Interesting stuff, and if it’s still true that all of those listed are the most recent, then it’s also true that a fair number of them aren’t recent enough to take into account the craziness of this week. I’ll also note this: for all the claptrap about California being a walk off home run for Clinton, Obama is within the margin of error.
Also, all of the polling still lists Edwards, so this really is way up in the air.
Individual polls are relatively meaningless. I don’t think there are enough yet to spot trendlines - but if you’re an Obama backer you can’t feel bad about the way things are going. Even getting close in Cali and NY is huge.
How do the polling organizations account for the likelihood someone actually going to vote in the primary? I’m thinking thaat previous history on how often that demographic group voted in the past must factor into it somehow. That, in turn, makes me wonder if the big changes in voter turnout in these primaries are playing havoc with their predictions.
I mean, a lot more voters in SC came out than expected, and Obama got a much wider margin than expected. Same big turnout in NH, but the other way around.
Turnout in NH did not fuck the polling. The polling in NH was pretty accurate. The thing that decided NH was undecideds breaking overwhelmingly for Hillary. The NH polling hit Obama’s support pretty accurately.
I don’t think you can conclude that just because Obama’s numbers were the same.
Let’s say in polling that Candidate A gets 40%, Candidate B gets 40% and 20% are undecided. Then in the election A gets 60% and B gets 40%. Clearly, all the 20% undecided went to A, right?
Well, what about this. The poll expected that 50% of all potential voters would come out. Let’s say the undecided split evenly, but unexpectedly 60% of supporters for Candidate A voted while only 40% of supporters for Candidate B voted. You get the same split in the election results, but not because of the undecided break.
Maybe there is an exit poll that says people who made up their minds in the last day went overwhelmingly for Hillary?
Well, Zogby said that the polling was accurately reflecting the outcome based on the polls done immediately prior to the election but that because opinion changed very rapidly and the polls need a running average of a few days to be accurate, they hadn’t published those results.
The local NPR politico seems to think Super Tuesday won’t come close to deciding delegate count and points to the local Jefferson-Jackson Dinner as proof the candidates agree. The buzz is one or both will be coming to Virginia as we’re very much in play. He might have been tooting our own horn but he suggested we could be playing a very crucial role.
A lady I work with, who used to work for Sen. Robb, says the word is not only will both candidates be attended this sold-out dinner but one or more of the receptions afterwards which, according to her, is highly unusual.
Some numbers on where the Edwards voters seem to be going.
Two national polls have been conducting nightly surveys since the former North Carolina senator departed the race, and both show his supporters moving more to Obama than Clinton. First, [COLOR=#0000ff]Gallup[/COLOR]:[INDENT]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. [/INDENT]
And, [COLOR=#0000ff]Rasmussen[/COLOR]:[INDENT]The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama inching closer to Hillary Clinton. It’s now Clinton 43%, Obama 37%. A week ago, Clinton had an eleven point advantage, 41% to 30%. The last two nights of tracking were the first without John Edwards in the race. For those two nights, it’s Clinton 44% and Obama 42% meaning that Clinton’s support is essentially unchanged. This suggests that many former Edwards supporters now support Obama, many others have yet to make a decision, and few currently support Clinton.[/INDENT]Obviously these are just some early hints, and perhaps part of Obama’s rise has to do with momentum from South Carolina and the Kennedy endorsement. Still, the Obama camp has to be pleased.
And some meat for those of us in the Pro-Bama, anti-Hill camp to be found in the Comments section.
It’s interesting if you do a scatterplot of the results so far. Both candidates have maxed out at 55 percent, Hillary in Michigan when she was the only real name on the ballot, and Obama in South Carolina. Her worst showing was 29 percent in Iowa, whereas Obama’s worst was 33 in Florida. Hillary’s mean finish has been 34.6 percent; Obama has only finished below that once, in Florida. Obama’s mean finish has been 42.5, well above Hillary’s.
In contested races, Hillary has won by 2 and 6. Obama has won contested races by 9 and 28.
Anyway, I think it’s telling that Hillary has hit 50 and 51 but only broke through in a state where Obama wasn’t on the ballot, whereas Obama’s 55 came in an actual contested race. Now that Edwards is out, I think the retroactive lesson of Florida is that Hillary couldn’t break past 50 percent in a state she effectively had to herself.
Does any of this mean anything for Super Tuesday? Probably not more than charting the results of any 12 regular-season possessions would tell us who is going to win the Superbowl. But Hillary’s inability to score a breakthrough in a competitive race suggests that she has a very low ceiling even among Democrats. May not be low enough to deny her the nomination. But it looks close to catastrophic to me when thinking about the general election.