National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

Now Cross-Posted on Dailykos

For the past few months, I have been frustrated by the difficulty of determining rolling averages for national Democratic primary preference polls. There are three basic causes for this difficulty, but at long last I have developed system to deal with those three difficulties that I personally find satisfactory. Here are the three difficulties, along with my solution to each:
  1. Not all polls include the same candidates in their questions. Polls that include Gore and Kerry artificially deflate the numbers for all other Democrats, while polls with only Hilary, Edwards and Obama artificially inflate the numbers for those three candidates. Thus, for my rolling poll average, I have decided to only include polls that include all announced candidates, and do not include either Gore or Kerry. This way, the numbers I am using in the averages are more compatible with one another.
  2. Different polls sample different universes of voters. However, during my behind the scenes work on the Inflated Clinton Poll Theory, I now feel that the universes samples among the polls that meet criteria #1 are currently not different enough to pose a serious problem during averaging. While that includes Rasmussen and Gallup, both of whom are outliers in this regard, to a certain extent cancel each other out, both because they are outliers in opposite directions and because they are the two most prolific pollsters. I still believe a tighter sample of Democrats needs to be the universe all pollsters sample, and I will keep pushing for it behind the scenes, but this will do for now.
  3. Different polls push undecideds to different degrees. This is still a problem, but name recognition among the three leading Democratic candidates that pushing undecideds no longer heavily favors Hillary Clinton. Obama and Edwards both hover around 90% name recognition among Democrats. By restricting myself to the post announcement period (mid-February and later), while this is still a problem, it is not as much of a problem.
Now, with all of this in mind, without further ado here are the national Democratic primary polling average from February 23rd until April 24th, presented in three and four day intervals:

DateClintonObamaEdwardsOthers / Unsure
Apr 2435.7%28.4%17.6%18.3%
Apr 2035.7%28.0%17.2%19.1%
Apr 1637.0%26.3%17.0%19.7%
Apr 1337.0%24.5%17.0%21.5%
Apr 1037.8%22.8%17.3%22.1%
Apr 0637.7%23.3%17.0%22.0%
Apr 0237.3%23.3%17.2%22.2%
Mar 3036.6%24.6%16.8%22.0%
Mar 2737.0%25.4%15.6%22.0%
Mar 2337.7%26.0%14.0%22.3%
Mar 2039.0%26.3%13.3%21.4%
Mar 1639.2%27.5%13.3%20.0%
Mar 1239.0%26.8%14.0%20.2%
Mar 0937.4%27.1%13.7%21.8%
Mar 0637.9%27.1%13.4%21.6%
Mar 0237.8%24.8%14.0%23.4%
Feb 2638.8%24.5%13.8%22.9%
Feb 2342.3%23.0%14.3%20.4%

The excel spreadsheet I use to gather this data can be found here. Note that polls are added to the average the day after they are completed, and removed from the average fifteen days after they are completed. Only candidates averaging over 5.0% in national polls are included in the chart. Source polls can be found at Polling Report and Rasmussen. I will update this chart every three or four days throughout the entire primary / caucus season.

For now, I will leave analysis of this data to you. One thing I will note is how Edwards and Obama were stuck at a combined 38.3%--41.6% for a long time. However, over the last ten days, they have quickly risen to a combined 46.0%, mainly at the expense of others / unsure, but also, to a lesser extent, at the expense of Clinton. That strikes me as a particularly important trend in the campaign, one that is an entirely new development and that impacts every single announced candidate.

Tags: Democrats, national Democratic poll average, polls, President 2008, Primary Elections (all tags)



Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

The other/undecided seems to have made a marginally significant decline in the past month. I can only imagine those numbers will climb as other candidates make their presence known - possibly sapping support from those who choose Hillary by default.

But clearly, the Edwards climb is the most concrete trend.

by LandStander 2007-04-25 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24
Actually, Obama (3.9%) and Edwards (3.8%) have risen nearly identical amounts since the polls stabilized on February 26th. Granted, it remains to be seen whether the current Obama upward trend will be stable.
by Chris Bowers 2007-04-25 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

But Obama has that noticeable dip, while Edwards never saw a drop between periods greater than 0.6%.  And he went nowhere but up since the cancer announcement on March 22. What account for Obama's dip in support, anyway?

And thanks for putting this together, helps put all the disparate polling into perspective.

by LandStander 2007-04-25 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24
You ask about the Obama dip.  That is in the period before the Q1 fundraising annoncement.  Obama was taking a lot of sh*t in the media and from HRC supportes about being a "lightweight."
After the fundraising announcement his press improved and his numbers have improved.
by upper left 2007-04-26 06:17AM | 0 recs
Yeah, it became a lot harder for Clinton ...

