By Jaketapper

Nov 22, 2007 12:52pm

Thanksgiving stuffing

Happy T-day, folks. Interesting poll out of New Hampshire from CNN/WMUR/UNH.

It shows Hillary Clinton’s numbers sinking from 43% support from Democrats in September to 36% now — a bad trend line.

Barack Obama and John Edwards aren’t necessarily gaining from her loss, though. They’ve both basically flatlined around 22% for Obama and 13% for Edwards. Bill Richardson’s up from 6% to 12%.

But even more interesting are the attributes voters ascribe to the candidates.

Clinton is seen as inevitable — 69% say she’s most likely to get the nomination. Obama is second — with 10%. She’s also far and away seen as the most tough, regarding pending Republican attacks. She’s seen as best to handle health care (far and away), the economy (by a lot), Iraq, and terrorism. Obama rates as best to handle Edwards’ signature issue — poverty.

But here’s the rub. Clinton comes in 4th on which Democrat is most "honest and trustworthy" — 27% Obama, 18% Edwards, 14% Richardson, 13% Clinton.

And that’s why you will continue to hear Obama and Edwards hit her on that subject.

For those readers who share the general views of these polled Granite Staters — can you tell me why you would want your nominee, and your president, to be someone whom you don’t seem to regard as particularly honest and trustworthy?

– jpt

User Comments

Combining the two polling questions might provide insight. For example: Of the 27% who rate Sen. Obama as the most “honest & trustworth,” how do they actually line up for voting? Likewise, Edwards, Richardson and Clinton. AND THEN of the 36% who say they will vote for Sen. Clinton, how do they actually rate Sen. Clinton for being most “honest and trustworth?” Likewise Obama, Edwards and Richardson. My guess is that the enigma probably won’t be quite as glaring!

Posted by: James Danley | November 22, 2007, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm

I think you could go far deeper than superficiality on this trending. For one Clinton peaked at 50% in some national polling and now has fallen in the mid-to-upper 30′s when the actual campaigning began. Her losses have been in the mild support section of those expressing her as a favorite. This part of her support is still a significant portion stemming from the partisan Democratic voter who will vote for the eventual nominee and nationally this is still presumptively to be Senator Clinton. But when you go into the details of her support it comes closer to Obama’s which has the highest strident support. Inevitablility is that the other candidates will eventually end their campaigns where these active Democratic supporters will desire to find a home, their second choice where again Obama leads Clinton and Edwards.
So in fact the atrophy of Clinton is the loss of less strident supporters as the question of Obama’s electability becomes answered. More telling will be when the campaigns release their fund-raising data showing total treasury, cash on hand and more importantly number of donors which rumors are surfacing that Obama is approaching or has surpassed half-million. Compare that to Senator Clinton’s less than 150,000 you start seeing the number colliding.
The focus on the polling should be on Iowa and then New Hampshire where Obama continues to grow in support as Clinton degrades. Degrading as a front-runner is a dangerous place for it exposes the support that is based on backing a winner instead of backing candidates’ plaform.
One thing is for certain, in business or sports a trending like Clinton has since October major changes would be in store.

Posted by: RWN | November 22, 2007, 1:59 pm 1:59 pm

Hillary’s numbers will fade when people find out that she is NOT more electable.
Edwards and Obama are. She is just too disliked.

Posted by: Oscar | November 22, 2007, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm

I tried something new this Thanksgiving, the Hillary Turkey. It was actually pretty tender. This bird was bred to have fat thighs, small breasts, and a left wing. Okay, I couldn’t resist. But no matter what the statistics, the American people will not put Bill Clinton back in the White House. Not so long as the people believe in representative government. And as you may recall, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Besides, unlike her namesake fowl, Hillary has a fatal flaw. Hillary Clinton: definitely duplicitous, mercilessly malevolent, ultimately unelectable

Posted by: Peggy McGilligan | November 22, 2007, 3:39 pm 3:39 pm

The polling seems to mirror what I see on the net: I see precious few strong Hillary supporters. Even on blogs with ‘progressive’, or ‘liberal’ in the title, her support comes from people who hate Bush and see her as the lesser of seven evils, people who liked her husband and want the 90′s back, and staunch, old school, partisan Democrats who think Pelosi and Reid are doing just fine in Congress. Her few hard core supporters believe, as she does, what she can’t say in public–that the U.S. should drastically cut the military, drastically increase taxes, drastically increase the reach of government, and drastically reduce immigration law enforcement. They think her strong-arm tactics are needed to hang in the trenches with the GOP. Most Democrats are much more moderate than Hillary on her core beliefs, and want an end to partisan power politics-as-usual. As she tries to side-step to the middle when she’s pressed on her core beliefs, she comes off as flip-flopping, or evasive. As she tries to rebound from campaign stumbles, she resorts to what she knows best: mean, power politics, which really doesn’t resonate well with anyone but her core supporters. No one–Dem or GOP–can win with just their core supporters. For a while, Hillary seemed exempt from that political ‘rule #1′. I think she’s just lost her exemption.

Posted by: SteveW | November 22, 2007, 4:42 pm 4:42 pm

Thanks for the thoughtful comments above… and Happy Thanksgiving to my fellow political junkies…
I see this all more simply… Mrs. Clinton’s poll decline happens because the more voters see of her the less they like her…
This is because of large screen televisions… she comes across as too intense and shrill… her campaign is modulated for ’91-92 and ’95-96…
The participation of lots of voices via blogs is also a great detriment to her because she engenders so much dislike…
Go to any blog associated with mainstream media (ABC, USAToday, DesMoines Register…)and there are legions of posters, men and women, who really don’t care for her…
How would she turn those voters around? And I think we could expect those folks to amplify their dislike of her as the campaign progresses…
This election cycle differs in fundamental ways from previous cycles.
The Clinton campaign has all the old techniques down pat… establishment endorsements, big money and lobbyist fundraising, big media spinning…
But the grass roots are breaking out… and they are not breaking her way…
Yup, Hillary Clinton on a 60″ TV is not something many Americans want to spend the next 4 years with…

Posted by: Cate | November 22, 2007, 6:33 pm 6:33 pm

Pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, no MORE clintons in the White House. Everytime hillary apears on my tv I turn the tv off. I dislike the lying, untrustworthy, crooked, corrupted politician.
Obama/Edward o8!

Posted by: Lorenzo | November 22, 2007, 7:22 pm 7:22 pm

Cate, very interesting analysis!
In 1960 most pundits credit the better appearance on TV by the “young, athletic, handsome, and poised” John F. Kennedy (wearing makeup) as compared to the “tired, pallid and sweaty” Richard Nixon (refused to wear makeup), who was recovering from a bout with the flu in their first debate, as being the difference in J. F. K. winning the election. Yet polls indicated that those who listened to the debate on radio leaned towards Nixon as having won that first debate. Nixon appeared better in the last three debates, but no amount of makeup was going to make him look better than J. F. K.
You are absolutely right, with so many HD TVs out there negative facial expressions (not to mention blemishes) could make a difference in a very close election.

Posted by: James Danley | November 22, 2007, 7:27 pm 7:27 pm

Well it appears we have a lot of Hillary haters who are extremely jealous of the fact that a woman is campaigning for president. Now isn’t that too bad. It looks like you would rather vote for boozer Obama with the run of the mouth wife and Edwards who yells instead of speaking to win the presidency. Neither one of them have the intelligence or capabilities to be in the white house. Do we want another one who took drugs and boozed it up? Or is it because this generation is in the same category, drinking and on drugs. Its a wonder he can think straight. Hillary will definately win the nomination and go on to the presidency regardless of what your comments are and if that happens you can cry in your beer because you won’t be able to change it and Obama and Edwards can wave goodby and get themselves a life.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | November 22, 2007, 8:22 pm 8:22 pm

Well since your are so smart why don’t you campaign for the presidency? Are you jealous of Hillary because you didn’t progress in life like she did? Don’t get mad at her get mad at yourself. What have you been doing thru the years. Don’t tell me. NOTHING!! And you don’t have the millions she has and probably never will unless you win the lottery. You could stand on the stage with Obama and his run of the wife Michelle and campaign for him. That will make you appear like you know at least something outside of nothing. Hillary is going to win the nomination and I would like to read your comments and the people like you after it is over. You can cry on the shoulder of Obama and Edwards because they will need someone to talk to when that happens.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | November 22, 2007, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm

Peggy: Of course their going to put Bill Clinton because the odds are against Obama or Edwards winning. America is not ready for Obama, he’s only been a senator for one year, thinks he knows it all (knows nothing) and don’t know how to make a campaign speech. For a man who graduated college a high school graduate probably knows more than him. That boozing must have put a dent in his brain. And foreign policy at 10 years old? Give me a break. He never heard of the words and wouldn’t be able to spell them. He knows nothing of foreign policy and he know nothing about new ideas. What new ideas? He can give a pep talk to the fools that listen but they don’t know any better, they can’t read between the lines that they are being fooled by his sweet talk. Wake up. Smell the coffee.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | November 22, 2007, 8:37 pm 8:37 pm

How can Obama be trustworthy when he is already telling people he has new ideas. You mean to tell me the public is eating that up? Could they be that dumb? He does’t know what a new idea is. I don’t know if he even knows what foreign policy is. I can imagine if he was president how world leaders would be laughing at us and training him so he would know what is going on in the world and have the ability to know how to speak to them. Right now I don’t think he has those capabilities or intelligence. Like Hillary stated he would need training and I go along with that. He hasn’t wiped his ears dry yet. They are still wet.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | November 22, 2007, 8:48 pm 8:48 pm

Thanks for the thoughtful comments above… and Happy Thanksgiving to my fellow political junkies…
I see this all more simply… Mrs. Clinton’s poll decline happens because the more voters see of her the less they like her…
This is because of large screen televisions… she comes across as too intense and shrill… her campaign is modulated for ’91-92 and ’95-96…
The participation of lots of voices via blogs is also a great detriment to her because she engenders so much dislike…
Go to any blog associated with mainstream media (ABC, USAToday, DesMoines Register…)and there are legions of posters, men and women, who really don’t care for her…
How would she turn those voters around? And I think we could expect those folks to amplify their dislike of her as the campaign progresses…
This election cycle differs in fundamental ways from previous cycles.
The Clinton campaign has all the old techniques down pat… establishment endorsements, big money and lobbyist fundraising, big media spinning…
But the grass roots are breaking out… and they are not breaking her way…
Yup, Hillary Clinton on a 60″ TV is not something many Americans want to spend the next 4 years with…

Posted by: Cate | November 22, 2007, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm

She stood by Billy as he lied and what about health care being solved when Billary was in the White House, more lies. As far as I know health care is STILL an issue, so she lied about fixing it then who says she isn’t lying about it now? 8 years was a long time to at least get some of her little ducks in a row, what makes her think she can fix it all this time? Sorry Hill your out! Let’s elect Obama and try someone who as yet hasn’t lied to the American Public!

Posted by: Toni | November 22, 2007, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm

When you tried a Hillary turkey did you get an Obama tail? You know what part that is. How did it taste? I’m sure it was sweet just like you think he is. There’s an old saying that states what fools these mortals be and that’s what you are. A fool. I can’t wait until Hillary wins the nomination so I can read the jealous comments. If she loses in Iowa so what. There are 49 states and Obama is not going to win the majority of them. He’s lucky if he wins 5 of them. The primaries haven’t started yet and as one newsman said, Iowa is no loss because it is such a small state who cares, she can go on to win the big ones that Obama can’t.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | November 22, 2007, 8:56 pm 8:56 pm

Obama hasn’t lied to the American public. Where have you been? If Novak didn’t bring out the dirt you would never know about his drugs and booze. He possessed to be so holy, holy but whatever was in the dark came to the light. Would he take his drugs and booze in the white house? Could be? Would his run of the mouth wife make all the speeches because apparently he can’t. Every time he starts to talk he doesn’t make sense its like he has to think about what he’s going to say before he gets it out. That’s too bad for him because he’s going nowhere even with Oprah’s help. The only reason for her campaigning for him is because he’s black like her and she would like to see a black president in the white house forgetting the white people made her rich. Having Bill Clinton on the show then endorsing Obama. Her audience is 95% white. What happened to all the black people that should be attending her show?

