« Idea of the Day | Main | Stimulating » National Democratic Picture12 Jan 2008 09:26 am
The Democratic race, in chart form, according to the new CNN/Opinion Research national poll. Hillary Clinton's closing in on the fifty percent mark. My not-backed-up-by-evidence guess would be that undecided voters are very susceptible to "bounce" effects, but people who've psychologically committed themselves to a candidate aren't. In short, even winning in Nevada and South Carolina may not give Barack Obama what he needs. Comments (32)
Or, better yet, pay no heed at all to national polls and instead pay attention to the state by state races. There's no national primary, but there are plenty of state levels ones. 
Considering that a large portion of Obama's support comes from people under 30 and those people are most likely to only have cell phones that could add to his numbers being lower. Polls need to start taking that into account or at least not only polling people with land lines.
The national electorate can't be nearly as decided as this poll suggests. Just eyeballing it, it appears that ~5% of the respondents are undecided (or less?). I'm sure there are more voters than that who remain uncommitted, even if they favor one candidate or another at the moment.
There's still a lot of name recognition support in these numbers I'd suggest. In states where Obama hasn't campaigned yet he's not very well known. Not unknown by any means, but people still don't know what he's about. Many people don't watch national news and at least where I live he (everyone except when they are "in town") gets very little local coverage.
Matt Y. I predict a Clinton Victory. I have lost interest in the primary. It started the day before NH primary. But, I should have realized it started before IA caucus. It just takes a slow process. What do I mean? - Bill chasing after The Register editorial board. Now, in NH, - Obama got success. His supporters grew. But, so did McCain's candidacy. With HRC in tears, older white women feeling sorry, press showing HRC in tears, Bill referring to fairy tale, HRC mentioning MLK Jr., etc. Now, we are at present. With one all (IA for Obama, NH for Clinton). The comments that HRC gets the press to report (Iron my shirt, no woman is illegal, etc.) are all to build HRC. There is simply no way Obama can win now. Laugh if you will. The Clinton Machine never stops. Someone recently said that people stop smelling when they are asleep. The Clinton machine never sleeps. It plots, plots, and plots every little or big thing to put HRC ahead. Any belief that HRC is playing nice or innocent or has done a mistake is a figment of imagination. Take it from here. Obama cannot win. The Clinton machine is a turtle. It will win. There is nothing you can do. Should you run fast, should you raise more money, should you have big rallys, this is all a waste. What a tragic story? In this reality, David always loses to the Goliath.
I believe I speak for WELL OVER 50% of the voting population in the US when I say that I will never vote for Hillary Clinton UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. She should pray for a 3rd party candidate like Bloomberg to jump in. Like Perot did for her lying husband, that's the only way she'll be able to slither in.
Vote for Hillary! She is exactly the president America deserves. No doubt about it.
Re: In states where Obama hasn't campaigned yet he's not very well known. Is the poll a pol of registered Democrats or just of registered Democrats who are likely primary voters? If the latter I seriously doubt that there are very many of those who haven't heard of Obama as these people are among the most motivated of voters and they pay attention.
But look at the two sets of data -- they're saying the same thing. Edwards has the same total and Hillary/Obama absorbed the withdrawing candidacies. Hillary's ahead, like she was in December, and maybe Iowa doesn't mean that much. But Obama's been doing this in lily-white states.
"My not-backed-up-by-evidence guess would be that undecided voters are very susceptible to "bounce" effects, but people who've psychologically committed themselves to a candidate aren't." At least based on the way I answer telephone polls, I think you're making a mistake here. It's true that the couple hundred people polled have now psychologically committed themselves, because they had to answer who they'd vote for on the phone. I'd guess people who did that would in fact be less likely to waffle in the future. But the thing is, most people haven't. The poll tells us that if you called em up, 50% would commit to Clinton, but fortunately, most of them haven't been called.
I'm with Tom. I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. I have to admit that I had strong antipathy toward her before now as a result of her votes on Iraq and Kyl/Lieberman. But I could still have imagined voting for her in a general election prior to the campaign she's been running. But the unbelievably low, negative, and slimy campaign she's been running against Obama has permanently alienated me. And the Clintons' NH campaign has spilled over into all kinds of very negative attitudes toward Bill Clinton, too. His behavior in NH was just utterly CLASSLESS. Watching him grasp desperately for the closest thing he can get to a third term is revolting and totally inappropriate in a former president. The two of them are perfectly prepared to sabotage the future of the Democratic party in service of their loathsome power grab.
"Any belief that HRC is playing nice or innocent or has done a mistake is a figment of imagination." But just remember, if you actually point this out, it's because you are a *sexist pig*.
Wow, you really are poll obsessed aren't you? Lacking from your graph is any indication of the depth of support these candidates have. Remember that even on the eve of the NH election, something like 20% of the voters polled said they might be open to switch candidates. Also remember that the numbers for Iowa and NH didn't start to solidify until a few weeks before voters went to the polls. Clinton was leading Obama by around 10% in NH in mid-December, and tied with him in Iowa. We've got over 3 week before Tsunami-Tuesday.
BC@12:17 gets this exactly right. Meanwhile, as a Californian who prefers Edwards>>>Obama>Clinton, but will vote for Obama now that Edwards is basically out of it, I think that makes me a psychologically committed voter susceptible to bounce effects.
Eorse, hope you are wrong, but i hear what you are saying. I have a feeling that there is one more story left to emerge that will shake things up, one way or the other. Alot of prominent Dems are staking their repuations still on Obama by endorsing him. It's a sad state when events that cause pity and empathy to get a woman elected. Now i know what righties mean when they say liberals will fall for anything if it has an emotional sticker stuck to it. I know it's Monday morning qb'ing, but the second an Obama operator saw they "Iron my Shirt" and tear incident they should have had Obama address it in some way at an event he was at or outside in between rallies. It would have separated him from all the garbage being tossed around.
To Eorse, The Clinton Machine, the Clinton Machine, The Clinton Machine, David and Goliath What a bunch of baloney! The Clinton Machine can't tell any voter how to vote. They watch. They listen. They make up their own minds. I started out wanting Obama but I switched to Clinton well before the Iowa caucus. Why? Because Obama began to strike me as a rock star with only one good song. Clinton was far better and more substantive in debates. What the voters saw in NH last week was a candidate who fought really hard to win vs. one who thought he could coast on sweet music. This race is tight and moves on. We'll see if Obama has a second act. If he can adjust the way Clinton has and shows he has the same fire, then maybe he deserves to win.
Dave: You are smart. When I heard the Iron my shirt, no woman is illegal, etc. I thought of the time when in IA a young student was asked to ask a question. A plant. With Clintons, there are no stones not turned. From everything (Charlie Rose show, to fairy tales, to MLK jr), no one can stop Clinton. I have already made a bet (the day after NH primary) where I bet on Clinton. I will win at least the bet. The bet will cover all my contributions to Obama. Thus, I will end up even. A hundred Obama cannot stop HRC. You have no idea of what happens when you have to hungry lions (Bill and Hill and all their cheer-leaders) after you. You cannot survive. The only hope I have left is that McCain will win GOP. Yes, call me a TRAITOR, if you wish. I will vote for McCain if he is the nominee and his opponent is Clinton. I may disagree with many of his positions, but he has more integrity and courage than both Clintons put together.
When you all say you will not vote for Hilary Clinton under any circumstances, do you mean in the Primary or the General elections? Because, quite frankly, I can't imagine not voting for her when the Republicans all kill each other off in their circular firing squad, and Cheney steps in to either appoint Jeb or himself as their candidate. Just never say never, that's all I ask.
On Intrade, Hillary was at 62 a month ago, and is now at 55. Obama was at 32 a month ago, and is now at 43. There is still reason to hope for an Obama victory. New Hampshire didn't destroy him, it merely set up a battle at least until Feb. 5. It's a battle he is prepared for. And his chart looks fairly good. His trough after NH wasn't all that low, while Hillary's peak after NH is lower than her previous high on Intrade. There is reason to hope that Obama learned a lesson or two in NH about how to appear concerned and touchy-feely, but in his own way. Also, about how to express respect for Hillary while cutting her down. I think he's a good enough campaigner to find ways to do this. One more thing -- I think that there was no Bradley effect in NH, which is a big relief. And Hillary and her husband alienated lots of black voters. I still think Obama can pull it out.
Ella: Your nonsensical rhetoric aside, brace yourself for Hillary getting blown out in the general assuming she gets the nomination. For better or worse, there are effectively no Republicans and very, very few independents who will vote for her. Add in the Obama supporters (like me) who, appalled by the Clinton's underhanded and devious methods, African American voters put off by the same, and you have two other large groups who will either abstain or vote for McCain (assuming he gets the nod). Given the above, explain to me again how she'll win?
The CNN poll data is registered Dems only. Indies can vote in many of the Feb 5. states, notably California. Presuming Obama does well in SC/NV (at least win one, and a strong second), and then does demonstrably better than Clinton (in # of delegates) on Feb. 5, he's in good shape. Also, on Feb. 12 are lots of Southern states, with many black Dem voters.
I won't vote for her. Ever. The Clintons are no better than the Republicans.
I'm also an Obama supporter who will never vote for Clinton. There are lots of us out there. I wonder how many of us started out as Clinton supporters, drifted over to Obama because we were inspired by his rhetoric and record, and would have been happy to support Clinton in the general election if not for the relentlessly GOP/Karl Rove style tactics of the Clintons. Particularly awful: the mailer implying that Obama is weak on women's reproductive rights. She can't be rewarded for winning dirtily.
Tom, Forgive me for this statement. You are being naive. Do you have any proof of anyone actually defeating Clintons when they are hungry? The cemetry is full of GOP (e.g., Bob Livington - a speaker for a mere few hours) who tried to harm them. Hell, I think voters are scared of not voting for her. The power of the Machine is that you support it even when you do not want to. Like the movie, Field of Dreams, where the narrators says that they will come to Iowa just like that. The voters will vote for Clinton, just like NH white women (older) did just last week. You have no idea what you are up against. Accept the reality. Clinton is the nominee for Democratic Party.
Do you have any proof of anyone actually defeating Clintons when they are hungry? The cemetry is full of GOP (e.g., Bob Livington - a speaker for a mere few hours) who tried to harm them. This "the Clintons are an unstoppable political force" thing is the biggest load of B.S. I've ever heard. Bill got elected governor a few times in a then heavily-Democratic state. He barely won his own party's nomination in 1992. He was elected President with 43% of the vote because a weak economy hurt and Ross Perot fatally undercut Bush. He got re-elected because he was an incumbent and was running against a corpse. Hillary got elected to the Senate from a blue state with a huge monetary advantage against a last-second replacement candidate (Lazio), then got re-elected because she was basically unopposed. The Clintons have a.)picked their battles very carefully, and b.)been lucky. If she's the nominee, though, she's toast if she's up against someone like McCain, because 50% OF THE COUNTRY ALREADY SAYS THEY WON'T VOTE FOR HILLARY. The Republicans only need to persuade another 5% to vote (R), which will be exceedingly easy to do with a nominee who appeals to independents and conservative Democrats like McCain does, and you're looking at a wipeout of Reagan-Mondale proportions.
I support Obama or Edwards, but will reluctantly vote HRC if necessary. If the worst happens, I hope all you never-shalls will be happy with next year's SCOTUS, not to mention the hundred-year occupation.
Happy? No. But the country will deserve it.
Xeynon, You are falling into the trap (that I have often fallen). 1. You say HRC cannot be the nominee. I say she will be. The axiom again; The Clinton Machine Power is that you will vote for it even when you do not want to do so. Accept the reality. If McCain is not GOP nominee, it is President HRC for next-8 years. There is no other reality. Today is 1/12/08, a year before the 1/20/09 happening.
eorse: I will vote for McCain if he is the nominee and his opponent is Clinton. I may disagree with many of his positions, but he has more integrity and courage than both Clintons put together. Also eorse: Hell, I think voters are scared of not voting for her. The power of the Machine is that you support it even when you do not want to. Back to Andruw: Good to see another batshit-crazy lefty comment thread on a MY post. McCain, to the right of Clinton on every issue, some significantly so, INCLUDING IRAQ, but he's got the eorse vote. Hope your daughter dies from an illegal abortion. p.s., not really, but you get the point.
I'd never vote for Clinton. IF we're going to get disastrous republican policies, i'd like the republican to have an R after their name and not have democrat's help in destroying liberals.
Andruw, McCain has more courage than both Clintons. His family has pursued adoption vigorously. He can evolve his positions. Did you think of that? Your blind/automat support of Clinton shows how much you care about individuality and expertise. Clinton is, at the end of the day, a spousal beneficiary. Without her husband, she would not be in the Senate. Her Wellesely and Yale experience is trivial. Just because you got to well-known schools does not make you good. By the way, did she not fail her bar exam? I wonder if there is any legal document by her that is considered by scholars as something that adds to the legal knowledge base. She is just a lucky woman. A beneficiary. Forget her. And, forget you.
Comments closed January 26, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Probably better to stick to the RCP average or Pollster.com regression. The RCP shows it C-37 O-30 E-17.7. In that case winning NV and SC may in fact be enough for Obama. Then again, we may be to the point of the race where 'bounces' aren't relevant.
Posted by AJ | January 12, 2008 10:16 AM