Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages

Here is the current state of play in polling in the post-announcement period (2/23 and later) for the Democratic primary / caucus season:
  • Iowa, 1/14: Edwards 30.3%, Clinton 26.8%, Obama 19.5% (four polls, all post Vilsack)
  • Nevada, 1/19: Clinton 32%, Obama 18.5%, Edwards 13.5% (two polls, one includes Gore)
  • New Hampshire, 1/22: Clinton 31.2%, Obama 25.6%, Edwards 19.8% (five polls, one poll includes Gore)
  • South Carolina, 1/29: Obama 29.5%, Clinton 28%, Edwards 18.5% (two polls)
  • Michigan (1/29 possible): Clinton 36.3%, Obama 26.8%, Edwards 16.3% (four polls)
  • Florida (1/29 possible): Clinton 35.3%, Obama 16.3%, Edwards 16% (three polls, one includes Gore)
In the post Elizabeth Edwards announcement period, current national polling without Gore gives us a nine-poll average of Clinton 37.6%, Obama 24.6%, Edwards 18.1%. Those averages can be used as a placeholder for polling in the February 5th states.

Clinton holds the lead in most states, but clearly lacks a stranglehold on the overall process. Clinton and Obama, especially Obama, hold a financial advantage on the field. The current trends are, somewhat surprisingly, slightly upward for all three top-tier candidates.

Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, Florida, Hillary Clinton, Iowa, John Edwards, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, polls, President 2008, Primary Elections, South Carolina (all tags)



Re: Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages

Also, that pollster graphic hasn't yet included the most recent spate of polls for Edwards. I mean it has...but the trendline hasn't. If you look at it, you see that it's actually below every recent poll done with Edwards. So he must have a pretty large window in his moving average for Edwards to still be so low.

by adamterando 2007-04-10 02:09PM | 0 recs
Looking at the State and National numbers...

if I'm a supporter of any of the top 3 candidates, I'm happy with where my candidate is.  How weird is that?  This race really is wide open...

by rashomon 2007-04-10 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages

Any word on how Edwards is so low in Nevada? The claim was that unions would win that for him. What are the voter screens in the polls there?

by Englishlefty 2007-04-10 03:20PM | 0 recs
I wouldn't worry about it...

Most polling outfits really struggle to accurately poll the IA caucus...I seriously doubt anyone has a clue what a "likely caucus goes" looks like in NV.

by rashomon 2007-04-10 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't worry about it...

Right...nobody has ANY idea of who will vote in Nevada, a state with lots of quirks and NO history of caucuses.

by howardpark 2007-04-10 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I wouldn't worry about it...


by nevadadem 2007-04-10 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages

I'm not a fan of or a believer in the meaning of polls months before the Iowa Caucuses but the amazing thing really is that Clinton is so weak.  Her name ID has got to be 99%+ but she is only at 37% nationally and weaker than the national figures in all of the six early states (where voters can be expected to be paying a little closer attention than most states) that Chris has noted above.  By the standards of front-runners of years past she is in a very weak position and they mostly had the advantage of clear leads in fundraising.  If Clinton's position deteriorates, perhaps as a result of some inevitable misstep, I think it will be an invitation on a silver platter for additional candidates (esp. Gore) to get in.  The window is open.

by howardpark 2007-04-10 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages

Come on, that is such BS. Who among the top three doesn't have 99+ name recognition at this point?  We have three strong candidates, and that means things are going to be tight.  The other candidates, who legitimately don't have high name recognition, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, are sucking wind.  The sheer amount of money the top three raised tells me that everybody knows their names, maybe not their message, but certainly their names.  Hillary may not be able to win a MyDD straw poll, but she can and hopefully will win the nomination.

by Kingstongirl 2007-04-10 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages

C'mon...Obama is still a blank slate with at least a third of the population, Edwards too.  I'm talking about the full population, many of whom are more into American Idol than the Presidential race next year.

by howardpark 2007-04-11 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages

"Amazing thing is that Clinton is so weak?"   That has got to be a joke, right?  In a field of 8 candidates running getting almost 40% across the board is quite strong.  If THAT is considered weak, Edwards 18.1% has to be considered abysmal, given that he ran a high-profile campaign for president 3 years ago, was part of the Democratic team, running for vice president, and has himself a name ID recognition factor of well over 90% by now.  

