Although Barack Obama managed to raise more money, Hillary Clinton remains the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. She leads in almost all of the polls. Real Clear Politics has her leading by an average of more than 14%.
In this New York Post article, writer John Podhoretz says that Hillary will win the nomination.
Hillary consistently hovers around 40 percent support in polls. She has never fallen below 35 percent. Obama’s stunning entry into the race in February immediately raised him to the level of her most dangerous competitor – but so far there’s no evidence that he has affected her support.
In other words, undecided Democratic voters moved toward him, as did voters who might have backed another contender (like John Edwards). But there’s no evidence that people once inclined to vote for Hillary have decided to switch to Obama.
All the talk of Hillary’s negatives haven’t eroded the support that she has. And, remember, it’s still quite early. Obama may be the media darling and raking in the bucks, but he still hasn’t been able to overcome the Hillary lead.
I see two reasons why there seems to be no correlation between Obama’s fundraising and his standing in the polls: either Obama’s supporters are not being polled or the folks sending Obama money are not planning to vote for him. Most likely, it is some combination of the two.
In any event, I have to agree with Podhoretz:
No matter how much money Obama raises or how much enthusiasm he generates, Hillary is still going to have to stumble for him to catch up to her. That’s the advantage of being a front-runner. Many candidates stumble. But some don’t. And so far, Hillary doesn’t seem like a stumbler.
Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
not one vote has been cast yet for any one, question are people voting for hillary or voting to have back bill clinton, is it hillary they really want maybe maybe not, al gore was a sure thing kerry was a sure thing, being a sure thng does not mean you win in nov. 2008
There is a good point in this, and that is Obama is growing his support from everyone else but Hillary. But her lead is understandable, in that her last name is the only national election win Democrats have had in 30 years. Funny how that “Rodham” comes and goes when convenient, though.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Charlie+Arlinghaus%3a+Let+voters%2c+not+the+pundits%2c+decide+who+becomes+President&articleId=0dc4ae8f-88a9-40f1-956b-c603e4b3f93c
(..)
“At this early stage, support in a poll is ephemeral. It doesn’t suggest steadfast support as much as it suggests some awareness of a candidate’s name and a positive impression. On the Republican side, the guy leading in national polls was mayor during one of the great tragedies in our history. The guy leading polls in the two early states is the only one who has started running television commercials. History tells us that polling now is virtually irrelevant to the final result. Yet many in the media report poll numbers as if candidates are building up run totals in primary baseball.”
Because she leads most of the polls and has the lengthiest list of endorsements…
I disagree with the possibility that there’s a statistically significant number of people out there who are making small donations to Obama but are still planning on voting for Hillary. I doubt there are that many undecideds who are donating money. It might be possible that Hillary is winning with what pollsters traditionally define as likely primary voters while Barack is engaging a lot of unlikely primary voters.
But then again, the answer might be painfully simple: maybe his organization sucks.
Hillary is NOT the frontrunner.
National polls don’t matter. Two weeks before the Iowa Caucus in 2004 Howard Dean was beating John Kerry by 13 points according to a national poll by Gallup.
Look at the early state polling, the anecdotal evidence concerning their organizations on the ground, and their fundraising to ascertain the state of the race.
anonymous said:
Never said they were Hillary supporters. In fact, I suspect they are Republicans, simply because they think Obama will be easier to beat.
brimur said:
Yep. I looked at those, too. (You can see them in the RCP link) Hillary leads almost all of them.
Here is the state polling data.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070720/NATION/107200096/1002&template=nextpage
“”Money is clearly relevant to competitiveness and the perception of competitiveness. Yet there are lots of examples of people who have trumped their opponents in the money race but failed to do it at the ballot box,” said Steve Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee.”
vjp- First you took only 1 of 3 factors I named and thereby missed the point. This early on, name ID and transient media rumbling dominates and distorts polling. But early state polling is somewhat more accurate because there is the oppo. for the candidates to break past the bare name id and default answers; and even where Hillary leads, her lead is significantly lower than her national polling indicates. That reflects a negative situation for a candidate that is too well known to hold out much hope of teaching voters much more about her.
So yeah i think you make a good point about state polling generally but not within the broader context of my comment. Also I would suggest you look again at Iowa. In Iowa 9 different polling outfits have polled yet Hillary only has a statistically significant lead in 1. And the RCP average only has her close just after Hillary spent a week there with Bill and after Edwards has left the state alone for quite a while.
Anyway, don’t you think her support is a mile wide and an inch thick? Honestly? Maybe I’m too biased, but I just don’t see her having the ability to out-mobilize in the early states all things being basically equal among the 3 candidates.
I didn’t say she led in all of them, I said “almost all” of them. (I think she’s leading in 36 of the 38 states.)
As for the fundraising, well, Hillary is doing fine there as well. Your third point about organization – I don’t have any information on that, anecdotal or otherwise.
No, I don’t believe Hillary’s support is “a mile wide and an inch thick.” My gut tells me that Hillary will out-mobilize most of the candidates. After all, it’s not as if she’s new at this. Some of the stuff learned in Bill’s prior campaigns as well as her own Senate race has to have rubbed off on her.
Hillary is a formidable opponent and she’s in this thing to win. Any candidate who underestimates her iron will to get to the finish line is in for a surprise.
By the way – the “leading in 36 of 38 states” is something I’ve heard on TV a number of times, although the RCP data does not reflect that.
the early states to me would be Iowa, Nevada, NH, SC – after that the die will be cast. No one has the money to match the free media momentum of the winner coming out of those states.
Oh and here’s the latest poll from the most reliable Iowa outfit- http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070727/NEWS09/707270391/-1/caucus
After the initial buzz of Hillary, Edwards is back firmly on top, even with the Big Dog just through recently.
Oh and- I know that we all would like to think that our candidates are being”underestimated” but it’s a pretty big stretch to present Hillary as any kind of underdog.