MyDD :: So Much for Clinton Maintaining a Robust National Lead Post Iowa

So Much for Clinton Maintaining a Robust National Lead Post Iowa

by Jonathan Singer, Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:26:35 PM EST

It looks like the trends we've been seeing in New Hampshire in the wake of Iowa -- Barack Obama moving noticeably upward and Hillary Clinton moving noticeably downward -- may also be apparent nationally. Take a look at the latest Rasmussen Reports tracking numbers:

Candidate	1/7	1/6	1/5	1/4	1/3
Clinton	33	36	38	38	41
Obama	29	25	25	26	24
Edwards	20	23	20	18	17

As you can see, Clinton does still hold a national lead according to Rasmussen -- though the lead is within the poll's 4 percentage point margin of error, so that lead is not statistically significant. To the best of my knowledge, Rasmussen is the only pollster to come out with national numbers in the wake of Iowa (and perhaps even this calendar year), so it would be worth it to see some other nationwide data before drawing too strong of conclusions from this one survey. That said, this is as close as Clinton and Obama have been in any Rasmussen poll in the last few months, and no other polling since the summer (again, as best I can tell) has shown Obama within 4 points of Clinton. So it's at least worth thinking about the possibility that Clinton might not in fact have a strong national lead -- or any national lead at all, for that matter -- come the essentially national primary day of February 5.

Tags: National Poll, Democratic Primaries, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama (all tags)

Permalink :: 22 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: So Much for Clinton Maintaining a Robust Natio (2.00 / 1)

It's all over but the cryin'. Wait. It's just all over.

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:32:11 PM EST

I've always said the process should start (none / 0)

in small states, but it is ridiculous for so much to move based on the early results.

Thinking back on the campaigns of 1988 and 1992, it seems like there was less of an instant groupthink shift based on the first states. Even on super Tuesday, there was a lot of diversity in the results. No one could count on strolling to victory after one or two states.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by desmoinesdem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:33:17 PM EST

Re: I've always said the process should start (none / 0)

Desmoinesdem,
I can feel your pain and you should know that you are one of the most respected in this blog. Then again,the front-loading was exactly what the Clinton Campaign wanted so they are paying for it now

"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod

by Jr1886 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:38:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've always said the process should start (none / 0)

It's basic psychology.

People in those later states (and across the nation) haven't seen the candidates up close. They haven't even seen campaign ads or local coverage (just national coverage). So they (quite rationally) look to their peers in states where this has happened...

It's actually quite rational...

by mcdave on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've always said the process should start (2.00 / 1)

No arugment here --

But I cannot help but remember that the compressed schedule - which lends itself very much to groupthink - was most favored by the candidate suffering most from it.

Karma's a bitch.

by zonk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've always said the process should start (none / 0)

As I just said above. True, Karma's a b..ch

"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod

by Jr1886 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've always said the process should start (none / 0)

The morning after the Iowa primary is traditionally when the rest of the country wakes up and realizes there's a bunch of people out there running for President.

There's been a lot of extra publicity this year, obviously, with two media stars like Hillary and Obama in the running, but there's still an awful lot of people who are barely paying attention until those first primary results come in. So there's always going to be a bounce. The question is whether Obama just keeps going up, up, up, or whether the initial surge of attention causes people to take a closer look at him and maybe get a little more cautious - sort of like what occurred with Huckabee a few weeks back.

Behind the scenes, the reality is that it's always about money. If everyone had unlimited resources, the primary season would go on and on and the results might well move back and forth between different candidates. As it is, if you don't get a head of steam in the early primaries, it's tough to find enough funding to keep competing.

"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman

by Steve M on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Mark Penn is toast by wednesday (none / 0)

I am waiting for Penn to decry these latest poll. I have never seen a strategist so clueless running a major campaign." Where's the bounce memo" was the last nail in his coffin. He's done, done by Wednesday.

"Apparently they have an 11-month calendar over there that's missing the month of February," Obama strategist David Axelrod

by Jr1886 on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:34:10 PM EST

I wish it wasn't Rasmussen... (none / 0)

I'm not ready to say this poll is accurate, as Rasmussen does not always inspire confidence, but if it is this is a big deal. If winning Iowa gets Obama this close, I have to think that a win in NH and SC -- if they happen -- would result in a national lead for Obama going into those Feb. 5th contests. In that context, Clinton's back would truly be up against the wall.

But again, we will see. I'm not ready to buy these numbers quite yet -- no matter how much I'd like them to be true.

by HSTruman on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:34:12 PM EST

Wonderful! (none / 0)

Fantastic news!

by mattmfm on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 02:47:55 PM EST

As I wrote here (none / 0)

in August, there is an average 33 point swing in the national polls when a front loses in Iowa and New Hampshire.

