The shift is happening as people are tuning into and making a decision about what they would like the future to be like for themselves and their children. Do they want more of the past or is time to begin to adapt new ways of governing based on input from citizens. The answer is clear.

Obama has to win three quarters of Edwards's support to pull even with Clinton.

I'm going to wait until 02/06.

momentum measured by polls, especially the new gallup tracking, which the gurus at pollster.com wrote highly of, will matter a lot.

re that bump: wasn't the 20th the day Obama and then Clinton vowed to move past the race spats? Then the 21st was the contentious debate, and he keeps moving up, and she also gets a two-point bump. but then she starts dropping, perhaps because of the coverage of Bigfoot Bill?

Here come Oprah in Cali. This thing gonna tighten more

1 point in 3 days!!!

Woo-hoo!!!!

But seriously folks . . .

National opinion (if such a thing really exists) is likely to be far less volatile than local opinion in a given state, especially small states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.  This is true because it is far less likely over fifty states for a meaningful number of people all to be affected in a day or two by the same common impulse.  

One percentage point in a poll is a vastly higher number of people in a survey of the whole US than it is in a survey of a small state.

The far more likely explanation for this "surge," with a population as big as the US, which you're trying to measure by talking to only 300 to 400 people, is that it's just statistical noise.  

She has two things working against her in the polling: backlash from going negative against Obama after New Hampshire and poll tightening as election day approaches. The backlash should fade going forward, ideally reversing her trend.

   I think Obama will take a majority of Edwards supporters.  Edwards, paradoxically, did well among high-income, moderate and conservative Democrats.  Does that sound like a Hillary demographic to anyone?  It's not.  I don't understand why Matt thinks Clinton will get most of Edwards' supporters.  His own posts from earlier suggest otherwise.

Agree. There's a myopia in poll watching we'd be best to avoid. They take the temperature of the electorate, but don't distinguish between light and heat.

For these national polls, do they continue to poll people in states that have already had their primary or caucus?

Obama spoke to a crowd of 20 thousand people in Denver today.  Has Clinton every attracted 20 thousand people anywhere?

The movement is real.

FYI - From Tuesday, but I just saw the Rassmusen poll in Connecticut shows a dead heat at 40 each. Obama making a strong move in a state Clinton was expected to win easily.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/connecticut/election_2008_ connecticut_democratic_presidential_prim ary

I thought this graph (indicating Gallup's daily tracking trends) from TPM was interesting:

Let's not overlook the most recent game-changer. Hulk Hogan endorses Obama:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezrak lein_archive?month=01&year=2008& base_name=action_endorsements

Some more good Obama news (I think).  The net delegate effect of including Michigan and Florida in the total delegate counts appears to be only 37.  Per numbers listed at 2008 Democratic Convention Watch http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/ superdelegates-who-havent-endorsed.html

Clinton: MI/FL with and without spread 427 less 235=                 192
Obama: MI/FL with and without spread 256 less 156=                 100

Difference                                                                                        92

Less: MI Uncommitted to Obama                                                     55

Net Clinton/Obama Delegate Spread FL & MI                                +37

Lots of noise for only 37 net delegates.

Plus, per demconwatch, Edwards currently has 54 total delegates (not included in above analysis).

If these numbers are accurate (or close), then I say Obama should make an agreement with Clinton and the DNC to seat all Michigan and Florida delegates and put this craziness behind us.  If these numbers are not accurate, then forget it.

I pity the Obama folk.  They have had two wins--both anamolies, in bused in Iowa and racially charged South Carolina.  Hillary has won everywhere else.

They take the close end of a three-day poll BEFORE FLORIDA, after four days of solid pro-Obama spin, and they become excited.  Even if believed, 6-9% in such polls is a national landslide.

Dear Lord, Clinton will blow away Obama on February 5.  

Florida was reality--real people voting, not polls and pundits--and Hillary clobbered Obama--across the board, with all demographics save African-Americans.

John McCain exceeded Mitt Romney by 5% in Florida--and it made him the nominee of his party.  And McCain, to this day, is in single digits when contrasted to Romney.

Let the pollsters and pundits invent a race.  When there isn't one.  When there has never been one.

Florida was reality.

And come Febrary 5, real Democrats voting, like Florida, in big numbers--not what the anti-Clinton MSM wants, are taking back their party.

I believe she will easily carry all but two states on Febrary 5.  Florida is reality--for California, for New York, for New Jersey and beyond.

Live the last of your anti-Clinton illusions.  Come Tuesday, Florida and Michigan will be the prototypes for the nation--not Iowa and South Carolina.

Iowa and South Carolina NEVER were prototypes.  And reality dictates they shall not be this yeat either.

I just got this

o: Interested Parties

Fr: Emily Hawkins, Director of Youth Outreach

Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2008

RE: Tonight Hillary Won The Youth Vote In Florida.

According to exit polling, Hillary Clinton captured the youth vote in Florida tonight, beating Senator Barack Obama 45 to 42 percent among 18-29 year olds.

Because the DNC stripped Florida of its delegates, no campaign actively worked to court voters in the state.

Our campaign's appeal to younger voters has been increasing with our national online, multimedia and peer-to-peer efforts.  In the absence of any program in Florida, many young voters organized themselves and got involved on behalf of Hillary.

Young people are energized by Hillary.  They like that she has solid ideas about how to really make our country and our future better.  She is an inspiration for many young people especially young women eager and proud to cast their vote for the first woman president.

We're thrilled with the ever-growing support we're receiving from young voters and obviously the work we've been doing nationally to engage young voters and give them greater access and input is making a difference.

With economic concerns growing more young people see their future at stake in this presidential election and are looking towards Hillary Clinton as a leader who can solve those problems and provide a better future.

interesting

Obama is closest in spirit to Edwards and should get most of his vote.

We have not actually heard of the rightward pull of the Clintons' campaign, and frankly, I believe that most people want them back into the Whitehouse.

Feminize the presidency. It is much needed. But Hillary is not the one who can make this transformation.

Anyone who thinks obama didn't win sc because of the black vote is fooling themselves.

Hillary is ahead 2-1 among Latinos; she's ahead among Jewish voters, asian voters, women, and she pulled in 42% of the white male vote in Florida. She's ahead among Gay and Lesbian voters. She is taking at least 25% of the black vote from Obama, and is winning among older voters. She's also pulling in a consistently higher number than Obama among the 25-29 age group of voters. I think maybe Obama can cut into her lead a bit before Super Tuesday; but I really would find it astonishing that suddenly all of those constituencies in the Democratic Party have made an abrupt turn to Obama.

Let's turn to the polling averages and see: She's still 9-10 pts ahead in the national polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/national-primary.html

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-P rimary.php

Anyone who thinks Edwards supporters will break heavily for Obama are going to be sorely dissapointed. A recent Ap poll has 40% of Edwards supporters going to clinton, to 25% going to Obama. That question might have a high margin of error, but best bet for Obama is to split the Edwards vote with Clinton. I think Hillary will actually win the Edwards supporters, particularly the working class and women supporters he had. Obama will get the higher income male Edwards supporters.

You do realize that Clinton is just as much an "historic" candidate as Obama, right? In fact, in at least one, crudely demographic way more so: Her gender is more than half the electorate, whereas Obama's race is only 15% or something. In fact, African American men have won primaries before (as Bill Clinton helpfully pointed out to us). A woman hasn't even come close, at least to my memory.

Sometimes I feel like the Obamamaniacs forget that. They think they're riding the crest of some historic "movement" and Hillary is just same old same old. In reality, her election would be earth-shattering. Her supporters (now including me, after JE's departure) get that and her support is actually born of more affection and genuine loyalty than you can imagine. I suspect more than Obama's. That's why despite all the hype, and Obama's amazing skills as a campaigner, her support has not cracked. And why, all else being equal as in Florida, she wins big.

You are not "crashing the gate" alone, Obama people. BOTH candidates are. And BOTH candidates have huge amounts of money. And BOTH candidates inspire great devotion. There is no Obama "movement" that is not matched by a Clinton "movement," and Clinton's brand loyalty has been around longer, and is now deeper, than anything Obama can inspire in the six days between now and Feb 5.

That's why the race is where it is. Just thought I'd add that to the "debate" here.

Most of us want the same basic result.  But in making your choice between Hillary and Obama, I hope that people will ask themselves, am I one of the people who supported Kerry over Clark?  Tsongas over B. Clinton?  Dukakis over Gore?  Mondale over Hart?  Or if you are young, is it possible you might have done so?  If so, while I may agree with your principles, perhaps you should reassess whether you are the best judge of electability in a general election -- because we know for a fact that the majority of us are not, or else Democrats wouldn't always be losing these elections.  Maybe I am one of them, but maybe you are too.  So rather than argue amongst ourselves here, I'd suggest that if you are actually undecided between these two, go ask Joe or Joelle Sixpacks about who they would prefer, Obama or Hillary.  I've heard all the theories about winning elections with bases, but in the end I can't think of anyone who has won without the middle.

I grew up in a red state and live in a purple state, have done door to door for Democrats in purple and light red parts of places like Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia, and I can't see myself or anyone else selling Hillary to those (essential) communities.  The conversation will last about 8 seconds, she is toxic for them.  Dating back to at least 1952 (TV?), the controlling bloc of voters choose whichever candidate would have been cooler in 9th grade.  That for damn sure isn't going to be Hillary Clinton over John McCain.  

Plus, Republicans clearly are depressed.  They don't like McCain, Fox ratings are down, and they haven't been turning out in nearly the numbers of Dems in the primaries so far.  The only thing that would cause some of these conservatives to go to the polls and vote for McCain is Hillary Clinton.  They won't vote for Obama, but at least they would stay home.  Perhaps some here need to arrange for some longer layovers in flyover land.  

The diary tells us that Obama is "now" single digits behind Hillary, but he doesn't not that he's been trailing by single digits for a while, even BEFORE the SC primaries. There was no bump according to the Rasmussen poll, in other words.

Man, it's gonna hurt when Obama gets bludgeoned on Tuesday at the polls.  Wonder how all the "progressives" are going to spin it?

We need to remember that Clinton has a ceiling in the general election.  Across the country, half the people say they won't vote for her.  That's a fact, proved in poll after poll.  I'd say her ceiling hovers around 48% max.  It may be closer to 46%.  

Against Romney, she can win.  Against McCain is a different story.  She will lose crucial independents in swing states who find him more palatable than her.  Those of you comparing Obama to Kerry, Dukakis, et al are missing the point.  They were the establishment choice, and so is she.  She will carry staunch democrats like those who post here and little more.  

Obama, on the other hand, has more potential.  I could see him getting 53%, maybe even 55%.  This is possible, even against McCain, since they are both likable, and McCain could be painted as an old coot.  It's also possible that Obama could lose and not get much more than 43-44%.  We don't know exactly.  

Obama's a riskier investment, but has more growth potential.  Hillary's a known commodity.  Her road to GE victory will be close, no matter what she does.