... to label Obama as a lightweight when her basic "substance" advantage was basically presumed fund raising prowess, after Obama's fundraising success.

She was expected to lap the first tier, and possibly lap the field, and in terms of Q1 fundraising for the primary was not even first.

I expect Obama and Edwards tag teaming Hillary's support to be a slow but steady story through the summer, since they both have substantial frames that hold up as to why they are running, and Hillary doesn't, and Hillary cannot present an appearance of being in the lead in Iraq without using weasel words, because among Democrats she is simply in the tail on Iraq.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-26 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

Also, while averaging the polls is a more robust measure than otherwise, the heterogeneity among polls in the average make for noise in the numbers as well. It is entirely possible for short term "movements" to reflect just statistical variation within the same confidence interval.

Month-on-month ... in the table above, Feb 23, Mar 23, April 24 ... show large enough movement that the moves are likely to be actual trends (but never read too much into the precise magnitude of the moves).

Date: Hillary / Obama / Edwards / Remainder

  • Feb 23: 42.3% / 23.0% / 14.3% / 20.4%
  • Mar 23: 37.7% / 26.0% / 14.0% / 22.3%
  • Apr 24: 35.7% / 28.4% / 17.6% / 18.3%

If Clinton loses even 1% per month, and is down to 27% by 2008, she is certainly in second place and possibly in a statistical tie for third.

And after all, Hillary's problem in a three-way race is the same as the problem that the cable news networks have, and why they much prefer a two-person race ... a three-way race is simply more complex, and has special disadvantages to the front runner. In particular, any soft supporter of Hillary that is actually touched by an Obama message may or may not find Obama to be a candidate they prefer, for whatever reason. Ditto Edwards. But any soft supporter of Hillary touched by a message from either Obama or Edwards is not restricted to that candidate ... they have both Obama and Edwards to choose from.

That makes Obama and Edwards tacit allies ... in purely pragmatic sense, without any hint of collusion ... in the process of trying to shake out Hillary's soft support.

Neither Obama nor Edwards are likely to be making the ground that they did in April throughout the summer ... but neither actually has to. As long as Hillary keeps sliding, those who support her strongly because the Clintons are winners will be harboring doubts, and more of her soft support will be vulnerable to being wooed away.

Therefore, on the national front (which is very much the secondary front in comparison to the early primary battlegrounds), as long as Hillary keeps sliding month-on-month, it makes sense for both Obama and Edwards to keep their messaging positive, highlighting the elements that they think distinguish them in a positive way, and hoping to attract as many of both the Hillary supporters falling away and the undecided voters as possible.

If either the Edwards or Obama campaign was offered the (hypothetical) outcome from tonight's debate that both Obama and Edwards get a bump at the expense of Hillary, they'd probably be happy to take that.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-26 06:59AM | 0 recs
Edwards flat last 3 wks, only Obama climbs

When you look at the spreadsheet, the most consistent number is Edwards around 17 for the past 3 weeks, so I don't think it's right to say that the last ten days' movement is from both non-Hillary candidates.

Obama, on the other hand, has had the most dramatic gain on the entire sheet, from April 10 to today.

by msnook 2007-04-25 10:30PM | 0 recs
Ah, drama
Will Obama's climb hold? Will it collapse? Will it increase? Tune in next time...
by Chris Bowers 2007-04-25 11:39PM | 0 recs
With and Without Gore numbers

(posting up here for readers' benefit)

Let's take the average of two recent polls with Gore:

Poll    Date    Sample    Clinton    Obama    Edwards    Gore    Spread

USA Today/Gallup    04/13 - 04/15    504 RV    31    26    16    15    Clinton +5.0
ABC News/Wash Post    04/12 - 04/15    Adults    37    20    14    17    Clinton +17.0

let's skip the FNOD poll which had:

FOX News    04/17 - 04/18    RV
HRC: 41
Obama: 20
JRE: 12
Gore: 16
Clinton +21.0

as this seems to be a bit of an outlier.

The average of the two "with Gore" polls is:

HRC: 34
Obama: 23
Edwards: 15
Gore: 16

Now, comparing this with Bowers' April 16 numbers for the trifecta (I presume he strictly averaged polls w/o Gore for his table):

Apr 16    HRC: 37.0%    Obama: 26.3%    JRE: 17.0%    Other: 19.7%

When included, Gore is pulling the following amounts from the trifecta:
HRC: 3%
Obama: 3.3
JRE: 2
which is a fairly even pull from each candidate. He is apparently pulling about 7-8% from the "Other" block.

Next, if Gore decides to enter the race, it's reasonable to expect that he will get a good bounce in polls from such an announcement.

