Polling post or, what am I missing?

Clinton still leads by over 8 percent nationally, but so?

When I look at the recent state by state numbers for the Feb 5th states, I don't see much but scattered movement toward Obama.


State by state averages from recent polls:


IL-- Obama +29
GA-- Obama +8.3
CO-- Obama +2

CT-- Clinton +3
AL-- Clinton +4.3
MN-- Clinton +7
AZ-- Clinton +10.5
CA-- Clinton +11.7
NJ-- Clinton +15.6
MO-- Clinton +16
MA-- Clinton +17.5
OK-- Clinton +18.5
NY-- Clinton +21.8
TN-- Clinton +33.0

DE-- no polls
AR-- no polls
ID-- no polls
KS-- no polls
NM-- no polls
ND-- no polls
UT-- no polls
AK-- no polls

Maybe they will change over the next couple of days, but I'm not sure what gets known now that wasn't known when these polls were taken over the last week or so.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Comments

159 Comments

Chris Bowers disagrees

And sees across the board movement towards Obama.

by Kal 2008-02-01 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

To be blunt, when was the last time Bowers has been right this nomination cycle?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

Well, there's no denying that he does a much more thorough job dissecting poll numbers and spotting trends. His "Nomination at a Glance" series has much much more informative and unbiased than anything you've put up on MyDD this campaign season, for example.

by Kal 2008-02-01 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

Those are just numbers, they still all show Clinton leading, right?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

As you've shown, people can spin numbers in dishonest ways. Bowers at least provides an unbiased look.

For example, I doubt you would ever post about the gains Obama has made in the last week like Bowers has done. It wouldn't fit your "Obama's a loser" narrative.

by Kal 2008-02-01 09:03AM | 0 recs
Chris Bowers, pessimist

He is really down because of Iraq.  Actually I think the Dems shouls have de-emphasized Iraq sooner.  The economy is important, and I think to the way to regain control of the debate is to to tie Iraq to the economy.

BTW, Fox has Obama up 1% over McCain, and McCain up one over HRC.  So it's a tie race in the GE.  And I disagree that a drawn-out primary process is bad unless things get really nasty.

We need to get this right and our candidate will be better vetted and prepared for the GE campaign.

by mikelow1885 2008-02-01 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

I haven't seen any bloggers yet who are unbiased...  but I have seen plenty of projection all around based on personal beliefs.  And after 3 years of generally lurking in the blogosphere, I also haven't noticed bloggers to be much better than the MSM at predicting electoral outcomes as all are working with the same flawed data.  Humans... objectivity... politics... HA!  

"People only see what they are prepared to see."  - Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

by dragoneyes 2008-02-01 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

Agree- Obama shows movement because just a couple weeks ago he was way behind in many of these states.

Many of those unpolled caucus states (i.e. almost all) he has a good shot at winning (note you didn't mention that)...

and this is a DELEGATE race, we don't do winner take all, and he will be well within striking distance after Feb 5th.

Oh Armstrong, is there anything you WON'T say to promote Hillary Clinton?

by jgkojak 2008-02-01 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

What does that have to do with providing an evenhanded analysis of the current poll numbers?

Bower's analysis is much better than your obviously slanted commentary. Please endorse Clinton already. This is ridiculous.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-01 09:01AM | 0 recs
You are conflating

polls taken before and after SC and the Kennedy endorsement. See, for example, the Colo poll. Here is a summary of polls showing an average bounce of 11.5 percent.

With Rassmussen over two nights showing an essentially tied race (from Obama -11 last week) and Gallup showing an 18 point bounce, it is impossible to argue this race isn't closing fast.

by fladem 2008-02-01 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: You are conflating

But will it close fast enough to make it a tight race by Tuesday? That's the big question.

by shergald 2008-02-01 09:22AM | 0 recs
overall trends

Obama leads in the south, having consolidated the african american vote.  The northeast has closed dramatically, but Clinton still leads.

In the end, I think next week is decided by the Hispanic vote

by fladem 2008-02-01 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: overall trends

He doesn't lead in Tennesee (not by a long shot), he seems to not lead in Georgia, and my guess is that he doesn't lead in Arkansas.  The south ain't so solid for him.

by DemJedi 2008-02-01 09:58AM | 0 recs
How does

he not lead in Georgia - the last poll has him up 16.  Alabama is tied at worst.

I have not seen any numbers from Arkansas.

by fladem 2008-02-01 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: You are conflating

I think it is more about all the undecideds making up their minds than people switching.  the undecideds seem to be breaking for Obama, but do they number enough to pull out a win for him?  doesn't look that way so far.

by Scope441 2008-02-01 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: You are conflating

Jerome should delete his post and replace it with yours.

by Kal 2008-02-01 09:24AM | 0 recs
Re: You are conflating

To compare the swing in two surveys conducted by different organizations with different methodoligies is faulty.  Very faulty.

by DemJedi 2008-02-01 09:57AM | 0 recs
What's up with TN

What's up in Tennessee? The level of Hillary Clinton's popularity (or Obama's unpopularity) seems like an order of magnitude different from the other places.

by mhojo 2008-02-01 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

I don't mean kiss up, but Jerome is usually right.

by JFK464 2008-02-01 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

Good point.

I, on the other hand, have been right almost every single time this nomination cycle - and I'm telling you right now that not only are you missing polls that exist (I'm assuming because they're unfavorable to your girl, Hillary), but you're also not taking note of all the movement in Obama's direction. Obama has the momentum here. FL and MI gave Clinton no bounce (as I told you before that they wouldn't). And Obama is on the upswing in almost every single Feb. 5th state. If he wasn't, why in the world does Hillary need to run ads in NJ, CT, and NY - among other supposedly "safe" states for her?

Bowers may disagree - and that may be a signal to you that you're right - but I strongly disagree - and so far, I've been right where you've been overwhelmingly wrong.

by Elise 2008-02-01 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

you are a vacuous skank.

by truthteller2007 2008-02-20 04:59PM | 0 recs
Fuck yourself, asshole. nt

by Elise 2008-03-16 10:04PM | 0 recs
"closer" is the "movement"

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: "closer" is the "movement"

The dynamic changes in a two person race.

by jgkojak 2008-02-01 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

You would think by now that Chris would have learned not to trust the momentum theory. If any primary disproved it this one has. At least he has discounted it enough to give Obama only a 25% chance of placing under poblano's Feb 5th scenario.

Nice to see that everyone understands this is a delegate battle, as Jerome pointed out after New Hampshire.

by souvarine 2008-02-01 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

I think Jerome has forgotten that. He's focusing on who "wins" each state, as if it were if winner-take-all contest. Someone needs to remind him that this isn't a FPP system. "Winning" states doesn't matter. Winning delegates does.

by Kal 2008-02-01 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris Bowers disagrees

As far as I can tell he understands that perfectly well. Hence the 100-200 delegate advantage people are looking for from Feb 5th before anyone will call this over. In the larger states delegate allocation is a factor but it doesn't overwhelm population, results would have to be nearly a tie for the popular loser to win more delegates.

by souvarine 2008-02-01 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?
Jerome,
I remember at one time you were very against poll averaging because it wasn't very accruate. Have you changed your mind on that?
by Ga6thDem 2008-02-01 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Not unless there are enough polls (which isn't the case here), but I think the overall picture is worth seeing.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

The most recent numbers show consistent movement towards Obama, so Jerome is forced to include numbers that:

1) Are from before South Carolina

  1. Are from before the Kennedy endorsement
  2. Include John Edwards

If one looks at the most recent polls that were done after the most recent campaign-changing events, one would see Obama making big gains.

by Kal 2008-02-01 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I guess you define big gains differently than I do. I don't think that it looks good for Obama right now. 3 states? I wouldn't call that a win. And I wouldn't bet on Edwards support going to Obama in GA. It will probably go to Hillary.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-01 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

The latest polls, conducted after the latest news developments, show Obama up in Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia (by 16!), Illinois,

He is also with 6 points in Arizona, 3 points in California, between 6 and 12 points in New Jersey,

Is is also probably doing very well in Kansas. Massachusetts has conflicting polls showing Obama either down by 6, 3, or more. Missouri, New Mexico,  Utah, and Minnesota have no recent polls.

If anyone wants to be like Jerome and include out-dated polls, they are welcome to do so. But by doing so they are only showing themselves to be intellectually dishonest.

by Kal 2008-02-01 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

You are wrong.

Survey US just released a poll from Alabama that shows the race a deadlock at 47% to 47%:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=37192ca0-6760-4dad-8c6b-2e293e bc5800

Obama is NOT up in Connecticut, that is a total fabrication.  The best you have is ONE Rasmussen poll that showed an exact tie, and today tow polls were released polling CT with a Clinton 8.5% lead (aggregated.)    

Georgia is correct, and you can have Illinois, although even THERE today's poll shows a lead for Obama of just 11%, somewhat a stunner.  

Then you have MA in which S-USA showed a massive Clinton lead just yesterday.

And, let's not forget Tennessee, a state Obama supposedly had an excellent chance in, but is turning into an absolute blowout.  

So, with ALABAMA completely deadlocked (as of today - where can Obama shine if he does not lead strongly in ALABAMA at this point, only Georgia?)

I guess if you want to see great news (and it has tightened some in some states to an extent) you can, but with Tennessee turning into a Clinton blowout, Alabama (a supposed Obama stronghold) tied as of today, Connecticut moving away from the tie Rasmussen polled more towards Clinton, I think there is plenty to look at that looks pretty dangerous for Obama.  What IF Survey USA is right about ALABAMA and Clinton can win that state, against all odds?    

by georgep 2008-02-01 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Here here.

by DemJedi 2008-02-01 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

TPM just reported on a SurveyUSA poll today from CT with Obama up 4 in Connecticut.  

Of course, it also showed Clinton with a 16-point lead in NY, and a 12-point lead in NJ.  

Being from Connecticut, and knowing the state, I think it's safe to say it narrowly leans Obama now.  

by telephasic 2008-02-01 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

The Alabama poll isn't even done by a polling institution. Seems the averages are more reliable than that kind of poll.

The field poll showed Obama down 12 pts. It's the most reliable and remember that a lot of people have voted already in that one.

The most recent MA poll had Obama down by 24 pts.

You are undercutting your argument by saying what you feel instead of what is actually happening.

It seems that you've decided that Obama is going to win so you're looking for polls to validate your mindset.

by Ga6thDem 2008-02-01 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Actually, most of that is driven by Rasmussen.

Yet,

in Massachusetts Survey USA yesterday showed a vastly different picture than Rasmussen's findings

2 new polls out dispute Rasmussen's findings on CT, one with a very large discrepancy

Tennessee shows Hillary surging strongly ahead.  

Clinton is suddenly looking very strong in Illinois (only an 11% lead for Obama in IL?)

There is a lot of evidence out there that Hillary is doing fine in the Feb. 5 states, in fact in some instances looks better than before (tennessee was supposed to be an Obama pickup, which looks almost impossible to imagine at this point with three polls showing very, very large Clinton leads.)

The difference in some instances here is which poll to believe.   Rasmussen or Survey USA?  Rasmussen or Insider Advantage?    Seems like if you go with Rasmussen, you get a bit of an Obama-friendlier picture, if you go with other polls, it changes.  Which is why Jerome is right to do the averaging.  Rasmussen hasn't proven very reliable in states as of late, not like Survey USA.  

by georgep 2008-02-01 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Have you examined the internals of that SUSA poll? They under-represent young voters and over represent women. I don't think it is a 6 point race, but I think it is less than 24 points apart.

by Obama08 2008-02-01 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

How do you explain Tennessee turning into such a massive blowout?  That was one of the 5 states Obama was supposedly competetive in.   And, with S-USA showing ALABAMA of all states TIED as of today, that has to be some pretty bad news for the Obama people.  ALABAMA?  One of the 3 surefire firewall states for Obama?  

by georgep 2008-02-01 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I am sorry but even if you take numbers only after SC (which is fine) you still find that Obama is leading in ...

IL, GA, and CO (single digits)

He is essentially tied in CT (although the average favors Clinton) and AL.

Clinton is leading in single digits in MN and CA.

In every other state Clinton is leading in double digits.

by kristoph 2008-02-01 10:14AM | 0 recs
The MN

numbers were taken last week.

As is the poll from Colorado.

There is no Illinois polls showing a lead in single digits.  The only Illinois poll since SC is from ARG, the single worst pollster this cycle.

The only post SC poll in CA shows the race within the MOE.

by fladem 2008-02-01 12:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Nice way to spin the numbers. Jerome, we expect better analysis from your front page stories. So, nothing has changed in CT where Obama is leading now according to the last poll? Georgia where obama is expanding his lead? AL and CA tightening?

C'mon, there is no way you can spin this Mo

by Jr1886 2008-02-01 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Really?  Show me, I just went and looked and must have missed it?

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Survey USA just released their polls for New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

by minvis 2008-02-01 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Here's the link.

http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.a spx

by minvis 2008-02-01 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

This shows Clinton with a 24 point lead in MA, post-Kennedy and post-Edwards.

So, where's the Mo?  And where's the Kennedy bounce?

by rcipw 2008-02-01 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Democratic Nomination

January 30-31, 2008

Clinton 47
Obama 37

Jerome,

Have you seen this?

by JFK464 2008-02-01 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

You mean the Ras poll in CT. Unfortunately as a paid or volunteer operative in the Obama campaign you'd still be supporting him if he kicked your grandma. Broadly speaking I'm sure Jerome is right. The die is largely cast. We're heading into the super bowl weekend, what do think will be the biggest topic on Monday, the superbowl ads, the superbowl results, or Clinton/Obama's latest speech. It's now moved into ground games.  

by ottovbvs 2008-02-01 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

No, see above.  Survey USA just released their polls.

by minvis 2008-02-01 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

ARG shows a 13% Clinton lead in CT:

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

The thing about the S-USA poll showing a 4% Clinton lead:  Rasmussen polled CT 4 days ago and showed an EXACT TIE.  Are we to believe that Obama's upward movement has resulted in him losing 4% in CT?   No, what that means is that Rasmussen's poll was crap to begin with, as suspected.  

by georgep 2008-02-01 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Come on George, a 4% difference between to polls is pretty much the margin of error. We know ARG to be out of whack. I'm guessing it is a fairly close race in CT.

by Obama08 2008-02-01 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Oh, come on.  Rasmussen has been out of whack all season, yet you beleive them explicitly?  I haven't seen one good final-day poll from them yet, and we are already swiping Feb. 5.  

by georgep 2008-02-01 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

No, I'm saying that SUSA and Rasmussen pretty much agree. ARG has truly been crap all season.

by Obama08 2008-02-01 11:52AM | 0 recs
You are attacking

Rassmussen with ARG???

Hah Hah Hah.

ARG hasn't been within the MOE yet.

by fladem 2008-02-01 12:05PM | 0 recs
Re: You are attacking

Rasmussen has been polling crap all season long.  So have others who sell themselves as "analysts" supposedly knowledgeable about "bounces" out of Iowa and qualified to make bold predictions.  

by georgep 2008-02-01 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I (a Clinton supporter) agree CT is contested as is AL and CO and possibly MN.

I think CA is done because of early voting as is AZ.

So let's say Obama takes them all ...

IL, GA, CO, AL, CT and MN

You know AL, CT and MN will be tight, so lets say he takes all 3 by by 5% ... that's still a net gain of only about 20-30 delegates, let's give him 10 for CO.

Clinton is running at 20+ in JUST TN, and OK which gets her more then 30-40 net delegates.

by kristoph 2008-02-01 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

The Survey USA poll for Connecticut shows a 4% Obama lead, not a 4% Clinton lead.

by minvis 2008-02-01 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Yes, I saw that.  Mea culpa.  

by georgep 2008-02-01 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

4 of those polls are over a week old, at best you should just average the last 2 polls and that gives you a 4.5 % lead by Clinton.

by benb 2008-02-01 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

cherry picking has become a favorite.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Surely of yours and not of his. He has a good point about momentum. If polls nationwide are showing momentum moving towards any candidate, then old polls shouldn't be acceptable.

by Obama08 2008-02-01 09:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I'm surprised Jerome isn't averaging polls from the last year to show Clinton still has a 35 point lead nationally.

by Kal 2008-02-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I do believe mo may be on Obama's side, but we need to keep in my early voting ignores trends (recent debates, endorsements, etc).  Trends are meaningless to people who have cast their ballots.  So it is probably important to include polls over several weeks, which i think Jerome has done, to incorporate past trends.  It really is hard to predict voting in general, throw in early voting and all I can do is scratch my head???  My wife and I voted (early) in CA about two weeks ago...  ...if we changed our minds (we haven't) too bad for us.

by oc 2008-02-01 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I think i will vote HRC but there is a definite movement in polls to Obama but these all were taken when he was getting press. This race will be frozen  since we have the superbowl this weekend and clinton will carry the major states NY, NJ, MO, TN and CA by a small margin.

by bayareasg 2008-02-01 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Didn't Obama buy some sort of time for the Superbowl, some sort of non-political get-to-know-me thing? (Non-Political = not a campaign ad.)

I've just heard it, but haven't been able to find anything to substantiate.

by MNPundit 2008-02-01 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Only in Massachusetts.

by kristoph 2008-02-01 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Obama is gaining despite Jeromes best efforts to quell it.

When Obama fills Edward Jones Dome on Sunday with 70k..is that a signal he is fading?

Fight the populist Obama movement as much as you can...it is not going to wait on your blessing.

by hawkjt 2008-02-01 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Its comments like this, that want me to just take a week off, let the reality settle in on posters like this.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Maybe you can buy a return ticket to the reality based community. We'd love to have you back. We've missed you the past several months.

by Kal 2008-02-01 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Mr Reality, check back with me next wed on this ticket you'll be needing.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 04:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Please do.

by MNPundit 2008-02-01 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Jerome, I've found your analysis to be the most accurate. But the analysis doesn't favor Obama so you're accused of bias. Keep up the good work.

by JFK464 2008-02-01 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Nice suck up. Armstrong has no "analysis". That is the problem. Read Bower's article. I accuse Armstrong of bias because he is biased. No doubt about it. Fact is, a true analysis shows movement for Obama. It may not be enough but that it what the polling data shows. Armstrong's spins it as with everything else. Please, continue your sucking up now....

by Lawdawg 2008-02-01 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?
Obama will still be standing next week with the 9th and 12th contests looking good for him.
If he has a tough supertuesday..it means his supporters will ramp up their donations..like after NH.
Try to beat back the enthusiasm for a democratic candidate..it seems to be all you write about anymore.
by hawkjt 2008-02-01 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I actually think it may help Hillary if the race is a lot closer.  Many people wouldn't go to polls if they thought Hillary was going to win by big margin anyways.  

It does make it a lot more stressful, but in the end the win will be a lot sweeter.

by comebackkid 2008-02-01 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

That may be true. I remember that was one of the theories as to why Obama didn't win more independents in New Hampshire--Many of them thought it was in the bag, so they voted in the Republican primary instead. If Clinton supporters believe it's in the bag, they may not turn out to vote.

Conversely, though, you'd have to imagine that Obama supporters will be even more energized if the polls are closer. You're going to work extra hard to get people to the polls if victory is within reach.

by Kal 2008-02-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Even I, a Clinton supporter, know that Hillary is in trouble. Obama has been moving up ever since SC. The media has chosen to ignore 1.5 million Floridians and emphasize everything good about Obama. He has been getting all the endorsements.

Obama is moving up and we can't deny that. If this continues, and I don't see why it won't, Obama will come out of Super Tuesday will at least 50% of the delegates. Last night's debate was excellent for Clinton, but the media is focusing on Iraq, so Obama essentially won the post debate spin. Obama has ads in 20 states, Clinton has ads in 12 states. I'll say it again, Clinton is in trouble.

The latest CT poll is troubling for me. I thought it was in the bag for Clinton. I guess not. Seeing that poll makes me believe that Obama's chances of winning MA, and CA is growing.

I don't mean to sound doom and gloom on Clinton, I want her to win, but the Clinton campaign is not exactly in their best shape. We are increasingly seeing the chances of an Obama vs. McCain race grow.

by RJEvans 2008-02-01 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Don't fall for the media spin RJ. You of all people. Good God!!

And you do sound gloomy.  3 days until Super Tuesday- wouldn't you expect a surge from Obama? I would.  Suck it up and keep the faith!

by lonnette33 2008-02-01 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

"You of all people."

What does that mean?

I'm just not in the right place personally, so anything will make me sound gloomy.

When I see Obama with a last minute surge, it gives me pause. I worry about the Clinton campaign. I hope she could pull it off, but I worry.

by RJEvans 2008-02-01 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

"You of all people."- means you're one of Hill's biggest supporters- don't let the media spin this election with this "surge" crap. Hill's in a good place. I didn't see desperation last night. She'll be fine. Obama's sending out negative mail concerning Hill's health-now that sounds desperate. Read Undies Sided diary. Obama going to win delegates. He's going to win some states and that is to be expected. Hillary's a fighter.  

Keep the faith!

by lonnette33 2008-02-01 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

The Kennedys STOPPED The Clintons.  Literally and Figuratively.  All that shit they started in SC has backfired, when she HAD the AA vote before pulling the dog whistle tactics.  Now she has LOST the AA vote, and this is across the board.  She is in trouble.  Just wait, I see a very split delegate count Tuesday and Obama has his eye on the prize, PAST, 2/5.  He already has ads up in LA, ME, DC, VA, MD, WA, all states coming up NEXT.  She does not, and probably don't have the money to compete.  She sure as sugar did not raise 32M in the month of January.  That story we would know by now.

by iamready 2008-02-01 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

-She does not, and probably don't have the money to compete.

lol

by lonnette33 2008-02-01 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I assume the poster meant

"She does not, and probably won't have the money to compete."

a single letter typo draws your derision?

I call you troll. . .

       Yours,

        Varmint Control Board

by inexile 2008-02-01 10:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I think lonette33 is pointing out the absurdity of the claim. Slim was claiming that Clinton would run out of money before Nevada.

by souvarine 2008-02-01 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I just kind of glazed over after the "ignore 1.5 million people" nonsense. Break the rules, pay the price. Blame the Florida Democratic Party.

by mhojo 2008-02-01 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

guys --

its still the clinton vote v. the anti clinton vote.

All that movement?  The supporters of all the other candidates shifting to Obama (mostly).

But unless Obama gets 100% of that shift, he wont win.

It still looks like its Hillary's to lose.

(Though there are exceptions, Like in Ill. the "swing" has gone to Clinton, but thats because Edwards and Clinton were the anti-Obama vote in Ill.)

Oh, and Mass swing is expected with kennedy, kerry, and patrick -

I am just curious as to internals for all of these polls.

Are they 52/48 f to m?  If they arent polling women at higher rates (Considering NV,NH,MI,FL had at least 56% of the electorate as female) then the numbers will be skewed.

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-01 09:06AM | 0 recs
Pollsters are in for a surprise like NH

actually there is a surprise waiting for the pollsters like in NH there will be more women who will come out to vote than they are polling. So HRCs numbers are underreported. Since pollsters go with 52% - 48% while the real #s are 58-42.

by bayareasg 2008-02-01 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Pollsters are in for a surprise like NH

We have a winner -

that is exactly right.

FL had a 59-41 difference in women to men.

I would say for every % of women over polled, add .6% to Clinton's number.

so if they polled 52/48 - add 2-3 % to clinton's percentage

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-01 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Pollsters are in for a surprise like NH

As a point of clarification, in primaries, pollsters tend to do a 55/45 or 54/46 split.  It's 52/48 in general election samples.

But the general point is still very valid.

by DemJedi 2008-02-01 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

The "movement" is all within the last few days worth of polls. Obviously averaging in data going back a week or so will minimize it.

So, believe it or don't, but clearly this is a fast-moving race and events such as Edwards dropping out, the Kennedy endorsement, 32 million in January, etc. have the potential to shift things meaningfully.

I'm just surprised Clinton didn't get a Florida bump!:)

by animated 2008-02-01 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Because the media ignored 1.5 million Floridians.

by RJEvans 2008-02-01 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

MSM totally ignored Florida, so people around the country are not aware of Hillary's win.

by comebackkid 2008-02-01 09:14AM | 0 recs
Bower's Analysis

Everyone should read Bower's article as it shows real analysis for both Clinton and Obama. This is an example of what used to be on this website and is long gone now...

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=3573

by Lawdawg 2008-02-01 09:12AM | 0 recs
"Real Analysis" is...

...What people call poll numbers that show their preferred candidate ahead or inching upwards.

by Andre Walker 2008-02-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: "Real Analysis" is...

Nice try. The real analysis is looking at the poll numbers and providing commentary about what has to happen for either side to win. Bowers does that. Did you read the article? He still gave Clinton a 75% chance of having a significant delegate majority after Feb 5th. How is that slanted like every Armstrong comment of the last 6 months?

by Lawdawg 2008-02-01 09:22AM | 0 recs
So, then what's the problem?

"He [Bowers] still gave Clinton a 75% chance of having a significant delegate majority after Feb 5th. . . "

Armstrong thinks Hil is doing fine. Bowers was first invoked on this thread as being someone who "disagreed" with Armstrong. If Bowers says that chances are 3 out of 4 that Hil is way ahead after Super Tuesday, then where is the disagreement?

". . .How is that slanted like every Armstrong comment of the last 6 months?"

Fine. Bowers is not "slanted" and thinks Hil is most likely to win. According to you, Armstrong is "slanted" and thinks that Hil is most likely to win. Frankly, I care a lot less about whether Armstrong or Bowers is more "slanted" than I do about who is going to win.

by freemansfarm 2008-02-01 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: So, then what's the problem?

I was simply responding to the previous poster who indicated that Bowers was not providing an evenhanded analysis. Please read the entire thread. Armstrong is biased but I would not care if he would come out and endorse Clinton, then everyone would take that into account with his articles.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-01 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: "Real Analysis" is...

Chris is not a complete fool, he pushes the best possible case for Obama but when he looks hard at the numbers he knows Clinton is in a very strong position. So the difference is Jerome presents what he sees while Chris is pushing the best possible case for Obama.

Look back at pre-Iowa and he was pouring cold water on the Clinton supporters here.

by souvarine 2008-02-01 09:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Some most recent polls ...

NJ: C +16
MA: C +24
NY: C +16

CT: O +4 / C +13 (two different polls)

... so there is some movement. Obama may or may not win CT. I would say he will win IL, GA, AL and possibly CT and CO and a few of the small ones like AK.

by kristoph 2008-02-01 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I meant to say Alaska there, not Arkansas.

by kristoph 2008-02-01 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

You are in total denial.  Everyone, Everyone in the MSM is talking about the momentum for Obama, the movement in the national polls and now the movement in state polls.  And why is HRC running ads in NY, when she could spend that money for other 2/5 states?  Because Obama is breathing down her neck in NY.  You need to read what is going on the ground, instead of constantly shilling for HRC.  What will happen to you and this site if Obama wins?  You definately will not have an "in" anywhere.  Did you ever think about that one before being blantantly biased?  And Obama is the underdog, but if he wins, good riddance to this site.

by iamready 2008-02-01 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Cut it out, icerbergslim.  Jerome graciously allowed you to keep posting under this iamready handle here after you acted childish and were banned for gratuitous name calling.   I would urge you not to go down that route again.

As for the site, did you see the numbers?  

http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp?act ion=stats&site=s12mydddotcom&rep ort=33

1.4 Million visits in the month of January.  I guess the death march various Obama supporters were singing for this site was a tad overhyped and false-predicted, huh?   Must be doing something right.  

by georgep 2008-02-01 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

georgep, you and Mollie always have the best comebacks.

by lonnette33 2008-02-01 09:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Is Iamready actually Icebergslim. All is revealed. One of the most fanatical posters for Obama I have come across.

"   Everyone in the MSM is talking "

Yes we had noticed. We also noticed that a few months back you were claiming that Clinton was the mainstream media candidate being forced dwon our throats. Whatever became of that little narrative.  

by ottovbvs 2008-02-01 12:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I hate polls. I'm going to wait until Super Tuesday.

by lonnette33 2008-02-01 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

If Clinton is still ahead in most 2/5 states, where is Obama going to pick up the steam to overcome her?

How well does Obama have to do on 2/5 to stay in the race?

by rcipw 2008-02-01 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

6 states plus Cali

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-01 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

thats probably a low ball answer (cuz that then means clinton won 15)

by sepulvedaj3 2008-02-01 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

He just has to "keep it close". If he keeps it within 10 in California, within 15 in New Jersey and New York, and gets a plurality in, say, 7 states, he'll undoubtedly stay in.

Actually, I don't see a scenario in which Obama drops out, given that the 2/12 states are so favorable to him. He's on track to clean up the following week with a friendlier map.

by Kal 2008-02-01 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

So you would regard a say 18/4 outcome as sufficient reason to stay in. That would mean he's at six and she's at 22 basically three times his wins. Amazing. And I'm not sure I agree the next round is all that favorable territory PA?  

by ottovbvs 2008-02-01 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as close as they have been since the polling program started at the beginning of 2008. Forty-four percent of Democratic voters nationwide support Clinton, while 41% support Obama, within the poll's three-point margin of error. The data suggest that Obama has gained slightly more -- at least initially -- from John Edwards' departure from the race. In the final tracking data including Edwards in all three days' interviewing (Jan. 27-29 data), Clinton had 42%, Obama 36%, and Edwards 12%. Since then, Clinton's support has increased two points and Obama's five. Tomorrow's release will be the first pure post-Edwards three-day rolling average.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104095/Gallup -Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

by georgeg1011 2008-02-01 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

MSM making a big push for Obama, just like they did after Iowa win.  Well we all know what happened last time.

The truth is I was convinced by MSM that there was no way that Hillary could win New Hampshire. There was such a barrage of anti-Clinton/pro-Obama pieces and even polls showing Obama as winner, it was hard to stay positive.  Hillary's win changed it all.

Now there is this Obama "momentum" driven by MSM, but I am not worried.

by comebackkid 2008-02-01 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Me either!

by lonnette33 2008-02-01 09:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

The MSM was mainly pushing that theory because all the polls showed movement and, historically, the winner of Iowa gets a good bounce. Even the Clinton campaign thought they were going to lose NH (I read somewhere where Clinton did not even have a victory speech prepared). Whouley and the big lead in NH prior to IA were likely the primary reasons for that victory. Well deserved. I think if Obama had two weeks in between IA and NH he would have won it. Just my opinion. Water under the bridge now.

by Lawdawg 2008-02-01 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I agree with Jerome. For one thing, comebacks are overrated. Always have been, always will be. Give me the logical foundational strength and long term edge, and I'll take my chances surviving the so-called wave.

There are only so many Katrinas or tsunamis, to use an unfortunate comparison. Likewise a Silky Sullivan remains famous decades later because what he pulled off from the back of the pack was so unusual.

Too many pundits and prognosticators and people in general want to believe a 10 or 15 point gap shaved to 4 will translate into a sudden lead for the trailing candidate. That's the glamor story, the one the media thrives on.

You can point to isolated examples where it has happened, but overall I'll take the edge and make you run me down. Far more often, a 10 or 15 point lead cut to 4 is merely a natural tightening, and then the recoil is in the other direction. Another example of everything drifting back to the beginning.

And it's by far the most likely outcome with Hillary as the lead dog, considering her 16-year name ID and strength among women, Hispanics and older voters. There's simply not enough margin for error for Obama, and per usual Democrats waited far too long in trying to deny Hillary.

That's an ongoing theme, as I see it. Republicans organize early, whether it be think tanks decades in advance, or pushing registration drives immediately post-2000 in preparation for 2004, or the norm of merging behind a presidential candidate very early. Democrats, for whatever reason, prefer a late and often desperate attempt at a rescue or reversal, whether it be the current push toward Obama, or the late registration fanaticism in '04, or the September/October '06 frenzy to fund and contest more House races.

20+ years in Las Vegas taught me how overstated comebacks are. Inevitably when a favored team trails at halftime, fans are far too confident it will rally to pull the game out. The halftime odds might be -6 but ask a group of fans, unaware of that number, and you'll usually get a consensus of -10 or even higher as the likely second half result. This Clinton/Obama race shares the same basic dynamic. You don't want to be coming from behind in politics. It's more of an uphill climb than you think, especially with the realities of early voting.

I suggest we need to lead the general election in mid-September polling.

by Gary Kilbride 2008-02-01 09:28AM | 0 recs
I don't think we really Know

Clinton is still in the lead by all measures, so I don't think you've missed anything Jerome.  That being said, there does seem to be some movement towards Obama.  IF that continues and IF his organization works effectively, then I think he has a chance.  But there's no doubt he's still fighting an uphill battle.  

But then again, isn't that what Bowers is saying too?  Really, seems to me you two are essentially on the same page.    

by HSTruman 2008-02-01 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think we really Know

As always, you seem to be on a totally different page from your cohorts.  Do you really want to miss this opportunity to hate on Jerome like everyone else?

by Steve M 2008-02-01 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think we really Know

What can I say, I call 'em how I see 'em.  And to be charitable, we all at least want to see good news when we look at the polls.  

But thanks, I think.  :)

by HSTruman 2008-02-01 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think we really Know

None of which means, incidentally, that I'm not still hopeful.  I am, but it's important to be realistic.  Obama's closed the gap some, but if the election were held today Hillary would win big.  

by HSTruman 2008-02-01 09:36AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think we really Know

Thank you for honestly HSTruman.

You are a good man/woman.

by lonnette33 2008-02-01 10:00AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think we really Know

Doesn't Bowers see the same thing, in terms of the numbers? A poster earlier was implying that Bowers was predicting something different than what the numbers I posted imply. I went and looked, and posted the numbers up above, which pretty much show the same outcome, if a bit a tightening... if he's saying otherwise, or saying the numbers say one thing but I 'feel' another, then he'll be wrong.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think we really Know

No, I think he's about where you are as well.  I mean, his prediction is that there is a 75% chance that Hillary will come out of the 5th with a substantial delegate lead -- which I think is essentially your point.

I personally hope that changes, and a 25% chance isn't nothing, but the odds obviously are with Clinton right now.  Time will tell.      

by HSTruman 2008-02-01 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Maybe I could discredit the latest Survey USA Connecticut poll.

Their results:
Obama: 48%
Clinton: 44%

It looks like they took into account the male/female divide, 45/55 share.

But the age group break downs:

Survey USA poll:

18-34: 16%
35-49: 33%
50-64: 32%
65+: 19%

CNN exit poll from 2004

18-29: 5%
30-44: 19%
45-64: 48%
65+: 27%

There is no doubt there will be more younger voters, but would there really be such a large bump? And would older voters really not turnout like in 2004? We all know older voters favor Clinton.

by RJEvans 2008-02-01 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Excellent RJ!

by lonnette33 2008-02-01 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I would say weather will be a factor in that... NH was an unusually good weather day for the winter... I believe there is evidence that senior turnout can be affected by the weather.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-01 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

The forecast calls for showers. We will see.

by RJEvans 2008-02-01 11:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

That was the same problem with the Ras poll in MA; I think we'll see below ~10% voting in the 18-29 group across the board, except for where they are being organized. Improved.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 11:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

"MSM making a big push for Obama, just like they did after Iowa win.  Well we all know what happened last time."--comebackid

Exactly. Remember New Hampshire.

by superetendar 2008-02-01 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

What?  Hillary cried and certain groups switched to her based on their emotions at the time?

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-01 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Yitbos you are so petty and sad.

by ottovbvs 2008-02-01 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Actually I was thinking of the hysterical  emotion the MSM displayed for Obama, which the good people of New Hampshire immediately put a stop to. The same "Obama is surging" coronation is in play in this hysterical build up to Super Tuesday and will be equally rejected.

by superetendar 2008-02-01 10:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?
Todays polls in tennessee have obama down 5.
NJ poll today has obama down 6.
I like the trend.
HRC is still the favorite but Obama is gaining.
Will he have time?
by hawkjt 2008-02-01 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Doesn't matter... if he loses NJ by 5 or 6, or New York by less than 10, its huge, both in delegate gains and in the narrative about Obama competing closely in Clinton's home states.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-01 10:21AM | 0 recs
SEIU and Move On

My wife is in SEIU and is furious with this endorsement, as are many of her female and Latino coworkers and they have let it be known to union leaders LOUDLY today. There are a LOT of SEIU workers that are solidly behind Clinton, so I'm not so sure how much of a bump this will give him. As for Move On, I think it is meaningless, except in the general where it will be used against him.

by cc 2008-02-01 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I'm not sure using any numbers that include Pre-SC polls in the average are viable numbers.  

Second, The polls in many states are ALL over the place...

Third, as we all know, its not the states right now but how close it is after Feb 5... if its a 1000-600 clinton Split, she probably takes it.  If its an 900-700 split, its anyones ball game.  

Fourth, the better Obama does in comparison to the polls, the better the narrative for him if he out performs them.  While Clinton could be leading out of Super Tuesday, The closer obama is in Delegate counts, the more momentum he can gained... As Bill Clinton will tell you, sometimes a close second is better than a win.  

by yitbos96bb 2008-02-01 10:19AM | 0 recs
keep lowering the Feb 5 bar for him

That's how we know things are not looking good.

by souvarine 2008-02-01 10:26AM | 0 recs
Jerome, can i ask you a question

Have you ever taken any money from the Clinton campaign?  I say this not to discredit you, but to fully understand your persistent negativity towards Obama.  

As for you analysis, I think you are correct in assuming Hillary has the advantage in a lot of places, especially the big states where I expect her to win basically all of them outside of Illinois and Georgia.  Her main problem is, she has to win convincingly, cause the longer this cycle lasts and the more steam Obama gets, she is going to lose if it makes it to the convention.  

As for your attack on Chris Bowers, come on, you dont need to discredit the competition to make your own arguement seem more just.  It makes you look like you are insecure about your own assessment.  

by Rational Choice 2008-02-01 10:30AM | 0 recs
Rational's Ciceronian Gambit.

To merely ask the question is to imply it is true. This was the technique patented by Cicero in the Roman senate over 2000 years ago. Then you add insult to injury by basically agreeing with Jerome's diagnosis. Finally you start personalizing the comment suggesting Jerome is motivated by spite, jealousy or whatever. Jerome doesn't need me to defend him but I must say your comment is a bit rich considering this site is laden down with paid or unpaid (who knows) volunteers for Obama.

by ottovbvs 2008-02-01 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome, can i ask you a question

Your first post (a classic "long-time Democrat, first-time Clinton hater") was last week, and your second calls the proprietor a shill? There is a word for posters like you.

by souvarine 2008-02-01 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

I'm curious about the Move On endorsement. Why would they dis the person who stood up for them in the Senate and endorse the one who took a pass?  Seems against their self-interest. I've written to them and asked them to remove me from their membership list.

by vdeputy 2008-02-01 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

ah, my dd.  this place used to be great.  bowers, stoller, sometimes singer, even jerome would pop in with something interesting from time to time.

but that was some time ago, and the general drift in quality is neatly summarized by this post.

so let's see here...

first, jerome posts something about how, based on polls he's seen, there's no significant movement toward obama.

next, a poster points to bowers' post refuting precisely this point (a post that makes good use of poll data incidentally).

then, jerome says bowers is wrong (?), commenter replies that it's nonetheless a substantively superior analysis, jerome points to fact of persistent clinton lead to dismiss fast of decreasing margins (though the point of the discussion was initially about the changing size and shape of the lead itself, as an obvious indication of movement).

finally, 100 comments worth a nonsense from the some random obama folks and the 3-4 clinton-maniacs who apparently don't work and spend most of their time policing internet sites for anti-clinton talk.

and you mydd folks are trying to raise money on this stuff??

by island empire 2008-02-01 11:10AM | 0 recs
Island do you work

"and the 3-4 clinton-maniacs who apparently don't work"

Or how would you know. Perhaps you spend all your time policing sites for anti Obama talk so you can immediately dis it.  

by ottovbvs 2008-02-01 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Although I feel for the Clinton crowd here, there is little in the way of anaysis here. MoveOn endorsed Obama, they have a "must pass 66.66% support" to issue an endorsement. The have 3.2 million members. 1.7 million in the tuesday states, they also have a big machine and competent skills for GOTV.

DailyKos is 71% for Obama and and it will probably endorse Obama in hours, with millions of members. I think Kennedy is huge for latinos for Obama, and is being used well.

Obama raised 31 million dollars in January, Hill raised 29 ,million in the entire last quarter. Obama is running ads in places he's ahead and in ten more Super-Tuesday-states that HRC.

This is important stuff, to say nothing of the The Nation's endorsement.

by inexile 2008-02-01 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?
Are you suggesting Moveon polled it's members. Highly unlikely I'd have thought. This is a decision by the central committee.  I'm not a member although I've occasionally sent a check.
Kos has millions of members? They claim about 450,00 but that's totally spurious based on hits. I'd say it's well below 100,000 and in terms of regular posters I'd say it's around 12,000 judging by those silly polls to which blogs, including this one, seem addicted. And since the nation has been running endless anti Clinton eds for months that was hardly a surprise.
by ottovbvs 2008-02-01 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?
They voted on site for a period, all who voted counted, they needed 66.667 % to endorse, it was not a "central committee" decision.
by inexile 2008-02-01 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?
I stand corrected on DailyKos membership, sorry otto yr quite correct. I used memory, not a good idea at all sometimes.
by inexile 2008-02-01 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

MoveOn, DailyKos and the Nation count as evidence for nation-wide Obama momentum? I'm sorry but even Bower's best case for Obama poll based momentum is better than this.

The money and Kennedy campaigning may help, but it is very hard to see how they help enough.

by souvarine 2008-02-01 11:37AM | 0 recs
Otto and Souvarine

I appreciate you sticking up for Jerome as I have never ready anything to the contrary from either one of u.  You are loyal and I respect that.  

This is Jerome's site and I applaud him, as well as Jonathan and Matt for providing an outlet for Democrats to express their opinion.  The reason for my question was not to discredit Jerome, but to understand why each and every opinion expressed by him was more anti-Obama, then pro-Hillary.  If he is being paid by the clinton campaign, then he is doing his job and I respect that.  If he is not, I feel he is not serving his candidate well as it has alienated people like myself who could have gone either way after John Edwards seemed unlikely to win the nomination.  

You are correct in assuming I am now an Obama supporter.  I am for various reasons, but mainly because I feel he is the best candidate to help control terrible trade agreements that have hurt working class americans.  

Maybe its time for people to start looking out for their party and stop trying to demonize everyone who might not agree with them or support their candidate.  

by Rational Choice 2008-02-01 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Otto and Souvarine

Alas the demonizing was being done by you as in:

"Have you ever taken any money from the Clinton campaign"

If you'd care to take a stroll through comments from Obama supporters here and even worse at Kos the level of hyperpole and straightforward abuse is appalling. One sees a bit from Clinton folks but I seldom see the level of personal malice against Obama which I see against Bill and Hillary. Given that Bill's a democratic icon it's staggering. You seem oblivious of this and indeed your own comments says quite a lot about the make of blinders you are wearing.

by ottovbvs 2008-02-01 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Otto and Souvarine

It's really perspective, here is a post that seemed anti-Clinton to me back in November. I haven't seen Jerome as pro-anyone, and he has certainly been anti-Hillary regarding the Iraq war. I really don't understand why you think he has a candidate or why you think he is trying to persuade you of anything but his opinion of what is really happening.

He has always acknowledged Hillary's strengths in this campaign. Bowers always looks for ways to diminish Hillary's strengths, and so, since she has done pretty well, his analysis is often wrong.

by souvarine 2008-02-01 11:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Otto and Souvarine

I have no candidate, and am just waiting to see who gets the nomination to support that person. I call it as I see it, there's no other influence.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Statewide polls mean nothing in most states what you need is a poll in every congressional district

by orin76 2008-02-01 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

there are 436 elections going on plus 1/4 for american samoa, 1/2 for pr,half for guam and i think half for americans aboard

by orin76 2008-02-01 11:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

being up less than 10% mention nothing if the 10% avantage is disportionately in one or two major cities

by orin76 2008-02-01 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Given the incredible unreliability of the NH and SC polls, it is hilarious to see all the poll-based smack talk here.  

by snaktime 2008-02-01 12:05PM | 0 recs
Breaking: Momentum for Obama in Tennessee
POLL: WSMV-TV TN Primary WSMV-TV/Crawford Johnson & Northcott

Clinton 36, Obama 31 New poll from Tennessee

Several of have touted Tennessee as a place Clinton will clean up in. The trend suggests otherwise.

A second thought, many use the idea that Edwards will split to Clinton and Obama, with the original numbers staying set. This suggests otherwise with post debate, post endorsement, post primary shifting going on.

Might I suggest that HRC has a lot of vote parking in her favor, ie not very committed, not staying for the vote.

We won't know what's going on for a couple days, and maybe not till late in the convention, I think that was Chris's point, and what Jerome missed.
by inexile 2008-02-01 12:06PM | 0 recs
Jerome, thank you for your honesty.

I appreciate you responding to my question and I apologize if it came off shallow or attacking in any way.

I will say one thing, it appears to me that your articles tend to come off attacking of Obama.  I understand it might be throwing read meat to the lions, and maybe its a way to offset the media bias (depending on the week) for Obama, however for people who didn't support one of the 2 media darlings it looks anti-Obama.  

Thank you for all your years of supporting Democratic candiates and more importantly for helping to protect our environment, before it became mainstream.

by Rational Choice 2008-02-01 12:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Jerome, thank you for your honesty.

The lions like being fed; I have been critical of Obama when I see him doing things that don't help to win. Thats an opinion of strategy, and others can disagree, but that's how I call it. And it were Obama that was on the verge of winning, I'd point out how Clinton was blowing it (as I pointed out here that she had hit her 'plateau of peaking' in mid-Oct, before it became apparent to everyone that she had indeed).

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-02-01 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Polling post or, what am I missing?

Here is how I see it.

One, the polls are inflated in Obama's favor due to the enormous positive press, but Obama has made up some ground (i.e. NH).

or

Two, Obama is in fact closing the gap across the board and poised to make an upset on Tuesday (i.e. IA).

We won't know what happens until Tuesday.

by RJEvans 2008-02-01 01:01PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads