MyDD :: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll

Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll

by robliberal, Mon May 28, 2007 at 01:07:09 PM EST

Sen. Hillary Clinton maintains a solid lead in the race for the Democratic nomination in the latest Rasmussen poll. For three months Clinton has maintained a solid 34 to 35% in Rasmussen polling. She currently has a 10 point lead over her nearest challenger Sen. Barack Obama. Former Sen. John Edwards dropped 4 points in the latest poll and is now in third place with 14%

http://bluesunbelt.com/showDiary.do?diar yId=629

5/28
Hillary Clinton 35%
Barack Obama 26%
John Edwards 14%

5/21
Hillary Clinton 35%
Barack Obama 25%
John Edwards 14%

5/14
Hillary Clinton 35%
Barack Obama 33%
John Edwards 14%

5/7
Hillary Clinton 34%
Barack Obama 26%
John Edwards 16%

4/30
Hillary Clinton 30%
Barack Obama 32%
John Edwards 17%

Rasmussen notes that Clinton has maintained stability in her support for some 3 months now.

The stability of her support has become the defining feature of the Democratic Presidential competition. In fact, over the past three months, the former First Lady's support has stayed within three points of the 35% mark in every weekly Rasmussen Reports poll except one.

Clinton is polling well in general election matchups and leads all potential GOP nominees and is tied with Giuliani.

In national General Election match-ups, Clinton is now essentially even with Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani. She leads all other Republicans including Fred Thompson, John McCain, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Senator Sam Brownback, Senator Chuck Hagel, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Tags: Barack Obama, john edwards, hillary clinton, Mike Gravel, joe biden, chris dodd, bill richardson, dennis kucinich, 2008 elections, bluesunbelt.com (all tags)

Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

National polls will start to change about 2 weeks before the Iowa caucus AND really change depending on who wins.

by vamonticello on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:21:54 PM EST

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

While I don't agree with Rasmussen's methodology, it is interesting to see the trendlines within their methodology. It appears that the race has settled with a very strict set of numbers. Edwards' current 14% showing is almost exactly on the nose with the 14.3% aggregate he gets in the Rasmussen poll going all the way back to January 17. Incredible stability over 4 months. The same incredible showing for Obama, who since 1/17 has an aggregate of 26.05%, which is EXACTLY the poll number he gets in today's poll. Clinton's poll numbers since 1/17 aggregate to 32.85%, and today she is doing somewhat better than that, but not by much. All 3 are on a solid plateau that they don't deviate from by any appreciable measure.

Since he is very far behind in national polling the fact that Edwards has not been able to move the poll numbers AT ALL in his favor over the last 4 1/2 months has to be most troubling for him and his campaign.

Other national polling has shown the same polling problem for Edwards, whose national polling aggregate is now at 12.8%, a full 5% below his all-time high from mid-April of 17.8%.

Another sign of problems for Edwards is the narrowing of his appeal compared to Giuliani and his inching up of disapproval ratings:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_2008_edwards_d_ 47_giuliani_r_45

"In a 2008 general election match-up, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) leads former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani by only two points, 47% to 45% (see crosstabs).

Giuliani has closed the gap over the past month. In April, Edwards had an eight-point advantage over the man known as "America's Mayor."
...
Senator Edwards is now viewed favorably by 55%, unfavorably by 42%. Both numbers are at the high end of his ratings over the last six months."

Bottom line:

We have a fixed race that has not moved an inch (except marginally into Clinton's direction) in four and a half months.

by georgep on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:31:55 PM EST

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

I think alot of voters who were initially paying attention (thus there was more movement in the polls earlier) are now tuned out. The only ones left really tuned in are the freaks like us. ;)

But they'll come back when it starts to get closer to the finish line.

by Mystylplx on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:35:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Well, I disagree. I believe, as I have suspected all along, that the other two candidates, while nice guys, just aren't really making Democrats swoon, that as Name ID rises so do the negatives and "issues" of all candidates. On the other hand, Clinton's supposed "unpopularity" is a result of mainly low-info respondents from "the other side." As they see her campaign appearances, debate performances and general appearances on shows like "60 Minutes" or "Meet the Press" those negative "low-info" perceptions are bound to slowly change, as she is indeed, as Matt Stoller put it, "brilliant." :-)

by georgep on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:46:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

I think Clinton and Obama were able to secure strong demographic bases from the start. In the recent Gallup Clinton leads every major demographic group and Obama usually comes in 2nd. That creates a problem for Edwards because there is just not that much potential for upward movement.

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

by robliberal on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:39:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

I think her stable support comes from voters who aren't paying attention yet. If they aren't paying attention then it makes sense they won't be changing their minds.

