MyDD :: National Poll Compendium, March Edition

National Poll Compendium, March Edition

by Chris Bowers, Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 02:10:44 PM EST

With the announcement phase of the campaign behind us and several organizations now conducting national polls without Al Gore, we have finally reached a point in the campaign where we can look at enough solid, national polling to view the campaign from its "starting line." The past five weeks have given us eleven national polls without Gore, but with all the other announced candidates. The table below summarizes the results of those polls:

Post-Announcement Phase, Non-Gore National Polls

Poll	Clinton	Obama	Edwards	Other	Undecided
Combined Eleven Poll Mean	38.1	26.7	13.7	NA	NA
Rasmussen Mean, 2/19-3/22	36.2	26.6	14.2	NA	NA
CNN, 3/11	44	23	14	8	10
ARG, 3/5	34	31	15	6	14
NBC, 3.5	40	28	15	12	5
Gallup, 3/4	44	27	10	12	3
ABC, 2/25	43	27	14	10	4
Zogby, 2/24	33	25	12	11	20
Non-Rasmussen Mean	39.7	26.8	13.3	9.8	9.3

So, there you have the current national polling picture for the 2008 Democratic primary. Clinton is slightly less than Obama and Edwards combined, and Obama is slightly less than Edwards doubled. The rest of the field, combined, comes in a few points behind than Edwards. The five Rasmussen polls can be found here, and the six non-Rasmussen polls can be found here. I only incorporated polls that did not include Gore, but did include all announced candidates. I feel those are pre-requisites to accurate polling at this time, although I wish organizations such as ABC-WaPo, Gallup and NBC-WSJ wouldn't push undecided so damn hard.

With a defacto national primary on February 5th, national polls mean quite a bit this time around. Right now, Clinton is clearly the front-runner, although Obama is a somewhat surprisingly strong second. Edwards remains in the hunt due to his continued double-digit support, and his early state strength. Trying to predict he future direction of these polls is difficult. The momentum does seem to favor Obama, but it remains to be seen what impact, if any, the Elizabeth Edwards announcement will have on the polling picture. With the exception of the final day of the final Rasmussen poll, which showed a noticeable uptick for Edwards, every single one of these polls was completed before that announcement, and more than a week after Obama declared he was formally joining the campaign.

Tags: President 2008, polls (all tags)

Permalink :: 21 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

Just curious - In what way do these pollsters push undecideds? Is it the langauge/manner of the questioning? Or just an observation based on the numbers? I ask because this issue has been raised several times here.

www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com

by LandStander on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 02:28:53 PM EST

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

I think they usually ask the question in a way that encourages respondants to say who they lean towards, such as "which of these candidates do you support or lean towards supporting ..."

By the way, this practice seems to be particularly helpful to Clinton, at least judging by these 11 polls.

If you look at Bowers' averages for all 11 polls:

Clinton 38.1
Obama 26.7
Edwards 13.7

and then compare them to the average of the 8 polls that had at least 10% undecided (I'm assuming the Rasmussen Mean of 5 polls does):

Clinton 36.5
Obama 26.5
Edwards 14

you see that Obama and Edwards together get none of these leaners, while Clinton gets about a 1.5% boost.

I think this makes sense, considering that Hillary has two strengths when courting these probably low-information would-be undecideds: first, her Clinton name, which when push comes to shove is a popular one among Dems, and second, her air of inevitablity, which induces otherwise uncommitted voters to support her out of a desire to pick a winner.

by James Gatz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:49:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, but (none / 0)

"With a defacto national primary on February 5th, national polls mean quite a bit this time around."

Yes, but the national polls will look very different after Iowa. People are overestimating how much the new primary schedule will deteract from the power of the early states. There's more than week between Iowa and South Carolina--a lot of time to build up, or lose, traction. Whoever wins Iowa will be the frontrunner.

by david mizner on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards doesn't seem to be catching steam (none / 0)

He's been at about 14% since polling started, so he's clearly having some trouble gaining on Clinton and Obama. I know he's ahead in Iowa, but I think we all remember all the people (who thought they were smart) saying "Watch out for Gephardt in Iowa" only to see him get creamed.

I personally agree with Chuck Todd's analysis (see his final installment of HotlineTV) that if a non Clinton/Obama wins the nod, it'll be Richardson not Edwards. We seem to like nominating little known governors, and we'll see how he uses experience as an issue.

