Clinton cruising: Has the train left the station?

As a rule, national primary polls, taken more than three months before a single person casts an actual vote, are not reliable. Not only are polls from Iowa and New Hampshire far more relevant, but national data can change on a dime. In the 2004 Democratic race, Howard Dean was coasting to an easy victory, nationally, as late as December 2003. His nomination was practically a foregone conclusion, and yet we know how that turned out.

But Dean, at the height of his popularity, never came anywhere close to numbers like these.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her place as the front-runner in the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination, outpacing her main rivals in fundraising in the most recent quarter and widening her lead in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

For the first time, Clinton (N.Y.) is drawing support from a majority of Democrats — and has opened up a lead of 33 percentage points over Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). Her popularity, the poll suggests, is being driven by her strength on key issues and a growing perception among voters that she would best represent change.

The new numbers come on the heels of an aggressive push by Clinton to dominate the political landscape. She unveiled her health-care proposal and then appeared on all five Sunday news shows on the same day — all while her husband, former president Bill Clinton, went on tour to promote a new book. Within the past month, at least one Clinton has appeared on television virtually every day, increasing the campaign’s exposure among millions of Americans.

As of now, Clinton leads nationally with 53% support, followed by Obama at 20% and Edwards at 13%. The notion that one non-incumbent candidate can break the 50% threshold in an eight-person primary is stunning. (Clinton, in other words, now enjoys more support than the other seven Democratic candidates combined.)

What’s more, Clinton is ahead with every possible demographic. According to the WaPo poll, Dems perceive her as the strongest leader (61%), the most electable in the general election (57%), the most inspiring (41%), and the best able to reduce partisanship in Washington (41%). She leads among those seeking experience, and among those seeking change. Men, women, black, white … Clinton is simply cruising. Her leads over the Democratic field were big, and they keep getting bigger.

So, is the race over? Has the train left the station? Well, maybe.

It seems unlikely, given the circumstances and Clinton’s strengths as a candidate, but there is such a thing as peaking too early.

On Monday, the Obama campaign released a subtle statement about Q3 numbers.

“Many in Washington have spent the last weeks declaring that outcome of this race to be pre-ordained, and the primary process a mere formality,” said Obama for America Campaign Manager David Plouffe. “Yet, in this quarter alone, 93,000 more Americans joined our campaign, because they desire real change and believe Barack Obama is the one candidate who can deliver it. This grassroots movement for change will not be deterred by Washington conventional wisdom because in many ways it is built to challenge it.”

Now, the Clinton campaign ended up stepping on this message a bit when it pulled in 100,000 more donors (topping Obama’s 93,000), but I think the broader message is one we’ll be hearing quite a bit: Clinton is the candidate of “Washington conventional wisdom” — and nobody likes Washington conventional wisdom.

As Michael Crowley put it:

Notice how the campaign now acknowledges the insider conventional wisdom that Hillary is the frontrunner — and is looking to take advantage of it. I think that’s smart. It’s possible that, in some weird way, Hillary’s campaign has been too successful to date. Everyone likes a winner, it’s true. But voters in Iowa (and New Hampshire) also don’t like being told what to do. I suspect that, the more Hillary pulls ahead in national polls, the more inclined some Iowa voters may be to say, “Hey wait a minute!” And the idea of an elite-media coronation really does fit in nicely with Obama’s larger message.

That’s certainly possible. But it’s equally plausible that the party establishment, donors, and the media will simply start assuming that Clinton is the nominee, generating a snowball effect that leaves the rest of the field behind.

Stay tuned.

I am hoping that the extra pressure Clinton is bringing to bear on Obama will force him to break out of his all too cautious approach and deliver the sort of message people expected when he first announced his candidacy.

  • In the lateset N.H. poll, 50% of the people haven’t decide who their going to vote for. These national polls don’t mean crap.

  • The only question that is important for the 2008 election is whether the Democratic Party gets 60 seats in the Senate or whether they have to wait until 2010. Election Day in 2008 is going to be as anti-climatic and as unimportant as election day in 2006. Senator Clinton is probably going to already have her transition team in place and every left of center wonk wannabe will have their resume ready.

  • I agree with MLE. Obama will realize his mistake next spring, a few days after his concession speech, of being too cautious, too generalized. He’ll look down at his belly and see an unlit fire.

  • Add me to the list of independents and this is someone who has regularly voted Democratic ever since I was legally able to vote.

    Nominating Clinton is just another way the Democrats can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

  • I give up. We have been presented with a once in a lifetime oportunity to put up a real solid progressive and show what we really can do to move this country forward, but instead the hawkish enabler will probably get the nod.

