New Hampshire Polls

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Sep 18, 2007 at 15:16


Rasmussen, 9/16, 500 LVs (8/9 numbers in parenthesis):

Clinton: 40 (37)
Obama: 17 (22)
Edwards: 14 (14)
Richardson: 9 (11)
Biden: 5 (?)

There have been four polls taken in New Hampshire since every campaign went on the air. The average of those four polls is as follows:

Clinton: 37.0%
Obama: 18.0%
Edwards: 14.0%
Richardson: 9.0%

No one else is above 5%, and it is strange how all four candidates end up on round numbers. The odds of that are pretty low, about 1-1024. Also, with a 19.0% lead, that means Clinton has reached the firewall point in New Hampshire, where even in the event that she finishes third in Iowa, she would still (narrowly) be projected to win in New Hampshire. That makes this poll a very big moment for the Clinton campaign, as it is actually the first time since February where she is clearly in the driver's seat for the nomination. For a very long time, she was still vulnerable to a second or third place finish in Iowa, while simultaneously trailing in the Iowa polling average.

In the Senate race, Jean Shaheen leads John Sununu in two new polls, but not by the double digit margins that previous polls had shown:

Rasmussen. 9/16. Likely voters. MoE 4.5% (No trend lines)

Sununu (R) 43
Shaheen (D) 48

American Research Group. 9/14-17. Likely voters. MoE 4.2% (June 2007)

Sununu (R) 41 (29)
Shaheen (D) 46 (57)

It should be noted that the incumbent rule does not, and has never, applied in campaigns where the challenger previously held equivalent elected office (Shaheen was once Governor of New Hampshire). This was even noted in the original paper  proposing the incumbent rule theory. So, this does in fact look like a reasonably close race, given that two polls confirm the closer campaign at the same time.

Chris Bowers :: New Hampshire Polls

Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
3 way race for 2nd place in NH (0.00 / 0)
The most recent polls show it is a battle for second place in NH.  The spread is getting narrower among Edwards, Richardson and Obama - only 6 points in one poll. 

What happens in Iowa will impact NH.  If HRC doesn't finish first in IA, her numbers in NH are going to drop considerably.

For those that think the Democratic race is over, look back at the national polls four years ago.  Edwards who finished a surprisingly second in Iowa in 2004 was barely above the margin of error and Lieberman was in the lead.  Edwards concentrated on Iowa.  Kerry literally bet his house on Iowa. Lieberman and Clark skipped Iowa. 

http://www.pollingre...

ABC News Poll. Sept. 10-13, 2003. Registered voters nationwide who are Democrats  or Democratic-leaning independents. 

.

"If the 2004 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?" Names rotated
  ALL  Likely Voters 

  Joseph Lieberman 21  19 
  Howard Dean  15  20 
  John Kerry  14  19 
  Richard Gephardt 14  15 
  Wesley Clark  6 6 
  Al Sharpton  5 5 
  Carol M. Braun  4 4 
  John Edwards  3 4 
  Bob Graham  3 4 
  Dennis Kucinich  2  3 
  None (vol.)  3 0 
  Wouldn't vote  2 0 
  No opinion  8 - 

One side note illustrating how fate can change on such at the time seemingly small decisions:  If Braun doesn't run for President but instead tried again for the US Senate, there probably would be no Obama for President campaign today.


I don't buy the firewall thing. (0.00 / 0)
I don't think there's any sich thing in presidential primary politics. Each race is different than the others. In 1976 and 1984, for example, Jimmy Carter and Gary Hart made up far more than 19% between IA and NH.
 

The analysis is more specific (0.00 / 0)
The NH firewall serves to assist politicians of neighboring states of NH that are running for President who falter in IA.  Thus, Dukakis and Tsongas took NH even though they didn't win  in IA. 

If IA wasn't so important this election why did HRC ultimately disagree with the compelling arguments set forth by her own deputy campaign manager to skip Iowa?
See http://www.nytimes.c...

One thing you can say about Kerry - he recognized the importance of Iowa.

HRC's national support helps with fundraising but doesn't do her any good necessarily in the January caucus/primary states.

HRC is like Xerxes at Thermopylae - she has tremendous assets (money, media coverage, famous, popular husband) - but her path to victory requires her to squeeze through very narrow passes - the states of IA, NH and NV.

HRC must campaign in states where her leading opponents can run as competitive race as she can.  And if she falters and is defeated in these early states, her 40% support in national polls will plummet.


[ Parent ]
More Blue Dogs and Centrists! (0.00 / 0)
WooHoo!  Go Hillary!

Firewall?? (0.00 / 0)
Never heard of a firewall in an election.  That is a new one to me.  I thought I read somewhere that the candidate that leads the dmocratic primary during the whole year usually doesn't win.  On the repug side whatever candidate is leading the whole year usually will win the repug nomination.  Maybe I dreamed this up or somethng, or wishful thinking.  I still say that it ain't over until it is over.

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox