Hillary loses more than 40% of lead so far this year

Newsweek's latest polls show Hillary Clinton losing significant amounts of her advantage in head-to-head matchups among Democrats against both John Edwards and Barack Obama.

In the Jan. 24-25 poll, Clinton led Obama by 20 points, 55-35. In the May 2-3 poll, that lead is down to 12 points, 51-39. That's 40% of her lead gone.

Similarly, she has lost 42% of her lead over Edwards in the same three months. A 33-point lead on Jan. 24-25 -- 62-29 -- has been slashed by 14 points and is now 57-38.

Both Edwards and Obama are cutting Clinton's head-to-head lead by a little over 3% per week. At that pace, they both would pass her by in about 33 weeks, which would be ... mid-January.



Display:


You could very well be right. (none / 0)

The softest supporters go first, but Hillary's weaker performance against the top Republicans won't impress Democrats.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:13:04 PM EST

play up general election (none / 0)

Mark Penn , Hillary's pollster, takes every chance to say that Hillary can win the general election.

The general election is Hillary's achille's heal and needs to be pointed out by the blogosphere until the MSM does it too.


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:31:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Strongly agree (none / 0)

The fact of Hillary's trouble with America's voters have not yet reached low info Dems. We will need to make sure that it does. Whether we support Obama or Edwards. (Personally I support both, and some of the third tiers, over Hillary because if her unfavorables)


The history of the left is a history of purists betraying the progressive movement so that they can feel good about their righteous selves.
by Populism2008 on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:40:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yep. Hillary's team knows it (none / 0)

1. the low information voters will be less pleased with Hillary once they realize how polarizing clinton's will be

2.  Hillary always polls worse than Obama or Edwards in general election matchups

3.  Now that BushCo isn't running expect the GOP to play up how unseemly it is in a democracy to have a husband and wife rule the country,  the anti-dynasty memo


McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions
by TarHeel on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:46:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary loses more than (none / 0)

The Newsweek poll from March 2 had Clinton's lead at 52% to 38%.   Now, a full two months later, Clinton's lead is 51% to 39%.  In other words, unchanged.   To reiterate:  In a full two months the Newsweek poll has shown ONE percentage points difference.  Given the MoE the horserace between Clinton and Obama has stayed completely fixed for two months.  

Confucious sez:   One can't argue any movement when none exists.    :-)

And, Edwards polling a full 20% behind Clinton is a huge gap.  Make no mistake about it.  Gigantic.  


by georgep on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:14:16 PM EST

Most of Obama's gains came earlier... (none / 0)

...and Edwards' gains more recently, but both have cut Hillary's national leads by at least 40% since late January.

And of course, she's now losing in Iowa in every poll.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:26:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Most of Obama's gains came earlier... (none / 0)

You have not answered my point that for a full 2 months the polling between Clinton and Obama has not moved an inch, making your point of weekly movements false.  

Edwards moved up some, but come on.  We are talking 20% difference here, not 3 or 4 or even 8.  


by georgep on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:35:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not true. It has moved. (none / 0)

The movement still was in Obama's direction, even if slower than before.

Edwards' pace has picked up.

Of course there will be fluctuations, but the overall trend for Hillary's lead against both Edwards and Obama is down, at an average of a little more than 3% per week.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:13:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary loses more than (none / 0)

So she likes to dive and pause?  That's better.  I'll be happy to see her next dive.  When is that coming?


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:26:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

CNN POLL-CLINTON INCREASES LEAD to 38% from 30% (none / 0)

New CNN poll has Clinton up to 38%  from 30%, while both Obama and Edwards drop slightly.

Clinton    38%
Obama    24%
Edwards  12%

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/07 /rel6c.pdf


by ChicagoDude on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:45:49 PM EST

Re: Hillary loses more than 40% of lead so far thi (none / 0)

Someone's washing machine is stuck on the spin cycle again.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 04:55:38 PM EST

yeah you (none / 0)

when you talk about Hillary's generasl election prospects, Most Edwards and Obama supporters concede at the moment Hillary is ahead among all dem primary voters as she has from the get go, we argue about what those numbers mean but it's you guys that spin her negative ratings, her deifinately won't vote for numbers and the fact that almost every Republican wants to her as the democratic nominee, this is primary season, the time for debate as to who best can lead our party, not the time to spout poll numbers of all democratic voters manby of whom have barely started paying attention, if Hillary's nominated we'll all support her but before she gets corinated she  is going to have to deal with her negaivies just as Obama and Edwards have to deal with thiers.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:17:19 PM EST

Re: yeah you (none / 0)

Her negatives are no different from Gore and Kerry. Obama and Edwards would have negatives just as high if they became the nominee. The spin about negatives is not helping either of them attract voters in the primaries.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:39:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah you (none / 0)

Gore and Kerry both lost.  That doesn't help your arguement here at all.  The fact that she's starting with those negatives isn't a good sign either.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:03:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah you (none / 0)

I would not agree that Gore "lost". Kerry came close and could have won with a different campaign.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:52:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

disagree 100% Rob (none / 0)

it is not inevitable that in 2008 when the GOP president is at 33%on average and dems have huge generic lead, that our candidate will have about half the country against them no matter what. The biggest disagreement when discussing gegenral election polling between Hillary supporters and people that back Edwards and Obama is that Hillary people take it as a givin that wer'e going to have a 50/50 election again like the past two, and Obama and Edwards supporters believe unlike the past 2 election seasons whe don't have a 50/50 nation anymore but we do have one 50/50 candidate, Hillary Clinton.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:54:57 PM EST

