MyDD :: New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in New Hampshire

New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in New Hampshire

by Jonathan Singer, Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:12:51 PM EST

Conflicting polling out of New Hampshire released this afternoon tells two different stories: Either Barack Obama is as close to Hillary Clinton as he has been in about five months, or Clinton is maintaining a respectable lead. Check it out:

Candidate	WaPo/ABC	Marist (Nov.)	Pollster.com
Clinton	35	37 (36)	35.9
Obama	29	23 (25)	23.1
Edwards	17	18 (14)	14.7
Richardson	10	8 (6)	8.5
Kucinich	3	3 (3)	3.2
Biden	2	1 (2)	2.7
Dodd	1	Less than 1 (1)	1.1

Looking at the trend out of the state, Clinton's share of support appears to be moving in a bit of a downward direction while Obama's numbers have been increasing at an even greater rate. This is borne out in the ABC News/Washington Post poll, though not really in the Marist poll. For sure, it looks like there is a real race developing in the state.

Looking through the internals of that Post/ABC poll, things don't look all bad for Clinton. Specifically, Clinton's support is stronger than that of the other leading candidates, with 53 percent of her backers "definitely" backing her, compared with 41 percent for both Obama and Edwards. It is worth noting here, though, that the margin of error on this question is naturally quite high. One other point that I'd mention out of that poll is that despite the fact that Obama has been talking a lot about Social Security in recent weeks Clinton's lead on the issue -- 36 percent to 19 percent over Obama -- remains larger than her actual head-to-head lead over Obama, suggesting that his questionable language on the issue isn't necessarily resonating as much as he might believe it is.

Tags: New Hampshire, Democratic Primaries, 2008, New Hampshire Primary (all tags)

Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment

Hillary is just fine (none / 0)

And ready for the nomination!

by Zeitgeist9000 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:15:00 PM EST

a fair reading would say (2.00 / 1)

Obama has cut her lead in half. In addition she's trending down and at this point would not likely survive an Iowa bounce. Now we know the reason for the Clinton panic, thier polls must have showed them this slippage first.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:18:44 PM EST

Here are the trends (none / 0)

We about to have so many polls that the only way to do real analysis is to look at averages over a particular period. Since October Clinton is down 7.5, Obama is up 2.25 and Edwards is up 4.

Hillary's average lead is down to 10 over Obama and down to about 17 over Edwards.

candidate	clinton	obama	Edwards	Richardson
Nov 29 - Dec 5	33.57142857	24	16.42857143	9.142857143
Nov 1 - Nov 25	36.33333333	22.33333333	13.5	8.666666667
October	41	21.75	12.5	6.5

by fladem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hasn't the WaPost / ABC polling been ... (none / 0)

Good to Obama in the past?

Were not a couple previous outliers that made Obama look in better shape than he was also put out by the WaPost / ABC polling unit?

by dpANDREWS on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:20:52 PM EST

Wshpost polls have favored Obama before (2.00 / 1)

There have been only 3 ABC/Washpost polls since the summer. The first one in the summer was the only one that had Obama ahead of her in contradistinction to all the other polls then that showed her ahead.

And the one about 1 month ago was the one that created the idea that the race had changed, because the media seized it to show change in momentum....but they compared that poll to the other polls....a no no.

So it seem s that whatever they do to measure it is favorable to Obama

by debcoop on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:40:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wshpost polls have favored Obama before (none / 0)

Thank you for the follow up.

by dpANDREWS on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:02:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in N (2.00 / 1)

A bit downward--did you look at the graph on RCP? Its a bit more than a bit.

In October she was leading by 20 points and now she is leading by 6!

Thank god for averaging.

by aiko on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:23:30 PM EST

New Polling (none / 0)

Wait 'til the WaPost starts including registered Democrats in their Democratic Primary samples!

by hwc on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:26:10 PM EST

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

are you kidding hwc you know how the NH primary play out. Are you for excluding voters again?

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:33:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (2.00 / 1)

No one knows exactly how many independents will vote in the Dem primary this year, but it would obviously be stupid to poll no one but registered Democrats.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:44:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

But, less than half of the WaPost sample for the Democratic Primary consists of registered Democrats 48% versus 52% not registered Democrats.

The last time there were contested primaries in both parties (2000), the split was 65% registered Democrats and 35% not registered Democrats. It was also 62% women, 38% men.

The reason we are seeing polls all over the map in all directions is that pollster are applying different assumptions about the primary electorate. That's why you can have two polls calling the same random people on the same three days in the same tiny state and get wildly different results. They are applying (or not applying) different weights to the sample.

Do you apply the 2004 weights (when there was, in effect, no Republican primary)? Or the 2000 weights when there were contested primaries in both parties?

by hwc on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:20:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

good explaination.

by world dictator on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:34:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

I hope you don't mind I quoted you on my blog.

by world dictator on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:53:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

Where have you been world?

by lonnette33 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:54:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

I got caught up in school. Senior year is busy. And really I got tired of responding to the same diary 6 times. But I've been back for a few days now, now that we're getting closer to Iowa. It's good to now I was missed. It looks like I need to start posting more frequently.

by world dictator on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:12:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

Yep, we need you.

by lonnette33 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:38:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

The more applicable polling to look at would be the Republican side in 2000, where there was the presumed front-runner (Bush) who was so far ahead of his rivals. The New Hampshire polls were close (with McCain leading by a few points) but because independents were under-weighted, McCain's win was actually 19 points.

I doubt many independents will vote on the Republican this time.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:00:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

In 2000, 62% of independents chose to vote in the Republican primary. While there were two primaries that year, the Republican primary was obviously the more hotly contested.

Polling from this year has suggested that the 2008 election will be much different. The UNH poll from June found that over 70% of independents intended to vote in the Dem primary. The Saint Anselms poll from last week found that while 40% of independents still weren't sure which primary they would be voting in, the remainder intended to vote in the Dem primary by more than a 2-1 margin.

You're right that, of course, the assumptions you make about the electorate make a difference in the poll results. But if a poll were to assume that only 38% of independents would end up voting in the Democratic primary, as in 2000, there's plenty of reasons to believe you'd end up with a result wildly unreflective of the actual results. No pollster wants to look stupid.

The reason the assumptions matter so much this year is that Hillary is the most popular Dem among Dems, but easily the most unpopular Dem among independents. Hillary surely hopes that most independents will decide to vote in the GOP primary, but that's not how independents have been answering polls of late.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (2.00 / 1)

Again, it varies from poll to poll.

Today's Marist poll had Clinton over Obama by 16% among Democrats and by 7% among Independents.

Their sample had 60% of their likely Dem Primary voters as registered Democrats.

BTW, I don't see Republican leaning Independents in New Hampshire crossing over to vote in the Democratic Primary...not with the way the Republican race is shaking out among Rudy, Romney, McCain, and Huckabee.

At the very least, it is logically absurd to think that more registered Independents than registered Democrats would go out on snowy NH night to vote in a Democratic Primary. But, that is the assumption that WaPo is making with their sample.

by hwc on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

The Saint Anselms poll from last week found that while 40% of independents still weren't sure which primary they would be voting in.

Bingo. We have bingo.

I rest my case. Forty percent haven't even decided whether they are Republicans or Democrats this year. So how do you model the Independent turnout?

Right now, we have 40% of the Independents planning to vote in the Democratic Primary, 20% planning to vote in the Republican Primary, and 40% who don't know. If voters "don't know" at this point, how likely are they to bundle up, scrape the ice off the car, and slip and slide to the local poll?

by hwc on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:11:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

Well, clearly you know more about how to take a poll than the people who take these polls, but I'm sure they have some plausible basis for their modeling. You know, the question of whether independents who aren't sure which primary they will vote in end up staying home or not is a testable issue, it's not really solved by pontificating about the effect of snow and ice.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:17:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Polling (none / 0)

Well Steve, different polls have different models for independents. They can't all be right. And independents are historically the most sporadic voters.

No question the race is tightening, but hwc makes some good points.

by souvarine on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

by debcoop on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:42:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Either Up 6 or Up 14 in New Hampshire (none / 0)

Marist last poll showed an 11 point lead, so this was marginal movement according to them over the last month.

by JeremiahTheMessiah on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:29:21 PM EST

After their (2.00 / 2)

18,000 Person venue sold out in about 2 days...the Obama/Oprah event in S.C. has been moved to an 80,000 person stadium!
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ 12/05/change-of-venue-for-sc-oprah-obama -event/

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:36:08 PM EST

Re: New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in N (none / 0)

Don't forget about the zogby NH poll*

A new Zogby poll shows Clinton's lead over Obama shrinking to 32 to 21 percent from 38 to 23 percent in late September. Support for Edwards increased from 12 to 16 percent.

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?head line=Clinton%2c+Romney+still+ahead+in+ne w+NH+poll&articleId=04464c71-9281-41 af-b9fd-62e89077ba28

*Note: If this zogby poll is an interactive online poll I acknowledge it being crap

by world dictator on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:38:35 PM EST

Re: New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in N (none / 0)

It's not interactive. The Zogby poll was via telephone. This one, at least.

The other one that came out a week ago was interactive.

by FilbertSF on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 10:20:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Can Edwards compete? (none / 0)

I think if Edwards pulls off the upset in Iowa, he could move up in New Hampshire and possibly win in South Carolina. If it winds up a choice between Edwards and Obama, I'm going with Edwards.

Edwards has finally found his footing after floundering for a year.

by mikelow1885 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 06:59:24 PM EST

Re: New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in N (none / 0)

Pick a poll
any poll
put it back in the deck
....now...
shuffle
the deck....

"If you want to end war and stuff, you gotta sing loud"...Arlo Guthrie

by nogo war on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:13:42 PM EST

Re: New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in N (2.00 / 1)

put the lime in the coconut and drink em both up.

I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong

by jello on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:40:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Some Points (none / 0)

1. Polling in general is never going to give you an exact reflection on how the state of the race is. You have to see how candidates are progressing in relation to their status in previous polls done by the same firm.

2. NH polling that doesn't include independents is worthless. NH is an open primary and independents can vote for whichever party they chose. They also break heavily for Obama and could have the same effect for him as they did for McCain in '00.

3. NH is very (though not totally) dependent on Iowa. With the two so close together, the winner of Iowa has to be favored in NH. Imagine what would have happened if, last time, NH voted just days after the Dean Scream (even though the Dean Scream was a total media concoction).

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:36:11 PM EST

Obama SS (2.00 / 1)

How long did it take you to dig out that Social Security nugget? That was gratuitous but funny.

Spit take on my keyboard- nice try of asserting that Obama has been talking about SS a lot. You may have cowed him during your interview.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:36:49 PM EST

Re: New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in N (none / 0)

somebody else raised this from matt stoller. don't know if you saw it.

Regarding Social Security, Reich echoes A Tiny Revolution's point about Clinton, pointing out that a bipartisan commission on Social Security will most likely lead to a regressive tax raise or a benefits cut.

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId =2623

I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong

by jello on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:08:05 PM EST

Re: New Polling: Clinton Either Up 6 or Up 14 in N (none / 0)

meant this for mboehm.

I really don't understand how that is an attack; lol. ~ by Jerome Armstrong

by jello on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 08:10:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

thanks jello (none / 0)

I did see Reich's remarks in full on his blog and generally agree with them.

Our Moment Is Now

by mboehm on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 09:14:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.