I also think it's good that Obama is not the frontrunner, but is still within striking distance. If this were a basketball game it would only be the second quarter. Wait for the fourth quarter--that's when it will be decided.

by Mystylplx on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:32:39 PM EST

pollster.com 20 May (3.00 / 1)

Clinton is in yellow, Obama in red, Gore in blue, Edwards in brown.

If this was a basketball game, it would only be the first quarter. The second quarter starts on Labor Day.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Mon May 28, 2007 at 02:56:15 PM EST

Re: pollster.com 20 May (3.00 / 1)

Charles Franklin has published a much more precise meter on the pollster.com site. Also, look at this RCP averages graph that shows what has been happening since 4/15 - 4/18:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html#polls

A steady drop of Edwards' numbers from a high of 17.8% to the current 12.8% over the last 6 weeks.

A slight drop of Obama's numbers from a high of 25.8% to the current 23.3% over the last 6 weeks.

A slight uptick in Clinton's numbers from mid-April levels.

Note: The RCP averages have not incorporated the just released CBS/NYT poll into the averaging yet.

by georgep on Mon May 28, 2007 at 04:08:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pollster.com 20 May (3.00 / 1)

The pollster.com meter looks more precise to me ... it includes its individual data points.

The pollster.com also uses a longer smoothing period and the rcp.com uses a very short smoothing period ... the former would be better for looking for long term trends, the latter for detecting short term movements ... though more sensitive to random moves within the MOE.

Since I won't care about short term movements until November this year at the earliest ... and then only really in individual state polls ... I'll keep posting the pollster.com trendline for every post about any particular meaningless national poll.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:35:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pollster.com 20 May (none / 0)

smoothing period???

care to explain....

by aiko on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:17:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pollster.com 20 May (none / 0)

The RCP averages dismiss old polls and focus on newer ones (the greyed in area.) Since the polls are from within the last 5 weeks, it is a better meter than Pollster.com. Likewise, Chris Bowers currently includes ONLY polls post-debate, which makes for a much better meter as well. For instance, there is no denying that Edwards numbers have been on the decline for the last 6 weeks, which Chris Bowers, the Charles Franklin poll update on pollster.com and the RCP averages graph correctly identify. But, whatever makes you feel better, I suppose.

by georgep on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:33:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pollster.com 20 May (none / 0)

At this point, it seems that the race has hit a plateau... All three of the big candidates are holding at the same levels currently. My guess is unless someone does something that is a big shakeup OR someone commits a big Gaffe, we will see these numbers continue through the summer until September or October. At that point, I think the polls will start to move... now HOW they move is the question. I'm not sure... but unless someone pulls a Dean type move and adopts a strong base satisfying position on a big issue that no one else does (and I just don't see that happening in this election) or someone commits a big gaffe (Hillary doing so of course being the biggest game changer, but I just don't see it happening either) or the Q2 fundraising results in one candidate having a substanicial difference... like Obama or Clinton raising 10-15 mill more in the quarter than the next closest, then this race has reached a plateau and we aren't going to see movement until fall when more people start getting engaged (and I still call bullshit on the 70% figure spouted, since there is no clear definition to what paying close attention means...).

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:29:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pollster.com 20 May (none / 0)

"and I still call bullshit on the 70% figure spouted, since there is no clear definition to what paying close attention means..."

It WOULD be BS if that were what the poll finding were. If I recall, the 70% figure was a combination of about 30% paying "close" attention and another 40% paying "somewhat attention." That seems like a plausible combination to me, given the enormous name ID all 3 top-tier candidates have achieved and the overall satisfaction of Democrats with this year's field. In comparative terms, this is definitely a special year in terms of how many people are already engaging in this process. That is, when compared to previous cycles in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992.

by georgep on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:33:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: pollster.com 20 May (none / 0)

That seems plausible I agree. I may be mistaken in the 70% mark from the original, but I have seen several people throwing around the 70% number and saying it was that of people paying close attention.

But yes if it is indeed 30-40, then that is a much more believable number and also means that numbers will probably start moving as we get into the fall and that 40% goes over to the 30%.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:41:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Richardson does have some momentum especially in Iowa and NH. He is nearly within the MOE with Edwards in some polls.

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

by robliberal on Mon May 28, 2007 at 03:31:49 PM EST

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Richardson has several issues, if he were to make it in the primaries, the Republicans would have much to talk about.

Check out the New Progressive Blog EENRBLOG

by dk2 on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:02:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Clinton's lead is currently 9 pts not 10 pts.

We donot have a national primary, If we did then these numbers would be very important.

1968 Ed Muskie was a very clear leader in all of the national polls and did not become the nominee. I believe Jimmy Carter was not a leader in the national polls prior to IA.

IA is extremely important and if it was not so, then all of these candidates would not put in the money and effort for this Caucus.

I am from the mid-west and IA does not care about these national numbers in making their selection. If they did then Edwards, would not be leading in IA rcp avg. 4.7 pts with Clinton and Obama tied for 2nd.

by BDM on Mon May 28, 2007 at 04:41:37 PM EST

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

The record for democrats winning the IA caucus is very good in winning the nomination. 5 of the past 6 winners went on to win the nomination. It is different in the Republican Caucus.

That is why all of the democratic candidates are not skipping this Caucus and putting in a lot of money, time and resources.

by BDM on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush all lost in Iowa.

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

by robliberal on Mon May 28, 2007 at 07:37:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

That's really not that valid of an argument... plus your data is incorrect... 5 of the last 6 did not win. It was 4 of 6.

In 2 of those last 6, it featured a sitting VP and a Sitting VP...

2004 - Kerry won the Nom
2000 - Gore won the nom but was a Sitting VP, Iowa did nothing for him
1996 - Clinton won the nom but was the Sitting Pres, Iowa did nothing for him Plus he was unopposed
1992 - Harkin won Iowa but Lost the Nom... but he was from Iowa so he was pretty much a shoo in
1988 - Dick Gephardt won Iowa, but lost the nom.
1984 - Mondale won and won the nom...

If we take out sitting presidents and VPs, then Iowa has only a 50% success rate. Add in 1976, where Carter came in second and 1972 where Muskie won Iowa, and the success rate excluding sitting Pres and VP is even worse.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:40:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

From 1972 to 2004 Iowa had it pretty much alone. The changes with the front loading of the system with so many primary states may throw off their success rate even more.

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

by robliberal on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

What? Can you clarify your statement?

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:42:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

He is agreeing with you, claiming that Iowa was on its own for a very long time. Now the changed schedule diminishes Iowa's importance, as there is not much time to turn polls in the next state around on positive Iowa media coverage.

by georgep on Tue May 29, 2007 at 10:56:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Yes I was agreeing.

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

by robliberal on Tue May 29, 2007 at 11:08:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Well said, yitbos. I was going to look up the stats tonight, but your fine research did the trick. Iowa seems overrated in its importance. If you look at it as a "kingmaker," as Edwards posters seem to be doing, you come up with blanks across the board. Even the two times you can point to an Iowa win as "something" with the cases of Mondale in 1984 and Kerry in 2004 you have major caveats:

In 1984 Mondale was the frontrunner throughout, then won Iowa. But instead of Iowa providing the "wings" that it supposedly brings along with it, Mondale immediately lost his footing. Gary Hart went on to win New Hampshire and gave Mondale a major dogfight the rest of the way. Even Jesse Jackson won some states. Mondale eventually secured the nomination, but Iowa had no uplifting effect on his fortunes at all, as he looked weak right after and barely made it over the finish line as the nominee.

In 2004 Kerry had surged ahead of Dean in New Hampshire polling in 3 major polls before the Iowa caucus. Dean's candidacy had already started losing a ton of its luster before the Iowa caucus.

by georgep on Tue May 29, 2007 at 02:52:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excuse me, what does this mean? (3.00 / 1)

This time around, with other primaries moving up, they'd better jump onto Hillary bandwagon fast and early, or they will be permanently irrelevant in presidential elections.

The other primaries moving up increases the importance of Iowa and the other pre-Feb 5 states ... the free media coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire, and secondarily out of the other early states, will offset a massive amount of spending by the losers of those primaries.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Mon May 28, 2007 at 05:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me, what does this mean? (none / 0)

If another candidate has a huge lead in Nevada, New Hampshire or Florida you assume that what happens in Iowa has a major effect on their preferences? That is highly doubtful. Iowa is in no way representative of the country, very rural, few minorities, etc. Iowa is not at all likely to change hearts of inner-city New Yorkers, hispanic Floridians, etc. Even Kerry had assumed the lead in 3 major polls in NH and also other state polls well before the Iowa caucus. He was moving ahead nationally, and his May frontrunner status was confirmed in the end.

by georgep on Mon May 28, 2007 at 08:40:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me, what does this mean? (3.00 / 1)

If another candidate has a huge lead in Nevada, New Hampshire or Florida you assume that what happens in Iowa has a major effect on their preferences?

No, but then, since what I wrote was:

The other primaries moving up increases the importance of Iowa and the other pre-Feb 5 states ... the free media coming out of Iowa and New Hampshire, and secondarily out of the other early states, will offset a massive amount of spending by the losers of those primaries.

... it is hard to see how that describes Iowa as automatically overcoming a huge lead held by another candidate at the start of 2008.

