2008 Democratic Presidential Primary Poll (HILLARY HAS LOST THE LEAD!!)

Rasmussen Reports ^ | April 23, 2007 | Scott Rasmussen

[John Cena]

April 23, 2007 For the fourth straight week, Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) has gained ground and he has finally caught New York Senator Hillary Clinton in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. It’s now Obama 32% Clinton 32% and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards holding steady at 17%. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a distant fourth at 3%. Senators Chris Dodd and Joe Biden each attract 1% support. So does General Wesley Clark.

Obama has been steadily gaining ground during April. Last week, Clinton had a two-point lead. Two weeks ago, it was Clinton by five. The week before that, the former First Lady was up by seven. Our last release in March found Clinton enjoying a double digit lead. Clinton now holds a narrow edge among white voters while Obama leads by 16% among African-Americans.

A separate survey showed that Obama has the highest level of core support among all Presidential candidates—33% of voters say they’d definitely vote for him if he’s on the ballot in November 2008.

Rasmussen Reports releases national polling data on the Democratic nomination process every Monday and on the Republican race each Tuesday. The current survey of 579 Likely Democratic Primary Voters was conducted April 16-19, 2007. The margin of sampling error is +/-4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

Among all voters, Clinton is viewed favorably by 50% and unfavorably by 49%. Obama’s numbers are a bit stronger—59% favorable and 34% unfavorable. The two candidates are essentially even among Democrats—Clinton is viewed favorably by 74% in her party while Obama is viewed favorably by 72%. Among unaffiliated voters, Clinton is viewed favorably by 50%, Obama by 67%.

All Democratic candidates issued statements last week opposing the Supreme Court ruling on partial-birth abortion. That ruling was little noticed due to the tragedy at Virginia Tech. Just 40% of Americans knew how the Court ruled on the issue. Most who knew agreed with the ruling.

The Democrats were cautious in their statements about gun control following the Virginia Tech shootings. While there has been an increase in support for stricter gun control laws in the aftermath of that horrific event, less than half of Americans want stricter gun control laws.

Iraq remains the Democrats most potent issue—just 33% of voters now believe history will judge the U.S. mission in Iraq a success.

Yesterday was Earth Day and 45% of American voters see Global Warming as a Very Serious problem. Another 28% say it is Somewhat Serious. There is a significant divide over whether the human activity is the cause or if the Warming is simply part of a long-term planetary trend. (More Below)

Advertisment While Obama and Clinton are the frontrunners among Democrats, Edwards does best in general election match-ups. He leads all GOP hopefuls and is the only Democrat to lead the Republican frontrunner, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. New results in the Obama-Giuliani match-up will be released on Wednesday. Clinton and Giuliani are essentially tied.

Rasmussen Reports continuously updates favorability ratings and general election match-ups for all Democratic and Republican candidates. Also available are ratings for Members of Congress, Other Political Figures, and Journalists.

Rasmussen Reports also monitors underlying party identification trends and has found a substantial shift away from the GOP over the past six months.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.

The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.

Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, “One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.”

Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.

During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.

Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade.

[RightWhale]

Obama is in a different league when it comes to public speaking. Don’t know aqbout the rest of it, but Clinton couldn’t even get the lead in community theater while Obama could be on Broadway.

[Migraine]

going to be a dem primary war like nothing we’ve ever seen.

You mean the news is finally going to be fun to watch again? Yea-hoo! The MSM's daily torpedoing of G-Dub is getting me nauseous.

[LS]

No, that scenario won’t happen. But it is really early, and the Clinton hit machine hasn’t BEGUN to slime Barack the “Magic Negro.”

[Sicon]

Reports are that even her own DAUGHTER prefers Bill to her mother

I'd sooner hug week-old road-kill myself.

[kevkrom]

Question for the (remaining) Rudy-bots:

If we have to abandon our conservative principles to vote for Guiliani based on current polls that show that he can beat Hillary; then how does this poll, showing Hillary won't even be the nominee, square with your presumptions?

Or are some of these polls less meaningless than others?

[princess leah]

When I read that Hillary intends to shuffle ol Bill off to all corners of the earth, I thought: “this is just her way to keep him out of the White House on a regular basis”...Somehow, I don’t think ‘ol Bill is going to “go along” with being the “gopher” for her Presidency...

[TomGuy]

As for the ‘Clinton machine’....lets not get too carried away. The best the so called ‘machine’ could do was over a decade ago, gaining Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote in a three candidate race featuring a unelectable to national office GOP candidate (Bob ‘its my turn, damnit!’ Dole).

A Green Party Gore could spell disaster for the Dems. It could pull enough votes away from the GOP that they could even elect Dole this time.

A Big-Business Country-Club Independent Bloomberg could spell disaster for the GOP if they don't nominate a BB-CC and go with a more conservative condidate. It could pull enough votes away from the GOP that the Dems could elect Dumbo -- the elephant or the clown from Illinois.

[Badeye]

I don’t see a faux republican like Bloomberg gaining any support outside of the weird political enviroment that is New York city.

let alone a gun grabber, which is most certainly is.

[TomGuy]

Perhaps the most interesting question is whether Hitlary would settle for #2.

I don't see Hillary giving the #2 nod to Obama. He adds little to her campaign. She would already get much of the Black vote anyway. She would probably already get Illinois, too (favorite daughter). So Obama adds nothing to her campaign demographics.

If Obama did win the nomination, Hillary would probably not accept the #2. Rather, she would return to the Senate and take the leadership role from Harry Reid. Senate leader would be more power than VP (unless Obama showed some serious health problems or decides to take a stroll through Fort Marcy Park -- then, all bets are off). If Obama did win the nomination, I doubt that he would ask Hillary to be #2.

[Lee'sGhost]

I agree with all of that. Which is why I made my original point — Clinton won’t get away with using her politices of personal destruction like she/he has in the past. Grab a chair and pass the popcorn.

[GOP_Proud]

I know yellow-dog Dems in my state (WV) who would not only NEVER vote for Hillary, but they will actually vote FOR any Republican against her just to try to make it a humiliating loss. That’s how strong the sentiment is against her.

[newfreep]

Rasmussen Reports also monitors underlying party identification trends and has found a substantial shift away from the GOP over the past six months.

Not good news regardless who the 'rats nominate.

[TomGuy]

What is the difference between a yellow-dog Dem and a blue-dog Dem?

Isn’t the blue-dog Dem the same as the Reagan Democrat who was the Southern Democrat?

And when did the donkeys become dogs?

[HarmlessLovableFuzzball]

That’s too bad because I would like to have her as an opponent in the General Election.

Me too. They joy of watching the witch's face as she reads her concession speech , that will be priceless.

[oceanview]

not to me. Richardson is the guy who scares me as Hillary’s VP, because his pull with hispanics puts the western states in play, and makes margins otherwise tighter in states with hispanic demographics.

the DNC has the polling data to be sure - they know Obama’s chances in the general election. So if it looks like he is going to win the primary (ala Dean), watch for Gore to get it and make a late surge.

[gogeo]

You've been consistent.

I think we'll all be amazed and disgusted at the depth to which politicing and media reporting will sink in '08. I've not been wrong over the past 10 years in thinking the worst of the Clintons or the left...only when I've thought, "They surely can't support him after that?!?"

Can she be beat, in the primary or the general? Sure. I don't see Obama is the guy to do it. He's never been in this kind of battle before, I'd bet.

Negative ratings have never been an issue for Hillary...she'll just raise the other guy's negatives more. She's a mud slinger and brawler by nature, pure appetite born of resentment and ambition. She's a child of the worst excesses of the '60s and '70s, radical to the core. She is, IMO, evil. She wants admiration and worship, but she'll settle for being feared, and for power...for now.

I think the left is primarily motivated by BDS. I think they aren't looking for a positive message. If they are, then I'm wrong and Obama is the nominee...but I don't think so.

You give the party more credit than I do. I'm up here in the People's Republic of King County, WA.

[apocalypto]

That is what I think also: Al Gore is the answer.

How can Hillary have 50% favorable rating and Barak Obama even more? What is there to like about those them and Edwards, all wimps?

[Badeye]

I’ve always wanted to visit the northwest.

[kalee]

I agree. I wonder what the poll numbers would have been had he been included. I have been saying for quite a while Gore will be the Dem nominee. For all the inevitability talk about Hillary, in the minds of many Gore was robbed in 2000 so he has a greater claim. And I think he will be tough to beat.

[twigs]

I’m not so sure she will win the nomination, but if she does and puts Obama on her ticket, I think they will certainly lose. I just don’t enough people will vote for two historic firsts on the ticket. BTW, I just bought your book.