[Update (6/30/10): Serious questions have been raised about the validity of Research 2000's polls. The results discussed below should thus be viewed as potentially suspect until the matter is resolved.]
With the 2008 presidential race barely underway, it's striking that Edwards and Obama are already doing so well in key primary states and Hillary, the presumptive Democratic frontrunner, is faring so poorly. Via Kaus, Real Clear Politics boils down the latest results from Iowa and New Hampshire:
On the heels of the new poll in Iowa earlier this week showing Barack Obama tied with John Edwards atop the Dem field and Hillary plummeting to fourth place with 10%, Research 2000 has another 2008 poll out this morning for New Hampshire, conducted for the Concord Monitor from December 18 through December 20, 2006.
On the Dem side, Obama has leapt into a statistical dead heat with Hillary...
At first blush the horserace numbers don't look too terrible for Hillary - and certainly much better than they did in Iowa...
But, as in Iowa, the real problem for Clinton in the New Hampshire poll is in the hypothetical head to head matchups...
Just like in Iowa, Hillary loses to Rudy and McCain but beats Romney. And just like in Iowa, Obama beats them all. Edwards doesn't run as strong in New Hampshire as in Iowa - no surprise there - but he still manages a dead heat against McCain and Giuliani and handily beats Romney. So even though Hillary is clinging to a lead at the top of the field, she's once again giving off the "unelectable" vibe in comparison to her two most serious primary challengers.
Iowa and New Hampshire aren't representative of the rest of the country, but their voters are arguably paying closer attention to the presidential contenders than those elsewhere, which may make these trial heat results more meaningful than the national ones.
Also, is there a precedent for a clear frontrunner like Hillary losing her lead in key primary state polls this early? It seems pretty remarkable.
...and in other news water is wet, fire hot, bears crap in woods.
The only mystery is why so many smart people in the Democratic party think she is electable?
Posted by: Seth | December 26, 2006 at 11:00 AM
The tiny numbers of polls done in NH and IA, which have huge sampling errors because so few people are polled, are quite meaningless.
Despite all the hype, Iowa and NH don't matter for the frontrunner, they matter in that they narrow the field. Reagon lost Iowa in 1980, and Bush lost it in 1988. As for NH, Clinton lost in 1992, and Bush lost in 2000.
Polls show that Hillary Clinton performs much better than any other Democrat against McCain and Giuliani in the generals. They also show that she has a 2-1 lead against Obama, even after two solid months of fawningly uncritical media coverage.
Posted by: Of Course She is Electable! | December 27, 2006 at 07:09 PM