Chris I assume the wording was exactly identical on both polls?

Ever since I started hearing the whole "hillary's the front runner" propaganda line I set out to poll friends and acquintaces on who their favorite presidential candidate for 08 is, and only one of them has said they're definetely voting for Hillary. The majority of them DONT know yet who they're going to vote for, and the one candidate that seems to have their attention is Obama. In light of that, I've been asking myself WHO ARE THE HILLARY PEOPLE? Just what exactly is driving the Hillary for President movement? Based on what issues is she qualified to become president? And what about the War, and her triangulation about the war? Are we suppossed to forget that she voted to give Bush the authority of wage the reckless and illegal war against the people of Iraq? has she been able to overcome her war vote?  The answer is NOT!

There's nothing in Hillary--Other than Bill--that makes her a worthy political figure. nothing.

The people I always converse with, mostly Independents and Republicans, with a few Dems, all of them state they will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

My nieces and nephews are crazy about Barack Obama and could care less about Clinton.

So, what does this mean?  It means that I do believe that these polling places are not asking the right questions.  You can form questions anyway to get skewed answers, that is a fact.

Also, look at the massive amount of money that Obama has raised and word on the street is "still raising".  That can not be discreditied.  If he was doing so poorly in the polls, why are people signing up in the thousands to work on his campaign, but more importantly donating like crazy to him?  See, that is the million dollar question, that no one has an answer to.  People do not give away their monies to these politicians unless they intend to vote for them.

So, what do these polls mean?  That this race is a lot closer than the pollsters are picking up on.  Has to be.  And lastly, that 15-20% of exclusive cell phone usage, that can skew any campaign because you don't know how these folks will VOTE!!

Does YouGov America use a similar method as the online polls for Zogby where anyone with an email address (or many of them) can vote in the poll?

"Third, all national polls on Democratic primary preferences, no matter who those polls favor, are including an extremely wide net of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents in their samples that is unrepresentative of the generally narrow Democratic primary and caucus electorate."

That right there should tell you something.  Clinton is clearly MUCH more popular with rank-and-file Democrats than with Indipendents.  Most Indipendents are either banned from participating or simply, by and large, don't bother to show in party primaries (historically.)   That is a strong argument that Clinton's true numbers in all these national polls are actually underreported in relation to what groups actually end up truly showing up at the voting booth (vs. claiming that this time, surely, absolutely, honestly, they will do so.)   Furthermore, the vast majority of primary voters and caucus voters are folks 55 and over.  They make up more than half of primary and caucus voters.  The poll numbers don't make mention of that all-encompassing voting block, the assumption is made that young voters will be showing up in gigantic numbers.   That premise remains to be seen, but we KNOW who shows up faithfully every election cycle.   IMO that favors Clinton more than most polls are able to capture.  

Lastly, there is a very good chance that Rasmussen's polls are way off, that the "raised eyebrows" are caused by how much of an outlier that poll continues to prove itself to be.  Even Rasmussen (perhaps embarassed) explained that in his last poll, making mention that the race is not really as close as their polls suggest.   Here is a direct quote from Rasmussen, which refutes the point (about Rasmussen) made in this diary:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/2008_democratic_presiden tial_primary

However, the race may not be as close as those numbers suggest. The Rasmussen Reports sample includes not only Democrats, but also independents who say they are likely to vote in a Democratic Primary. Among Democrats only, Clinton leads by eight percentage points, 39% to 31% (with Edwards at 15%). That's little changed from a week ago when Clinton led by eleven among Democrats in the survey.

Obama does better when independents are included because he currently holds a two-to-one advantage over Clinton among those potential voters. Both the number and the preferences of independent voters is more volatile than the preferences of core Democratic voters. Some states have open primaries allowing independents to participate, others allow Democrats only. If the current trends were to continue throughout the Primary season, Clinton would handily win the states allowing only Democrats to vote while Obama would be competitive in others.

What gives me reason to believe the yougov poll is that it clearly does not push undecideds. The undecided pools between the two polls is about 10 pts.

Personally, it makes a lot more sense to me that 20 percent would be undecided at this point, as opposed to the 6ish many traditional polls show.

With so many good candidates on the dem side, we should not be surprised that voters are battling to determine whether they should side with.

if the national polling is overstating Hillary's lead it makes and Obama early win in Iowa and New Hampshire much more difficult to "downplay" Hillary will be looked at like a front runner that fell apart when the votes came in even if she wasn't really "ahead" much going in. As long as Obama supporters aren't discouraged by being behind at this stage it's better to let Hillary be seen as the "frontrunner" as to avoid the Dean syndrome. Obama early wins will bring Hillary's "polarizing image" back to the forefront of the campaign not the experience meme she wants to run on and she won't have time to pull off the "comeback" thing.

This is fascinating stuff and I love thinking about it.  But I have been burned on a number of occasions (esp. in 04) looking for and counting on irregularities in  polling.  Its safer to stick with the averages.

Are you saying that the YouGov online poll is more accurate than live interview polls?  If you are,  I don't see any reason that should be so.  The YouGov poll may be more accurate and reliable than other online polls, but that does not make it more accurate than live interview polls.  

Either there is material that you have not reported that would support that, or it's just an assumption you're making because Obama's numbers stay the same while hers are less. All that may prove is that the universe of online and live interviewees is different.  Which universe truly represents the actual Democrats who go to the polls is still a question.  I am of course assuming that the 2 polls actually did poll totally different sets of people; each one drawing their respondents using their own criteria.

Certainly the history of online polls are poor.  While there is a long history of live interview polls that, even with anomalies like white overreporting support for black candidates and it seems in the case of Obama, blacks overreporting their support for black candidates, those anomalies can be accounted for.

So I at a loss as to why this is so dispositive in proving online polls are more accurate and why it supports the inflated Hillary poll theory.

I must ask again, what it means to include Democratic leaners in the poll?  Does that mean Independents who would have to reregister to vote or registered Dems who see themselves as independent? It seems that Hillary does better amongst longer term self identified registered Democrats while Obama does better with the Dem leaners.

Further while the live interview polls may underreresent the young, online polls definitely underrepresent older and poorer Americans.  The live undersamples Obama supporters, while the online undersamples Hillary supporters. Hillary supporters are registered Dems while a lot of Obama supporters are not.

I don't see this as definitive as I am sure you don't either, but I don't see what it shows except perhaps an improvement online polling statistical methods.

(Let me tell you why registered matters.  I was checking petitions for a primary.  20% of th people who signed thought they were registered Democrats, but it turns out they were just registered and therefore not able to sign a party petition or to vote in the primary)

   I'm not sure what to make of this.  It seems to me that you are trying to predict the future with your theory.  Polls are just a measure of current opinions.  The problem is that it is impossible to ascertain who is a likely primary voter and who is not.  People haven't even decided for themselves yet.  They don't feel particularly strongly about any candidate.  I think your theory is an attempt to find a proper turnout model.  But that's just insanely difficult right now.  You'd need a crystal ball.

One of my arguments against a Hilary candidacy is that of all the Democratic candidates, she is the one least likely to draw crossover votes.   I can imagine moderate Republicans and Independents voting for someone like Edwards; I don't believe that Hilary would pull in many of those voters.

Personally I would be more likely to tell the truth to an in-person poll-taker, whom I know I will never see again and who will forget me, than in an online poll where I know my participation can be tracked regardless of any privacy statement.  That is, I would be more likely to fib in the on-line poll.

But then again I know how Internet usage is tracked and I guess most USians don't (or don't think about it much).

sPh

Funny thing - Rasmussen had HRC at 22 in January, and now at 35 and 34 in the last two Rasmussen polls, but that isnt a live interviewer poll.

Not only is this just an opinion, but you're trying to pass it off fact. Spin the numbers all you want, but when they stop spinning, Hillary is still in the lead.

Of course even if the online poll is more accurate the live interview poll might still be a better predictor of caucus results. If its the presure of another person that gives Clinton the advantage in those polls then the same dynamic might appear in Iowa.

Also, is there any sort of baseline question that might help us determine the accuracy of the polling? Did they ask about the 2004 vote, past primary participation, polling place location or anything we could use to either compare each sample to real voting populations or voter enthusiasm?

Obviously the nature of the different polls could impact those factors as well. But it could still help.

I await further analysis but on my first look it appears that Clinton went down by 8 points and the undecided went up by 7 points.

I am surprised that there hasn't been talk here of a conspiracy by the Clintons to pay off the pollsters and make Hillary appear inevitable. It would make as much sense as many of the "explanations" here.

The betting pool is slow today it took hours before anyone said it was a Clinton conspiracy.

by JustaDem on Fri May 18, 2007 at 06:13:06 PM CDT

Those of you still living in reality (such as georgep and BlueSunBelt) may wonder at what depths poor, sad Chris Bowers and his inveterately anti-Clinton acolytes will give up the ghost, and at long last admit that Senator Clinton is well on her way not only to the Democratic nomination but to the Presidency itself.

My own guess is that rather like the Nader dissidents of 2000 who then thought there was something unholy about casting a vote for Vice-President Albert Gore, even though he [foolishly, we Clinton advocates maintain] "distanced" himself from then President Clinton, such current anti-Clinton acolytes will continue to live in that unreality right on through the onset of Hillary Clinton's presidency.

The anti-Clinton forces, desperate to create a fire under their chosen candidates where there simply isn't any, must in some way find an outlet for their frustration.

It would have been most invigorating to have found the previously much stroked Senator Obama living up to all that had been expected of him in the first Democratic debate.  But literate though he remains, his performance in that debate was truly painful to witness--which is what naturally comes of presuming that two years in the Senate can prepare a candidate on the national stage for the United States Presidency.

I expect that if anything, almost every poll currently indicating Senator Clinton well ahead, is in fact not accurately measuring the depth of her strength.  Thus, it comes as no surprise to us veteran realists that the most recent Iowa poll has Senator Clinton besting even former Senator Edwards there, and that most New Hampshire polls have Senator Clinton very much in the driver's seat in that early primary state as well.

Previously the mantra of the anti-Clinton forces was that Senator Clinton couldn't win a national election.  [This was also much promulgated by detractors of Bill Clinton right up to election day, 1992; it was also said he could not survive Impeachment, could never again be popular--well, name an anti-Clinton polemic, the detractors have endorsed it, lo these many years.]

Now, when many a current poll reveals that Senator Clinton can best any GOP candidate, the anti-Clinton forces have returned to their former rationale--that somehow polls showing her with such an advantage have been inflated or at very least skewered.

Sigh.  It does become, oh-so-tiresome.  But I suppose that if retreating to unreality somehow pacifies the anti-Clinton forces, then those of us who know she will make one of the truly great American Presidents can endure that outlet for all that pent-up invective.

I do admire the passion of such bloggers.  But their lapses into fantasy would be amusing, were it not so tragic.  Like so many anti-Clintonites across the political spectrum, the reality is that they hate the Clintons because they hate the Clintons.  Reasons just aren't necessary.

READ IT AND WEEP   
New Study Suggests Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' Best Chance to Win

A statistical analysis of polls from the battleground states suggest that Hillary Clinton has the best chance to win a general election against the Republicans.

http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/art icles/hillary-clinton-best-chance-to-win .html