(Disclaimer: I'm an Obama supporter)

by Terryus on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 02:37:07 PM EST

Gephardt's support in Iowa was not enthusiastic. (none / 0)

I saw some Gep supporters at my caucus precinct. They looked like they had been dragged there. By contrast, Edwards has extremely motivated and enthusiastic supporters.

At this point in the race, you don't have to be "in the lead" -- you just have to be in position to make a move to the front. That's what Edwards has with Iowa, especially now that Hillary has the expectations that come with Vilsack's endorsement.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 02:44:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards and Gephardt: very different (3.00 / 1)

Edwards starts out from a much stronger position than Gephardt ever had.

Steve Murphy said after Gephardt dropped out of the campaign that they had done focus groups in Iowa around September 2003, trying to figure out why Gephardt had a 70 percent favorability rating among Iowa Democrats but just around 20 percent support. They found in the focus groups that as people learned more about all the candidates, they gravitated toward Edwards and Kerry, which is exactly what happened in December and January.

Gephardt always seemed like yesterday's man--he was strong in 1988 among blue-collar voters who are a smaller percentage of the Iowa electorate now. He was not a great communicator, and he failed several times to win back the House for the Democrats.

Edwards already has a strong connection with Iowans, and now he starts out with a plurality of county chairs supporting him, which Gephardt never had. Edwards will probably get the unions as well this time, and he finished a strong second last cycle without significant support among Iowa unions.

Richardson could make a run, but I still think Edwards has a much better shot at the nomination.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 02:45:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards doesn't seem to be catching steam (none / 0)

Richardson has a long way to go at this point. He is one who has already said the nomination may be settled in January.

BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog

by robliberal on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:30:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards doesn't seem to be catching steam (none / 0)

Aside from the fact that it is VERY early, as the questions call for more substance, Edwards will rise. He has proposals and plans on the important issues of the day, and when people start to pay attention, they will notice which candidates know their stuff.

by citizen53 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:58:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

My impression is that Obama closed hard from about November-February, but the race seems to have stabilized over the last 4-6 weeks. That's probably not good news for Obama. With Clinton's presumed organizational edge, momentum has been his biggest friend. The Edwardses handled the announcement of Elizabeth's cancer recurrence spectacularly well and have generated a lot of sympathy, but it seems likely to me that his fundraising is going to falter based on the uncertainty surrounding her prognosis. I'm hoping otherwise, but I'm predicting that he will be out of the campaign within a few months. It seems to me that Edwards' support base is probably a bit schizophrenic. One major element of Edwards' support comes from his having been a Southerner who staked out a moderate position in '04, while another major element of his support comes from netroots progressives who like his health plan, Iraq stance, and generally sharp early campaigning. Assuming for the sake of analysis that Edwards winds up dropping out by the fall, it seems to me that Hillary would pick up the bulk of the first major element mentioned and Obama would pick up the bulk of the second major element. But which element is larger? And who would Edwards endorse?

by Trickster on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:26:33 PM EST

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

Would be nice to be able to edit your posts when you, e.g., accidentally post something that comes out with no formatting.

by Trickster on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The political skill we've seen by the Edwardses... (none / 0)

...has transformed what would almost certainly have crushed most campaigns into what can only be a tremendous positive for the Edwards campaign (you really can't buy this kind of media coverage). Barring a more rapid decline in Elizabeth's health than her doctor seemed to expect (given her low volume of cancer), I think it is a miscalculation to write them off.

John Edwards 2008

by MeanBoneII on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Crazy to Write Him Off (none / 0)

Anyone would be utterly crazy to write Edwards off at this point. I wrote him off before Iowa in 2004 and I was crazy then. John Edwards is a natural politician in the best sense of the word.

by howardpark on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:54:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

Edwards won't be out in the next few months, certainly not before Iowa. Regardless of fundraising, he'd be a fool to drop out before then.

by okamichan13 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

I may well be wrong about the fundraising taking a turn for the worse, and I also might be wrong that he would drop out if it tails off badly. But there is a very significant chance that Elizabeth's health will require him to drop out well before Iowa.

I'm not a doctor, but my understanding is that the next three months or so will be key to her prognosis. If she is still in good health in three months she has a decent chance to last for several years, and rapidly evolving medical advances might prolong that up to indefinitely. Unfortunately, the chance she will still be in good health by the fall is 50-50 at best.

by Trickster on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:16:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

No offense, but if you aren't a doctor you shouldnt play doctor. Odds and averages just don't apply to individuals. In other words you cant extrapolate very accurately to individuals what national statistics tell us. She's a strong woman who's been through this before, has strong support, and a good attitude. Those are all characteristics of someone with a will to live. We'll see what the future brings.

About his fundraising, there is every indication his fundraising is going well. Rather than decreased financial support, I would imagine the announcement about Elizabeth will increase funds if anything (not because of her health, but because of the character they have shown). Anecdotally I've seen on a number of non-liberal sites posts from a number of Republicans and Independents that are taking a look at Edwards and also donating.

by okamichan13 on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 06:45:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

No offense taken, but I'm not writing a prescription for Mrs. Edwards, I'm speculating about the future of the Democratic Presidential primaries, to which her health is relevant. And I think the number I used is fairly conservative.

I'm sure you're right that a positive surge in public interest is going on. I watched the press conference at which the recurrence of her cancer and the family's decision as to how to respond to it were announced, and they made an absolutely sensational impression as a couple. I sure hope things work out well for them, and for the electorate.

by Trickster on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 08:59:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Progress? (3.00 / 0)

Hm. So awhile back, in a smaller poll roundup at the end of February, I was complaining in the comments that everyone seemed to be assuming Clinton's lead would fall off, but that the months were passing and her lead in the polls didn't seem to be changing.

This time, though, I do notice something has changed: This is the first time I've ever noticed a clear trend of Obama+Edwards' combined polling numbers being larger than Clintons' polling numbers. I kept noticing at the beginning of the year that even if all the Obama and Edwards supporters voted for a single candidate as a block, Clinton would still win. Not anymore, it looks like.

I think I will choose to interpret this as progress.

by Silent sound on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:53:39 PM EST

MyDD polling idea (none / 0)

Chris et al-
Instead of commissioning Nevada polls with a set of progressive questions in addition to the basic candidate question, perhaps it would be just as useful (and more accurate, considering the difficulty of the Nevada caucus screen?) to commission a poll of the Feb. 5 states, once they are settled somewhat.

I think this could be more valuable knowledge considering that these states, together, will probably determine the nominee, while it's unclear what role Nevada will have in determining momentum (depends on how much candidates campaign there, if and when N.H. moves, etc.). And it will also be a bit more telling than the general national primary poll (which still has twice as many states in it as it needs, even with super-duper Tuesday).

by James Gatz on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:55:22 PM EST

This is what I learned from this thread (none / 0)

that "Edwards doesn't seem to be catching steam" and "that he will be out of the campaign in a few months."

But then Edwards doubters and skeptics have never let facts deter them from arriving at their preconceived conclusion.

He just gained six points (and Obama lost) in the latest Rasmussen, a trend mirrored in ARGs Iowa poll, neither of which measure the bump he's no doubt picked up from the blanket coverage since Elizabeth's announcement. As for the Gephardt comparions, well, Johnny ain't no Dick. Also, there's a good chance that Edwards will pick up not just the unions that supported Gephardt but also the Service Workers, who went for Dean last time. Never before has a presidential candidate combined electability, Labor's backing, and strong netroots support. Oh, and then there are his progressive, developed policy positions that allowed him to dominate the health care forum on Saturday, and that will help in similar events as the other candidates figure out what they believe.

Nonetheless, I suspect that the Edwards-is-losing-steam comments will continue for months no matter how well he does; the purveyors of this lie see wedded to it.

by david mizner on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 03:58:24 PM EST

Re: National Poll Compendium, March Edition (none / 0)

Before you identify me as a "purveyor[] of this lie" who is "wedded" to the lie, I'd appreciate it if you'd quote me in context. What I said is "I'm predicting that he will be out of the campaign within a few months," and NOT merely "that he will be out of the campaign in a few months." I intentionally put "I'm predicting" in there instead of making it a flat statement because I thought there was a significant difference in meaning. In other words, I carefully and intentionally couched my statement in the uncertainty that I believe exists.

When you quote me out of context, you're misusing my words. I probably wouldn't complain about it, though, if you didn't take an outright shot at me with your last line and its implication that I am here to push an anti-Edwards agenda. That implied assertion has no adequate base in facts and I am here to tell you it simply is not true. I haven't picked a candidate yet but I like Edwards' campaign the best so far.

by Trickster on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 04:38:29 PM EST

Okay: meme, not lie (none / 0)

And I don't think removing "I'm predicting" changed the meaning of what you said.

It's just odd how in the face of much evidence to the contrary, people here keep saying that Edwards's campaign is doing poorly. Even odder that it happens during the week that he's making a move.

by david mizner on Mon Mar 26, 2007 at 05:08:34 PM EST

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.