Hillary Beating Edwards In North Carolina

Real Clear Politics:

A new Public Policy Polling survey for North Carolina has Fred Thompson well out in front and Hillary Clinton just edging out native son John Edwards.

Republicans:
Thompson: 34
Giuliani: 16
Romney: 13
McCain: 7
Undecided: 22

Thompson's southern strength looks genuine, although he should be concerned about Giuliani's 16% appeal and the large number of undecideds.

Democrats:
Clinton: 30
Edwards: 28
Obama: 21
Undecided: 10

Read the whole story: Real Clear Politics

Comments

[jae1227]

12:55 AM on 09/07/2007

I don't care who is winning in North Carolina! The only polls that matter are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and Florida (and now Michigan moved its primary up). The fact is that North Carolina does not have its primary until May 6, 2008. I don't see this as any real significants.

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

09:30 PM on 09/06/2007

Ohplease took the words out of my mouth before I could type them into the post.

THANKS for pointing out the salient point of the entire debate that NO ONE is talking about.

Hillary should be the last choice, not the first.

I like her, as do most Democrats, but the voting public finds John Edwards and sometimes Barack Obama to be more electable.

Our country is on the line with this vote. We MUST get this right if there's a snowball's chance in hell of saving our representative democracy.

[jkbowman]

08:08 PM on 09/06/2007

I can't dismiss the poll, but the idea that Hillary will help the Democrats in the South is insane.

[wm1066]

07:10 PM on 09/06/2007

Someone tell me why we should believe this poll? Really... Since Gallup went south I just don't buy this crap anymore!

[OhPlease2007]

07:44 PM on 09/06/2007

REAL CLEAR POLITICS: General Election 2008 - Hillary Clinton Dead LAST in General Election Match-Up Between 1st Tier Democrats vs. 1st Tier Republicans - Polls Reveal

From the Real Clear Politics website -- the website Huffington Post uses for this story -- here are some 'current' interesting statistics compiled by Real Clear Politics for the general election :

A. Fred Thompson vs. 1st Tier Democratic Candidates in presidential 2008, 'general election':

1. Fred Thompson (R) vs. Barack Obama (D):
Obama +13.5%

2. Fred Thompson (R) vs. John Edwards (D):
Edwards +12.3%

3. Fred Thompson (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D): Clinton +6.5%

******

B. Rudy Giuliani vs. 1st Tier Democratic Candidates in presidential 2008, 'general election':

1. Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Barack Obama (D):
Obama +3.4%

2. Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. John Edwards (D)
Edwards +2%

3. Rudy Giuliani (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D):
Clinton +1%

******

C. Mitt Romney vs. 1st Tier Democratic Candidates in presidential 2008, 'general election':

1. Mitt Romney (R) vs. John Edwards (D):
Edwards +13.7%

2. Mitt Romney (R) vs. Barack Obama (D):
Obama +13.5%

3. Mitt Romney (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D):
Clinton +9.7%

******

D. John McCain vs. vs. 1st Tier Democratic Candidates in presidential 2008, 'general election':

1. John McCain (R) vs. Barack Obama (D):
Obama +6.6%

2. John McCain (R) vs. John Edwards (D):
Edwards +4.0%

3. John McCain (R) vs. Hillary Clinton (D):
Clinton +3.7%

-END-

Source: Real Clear Politics( General Election Polls: head to head general election; 1st Tier Democrats vs. 1st Tier Republicans)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

Edwards/Obama '08 !

[daniel155]

10:56 PM on 09/06/2007

Jeez, you say I singing the same old song yet I see you posting these same old general election comparison polls which are about as relevant as polling Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul against Clinton or Obama. While you are looking at Real Clear Politics polls why not take a look at some of the state polls that show Edwards doing poorly in every state except Iowa and I guess North Carolina.

[daniel155]

06:48 PM on 09/06/2007

That's news? I was suprised to see that Edwards even polled twenty-eight percent in the poll. He has been a bust in the state beginning with his decision not to run for re-election in 2004.

He then lost the 2004 North Carolina primary to Kerry and the Kerry-Edwards ticket lost the state to Bush in 2004. Bush won all the other southern states as well by larger margins than he did in 2000. Why should it be any different this election cycle?

[factanonverba]

06:38 PM on 09/06/2007

I must admit that I am dismayed by this as I do support Edwards. Still this is in the wake of a huge media blitz by the Clintons and four months before the first vote is cast. I have full confidence in Edwards' ability to win Iowa and after that South Carolina. The race is far from over, in fact it has yet not begun.

[daniel155]

06:51 PM on 09/06/2007

Are you aware that Edwards is probably only going to raise about $5 million this quarter; well behind Clinton and Obama. He seems spread kind of thin financially to be competitive in very many states.

[OhPlease2007]

07:02 PM on 09/06/2007

'denial155', it's good to have you back to read your ever consistent bountiful offer of opinion devoid of, logic -or- facts.

Can you do us all a favor and cite some links to hard numbers/theories to all your anti-Edwards mud slinging? That way, we can be sure to take you seriously in the future.

LoL

Edwards/Obama '08!

[MissFortunate]

09:52 PM on 09/06/2007

HI! Glad you're still playing the same tune.

How anyoe can see this close second place in his home state as a loss to the clear frontrunner in everyone's mind is beyond me. He's doing great.

[OhPlease2007]

06:20 PM on 09/06/2007

"Hillary's Strategist Mark Penn: "I'm No Karl Rove"

Source: Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/05/hillarys-strategist-mark_n_63250.html

The Nation: Hillary Inc.: The Corporate Ties That Bind

... "A host of prominent Republicans fall under Penn's purview. B-M's Washington lobbying arm, BKSH & Associates, is run by Charlie Black, a leading GOP operative who maintains close ties to the White House, including Karl Rove, and was a partner with Lee Atwater, the consultant who crafted the Willie Horton smear campaign for George H.W. Bush in 1988. In recent years Black's clients have included the likes of Iraq's Ahmad Chalabi, the darling of the neocon right in the run-up to the war; Lockheed Martin; and Occidental Petroleum. In 2005 he landed a contract with the Lincoln Group, the disgraced PR firm that covertly placed US military propaganda in Iraqi news outlets." ...

..."Not only is Hillary [Clinton] more reliant on large donations and corporate money than her Democratic rivals, but advisers in her inner circle are closely affiliated with unionbusters, GOP operatives, conservative media and other Democratic Party antagonists."

- Ari Berman, The Nation (May 17, 2007 (June 4, 2007 issue) )

Source: The Nation (Hillary Inc.: The Corporate Ties That Bind, by Ari Berman, posted May 17, 2007)

http://www.thenation.com/issue/20070604

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

Edwards/Obama '08!

[OhPlease2007]

06:15 PM on 09/06/2007

"Hillary Clinton [just edging out] native son John Edwards."

... And this too will soon change.

;)

Edwards/Obama '08 !

[MissFortunate]

09:53 PM on 09/06/2007

He's doing great! Two points behind the supposed national frontrunner. Run John Run!

[Audacity Of Hype]

06:06 PM on 09/06/2007

Blacks don't like hillbillies.
Clinton and Obama all the way!

[Audacity Of Hype]

06:23 PM on 09/06/2007

WHITE MEN who don't have a degree from an Ivy League institution simply can't inspire blacks. Blacks don't want to hear about unions or housing vouchers. They want to hear about compromise and hope. The blacks are right. That's what America needs.

Clinton and Obama all the way!

[steamboat]

08:31 PM on 09/06/2007

Carter attended Naval Academy. Also, all the union officials are DEMOCRATS. Yet, they have a history of denying young blacks much of their share. Explain?

[steamboat]

08:28 PM on 09/06/2007

Not true. Because Clinton was a hillbilly. As was Carter.

[Audacity Of Hype]

12:09 AM on 09/07/2007

Gore and Kerry got WAY more votes than either Clinton or Carter. There was no black Ivy Leaguer or female Ivy Leaguer for the blacks to rally their support around back then.

[Mormondude]

05:49 PM on 09/06/2007

Edwards can't even win his own state?

That brings back memories of 2000, where Gore couldn't even carry his own home state. People say that 2000 was about Florida. Actually, it was about Tennessee. If Gore had simply won his home state, Florida wouldn't have mattered.

[Audacity Of Hype]

06:16 PM on 09/06/2007

If Kerry was on the ticket instead of Lieberman (even though I love Joe) Gore would have won New Hampshire therefore winning the election.

[ronspri]

12:47 AM on 09/07/2007

What is this win your own state crap the wingnuts keep spewing? If winning your own state is the key to a wonderful president Hillary should be outstanding. I am sure she is going to win New York by a wide margin. Is this what the wingnuts think?
The fact is winning your own state is immaterial. It's winning the most votes across the nation and an electoral college strategy.

[Mormondude]

01:35 AM on 09/07/2007

Hillary is a carpetbagger. I would consider her home state to be Arkansas. Can she win there?