Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update

Here is the latest national poll from Rasmussen Reports: (4/9-4/12, 774 LVs, MoE 4, 4/2-4/5 numbers in parenthesis)

Clinton: 32 (34)
Obama: 30 (29)
Edwards: 16 (16)

Now, I hardly ever post individual national polls on the front page, but I do so in this case because it is relevant to my ongoing discussion on whether or not national primary polls inflate Clinton's advantage. While every other national Democratic primary preference poll that I know of, except possibly the ever-questionable Zogby, includes the entire self-identified and leaning Democratic registered voter population in their polls, Rasmussen only includes "likely Democratic primary voters." To look at this from a more brass tacks perspective, while other national polls on the Democratic nomination include roughly 45% of the national registered voter universe, Rasmussen includes just under 39% of the national likely voter universe (774 of 2000 likely voters surveyed across four days). Now, while I would prefer a presidential primary poll that sampled only around 20% of the likely voter universe, as the universe of likely Democratic primary voters is usually only around that size or smaller, for now, in order to examine the validity of my thesis, I will have to take what I can get. While not as small as I would like, 39% of likely voters is substantially smaller than 45% of registered voters.

With a more narrowly targeted universe of Democrats, Rasmussen has consistently put up numbers that are less favorable to Clinton than virtually every other national poll taken this year. Over the last three months, six of the fourteen Rasmussen polls have shown Clinton ahead by five points or less, while only one of the other thirty-three national polls have done the same. Further, nine of fourteen Rasmussen national polls taken this year show Obama within eight points or less, while only six of the other thirty-three polls have done the same (including three from Time that only included Clinton, Edwards and Obama in the question). Clinton holds a median lead of 7% in the fourteen Rasmussen polls, and a median lead of 15% in the other thirty-three polls. Similarly, Clinton's mean advantage of 7.7% in Rasmussen polls is more than doubled in the other thirty-three polls.

Simply put, Rasmussen shows a significantly closer race than any other polling outfit, with the possible exceptions of ARG and Zogby (who both poll "likely" Democratic voters, whatever that means to those firms) and Time, which usually only includes Clinton, Obama and Edwards in their questions. Given my thesis, it isn't hard for me to wonder if the main reason for this is that Rasmussen polls a more representative sample of the Democratic primary electorate than other national polls. As I already stated, they sample roughly 39% of likely voters, while most other polls sample 45% of registered voters. While it is possible that other factors are at play, this certainly seems to be a decent amount of evidence to support my thesis. Clinton's lead is not as large as most national polls make it look, because most polls include too many irregular, low-information voters--among whom Clinton holds a disproportionate advantage--to be an accurate sample of the Democratic primary electorate.

Also, since I know we live in an era where most people's first reaction to an argument they don't like is to accuse the arguer of bias and a hidden agenda, you might enjoy these three posts where my poll analysis went quite decidedly against the hopes and conventional wisdom of the blogosphere: You can say a lot of things about me, but claiming that I am skewing my poll analysis to derive desired, pre-determined results is akin to insulting my mother. If I make a post or series of posts about flaws in the contemporary polling narrative or polling situation, it is only because my research indicated to me that a major correction was necessary in one or the other.

Also, in other polling news, a new CNN poll (PDF) shows Clinton 36%, Obama 28%, and Edwards 15%. Obama seems to be getting some sort of post-money announcement bump, which strikes me as a little strange. Then again, considering the proliferation of shows akin to Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous over the past decade, maybe it isn't surprising that announcing you have tons of cash makes you more popular among the voters.

Tags: inflated Clinton poll theory, polls, President 2008 (all tags)

Comments

57 Comments

Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update

why are you going to law school?

by mecarr 2007-04-16 09:35AM | 0 recs
I hate to say it

But I have some respect for Rasmussen's numbers.  The whole robo-phone polling thing made me question him for a while, and his numbers for Bush are always higher than other polls, often by a good margain, but his work in the Senate and House races seemed pretty good.

But while on the subject of national polls, don't forget they could be skewed against Hillary as well.  Even among Democrats, she may seriously underperform in red states, while doing exceedingly well in more traditionally blue states.  

Right now I'd prefer to see individual polling from the early states.

by dpANDREWS 2007-04-16 09:47AM | 0 recs
Rasmussen polls Bush's approval differently.

He offers four categories for people to answer: strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, strongly disapprove.

By combining strongly and somewhat approve, that tends to inflate Bush's numbers a little bit.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-16 09:57AM | 0 recs
National Polling...

at this point is meaningless, except to follow some trending for fun.  The Rasmussen poll is most interesting here, in that it comes out every week, so it's easy to look at trending, like Edwards bump in the last couple of weeks or Obama's current bump.

by rashomon 2007-04-16 10:03AM | 0 recs
OT. Mr. Rasmussen, if you're reading this,

please consider asking two questions in your 2008 primary polls:

  • one with Al Gore included
  • another without Gore
The reasoning behind this suggestion is that, Al Gore has not ruled out a run (of course, he said he "has no plans" etc, but the fact remains that he has not closed the door shut on a run), and even without running and saying he has no plans, he is roughly polling a tie for third in a field with rather hectic and heated campaigns underway by other candidates. The 15% Gore is polling in these polls can be said to be his "hard" support for this reason. Given that, should he enter the race at some point, then clearly, the entire complexion of the race is likely to change, and he has a very hectic public events schedule in the coming year, as you may know.

Further, it would be great to see resumed matchup polls with Gore as the hypothetical Dem. nominee. Matchup polls don't involve the relative standing among Democratic prospects, of course, and so there is nothing lost in asking this question by itself.

Thanks for your consideration.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-16 09:48AM | 0 recs
It would be easy for Gore to get into more polls.

All he'd have to say is, "I'm considering running." Why doesn't he say that? My guess is that he doesn't say that because it would be dishonest, and Al's not dishonest.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-16 10:00AM | 0 recs
Al should things per his own timeline

and assessment of things.

In the mean time, it is useful to get a feel for where the numbers stand by polling both with and without Gore.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-16 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: It would be easy for Gore to get into more pol

I believe that's number 10. ;-)

by afertig 2007-04-16 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: OT. Mr. Rasmussen, if you're reading this,

The reasoning behind this suggestion is that, Al Gore has not ruled out a run

Yes, he has.

by Silent sound 2007-04-16 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: OT. Mr. Rasmussen, if you're reading this,

No, he hasn't.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-16 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update
this nomination is Obama's to lose at this point, IMHO look at his numbers from april 1st on at his site. Also national polls clearly show Obama does the best against Republicans and Hillary's numbers in trial heats and her personal negatives are starting to enhance the perception that she just isn't the right person in 2008. Also not enough importance is being put on Obama's crowds because of what happened to Dean in 2004, Dean was more of an ant-Bush candidate who became popular because of his message but many who loved what Dean was saying became convinced that he wasn't the best guy to nominate and Kerry's send a president not a message resonated, with Obama it's not the message that's so popular it's the person, these donors and people that are going to these rallies are commited to him and are going to show up for primaries which normally come down to who cares enough to show up, Obama will have by far the most money at this pace by the ened of the year and by far the most volunteers and enthusiastic voters, but Hillary will have a probable small "national lead" which means she still has the expectations and front runner status making an early state disaster even worse.
Unless Obama falls apart I don't see how Hillary holds on in this dynamic.
by nevadadem 2007-04-16 09:51AM | 0 recs
Please, God, no.


"this nomination is Obama's to lose at this point"

First of all, this seriously discounts both Clinton and Edwards, who are both in good position right now...although Clinton is probably disappointed, as she thought she'd do the coronation primary.  This is a wide-open 3 way race, which is great.

Secondly, I don't want this meme to catch on.  I'd like Obama to take the lead in the fall at the earliest.  I was a big Dean supporter and I don't want that (strong summer rise, attacks from everywhere on the "frontrunner") to happen again.  I may not have a choice, but we'll see.

by rashomon 2007-04-16 10:10AM | 0 recs
by adilla 2007-04-16 09:57AM | 0 recs
Obama's post-money bounce

I'm not surprised that we're seeing a little post-money announcement bounce for Obama.  While this is purely anecdotal, I get the feeling that there are a number of people out there (particularly within the African-American community) who like the idea of Obama, but are worried that the rest of America won't take his candidacy as seriously as they'll take Hillary's.  The more Obama can establish himself as a bona fide top-flight candidate (and not a challenger)--as someone who has strong financial backing and good general election prospects--I suspect that many of the people who were previously skeptical of his chances will start to voice their support for him.  

by Anonymous Liberal 2007-04-16 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's post-money bounce

polls that show Obama doing far better and much nore liked than Hillary help fight that flawed perception. I do think some African americans are just warming up to Obama simply because they are so shocked that a black candidate can actually win, remember that moron in south Carolina who endorsed Hillary becuase america would never vote for a black guy? As time goes on those perceptions of Obama's race being an obstacle will fade and black voters worried about the "too good to be true" aspect of Obama becoming president will more than likely be won over.

by nevadadem 2007-04-16 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's post-money bounce

" I suspect that many of the people who were previously skeptical of his chances will start to voice their support for him."

Right on. I think a lot of people thought Obama would be a great candidate, but couldn't compete with the Clinton money machine, thus, wasn't realistic. Since this idea has been blown out of the water, I think a good amount of undecideds and pragmatics (want a winner in 08) realized that Obama is a legitimate candidate and swung his way.

I've always felt Hilary's numbers were a bit inflated simply based on the lack of outspoken, unpaid advocates for her campaign.

by Benstrader 2007-04-16 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's post-money bounce

33 Polls show that Hillary has a strong lead and then there is Rasmussen who says its sooooo close.  As I recall, Rasmussen was always considered to be a Republican Polling Firm and therefore to be discounted.  There is a reason  Republicans want to make Obama look like a winner to stop the inevitability of a Clinton nomination.  They fear her and the people she could bring on board.  So they tell us that Obama who is the media darling and has yet to tell us where he stands on the issues is looking more and more like the nominee.  

by changehorses08 2007-04-16 08:20PM | 0 recs
Of the BIG 6, only Edwards spent no $$$ on polling

In the first quarter, Edwards was the only one who spent $0 on polling.

John and Elizabeth went in front of the nation with their health announcement with no numbers whatsoever on what the reaction might be.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-16 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Of the BIG 6, only Edwards spent no $$$ on pol

His campaign manager also didn't take a salary.  It will be interesting to see whether his burn rate accelerates in the next quarter.  It may be that some expenses were put off.

by Obama08 2007-04-16 10:14AM | 0 recs
I think everyone's burn rate will accelerate.

But Edwards has laid out one detailed policy proposal after another with no polling.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-16 10:19AM | 0 recs
by MeanBoneII 2007-04-16 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update

"Then again, considering the proliferation of shows akin to Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous over the past decade, maybe it isn't surprising that announcing you have tons of cash makes you more popular among the voters."

Remember, that was all the political media reported about then Gov. Bush. Such drooling. The money numbers were lovingly reported like sex.

by mrobinsong 2007-04-16 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update

So now we are to believe that the fat cats give their money to losers.  This reminds me of Kerry winning all 3 debates with Bush only to be told my the media that people don't vote for the winners of debates.

by changehorses08 2007-04-16 08:22PM | 0 recs
Edwards is running away with it on DKos.

Edwards is up by 20 points with 1,422 votes in, 45%-25%.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-16 10:10AM | 0 recs
And that's a surprise?

With the beating that Obama's taken on DKos lately (some deservedly), I would have been shocked if this wasn't the result.

by rashomon 2007-04-16 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: And that's a surprise?

Well, it's DKos, for better or worse. Having said that, I've never understood the Clinton polling numbers. Not one Democrat I've spoken to over the last six months has been even remotely interested in her winning the primary.

by Ghost of McGovern 2007-04-16 11:20AM | 0 recs
Re: And that's a surprise?

Well I guess then I;m the first Dem you have met who wants Clinton to win the primary.

by bsavage 2007-04-16 01:14PM | 0 recs
Re: And that's a surprise?

So that she can lose the general?

by Populism2008 2007-04-16 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: And that's a surprise?

I guess I just met a Ralph Nader supporter.

by bsavage 2007-04-16 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: And that's a surprise?

Doubting that Hillary can win does not make you a Naderite.

by jallen 2007-04-16 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: And that's a surprise?

I can completely support Edwards and Richardson if they win the nomination just not Obama. The last thing we need in 2008 is another inexperienced candidate or President if Obama gets elected. Nothing is worse than on the job training.

by bsavage 2007-04-16 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards is running away with it on DKos.

You can vote for Edwards more than once on the DKos poll. You can't do that with the other candidates, at least not with Obama - he's the only one I tested.  But you can vote for Edwards repeatedly and it will accept the vote and change the tally.  Go ahead and try it.  

by dougdilg 2007-04-16 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards is running away with it on DKos.
Doesn't work for me.
by Chris Bowers 2007-04-16 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards is running away with it on DKos.

Among the Dems I know its John Edwards that they prefer.  He is the quintesential candidate.  He has it all.  There are alot of people put off by Hillary and Obama.  But almost no one dislikes Mr. Edwards.  I think he is the candidate that the Republican big wigs fear the most.  So, for the most part the media generally ignores him.

by changehorses08 2007-04-16 08:38PM | 0 recs
And while we're at it, your mother ...

... produced a son who very cleverly hides his hidden agenda by frequently writing posts without referring to the hidden agenda. And that is a sneaky underhanded trick designed to make it hard to work out what the secret agenda is.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-16 10:12AM | 0 recs
Matt

I appreciate your analysis and believe that you take your thesis very seriously. When you first started talking about Hillary Clinton's numbers being skewered in her favor, I immediately recalled my experience working for a polling firm in San Diego where I interviewed those represented in these polls ( My apologies for all who may have been annoyed by my calls. It was my job.) In any event, I can tell you that you are definitely on to something as I have personal experience that backs up your theory. The way questions are asked can have a person backing one candidate at the beginning of a survey, but by the time I have finished questioning them, their final answer is for a different candidate. Many times , the participant did not know that their second answer was the one that would represent them. Many times, they were led to believe, by the wording of my questioning, that the question I asked was hypothetical and they answered assuming that their choice candidate was the one that would be recorded. This, is what happened with George Bush in 2003 and it annoyed me. The polling firm I worked for had clients from both sides of the aisle but a majority were Republican. I placed calls all over the nation. I had also been frustrated , on several occasions when I would go through an entire survey, only to have the system disqualify the survey due to the participants , income level, age, gender . Those polls were never "qualified" and a majority of them favored Democratic candidates. Political Polls are taken for a reason. If people do not believe that they are designed to sway or effect public opinion, I can tell you for a fact that they are. I don't like talking about it because for one, it's an embarrassing job for a Democrat and two, I am afraid I will disclose something that will get me sued. But bottom line, Matt, your thesis has more truth to it than you know. Anyway, I'm off to Milwaukee. Have a great day everyone.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-16 10:13AM | 0 recs
Not Matt, but Chris

Is Chris Matt now?  If so, who is Matt?

by jallen 2007-04-16 10:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Matt, but Chris

Ooops,

I'm used Matt always being....never mind. My apologies, Chris.

CHRIS

CHRIS

CHRIS

CHRIS.

Okay, seriously, I have to hit the road. I want to get a good seat. Barack Obama will be in Milwaukee today.

by ObamaEdwards2008 2007-04-16 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Matt, but Chris

Jerome.

by afertig 2007-04-16 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Matt

We can do what?  Will Obama ever tell us what it is we can do -- or shall we guess?

by changehorses08 2007-04-16 08:39PM | 0 recs
Why the Obama bounce?

I think Chris is missing the most likely reason Obama's been back up in the polls this week.

I doubt it has much to do with the $ announcement, but rather more with Elizabeth Edwards's cancer announcement.

Here's my logic:

Prior to Elizabeth Edwards's announcement, Obama had made it to the mid-twenties in most polls, pulled about 10 points back of Clinton, and seemed to be gaining more. But the Edwards announcement caused an immediate 5-6 point bump in John Edwards's support, and it seems to me that he took those supporters mostly from Obama, not Clinton, who has been relatively stable over the last couple months in the lower 30s. Alternatively, if these voters hadn't yet been for Obama, I think they may have been undecided voters who would, had the Jan-Mar. trends continued, eventually have gotten behind Obama.

