

BTW I do not dislike Hillary but 32 or 36 years of a Clinton or bush in the White House as
President or Vice President is so antithetical to many peoples American values.

Those who think her campaign is finished now are as silly as those who thought the race was over just a month or two ago.

Hillary is still standing...she still has blood in her veins....her lungs still breathe....nobody delivered the knock out punch....so therefore....surprise of surprises....Hillary is inevitable!

somehow the concept of erosion hasn't entered the consciousness of the Pundit Class.

Hillary is slipping. The sound you hear are her advisors telling her to smarten up before the next debate! Or is it the air coming out the Hillary Inevitability Balloon?

First, I'm not a Hillary fan. Second, I'd call it a random fluctuation in either direction. Third, my point has more to do with the little bumps, bounces and stumbles all candidates experience week to week than with 95% confidence intervals. But mostly, it's just too damn early for any of this stuff to mean anything at all.

and you make very good points.

I am struck, however, by how virulent some HIllary supporters are against fellow members, as though an honest appraisal would somehow be damaging. They do themselves no favors, IMHO.

stats were always fun, and I am sure that 83% of all students hated learning stats, while 44% were unconcerned, 12% enjoyed it, and 9% loved it. Within one standard deviant, that is.

are made up on the spot.

We surveyed over 6,00 Poles and that is what thay thot.

More and more people are finding out everyday.

One of the reasons Hillary is the frontrunner is because the progressive left-of-center anti-war majority remains divided between Obama and Edwards (and Kucinich).

But I think that will change after the first 4 States. Then we will see either Obama or Edwards (or "dark horse" Joe Biden) emerging as the national challenger to Hillary Clinton.

What Hillary fears most is if this contest quickly becomes a two-horse race.

Hillary knows she can win a 3 or 4 horse race - no problem.

DSB

I just want her to be the best possible senator she can be for the state of New York. If she does her homework, New York will be well served.

60% to 33%.

Guess, I trust him slightly more than Clinton. ( How did he vote on Peru trade.?) He is a little too ambitious for his age and not happy with his Baby Boomer comment. Plus, his health care plan is not the best. My choices, Kucinich , Edwards in that order.

Now "crater" sounds about right. :evilgrin:

I've said it before--a lot of her support was basically vote-parking on the part of people who weren't paying attention yet. Unfortunately for her, more and more people are paying attention right as her competitors are taking her on, and those people are defecting. And the more people who defect, the weaker she looks. It's a feedback loop.

that didn't divide the party as quickly as She does.

Latr




Edit for sleplnig.

HRC is viewed favorably by more than seventy percent of Democrats...

Who's been squelched, for the most part, by the MSM.

Poll | posted November 12, 2007 (web only)
If the Democratic presidential primary were held today in your state, who would get your vote?

Joseph Biden
(449) 2%

Hillary Clinton
(748) 4%

John Edwards
(1817) 10%

Christopher Dodd
(208) 1%

Mike Gravel
(2288) 13%

Dennis Kucinich
(5715) 33%

Barack Obama
(4618) 27%

Bill Richardson
(1198) 7%

males and on top of that, most feel, you get the same old thing with her as Bush. Obama and Edwards, Kucinich all represent change.

That's what them educated folks call a paradox...

In the fun run race here, the only thing that got her out of the minus territory was the "Sabotage" bonus by mike_c. How true to life.

A victory for Clinton in the primary isn't inevitable, but one would have to be a fool to bet against it.

This kind of desperation from her opponents is very telling. Trying to spin a lead this large as an implosion...

1) when it comes to the general election, only a fool would not see the risks of a Hillary nomination. Maybe you think they are acceptable risks. But the problem with some Hillary supporters is total denial that she could even conceivably lose. Even though she is the reps wet dream candidate.

2) when it comes to the primaries, her lead is rapidly eroding. Would you rather be in the lead with the lead eroding...or not? Good question. Hard to say. Unless you are a HIllary supporter and want an eroding lead.

Trying to ignore Hillary's recent dip in the polls is the ultimate in "spin".

The question being asked here isn't *should* Hillary be the Democratic nominee (I would prefer either of the other two of the big three, but think she'd be a perfectly good candidate). The question is *will* she be. You may think that the people who support her are fools not to see the risk, but that doesn't mean that they don't outnumber the supporters of both Edwards and Obama massively.

As to the second question, position matters *far* more than velocity, because velocity is even more volatile. Also note that you get very different velocity measures depending which points you measure between, whereas position is much easier to average to.

about the same as she had before the debate and the smear tsunami that followed.

:shrug:

to make it look like she's crashing. A temporary dip at the worst, and many polls show not even that.

I don't get it when someone just pulls out a term like "imploding" out of their posterior.

More money than any other candidate from the defense industry

She has taken more money from the HMOs, med insurance companies,
and big pharmaceutical companies.

She has plants in her crowds to ask questions.

Or do you really want change?

Hillary planted questions. She didn't plant people.

Only Edwards lies even more about it.

Hillary gets more money from movie stars too? What's the conspiracy there? Hillary gets more money than anybody but Obama because she's the front runner.

Without money, a candidate loses, just like John Edwards will soon do.

..... de Nile.



true or false does Hillary get more form the defense industry than any other candidate?

True or false does she get more from HMOs, insurance, and pharmaceutical companies than any other
candidate?

So out of 2,000 odd people @ a campaign stop she "just happens" to call on "the person" with the
question her team "gave to" some random person?


BTW the subject is not about "Hollywood money" too.

got Hillary's attention and pointed to the crowd member for Hillary to call on. There's no proof that Hillary knew what the crowd member would ask or that her question was planted. She must have known that it would be a question that would make her look good.

I like Kucinich. Dennins is cool.

Kucinich for me (unless Gore gets in.) But realism tells me that Edwards is more likely. Kucinich isn't gonna be allowed near the nomination. Big $$ and their lapdog press are too scared of him.

Mao would have probly called the press "Capitalist running-dogs." He'd be wrong. They're too fat & well-fed for that. More like corpulent coporate waddling-dogs.

That's not imploding.

...shhh!....don't let anyone know THAT!.....SHHHHH!

Double digits in NH, 20+ points nationally.

That's not imploding.

I would not say that Hillary's campaign has imploded. At least not yet. However, her lead has eroded.

There is plenty of time for gradual erosion of a lead to take place. It is not a case of whether something has actually imploded. A few more weeks like last one, and hillary would be down 10 points! Doesn't have to be overnight.

She has this week to stop the bleeding, Thanksgiving week will be a media downtime. If she doesn't stop the spiral this week then she has a week or two in December to bounce back. She knows it, her handlers know it! If she doesn't get this turned around quickly she is TOAST!

It is time to start planting shills in the crowds, or get former presidents to defend her, or something else equally desperate.

I've heard several people mention really being turned off by that because it was Bush like.

And not exactly what one would expect from a front-runner.

When the time his right he will race up to the front of the pack in Iowa and NH.

Failing that, I might have to switch my support back to Obama. B-)

oh wait, she's down? Oh, it must be the gospel then.