Contrast that to previous "frontrunners" at this time of the game, and you understand that what you describe as weak is actually quite strong in a crowded field, and your point has no merit.

Polls from 2003:

Lieberman, Kerry, Dean and Gephardt all relatively weak at 18%, 21%, 14%, 12%.  No frontrunner at all, just fairly weak candidates trading leads in a relatively weak field. cratprimary2004.htm

1999:  In a 2-person race Gore and Bradley were basically even until very late in the contest. 999/10/29/poll/index.html

1995:  Bill Clinton ran for re-election without a challenger.

1991: Bill Clinton, Tsongas, Harkin, Wilder and Brown.  No clear frontrunner there, polls all over the place.  In fact, Harkin won Iowa, Tsongas won New Hampshire, Brown won early Colorado, then it was all Clinton from then on (except for Brown taking Connecticut.)  

1987: Was Dukakis the clear frontrunner in that contest?  Please.  He was helped by Gary Hart's personal issues, and received a rather strong challenge from Jesse Jackson in the 1988 contest.  

1983:  The Democratic field:  Mondale, Gary Hart, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson.  By end of Q1 none of the candidates were in the 30s in any polls.

1979: Carter ran for re-election against Reagan.

1975:  The field:  Carter, Udall, J. Brown, George Wallace.  Carter was not an early frontrunner, in fact he ran second in Iowa to "uncommitted" and polls before summer did not show him to be strong by any means.  That changed in the fall.  

Not going any further back.  :-)
---------------------------------------- ---------

So, a few corrections are in order:

1. "Clinton is so weak"   - Humbug.  She is in a stronger April position than any Democratic candidate outside of Bill Clinton running for re-election in 1996.  Her polls close to 40% (nationally and in state polls aggregates) in a field of 8 are better than any polls we had seen heretofore from any of our candidates, going back to 1975, and even before that (did not want to list further back than that.)    

2. "By the standards of front-runners of years past she is in a very weak position and they mostly had the advantage of clear leads in fundraising."

I researched into this matter quite thoroughly and found no evidence of a "standard of front-runners of years' past" that would buttress your point.  In fact, I clearly found no evidence of as clear a frontrunner in any race dating way back compared to the picture that is presented to us by Clinton's lead in national polls, the aggregate of state polls, and big-state polls slated to have primaries on 1/29 and 2/5.

She obviously has not closed the sale or is the shoe-in candidate.  But to call her showing so far "weak" is ridiculous and ignorant of actual presidential primary history.  

by georgep 2007-04-10 05:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages

Any news on Florida's date?

by McFrederick 2007-04-10 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Current Primary Calendar

What amazes me the most about Hillary is the length of time she has been number one and held on to that lead, despite the nasty things the press say about  her (most of them unfounded and untrue) and despite the blogosphere trying to tear her apart over everything she says or does.

This, more than anything else about Hillary Clinton, just blows my mind.  She is a survivor and she is never bitter - she just keeps on doing her work, both in the Senate and on the campaign trail.  And she always speaks well of her fellow Dem candidates, something I admire in her so much.  Unlike Edwards, she does not take potshots at the other candidates; and unlike Obama, she actually is willing to put herself out there and take a firm stand.

by marasaud 2007-04-10 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Current Primary Calendar With Polling Averages


No news on the fact that Obama snatched a Southern State right out of the hands of the Son of the South and the former Southern Bell?

What? No? No word on that?



by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-11 12:59AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads