Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form

I am still working on gathering all of the data I need, as well as the permission I need to release the data, to make the post I have been hinting at for the last two days. Sorry for the hold-up, but it is coming. In the meantime, I wanted to show you a new table I have produced that allows people to view the state of the Democratic nomination at a glance. This table will hopefully serve as an antidote to the conclusions people draw by looking at individual polls that favor one candidate or another. The only real drawback of the table is that it does not easily show trends, but I am working on fixing that. I will make this a permanent page on MyDD soon, allowing for regular updates that won't interfere with the front-page of the site. Check it out:

Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
Post-Debate, April 27-May 18th. Last update: May 18, 1:45 pm eastern
State Est. Date # Polls Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson
Iowa Jan 07 3 25.0% 21.0% 26.3% 6.0%
New Hampshire Jan 15 3 35.0% 21.3% 21.0% 6.5%
Nevada Jan 19 1 37.0% 12.0% 13.0% 6.0%
South Carolina Jan 22 2 31.5% 27.5% 17.0% --
Florida Jan 29 3 41.3% 18.7% 15.3% --
Michigan Jan 29 1 38.0% 25.0% 14.0% --
National-High Feb 05 7 40.1% 26.4% 14.7% --
National--Low Feb 05 8 36.9% 24.9% 13.1% --
Net Avail Cash Mar 31 Q1 $23.4M $17.7M $9.6M $5.0M

Pretty cool, eh? Here are some notes on the table:
  1. Only candidates who receive at least 5% in one of the poll averages are shown. In any given poll average, only the averages of candidates who surpass 5.0% are shown. Polls can be found on Polling Report, Pollster.com, and Real Clear Politics.

  2. The caucus and primary dates represent my current best guess for when they will take place, rather than fixed dates. My reasoning behind the calendar goes like this. With Florida moving to January 29th, Michigan's threat to join any non-IA, NV, NH and SC state moving before February 5th will cause them to move to January 29th. Further, South Carolina has threatened to move up in response to Florida's move, and January 22nd is the most likely option. Also, Iowa said it would move to January 7th after the Florida decision. That makes me guess that New Hampshire moves up to January 15th, in between Iowa and South Carolina. It should be noted that this is all obviously subject to change.

  3. February 5th is not a national primary, but it will be so vast and include so many states, national polls are used in its stead. Methodology for the high-end national average can be found here, and methodology for the low-end national average can be found here.

  4. "Net Available Cash" means total cash on hand, minus debts, minus money raised for general election. Open Secrets.org makes all relevant information on this subject readily available.

  5. All state polls doe not include all Gore, but do include the entire announced field, where possible. One Florida poll and one New Hampshire poll only include the top three candidates. The Nevada poll includes Gore.
What else would you like to see included in the table?



Display:


Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Maybe the netroots had best stop slamming our front runner?
Do we want to lose again?  Let's put our brains to work instead of our guts al a Bush-the state of our country demands it.
by Menemshasunset on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:56:50 PM EST

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Nah, let's keep slamming her. She won't lose because of us, she'll win because of Bush. We only WISH we could turn this country Left as much as Bush has.

Besides - Raise your hand if you'll vote against HRC in the General!

...I thought so.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:03:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

...herself with corporate interests, not the Netroots.

Do we want to lose again? If we nominate our weakest candidate, maybe we do.


John Edwards 2008
by MeanBoneII on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

Isn't it great that everybody's opinion counts the same?  

I believe Clinton is our strongest candidate.  She won't take stuff from the right-wing in a general election, will be a tough candidate.   On the other hand, Edwards and Obama are like blank canvasses, can be swiftboated a bit too easily, if the right-wing wants to pursue that route (which they almost certainly will.)

BTW, to many the defining, rallying moment in the 2006 campaign was when Bill Clinton was on with Wallace, taking no pre-determined crap, cutting right through the right-wing garbage.   There was a noticeable exhale effect upon seeing how we SHOULD deal with junk like that rather than the apprehensive approach we had been favoring.


by georgep on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:13:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

Of course, Hillary already has been swiftboated. And as a result she probably can't win. Obama and Edwards at least have the opportunity to win the ad battle and define themselves.


by js noble on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:38:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

Every Democratic politician is and will be swiftboated by the Republicans. However the Difference between Hillary and Obama/Edwards is that Obama/Edwards like to stay above the fray. They are unlikely to respond negatively toward the Republican smear. Hillary's goons ala James Carville and Paul Begala and Wes Clark who I like better than Hillary will destroy the Bush/Rove/Delay/Falwell Republican smear machine.


by nkpolitics on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:06:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

Like they did for Bill in the 90s?  Yeah, right.  The Democratic Party was in ruin in the 90s.  The Clintons, Carville et al are not the kind of people I want leading the party.  Again.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

I would not call 8 years in the White House "in ruins".


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:34:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (3.00 / 1)

Oh, it was all right for Bill, but the rest of the party was in poor shape.  Dean is rebuilding it, thank god.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:47:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

You are totally wrong about Dean. He has not done anything to rebuild the party. I give credit to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay and Mark Foley. I give credit to Schumer(DSCC)for recruiting Top Tier candidates- Casey(PA),Brown(OH),Whitehouse(RI),McCas kill(MO),Webb(VA)and Tester(MT).


by nkpolitics on Sun May 20, 2007 at 05:59:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

That's wrong.  Here in Oregon, I met one of Deans agents that's out supporting the 50 state strategy.  She helped us out here, a lot.  Dean is rebuilding the party from the ground up.  Schumer did a good job, but he was just focused on winning elections.  Dean is looking to build a  party that will be competitive 18 years from now, not 18 months from now, which is what the legislative campaign committee chairs like Schumer are focused on.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sun May 20, 2007 at 07:11:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

The 50 state strategy concept may be help ful. But we also should thank George W. Bush. His approval rating is below 30% lower than Nixon during Watergate.


by nkpolitics on Mon May 21, 2007 at 01:29:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

There is not much else that can be said about Hillary Clinton unless they start copying the scripts from 1950's sci fi movies (if they havent already). She has strong poll numbers after being swiftboated for 15 years on the national scene (30 years in the South including the 8 campaigns Bill Clinton ran in Arkansas). The difference between her and Edwards and Obama on swift boating is we already know how she will respond and how voters will react. What we do not know is how Obama and Edwards would react and if they can react strongly enough and how voters will react since both are relatively new on the scene compared to Clinton.  


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:32:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (3.00 / 1)

Huh? Clinton's poll numbers suck. There was a Harris poll in which 50% of respondants said they would never vote for her. At minimum that leaves no room for error and no possibility of coat tails.

Her favorables are exactly where Kerry's were after his swiftboating- we need a new candidate and try and win that battle this time around. Add the fact that Obama and Edwards have SO many other things going for them that could offset swiftboating and it becomes pretty clear that Clinton is poor choice- at least in terms of that infamous trait, electibility.

Not to mention Hillary is seen as the most liberal of all the Democratic candidates despite being the most conservative. Not only will that provide fodder for the Right but it will shift the entire political debate to the right (Clinton's New Democrat conservatism considered liberal!)


by js noble on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:56:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You reap what you sow. Hillary has aligned... (none / 0)

Unfortunately there is no way to "offset" Swift Boating no matter who the candidate is. Clinton will fight back and either win or go down fighting. Unfortunately Gore and Kerry failed to do so in the right way and at the right times and it is not known how Obama or Edwards would react.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:05:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (3.00 / 1)

I'd like some magic and pretty colors in the table.  By that, I think I mean Hillary being about 20 points lower across the board.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:03:32 PM EST

Cash (none / 0)

I'm not sure how much Edwards raised, but it is interesting to see how far behind Obama and Clinton he is in the cash flow race.


New Mexico politics from the local perspective.
by fbihop on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:04:58 PM EST

Re: Cash (none / 0)

He only raised about 60% of what they did, IIRC.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:08:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In part with Hillary it was a Cash Stockpile ... (none / 0)

... race, as sitting Senators and Congressmen gave themselves the power to roll funds over from seat re-election funds when they last decided on campaign finance rules ... not even sitting Governors have the same privilage.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:33:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Delegate counts for the states?  


"You say the world has lost it's love I say embrace what it's made of" -Dar Williams
by Valatan on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:30:09 PM EST

Thanks, Chris! (none / 0)

Good stuff!


by ChicagoDude on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:31:45 PM EST

Standing 14 days previously in (). (none / 0)

That's all that comes to my mind.


The words of the prophets are written on the subway halls
   and tenement halls
by BruceMcF on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:34:17 PM EST

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Yikes!  That's frightening.

I hope we Dems wise up.  Senator Clinton doesn't poll as well as Edwards or Obama against the top tier Republicans.  She may be the favorite among Democrats but, the question remains, can she beat the Republican nominee.  If so, by how much and, if Edwards and Obama poll better against all Republican candidates, shouldn't we be voting for one of them?


No Quacks, please.
by noquacks on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:35:07 PM EST

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Yes.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:37:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

"she may be favorite among Democrats, but..."

That should be the operative theme on a Democratic website.

I personally vote for MY favorite, not who I think may be more acceptable to right-wingers.   Then let the chips fall where they may.  


by georgep on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:57:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Totally agree. (none / 0)

We've got some solid candidates this cycle...why not just vote for your favorite instead of silly "electability" or other criteria?  There aren't any top tier candidates I wouldn't vote for in the General election.


by rashomon on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:08:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Totally agree. (none / 0)

Ultimately, you are right.
BUT - this election is a unique opportunity, and it would just Feel So Good to sweep the map and deliver unto the Republicans the humiliating defeat they deserve.

HRC can't deliver that kind of win.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:17:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Totally agree. (none / 0)

Of course she can.  In fact, the worst nightmare that could befall the right-wing is a Clinton presidency.  


by georgep on Fri May 18, 2007 at 04:58:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Totally agree. (none / 0)

I'm not sure anybody can. I may look silly in 18 months, but right now it seems like Republican electoral fortunes are at a nadir. In a presidential race the Democratic candidate is going to get everything even remotely controversial they've done since the age of seven thrown in their face, pushing up their negatives. The big victory is probably an artefact of a bygone era.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat May 19, 2007 at 03:36:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Totally agree. (none / 0)

I hope you are wrong. If you are right, this election will prove it. If we can't win big NOW, we can't win big for a generation.

I just fear HRC won't even give us the chance to win big. A fresh face will give us a chance, at least.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:54:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Cherry pick polls much do ya? (none / 0)


by dpANDREWS on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:45:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is great.... (none / 0)

The only change that you might consider is limiting the national polls to polls taken in the last 45 days or so.  I think there will be enough polls so that if there is significant movement the early polls wont scew the results.  Maybe a 3 month limit on state polls or something like that.


by jalby on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:41:26 PM EST

Re: This is great.... (none / 0)

Nevermind.  I just realized all polls were post-debate.  


by jalby on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:42:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Cash expenditures per state (underneath the % per state).  This number should show how seriously each candidate is contesting each state.


by Ephus on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:50:59 PM EST

*scratches head* (none / 0)

Maybe I'm just missing something... so Obama outdid Clinton in Q1 fundraising, right? Why is it then that Hillary is spending so much more? Is it because Obama is saving those funds for some later point? Is it because Hillary had a larger war chest to begin with? What?


by Silent sound on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:52:20 PM EST

Re: *scratches head* (3.00 / 1)

Clinton has more money because she transferred $10M to her Presidential account from her Senate account. Otherwise, Obama would lead.
by Chris Bowers on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

why don't obama and edwards get together instead of splitting the anti-hillary vote?  they should announce that they'd be a team, one the nominee for president and the other the running mate.


by aleather on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:54:23 PM EST

Ego. (none / 0)

And ideology.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Fri May 18, 2007 at 02:57:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ego. (none / 0)

And inexperience. Two newbie Senators against god-knows-what Republicans? If either one of them gets the nomination they will have to pick a Cheney-esque running mate.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:00:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ego. (none / 0)

If I'm Obama, I probably go with someone with a long resume who can help me in a few swing states.  But if I'm Edwards, I don't see anyone more attractive than Obama.  Edwards is good at attracting support from older folks and those in rural areas, and Barack is good at getting independents and young people, and would probably drive up turnout in the cities.  I think Barack would only lose a little steam as the VP nominee, but I think Edwards isn't much help there.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 02:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ego. (none / 0)

Ha, yeah - Edwards won't be anyones running mate this time!

I have a hard time envisioning Obama joining the bottom of an Edwards ticket. Experience and age aside, I just don't see Obama going for that role. Gut feeling I guess.

Same with HRC - can you really imagine her running as VP to anyone? I just don't see it happening...  


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Sat May 19, 2007 at 04:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ego. (none / 0)

No, she wouldn't.  But VP could prime Obama for running next time.  I don't see how an Edwards/Obama ticket could lose, because it combines two of the strongest candidates in a way that doesn't dilute either much, so I don't see it as having a downside.  Besides, I don't see anyone else that I would want as my running mate, if I were Edwards.  There aren't that many appealing Democratic politicians.


"And so in the place of the palace of privilege, we seek to build a temple out of faith and hope and charity."-FDR
by jallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Polls show Clinton is the second choice of most Obama and Edwards supporters so it would not work. With either out of the race her lead actually increases.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:06:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

I would not be surprised to see a Clinton/Obama ticket. I think there are some risks but it also would bring out record Democratic turnout because of the historical ground it would cover.


BlueSunbelt.Com Netroots for the Sunbelt states robwire.com My personal blog
by robliberal on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:08:43 PM EST

Uh... (none / 0)

how about these comments yesterday?  Is that "taking it easy"?

Obama, who has made his 2002 opposition to the war a centerpiece of his presidential campaign, was asked this morning on MSNBC about comments made last night by former President Clinton, in which he said that Sens. Clinton and Obama have had similar voting records on the war.

"I suppose that's true if you leave out the fact that she authorized it, and supported it, and I said it was a bad idea," said Obama.  "That's a fairly major difference."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2007/05/obama_slams_cli.html


by rashomon on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:13:09 PM EST

Re: Uh... (none / 0)

Nah, that stuff was pretty mild.
I think HRC/Obama is well within the realm of reason.
www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:19:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Other & Undecided (3.00 / 1)

I would like to see two more columns, one for the average percentage for other candidats and one for the amount of undecided voters in polls.


"Nothing seems to embarrass the political class today." - Bill Moyers
by joejoejoe on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:22:56 PM EST

Re: Other & Undecided (none / 0)

Yeah, yeah - show us the undecideds!!


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:57:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'd bet you a zillion dollars he isn't her VP (3.00 / 1)

10 zillion even


by dpANDREWS on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:46:08 PM EST

Re: I'd bet you a zillion dollars he isn't her VP (none / 0)

Why? What makes you so certain? (ten zillion dollars certain, even!!!)


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Inexperienced junior Senator ... (none / 0)

.... from a bluer than blue state?  I don't think so.

Richardson or Vilsack are where I would start looking.


by dpANDREWS on Sat May 19, 2007 at 12:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Go Hillary!  Ignore the haters!


by sterkt on Fri May 18, 2007 at 03:59:18 PM EST

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

So Richardson caucuses at 6%. If he can't get the 15% he likely sends his goers to another candidate. If the caucus were held today Richardson could determine the outcome. So who would he endorse?

Clinton is probably closest to him ideologically. But damn, kingmaker is a nice position to have as a guy who is probably running for VP anyways!


by js noble on Fri May 18, 2007 at 05:43:33 PM EST

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

Richardson,Biden,and Dodd caucuses are likely to go the HRC.
Kucincinch goes to Edwards.
by nkpolitics on Fri May 18, 2007 at 08:09:30 PM EST

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

but hasn't anyone noticed how easy Obama has been on Hillary

Uh, it seems to me like Obama has been going really easy on the entire rest of the Democratic field. I haven't specifically seen Obama acting any nicer toward Hillary than toward anybody else.


by Silent sound on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:26:12 PM EST

Good work, Chris (none / 0)

The current table shows Clinton in a formidable state.


by NuevoLiberal on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:57:27 PM EST

We need Feb 5th and Feb 12th natl polling (none / 0)

I'd like to see polling firms produce polls of "all the Feb 5th primary states" and "all primary states after Feb 5th".

On Feb. 4th, we'll all be looking at the results of the early primaries to see how they will influence the Feb. 5th primaries, and on Feb. 6th, we'll all be talking about how those will influence Feb. 12th primaries.

By the time the polls close on Feb. 5th, the question of "how will the early primaries affect the later primaries?" will be completely different. And why poll Iowa in your national polls when everyone's polling Iowa individually?

National polls are usefull novelty items, but for analytical purposes, I'd like to see each of the early states polled individually, the Feb. 5th states polled collectively, and everyone else included in a third set of polls.


Progress is Personal | PCCC
by msnook on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:41:50 PM EST

Re: Where the Campaign Stands, Table Form (none / 0)

There's not much point in including it at present as too much of it is up in the air, but in future it'd be nice if you included an endorsement column, particularly for the caucus states, listing endorsements from unions, party chairs, congressmen from the state and similar. It'd provide a picture of who has the institutional support in a given state.


Visit Forgotten Countries, my new foreign policy-based blog
by Englishlefty on Sat May 19, 2007 at 03:39:59 AM 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.