Compared to the national numbers, everybody else -- Clinton included -- is flat (or loses).

to say he will almost certainly win the nomination if he wins Iowa on Jan. 3 and NH on Jan. 8. There are four weeks between then and Super Tuesday--that's a lot of campaign time and a lot of media cycles.

I think for us Democrats, the showdown is going to be SC and FL; especially if Clinton loses both IA and NH; because her support will sustain until that latter time.

Chris Bowers's analysis here is total crap.  He's comparing with the latest Rasmussen national sample, which has Obama at 17.  That's signficantly below the most recent trending, which means it's most likely an outlier from an ugly polling night.

Obama's national number in recent Rasmussen polling has been...averaging right around 23.

Sorry, no real story here.

I will wait for georgep to opine.

I will wait for georgep to opine.

Obama has registered 17%-26% in the last week in Rasmussen's Daily Tracking poll, so you are hyping this way too much.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_2008__1/daily_p residential_tracking_polling_history

Interestingly, when you average the last seven days, you get 23.5%. Not too far off from Rasmussen's Super Duper Tuesday poll.

For crying out loud, what a bit of shoddy research on Chris Bowers' part.  There is absolutely no story here, as rashomon correctly pointed out.

Let's look at the evidence.   So, this 20 state "special" was taken from 2 weeks' worth of daily tracking data, as stated in the article, so an apples to apples comparison would have to be between the results listed and the EXACT SAME 2 week's worth of NATIONAL tracking data from the same time frame, right?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_2008_1/2008_pr esidential_election/in_february_5_states _clinton_and_giuliani_still_on_top

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_2008_1/daily_p residential_tracking_polling_history

Taking the trusted ol' calculator out you just add up all the numbers compiled by Clinton over those 14 days, then divide by 14 to get your data. Do the same for Obama and Edwards.

For Clinton I calcualted 41.85%, for Obama the number was 21.42%, Edwards' number is 14.71%.

Result:

Clinton 41.85%
Obama 21.42%
Edwards 14.71%

I guess you can round up, so a more "readable" horse race shows up.

In the end, for the national race, taking the exact same polling data that was used to parse down to the 20 Feb. 5 states, you get

Clinton: 42%
Obama: 22%
Edwards: 15%

The Feb. 5 states showed, as per the article:  

Clinton: 41%
Obama: 23%
Edwards: 14%.

No story.  Why in the world would Bowers not compare the EXACT SAME polling reference frame (2 weeks) from the EXACT SAME national polling data readily provided for apt comparison, instead decided to take a snapshot of a WEEKLY poll collecting SEVEN DAYS worth of data that ended collecting data on 11/17/2007?  It just makes no sense at all.  I am used to much better from Bowers.

The real news contained in this Rasmussen poll is that Clinton is exactly as  strong in the Feb. 5 states as she is nationally, which is something that was denied previously on this site.   It is clear:  National polling aggregates = The twenty February 5 states.  

One additional important thing to note about this is that in many Feb. 5 states Independents are not allowed to participate, and since we know how much better Clinton does amongst DEMOCRATS when compared to her showing amongst INDEPENDENTS, her lead in the Feb. 5 states which don't allow Independent's participation is bound to be at least 5% higher than this data suggests.

What that tells me is this:

If Clinton wins just a couple of states out of the first 6, it is all over but for the crying.  

For instance, even if Clinton loses Iowa but then takes at least 2 states of the first 6, she should win a vast majority of the Feb. 5 states with ease.  2 or 3 states won would neutralize any Iowa/NH effect in this polling data we are seeing here, would effectively freeze these results at approx. 20% cushion (more in states that don't allow Independent's participation.) That is especially true if those are important states like Florida, Michigan, and Nevada, which all 3 appear to be impenetrable firewalls that Iowa and/or NH won't be able to shake around to the extent needed to turn 25%, 25% leads (in the case of Edwards) into wins for someone else.   Note: Michigan will more than likely go to Clinton due to the fact that aside from Dodd she is running unopposed in that state

Nobdoy really knows what is going to happen in Iowa, but what we do know is that this is a shoddy diary with an even shoddier conclusion and premise.  But in this case I don't fault horizonr, more Chris Bowers.  Although horizonr COULD have seen the writing on the wall that this was one lazy bit of research and looked at the data himself.  That we can fault him for, as nothing beats conducting your own research, especially when the necessary data to make a true one-on-one comparison is right there at your fingertips.  

If Obama wins Iowa and NH , i believe he'll win S.C and i strongly believe Obama will not lose this nomination if he wins 3 early states....Sorry.

Right now , Obama has to keep it into the single digit in NH...If he can keep Hillary from opening up a huge lead in Nh , then manage to win Iowa , i believe he will get a HUGE boost  since NH will be voting in 5 days and Hillary wont have time to settle to fight off the bounce.

South Carolina will be in Obama's backpocket after 2 big wins in whitish state...Black people will be convince that he can win after defeating Hillary back to back in states that do not even have many black voters.

With 3 early state victory , i believe Obama will zero in on midwestern states like CO , MO , AZ , UTAH , NB , ND and his home state of IL + southern states with huge black population like GA , MS , AL , NC , TN....Hillary will probably lock up the northeastern states.

Then , the big fight will be in California where Obama could count on about 11% black voters , but Hillary could win the state since she has the CA machine behind her...I still believe Obama will end up winning it tho.

How can anyone predict a bounce?

Like it or not, based upon historical analysis of presidential primary polling over the past 20+ years. the winner of Iowa can expect a 15 point bump in the NH polls. This enables the winner of Iowa to win NH --or do so well that they are perceived as a come from behind winner.

Obama is within the margin in NH polls so a 15 point bump would allow this outcome.

All Chris is saying is that an 18 point bump for Obama in nat'l polling is the least you might expect to see if he wins Iowa and wins or is a close second in NH.

Like it or not this is common wisdom.