Look, this is very elementary economics. A revenue neutral gas tax holiday is revenue neutral for the government and for the Average Joe alike. It's a complete and utter sham. Why? Because the market ultimately decides who pays what share of every tax, not the government. It doesn't matter if you nominally take the tax from the oil companies or if you nominally take the tax from the consumers, the result will be exactly the same (as the cost of the latter tax will be passed on to consumers until we reach the same equilibrium price we were at before).
In the mean time, we've got a new tax on oil companies (a good thing), but we're spending it on putting more greenhouse gases into the air rather than investing in clean energy R&D. This is as dumb as Washington gets, and we're supposed to celebrate because it makes a good soundbite? Tell me, why are we even worried about electing progressives if not to promote progressive policy?
"Texas was demographically neutral to the candidates with Obama favored by 2% on election day."
Demographically favorable doesn't mean "leading in the polls".
What you're seeing as a trend over time is really just a trend across region. In states that are inherently favorable to Hillary, more undecideds break her way. Vice versa for Obama, which includes the March primary of Mississippi. We needn't invent a new explanation for an effect that is as old as polling itself.
the only time I've seen Gallup attempt to correlate it's tacking poll with primary results was on Feb. 4th, when they revealed that Clinton had a double digit lead among voters in Super Tuesday states. She ended up winning the popular vote that day by less than 1%.
Clinton outperformed in OH, TX and PA because they were demographically favorable states for her, and therefore the universe of undecideds in each state were composed largely of voters who were demographically inclined to support her. Obama tends to outperform in states that are favorable to him for the same reason, as we saw throughout the month of February.
There's been exactly one significant change in Gallup polling since Feb. 6th, and that was way back in the end of March when Obama first started leading by a statistically significant margin. This divides the entire two-person Democratic primary into exactly two parts: one, where we had a race that was statistically tied and bad polling samples or ephemeral media cycles occasionally bumped one candidate or the other into the 50% range for a day or two; and now the current cycle, where Obama leads by a statistically significant margin and bad samples or bad media cycle occasionally propel Clinton into a one-or-two day tie. That's it. Unless this tie continues for a week or more, which it won't, then we're still looking at an Obama lead of 8-to-10 points, same thing we've seen since March. It's those long term trends, and not simply the statistical noise represented in each day's movement, which should inform our analysis of where things currently stand.
I never understood why positive poll results for one candidate (even wrongly positive results, even ridiculously wrong results) is supposed to demonstrate bias for a candidate. Does anyone understand that candidates gain nothing by winning polls, but only by winning elections? That's not entirely true, candidates can get some fundraising milage out of surprising poll results, but it's not exactly like Obama's running broke and calling on Zogby to bail him out. If anything, Obama suffers from inflated poll numbers time and time again, because the expectations game keeps going decisively to Team Hillary. This claim of bias just makes no sense to me.
Cleverly, Obama flipped off one of the cameras filming him at the time and not the other, which you can clearly tell simply by reading the minds of the people in his live audience. It's just the kind of weasely, woman-hating thing we've come to expect from his campaign.
Me too. I just want to stop us from making the same mistakes we did in Ohio and California, looking at a series of polls that shows us at 46-43 and thinking "the race is within ten points!" rather than "Obama's up to 43, we're almost to single digits." When you're in a state with demographics as unfavorable as PA, you have to figure that most of these undecideds are going to end up sticking with the known quantity rather than taking a risk. It's possible that they won't, but we haven't seen any evidence of it yet.
Still not a single poll showing Obama above 50%. Don't let expectations get out of whack, guys. When neither candidate it a two way race is at 50, the question is: which way will the undecideds break? SUSA pushes them harder than anyone, and it looks like they're still breaking for Hillary. It'd be nice if Obama can keep this base and grow a little, then maybe we'll look at only a 10-8 point margin.
Well, then, I agree with your analysis. By substituting Clinton/McCain's context for his own, he makes a convincing case that he understands these voters and these times better than they do. The attack loses it's potency almost immediately. It'd be interesting to see the same poll conducted, except put question 2 after question 3 and see how many people still think Obama is an elitist after hearing him on get back on message.
That was the original context of Obama's remarks: people are beyond believing in the potential of Washington to help their economic situations, so they look for comfort in the institutions and traditions they can depend on to help get them through.