Suppose that he draws the following from each of the top three from where we are, within a week or so of entering the race:

HRC: 4
Obama: 3
Edwards: 2

Then, Gore's numbers will rise to:
Gore: 16 + 4 + 3 + 2 = 25

and we would end up with:

Prediction (week after Gore announces, if he does):
HRC: 30%    Obama: 20%    JRE: 15% Gore: 25%

In other words, should Gore enter the race, Gore could pull into the 2nd spot (trailing HRC by only 5%) shortly after an announcement.

If we now combine Gore and Obama, we have 45%, which may bode well for a Gore/Obama ticket.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-26 03:50AM | 0 recs
Notes to self
For a possible future post:

Edwards might be the anti-Clinton. I don't mean that he is necessarily the candidate who will defeat Clinton, or that he is necessarily the opposite of Clinton. Rather that he isn't competing with Clinton for many supporters. His new supporters come from Obama and Other / Unsure, and his consistent supporters make Clinton their second choice at a rate far lower than do Obama supporters.

In other words, there could be two main groups of voters:
  • Clinton and Obama are fighting over one set: "the potential Clinton vote." This appears to be 60-70% of Dems.
  • Every but Clinton is fighting over another set: "the non-clinton vote." This is 30-40% of Dems. Note that it is not the anti-Clinton vote, just the non-Clinton vote.
In other words, Edwards and Clinton are not fighting over many voters, and only Obama is fighting with everyone for voters. Tricky situation for Obama--then again, he is in many ways a hybrid, so perhaps he can pull it off. Also, it could be a huge, huge, long-term advantage to Obama to be competing in both pools. (side note: is Obama the frontrunner for this reason?)

Of particular interest: until he comes much closer to the overall lead, Edwards is actually dependent on continued Obama success against Clinton in the first pool. While Edwards need to suck up the non-Clinton vote, he also needs Obama to suck up the potential Clinton vote. That seems to be happening right now, which is how Edwards has made up 7.8% on Clinton since Mar 16. Still, that is only 1/3 of how much he trailed by. (side note: will any Edwards Iowa bump be muted because he mainly competes in the non-Clinton pool?)

Final note: the difference between the Clinton vs. Obama voters and the anyone but Clinton voters is probably four-fold: African-Americans, white women, neoliberals, and low information--but frequent voting--white male liberals (not progs, mods or cons) dominate the Clinton vs. Obama group. The non-Clinton vote (not necessarily anti-Clinton) is probably dominated by male, high-information, white cons, mods and progs. (Side note: without Obama, the nomination would already be over).

P.S. As long as Edwards is in the race, the blogosphere will probably have little to no effect on the Clinton vs. Obama battle. All impact we have on that group will be indirect, at best. We are clearly demographically situated in the non-Clinton group.
by Chris Bowers 2007-04-25 09:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Notes to self
And this has been another episode of "inside Bowers's brain."

P.P.S.: The two groups are not exclusive to the demographics I listed, just dominated by them. Until Edwards can do better among the potential Clinton voters, winning the nod will be a very narrow keyhole indeed. In the best case scenario, 75% of the non-Clinton and 15% of the potential Clinton might not even be enough. Right now, he isn't close to either figure (maybe 35% and 7%?).
by Chris Bowers 2007-04-25 10:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Notes to self

This was Joe Trippi's theory.

by Matt Stoller 2007-04-26 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe not

As some one who leans strongly toward Obama, is willing to consider Edwards, and absolutely will not vote for Clinton, I don't seem to fit in your scheme.  Your scheme seems to imply that engaged-high-info Dems like me should automatically be in the Edwards camp.  I think that is a bit o' blogoshere group think.

I see much more of a battle between Edwards and Obama for the anti-establishment Dem vote.  But even that is much too simplistic.  Please see my post further down thread for an alternative framework.  Thanks

by upper left 2007-04-26 09:10AM | 0 recs
At least in Iowa I think Edwards is the one who...

...competes everywhere. Hillary and Obama are fighting over the same pool of (mostly non-rural) Democratic caucus-goers. Edwards can hit the 15% minimum in every precinct, something I doubt the others will be able to match.

Hillary has Bill and now Vilsack, and Obama hails from neighboring Illinois and draws big crowds. Nobody's going to have a good excuse for coming in third.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-25 10:42PM | 0 recs
Hillary and Obama's shared voters

I don't think the Clinton legacy voters are so monolithic -- think of high-engagement dems (especially women, around Elizabeth's announcement, who left hillary, and then went to Edwards after he got on the air) and Southern-Dems who probably have a lot more to identify with in Edwards than in Obama.

And which voters are Clinton and Obama fighting over? Black voters and young voters (both mostly low-engagement, high Democratic-identity voters). But Clinton has a ton of high-engagement voters (think low-info elites) as well as her many star-power-dependent, low-info supporters. I wrote a comment about the "Edwards=engaged, Obama=disengaged, Hillary=both" divide down there, but I didn't realize how easily it reconciled with your take until after.

The only difference is I think Edwards is competing for some of Hillary's people too, the southern ones, and the high-engagement ones.

by msnook 2007-04-25 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary and Obama's shared voters
"The only difference is I think Edwards is competing for some of Hillary's people too, the southern ones, and the high-engagement ones."

I don't actually agree. I think Edwards is competing for rural whites around the country, and not for southerners in general. Polling from the south that shows Edwards struggling I think agrees with me.
by Chris Bowers 2007-04-25 11:41PM | 0 recs
You are right about that

an hour after my comment I thought to change this from "southern dems" to "rural dems" (acutally, after my CM came over and shared some polling on Edwards and rural voters), but by the time I checked back you'd beaten me to it.

Imagine I'd used a better label like "rural dems"  -- my point is the same.

And re: your other point about Obama and low-engagement types... I don't think he has them, I think he's taking them from Clinton and engaging them, thus the inflated-clinton-poll theory. They are new-engagement types, if the pigeon-holing naming conventions are important.

Semantics and technocalities, once again, I don't think I disagree with you on anything except whether or not Edwards can take Clinton's support. (I've seen a lot of Clinton supporters among the always-voting rural dems down here in VA, and I think they're ripe for Edwards's picking.)

by msnook 2007-04-26 12:58AM | 0 recs
I think that you are right

Write a post about it!

Though I don't think the categories are quite as static as you present them. The anti-Hillary category has growth potential in my opinion. If so Edwards is well-positioned.

On the issues I am somewhat closer to Edwards (in his recent incarnation) than Obama, but the most important goal for me is to beat Hillary (since she will lose the general) and I am afraid that only Obama has the potential to win over Hillary. If so Edwards is actually helping Hillary by taking votes from Obama. I am really torn here and your post does not make it any easier....

by Populism2008 2007-04-26 12:01AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that you are right

People have a long history of voting for somebody instead of against

The anti-Hillary category certainly has growth potential as it's nearly inexistent outside the netroots. In 2004 Kerry  showed that simply running against somebody isn't a viable campaign. And he was running against somebody who had far higher negatives and far lower positives. You've got to give people reasons to vote for your preferred candidate, instead of against somebody else.

If you meant the non-Hillary category, those are people from a different voting segment. They aren't against her, they just don't care about her viewpoints. The ideological and cultural lines that divides these groups of Dems are pretty set and makes significant growth  a matter of years. The best way to sway voters is to be genuinely enthusiastic about your own preferred candidate. Especially because purely anti-Hillary statements have a galvanizing effect on her supporters. A lot of Dems have supported her through years and years of anti Hillary attacks. They're not going to be swayed by more of the same. But they might be convinced that there is an even better candidate.  

by Ernst 2007-04-26 01:56AM | 0 recs

I am not attacking Hillary, I am just pointing out that she cannot win the general election. And we all want a Democrat in the White House I suppose?

by Populism2008 2007-04-26 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

Otherwise we all wouldn't be here on MyDD now would we?

But why do you think I took it as an attack? I gave you some pointers how voters tend to behave and what is the best way to defeat my own choice for the nomination in light of that. That is not how I would've reacted to an attack. Perhaps it wasn't as polished comment as I intended but I was rushing it at work. Sorry about that. I'm generally quite bullish on the democrats. I think we have a good field and while I have my preference, I don't begrudge others theirs.

I respect your opinion on her chances in the general but suffice to say I don't agree. I (almost naturally as supporter) hold the opposite of your belief. Hillary has an excellent chance to win the general. My worries are over chances to win the nomination. Once she done that the general is going to be relatively easy. Certainly no more difficult then it would be for any of our other major candidates.

by Ernst 2007-04-26 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that you are right

The anti-Hillary category certainly has growth potential as it's nearly inexistent outside the netroots.

Not from what I've been hearing from union members.  They certainly don't seem too keen on her candidacy.

by jallen 2007-04-26 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Notes to self
side note: is Obama the frontrunner for this reason?

Not just that reason, but it probably is a contributing factor.  He also is doing well in the tanglible parts of the campaign as well (IE fundraising and campaign stops)
by sterra 2007-04-26 02:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Notes to self

Also as another point it is interesting that probably the most significant aspects of the race (IE the race and sex of the candidates) is not talked about more.

Now, I suppose it makes sense because of the makeup of the blogosphere(white men often consider themselves generic), but still it is glaring how little attention it gets even when the polls seem to show the difference in supporters.

by sterra 2007-04-26 03:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Notes to self

In the national polling it is clear that with any significant movement of black voters from Clinton to Obama he moves ahead in the polls.  This bodes well for Obama in the February national primary.  I think the black vote will be more influential in the final analysis than anyone is willing to talk about yet.  And I think that is exciting for a bloc of voters who have been taken for granted by the Democratic party for far too long.

However, in Iowa (2% black/3% hispanic) and New Hampshire (.7 % black/1.7% hispanic) the black vote is negligible.  Nevada is 7% black and 20% hispanic.  South Carolina is 29% black and 2% hispanic. k.html

I don't imagine that he is playing for second or third in Iowa or New Hampshire. He has to do very well in both states. Even if he is leading in the national polls this winter, he has to do well with white voters including woman in order to make it to the national primary and have his national poll numbers mean anything.

by aiko 2007-04-26 06:10AM | 0 recs
There is a difference between has to ...

... and would like to.

I don't think Obama "has to" do well in both Iowa and New Hampshire ... he is definitely hurt by a third place finish in both, but swapping first and second with Edwards would help both and put serious damage on Hillary.

Richardson is, of course, on of the wild cards in all of this.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-26 07:13AM | 0 recs
Edwards ability to win over 'clinton voters' ...

... depends on two things:

  • the mass media exposure to make his case, because he has framing, messaging, and positions that can make substantial inroads into the "clinton" pool, but only if he delivers the message; and
  • clinton's (partially reflected) burnish as a winner becoming seriously clouded.

And obviously, given the length of the campaign, there are potential economic events that can have a massive impact on the race ... recession, oil price spikes, Federal reserve interest rate hikes.

by BruceMcF 2007-04-26 07:07AM | 0 recs

Who does Richardson,s candidacy effect the most.  How does he fit into the equasion?

by pamelabrown 2007-04-26 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris

I suggested above that any of the lower tier candidates are likely to drain support from Hillary. I only assume this because Obama and Edwards appear to have more dedicated supporters, while Hillary appears to be the default candidate (name recognition, leading in the polls, Bill Clinton and various other factors that give her that `front runner' appearance).

by LandStander 2007-04-26 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Notes to self

Chris, no offense, but I believe your framework is misguided.

Each of the big three pull voters at higher rates from certain demographic and ideological sub-sets from within the overall pool of voters. Clinton is perceived as more centrist, but she pulls a disproportionately high number of young women and a high number of African Americans.  Obama does well with African Americans, but also well with highly educated whites.  Edwards is gaining strength among lefty netrooters, but his real base is with older voters and rural whites.

Under this analysis each of the big three are fighting over voters in different smaller subsets.  In some subset the competition is primarily Clinton-Obama (African Americans), in others it is Clinton-Edwards (white working class) in others it is a three way fight (white professionals). The success rate of each candidate varies depending on how well their "brand" lines up with each demographic and ideological group.  

Let me use Edwards as an example.  Edwards is working very hard to build support on the left.  However, his natural base, because his brand is as a Southern, white male from a working class background, is with white working class and rural voters, who are as a group more ideologically conservative.  In the internals of a poll I looked at last week (sorry I can't remember the poll) Edwards voters were much less likely than Obama or Clinton voters to support a cut off of funds for the war.

This is counterintuitive, because you would think JE's voters would be more ideologically left because he is trying to position himself on the left.  The reality is just the opposite, because voters are not responding to JE policy position and ideological positioning, they are responding to his image and biography.  This is true generally, a relatively high percentage of voters respond more to biography, character, and image than ideological position.

The same is true for Obama.  He is doing well with African American voters, but because of his position on the war and his brand image, he is doing very well among college educated whites.  I lean towards Obama for a variety of reasons, but my biggest concern about Obama is whether he can appeal successfully to the white working class.  We will see.

Bottom Line: I think it is a real mistake to think that Clinton and Obama are going after one set of voters and Edwards after another. It is more about "brand" than about ideology or policy.  Lefties, who tend to be policy freaks and want a ten point plan for everything, need to be reminded that voters make decisions based on values, judgement, and character more than policy. This is why I think the netroots obsession with politically correct policy positions is extremely counterproductive.

by upper left 2007-04-26 07:26AM | 0 recs
I don't think Edwards can play this game

Pre-Iowa fighting over demographics does nothing to help Edwards break out of 3rd place.  I think he has two possible routes out of 3rd...

1.  Win Iowa then hope the media will catapult him to more victories and eventually the nomination.

2.  Be the transformational candidate, that is saying new and different things, and by 2008 more and more media and voters will eventually realize he is the best candidate with the best ideas.

by KickinIt 2007-04-26 08:31AM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

"Side note: without Obama, the nomination would already be over"

Scary thought, thanks Obama!
Then again, maybe Gore would be in the race.

by LandStander 2007-04-25 10:05PM | 0 recs

It looks like Obama started attracting undecideds mostly before Hillary started bleeding, so (though I might be psychoanalyzing the data a bit) it seems like Obama and Hillary were dealing in low-engagement types.

Edwards's gain, however, saw Hillary lose support first so I think it's likely that they traded some high-engagement supporters, with the undecided pool playing less of a mediating role.

Why do I think that it means low-engagement support when one's gain precedes the other's loss, and it means high-engagement support when loss precedes gain?

Well... I just do. It fits to me. Plus Edwards's support has been ramarkably stable, even when he's on the rise, and Obama is already renowned for engaging all these new people.

(Also, Hillary's drop came right when Elizabeth Edwards's cancer was announced, and Edwards's gain came about when they started talking about it, lending credence to my theory that the Cancer made people think about Edwards in a more personal way, and the following appearances got them to like him.)

One observation from this take on the polls is that Obama is going for many less-engaged types, Edwards is going for many high-engagement types (see: MyDD straw polls), and Clinton is starting off with a lot of both, but bleeds whenever either one moves.

by msnook 2007-04-25 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: high-engagement/low-engagement
I definitely don't think Obama is getting less engaged types. Thus the Inflated Clinton Poll Theory.

Clinton hasn't dropped much. What little she has dropped came equally after the Elizabeth Edwards cancer announcement, and post-Obama fundraising announcement.
by Chris Bowers 2007-04-25 11:44PM | 0 recs
Re: high-engagement/low-engagement

I don't get it, Aren't Clinton numbers remarkably stable for somebody who should be drawing a lot on name power under the less engaged?

I would expect wilder swings to other candidates at those points you mentioned, or are I overestimating the amount of penetration those stories had in the larger field?

by Ernst 2007-04-26 02:08AM | 0 recs
Re: high-engagement/low-engagement

It is early even if it seems much later in the game for those politically engaged.  In my opinion it is surprising that her numbers are moving at all.

by sterra 2007-04-26 02:59AM | 0 recs
Re: high-engagement/low-engagement

I meant

...or am I...


by Ernst 2007-04-26 02:09AM | 0 recs
Re: high-engagement/low-engagement

I don't know - Obama certainly seems to have the lion's share of young, low-information "voters" (who may or may not have ever actually voted before). But I suppose they largely are screened out of these polls.

by LandStander 2007-04-26 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

I definately agree that without Obama or Gore, Hillary would have msot likely steamrolled her way to the nomination, Edwards probably would have beaten her in Iowa and based his entire campaign on electability probably emboldend by polls showing him more likeable and a better matchup againt a Republican but would that have been enough to beat Hillary who would get the entire establishment +huge margins of minority voters and still would have had an enourmous money edge. With Obama in it Edwards can't play the "electability" card with Clinton as those votes would go to Obama who's ahead of him so he goes for the Iowa slingshot and probably needs to keep the 3 way race going as long as possable , winning primaries while Hillary slowly falls apart but were she to collapse too quickly Obama could take over by taking away all the minority's still with Hillary in addition to other types of voters Edwards isn't likely to win (doctors). I actually think Edwards at this point is slighlty more likely now to win than Hillary while Obama is a clear favorite. I see a path for Edwards but Hillary is in serious trouble for many reasons, she doesn't wear well on the stump like the other two, Obama can get away with some "moderate" positions that Hillary can not because of his initial Iraq war vote and Obama has the change, enthusiasm and the "electability card" which he will play (anecdotally I know that "card" works with many "low info" dems). People can poo-poo the fact that Hillary does badly on line in polls and that her support appears to be made up of those not paying as much interest in the race as others but the problem for her is thiers no Iowa to save her like John Kerry, If she does badly there and goes to New Hampshire with alot of independants voting in our primary I just don't see how she does well, then the "low-info" voters aren't low info anymore and all they've seen is Hillary not winning any votes and the media talking about why that is, without a base of people that care about her the way they do Edwards and especially Obama.

by nevadadem 2007-04-25 11:56PM | 0 recs
Some very good points.

I agree about Hillary's problems and the advantage for Edwards in having both Hillary and Obama in the race, splitting some votes. Richardson could also be splitting some of the same votes. I think ultimately the race comes down to Edwards and Obama, and who runs the better campaign. It's going to be interesting.

by MeanBoneII 2007-04-26 05:54AM | 0 recs
here's a more shortened version of why

I think Hillary is in serious trouble right now

Once a voter decides to "leave" her camp and decides not to support her is there any real chance of that voter going back to her later on. I personally don't think so as people think they know her all too well both good and bad, once Obama or Edwards gets them it's over unless they come to believe that they are wasting thier vote which ofcourse happened with Dean supporters in04 after the collapse, each time a voter leaves Hillary I think it's permanent.

by nevadadem 2007-04-26 12:11AM | 0 recs
Re: here's a more shortened version of why

I'm not convinced, It's still 8 months till the elections start and while we certainly have seen changes in support along party lines becoming more permanent then it, I doubt the same mechanic works with candidates within the party as the differences are smaller and every candidate has the same ideological background.

