home

Gallup Daily Tracking: Where's the Momentum?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:47:09 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Check out today's Gallup Daily Tracking Poll showing the month of February, with latest results taken Feb. 22-23. (Larger version here.)

Hillary started February off with 47%. She's now at 46%. She rose 4% in the past few days.

Obama peaked on Feb. 17 at 49%. He had a 7 percent lead over Hillary then. Now, he's down 2 percent to 47% and has stayed flat the last few days. Hillary, meanwhile, is up 4 points from Feb. 17.

In the last few days alone, Obama has stayed flat while Hillary has risen 1%.

Where's the momentum?

< Live-Blogging the Oscars | Louis Farrakhan: Obama Is the Hope of the World >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gallup Daily Tracking: Where's the Momentum? | 112 comments (112 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The momentum (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by AF on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:50:21 PM EST
    is in the post-Super Tuesday primary results.

    she is asking about now (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by diplomatic on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:57:03 PM EST
    The past week.  Momentum is relative.

    Isn't it pretty damn obvious that Hillary is far from over?  Her support is holding.  She needs to close the deal in TX and OH and she is very much alive.

    Obama should be worried.  She has held on to that support despite 11 losses in a row and a hostile media.  Imagine how she might do if she starts winning again and Obama's bubble continues to fizzle.  (I won't say burst because it seems to be more of a slow motion thing)

    Parent

    In the past week (none / 0) (#9)
    by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:03:31 AM EST
    Obama has been gaining ground steadily in Ohio and Texas.

    Parent
    Looks like they could split (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:56 AM EST
    as has been predicted by many -- one state for Clinton, one state for Obama in early March. And then . . . many more weeks to Pennsylvania. There may be an upside: That keeps the media coverage on the Dems, and that worked in our favor the last time that we won the White House -- when the nomination wasn't clinched until June.

    Parent
    It's entirely possible (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:20:36 AM EST
    that Hillary will win Ohio and the primary in TX, but lose delegates due to the caucus portion in TX.  If that happens, I do not expect her to drop out of the race.  Nor do I believe she should drop out.

    Parent
    I will be very disappointed if she drops out (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:25:33 AM EST
    b/4 PA.

    Parent
    I don't believe she should drop out (none / 0) (#31)
    by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:27:05 AM EST
    Until she wants to.  I don't know whether she will drop out in the scenario you suggest, but I do know that her chances of winning the nomination will be somewhere between low and extremely low, depending on how she does in Vermont and Rhode Island and how convincingly she wins Ohio.

    Parent
    It depends on what the split (none / 0) (#33)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:32:36 AM EST
    is in TX.  If it's close then the super delegates may vote with the primary which could more than even it out.  Who knows?

    I expect her to win Rhode Island but isn't she behind in Vermont?


    Parent

    And NY Times has her only 5 delegates down (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:38:40 AM EST
    including super-delegates, in its (wisely) cautious count. (The different methods by different media in counting delegates is fairly maddening but makes for fodder for anyone to guess anything at all -- so it is very interesting to see which media, which blogs, which posters, use which count. Most useful may be sites/sources that average 'em all, at least for now.)

    Parent
    NYT: cautious in del/super d (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:40:51 AM EST
    counts but throws caution to the winds re reporting the opinions of McCain campaign aides re his relationship with female lobbyist.

    Parent
    Interesting point -- if only (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:43:47 AM EST
    the number-crunchers were doing Keller's job, huh?

    Parent
    One way or another (none / 0) (#37)
    by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:39:48 AM EST
    She has to pick up a lot (30-40?) of pledged on March 4 to have a real shot.  Obama is up by 150.  Hillary has to be within 50 by the convention to have a realistic chance.  After March 4, there aren't that many more delegates to win, and a bunch of them are in good Obama states like North Carolina.  

    But if Hillary wins the popular vote in OH and TX, she has a strong justification for sticking around to see if Obama self destructs -- regardless of the delegate math.

