New set of national polls - AP/Ipsos, Zogby, Gallup

by georgep, Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:39:43 AM EDT

Over the last two days three new national polls have been released.

AP/Ipsos:

Trendlines:

June 4-6: Clinton 33%, Obama 21%, Gore 20%, Edwards 12%, Richardson 3%, Undecided 7%

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/client/act_ dsp_pdf.cfm?name=mr070716-2topline.pdf&a mp;id=3578

July 17: Clinton 36%, Obama 20%, Gore 15%, Edwards 11%, Richardson 2%, Undecided 7%

No numbers excluding Gore were available in this survey. The change to their last survey is within margin of error with Clinton adding 3% to her result while Obama and Edwards both lost 1%. Gore lost 5% from the last time this survey was conducted, which is outside the margin of error.

Zogby:

Trendlines:

May 20: Clinton 39%, Obama 24%, Edwards 11%, Richardson 2%, Kucinich 1%, Biden 2%

Feb. 26: Clinton 33%, Obama 25%, Edwards 12%, Richardson 5%, Kucinich Less than 1%, Biden 2%

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=13 36

July 17: Clinton 37%, Obama 25%, Edwards 11%, Richardson 3%, Kucinich 2%, Biden 1%

Zogby analysis

The survey shows Clinton has picked up steam, especially among younger Democratic voters. She wins 59% support among those aged 18-29, up 10% since late May. Meanwhile, Edwards has lost significant ground in the same demographic. In fact, lower tier candidate Dennis Kucinich, at 6% among those under age 30, has more support than Edwards in that group.
Clinton has also maintained her base of support among moderates, while expanding her support among progressives to 36%, up from 31% two months ago. Her backing among progressives appears to come out of Obama's liberal base, as he has slipped from 35% to 27% in that group.

Change from last survey within the margin of error with Clinton losing 2%, Obama adding 1%, Edwards staying put.

Gallup:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28 144

Clinton 40%, Obama 28%, Edwards 13%, Richardson 5%, Biden 3%

(using the "without Gore" numbers.)

Changes are within margin of error for all candidates.

The GOP candidates

AP-Ipsos: Giuliani 21%, Thompson 19%, McCain 15%, Romney 11%, Undecided 15%

Gallup: Giuliani 33%, Thompson 21%, McCain 16%, Romney 8%, Undecided 11% (without Gingrich numbers)

Zogby: Thompson 22%, Giuliani 21%, Romney 11%, McCain 9%

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

37 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Hill-arious

To think that Hill will win the youth vote is an outright joke! That was certainly my chuckle of the day!

by mattmfm 2007-07-17 07:44AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hill-arious

Are you talking about this Zogby quote?

The survey shows Clinton has picked up steam, especially among younger Democratic voters. She wins 59% support among those aged 18-29, up 10% since late May. Meanwhile, Edwards has lost significant ground in the same demographic. In fact, lower tier candidate Dennis Kucinich, at 6% among those under age 30, has more support than Edwards in that group.

Certainly a stunner that she gets a full "59% support among those aged 18-29." It apparently is not even remotely close. The Zogby numbers speak for themselves. Even if you allow for some variance, it is not credible to dismiss Clinton's youth appeal lead as nonsense. Clinton has ALWAYS had a lead in the youth vote amongst Democrats, in any national survey that tested this question. Just not this massive of a lead, but here Zogby shows that she has added to her youth appeal from the last survey, so it is entirely conceivable that the Sopranos/song contest thing played much better in that demographic than posters here want to believe.

Also interesting that she has added to her progressive appeal by syphoning that off Obama's numbers, who has lost appeal amongst progressives.

by georgep 2007-07-17 07:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hill-arious

funny how in real life at rallies and on donor lists none of the peoeple "exist"look at myspace or facebook ect....if you don't think HRC really isn't down by 20 points among this group you'd be
kidding yourself, amazing how HRC's support only seems to show in landline polling among people who've shown no other apparent interest in the race. But I guess the hidden exitement for Hillary is building out there.....somewhere!

by nevadadem 2007-07-17 08:06AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hill-arious

Ah, the cell-phone strawman used to perfection by Republicans during the buildup for the 2006 Mid-term election when they wanted to poo-poo polls that showed them losing big.

The recent MTV/NYT/CBS survey also shows a clear Clinton edge when it comes to "excitement" generated by Clinton amongst Democrats age 18-29.

What you are basically saying is that I should trust the biased hunch of a biased Obama supporter, who has a history of claiming every single polling firm in the polling universe as "garbage," "bought" and "in Clinton's pocket" over the word of a respected pollster who conducts scientific poll and has done so for many years? You can't be serious. And, to make matters worse, by claiming that it is indeed Obama who leads in that age group by "at least 20%" in this particular internal you expect us to believe that Zogby is completely wrong to the tune of, what, 50%? Get a grip on reality, nevadadem.

by georgep 2007-07-17 08:29AM | 0 recs

permalink

you're showing clear selectivity in

reporting Gore's numbers. the latest Gallup is showing:

With Gore:

HRC: 34%
Obama: 25%

Gore: 16%

Edwards: 9%
Richardson: 4%

Without Gore:
(gains from Gore's absence in parens):

HRC: 40% (+6)
Obama: 28% (+3)
Gore: -
Edwards: 13% (+4)
Richardson: 5% (+1)

and the previous Gallup put Gore at 16 as well. In other words, Gore is holding steady at 16%.

Readers may want to see my other comment regarding the likely impact a Gore entry into the race could have in this comment. Thanks.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-07-17 09:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: you're showing clear selectivity in

Interesting... so in that poll Gore Helps Obama.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-17 09:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

yes. with Gore in the mix

Obama only trails by 9, but he trails by 12 if Gore is left out of the mix.

This happens almost always. The reason is that, Gore pulls the largest chunk of his support from HRC.

Without Gore in the mix, HRC looks more and more "inevitable." The domino effect from that would effectively seal the nomination for HRC.

That's the reason why Obama and Edwards supporters shouldn't really be asking for Gore not to be included in these polls (as some are seen to do).

The best approach is to have both "with Gore" and "without Gore" polls, as Gallup has done here, as I have long advocated.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-07-17 09:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: you're showing clear selectivity in

I personally don't see Gore running AT ALL. To me that is basically a 100% certainty. Therefore if possible I go with the "without Gore" numbers first and foremost. Obviously this is a meta diary, covering 3 separate polls. I was not going to go into all internals like I usually do when it is just one poll being discussed.

Note that I also used the "without Gingrich" numbers for the GOP Gallup findings, as I also believe Gingrich is not going to enter the race.

by georgep 2007-07-17 09:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Facebook?

Seriously - and I am serious - I think 'Facebook' may be Obama's problem. I think he has a lot of support among younger people. The type of people that are really into Facebook. 14, 15 and 16 year olds.

Are you telling me that young bright college kids or kids just out of college are really wasting a lot of time on Facebook? If so then that Vince Vaughn line from 'Dodgeball' really things true, "wow things sure have changed since I was in school."

Are you telling me that a young women in college maybe would be very excited to see the ultimate glass ceiling shattered? Are you telling me that young adults that love Bill Clinton, even though they were just kids when he was President, wouldn't like to see his wife in the WHite House and him playing an active role on the world stage?

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-17 10:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Yes... n/t

by Vermonter 2007-07-17 12:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Facebook?

As a young adult that loved Bill Clinton, YES.

by mattmfm 2007-07-18 05:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hill-arious

I'm not sure why you say that. Indications, for several months now, suggest that both Clinton and Obama are generating considerable enthusiasm among young voters. In fact, I think this enthusiasm dates all the way back to the 2006 mid-term elections.

It would be a serious miscalculation to underestimate the impact of the first legitimate female Presidential candidate in this election. Remember, that women have made up the majority of college students for a number of years now. This won't be a visible "feminist" movement, but rather one where young people (men and women) simply think that it's about time.

Here's an example of how this dynamic may play out: an campaign commercial by Clinton's ad guy for the Eleanor Roosevelt Legacy in New York (a get out the women's vote 527 group put together by Hillary Clinton).

http://www.nywomenvote.org/

by hwc 2007-07-17 07:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

great news

I'm wondering whether 'Obama Donor Gate' will have any impact on his #s in the following polls

by areyouready 2007-07-17 07:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: great news

Since there isn't anything wrong with it as any sane rational person can tell and since its written all over his website and he is up front about it... no, it won't.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-17 09:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

OH Hillary !

O Hillary!

Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!

From far and wide,
O Hillary, we stand on guard for thee.

God keep our land glorious and free!
O Hillary, we stand on guard for thee.

O Hillary, we stand on guard for thee.

Hillary Is 1994

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-17 07:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

ap is "adults"

nice to see the idiots doing this poll thinking "Adults" are the universe of likely primary voters, even more laughable than Zogby's young person numbers, the other 2 polls show Obama slighlty gaining, in reality the race is the same it's been since March.

by nevadadem 2007-07-17 08:02AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New set of national polls

...in reality the race is the same it's been since March

Actually, that's not what the trendlines show. In March riding a wave of excitement with his entry in the race, Obama had significantly cut into Clinton's lead. The polls tightened considerably in the March/April/May timeframe.

What the polls show consistently for the last month or so is that Clinton has weathered the Obama bounce and is now widening the lead back to near where it was before Obama officially entered the race.

The RCP chart of moving averages shows these trends pretty clearly:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ charts/?poll_id=191

by hwc 2007-07-17 08:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Intrade

Intrade today:

Clinton 45
Obama 38.4

by BDM 2007-07-17 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Intrade

Check out South Carolina. It's even better.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democra tic_primary-234.html

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-17 11:14AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Intrade

I suggest you avoid looking at the numbers for New Hampshire, Nevada, Florida and Iowa, though, or you'll have a serious case of indigestion.

by georgep 2007-07-17 12:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New set of national polls

the last movement on there is down for HRS and up for Obama, Barack got some terrable news coverage in June when those polls moved a bit, it amazes me however that Hillary hust ca't seem to get the type of crowds and samll donors that Obama can, considering all this exitement surrounding her.

by nevadadem 2007-07-17 08:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New set of national polls

There is a front-page article on where part of the "small donors" come from. Not all, but a portion of it are fluffy numbers that other campaigns never thought about including in their "small donor" listings. I wondered why all this tremendous "excitement" does not lead to Obama gaining the upper hand and lead in a SINGLE state in the aggregate (aside from his home state.)

by georgep 2007-07-17 09:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New set of national polls

I don't recall Obama getting "terrible news coverage" at any point during the campaign. In fact, he's been getting outstanding news coverage about his fundraising.

BTW, in trying to understand the dynamics of the race, it's important to remember that most voters do not donate to candidates and do not attend candidate rallies.

by hwc 2007-07-17 09:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New set of national polls

Update on the AP-Ipsos poll:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Pr esidential-Race-AP-Poll.html?_r=2&or ef=slogin&oref=slogin

AP analysis

Nationally, the combined sample found Clinton has the edge among black Democrats, with 46 percent of their support to Obama's 33 percent. Her advantage is even wider among Hispanics; she has the support of 45 percent to Obama's 17 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, whose mother was Mexican, had the backing of just 5 percent of Hispanics and virtually no support among blacks.

by georgep 2007-07-17 08:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New set of national polls

all adults Hillary's best "voter universe".

by nevadadem 2007-07-17 08:43AM | 0 recs

permalink

Hillary

John Edwards' numbers are pathetic. And it seems Obama's "count every trinket we sell as a strong grassroots supporter" theory isn't paying off too well. What a joke.

by Regan 2007-07-17 09:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary

Well since the election season doesn't begin until January, we'll have to agree to disagree.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-17 09:38AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary

He still raised more money than any other candidate in 2nd qtr AND HAS MORE IN THE BANK THAN ANY OTHER CANDIDATE.

by BDM 2007-07-17 09:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

D'oh!

Burn.

If I buy both a key chain and button do I count as two supporters or just one?

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-17 12:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Ipso and Gore

I just dont understand why polls keep on polling Gore when its clear the guy is not running...It's like they are lobbying him to run by including his numbers in those polls.

Ipso is even worse and it's not because they included Gore into their polls, but they did not even bother do a gore-less poll...Thats just terrible...

We're approaching the end of July and there's not even an hint which could prompt someone to believe Gore will run....He had his big Global warming festivals the other week and in my opinion, this could have been the perfect stage for him to hint about a run with all the media attention and he did not do so.

Ive watched gore stated how much he just doesnt enjoy politics and how grueling it is to raise money...When i see him on TV, i see a man that dont want any part of hard-core politics...The 2000 defeat really rip his heart out of his body and i seriously doubt he'll run.

The only way i see Gore entering this race is if some big type of scandal breaks out killing Hillary and Obama's chances...Maybe some kind of sex scandal..In other words, he will only get in if the primary nomination is handed to him for free where he wont have to fight for it.

by JaeHood 2007-07-17 09:47AM | 0 recs

permalink

Yawn

RCP Average 06/22 - 07/15 -

Clinton 37.1 %

Obama 23.1 %

Edwards 11.9 %

Gore 15.3 %

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-17 11:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary is 44!

Watch two old farts trying to be hip reenacting the Sopranos and become a supporter.

Hillary Is 1994

by BlueDiamond 2007-07-17 11:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

New Pollster trendline

www.pollster.com has revised its conservative trendline chart to include the latest round of polling:

http://www.pollster.com/ATopDems.php

The revised trendlines show a significant change in the race. Senator Clinton's numbers are higher than at any time this year...and increasing.

by hwc 2007-07-17 01:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New Pollster trendline

I noticed that. That trendline finally is showing the true state of the race. About time. I wonder what made them rework that graph? It was used here by some to show (nonsensically) that in fact it was Clinton who was losing support while Obama and Edwards were gaining slightly, which was not true if you looked at the polling sequences.

by georgep 2007-07-17 01:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New Pollster trendline

It's not Pollster.com changing the graph -- it's the data points of additional poll results that drives the trendline. The trendline is simply a mathmatical derivative of the data points.

Pollster uses a conservative trendline that takes into account polls going back some distance in time. Thus, it responds to changes slower than something like the short moving average of the RealClearPolitics trendlines.

by hwc 2007-07-17 04:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New Pollster trendline

The graph was sloping down just last week, now it has an upward movement that looks like it started somewhere in mid-April. You are right, the graph reacts very slowly to changes, but it is good to see that there was indeed upward movement at the same time Gore saw his numbers tick up quite strongly.

by georgep 2007-07-17 04:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: New Pollster trendline

The more sensitive "red line" trendline that Pollster uses has been showing an upwards trend for Clinton for quite a while now. It just takes time for their very conservative "blue line" to catch up.

The Pollster conservative blue line is bad news for Obama and Edwards. Basically, Clinton's support has just marched along all year. Obama and Edwards took their best shot as their support ramped up following Obama's announcement and Edwards' cancer bump. Now, they have hit their ceilings and are trending down.

It's like challengers trying to eat into the front runner's lead in a 500 mile car race. They catch up for a while until they burn their tires up and start dropping back again.

by hwc 2007-07-17 06:01PM | 0 recs