This week's Ras. and CNN polls both have Edwards back to his pre-cancer bump level of about 15 or 16%, and I think Obama's rise is just tied to these supporters coming back to where they were, with his wife's cancer issue no longer front-page news.

Makes a lot more sense to me than the 'lifestyles of the rich and famous' idea.

by James Gatz 2007-04-16 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update
24 (15)
by ltsply2 2007-04-16 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton National Poll

Pity poor Matt and his coterie of anti-Clinton bloggers, ever grasping at the few polls which show a deviance from the norm that Senator Clinton is well-ahead.

The consensus is quite the opposite--that Senator Obama has been seriously losing ground, and Senator Edwards is now vying for the second position.

Matt and his coterie must create their own reality.  They believe that neither Senator Clinton's support nor her poll numbers are real.

The race has never been neophyte--with but two years representing the state of Illinois--Senator Obama's to lose.  Only the extreme wishing thinking of his most myopic supporters would sustain such a premise.

It is tragic but expected that so many supporters of Senator Clinton's rivals live in their own unreality.  They see what they want to see, and when they want to see it.

Rather like the deviant pollsters, desperate for a race that isn't truly there.

by lambros 2007-04-16 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton National Poll

I guess the crowds, the money the great poll numbers wihout the name ID and "history of Clinton" is meaningless lambros, 20,000 in Atlanta ah those people won't show up, or the # of donors ah no big deal, oh maybe Hillary  in the mid 30's despite the fact that she's been sold as the inevetable nominee by the establishment and that her husband is extremely popular no problem, but least of all the fact which is getting more attention by the day that Hillary is performing the worst agaisnt Republicans is general election heats and evokes negative feelings according to cbs with the majority of registered voters nation wide, oh that's fine, see everything is wonderful in Hillary land. Hillary land is a great place where establishment democrats live disconected from the real world of the american electorate or the enthusiasm of the Obama forces among the masses. The Hillary supporters like you have a "there is no race here ---MOVE ALONG " theme to thier arguements and it's backfiring bigtime.

by nevadadem 2007-04-16 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton National Poll

Lambros has his own reality:

The two most recent polls have shown this race tightening, Rasmussen: Clinton up by 2 pts and Cnn Clinton up by 8pts.

Rasmussen had the most accurate polling record in 2004

RCP AVG now shows Clinton ahead by 9 pts on average Down by 5-6 pts.

SC poll insiders advantage April 6-8th
Obama 34
Clinton 20
Edwards 17

by BDM 2007-04-16 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton National Poll


Well, I can't subscribe to any of the bad theories and guesses being bandied about here about candidates changing support.  What I see in the polling numbers, in aggregate, and read intelligently, is No Friggin Change Whatsoever.  Rasmussen has a 3%ish conservative bias, and if you correct for that all their numbers fit to all the others.  All these abrupt and convenient and religious conversions to faith in Rasmussen are odious.

It's still Clinton 38%, Obama 25%, and Edwards 15%.  It's been that way since January.  Yes, it's all soft.  No, nothing other than candidate auto-da-fe seems to affect it.

by killjoy 2007-04-16 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton National Poll

Rasmussen had the most accurate numbers in 2004 yes they are republican leaning, however they are trying to be accurate. It is in their interest to be accurate.

Also CNNshows a tightening of the race just a 8 pt Clinton lead. RCP AVERAGE IS cLINTON LEADING BY 9 PTS.

bECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE THE POLLS THEN YOU JUST PULL A NUMBER OUT OF YOUR ASS. WHY NOT ADD 7 PTS INSTEAD OF 3 PTS.

Clinton supporters love to post polls that favor their candidate, but dismiss the numbers in which support of their candidate has dropped.