The position of candidates in the early states at the beginning of 2008 is very much up in the air at this point. Hillary did the minimum she had to do to avoid a collapse in support in New Hampshire, in her 11th hour vote against the capitulation bill, but only time will tell if that's enough. Certainly its another state that favors retail politics, and Obama, Edwards and Dodd are going to invest substantial time into New Hampshire.

And we won't know the shape of the fight in Nevada until the union endorsements come out.

And there is one robopoll in Florida from a California polling firm that puts Clinton and Edwards in a tie, though there is some reason to wonder about their likely voter screen.

Obviously, the headline impact in Feb 5 comes from winning the early states, and therefore a positive bumb from Iowa matters the most if the race is close in the other early states. Anyone who presumes to predict at this stage whether the race will be close in the early states in January 2008, and even who the race will be between in the early states in 2008, is just reading tea leaves.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:51:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me, what does this mean? (none / 0)

Or diminishes their importance.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Tue May 29, 2007 at 09:43:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Excuse me, what does this mean? (none / 0)

I don't see how it does. In campaigns past, the free media bump had to be parlayed into "momentum" with a surge in fund raising allowing the candidate to be on the air in the series of states between the early states and Super Tuesday, to try to accumulate wins to regenerate that positive free media in the lead in to the March showdown.

Under what looks like the new calendar, the free media from the early states feeds directly into the February Super Tuesday. With the coverage of Super Tuesday likely to be dominated by the expectations game, the candidate(s) with rising support has the best opportunity to come out of Super Tuesday with momentum.

If that's Clinton, then she has the opportunity to actually rack up the delegates on Super Tuesday to cause support for the rest of the field to start to dry up, and basically win it there.

If that's Obama and/or Edwards though, while they probably cannot knock Clinton out on Super Tuesday, they can certainly gain the delegate counts to be able to take the lead and push the decision into the following states ... including the "old Super Tuesday" in March.

*John Edwards* ... and the JE08 Supporters Blog

by BruceMcF on Tue May 29, 2007 at 12:36:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Bill Clinton in 1992 doesn't count. Of course Iowans were going to support their local guy in Harkin. No one really competed in Iowa.

http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!

by yitbos96bb on Mon May 28, 2007 at 10:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

Go Hillary! You have my full support! Ignore the wacko haters.

by sterkt on Mon May 28, 2007 at 06:32:14 PM EST

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

I guess you feel that analysis is hatred. That seem's pretty strange to me.

by BDM on Mon May 28, 2007 at 06:55:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (3.00 / 1)

The Hillary supporters are making a huge mistake by downplaying Iowa....Hillary will be killed by the media if she finishes in third place,and if you think media buzz won't move the polls, then you guys are crazy....The Media will jump all over her and rightly so because she's suppose to be the frontrunner and i will bet you will see a lot of negative stories in the press

Hillary needs to finish at least, second...In my opinion,In Iowa, the race is between Hillary and Obama and who can capture the second seat..If Obama finishes in 3rd place, then he will be the story and the media will question his White House bid.

Because Edwards had been leading in the Iowa polls all year,he will be expected to win Iowa and i believe he will get a +5 point boost going on the next state and in the national polls..If Edwards is polling at 13% of the national poll, i will expect him to get a 5 point boost and get to the 18%.

If Edwards wins BIG in Iowa, i could see him getting a +10 pointsgoing on the next state poll and national polls...I do not thing that Edwards will be the frontrunner if he wins Iowa...He will have to win the next state and create the perfect chain reaction and it is possible...He will have to play all his card right.

Right now, Edwards hasnt locked up Iowa yet..The faster he can lock up Iowa, the better it would be for him because he would be able to focus on the next state before the Iowa votes are even counted...Right now, he has to put all his eggs in Iowa and try hard to win it.

Hillary cant efford to ignore Iowa because the media will simply murder her...The media can make or break her on this.

Also, i would like to see the next round of Iowa polls because i'm hearing that the leaked memo about Hillary skipping Iowa, didn't go too well with Iowa caucus goes...If the perseption is out there that Hillary will not take Iowa seriously, i could see some of her softer supports in Iowa leave her and support someone else.

anyway, DemoineDem, maybe you could tell us how the Iowa people are taking the news of the leaked memo.

by JaeHood on Tue May 29, 2007 at 08:24:33 AM EST

Re: Clinton Continues Solid Lead In Rasmussen Poll (none / 0)

The so-called "leaked" memo is irrelevant. Hillary set up a dozen Iowa field offices and has now begun campaigning very hard in Iowa.

That memo came from one member of Hillary's staff. Many campaign staff members have various ideas when it comes to strategy. Hillary does what "she" wants to do, unlike some candidates who have to be programmed.

Hillary is "on" in Iowa. And I expect her numbers there to keep improving.

by samueldem on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:04:14 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.