    Parent

    hello, Pennsylvania is huge (none / 0) (#46)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:57:27 AM EST
    And Hillary has the endorsement of Ed Rendell, the governor.  I think if Hillary can survive March 4th, she is the favorite going into Pennsylvania.  Plus one more month of Obama vetting.

    Parent
    PA (none / 0) (#56)
    by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:07:02 AM EST
    has 158 pledged delegates.  That's about Obama's lead now.  So if Hillary doesn't pick up any net delegates on March 4, she'd have to win 100% of the vote in PA to be tied.

    Parent
    By whose current count? They're all over (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:11:34 AM EST
    the place. (See list at end of electoral-vote.com site.) And caucus counts still not set in some states. I begin to think we're not supposed to know.

    Parent
    Puerto Rico, superdelegates, MI and FL (none / 0) (#66)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:30:42 AM EST
    everything needs to fall in place for Hillary to score a win before the convention.

    The more likely scenario is that we end up with an Obama/Clinton ticket by the time this is all over.  But she needs to win TX and OH for that to be realistic, imo.


    Parent

    She'll lose VT (none / 0) (#117)
    by spit on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:31:34 PM EST
    probably by a large margin. I don't think she ever had a shot there, though it's hard for me to rationally explain why -- Vermonters, especially the leftish sort, are sort of a special case when it comes to politics, but that's a hard thing to put my finger on for a clear explanation. Just a feeling from knowing VT reasonably well.

    Parent
    Except for those pesky Super Ds, MI and FL (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:33:37 AM EST


    Parent
    And don't forget (none / 0) (#88)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:33:12 AM EST
    What happens to the Obama phenomenon. If he keeps steady overall you are right. But if his numbers start going south...

    Parent
    Thanks, yes -- I meant split by delegate count (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:30:34 AM EST
    because of the far lower number of delegates to Latino/a districts in Texas, even if Clinton gets them and the popular vote. Then, if Obama gets more delegates in Texas, but she gets more in Ohio, it still could be close in delegate count, no matter who leads in the popular vote. And then, the one thing that would be certain is that superdelegates would really run from their phones (as some are doing in my state, so we read) and run for aspirin.

    Parent
    Yes and no (none / 0) (#22)
    by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:15:55 AM EST
    I have no problem with the primaries going on through March and would not call on Hillary to drop out regardless of what happens March 4.  On the hand, Bill Clinton has already said that Hillary needs to win Texas and Ohio.  So I think she will drop out if she doesn't win both those states.

    Parent
    I don't think she will. (none / 0) (#78)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:21:06 AM EST
    The delegate booty for both of them is likely going to be split, yet again.  Right now, Hill's 775 delegates away from the nom, Obama is 705 (according to CNN's tally)...this is no McCain/Hucvkabbe situation, no matter how the Obama campaign tries to paint it.  Plus there are around 400 or so Super Delegates who haven't declared yet AND the problem of Florida.  If Clinton's haters like Edward Klein (FTR, I am a diehard Clintonite, so I'm not at all praising Klein or his words) are right and Clinton will "do anything" to become President, this is probably going to the convention.

    Parent
    Huckabee, whoops! eom (none / 0) (#79)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:21:34 AM EST
    .

    Parent
    I think the word "win" (none / 0) (#94)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:43:36 AM EST
    is fluid.

    Obama says he "won" Nevada because he got one more  delegate.
    Obama says he "won" Alabama because he got the popular vote.

    Politics.

    Parent

    Those were all states (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:58:12 PM EST
    Hillary didn't have a chance of winning to begin with. Both Big Tent Democrat and I have said since early Feb. that we didn't expect her to win another state until March.

    If the momentum is there, why has he stayed the same the past several days and declined since Feb. 17?

    Parent

    That has not been the case (none / 0) (#18)
    by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:12:09 AM EST
    in Texas and Ohio.

    Parent
    not the best idea (none / 0) (#103)
    by Heather on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:42:04 AM EST
    to rely on one poll. there are others.

    Parent
    and she could have been competitive (none / 0) (#104)
    by Heather on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    in those states if she had planned to run a campaign past super tuesday. if she had actively campaigned in those states she could have won them.

    Parent
    Was. That was weeks ago. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:59:59 PM EST
    And even with all the wins in certain states, Obama never broke 50 nationwide. Interesting.

    Parent
    The momentum at present is wherever (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:56:36 PM EST
    the press says it is.  Looks like HRC has it today.

    About the Gallup Daily Tracking poll (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:57:26 PM EST
    from "mystery pollster" Mark Blumenthal's excellent discussion at nationaljournal.com; this may help address concerns about a lot of polls (callbacks, cell users, etc.): "Gallup provides political junkies with their daily fix using the same methodology as the standard Gallup Poll, including live interviewers, up to five "call backs" to those initially unavailable, even separate calls to cell phones to reach those without land line phone service. So now those insiders who secretly peeked at the daily Rasmussen Reports tracking numbers, despite condemning its interviewer-free automated methodology, can satisfy their craving for data from a trusted source they can openly discuss."

    I looked at that Link (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:00:43 AM EST
    As McCain has been racking up the states, he's soared up to 65%.  The Republican party is uniting behind him.  For better or worse for them.

    As Obama racks up the states, he's dropped a % point.

    The party is not uniting behind Obama.

    I thought he was supposed to be a uniter.

    I know why he's not.

    look closer (none / 0) (#41)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:47:35 AM EST
    on super tuesday, she had a 13 pt lead.

    As he has been racking up states, he now leads by 1. Thats a 14 pt swing.

    Parent

    Many in the media said... (none / 0) (#44)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:54:55 AM EST
    that Obama had the momentum going into Super Tuesday, but if you look at that chart it was Hillary who had a massive spike right before Feb 5th, coming off that debate in L.A.

    The media has never properly analyzed Hillary's momentum (whe she's had it) or Obama's flatlining stagnation.  It's always "Obama has momentum"

    Parent

    flatlining stagnation (none / 0) (#48)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:58:49 AM EST
    heh

    look at the poll of polls link down in the latest comment.

    Parent

    When Obama has had flatline poll numbers (none / 0) (#52)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:05:19 AM EST
    Look, I am talking about moments during this campaign when Obama was NOT gaining in the polls but despite that the media claimed he had huge momentum.  That is the truth.  Regardless of his actual numbers they always love to claim he has momentum.

    But don't bother continuing to argue about this because it's irrelevant.  #1 it's a national poll #2 the media is not going to change anytime soon #3 we're 1 week away from all of these polls becoming irrelevant.

    I believe if Clinton can win both in Texas and Ohio she will go all the way to the convention.  I believe if she loses, she will lose the nomination.

    Pretty simple poll right there.

    Parent

    That is so (none / 0) (#47)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:58:06 AM EST
    and an interesting way to look back at this.

    Parent
    Since the debate (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by PennProgressive on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:51:02 AM EST
    Obama did not seem to have gained--and that is the most important thing to conclude from this poll. The entire MSM media said that in the debate she did not do enough to stop Obama's momentum. May be she did. Granted this is a national poll, and I will be very curious to see new polls from TX and OH, but the national poll should have picked up some of that momentum. We can not depend on polls---but at this point it gives some hope.

    Parent
    the MSM media was right in one regard (none / 0) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:57:15 AM EST
    Clinton's debate performances never have and never will do enough to stop Obama's momentum with the media.  The media thinks Obama always has momentum because they are a big part of creating that perception.  That perception then affords Obama an elevated platform in which to make his case which then more easily translates into votes, thus possibly creating real momentum.

    I've never heard the media say Hillary won a debate in the analysis that immediately follows it.  It is always a "Draw" to them at best for her.

    Parent

    I read (none / 0) (#77)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:07:08 AM EST
    on one of the larger sites, I think it was CNN, each pundit personally leaned towards Clinton for the California debate (haven't read anything for the last debate), even though CNN as a broadstroke painted it as a tie.  It pays to read the comments of each individual.