SC POLL APRIL 6-8TH(Insiders advantage)
Obama  34
Clinto 20
Edwards 17

by BDM 2007-04-16 02:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton National Poll

Yes, we know Obama can walk on water. Where is his leadership on any issue? In 2004, Dean had experience and ran a campaign of substance. Obama is all about style and we keep waiting for his healthcare plan, his environment plan and so many other issues. If this campaign was simply about who has the best speaking ability then sure Obama wins in a landslide. I think it's great that Obama was a community organizer, and a State Senator in IL, good for him. However, we need a candidate who can bring more than hope, we need someone who can bring results.  

by bsavage 2007-04-16 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton National Poll

Well said -- I totally agree.  

by changehorses08 2007-04-16 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update

Well, it SOUNDS like good analysis...but then again, you're on the payroll of the Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Gravel campaigns (you're Gravel's only staffer), so we can't trust your analysis.

by Nonpartisan 2007-04-16 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll

I would hate to be a Hillary hater.  To live in that world of constant stress over every variation in the polls and over every difference in dollars raised.  It must be truly awful to obsess over the success, perceived or otherwise, of a singular candidate in their OWN party.  There is no room left in the Hillary haters' worlds to focus on the real enemy behind the curtain - the Repubicans.  It is all about tearing down Hillary, any way they can, every day of the week - one desperate diary after another.

What in God's name will Hillary's haters do if she wins the nomination?

by samueldem 2007-04-16 02:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll

vote for her the same way many Dems voted for other unelectable candidates in the past and hope for the best.

by nevadadem 2007-04-16 04:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll

Hillary could bring along people such as Albright as Secretary of State -- Rubin as Secy of the Treasury and James Lee Witt as FEMA Director -- Hmmmmmmmmm wasn't that when we had all that peace and prosperity. What's so bad about that????

by changehorses08 2007-04-16 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update
I really wish there was some kind of way to combine the polling of the pros with the polling on the blogs.  Afterall, we are the people who will be voting at the polls.  I think the real answer is somewhere between the two.  I don't believe clinton is as dominate as the polling appears.  You have soft voters who don't know who most of the candidates are or what any of them are about.
I agree that the polling just seems inflated because so many feel negative about clinton.  And it seems in state polling and online, the other 2 seem to be beating Clinton.  Why is this and yet the national polling shows the opposite.
there was an article and link in Politico blog today.
by vwcat 2007-04-16 02:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama post-Q1 fundraising bounce

I doubt very much that it's a 'lifestyles of the rich and famous' effect, given that Obama has the highest proportion by far of small donors.  I think it's the magnetism of crowds: his 100,000 individual donors were double that of any other candidate.  That's a powerful draw.

by Nell 2007-04-17 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update

Chris, I believe you're onto something here! I'd like to add a few things (or maybe I'm only rephrasing):

The obvious lesson to take of the "money race" is not as much about admiring the lifestyles of the rich, as that the high number of donors is a sign of hard support, including, of course hard intent of actually voting. (In addition to the viability argument.)

This brings me to another argument for your case: We may not know exactly where Clinton's numbers are coming from, and their likely turn-out on primary day, but we do know a great deal of some other subsets who of the primary voters:

Small donors: They hardly ever give to multiple candidates, and they are very, very likely to vote in the primary. (While large donors have other motivations, and can easier live with losing the money, hence they may engage in double giving, and their support on primary day is less certain.) Obama won the small donoer race, with Edwards in second.

Blog readers: Their leanings are well know. Those who read blogs and vote in straw polls are very, very likely to vote in the primary.

So: We know that at least two subsets who are very likely to vote in the primary, "bloggers" and small donors, break for Obama and Edwards, and not Clinton. The whole of the remainder of the polled universe is likely, on average, to vote in the primary.

There may be other subsets (e.g. women?) who are more likely to vote in the primary than the whole of the sampled group, and at the same time skew for Clinton, so what evidence we is not conclusive. But it seems reasonable to postulate some pro-Clinton bias.

As for Rasmussen being an republican outfit: Yes, but at the same time the use a consistent method. Their method somehow inflates republican support, but it remains to be seen how that methodological argument what create bias in that one or the other direction her. Please enlighten me, anyone who wants to discount the Rasmussen numbers. (Electability arguments, e.g. which democratic candidate is considered "weak", and helpfull to  the GOP.) I don't see it.

by PoliticGeek Pro 2007-04-17 02:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Inflated Clinton National Poll Theory Update

Interesting reading! I have to say I was almost sure that Hillary would win before the elections started, but now I've started to change my mind and I think that Obama might actually win.

by Kate R 2008-02-26 12:27AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads