The new ARG poll of New Hampshire is out, and Clinton is spiralling. She’s dropped from 35 percent to 26, a nine-point drop (or better than a quarter of her support) in two days. Obama, predictably, has jumped from 31 to 38 percent in the same timeframe, but what’s just as notable is that John Edwards has gained five points (from 15 to 20) at the same time. The same trends, albeit in smaller amounts, show up in the Rasmussen poll from yesterday.
There exists a chance – a small chance, but a chance – that Clinton could come in third in New Hampshire. (I don’t think she has a chance of winning it outright at this point.) If she does, Edwards becomes the alternative to Obama and it’s essentially a two-man race.
(As for the Republicans, it’s less interesting: McCain is the man to beat, Romney hasn’t lost any ground and Huckabee got a small bump from Iowa but not nearly what I think people expected.)
Related Articles
7 users responded in this post
There’s another poll that has Obama ahead by a similar margin, and the much-promoted ABC one with Obama and Clinton tied at 33. I don’t think there’s much chance of Edwards pulling ahead of Hillary, though.
Clinton came in third in Iowa.
…Bill, that is.
Everyone said he was finished, too.
Bill came in third in Iowa in a year where Tom Harkin, a Senator from Iowa, was running, and so absolutely nobody else bothered to campaign in Iowa for obvious reasons. It’s not comparable. Bill lost in Iowa when nobody was trying. Hilary put a lot of effort into winning Iowa and came in third.
True, losing Iowa even coming in Third doesn’t matter as much…
Unless you’re running as the inevitable candidate and Front runner. Then it’s a huge hit. It’d be like the Yankees or Red Sox giving up 6 runs in the first inning.
MGK: Absolutely nobody else? Then who came in second?
However, the fact that everybody was really trying this time (well, except Rudy) and it was still neck-and-neck in the end means the whole “Hillary’s finished!!1” nonsense is premature. (Tip to Barack: keep your wife away from microphones.)
Aulayan: Hillary never ran as “the inevitable candidate.” You’re treating the media construct as if it were her campaign slogan. DERRR.
Grok: Paul Tsongas (with four percent to Harkin’s 76 – Clinton had three). Nobody else other than Harkin campaigned in Iowa in 1992, but everybody was of course on the ballot, because being on the ballot is free and all.
Furthermore, a nine percent difference between Hillary and Obama isn’t neck and neck – it’s a pretty decisive win for Obama.
And Hillary hasn’t campaigned on being the inevitable candidate, no, but it’s not simply a media construct – a great deal of her initial institutional support came from Democratic factions believing no other candidate could win in the primaries and wanting to be on the winning side so as to exert more influence over the eventual candidate. Once that illusion was damaged or destroyed (depending on your perception), a lot of the strength of her campaign disappeared.
”
Everyone said he was finished, too.”
Okay, Hillary is NOT Bill Clinton. She is by FAR a much weaker candidate. This doesn’t even need to be said.