Obama's falling way behind Clinton in the polls. What should he do?

"Time to Panic?" -that's the headline from John Dickerson/Slate
Tuesday, Sept. 18, 2007, at 7:19 PM ET

She now leads the national polls by 20 points. In the crucial states of New Hampshire and South Carolina, she's way ahead, too. Obama, by contrast, is doing no better in national polls than he was in February, despite vast and largely approving press coverage. He has fallen sharply in New Hampshire and South Carolina since late summer. And the betting money is moving to Clinton, too: She is crushing Obama by 68 to 16 in the political futures markets. The only decent news for Obama comes from Iowa, where he is third in the polls, but very close to Clinton and John Edwards.
http://www.slate.com/id/2174086/pagenum/all/#page_start

Of Hillary- Despite mountains of dire predictions and lots of scrutiny, she's only gotten stronger. She was supposed to be cold and unappealing, but a recent Pew poll found Democratic voters had a more positive view of her than they have of any Democrat, and than Republican voters have of any Republican candidate. She's tough, and she's run a disciplined campaign. "She's only going to fall if someone makes it happen," says unaffiliated Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "It's going to require a big whack."

Time is running out.

They have a little money in the kitty as well, and haven't spent hardly any of it yet.

Hey. Do you think they might be saving it for a rainy day -- maybe later this fall as the primary season really kicks in good?

Just a thought.

is money.

They had more money than God. My point is money alone
is never enough. You also need people to like you and
trust you.

at the extreme upper tier of U.S. income. Sen. Obama's contributions are very significantly from people who can barely afford to buy grocerieis. Not the same constituencies at all.

And he has money to match HClinton.

Obama crowds don't behave the same as Forbes crowds by any stretch. A very different demographic.

at this time in 2004.The one who should be worried is Hillary.This is not going to last.Take it to the bank!

In 2004, Dean's lead was single-digit, and there was a lot of back-and-forth motion. In 2004, the race was really only beginning in earnest about now, as mainstream voters were still learning about the candidates.

Now, HRC has a 20-point lead, and it's been solid (and increasing) for months. Barack is the only "new face" around, and he's been in it practically since 2005; people by now feel pretty comfortable in saying they know about the candidates--and most polls show Dems being happy with their choices. I don't see a whole lot of motion, unless Edwards or Obama manage to pull off a couple miracles in NH and IA.

in at least one primary poll. Make of that what you will.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=391

A constant trend (in polling) to this question that went on for months prior to the primaries.

"Suppose New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton decides to run for president in 2004. Who would you most like to see the Democrats nominate for president in 2004? . . ."

Look at the poll below the one they love to cite. If HRC had entered the race, almost half of the responders would have switched to Clinton.

Anyway... the most Dean ever got was 22%, and that was in December. Today, HRC is in the mid-40's. A HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

According to national polls by Reuters/Zogby, Cook Political Report and Rasmussen. And she could sink further. She's far from inevitable, and she's in the 20's in Iowa, and not out of the 30's in NH, NV and SC. If someone makes a run, (like Richardson or Edwards for example) and wins Iowa, she's in trouble. If she also loses New Hampshire and Nevada, she's done.

Take it to the bank!!!!

get used to it.

and you know and I know she is too much of a
cool cookie to do that drama.

I should be running his campaign.

But, I don't and I'm not.

I'm not terribly worried for him, though-- he's still working it and there's time. He just has the bad luck of being up against a really tough campaign. Hillary's out to win, no doubt about that.

The good news, though, is that whoever wins this will be one tough sumbitch and give the Republicans the fight of their lives.

Despite all her efforts to create that perception. In that sense, I think Obama and Edwards have scored a victory.
On the other hand, this article seems to be pushing the "Hillary is inevitable. Resistance is futile." meme, so the idea is certainly not dead.

that it is better to have Obama around, close enough to look like it just might be a race? If she knocks him out this early the backlash would be intense, and could carry over to the General.

to get him out of the picture. If he was less popular and had less money, I'd be more prone to agree with you.

months? Obama has enough money in hand to go though the entire primary season. Maybe Edwards as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see Kucinich hang in there as well. SO you're suggesting that Hillary Clinton has a secret weapon that would put her at 75% or 90% but she's just holding back to make it look like a race?

It's carrying the "O" thing a little too far.

if he can still get in to tomorrow night's debate. I think skipping it is a real mistake. 63% of the caucus participants in Iowa in 2004 were seniors.

One has to keep their priorities in order:

https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/C2CATL

This will piss off the Gray Panthers :evilgrin:

He will need to have control over US corporate media interests to be able to get an equal chance at being heard. Sad but true, as Howard Dean and Kucinich can well testify.

I mean, anyone who can get hundreds of thousands of women to read a piece of crap like "A Million Little Pieces"--AND think that it was true--should have no problem generating interest in a quality candidate like Obama.

I don't think she helped Barack. This is completely my opinion but I believe she would have helped Democrats, in general, by staying uncommitted and giving them all a place to come speak. Her talk show style has a great way of bringing out the true ethics which people use. I would have loved for her to bring each and every Dem candidate on her show to "talk" things over. It would have been quite insightful for voters.

nominee but I cannot support any candidate that supports outsourcing. I just can't. She will be the first presidential candidate that I will not walk for or contribute to. I do not even trust her will Supreme Court appointments. I do not trust that she wouldn't sell out Roe V Wade if it were the "politically astute" thing to do. She has not given me any evidence that she can be trusted. Her fundraiser "luncheon" with the "federal" lobbyists proved the point about her being willing to sell "access".

But remember, they're all very good poker players.