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | November 22, 2007, 9:05 pm 9:05 pm

It’s easy to understand why the Clinton poll numbers are declining…
The low information voters are tuning out…

Posted by: Cate | November 22, 2007, 9:17 pm 9:17 pm

Any bets on how many times and where the Clinton campaign will trot out the former President to try to support sagging poll numbers?
I don’t think he was adding much in Iowa… maybe New Hampshire?

Posted by: Cate | November 22, 2007, 9:21 pm 9:21 pm

Geez… what about President Bush endorsing Clinton as the Democratic nominee?
I think the Republicans are dying to have Clinton to run against.
It’s a goldmine.

Posted by: Cate | November 22, 2007, 9:22 pm 9:22 pm

Two errors need correcting:
Mariann Pepitone, you wrote: “If Novak didn’t bring out the dirt you would never know about his (Sen. Obama’s) drugs and booze.” Actually Sen. Obama’s autobiography, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” describes his drug and alcohol use.
Cate, you wrote: “Geez… what about President Bush endorsing Clinton as the Democratic nominee?” President Bush didn’t actually endorse Sen. Clinton. He only expressed his opinion that she would win the Democratic nomination. He also said that he believes she would lose the general election.

Posted by: James Danley | November 22, 2007, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm

It is very unfortunate that some of the Democratic presidential candidates care only about their own political careers and in doing so attack each other rather than focusing on the issues that are so important to our country.
In the process of ripping each other to shreds and attempting to destroy American voters trust in each other, they are going to make sure we have a Republican elected into the White House. Is that what we really want Democratic voters?

Posted by: architecture | November 22, 2007, 10:33 pm 10:33 pm

Hillary was a New York senator for 8 years. Did she do anything to improve the healthcare system in New York during those 8 years. As a representative for New York, she has not done anything to improve their healthcare system. She screwed up the chance to improve healthcare while Bill gave her a chance to do something. She did nothing for New York. She is not going to do anything about if she gets elected either. We shouldn’t take a chance on her anymore. Somebody please ask her in the next debate why she has not done anything for New Yorkers with their healthcare system. If she has a valid answer (which I doubt very much) then she can talk about how she is gong to fix healthcare. Otherwise it is all just hot air. She is as phony as it comes.

Posted by: Mary from New Hampshire | November 23, 2007, 12:00 am 12:00 am

As far as Democratic candidates “ripping each other to shreds” as another poster describes it (I’m sure you are referring to the attacks on Hillary), I do not believe that pointing out the fact that Hillary votes with George Bush, or that Rupert Murdoch does fund raising on her behalf, is unreasonable. Hillary’s recent history in the Senate, voting for Iraq War, the Patriot Act, the bankruptcy bill, is enough to make me wonder why on earth she is even being considered by any self-respecting Democrat. If this is the kind of person we’re going to nominate, I’m in the wrong party.

Posted by: Jerome | November 23, 2007, 3:55 am 3:55 am

Hillary Clinton should not even have been a senator of New York state. It is not her home state and Bill bought her a house just so she could run for office. She voted to go into Iraq, wants endless war in Iran, voted for the horrendous Patriot Act and now has voted for H.R. 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which is an unbelievably despicable attempt at arresting people for what they might be thinking when they post on the internet. The Dems are not the Dems anymore and the Pubs are not the Pubs anymore. Except for one. You guessed it. Ron Paul.

Posted by: Margie | November 23, 2007, 5:18 am 5:18 am

These polls must be bought. I don’t believe that even 30% of democrats want Hillary Clinton. Maybe they called up and asked people who have no clue whether or not they’d choose Clinton or Obama…and they thought Bill was coming back.
The funny part is that so many news articles talk about Bill being a liability. Get real! Without Bill, Hillary would not even exist. She would have no money, not be a senator…she would be nobody. That’s exactly what we need as president…a coattail rider.

Posted by: Pete | November 23, 2007, 8:19 am 8:19 am

Some who see her a untrustworthy and don’t particularly like her, are buying the myth she is the strongest one to beat the republicans. Any viewing of head to head match ups would tell people she shows the weakest numbers against republicans of the big 3.
With her stumble the media is now starting to give the full story and not just Hillary’s numbers. This is waking people up that she is not the strongest. But, for a long time they gave the impression she was as they only would give part of the story and only Hillary’s numbers.
As the rivals are playing up her lack of stands on issues, this also highlights her problems with trust. And people are remembering the 90s as not a golden time but, a very mixed bag. Add to it that we’ve had one of the most dishonest president’s with both Clinton and Bush.
People are tired of it. They are assessing the qualities of all the candidates.
I look for Obama to continue to rise and Biden to be a dark horse who will do better than many think.
Edwards is the one I have no idea of as far as voters choice.
But, I also think Hillary peaked in September and is just now beginning to show the results of it.
People have been waiting for Obama and Edwards to make their move. I think many were disheartened as it looked they would not go after her due to the Lazio effect. But, now that they are taking her on, people are seeing these two are just as capable of hitting back at republicans and showing their strength.
I would add, both probably decided to hold back until now as fighting would do nothing when few were paying attention. Better to hit later when people are listening to what they are saying.

Posted by: vwcat | November 23, 2007, 9:49 am 9:49 am

Marianne, I am a democratic woman. I know it’s standard practice for hillaryites to accuse those who don’t like her as being all republican men afraid of a strong woman.
But, to many democratic and progressive women, Hillary is not strong. She is a follower and not a leader. Her positions are too far to the right and she is simply an opportunist.
She is a person who got where she is by nepotism and not by hard work and talent.
Frankly, she would not be in the running if she was not Mrs. Clinton.
She is the new darling of the neocons and is known for having fundraisers thrown for her by Murdoch.
The fact is that over half the democrats cannot stand her. They will not support her and reject her. Not because she is a woman but, because she is a democrat in name only.

Posted by: vwcat | November 23, 2007, 9:57 am 9:57 am

MY NAME IS MARIANN . I’m very sorry about my previous comments. The problem is that I reason like a donkey. Please forgive my stark ignorance and stupidity. Before I open my mouth next time, I will research the facts.
# I WROTE THAT Obama had been a Senator for only 1 year: – Anyone who has the slightest clue about American politics knows that Obama was elected to the United States Senate in 2004.
# I SAID OBAMA knows nothing: – I didn’t even know that OBAMA GRADUATED TOP OF HIS CLASS AT HARVARD and that he was President of the Harvard Law Review. To have this kind of achievement means that you don’t have to know SOMETHING – you have to know A LOT OF THINGS and know it better than the best of the bests. Even a brain-dead idiot understands that.
# I WROTE THAT if it were not for Novak, we wouldn’t have known about Obama’s drug use as a teenager. Actually, Obama himself detailed his youthful mistakes in his book, DREAMS OF MY FATHER, written in 1995. Yes, 1995 – 11 years ago – Before he even dreamt of running for President.
To tell the truth, I’m obsessed about Hillary just because I want a woman President. Now I have to admit that I need THE RIGHT WOMAN president, not just a woman. I’d rather have an HONEST MAN WHO UNDERSTANDS WOMEN, than have a DISHONEST WOMAN WHO UNDERSTANDS HERSELF.
Thank you for enlightening me.
OBAMA for PRESIDENT – Obama ’08.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | November 23, 2007, 10:50 am 10:50 am

Basing your political opinions on media coverage is not sufficient, if you are serious go and see the candidates in person and then make up your mind.

Posted by: k | November 23, 2007, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm

I support Senator Clinton. She is the most qualified person to lead this country. Obama is not electable. Not now. Maybe never. The Hillary Haters are naive to think most women will vote for their candidate. I will not. Never. The man positively scares me. Almost all new Presidents make one or two horrible mistakes the first years in office but unlike, JFK and Bill Clinton, I do not believe Obama is that smart or wordly to recover. He is so in-experienced and somewhat cowardly. And remember Hillary Haters, there are four debates remaining and Obama’s debating skills are sophmoric. Do you think the people of Ohiio, Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico will vote for him? No! They will give the PC answers to the pollsters so as not to appear that the color of his skin is influencing their decision. But it is. Undeniable. It is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. I fervently wish this was not the case. There are many sound reasons not to vote for the man.

Posted by: Judith | November 26, 2007, 6:30 pm 6:30 pm

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.