TODAY'S TALKER: Clinton and Romney Surge in Polls

It is still a long way off until the election but I think that Hillary Clinton can pull it off.

Why don't you mention how much Clinton is spending? Are you trying to infer Romney is buying the election while Clinton is just "popular"?

I don't think the polls mean much now, we will just have to wait and see what actually happens.

Hi Rex,
Not inferring that at all. Just had the money stats on Iowa and New Hampshire for Romney. I am sure plenty of cash is being spent all around in both parties.

I understand the need for preliminary polling, especially with regard to the candidates themselves. However, I feel as if continued polling becomes some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, a pied piper, so to speak, for too many Americans who like the look of a winner.

I am also surprised by the number of people who answer the question as to who they would vote for already, without knowing any of the candidates platform. How refreshing it would be if the answers to the poll question weren't "Mitt" or "Hillary" but, "I'm not sure yet. It's still a year and a half until the election and I have a lot of research to do first."

As someone who makes their living gauging public opinion and conducting polling/
marketing research, I can tell you from experience that national polls measure virtually nothing but name awareness and (relatedly) the extent to which national/state/local media has made mention of the candidates.

By comparison, even though we still have six months before the first contests within both parties, the state polls are infinitely more telling at this point. Thus, at least as of now, Romney is in good shape right now, having big leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In fact an increasing number of political pundits are considering him the person to beat within the GOP primary -- even if and when Thompson gets in (Thompson has simply waited too long -- about 2-3 weeks ago would have been ideal.)

Similarly on the Democratic side, Edwards is leading in Iowa by a big margin at this point, but I simply don't know what is going on among Democrats in New Hampshire. given the polarizing nature of Ms. Clinton, and the inexperience of Obama, don't yet count out Edwards. And, if Gore gets in, I predict (and have for some time) he'll be the Democratic nominee.

Greg,

I'm hearing strains of "Beautiful Dreamer" in the background of your selection! I understand your love for Romney but Gore? I question that Gore could get the nomination if he gets in at this time. Hillary has the "machine" maxed out and Gore would otherwise be the machine nominee!

Greg,
That's good inside scoop about polls. Question... if you think Thompson has waited to long... what about Gore? Is he waiting too long?

Greg,

I do agree with you about the state polls being more significant. And I know that if say, Edwards takes a few states early on that can change the entire picture. Or if Obama could it would do the same. I think that Edwards would be more likely and is certainly working at it. But Gore?

Sheri, Catherine, Whitney, & especially Geoffrey

I realize you live in places like TX & Chicago & it might appear as if the election is a long way off, but actually the nominees will be all but decided in about 6 months. The move by so many big states to Feb 4 has made Iowa and NH that much more important, and that much more cutthroat. By the time NH is over, only 2 will remain in each party, if that.

You can leave the primaries and the decisions that go with them up to others, or you can get involved now.

And as for what greg said, I expect VP Gore will wait until October, tuck a Nobel prize under his bely and then answer the call. Why spend money time and effort now in the midst of a big scrape when he doesn't need to. His name recognition is better even than Sen. Clinton's.

You know what....If there was any such animal as truth in politics, this whole topic would be a no-brainer, the sad thing is--is there is NO truth in politics with the exception of, "They all LIE"....So back to the drawing board, which one lies the least, and just hope you picked the right one!

Right now I'm not nearly as concerned with who gets the Democratic nomination as I am making sure that nominee can defeat the Republican pick. I'd love to see Romney win, because he would make it an easy win for the Democrats. But I sincerely doubt that will happen. I believe these early polls do not give a clear view of just what is happening. They represent a snapshot of what a cross section of likely voters think. The problem is that these are not your typical primary voters or caucus attendee's. I've attended the last two Democratic caucus's in my district and there is not a poll ever taken that could possibly give you a clue as to what might happen in one of these riots.

I'd love to see Romney win, because he would make it an easy win for the Democrats.

Why do you say that Devin?

I feel the same way about Hillary. If she wins the GOP has it int he bag in 2008. Especially if it's Romney. He'd pummel her.

Don't misunderestimate Romney and don't make the mistake of believeing that normal Americans share your delusional leftist view of the world.

Many of you were asking me about why I say Gore, but not Thompson. In my opinion, I think Gore is uniquely able among Democrats to give a very compelling message, along the following lines:

"If I had been sworn in 2000 like I should have (his lawyers argued that at the time, citing chads and all), we would not be in the mess we are today -- Iraq, sluggish economy/people working multiple jobs, health care costs, gas prices, et al."

And, he certainly is much better on the stump now than he was in 2000 (how could he not be!), and also he has become synonymous with perhaps the most appealing nonwar issue among Democratic party caucus/primary participants: the economy.

Your comments? I look forward to reading them, and will check back often. (Or, if you'd rather, e-mail me.)

Oops -- I meant the environment, obviously. I mistakenly typed the economy -- sorry!!!

I've been a democrat for over 15 years, but for the 1st time in my life - my main objective is not - "just let the democrat win". It's a scary feeling, but I can't identify with any of them. Although I thought the Clinton years were good (scandals aside) - I'm not in favor of Hilary. I think Obama lacks experience. John Edwards seems to have lost traction in lots of areas. But, here's the kicker - It seems I'm pro life, anti amnesty, and tired of the way the war has been handled. I'm not sure there is a party for me.

Actually, Vicki, you sound like Mitt Romney. He's the only "top tier" candidate from either party who agrees with you on all three.

Thanks, Greg. My only problem with Mitt is - how steady is he? One minute he believes this and the next minute he believes something else. I think he would have a target on his forehead if he won the nomination.

Public polls serve their purpose in keeping the candidate's name out in the public - the more positive, the better. They also ensure more donations. People only want to back a perceived winner. They aren't going to throw their money at a candidate that looks like he's going to lose.

TJ,

Your comments are interesting! You'd prefer the most liberal of the Democratic candidates over the most conservative?

Juanita who? I think you've got the wrong Clinton in this race! Whatever Bill may have done, he is not running for president, Hillary is and she didn't! Bill lied to her as well!

\\\\I honestly believe that Americans need to rethink Hillary primarily because of her record and reputation.////

I'm curious about this "reputation" and "record." What has Hillary done that would demean her reputation in any way? And, since she has never held an office what negative record could she have?

Please don't give me any of the neo-con BS about Whitewater as the Republicans spent (wasted) 80 million dollars on that, tried to force people to lie to get a case, and were still unable to build any kind of case whatsoever! So that dog don't hunt!

Her only record is she finished law school and passed her bar exam. She's been married to Bill for all these years. She's pursued a career of her own while he has been Governor. That is an incriminating case against her I guess!

I presume you are privy to the innermost workings of the Hillary campaign so you know for fact that she has been "constantly worrying about losing the female vote?"

I would agree with you that Romney might well be the best president of any of the Republican candidates. The flip flops were not "perceived" though, he just flat flopped!

I would note that his faith should not be an issue but it will. And I believe he could go a long way toward defusing the problem by doing as Kennedy did and stating that he would govern according to the constitution and the laws of this land and that his church would not have a say in it. He will need to do that if he gets the nomination. Here in Idaho we're used to elected officials being Mormon and have had zero problem so Romney could easily carry Idaho. But you've got to realize that many conservative Christians thing Mormons worship a "different God" or something. And this is something with which the first Mormon president must deal!

As Greg said, Al Gore is a better speaker now than he was in 2000. I saw him recently on the Tonight Show, and he didn't mention his lock box once!

Al Gore can wait a few months, perhaps win a Nobel Peace Prize, and then announce his candidacy. He doesn't need to spend millions of dollars campaigning now.

But if Gore announces his candidacy, he will be running against Hillary. Bill Clinton is campaigning for Hillary, so that might cause a rift in the Democratic Party. Democrats might think that they have an upper hand now; but if they fight against each other, they could splinter the party and lose the 2008 election.
"I'm not a member of an organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers

Greg said that Fred Thompson has waited too long to announce his candidacy; but he is a star of TV and movies, so the country already knows him. He can afford to wait before announcing his candidacy. One poll is already listing him in second place!

Why does Devin think that Romney would be an easy candidate for the Democrats to beat? Massachusetts is the most solidly Democratic state in the country, and they elected Republican Mitt Romney as their Governor.

I think Devin made the statement because Romney has changed his mind on the issues a few time. Otherwise, I would think Romney would be hard to beat.

I think a lot of people are still making up their mind.

I also think that with a number of larger states moving up their primary dates we should get beyond the New Hampshire and Iowa syndrome. While a win in either of those states might give a boost to a second tier candidate those states have lost much of their clout when it comes to first tier candidates.

When it comes to first tier candidates which usually comes down to two candidates both New Hampshire and Iowa often had a fifty-fifty chance of selecting the eventual winner, and I always thought too much significance was placed of their choice of candidates.

I'm back........with regards to Romney "flip-flopping", I personally vastly prefer somebody who intellectually challenges his/her own position then changes if appropriate (in Romney's case becoming pro-life because of his increased knowledge regarding the primary source of "material" used in stem cell research. By comparison, the person who has lifelong view on issues often (not always, but certainly often) is intellectually and analytically flabby, and has trouble arguing his/her point in a succinct, winning discussion.

(Too many typos -- maybe I'd better go to bed!!)

Greg,

I agree that a person who has the capacity to grow and change is preferable to one who is locked into an ideology, but you know as well as I that the Republicans have made mincemeat out of Democrats for "flip flopping" and it will come back to haunt Romney for that reason! The shrub is a classic example of someone who is incapable of change and one who can change would be a breath of fresh air to me!

The polls are really just a distraction from the research that most of us have to do before we truly make a decision.
I think that the reality is that most Americans want to see someone in office who is more middle of the road than most of the current candidates. Hillary's is much more liberal than she would like for the average Joe to believe. She has one of the more liberal voting records in the Senate and the same goes for Obama as well. It should be interesting to see what happens as none of the candidates are real "winners."

I think that there is a relatively lower number of the Christian Right in New Hampshire -- they tend to be of the libertarian wing of the Republican party over there so I would expect that Romney would do well there in the primary and possibly in the general election -- on the other hand if he keeps up the "double Gitmo" comments he probably can kiss both New Hampshire and the general election good bye. A surge for Hillary in New Hampshire is a little more difficult to understand other than she is perceived as a Centrist, New Democrat candidate as opposed to being a left winger -- so I suppose it probably does make sense. If anybody can figure out how to poll or understand polls coming out of Iowa with regards to the Iowa Caucuses, my hat is off to them -- as I recall some candidates in the past have simply forfeited Iowa because trying manage a campaign there seemed like herding cats.