    Parent
    Are you aware (none / 0) (#84)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:23:00 AM EST
    of any Obama "bounce" from the Wisconsin win Cream? I haven't seen one other than in the little pointy headed talking heads. Not that there isn't one, just that I wouldn't take their word for anything.

    Parent
    None. No bounce. (More below) (nt) (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST


    Parent
    I'm not talking about swing (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:02:14 AM EST
    And look at where McCain was after super tuesday.

    And look at where he is now.

    The point that has to be confronted, is about what has happened since.

    Since super tuesday, Obama has won every state, some by huge margins, but has seen no real spike in the tracking polls because of those wins.

    Isn't that something to look at?

    Parent

    still not following (none / 0) (#53)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:05:43 AM EST
    he has been gaining.

    McCain spikes, obviously. The Republican race is over, for chrissakes.

    Parent

    ugh Tano, ugh (none / 0) (#55)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:06:58 AM EST


    Parent
    in other words Edgard (none / 0) (#54)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:06:30 AM EST
    Clinton has not collapsed.  Her supporters do not think "it's over"

    Anyone refusing to see that is just wasting your time, don't pay attention.

    Parent

    I Think There's More to It (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:10:53 AM EST
    I think the race is over but the party is divided and that's a very good situation.

    My point here is Obama needs to start mending fences.

    I'm looking at the same polling and coming to a conclusion about the state of the party.  Not so much the state of the race itself.

    Obama said, Clinton supporters would just naturally fall in line behind him, and so he's been racking up the states, and it's not really happening like that.

    My thesis:  Obama, or rather more specifically, the movement that supports Obama, is dividing the party.

    I think the polling here shows that.

    People want to tell me with or without super tuesday, you win 11 states in a row and you lose a percentage point in a national tracking poll and that doesn't mean anything.

    I think it does.

    Parent

    AAAAwwwe crap (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:11:45 AM EST
    The party is divided but that's NOT a very good situation.

    I wish you could edit comments.

    Parent

    March 4th will tell us if this is over (none / 0) (#64)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:24:15 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton and Obama are within a hundred or so delegates with neither able to clinch it.  The vetting has just begun for Obama.  

    Someone with such little inexperience can and will make a mistake eventually.  Hillary Clinton just needs to hang in there long enough.  Kind of like a poker tournament, as long as you have some chips you can hang in there and hope your opponents bluff away their chips or make a bad call.  Double up once or twice and you're golden.

    Parent

    I am hoping the debate will be telling (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:33:38 AM EST
    "save the best for last"

    She won't tone down that challenge she made in Ohio to explain himself.  She has made it clear that if he isn't going to act like a democrat, she isn't going to treat him like one.

    But, I submit that Obama has made many mistakes.  The media just hasn't concentrated their laser on him. Until now.

    Parent

    It won't be over until August (none / 0) (#80)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 04:59:45 AM EST
    Neither candidate is going to have a lock on the nomination and will need superdelegates to win.

    No matter what they say now, the SD's don't vote until August.  That's nearly six months away.

    With all the fawning positive coverage on Obama and the unrelenting negative coverage of Hillary, her numbers remained steady but his have peaked and are starting to fall.

    Think of it as a rope-a-dope strategy.  When Ali beat Foreman he did it by letting Foreman wear himself out attacking in the early rounds.  Then Ali went on offense and won the fight.

    Parent

    Since when is democracy divisive? (none / 0) (#82)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:08:24 AM EST
    It's a really trendy meme to say "we need to unite behind a candidate because the party is divided."

    What it usually means is "unite behind Obama."  Not coincidentally, it's Obama supporters saying it.

    Since when is the democratic process bad for the Democratic party?

    They will be holding the remaining primaries anyway, so why not let the votes in those states count?

    Parent

    If Obama sees it so, then the debate (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:15:04 AM EST
    this week would be a tightwire act for him, too. (The nation watches to see if he pulls out Clinton's chair again, etc.:-)

    Parent
    your posts don't indicate you think it is (none / 0) (#68)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:33:25 AM EST
    I certainly don't think it is.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:37:50 AM EST
    I don't think Jeralyn's post here means anything as far as the race is concerned.

