HRC erases Obama's lead in Gallup poll, now leads by 12. Gore only 3 points out of 2nd

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27910

Interesting. The last Gallup poll had Obama leading at 30% with HRC at 29%. The net shift has been a 13 point swing to HRC over Obama. Gore is within the margin of error for second place, despite not running. Edwards is where he consistently has been in the Gallup poll, 11-12%.



==The current Democratic front-runner is Sen. Hillary Clinton. She is favored by 33% of Democrats and independents who lean Democratic -- about average for her this year.

A USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted earlier this month found Clinton's chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, pulling even with Clinton. However, in the current poll Obama has fallen back to a tie for second place with former Vice President Al Gore. At 21%, current support for Obama is near the low end of the support range seen for him since January, while Gore's 18% ties with an early March poll as his best result.==

Clinton/Gore 2008. History repeats.

He's either going to run for President, or not run at all.

and he has yet to spent a dime on a campaign.

must be depressing to Obama..

In fact, thwarting a Hillary nomination is one reason Gore might get in.

MR. O'DONNELL: The Democratic presidential nominee, no matter who he or she may be, will choose General Wesley Clark as the vice presidential nominee.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: On that same subject of the presidential Democratic nominee, Al Gore will prove to be the biggest challenge to Hillary Clinton, and Hillary might lose it.

http://www.mclaughlin.com/library/transcript.asp?id=602

But until his record is 100% perfect, I stand by what I said.

Nobody jumps so many points in such a short time...HAHAHA @ anyone who believes this garbage!!

The polls have been consistent all year! :rofl:


ON EDIT: to add with the exception of the last poll.

Cause it's going to happen.

Surely that accounted for some of his decline. He had been riding a crest of fawning press coverage since the summer of 2004 until last week. How could that not take a toll?

Thanks.

He's gone through negative press cycles before; the Nevada health care forum performance which was widely panned by the Karen Tumulty's of the world capped a week of, "Where's the beef, Obama?" stories back in April. He bounced back nicely a month later, and don't be surprised when it happens again.

Very few people support him based on substance. He was at 20% in the polls before he said a word about what he would do as president and he has basically remained there since, with the addition of a couple of percentage points worth of support based on his campaign. The "Where's the beef?" stories didn't do any damage to him because voters looking for "beef" weren't supporting him anyway.

and move accordingly. If I had been an Obama supporter, what I've heard over the last weekend would move me out of his camp immediately. Not that the offenses were so bad, but he is in direct conflict with his philosophical pronouncement of raising himself above "small politics." Had he refrained from dirty political tricks attempting to cast his opponent in a bad light, he would have been the "underdog" and done well for himself. Now, by his own hand, he's relegated himself to the "other" dog in this race and will be treated accordingly, expecting a forthcoming exodus of conscientious people.

I'm impressed. The "other" dog in this race, you know, the white male, just said he can campaign in places that Obama and HRC can't. Let's see if that leads to an exodus of conscientious people.

http://www.iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=373

not his best move...imo

It seems only Obama supporters keep introducing race and gender, with the implication that white males are somehow unworthy of the presidency. This is odd for people who support a candidate because of his rhetoric on "unity"...

Imagine the Obama's diehard supporters in door-to-door canvassing operations in the general election. Vote for our guy because the other guy is white! (like 2/3 of the population!) That is sure to be a winning general election position. :eyes:

Edwards states that he can campaign in places where the woman and the black guy can't. HE'S the one injecting race (and gender) into the discussion.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

just, Hillary!

She always jumps in the polls after a dirty trick!

are whistling past the graveyard. Currently, the Anti-war anti-Hillary vote is divided among 4 candidates - Obama, Gore, Edwards, and Kucinich. As the field dimishes, I don't see that support reverting to HRC. She will remain in the 30-35% range, and the other remaining candidate will be sitting pretty at about 65%. There just isn't support for a pro-war, pro-corporate DLC candidate. I guess the DLC didn't get the message in 2006....

Yes there is. HRC and Obama command majority support among Democrats.

This tells me that he isn't going to endorse her, even if he doesn't enter the race.
Yet, if he endorsed Obama, then Obama would almost be at 40% - according to this poll.

Gore will either run himself, endorse someone other than HRC and Obama, or not endorse anyone until the GE.

Don't think there is any way to avoid those facts.

by splitting the progressive voting block. That's what this poll is telling us.

Unless Gore can pick up enough support to beat Hillary.