NH PRIMARY: Keep an Eye on Richardson

New York Senator Hillary Clinton's once-daunting lead among likely voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary is slipping. But neither of her principle rivals, Illinois Senator Barack Obama nor former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, is gaining much.

The action is with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson.

Clinton's at 36 percent in the new CNN/WMUR-TV poll, down from 43 percent in September.

Obama's at 22 percent, roughly the same as the 20 percent he had in September.

Edwards is at 13 percent, up a statistically insignificant one percent from September.

The numbers for the top three parallel results seen in a recent Boston Globe survey of likely New Hampshire primary participants.

And then there is Richardson, who has been campaigning aggressively in New Hampshire as an anti-war candidate -- promising to bring all U.S. troops home from Iraq in short order.

In September, Richardson was at 6 percent. Now, he is at 12 percent.

That's a dramatic jump when the two CNN/WMUR polls are compared. But it appears to be the continuation of a pattern of improvement for Richardson that becomes clearer when the Boston Globe survey from earlier this month is factored in. That survey showed the New Mexico governor moving from 6 percent in September to 10 percent.

So we've got two polls tracking an uptick for Richardson from 6 percent to 10 percent to 12 percent.

If the pattern holds, the New Mexican will easily overtake Edwards and could begin closing in on Obama by the time New Hampshire holds its first in the nation primary.

It is worth noting that, according to the polls, Richardson is now viewed as more experienced than either Obama or Edwards by the New Hampshire voters. His numbers are dramatically up in other categories, as well, especially on measures of trust -- the New Mexican now leads Clinton in this category.

Richardson's move into double digits in New Hampshire parallels his under-covered rise in the first caucus state of Iowa. While much of the discussion about recent polls from that state has focused on the news that Obama has moved narrowly ahead of Clinton -- they are actually in a statistical tie -- some of the most interesting movement in the first-caucus state has been toward Richardson, who is now at 11 percent.

While several polls suggest that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has moved ahead of Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, Delaware Senator Joe Biden and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel in New Hampshire, none of the these four contenders has moved out of single digits in New Hampshire or Iowa.

The bottom line: Richardson is moving up. He could stall. But if he keeps going in the direction he's headed in, the governor could yet be a serious contender in the critical first tests of the Democratic race.

Comments (30)

1. Love to see Her Majesty come in, not just second, but THIRD in Iowa.

   Of course her cultists have already done the sour grapes routine on Iowa and New Hampshire, i.e.....

   "Nice try but I've said several times before, I could care less about Iowa. Hillary could lose Iowa and new Hampshire and still win very big. However, there's no chance of losing New Hampshire. They love Bill up there. Iowa will change six more times before the caucuses. Not real important."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/19/2007 @ 10:49pm---BLOG | Posted 11/19/2007 @ 12:08pm Fighting Poverty in CT by Katrina vanden Heuvel

   Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 12:01pm

2. richardson gets the frosty endorsement!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2007 @ 1:55pm

3. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/21/2007 @ 1:55pm

   He's the best qualified on practically every front you can think of.....executive powers (governor), foreign policy (ambassador), energy policy (SecEnergy), Congressional liaison (former Congressman).

   But I don't think he gets the nom....hope he gets Veep.

   Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 2:01pm

4. Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 2:01pm

   yeah, i know.

   he's fat and looks kinda mexicanish.

   impossible.

   THE NEXT POTUS (isn't that a kind of lemur?) [youtube.com]

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2007 @ 2:35pm

5. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/21/2007 @ 2:35pm

   Oh wow! I actually remember watching that as a kid!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 2:47pm

6. If he won it would me that Horatio Sanz would have a job at SNL for at least four years. He does a pretty good Richardson. Horatio is one of my favs.

   Posted by BlueTexan at 11/21/2007 @ 2:48pm

7. "me" to "mean"

   Posted by BlueTexan at 11/21/2007 @ 2:48pm

8. Posted by FZ 11/21/2007 @ 2:35pm

   That Plastic Man vid is fantastic! Jibes so well as political advertisement.

   Kinda like the ostensible Dark Side of the Moon/ Wizard of Oz dovetail. I never have tried playing the record along with the movie, but it seems like it oughtta work.

   Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2007 @ 2:50pm

9. Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/21/2007 @ 2:50pm

   wizard of oz 101 minutes

   dark side 84 minutes

   that's hard to sync.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2007 @ 3:05pm

10. that's hard to sync.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/21/2007 @ 3:05pm

    True, but that doesn't exclude the possibility that it could provide an interesting soundtrack. And that the needle can be repositioned.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 11/21/2007 @ 3:14pm

11. BTW, FROSTY...

    Here's the Hillary tribute video! [youtube.com]

    Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 3:14pm

12. Posted by MASK 11/21/2007 @ 3:14pm

    maybe mr. richardson should throw a glass of water on her at the next "debate".

    worth a try...................

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/21/2007 @ 3:37pm

13. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/21/2007 @ 3:37pm

    Maybe we could get Hillary on some scales?

    If she weighs the same as a duck...she's made of wood...and therefore.....???

    Posted by Mask at 11/21/2007 @ 3:39pm

14. She floats so she's a witch!!!

    That movie transcends time!!!! hehehehe.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 11/21/2007 @ 4:03pm

15. Posted by B_KOOL_66 11/21/2007 @ 2:50pm

    Dark Side with the Wizard of Oz is classic. It really is pretty cool.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 11/21/2007 @ 4:54pm

16. Chimpy is spending our money to investigate the use of sheeps bladders to control terrorism. "Tim" will be his next recess appointment.

    Go Richardson!!! It is quite telling, that in this country, the guy with WAY more experience than any other candidate has to fight and scratch to get noticed. I encourage all who are not familair with hi stances to take a gander. He is not perfect,but he is waaaayyyy better than Queenie. Ad the many repubs like him.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/22/2007 @ 10:30am

17. And Chimpy has an endless supply of sheeps bladders, starting with RIOKORESH, BARRRY< LUVVY< JOMAMA etc.

    give till it hurts, girls.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/22/2007 @ 10:31am

18. I should like to think that Senator Clinton's rivals are indeed men of principle. Be that as it may, though, I suppose Mister Nichols was unfruitfully attempting to characterize them as her PRINCIPAL rivals.

    Posted by ALPI at 11/22/2007 @ 2:46pm

19. I've been following Richardson for years. If he's really for withdrawal from Iraq, it's just a tactical position. He was a great fan of bombing Serbia's infrastucture and all the color coded revolutions. He's the richest of the Democratic candidates, and he has the nerve of accusing Edwards of class warfare. Sure, his class is winning. Why don't you scrutinize his words on Palestine? The guy is just a fricken chess peace, who's trying to confuse the peace vote and who's really after the VP or State Secretary jobs under Hillery. The only real Democratic peace candidate is Kucinich. What the Nation should be asking is what it's going to take to keep his backers in the party if Dennis is screwed again/ (For me, putting Richie Richardson on the ticket just doesn't cut it.) And we should be working on a plan B like backing McKinney for the Green nomination or trying to get Kucinich and Paul on the Unity ticket.

    Posted by lnh at 11/24/2007 @ 12:09am

20. The estimate of more than one million violent deaths in Iraq was confirmed again two months ago in a poll by the British polling firm Opinion Research Business, which estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths since the US invasion. This is consistent with the study conducted by doctors and scientists from the Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health more than a year ago. Their study was published in the Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal. It estimated 601,000 people killed due to violence as of July 2006; but if updated on the basis of deaths since the study, this estimate would also be more than a million. These estimates do not include those who have died because of public health problems created by the war, including breakdowns in sewerage systems and electricity, shortages of medicines, etc.

    if you don't believe in random sampling, the next time your doctor orders a blood test, tell him that he needs to take all of it. By Mark Weisbrot AterNet.org

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2007 @ 09:33am

21. Other than Pauls Iraq stance, I don't get the appeal. He is an anarchist. He wants no regulation of business and industry. Clearly he has not been paying attention.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2007 @ 09:36am

22. Posted by LNH 11/24/2007 @ 12:09am

    what is your beef with Richardsons Palestinian position?

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/24/2007 @ 09:44am

23. Bill Richardson is AWESOME. I am for legalization of marijuana - not for everybody. Marijuana possession should be a felony in ANY AMOUNT if you are Conservative. But Liberals should be allowed to smoke weed legally. Marijuana doesnt make you violent like alcohol, marijuana doesnt give you a hangover, marijuana doesnt make you nauseous like alcohol and tobacco.

    George Bush smoked weed and did coke - and for that he should have been thrown into prison for a very long time. Conservatives who commit any sins should be nailed to the steeple of their very own judgmental right-wing church. I propose that, anyone tried for marijuana possession be asked, "Are you in favor of leglization" - if the answer is No then you get 20 fuccken years of hard labor - if you answer Yes then you get "I am in favor of legalizing marijuana" branded on your forehead - just so you don't go changing your mind like George Bush.

    Conservatives are hypocritical and judgmental. Young Americans who smoke weed are threatened with the entire loss of their future, denied student loans, and you have drug-addict Bush up there condemning young Americans for what he did himself.

    Hypocrisy is what Jesus referred to as "whited-sepulchurism".

    Weed is wonderful. Rock musicians smoke it. Carl Sagan smokes it. You don't see people saying, "just think how good a guitarist Jimi Hendrix would have been if he never smoked weed".

    I wish someone would invent a drug that causes instant death as soon as you smoke any weed, and force all Conservative Hypocrites to take it.

    Conservatives: you have NO RIGHT to smoke weed. There is nothing worse, nothing more hypocritical, than a Conservative who smokes weed. It is disgusting.

    Posted by conshame at 11/24/2007 @ 1:47pm

24. I didn't go far enough with that. In fact, if you are Conservative and you EVER smoked weed, you have no right to do anything other than turn yourself into the authorities and ask the judge for one felony count per toke you took - and ask the judge for the maximum sentence.

    Conservatives are HYPOCRITES.

    Posted by conshame at 11/24/2007 @ 1:50pm

25. To all the Hillary Rotten BALL LICKERS out there....The BITCH is going down hard....and I'm not refering to Rotten giving her old lug of a husband B.J. a bj....

    She has done nothing, has run NOTHING and is as qualified as the white house cook to being president...

    I am quite sure if her head was shaven, 666 would be easily visable...

    The only thing entertaining about it all is the fact B.J. the other day when confronted with John Edwards...(aka the slip and fall lawyer) could not stop singing to Edwards.....

    "YOU AIN'T WOMAN ENOUGH TO TAKE MY MAN"

    Trust me when I say....real Americans will not want that fucking soap-opera again in our White House...except maybe to get all the furniture back the Clinton Crime family stole when they left before!!!!

    Posted by Frankshitsz at 11/24/2007 @ 2:41pm

26. Wow - ladies and gentelmen, we have John McCain himself posting here this afternoon.

    Posted by conshame at 11/24/2007 @ 8:35pm

27. Posted by FRANKSHITSZ 11/24/2007 @ 2:41pm

    Actually a good summation of Chimpy as well.

    Posted by crabwalk at 11/25/2007 @ 09:59am

28. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 11/21/2007 @ 2:35pm

    I think the deciding factor in voting for president is mostly 'symbolic' and right now ‘most' people are wanting 'change' from what's going on right now and what's been building for the last 20+ years.

    Clinton's negatives and being confrontational in debate instead of being issue oriented, is rather counter-educational to those suspicious of her intentions. The more educational she can be, the less fear/resistance to her ideas and the less dirt she has to allude to being slung.

    Obama seems to combine good judgment with good presentation, being naturally diplomatic to a fault, he is getting better at tying his ideas to concrete names and facts without it appearing to come off as slinging mud.

    Richardson does have the experience/resumé and is only seen as tied a little to Clinton's admin, and counters a lot of Clinton's positions enough to separate himself from her.

    Thus I think if Clinton's numbers dissolve in primaries and Richardson's improve, I do not see Edwards being competitive; for the same reason people see Richardson as 'looking' too Mexican and fat (no Jimmy Smits)-- Edwards 'looks' too pretty and sounds too 'good-old-boy', even as he advocates counter to what he looks like...

    Yet, people can see Richardson as a VP and can see Obama as a President-- does that mean people will or can accept an Obama/Richardson ticket-- like they would a Gore/Obama, which is much closer to the 'experience/future' - model ticket, or like a Richardson/Obama ticket?

    Well, as people saw the hsuB/cHeney ticket symbolically as a 'judgment/experience-type ticket' (however we now know flawed-judgment), without Gore being at the top, Richardson could be seen as a cHeney VP to Obama's symbol of ‘change' and 'better judgment'. I do not think Richardson is seen with the ‘umph' of the symbol of 'change' though, to be a Gore or Obama, simply because of all his 'experience'. (Gore is symbolic of both: ‘change' and ‘experience'; the only one that can pull off the most ‘umph' in both areas.)

    Clinton will be seen as more of the same old shit-- the more things get ugly... if she doesn't get more ‘educational' in her approach-- if she's able to do so. Think lesson-plans, not excuses. But she'd have to believe she could actually loose this in the primaries to humble herself enough to become an educator… and teach the right lessons.

    Richardson has the right approach. Unfortunately, with the society we have, he'd have to look more like a Jimmy Smits, not a cHeney, to move up in the polls enough to pull it off. Making it to VP would be a good start.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 11/25/2007 @ 3:13pm

29. Richardson has the right approach. Unfortunately, with the society we have, he'd have to look more like a Jimmy Smits, not a cHeney, to move up in the polls enough to pull it off. Making it to VP would be a good start.

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 11/25/2007 @ 3:13pm

    ricky martin para presidente de los estados unidos!

    ¿do puerto ricans qualify?

    i can't see vp richardson being the nefarious type (fingers crossed, once again).

    you're right about hillary -- all she says is "that's just not true, wolf"

    too bad about gore; maybe someone's got dirt or they bought him off. seems like a nice dude, despite his having gone through some "incarnations", to paraphrase a certain paraphraser.

    let's hope it's because he's learning.

    never forget -- these guys and gals are professional politicians, and k-street is their home, sweet home.

    at least obama's funny.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 11/25/2007 @ 9:32pm

30. Although I agree most often with Kucinich, Richardson has got my vote at this point. Sure, some will nitpick an issue here or there, but no candidate is perfect. Richardson has got experience, intelligence and shows leadership---qualities lacking in the current White House. Richardson's right on the war--and appears to have more conviction than Edwards, Obama or Clinton. He simply will be better in the job than those three, in my opinion.

    People should consider Richardson.

    Posted by Hman23 at 11/26/2007 @ 10:48am