Re: disagree 100% Rob (none / 0)

Even if Clinton was not a candidate I would still think we will have a 50/50 election. We have more potential to gain than we have in some past election cycles because of Bush but I just dont see this being a watershed election myself. The GOP will move toward the middle and will do a good job of reinventing their brand by 2008.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 05:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary loses (none / 0)

Apparently Rob and George haven't noted Pollsters averages, which have Hillary and Obama plateauing of late, with Edwards and Gore yet rising.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:44:26 PM EST

Re: Hillary loses (none / 0)

I just don't see the point of even talking about Gore anymore.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary loses (none / 0)

I agree there is no point to keep including Gore.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:02:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary loses (none / 0)

Jallen, meanbone argued that there is active movement towards Obama.  That is obviously not the case.  The gap between the two has been on "stuck" for a full two months now.  There is no movement towards Obama.  And the polling data persistently shows that there is actually movement away from Obama.  

While I agree that Edwards has moved up some, one has to remember what level that has come from.  It is still a huge, huge gap.  Not quite on the same level, of course, but if you look at very recent polling, Bill Richardson has gained slight momentum.  He has gone from 3% to 6 % in both yesterday's Nevada poll and today's CNN national poll.   While that is a 100% increase, and no doubt pleasing to Richardson, it is still only 6% we are talking here.  One can hardly surmise from that that he will now double his support every two weeks until he is the nominee.  


by georgep on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary loses (none / 0)

I completely agree with everything you've just said.  And I agree with the two above that Gore shouldn't be included, too.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:51:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary loses (none / 0)

True.  Take out Gore.  He is NOT going to run.  We already had our first national debate, for crying out loud.  Democrats would not take kindly to a candidate who did not "put his time in" as far as the debates, campaigning, travelling, appearances in front of Democratic interest groups, etc.  are concerned.   That train has already left the station, IMO.


by georgep on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:05:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

that's a fair point be we simply don't agree (none / 0)

I Think both Obama and Edwards could win a 55-45 type victory against anyone but Rudy who already looks like he's falling apart among likely Republican voters. I think that's a subtle point that will become a large point of contention in the fall, Obama especially will make the arguement to primary voters that we can't chance a this election to the supreme court or a few thousand voters in Ohio, indirectly making the case that a Hillary nomination will ineveitably lead to that type of race, if the nomination comes down to exepreience and "issues" I agree Hillary has the edge, how successfull Obama is at making electibiltiy and ability to get things done an issue will decide his fate.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon May 07, 2007 at 06:53:26 PM EST

Re: that's a fair point be we simply don't agree (none / 0)

I would be glad for it to happen but I would have to see it to believe it if for any Democratic nominee to get to 55%.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:03:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's a fair point be we simply don't agree (none / 0)

Some of this is completely out of Obama's hands.  The experience issue weighs huge with many voters, especially older voters (the most likely to show up at the primaries in huge numbers.)   He also has to start brushing up on specifics and policies instead of giving the impression that he will let others handle "those things."  It does not play well in debates, in front of big Democratic issue-audiences, and plays right into the inexperience issue, one that he should be intent on erasing with a masterful command of all issues.  


by georgep on Mon May 07, 2007 at 07:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's a fair point be we simply don't agree (none / 0)

I love how you say that.  "He also has to start brushing up on specifics and policies instead of giving the impression that he will let others handle 'those things.'"  

I think that's funny for a number of reasons.  
1.  Nobody cares that he had a 40 minute speech on foreign policy alone.  (With no notes).  

2. Obama's campaign has see 104,000 donors in Quarter one, and in a month already has 44,000 more donors.  He outfundraised the fundraising queen.  His campaign is running great.  He's burning money at the same rate as Clinton and has either moved or held against her in national polls.  

I don't know where you get off saying he "has to" start brushing up policy, because that is ridiculous.  


by JeremiahTheMessiah on Mon May 07, 2007 at 08:02:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's a fair point be we simply don't agree (none / 0)

I was not talking about "fundraising."  What does that have to do with the point I was making?   It has been reported that Obama literally "bombed" in front of some Democratic audiences.  I was not there, but that is what was reported, here and elsewhere.  You probably weren't around when this was discussed, but it was frontpage material.   Most Obama supporters actually agreed at the time that he needs to get better with specifics, and nobody says that he can't or won't.   Just that he must, which I think is a correct statement to make.  


by georgep on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:22:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's a fair point be we simply don't agree (none / 0)

Agree with this.

Obama is the only candidate people expect EVERYTHING from, but he is only one of other candidates.

He was not on his best footing for the MSNBC Debate, he made missteps and he knows he need to correct them.  

This is a campaign, all of them will misstep one way or another.  But if Obama keeps up the intense pace in fundraising, it does signal a hunger out there for something/one new and different.  He is not getting checks out of osmosis, people are giving him this money and that can not be discredited.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:57:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: that's a fair point be we simply don't agree (none / 0)

I agree. Very impressive fundraising.  


by georgep on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And the poll will be different, (none / 0)

after the June 3rd debate on CNN.  This will bounce back and forth.  Too early to get upset, the only polling I will pay attention to is December.


"I want my voice to be read"
by icebergslim on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:54:42 PM EST

Re: And the poll will be different, (none / 0)

Why would a debate change the dynamics?  It usually does not.  Besides, we just had a debate, and despite what we heard beforehand "wait until the first debate" it looks like things have not been as catastrophic for Clinton as predicted.


by georgep on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.