    I think it means something about how the party is being divided.

    So maybe that might clear up what I'm trying to say.

    Maybe not.


    Parent

    allright (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:53:18 AM EST
    Well sometimes parties just divide.  I am not sure it is being divided on purpose but if it was I tend to think the media is the most at fault.  They fanned the flames of alleged race-baiting, they turned a lot of people bitter by being grossly unbalanced in their coverage, and they are irresponsible in their duty to inform the public accurately when reporting on the candidate's real positions.

    Parent
    I would've never said (none / 0) (#73)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:01:22 AM EST
    It was on purpose.

    Parent
    i know (none / 0) (#75)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:28:48 AM EST
    I get what you were trying to say.

    Parent
    Athough I would point out (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:08:00 AM EST
    Two of the main instigators, Markos Moulitsas and Arriana Huffington are ex-Republicans.


    Parent
    I didn't know... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 02:52:19 AM EST
    that kos was a former Republican, that explains a lot. His site has recreated the worst of the DLC's tactics.

    Just last week, he was calling the Clinton's "clintonistas," just like the Bush's in the early 1990s and suggesting that superdelegates are the instruments of a "coup." Some people never grow entirely out of their political childhoods....

    Parent

    Which means to me (none / 0) (#85)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:27:49 AM EST
    That while they may have become "liberals" they never outgrew their Clinton hatred. Larry Johnson over at NoQuarter is also an ex-Republican and he has a great story about how he actually met and talked with Hillary Clinton and had the audacity to actually stop mindlessly hating her and came to respect her.

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#91)
    by ineedalife on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:16:02 AM EST
    If it wasn't for the Clinton's robust support of Diane Feinstein Huffington would, by now, be making her own bid to be First Lady, in a Republican White House.

    Parent
    ugh... (none / 0) (#100)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:47:50 AM EST
    Seriously?  Are you really trying to say that the Republican primaries are anything like the Democrat primaries this year?

    Of course the GOP is going to all get behind McCain - there is about a 99% chance that he is going to be the Republican nominee.

    The same is not true about Obama.  The odds are good that Obama will be the nominee, but Clinton is most definitely not out of it yet.

    To compare the two situations shows your desire to discredit Obama even though the facts don't back you up.  

    Parent

    No true momentum (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07:55 AM EST
    has ever shown up in this primary cycle.  Reported momentum has been quickly dispelled.

    Why?  Who knows but I imagine that it's because voters, as opposed to those of us who tend to be more overtly political, have two candidates that they genuinely like.  If that were not the case, one of them should have pulled away by now.  I think  :-)

    I'm overtly political (none / 0) (#13)
    by AF on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:10:28 AM EST
    and I have two candidates that I genuinely like.  Used to have three.

    Parent
    By the way, your post up thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by RalphB on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:14:58 AM EST
    If both candidates are really close in attraction for the voters, I would expect exactly what we've seen so far.  As election day gets closer, polls get tighter.  It really says that the GOTV effort is what wins these things and, so far, Obama had had the better of that effort.  Except for CA and NH.


    Parent
    I Think the Point Is (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:11:18 AM EST
    Is that when more than 1/2 the country has voted, and you're winning that vote, that if there's no reflection of that here, then what's up?

    That's how I see it.

    I really would have expected, after state after state that Obama has been winning that the tracking poll would reflect those wins.

    The Republican tracking poll has reflected his wins.

    Wouldn't you have expected that?

    Look (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:37 AM EST
    McCain wins states and his daily tracking poll soars up to 65%.

    Obama wins states and he drops a percentage point.

    I'm not sure what the junkies would say about that.

    But anyway, that's the point here.  I think anyway.

    Parent

    as i noted above, look closer (none / 0) (#42)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:49:05 AM EST
    Obama has gained 14 pts. since he started racking up states after super tuesday.