I think it depends whether they leave because they are disappointed in her, or more impressed with the other candidate.

The former probably choices yet another candidate if the new preferred candidate disappoints, while the later might very well return to a known home. You seem to think the former scenario is more likely as the latter, seeing how strong the field feels to me, I believe most ex-supports will fit in the latter category. Making it quite possible for Hillary to woo them back.

by Ernst 2007-04-26 09:06AM | 0 recs
This is a cool graph

Is this going to be a regular feature?

by david mizner 2007-04-26 02:58AM | 0 recs
Please post straw polls With and Without Gore

at myDD.

You're depriving readers information on how Gore would fare should he enter the race.

Two separate straw polls at myDD and DKos would give useful information to the readers:

A. Only declared candidates
B. Declared candidates plus Gore

Even a poll with both Gore and Clark could be useful, although it is increasingly hard to see Clark entering the race this late given that he'd presumably have a much harder time compared to Gore raising money and pulling up in numbers in the time left:

C. Declare candidates plus Gore and Clark

So many professional pollsters are asking both With Gore and Without Gore questions. It costs nothing for you or Markos to post an additional poll which includes Gore after posting one without Gore. Yet, both of you continue to deny this simple request from many readers. A very aristocratic behavior, especially unsuitable for the gate keepers of these two progressive communities.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-26 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Please post straw polls With and Without Gore

The "include Gore" crowd gets more play on dailykos, but you're just the only one that makes an issue of polls not including Gore here. He's not announced, he's said he's not planning to run quite a number of times, he's quite porky. Let him do his thing the way he's doing it. Let go.

by Quinton 2007-04-26 04:36AM | 0 recs
I am not interested in

what get "play" where (actually, quite a few folks at myDD also would like to see a "with Gore" poll, as seen in my polls last year).

Let Gore do his thing. But, for us, it would be informative to keep tabs on the level of support in these communities, should he choose to run. It is imperative to therefore post a second poll (which costs nothing to post) to gather that information.

he's quite porky.

He isn't that "porky", and it has no real bearing on anything.

Let go.

of what? Bowers and Markos should do the right thing and measure the pulse of the communities wrt Gore.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-26 04:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Please post straw polls With and Without Gore

How about this...
We are all political junkies and it would be FUN (and easy) to have two polls the next time around (one with and one without Gore).
Yes, yes, we all know he isn't going to run (unless, of course, he does), but can't we just see what his support would look like?

I keep looking, but have yet to find the harm in a hypothetical. Too bad I just can't "Let go" :-/

by LandStander 2007-04-26 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Please post straw polls With and Without Gore

That'd be a reasonable argument, if Gore hadn't repeatedly said he doesn't intend to run. Sure, you can twist the semantics on the basis that he hasn't promised not to run even if someone puts a gun to his head, but if not ruling out running under any and all circumstances is the benchmark needed for inclusion then the polls should also include Clark, Feingold and King Kong.

by Englishlefty 2007-04-26 06:37AM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

Thank you Chris!

I was getting frustrated by the polling websites--this is fantastic.

by aiko 2007-04-26 03:57AM | 0 recs

you can see a full listing of all the 2008 polls (both with and without Gore) at RCP (although they're Republicans, they do a good job of tracking all the polls without injecting "no poll with Gore' bias as Chris Bowers does): RCP Dem nomination polls

The famous (from the 2004 cycle) might start covering the 2008 race as well one of these days: Preliminary 2008 page

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-26 04:06AM | 0 recs
Re: aiko,

One of the reasons I like Chris's presentation of averages is that it eliminates the Gore polls.  

by aiko 2007-04-26 05:41AM | 0 recs
Re: aiko,

We should look at both the averages, with and without Gore. That gives us a more comprehensive picture.

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-26 06:13AM | 0 recs
As I asked you at DKos,

since when did pollsters including Kerry an issue? Not since, he dropped out many months ago. So, why would you say: "Polls that include Gore and Kerry ..."

by NuevoLiberal 2007-04-26 03:59AM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

I would be very interested to see how Gore would fair but I think that is a mostly intellectual endeavor at this point as I just don't see jumping in. He'ddefinetly be my choice if he did, but I just don't see it.

