Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, once considered to be a shoe-in for the presidential nomination of the Democrat party, seems to be support in the critical states of Iowa and New Hampshire, according to recent polls.

She still leads in New Hampshire,but her support seems to be dwindling, and it appears she has lost the lead completely in Iowa.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton trails her chief Democratic rivals in the Iowa caucus polls and is clinging to a shaky front-runner status in New Hampshire — the two pivotal kickoff contests that could decide her fate in next year’s nomination battle.

A mere nine months before Democrats begin choosing their nominee in the snowy caucuses and primaries of January, the senator from New York retains her position at the front of the pack in the national party-preference polls. But she also faces increasingly tighter races in Iowa and New Hampshire — states known for burying front-runners and boosting challengers.

In Iowa, the latest polls compiled by the Real Clear Politics Web site (www.realclearpolitics.com) showed that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina led Mrs. Clinton by an average 30.3 percent to 26.8 percent. An April 1 Strategic Vision poll had Mr. Edwards leading at 27 percent, with 20 percent for Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois and Mrs. Clinton close behind at 19 percent.

The Midwestern state, which holds its first-in-the-nation nominating caucuses Jan. 14, was where Democratic front-runner Howard Dean stumbled in a series of embarrassing gaffes that swiftly swept him from the 2004 presidential race.

The political landscape looks better for Mrs. Clinton in New Hampshire, which holds its primary Jan. 22, but not by much. A Zogby poll showed her narrowly leading Mr. Edwards by six points — 29 percent to 23 percent — with Mr. Obama in a dead heat for second place. But the University of New Hampshire’s Granite State Poll last week showed that her support has fallen dramatically since February, from 35 percent to 27 percent, while Mr. Edwards’ support had jumped by five percentage points over the same period to 21 percent — putting the two in a statistical dead heat.

Mrs. Clinton’s national front-runner status was reinforced last week when she announced that she had collected $26 million in campaign donations in the first quarter, a record in presidential primary contributions. But Mr. Obama appeared to trump that achievement when he announced a few days later that he had raised almost as much, $25 million, and from twice as many donors — 100,000 — than Mrs. Clinton reported.

With more donors as a base Obama has more opportunity to collect more money. It seems Mrs. Clinton may have tapped out her donors, but then we don’t know how many have given the maximum amount allowable by law.

Politics is operated by the rules of survival of the fittest, with the strongest one winning in the end.

This is something to keep our eye on.

Here’s an editorial that explains it better than I have.

Written by ~J~

Comments are closed.