    McCain is guaranteed to be the nominee, in case you havent noticed.

    Parent

    From 42 to 47 is 13? (none / 0) (#86)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:28:07 AM EST
    New math? Seriously he has gained a little, but I have to agree, with all the talk of momentum there really doesn't appear to be any.

    I wonder if the media narrative is about to force the democratic party into a really stupid decision. If Obama is really not managing to get the upper hand at this point it is cause for concern.

    What if we dropped the "Hillary must win TX and OH" bs? What if she keeps close and Obama doesn't really run away with it?

    Where did we get to this "she has to drop now" line anyway?

    Parent

    A "Wisconsn bounce" would have been (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:35:16 AM EST
    meaningful and was expected. This shows that it and the other wins were . . . well, not meaningless -- but other factors must be having some impact for his numbers not to go up more, after so many wins.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#60)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:12:22 AM EST
    So what are those factors?

    Lets discuss this.


    Parent

    Here are a few points (none / 0) (#87)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:30:45 AM EST
    1. Each candidate has a solid base of support,
    2. The base of support for Hillary is very firm, and despite all the "momentum" and "lost 11 in a row" it is not folding, imo sign of astounding strength.
    3. So far the Obama base seems to me to be the "bandwagon effect," he is popular, its hip to support him, no media challenge, etc. Now I am not saying its not solid, but it has not been tested yet. What will happen if he starts having a losing streak?
    4. What happens when he starts being attacked by the right wing and dmeonized?

    Without knowing 3) and 4) I think this thing needs to keep playing out. I think one side has shown the solidity of their support. Now let's the other sides.

    Parent
    One factor (none / 0) (#92)
    by ineedalife on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:21:29 AM EST
    His blowout wins were fueled by Republican crossover voting. The fact that they don't show up in this type of poll indicates they will not be there for him in the fall.

     One can argue how big of factor it is but it is a factor.

    Parent

    Bingo (none / 0) (#105)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:00:43 AM EST


    Parent
    For a poll of polls (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:57:10 AM EST
    from RCP:  LINK

    What I take away from this tracking poll (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:01:21 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton's support is resilient and the good news for Obama is that he has made very few or no mistakes to hurt himself.

    Good question! (none / 0) (#2)
    by Firefly4625 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 11:56:01 PM EST
    So, shall we hold our breath waiting for the media to ask it?

    Sure, as long as... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 06:34:21 AM EST
    ...I can sneak some oxygen when you are not looking. :)

    Parent
    the media will simply lie to our faces (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jim J on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:09:28 AM EST
    on the delegate count, the same way they do with the debates, which they all say Obama either won or tied. They'll do the same with the delegates, she will be ahead and they will say she's behind despite the numbers on the screen. That's where we're at today. Worse than Pravda, who at least would have falsified the numbers too.

    Parent
    but you know who could clear that up? (none / 0) (#97)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:34:34 AM EST
    Howard Dean.  There would be no confusion about the delegate count if the DNC would take a more active role in setting the record straight.  Maybe they should have their own "official" count.

    Parent
    What this poll shows (none / 0) (#17)
    by Korha on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:12:07 AM EST
    is that both Obama and Clinton have very large and very loyal bases of support. But, of course, someone has to lose sooner or later. And what Obama did in February was rack up a probably decisive pledged delegate lead--something solid and real, not amorphous like national poll numbers.

    I'm awaiting what happens in Texas and Ohio with eager eyes.

    His pledged delegates may be "amorphous" (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:19:36 AM EST
    in the caucus states with processes that haven't set delegates yet. Tallies by media are premature in places like Nevada where, as we saw yesterday in the next step of the process, and as local press reported, "caucuses start all over again." Or they stopped, in the case of Clark County (Las Vegas) because of yet more chaos in the process. Same goes for Iowa and other caucus states that so far only picked local delegates to county conventions, and then still have state conventions, and won't have solid delegate splits to the national convention until summer.

    Parent
    Debates! (none / 0) (#19)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:12:46 AM EST
    I tried to make the point about Obama's flagging momentum and the role of debates in Hillary's support a few days ago on digby's site:

    http://www.haloscan.com/comments/digby/1916872951579831619/#739067

    Debates are key to Hillary's support. The media narrative (in the absence of debates) of momentum (about how all the good kids in the Democratic party are falling in line behind him) is key to Obama's support.

    State by state (with a few exceptions), the trends show Hillary's support increasing right after debates. The Obama camp will have to create a sh$t storm after Tuesday to recapture the media narrative that he has "teh momentum."

    Is there a debate Monday night? (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:15:10 AM EST
    If so, what time and what network?  Thanks.

    Parent
    I've Heard the Next Debate (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:17:05 AM EST
    Is this Tuesday.


    Parent
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:23:17 AM EST


    Parent
    Fascinating link and work by you (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:42:20 AM EST
    but now it makes me really nervous about the final debate and its effect. Thanks, though -- must have taken a lot of time and effort.

    Parent
    Seems to me that the light green line (none / 0) (#43)
    by Tano on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 12:51:59 AM EST
    Obama, was consistently below the dark green line on the left of the graph, as far as 13 pts. down,  but is now above. Y'all cant see a trend in that big picture???

    interesting related poll (none / 0) (#51)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:03:20 AM EST
    at the Gallup site on preferences among white Democratic voters correlated to religious attendance. Clinton not surprisingly has the edge among the those who attend weekly or more often, but amazingly the only subgroup that gives an edge to Obama is white men who seldom or never attend church. Even among white women who seldom/never attend church Clinton has a significant edge(slightly greater than Obama's edge with the similar non-church-going white men).

    also (none / 0) (#62)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:15:44 AM EST
    the preference margin between "nearly weekly and monthly" is quite small (about +5 for Clinton) overall and essentially the same regardless of sex. But in the "seldom/never" group there is a very wide swing by gender with Clinton getting a 17 point edge among women and Obama getting a similar 13 point edge among men. I wonder why the big (BIG!) disparity in this grouping when the others are much more aligned between genders.

    Anyone got any theories?

    Men who never attend chuch (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:24:14 AM EST
    hate strong women.  

    Parent
    Conversely, could it be that (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:28:27 AM EST
    strong women meet good men at church? (I did.:-)

    Parent
    Ah. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:30:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Of course Jeralyn doesn't mention... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Aaron on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:04:49 AM EST
    ...that the national polls mean virtually nothing in political races in America.  They're an indicator of public opinion at the moment, but not an indicator of how people vote in primaries.


    They also don't predict the future (none / 0) (#83)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:13:41 AM EST
    I still remember when the Big Dog was running third in the polls back in 1992, behind Poppy Bush and Perot.

    Never pronounce a Clinton dead until they do the autopsy.

    Parent

    Is it possible... (none / 0) (#95)
    by K Lynne on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 07:52:49 AM EST
    I haven't done the math or looked at the population vs. polling vs. likely voters, but since most of the remaining contests are primaries (where Hillary tends to do better), is it reasonably possible that Hillary will able to pull much closer or even pull ahead in the popular vote while still trailing in the pledged delegate count?  I would expect that would make things VERY interesting WRT the Super delegates...

    K Lynne (none / 0) (#96)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:35 AM EST
    Yes!  This is what I've been saying all along.  If Obama gets the delegate edge but Clinton has the popular vote as well as the most populous states, then what do we do?

    Parent
    joint ticket (none / 0) (#98)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:21 AM EST
    Flip a coin to see who gets Prez and who gets VP.

    Parent
    or better yet (none / 0) (#99)
    by diplomatic on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:35:48 AM EST
    Cage match, pay per view.

    Parent
    Pay per view? (none / 0) (#101)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    Pay per view!? No disenfranchisement please! ;-)  Has to be on the regular networks.

    (but otherwise GREAT IDEA!)

    I was thinking American Gladiator.

    Parent

    Kathy (none / 0) (#106)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    Reinstate  FL  &  MI,  so  we  don't lose  the  GE.