HAVING to "show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview . . . like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination." Obama should be milking that for all it's worth--or does he think it's a good idea, too?

if/when the sheeple wake up to what HRC is all about--and that shouldn't take a lot of effort, since she apparently is feeling less and less need to hide it, direct quotes and everything--they will run away screaming.

but then, again, the average American voter is not exactly the most intelligent being on the planet :eyes:

these cobbled-together, nightmare scenario healthcare "plans." All the front-runners are doing it.

That quote really got to me. It's disturbing on a very deep level. But so many people even here don't seem to get that.

:shrug:

Ah, well. I guess I should just be glad I don't have to worry about health insurance.

so BO probably won't want to use HRC's little idea against her too strongly. pity that.

I DO have to "worry about health insurance" as I'm self-employed and so far just keeping my fingers crossed. eventually I will succumb to one disease or another and die. end of story.

all over DU. And I'm going to continue. Yeah, I've got decent health insurance through my wife. I realize how lucky I am. But I want something better for everyone.

For-profit health care is a blight.

I'm not sure what else Barack can do. There seem to be an awful lot of polls that show Hillary way, way ahead, both in primary match-ups and general match-ups (though you'd never know it by some of threads on DU these days - not a lot of Democratic love going down here).

That's what his campaign has decided. And so you see, Americans go, where's Barack? He chose to not go?! And if they catch wind of it what follows will be ...wait, didn't Dennis Kucinich get barred from participating in the forum? Hmm...

What does this all mean? Well, one thinks Barack can handpick events and still win much the same way that Giuliani and Romney think they can handpick what event to participate in. Dennis on the other hand is capable of going to all events he is invited to and speaking out about dirty Hunt Oil-Kurdistan deals, privatization of Iraqi Oil, reparations for Iraqi refugees, not-for-profit single-payer health care, a future war with Iran, what free trade agreements are doing to Americans, etc. The list is lengthy and surpasses Obama's stances on the issues in how specific it is and how bold and courageous it is, which is what a leader should be.

But I don't need to explain Kucinich to people. No, Americans only need to know Obama chose not to go while Kucinich was not allowed. That says it all.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/28284/democrats_2008_hillary_34_obama_20

He is not falling behind

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All frontrunners at one point in national polls and considered either the "default" candidate or overwhelmingly the most favored candidate to win...

Wait a couple months. The first votes are about four months away. A lot can happen. Support your candidate and I'll support mine.

But I do agree time is running out.

according to Jesse...:sarcasm:

I cannot believe the American people would continue to choose between two political families to run this country.

I'm also disappointed in Obama's campaign and why he hasn't taken on Hillary's campaign on the issues by saying "I'm not Hillary."

It's too bad no one takes Kucinich seriously. The idea of "vote for me because I'm running for my husband's third term" is discouraging to say the least.

And keep up the good fight. If we let up in any way, that allows the corporate powered Democrats to dig deeper into our lives. We need to push for true progressives like Kucinich every day even if we do it by just promoting issues of importance and talking about how to solve them. That alone will give us ammunition when questioning candidates running for the House, Senate, and the presidency. We can especially use our knowledge with state officials. States are leading the way these days in showing the national government how to run the country.

Sure there is some ebb and flow (around 5 pts or so) but the lead has been 15 to 20 pts all summer.

Obama still has time.

I might not say the same thing in 2 months if there is no change.

Then we got ourselves a race folks.

The "I bring people together and I'll run on the same platform Hillary would with a fresher face" act is not doing the job.

Sure, some of this is just lack of imagination and stodginess that makes it slow for many to see how situations change, but still...

My point is that the media portrays this as a two-way race, whereas the reality is that Obama's been trending down a bit lately as Edwards continues to move up. Look at Edwards' numbers: although he was in single digits for some (especially the font of veracity, POX) during August, he isn't now, whereas Obama's numbers are slumping. (The friendly folks at POX have Edwards jumping from 6% to 13% in just a few weeks, although they're polls with different sampling criteria.)

To continue to show this as a two-way race and basically dismiss Edwards is quite inaccurate. From the polling you're showing, Clinton beats Obama by 18.6 percent, but Obama only beats Edwards by 7.9%. Clinton has a margin over Obama by something like two and a half times the margin Obama has over Edwards; this hardly seems like a two-way race with a bunch of pesky curs nipping at their heels.

What's fun is to look at the accompanying polls on your link: lowly Johnny Edwards does the best of the three IN THE GENERAL ELECTION. Clinton does better than Edwards against Giuliani, but Edwards does better against the other three. Although Obama is the only one who doesn't win against all four (with a draw against Giuliani), he does better than either Edwards of Clinton against McCain and Romney. The ONLY candidate she does best against is Giuliani, and only by a point and half over Edwards.

Yes, by your statistics, Obama is still in second, but by a considerably thinner margin. Do you think these numbers you're posting support the contention that it's misleading (or deceptive or clueless or just plain wrong) to continually paint this as merely a two-way race? Granted, we're talking about the primary, but even there, these numbers seem to corroborate my griping rather well.

On the Democratic side, Senator Hillary Clinton continues to build on her large lead. Just under half (46%) of those who would vote in a Democratic primary or caucus would vote for the former First Lady while one-quarter (25%) would vote for Illinois Senator Barack Obama. Former vice president candidate and North Carolina Senator John Edwards is further back with 14 percent saying they would vote for him. No other candidate is in double digits.

These are some of the results of a Harris Poll of 2,372 U.S. adults surveyed online by Harris Interactive(R) between September 6 and 14, 2007. This survey included 769 adults who expect to vote in a Democratic primary or caucus and 504 adults who expect to vote in a Republican primary or caucus. Like all polls conducted well before an election, this should not be read as a prediction. Rather, it is a snap shot of the presidential "horse race", at an early stage in the race. http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/09/20/pres_poll.html

She was 34% in another poll I posted today. She peaked too soon.

He IS a senator, after all.