    I will never cease to be amazed by unfathomable stupidity of the American electorate.

    With “numbers like these,” I’m officially an independent. -JKap

    Room for one more?

    Great! It looks like we have a winner. -Haik Bedrosian

    Looks more like we have another warmongering screw-up with zero leadership ability. Enjoy her four years as the Republicans laugh their asses off and reclaim the Presidency and majority in both houses in 2010 and 2012.

  • Assuming things don’t change greatly between now and Iowa, I’d say it’s hers to lose, because she’s so far ahead in so many ways but also because she’s not likely to make the same mistakes that Howard Dean made. The biggest knock against him is that he didn’t have the operation on the ground, compared to, say, John Kerry, so when it was time to vote, his turnout wasn’t as good as that of his competitors. I believe people are saying the opposite about Clinton. So yes, if she’s ahead ion the polls., has a lot of money, and is running a disciplined, traditional campaign that will bring people out in the early primary states to give her momentum, I’d say she’s the likely nominee.

    But can things change between now and January? Well, sure.

  • I really don’t want the nominee to be Clinton.

    But, given the GOP field, and given the complete lack of ability for a third party national candidate to do anything in US politics, I would vote for her if she turned out to be the Democratic nominee. She would certainly be a better President than [Romney|McCain|Giulianni|Brownback|Huckabee|Paul|Thompson].

  • I wonder which Republican she will name as her VP. All of the spooks, spies and motherf*ckers in the Bush administration can rest easy: Hillary will either keep them or else she’ll seal Bush administration documents in the name of national healing.

    Meet the new boss: same as the old boss.

  • …the party establishment, donors, and the media will simply start assuming that Clinton is the nominee, generating a snowball effect that leaves the rest of the field behind. -CB

    You forgot to include the American people. She leaves them behind as well, especially those not keen on World War III.

    Clinton is the candidate of “Washington conventional wisdom” -CB

    I think clearly the message should be Clinton is the candidate of ‘Washington convention.’ No need to include wisdom in there.

    I suspect that, the more Hillary pulls ahead in national polls, the more inclined some Iowa voters may be to say, “Hey wait a minute!” -Michael Crowley

    I would hope that recklessly labeling foreign armies as terrorists and enabling the Bush Administration to start unnecessary wars would give voters their eureka moment. It’s too bad epiphany springs forth from poll popularity.

    Assuming things don’t change greatly between now and Iowa, I’d say it’s hers to lose… -Brian

    Yeah, all she’d have to do is cast a dangerously stupid vote here, a little disingenuous CYA there, and the people will realize…oh, wait, no they won’t. She’s Bill’s wife and that counts for experience for some reason, osmosis, proximity, I don’t know. Hell, by that logic Monica Lewinsky should be Hillary’s Secretary of State. She poles well, too, I hear. Clinton has done everything in her power to lose this election…the people just aren’t paying attention.

    Meet the new boss: same as the old boss. -Dennis – SGMM

    Truth.

  • Whoever the big money says they want is not the person we need.

    Jesus what I would give to have Gore step into the ring right now, and just pair up with Obama.

    Anything.

  • “Jesus what I would give to have Gore step into the ring right now, and just pair up with Obama.”

    you got that right! that would be an unbeatable combination

  • According to the WaPo poll, Dems perceive her as … the most electable in the general election (57%)….

    Yikes. I knew Democratic voters were delusional this year, but I didn’t know they were this delusional.

  • JKAP et al:

    I don’t like Hillary either. But remember 2000 when the righteous left voted Green and we got Bush. Don’t make the same mistake twice. I will vote for and campaign for the Democratic nominee. Hillary may not get us out of Iraq as quickly as I might want (yesterday) but she sure as hell will work for the environment and health care. And there will be diplomatic work done in the Middle East. That would be the perfect job for Bill, regardless of who is elected.

    That said, send money to the candidates you prefer. Make it a good fight.

  • And, perhaps time for progressives to redouble our efforts if anyone else is to have a shot.

    [ding] another contribution to Obama
    [ding] another contribution to Edwards

  • So you like Gore? (so do I….but then……I remember who Gore chose as vp the first time… and I am confused.)

  • If we want to talk electability, we should be talking about numbers like these:

    http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/09/democratic-cand.html

    In hypothetical match ups between the top three candidates from each party, John Edwards beats the Republican candidate by a higher percentage than either Clinton or Obama in all but one match up. The Democratic candidate wins in all but one match up; Guiliani and Obama tie. If it seems like Edwards would ultimately be the stronger candidate, why is Clinton being treated as more electable?

  • Good grief, the primary is just getting started. One thing we do know is that the turnout in primaries, even exciting ones, are 15-20%. That is not going to change for next year. I don’t actually see a problem with it–the less interested voters are leaving it up to the highly motivated and interested folks to make the decision.

    The only polls that matter are state polls and even those have to be correctly screened down to folks who are more likely to actually vote in the primary or to attend a caucus. The relentless stream of polls with the Clinton name recognition showcased are merely to discourage supporters of her opponents.

    If it’s working to discourage you, just recognizing that this is the desired result will usually be enough to snap the motivated supporter back to reality.

  • The more she pulls ahead, the more the “news” networks will talk about her “cackle” and debate whether or not it is a genuine laugh. By the time she wins New Hampshire CNN could very well be the Cackle News Network, “All-Cackle-All-The-Time”.

  • And no I don’t like the idea of a center-right candidate being the Democratic nominee either, but the pointless inanity of our news drives me insane.

  • If Clinton is the conventional choice it should hardly be surprising that she has the lead among those afraid to step away from conventional thinking. In most times, that is a majority of people. In the case of the primary process, anyone who had made up their mind 3 months ago is likely one of those people too.

    Inevitability, conventional wisdom and electability, gave us Kerry. The Iraq invasion etc. have been foisted on us by this thinking. If we want change why would we vote for the people who seem incapable of it? Why vote for more beltway insular thinking?

    It all just seems unreal.

  • I am rather bemused by the vitriolic Clinton hating. You’d think we were over with the Freepers or something.

    Obama talks a good game, and so does Edwards, but do the Hillary haters here really think there is a meaningful difference between the three viable Dems? As a little thought exercise, imagine each of the three serving as President for one full term. Consider the policy proposals likely to be initiated by the WH and that they truly put their political capital behind. I honestly doubt you could fit a sheet of notebook paper between their positions. Edwards voted for the AUMF, Obama refused to pledge to get all troops out of Iraq by 2013. Obama’s key advisers are David Axelrod and Tom Daschle, hardly rebellious outsiders.

    To suggest that any of the top three Dems are not miles apart from the top Repubs in policy and likely appointments is just intellectually dishonest. The gap between HRC and Obama is orders of magnitude smaller than the gap between HRC and Giuliani.

  • I can’t understand why Chris Dodd hasn’t even blipped on the radar screen. The more I hear him speak, the more impressed I am.

    We have to get past the Hillary hatred, if she’s the nominee, or else the predictions of her ignominious defeat will be fulfilled. She’s not my candidate either – Al Gore is – but she’s infinitely better than any of the Republican candidates. Every one of them is a right wing extremist. Even the one with a brain – Ron Paul – is disastrously conservative and reactionary.

    Still, I don’t think it’s over, yet. Bush had a 90% approval rating at one time, remember.

  • I can’t understand why Chris Dodd hasn’t even blipped on the radar screen. The more I hear him speak, the more impressed I am.

    Hark,

    Me too. All I can think is that the zeitgeist decrees this is not the year of the White Male Candidate.

    Endless mockery from Jon Stewart hasn’t helped him, either.

  • I like Dodd – he has the issues, the intellect and the experience. What I think is hurting him, as it does so often with long-time Senators, is that he is not a particularly dynamic speaker. He has trouble getting into 30-second soundbites, which are the unfortunate reality of modern politics. Had he caught any spark, he has the cash (helps to chair the Banking Committee – although that connection makes pretty clear Dodd is no rebellious outsider).

    One other point while I’m posting, on the HRC electability issue. That is one of those issues that tends to be “self-defining.” If enough people believe she can’t get elected, she can’t. But here, where she is polling at huge numbers, and in most polls now winning head-to-head polling against the top Republicans, it seems the masses who move the numbers (ballot numbers included) are saying the conventional wisdom is wrong. If enough people say she is electable, then she is.

  • Why is everyone up in arms about this poll? Did anybody even bother to read the actual article that cites the poll? Its over registered Dems and Dem-leaning independents–not likely voters, not primary voters, not “likely” primary voters…

    About 1 in 10 people sampled will actually vote in the primaries, and the difference between that 1 and the other 9 is relevant.

    Calm down.

    It’s a little disappointing that as of yet, nobody is the lefty blogosphere has pointed this out.

  • Don’t make the same mistake twice. -Jennifer Flowers

    PARTY BEFORE COUNTRY! IT’S MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CONSTITUTION! SHOUT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!

    No thanks. If the choice is between an idiot warmonger and a calculated warmonger, no thanks.

    You can have blood on your hands, my consciece will be clean.

    I am rather bemused by the vitriolic Clinton hating. You’d think we were over with the Freepers or something. -Z

    You can laugh about it all you want and slide in an insulting comparison, but I believe I’ve made my arguments against Clinton substantive. I don’t care about color, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, neckline, or haircut. I care about records and what I can extrapolate they would do based on those records.

    I think Hillary would start a war, if she hasn’t already by enabling Bush, with Iran which would cascade into a total world war with the USA as the bad guy.

    So that’s a deal breaker for me. Period. Nothing will ever win her my vote after Kyl-Lieberman and I will do everything in my power to make sure she’s not on the ballot in November, but if she is, I won’t vote for her.

    Obama talks a good game, and so does Edwards, but do the Hillary haters here really think there is a meaningful difference between the three viable Dems? -Z

    Yeah, I do. I think Clinton will start or continue World War III. I think she’s as anxious to attack Iran as Bush and Cheney are, but she’s trying to be more subtle.

    I think she’s voted poorly in the past in support of the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and most recently Kyl-Lieberman.

    I think those are clear differences with Obama, and Edwards has apologized for his vote to send us into Iraq. All Hillary has done is call it ‘unfortunate’ as if she tripped and accidentally believed the Bush Administration?

    Did you buy Bush’s bullshit pre-war? I didn’t. I believed the UN. If you didn’t buy it, why would you want to elect someone who wasn’t smart enough six years ago to tell shit from shinola?

    Saying there’s no difference between the candidates is akin to the Green party saying there was no difference between the parties. There are differences and people are glossing them over in self-destructive solidarity.

    Obama refused to pledge to get all troops out of Iraq by 2013. -Z

    I find it hard to fault him for trying to find the right way to clean up Clinton’s and Edward’s mess.

    We have to get past the Hillary hatred, if she’s the nominee, or else the predictions of her ignominious defeat will be fulfilled. -hark

    I will never be able to get past electing someone who would continue and expand our disastrous war policies. I might have before Kyl-Lieberman, but that was too much. It was reckless and stupid. That isn’t the kind of leader we need now. Not ever.

    Feel free to label me a crazy lefty or vitriolic troll or whatever you want. All I know is that when I leave the polls in February and again in November my conscience will be clean. I will vote for people who will support the Constitution, our rights, and peace.

  • Gravel, Kucinich…
    Get on the job. Take that DLC sock puppet down.

    Wow….
    Can you imagine a world where Hilary is dumb enough to continue in Iraq?

    The GOP starts calling it Hilary’s war, Dems don’t like it either…
    28% will look like a standing ovation!

    Thankfully, one of the ways I don’t trust Hilary is in her hawkish stance.
    She’ll pull out.

    Perhaps we’ll be back to the first Clinton approach of cruise missile strikes every so often against names we quickly forget. Before 9 1 1, did anyone outside spook circles have the name “Osama Bin Laden” committed to memory?

  • Doubtful:

    PARTY BEFORE COUNTRY! IT’S MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CONSTITUTION!

    This may be our most fundamental disagreement. In this election, I see party and Constitution as best served the same way: voting for the Democratic candidate.

    I will indeed give you credit that your issues with HRC have been substantive. I’m not at all happy with her Kyl-Lieberman vote either (and for the record, I remain undecided – the caucuses are still too far away given the number of Democratic candidates I like). But it seems that your substantive problems with Hillary are both overinclusive and underinclusive with respect to other Democrats.

    Yes, she voted wrong on AUMF. Yes, most people outside of the Beltway could see through the BS. But she is hardly alone among those inside the Beltway in her inability to see that the intelligence was being manipulated. Is Tom Harkin – one of the most reliably progressive Senators – not a Democrat in your eyes because he, too, voted wrong on AUMF? There would be precious few “Democrats” left if the AUMF becomes a litmus test.

    On the other hand, there is no indication that she would truly follow a warmongering strategy on her own watch. This is an overhyped concern. The answers she has given on the campaign trail are not that different from Obama. (Or vice versa).

    But completing the circle back to whether party loyalty somehow shows disloyalty to the Consitution, the single biggest reason to vote for any Democrat this cycle is the Courts. The Republicans have nearly packed the entire federal judiciary. Those young, hardcore Federalist Society nuts are tearing the Constitution to shreds. If you honestly think HRCs bench appointments would be no different from Scalito and Co., we may be in too disconnected of universes to have any common realities on which to base a discussion.

    Making sure every voter turns out and votes in the way best calculated to stop another Republican term — even if that means voting for HRC in the general – is the single best things any American can do to defend the Consitution.

  • But it seems that your substantive problems with Hillary are both overinclusive and underinclusive with respect to other Democrats. -Z

    I don’t think I’m being any harder on Clinton that other candidates, and up until Kyl-Lieberman I would’ve held my nose on my differences with her and supported her all the way if she were the candidate. That particular vote set me off a touch.

    I only bring up her AUMF vote to establish a pattern of poor voting along with the Patriot Act.

    I’m furious that Obama and McCain didn’t even feel like showing up and voting on Kyl-Lieberman, although I suspect their votes would’ve canceled each other out; we’ll not know because they didn’t have enough courage to put it on the record.

    I’m upset with Edwards about his AUMF vote, but I feel his explanation and apology were better than Clinton’s. He still doesn’t get a pass from me, though.

    For what it’s worth, I do think we should purge everyone from all parties who was gullible enough to believe the Bush Administration about Iraq. Realistic? No, I guess, but why should we give up on holding all politicians accountable, regardless of party, for their actions?

    Sure, someone may have a spotless progressive record otherwise, but the AUMF resulted in more American deaths than 9/11 and the deaths of countless thousands of Iraqis, and why? Because Bush wanted it; he was high on war. Unforgivable.

    The more we forgive the unforgivable, the more commonplace it will become.

    On the other hand, there is no indication that she would truly follow a warmongering strategy on her own watch. This is an overhyped concern. -Z

    I think her vote on Kyl-Lieberman clearly shows her policy will not match her rhetoric. Has she explained that yet, other than her ass covering backpedaling mandate that Bush would just ignore anyway?

    If, I mean when, Bush attacks Iran after February when the other candidates have dropped out and Hillary is ‘our’ candidate, how will she defend herself? Romney, Giuliani, Bush, it won’t matter who, will be able to say that Hillary is playing political games by lambasting Bush for attacking people she herself has labeled terrorists? How will that play in the general population?

    I swear that vote will be the straw that breaks the Democratic party’s back if she is the nominee.

    I’ll not argue that her judicial appointments would differ from that of any of the Republicans. That is a point I’ll concede to those who would vote for her despite not preferring her. It’s actually the reason I repeated to myself until Kyl-Lieberman.

    I fear too much that she would continue to expand our war policies, though, and for me, that outweighs judicial appointments. There has been too much needless death.

  • No change is possible until public financing of presidential, congressional, and senate campaigns is passed.

    Until then, you will get a choice between one corporate shill…. and another corporate shill!

    In this case, Clinton would be miles, worlds, universes ahead, in terms of competence, dignity, intelligence, ethics, respect for the Constitution, respect for the rule of law, respect for the role of government in public life, concern for the plight of the average American, diplomatic ability, you name it– compared to any of the midgets the Repugs are putting forward.

    So I will vote for and campaign for Clinton if she is the nominee. She is very far from my first choice. But I don’t see a President Kucinich in our future, Dean’s too busy putting the DNC back together, and Gore is doing a great job as an environmental activist.

    Also, remember that for 6 years we’ve had Rove calling the shots as political svengali behind the scenes, but for the next 4 and probably 8 years we’ll have Bill Clinton. Again, not my first choice, but jeez, what an improvement over what we’ve just gone through!

  • Doubtful:

    For what it’s worth, I do think we should purge everyone from all parties who was gullible enough to believe the Bush Administration about Iraq. Realistic? No, I guess, but why should we give up on holding all politicians accountable, regardless of party, for their actions?

    One good reason – let me go back to the example I gave of Tom Harkin. If he were to be targeted for a primary and beaten (or is he resigned rather than bother), the next Senator from Iowa, even if a Democrat, will be less to the left on a whole host of issues (knowing who all is in line, I am pretty confident on that statement). I suspect that is true in other states as well. We really have to be careful what we wish for when we say we want people like that to go.

    The reality is that the progressive left has the most influence on those elected officials from. . . the progressive left. So we are most able to make life hard for them. Senator Kyl doesn’t really care if we hate him. He’ll have a contested election no matter what. But if we make life hard for progressive Democrats, that is hardly a long-term way to make friends and influence policy. It does create a bit of a paradox: does people get a pass on accountability because they are more often than not our friends, or do we hold those closest to us accountable and risk ending up with no “friends” in power at all?

  • Comments are closed.