I also think that it is dangerous to count Hillary out, as many of us seem to be doing. Well I agree that I do not see a clear path to victory for her at this point there is a lot that can happen between now and Iowa.

by JDF 2007-04-26 04:00AM | 0 recs
Chris, Questions about Polling

Chris, I find I am fascinated with Polls but a question comes to mind, that I would appreciate if you could address.  I may seem like a neophyte with this.  However, why does a campaign pay for polling.  In this last quarter, Edwards spent no money on polling, Clinton spent over $100,000.  What information do they get that is really useful rather than just interesting?  I understand that newspapers do polling - it makes an interesting story.

I guess right now should Edwards be doing more polling?  Are the others getting answers they need?  Your thoughts would be appreciated.

by pioneer111 2007-04-26 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Chris, Questions about Polling

I support Obama but i must admit that when some people keep saying that "Hillary is done, put a folk in her", i think those folks are criticising her with their heart, not with their head.I don't think she's going anywhere.If there's one person that's hanging on a cliff by a fingernail, it's John Edwards because he seems to have hit a ceiling of 20%.He just can't poll above 18, 19%.
This seems to suggest that his support is not broad enough and if i was an Edwards supporter, i'd be very worry right now.

Edwards has to win the debate tonight and put up a strong showing because if he doesn't i believe his Iowa support will start to fade as Obama picks up ground on the national polls.

I expect Hillary to be a finalist and Edwards or Obama are both fighting to get in the finals.

by JaeHood 2007-04-26 06:45AM | 0 recs
Agree w/ you 100%

That is what I try to point out.  I think a lot of people are backing Obama with their heart and that is great, but I worry about what will happen if he (and I think he will) ultimately loses.  Will these people be so heartbroken they can't support the winner?  

Will they run to a Nader type candidate and throw the election like in '00.

by dpANDREWS 2007-04-26 08:04AM | 0 recs
Clinton crushes Dems in latest swing-state polls

Clinton CRUSHES Obama and Edwards with huge leads in todays swing-state polls:

Clinton UP 22 points in PA
Clinton UP 20 points in OH
Clinton UP 21 points in FL

by JoeCHI 2007-04-26 07:52AM | 0 recs
Add in TX, CA and NY

And the delegates are simply not going to be there for anyone else.

by dpANDREWS 2007-04-26 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Add in TX, CA and NY

The polls are not static and the election is not today. This is a dynamic process.

I am sure that Kerry didnot have such big leads in big states prior to IA.

If you win IA the free plublicity around the country by all sorts of media just drowns out the advertising by all of the other candidates. If , however wins both IA and NH. tHEY WILL PROBABLY WIN THE NOMINATION.

Edwards has a sound strategy to the nomination. I am sure both Obama AND Clinton also have good strategies. That is why IA is so important because it is first. You donot see any of the candidates skipping IA.

Also IA is known to make up it's own mind and not be as influenced by national polls.

by BDM 2007-04-26 10:53AM | 0 recs
You may be right

But I think you are wrong.  I think the compressed primary season makes it much harder to parlay any momentum out of Iowa into success in the biggers states.   You don't even have a month now between the early contests and super duper Tuesday.

by dpANDREWS 2007-04-26 11:29AM | 0 recs
Re: You may be right

You have it exactly backwards. A win in Iowa and NH gives the winner enormous coverage, while the others will have less time to make up the difference in perceptions.

by clarkent 2007-04-26 01:41PM | 0 recs
Re: You may be right

Exactly.  Less reaction time, more visceral response, less time for losers to turn things around, etc.  Plenty of reasons that it makes the first sates more important.

by jallen 2007-04-26 02:30PM | 0 recs
There is no basis for your belief

There are no number that you can point to in order to declare that Gore supporters are moving one way or another.

The bigger question is what happens after say South Carolina, if it is down to a two person race between Hillary and Obama or Edwards.

by dpANDREWS 2007-04-26 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

So, the vast majoriy of Democrats are leaning toward candidates who could not possibly be elected.  This is horrible!  When will Demos wake up and realize that Bill Richardson is the only candidate who could win in November.  Proof, of this is the fact that Republican weary Americans are evenly split when the top three Democrats are pitted against the Republicans.  Any electable Democrat should have a double digit lead at this point, and Richardson would if he had Obama and Clinton's name recognition.  A vote for any one but Richardson is a vote for an eventual Republican President!

by wynter 2007-04-26 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: National Democratic Polling Trends, 2/23-4/24

I agree that Iowa will not buy into the "im inavitable" meme that Hillary is displaying.She will have to work hard to win the state just like everyone else.The fact that she's not #1 in Iowa, has to also worry her.She's polling well everywhere but Iowa and NH.If she doesn't win any of those 2, she's in big trouble because the media will play it as her flaming and the bad press will catch up to her and all those states that she's polling great in, will be history.People loves to vote for the winner and they would jump out of the hillary train fast.

by JaeHood 2007-04-26 12:04PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads