http://www.drudgereport.com/flashhn.htm TALK OF HILLARY EXIT ENGULFS CAMPAIGNS Mon Jan 07 2008 09:46:28 ET Facing a double-digit defeat in New Hampshire, a sudden collapse in national polls and an expected fund-raising drought, Senator Hillary Clinton is preparing for a tough decision: Does she get out of the race? And when?! "She can't take multiple double-digit losses in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada," laments one top campaign insider to the DRUDGE REPORT. "If she gets too badly embarrassed, it will really harm her. She doesn't want the Clinton brand to be damaged with back-to-back-to-back defeats." Meanwhile, Democrat hopeful John Edwards has confided to senior staff that he is staying in the race because Hillary "could soon be out." "Her money is going to dry up," Edwards confided, a top source said Monday morning. MORE Key players in Clinton's inner circle are said to be split. James Carville is urging her to fight it out through at least February and Super Tuesday, where she has a shot at thwarting Barack Obama in a big state. "She did not work this hard to get out after one state! All this talk is nonsense," said one top adviser. But others close to the former first lady now see no possible road to victory, sources claim. Developing... [The dramatic reversal of fortunes has left the media establishment stunned and racing to keep up with fast-moving changes. In its final poll before Iowa, CNN showed Clinton with a two-point lead over Obama. Editorial decisions were being made based on an understanding the Democratic primary race would be close, explained a network executive.]
The Clinton Brand. Geez. There were articles just before the Iowa caucus about how it might come down to 1,000 votes there. Didn't turn out that way. Democrats I run across are more concerned with "electability" instead of voting for the candidate they actually want to win. I never understood that, but what do I know - I voted for guys named Badnarik and Browne and Marou the past few elections because they were the guys I actually wanted to win. The good news for Democrats is that Obama is going to stomp Hillary in N.H. and potentially put the other candidates on the ropes for good. The sooner the Democrats choose their candidate, the better chance they have of winning the election, though I see them winning in any case. An adage of presidential elections is that the party that has the most divisive and lengthy nomination process loses elections
Hillary's lead in the national polls is plummeting: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content...l_tracking_poll Monday, January 07, 2008 Advertisment The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that Hillary Clinton’s national polling lead has collapsed. Before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton held a seventeen-point lead over Barack Obama. Today, that lead is down to four percentage points in a survey with a four-point margin of sampling error. In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s now Clinton 33%, Barack Obama 29% and John Edwards 20% (see recent daily numbers). Next update Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. Eastern. RasmussenMarkets.com data suggests that Obama may now be considered the frontrunner for the nomination. In New Hampshire, Monday’s tracking update shows Obama retaining his double digit lead over Clinton. Obama’s victory has triggered a political earthquake, but it would be foolish to assume that he will cruise to the nomination unchallenged by the formidable Clinton campaign team. In the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination, it’s Huckabee 20% McCain 19%, Rudy Giuliani 17%, Mitt Romney 15%, and Fred Thompson at 11%. Ron Paul attracts 3% support (see recent daily numbers). A Rasmussen Reports analysis suggests that if McCain wins in New Hampshire, the race will finally have a clear frontrunner. However, a McCain victory in the Granite State is far from assured. New polling data released Monday shows McCain’s lead over Romney in New Hampshire. own to a statistically insignificant one-point lead. Final polling data for New Hampshire will be released Tuesday morning. Daily tracking results are collected via nightly telephone surveys and reported on a four-day rolling average basis. The next update is scheduled for Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. Roughly three-fourths of the interviews for today’s national tracking update were conducted after the Iowa caucuses. Each update includes approximately 750 Likely Democratic Primary Voters and 600 Likely Republican Primary Voters. Margin of sampling error for each is +/- 4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Later today, Rasmussen Reports will release new polling data from Michigan and South Carolina. Rasmussen Markets data currently shows Obama with a 65.7% chance of winning the Democratic nomination while Clinton has a 33.6% chance. Among Republicans, the numbers are McCain 34.6%, Giuliani 31.9%, Mike Huckabee 13.8%, Mitt Romney 13.6%, and Fred Thompson %. Numbers in this paragraph are from a prediction market, not a poll. The markets accurately projected Obama and Huckabee as the winners. Prospects for New Hampshire, other candidates, and other races are featured on the Rasmussen Markets Summary page. RasmussenMarkets.com is a “futures market” that harnesses competitive passions to becomes a reliable leading indicator of upcoming events. Using a trading format where traders "buy and sell" candidates, issues, and news features. , the markets correctly projected both Obama and Huckabee as the winners in Iowa. We invite you to participate in the Rasmussen Markets. It costs nothing to join and add your voice to the collective wisdom of the market. Each Monday, full week results are released based upon a seven-day rolling average. While the daily tracking result are useful for measuring quick reaction to events in the news, the full week results provide an effective means for evaluating longer-term trends. Rasmussen Reports also provides a weekly analysis of both the Republican and Democratic race each Monday.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/20...on-gets-em.html Clinton Gets Emotional on Campaign Trail January 07, 2008 12:34 PM ABC News' Kate Snow Reports: Campaigning in New Hampshire one day before the first-in-the-nation primary, Senator Hillary Clinton got emotional and had tears in her eyes as she spoke with voters about how hard it is to balance a busy campaign life and her passion for the country's future. The Senator from New York was sitting at a big table in Cafe Espresso in Portsmouth, New Hampshire with 16 undecided voters, mostly women, warmly and calmly taking questions. Then she took an unexpected question from a woman standing in the back. "My question is very personal, how do you do it?" asked Marianne Pernold Young, a freelance photographer from Portsmouth, New Hampshire. She mentioned Clinton's hair and appearance always looking perfectly coifed. "How do you, how do you keep upbeat and so wonderful?" Clinton began responding, jokingly. First talking about her hair: "You know, I think, well luckily, on special days I do have help. If you see me every day and if you look on some of the websites and listen to some of the commentators they always find me on the day I didn't have help. It's not easy." But then, Clinton began getting emotional: "It's not easy, and I couldn't do it if I didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities from this country just don't want to see us fall backwards," she said. Her voice breaking and tears in her eyes, she said, "You know, this is very personal for me. It's not just political it's not just public. I see what's happening, and we have to reverse it." Watch the video HERE. "Some people think elections are a game, lot's of who's up or who's down, [but] it's about our country , it's about our kids' futures, and it's really about all of us together," she said. "You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds, and we do it, each one of us because we care about our country but some of us are right and some of us are wrong, some of us are ready and some of us are not, some of us know what we will do on day one and some of us haven't thought that through enough," she said in a veiled reference to her Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. "And so when we look at the array of problems we have and the potential for it really spinning out of control, this is one of the most important elections American has ever faced," Clinton said. After the event, Pernold Young told ABC News that she was glad Clinton showed emotion. "That was real," Pernold Young said. Another woman in the group, Alison Hamilton of Portsmouth, New Hampshire said she, like most of the people in the group, had been considering Obama. But after seeing Clinton become emotional, she said she was going to vote for Clinton. "That was the clincher," Hamilton said. During the event, Clinton also had an exchange with an Obama supporter asking whether she can bring change, and why the Democrats haven't been able to affect change in Congress, despite taking power after the 2006 midterm elections. "At the end of the day when the cameras are off what have you done?" asked the voter. Clinton responded, arguing a politician's record is important. "I know that to some people it sounds like there's a contradiction between change and experience... You can't have one without the other." Clinton said people aren't aware of the small things the Democrats in Congress have accomplished because the war in Iraq is ongoing. "You just keep going at it every single day," she said.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 7 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Democrats I run across are more concerned with "electability" instead of voting for the candidate they actually want to win. I never understood that, but what do I know - I voted for guys named Badnarik and Browne and Marou the past few elections because they were the guys I actually wanted to win.</div> I don't think they care who wins the election so long as it's not a Republican.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Jan 7 2008, 12:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Jan 7 2008, 11:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Democrats I run across are more concerned with "electability" instead of voting for the candidate they actually want to win. I never understood that, but what do I know - I voted for guys named Badnarik and Browne and Marou the past few elections because they were the guys I actually wanted to win.</div> I don't think they care who wins the election so long as it's not a Republican. </div> Why is that a good thing? I personally like divided government. Clinton + Republican Congress did quite well. Clinton + Democrat Congress sucked. Bush + Republican Congress sucked, too. Aside from that, you have to care who wins. At the very least, they're going to entertain us when they make speeches on TV, and at the very least the Democrats are going to have to buy into why their gal/guy decides to keep us in Iraq.