    Parent
    That's what I get (none / 0) (#110)
    by K Lynne on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    ...for not reading every message ;-).

    Has anyone done the math to figure out what kinds of margins HRC needs in the remaining primaries in order for this scenario to pan out?  Is this a reasonably likely outcome?

    -K Lynne

    Parent

    Look at the averages (none / 0) (#102)
    by Heather on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:40:44 AM EST
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/democratic_presidential_nomination-191.htm l

    He has been ahead nationally since early Feb. and today he is leading by 4points.

    Look at the chart and you will see momentum.

    the chart... (none / 0) (#108)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:17:51 AM EST
    ... shows a very obvious trend that is impossible to miss.

    And it is probably much more accurate, showing the average of several polls instead of relying on one poll that shows more favorable numbers to Clinton.  

    Parent

    And the averaged margin of error (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:19:46 AM EST
    probably is about 4 points. (Btw, RCP doesn't include the most reliable poll so far this year, Survey USA; it is included at pollster.com's averaging, although that site excludes another poll. Plus, RCP's average had Obama up by only a point and a half only a couple of days ago . . . and it will change again, and again, and again.)

    Parent
    it may be a tie nationally (none / 0) (#113)
    by Heather on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:34:53 AM EST
    but there is no denying that Obama went from 24 points before iowa, and 32 points on super tuesday to 46 points today (in less than 3 weeks.

    Hillary on the other hand hasn't been above 45 since novemeber.

    Parent

    Your link shows otherwise (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 11:33:58 AM EST
    Above 45 in January, in February. . . . National polling average, anyway (topic of this thread).

    Parent
    umm... (none / 0) (#111)
    by ajain on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:25:17 AM EST
    Momentum is most definately a media creation, but I think even if he doesnot have it in the national polls, he may have it in state-wide polls.

    Today, Quinnipiac University released a poll for Ohio where Hillary is still leading 51-40 but the gap has become smaller from the older poll showing 55-38(or something similar to that). So maybe that is what the percieved "momentum" is.

    However, looks like Hillary is playing hardball today.

    Composite national poll via pollster.com (none / 0) (#116)
    by RiderOnTheStorm on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 01:18:13 PM EST
    Pollster.com is probably the best place to follow all these -- they have a Composite poll table and graph which uses the results from Gallup, Time, CNN, Newsweek and quite a few others.  (Let's put aside  for a moment the statistical validity of simply combining the numbers from polls with very diverse methodologies.  If you're interested in that topic, there's a lengthy discussion at Pollster about it -- and it's fascinating.)

    There are as many interpretations of that data as there are people looking at it -- so here's mine:

    1. The race is too close to call.  The margin of error plus undecided (the "Keith number") exceeds the separation between the candidates.

    2. Temporary shifts of a few points one way or the other are far more likely to be statistical noise than real measurements.  They mean absolutely nothing.

    3. Senator Clinton has managed to slowly build her numbers over the past year-plus, but is instantly obvious that recent momentum belongs completely to Senator Obama.

     

    Rasmussen Reports (none / 0) (#119)
    by Oje on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 03:22:05 PM EST
    Has the same flat line standoff between Clinton and Obama around 45%:

    http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/daily_presidential_tracking_polli ng_history

    None of the tracking polls actually demonstrate momentum that I am aware of. "Teh momentum" for Obama is constructed from infrequent national polls and contract pollsters with horrible accuracies at the state level (ARG, Zogby, USA Today/GAllup): pollsters who are often commissioned by the same media outlets who seek media narratives about momentum.

    From Rasmussen: (none / 0) (#120)
    by tree on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    Monday's results also show John McCain continuing to hold a very modest lead against both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in general election match-ups. McCain now leads Obama 47% to 43% and Clinton 47% to 44%. McCain has consistently held a modest lead over Clinton but he moved ahead of Obama only in the past few days.

    Parent
    Gallup Daily Tracking: Where's the Momentum? | 112 comments (112 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment