Romney, Clinton dominate in New Hampshire poll

Can't you see it now, the general election debate between Romney and Clinton? Precision vs. obfuscation. Class vs. crass.
Can't wait.

This poll is telling since it focused on likely voters. I'm glad to see Mitt Romney as a brilliant businessman leading the pack.

Can't you see it now, the general election debate between Romney and Clinton? Precision vs. obfuscation. Class vs. crass.
Can't wait.

I’m assuming that Hillary is the precision and class here. I’d add intelligence and strength too. You could never apply those attributes to Romney.

I know 100% that Hillary is the best dem by far. Neither Edwards or Obama are a seriuos threat to her. I am not sold on Romney. I would love to see a matchup of Guliani and Clinton. THat would be a great matchup with 2 people that I could be happy with if either won.

What we're seeing, fellow citizens, is the collapse of the "conservative" movement. GWB's incompetence has ruined that "brand" forever.

It would have been unthinkable in 2000 for Romney or Rudy to come anywhere near the Republicant nomination, given their unambiguous records in favor of reproductive choice, gay rights, and basic sanity. The electorate has decidedly shifted left -- toward the middle -- because it's not possible to disassociate conservatism with Bush's incompetence. Of course, unprincipled hacks like McCain and Thompson only reinforced this problem by mindlessly parroting the Little Murderer's stances on everything, right or wrong.

Have fun back in obscurity, rightwing freakazoids. We won't be hearing from you for a while.

Hillary is the most qualified, most experienced and most intelligent person running for president on both sides of the aisle!!! So happy to see the voters know who the strongest leader is!!!!

PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON - 2008!!!

Hillary Clinton's commanding lead over Obama in New Hampshire demonstrates the power of political experience in the presidential race. The combined decades of relationships and intuitive knowledge that both Clintons have cannot be overcome by Barack Obama's two years experience in national politics, despite his fundrasing success.

The poll is not telling at all, it only polls " likely"
voters ( those who have voted before) Obama is mobilizing millions of "unlikely" voters. People who were formerly politically apathetic who
are tired of our current administration and the "usual suspects." Barack Obama is , for the first time in my life, a vote for somebody not just a vote against. Record donations from everyday individuals,record turnout at speeches and new endorsements from former Clinton people almost everyday are just a few of the REAL indicators that are contrary to these meaningless polls of "likely" voters.

Reading between the lines on this article:

"Meanwhile, Clinton showed a 21-point lead over Barack Obama, her closest rival in the Democratic primary. Obama garnered 22 percent while John Edwards took 14 percent."

Poll results basically say that 43% of decided voters currently plan to vote for Clinton, 21% for Obama, and 14% for Edwards. Error on these numbers? Perhaps 5%? And besides, what percentage of those polled were decided voters, anyways?

"The poll is one of the more valuable to surface lately, since it narrowly focused on voters who say they're likely to vote in the nation's first primary."

Basically, it has erred most favorably towards the quasi-incumbent, so it is the one most news-worthy.

"One finding of the poll indicates significant indecisiveness on the part of likely votes."

Basically, almost half of the traditional Republican-voters are debating who to vote for. According to the Zogby poll, half of them won't choose Clinton anyway. But, there is no estimate on the percentage of the "uncommitted" group - only that half of the uncommitted group are most likely disillusioned Republicans.

How I love statistics reporting...

Mitt will absolutely cream Hillary during the debates. In 20 years of public life, she has a great big zilch before her name in terms of any accomplishments...think about it...what has she ever done...she's never even run a corner store!!! Go Mitt

Mitt will absolutely cream Hillary during the debates. In 20 years of public life, she has a great big zilch before her name in terms of any accomplishments...think about it...what has she ever done...she's never even run a corner store!!! Go Mitt

Posted by: Bob Thomas | October 25, 2007 3:01 PM

Interesting. So now the standard for running the country is whether you've run a business. Of course, that's never been the standard before, but since you knuckledraggers can't find another point of differentiation you make this one up.

How many businesses did Nixon run?

Ike?

Reagan?

Ford?

George Herbert Walker Bush?

By my count, something pretty close to zero. I realize that as a Republicant there's a decent chance you're not real bright, Bob, but surely even you can do better than this red herring.

a blinkin - Your list is interesting - Only Nixon and Ford did not have any executive experience prior to taking the White House. Ike - ran the largest military force ever assembled. Regan ran the largest state in the union. Bush DID run a business. Romney has a) successfully started a multi-billion $ biz, b) rescued the 2002 Olympics, c)ran Mass. and saved it from fiscal ruin. And has Law and MBA degrees from Harvard so who's more qualified? Romney or Her Nibs? Give us a break, talk about bright...

MDO -- You've confirmed my point. Running a private business has not, to my knowledge, been considered a particularly important qualification for presidency. Running a government, in contrast, has often been considered important. You've confirmed the accuracy of my list, and thereby also confirmed that Bob Thomas was creating a red herring by referring to HC's failure to run a "corner store." Neither did Ike, Reagan, etc.

W of course did run businesses. He ran them into the ground, only to have them bailed out with Saudi (including Bin Laden) oil money.http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/25/feature3.shtml.

If you rightwing zealots had placed so much stock in business experience prior to the 2000 election, maybe the world would be a different place today, because you would not have supported someone who'd proved to be so incompetent at running businesses. It's hardly a shock that Bush was every bit as bad at running the country as he was at running oil businesses.

Mitler Rommel, hmmmm, wasn't he a high ranking German SS official?

Oops, sorry! Got the names crossed up.

Mitt Romney's conversion to the pro life cause was more gradual than conservatives him credit for. He supported parental notification laws back in 1994 and opposed partial birth abortion, the freedom of choice act and human cloning well before he started running for president. I think when republicans look at his actual record on life issues they will see that he was no Clinton on those issues and he will win the nomination.