Where The Campaign Stands, 5/16 Edition
by Chris Bowers, Wed May 16, 2007 at 10:42:26 AM EDT
Taking into account all polls conducted after April 1st, here are the polling averages for all early states according to the current, most likely primary calendar. The averages for national polls are derived from my high-end and low-end polling averages, and include the two new national polls released today:
- Iowa, January 7th: Edwards 26.5%, Clinton 23.5%, Obama 20.5%, Richardson 5.5%, Biden 5.0%. (two polls)
- New Hampshire, January 15th: Clinton 35.3%, Edwards 23.7%, Obama 20.3% (three polls, one only asked on the top three)
- Nevada, January 19th: Clinton 36.0%, Obama 16.5%, Edwards 14.0%, Richardson 5.5% (two polls, one included Gore)
- South Carolina, January 22nd: Clinton 30.9%, Obama 27.3%, Edwards 18.0% (seven polls, one including Gore)
- Florida, January 29th: Clinton 39.0%, Obama 17.8%, Edwards 13.2% (five polls, one including Gore, one including only the top three)
- Michigan, January 29th: Clinton 33.5%, Obama 24.5%, Edwards 18.0% (two polls)
- National, February 5th. High-end average, six polls: Clinton 39.3%, Obama 27.2%, Edwards 15.2%. Low-end average, seven polls: Clinton 37.0%, Obama 25.9%, Edwards 13.9%
- Clinton has not been this high in the national polling averages since late February. However, it should be noted that her late February lead was larger than her current edge, because Obama has also risen during that time period.
- Florida looks like a pretty nice firewall for Clinton right now. Even if she is shut out of Iowa and New Hampshire, she can retreat to Florida (and, possibly, Nevada) as a means of generating momentum for February 5th. Then again, right not she looks pretty good in New Hampshire, so that isn't a huge worry. Still, it is nice to have what seems to be a "Plan B" available.
- The low African-American populations in Iowa and New Hampshire are bad for Obama and Clinton, and good for Edwards. His strong Iowa and New Hampshire positions, combined with his lower national poll and monetary standings, make his current position is the most difficult to figure out.
,br> - Richardson and Biden have passed 5% in Iowa, which seems significant to me. Richardson is now on the radar in two early states, Iowa and Nevada. Dodd might get some traction now that he is running some ads, but we will have to see
- Memo to pollsters: I don't think we need anymore South Carolina polls for a while. Can we start seeing some more Iowa and New Hampshire polls, please? Still, it is interesting that South Carolina is the only "split" state, in that Clinton leads in five of the seven polls, and Obama leads in two of them.
- My reasoning behind the calendar goes like this. With Florida moving to January 29th, Michigan's threat to join any state moving insider February 5th will cause them to move to January 29th. Further, South Carolina has threatened to move up in response to Florida's move, and January 22nd is the most likely option. Also, Iowa said they would move to January 7th after the Florida decision. That makes me guess that New Hampshire moves up to January 15th, in between Iowa and South Carolina. It should be noted that this is all obviously subject to change.
- These are the current standings, but what factors are the best predictors of future success? Barring unusual events like the Elizabeth Edwards announcement or some sort of gaffe, rising name ID, labor support, netroots support, staff quality (which means media and field quality) and available monetary resources all come to mind as engines that could alter the campaign between now and Iowa. I'll leave you to decide who those varying engines favor. It also remains to be seen how much the national standings will change after Iowa.
Tags: Democrats, polls, President 2008, Primary Elections (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
59 Comments