Clinton Building NJ Firewall?

yep (0.00 / 0)

Her support is going to collapse, and they know it.  

I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 22:21:43 PM CST

if things tighten in NJ..... (4.00 / 1)

.....that will be our best chance to get the top tier dems to come on and spend a minute with us in the gardenstate.  maybe even come on and do a podcast.  

what will be will be, but i still ain't gonna look a gift in the mouth if we score a podcast.  i'd take it in a second.

Jay_Lass on Twitter.

---

by: Jay Lassiter @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 23:13:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hope so, but don't count on it. (4.00 / 1)

There are A LOT of states voting on Feb. 5th.  Perhaps the one thing we have going for us is that New Jerseyans, on average, have more money (and thus to give) than say a resident of a mid-country state, so that could be good.

I'm rooting for Edwards myself and have given him about $130 so far in 2007.

"Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

---

by: mconvente @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 23:36:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If I am wrong about John Edwards, and... (0.00 / 0)

...he is able to grab another 2nd place or two in NH, NV, SC, or FL, I think that NJ will become a featured battleground state on February 5, possibly ranking 2nd in importance after California, because it is a state that everyone expected Hillary to win and now has become a state that she has to win.

Because of this and because New York will most likely be conceded to Clinton, Obama will most likely spend more time in NJ, generating free media, than money, buying paid media in the New York and Philly TV markets.  Hillary will probably follow a similar strategy.

I think that it is possible that between now and February 5, both Clinton and Obama could hold as many as 3 major public events in NJ each at places like Montclair State University, Rutgers University in New Brunswick, and somewhere in South Jersey.

If Edwards is still in the race, going into February 5, I would be shocked if he comes here more than once, if at all.  If he isn't and Clinton and Obama are the only two serious candidates remaining, the NJDSC should try to get the DNC to agree to schedule a one-on-one debate here to take place at a large venue like the Prudential Center in Newark.

Speaking of debates, am I the only person who thinks that the debate format that Charlie Gibson and ABC created last night for both the Democrats and the Republicans was the best that we have seen in a very long time?

---

by: rachael'sdad @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 11:15:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

the good news (0.00 / 0)

Is that New Jersey's voters WILL play a significant role in the primary.  That's in the context of a large nationwide vote.  We're not Iowa or New Hampshire, but we're getting a fair shot.  

I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Sat Jan 05, 2008 at 23:56:56 PM CST

the other press release (0.00 / 0)

(and Juan is exactly right, I haven't been getting these before) boasts that there is no bounce for Obama.  Of course, they have to exclude the polls that show a huge bounce, and pretend the small bounce is none at all.  When you cherry-pick from polls that have a 5% margin of error, it's easy to find some that look good.  I'm surprised they even bothered, are reporters that dumb?

I have to think of a witty signature about Frank LoBiondo

---

by: Hopeful @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 00:01:06 AM CST

the "no bounce" press release (0.00 / 0)

WHERE IS THE BOUNCE?

Two polls that had the race within a few points before the Iowa caucuses have the race tied in New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses.

In today's CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll, Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama are tied at 33 percent - their last two polls had Hillary up 4 points and before that had Hillary down 2 points, so there is no statistically significant change in their numbers before and after the Iowa caucuses.

And the Concord Monitor is out as well today with a poll showing the race at 33 percent for Hillary Clinton, 34 percent for Barack Obama and 23 percent for John Edwards - exactly the same margin as before Iowa.

Contrast that with the 17 points John Kerry gained in 2004 in the Boston Globe poll, which catapulted him from a 17-point deficit to a 20-point lead in New Hampshire after the Iowa caucuses.  Or with the 7 points Al Gore gained in 2000 in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, increasing his lead in New Hampshire from 5 points to 18 points.

New Hampshire voters are fiercely independent.  They will make their own decisions about who to support.

###

The post-Iowa polls:
ARG: Obama +12
Concord Monitor: Obama +1
CNN/WMUR: Tie
Rasmussen: Obama +10

---

by: Juan Melli @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 00:15:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

The Clinton campaign (0.00 / 0)

is based on the premise that America has to alternate Bush & Clinton, & now it's the Clinton turn. I say it's a bad habit we have to  break.  

---

by: Wesleylake @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:42:41 PM CST

This won't help her (0.00 / 0)

As the establishment candidate, this overdue scoop by the Sunday Times of London, with the additional blogger investigations by Brad Friedman and Luke Ryman, could hurt her if the news actually hits U.S. "news"papers and TV "news."

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5518

It says Grossman now works for President Clinton's secretary of Defense, Cohen.

---

by: Jim33 @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 21:59:41 PM CST