The last Pre-Iowa poll from Rassmussen was Clinton 41, Obama 24, or a 17 point lead. The most recent number shows a 4 point lead, or a net 11 point swing. There is more change to come, particularly after he wins New Hampshire.

by fladem on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:16:53 PM EST

Re: So Much for Clinton Maintaining a Robust Natio (none / 0)

Ummm How can there be numbers from the seventh when the seventh is still here? Makes no sense. Edwards drops three points in a day a few hours old? I don't think so.

by moondancer on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:25:41 PM EST

Re: So Much for Clinton Maintaining a Robust Natio (none / 0)

The poll is posted in the morning based on results from the previous four evenings, as I understand it.

by frankies on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Why did the Iowa outcome have such impact? (2.00 / 1)

The "bounce" from underpopulated and atypical Iowa can be insignificant or tsunami-like. Why? It all depends on what people in other states were thinking before the caucuses. In this case, they were thinking that Obama was the most attractive candidate but didn't have a chance either because of racial bigotry, youth, newness, or size of resume. The outcome gave them "premission" to follow their own instincts in recognizing political dynamism. If people in follow-on states did not already wish that they dared to support him (as they yearned to), the bounce would have been small.

Ross Neisuler

by rneisuler on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:32:46 PM EST

Re: A call for positive self-reflection (none / 0)

Without meaning to inflame sentiments around here, I wonder if, and when, Jerome (and some others) are going to post "mea culpas" about their relentless beating of the anti-Obama drums?

It is one thing to have honest and constructive dialogue and to point out substantive differences between the candidates. But much of the anti-Obama posting around here for the past few months has struck me as lacking intellectual honesty.

Posters have nit-picked his every utterance, slathered on "guilt by association" and "strawman" attacks. It has been pretty ugly at times.

I would like a dollar for every time I have been told how "naive" and "delusional" my analysis has been.

Apologies, if I sound like a sore winner, but I think a little reflection on the quality of the analysis that has been posted over the past year is in order. Perhaps it will help us to do better collectively going forward.

by upper left on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:37:25 PM EST

Re: A call for positive self-reflection (2.00 / 1)

Nah.

Nothing wrong with a good kicking of the tires - and I think MyDD has done a pretty good job of giving us inside baseball looks at not just the candidates, but the process.

I stayed out of the comments until I finally settled on Obama last week - but the posts seemed pretty good all through this runup. The few times I've wandered into the comments have been another matter :-)

Personally - I don't know if it's been as much "anti-Obama" as it has been missing the forest for the trees. Crashing the Gates is still sitting on my coffee table (I always wait for folks to ask about it, then happily lend it out) - and I've got trememdous respect for Jerome (and Markos at DK), Todd, Jonathon, et al.

However - I think a whole lot of the 'cyberpundits' missed out on Obama this cycle because it's been breaking so earth-shaking. I think folks like Jerome and Markos did a great service cracking the code about we've been such an ineffecitve parry for so long and how we needed to fix it. The paradigm just shifted -- and even quicker and with a more resounding THUMP than anyone really expected.

I think everyone's playing catch-up.... Hell - I'm an Obama backer (now) - and I feel like I'm still not quite grasping what's happening this cycle.

by zonk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:54:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A call for positive self-reflection (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for a thoughful reply.

I think a lot of folks got caught up in a hyper-partisan frenzy and missed that Obama was trying to build the party rather than sell it out.

by upper left on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

National Polls in general (none / 0)

I understand why we all watch them. I do - a junkie'll take whatever fix he can get. I know why candidates flog 'em - money and buzz.

But - and I say this knowing that, if the script continues the way it has for the next 48 hours, my guy's likely to zoom into a national lead - why in the hell do we even bother with national polls?

Until February - if not March - they're nothing but name recognition polls.

Pointless.

We've seen it every single cycle going back as long as I can remember ('88) - national polls are meaningless in the grand scheme.

Don't worry - I won't waste my bytes asking that they just be ignored - I know that ain't gonna happen, but they're a silly diversion, nothing more.

by zonk on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 03:46:36 PM EST

Re: So Much for Clinton (none / 0)

Drudge is now reporting Obama up 42-30 in SC according to Rasmussen (on front page - no link yet).

NJ Hussein Independent

by NJIndependent on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:04:48 PM EST

Re: So Much for Clinton Maintaining a Robust Natio (none / 0)

Movement in Obama direction, while I support O(bama not prah), I would like Hillary to make a good race of this. Any numbers on NY or Florida? Those are big ones if Obama does not annihilate Clinton in NH.

by MNPundit on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 04:31:50 PM EST

Re: So Much for Clinton Maintaining a Robust Natio (none / 0)

33-33 Number up on Gallup

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:06:11 PM EST

Re: So Much for Clinton Maintaining a Robust Natio (none / 0)

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_usa_t odaygallup_national_4.php

Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.

by CardBoard on Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 05:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

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.