Poll: Hillary Clinton’s Lead Shrinking In California
A new Rasmussen Poll shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead is shrinking in California — a state where her campaign reportedly had viewed Latino voters as a “firewall” in Tuesday’s “Super Tuesday” primary:
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in California shows Hillary Clinton with a very narrow three-percentage point lead over Barack Obama. The survey was conducted in the hours immediately following Florida’s Presidential Primary and before John Edwards dropped out of the race.
Two weeks ago, Clinton led Obama by five percentage points in California.
The survey found Edwards with 9% of the vote while 4% said they would vote for some other candidate and another 4% were not sure.
Obama had a narrow 43% to 41% advantage among the party’s liberal voters while Clinton held a 45% to 35% edge among moderate voters.
Obama held a three-point lead among white voters in the state while Clinton had a twenty-seven point lead among Hispanic voters.
As everyone has learned this year, polls do not necessarily reflect election results. But the TRENDING is important — and a new national Gallup Poll shows that Obama has cut Clinton’s lead to 6 points.
20 Responses to “Poll: Hillary Clinton’s Lead Shrinking In California”
There may in fact be a god, or gods. Romney may not mean it when he says it, but Washington really is broken, and the Clinton years, while better than the Bush years, were nothing to write home about. Continually re-annointing the same people is a recipe for a continuation of the same problems.
Maybe Obama would have the same problems as Clinton, but at least there is more potential for change and greatness. Clinton is a known quantity.
Please, oh, please, oh, please…even though Obama is exploiting ignorance of the unknown, if it means Clinton goes down, hallelujah.
[...] Hillary Clinton for President wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptA new Rasmussen Poll shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead is shrinking in California — a state where her campaign reportedly had viewed Latino voters as a “firewall” in Tuesday’s “Super Tuesday” primary: … Read the rest of this great post here Posted by [...]
It's Clinton vs. Obama one-on-one debate tonight — Hollywood spectacular!
“This debate is so hot, we're getting more requests for tickets than the Oscars are getting…”
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_dis…
You can see it in the late breaking polls, feel it out on the street, and in conversations with neighbors, relatives, and political insiders, and even the last minute endorsement of elected officials and the state’s newspapers. There’s some serious shaking going on in California and once firm predictions that Hillary Clinton will win the primary in this state have become a lot more tentative.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/01…
Does anyone know if California divides their reps proportionally or is it winner-take-all?
California is proportional. Actually – all Dem primaries are proportional now. This would argue that in won't be over soon, trend or no trend.
I'm guessing that Clinton gamesmanship will out over the Obama supporter's passion, but it will continue to be a WWF Battle Royale until the convention.
The more bitter, the more heated, the more personal and nasty the Clinton/Obama steel cage match becomes – the more likely they wind up tag-teaming on the same ticket to go after the Republicans. When Clinton wins, she’ll understand that the only way to bring the oh-so-bitter Obama constituency (poor babies) along is to put him on the ticket. Her ambition will trump their animosity. With that ticket, the Dems have the best chance to win and probably will.
It is the best thing for Obama too. After 8 years as VP, the experience thing goes away, and the Presidency is his by acclamation. We probably won’t even bother with an election. The country gets 16 years of Democrats in the White House. You can decide for yourself if that is a good thing. Personally, I don't mind, as long as the Dems don't hold both houses of Congress. No way to avoid that for the next two years, but the Republicans will have a reasonable chance to retake the Senate in 2010.
[...] Hillary Clinton for President wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptA new Rasmussen Poll shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead is shrinking in California — a state where her campaign reportedly had viewed Latino voters as a “firewall” in Tuesday’s “Super Tuesday” primary: … [...]
[...] Joe Gandelman wrote an interesting post today on Poll: Hillary Clintonâ??s Lead Shrinking In CaliforniaHere’s a quick excerptA new Rasmussen Poll shows New York Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead is shrinking in California — a state where her campaign reportedly had viewed Latino voters as a “firewall” in Tuesday’s “Super Tuesday” primary: … [...]
“California is proportional. Actually – all Dem primaries are proportional now. This would argue that in won't be over soon, trend or no trend.”
1. Apparently it's impossible for Clinton or Obama to secure the nomination after Super Tuesday. (It will still be the most important story this year to date.)
2. Proportionality is far better than winner-take-all.
* * *
“After 8 years as VP”
Clinton doesn't deserve to be President for eight years — decent, normal people wouldn't tolerate it, unless the GOP continues to self-destruct and act little better than lightweight Democrats themselves, or are simply dysfunctional.
I don't disagree. If a Clinton/Obama ticket lose a re-election bid in 2012, Obama will still be teed up for the 2016 Presidency. Maybe even in better shape since he would not be suffering from association with 8 more years of Clinton fatigue.
'decent, normal people wouldn't tolerate it'
But they tolerated W, and as bad as Hill would be, she'll be an improvement over W.
In California, voters who have no registered party affiliation can vote in the Dem. primary. That should work to Obama's advantage.
For myself, I switched my registration from Rep to Dem to vote for Obama. It's too bad Romney hasn't dropped out because more people might do the same if he had.
“But they tolerated W, and as bad as Hill would be, she'll be an improvement over W.”
Yeah, but chlamydia's better than AIDS.
Just to add fuel to the fire, rumors that Ohio is trending away from HRC and toward Obama (see also this Plain Dealer piece on black voters in Ohio and Obama) can be read here and the first Democratic straw poll happens tonight in NEOhio, Lakewood. Gov. Ted Strickland has endorsed HRC.
'Yeah, but chlamydia's better than AIDS.'
Then vote for big O- no one's ever complained about one of those.
“as bad as Hill would be, she'll be an improvement over W”
Only if she were as inept as W — she would then at least be able to speak better.
She's too capable of doing damage, as we learned in the 1990s.
Lakewood — that's my favorite place to visit in the Cleveland area. (It's most fun to go there along route 2 approaching from the east around sunset over the Lake.) Is Lakewood also the city that was in the news some time ago for being wrongly identified as “blighted” in order to transfer property to developers?
DLS: 'She's too capable of doing damage, as we learned in the 1990s.'
The 1990s showed just how impotent the Clintons were. They had 8 years of power and did NADA. At least Bill stained a dress. Hillary couldn't even handle whatever she used to please herself.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory….
“They had 8 years of power and did NADA.”
I for the most part agree. But the economy was great, which is why I still think he was a barely good Prez. Nowhere near great though.