MyDD :: 3 Polls in the Past 10 Days Shows Hillary's lead slashed.

3 Polls in the Past 10 Days Shows Hillary's lead slashed.

by vwcat, Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:06:52 AM EST

The Hill is reporting that 3 polls conducted over the past 10 days are showing Barack Obama cutting Hillary's lead to single digits.
This is good as this shows not only a real race in Democratic Primaries but, People are beginning to pay more attention and are making up their minds.
I personally do not want a Hillary nomination as this would bring out all the republican base to vote and cause many democrats, myself included, to seriously think about staying home.
It would also bring more of the uphevals and rancor that began in the early 90s. It's been an exhausting era and one that has been one big battle after another.
I am also not to happy about the prospect of a Bush/Clinton dysfunctional dynasty. ugh.

From the Hill:

April 20, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has harnessed a wave of positive fundraising press and parlayed it into a small but consistent surge in nationwide polls, creating what is looking more and more like a dual-frontrunner race for the Democratic nomination for president.

At the same time, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) and former Sen. John Edwards's (D-N.C.) campaigns make the case that national polls aren't nearly as significant as state polls, since the contest is decided on a state-by-state basis.

Obama trails Clinton by two, four, and five points in the most recent Rasmussen, CNN and USA Today/Gallup polls, respectively, after consistently trailing by double-digit margins through March.
He also trails by seven points in the most recent Time magazine poll, conducted two weeks ago.

A number of polls continue to show the race in double digits. But the new, closer national polls are unprecedented in the months-old Democratic battle.

The three closest polls, all conducted in the last 10 days, come after Obama's fundraising totals for the first quarter unexpectedly rivaled Clinton's. Obama actually tapped many more donors than Clinton and, over the last week, it was revealed that he raised more for the primary campaign.

You can read the rest of the article here:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obam a-closes-the-gap-in-national-polls-2007- 04-19.html

Tags: Hillary clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, election 08 (all tags)

Permalink :: 19 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: 3 Polls in the Past 10 Days Shows Hillary's le (none / 0)

I wonder why they left out the Fox and WP/ABC polls? Oh I know it would not fit with their theory of the collapsing Clinton campaign.

The RCP average is currently Clinton +9.7%

Clinton 34.1%
Obama 24.4%
Edwards 16.0%
Gore 15.2%

With Gore taken off Clinton's average would be even higher.

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

by robliberal on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:25:49 AM EST

Re: 3 Polls in the Past 10 Days Shows Hillary's le (none / 0)

As I talked about yesterday, it is difficult to average polls right now, because there are three distinct types: the Edwards-Clinton-Obama three-ways, the all candidates with Gore, and the all candidates without Gore. All of this makes the situation a little more difficult to gauge. Not to mention the way they define primary voters, and the way in which they push undecideds.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:37:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 Polls in the Past 10 Days Shows Hillary's le (none / 0)

I agree with the your point that the polling is alot tighter than is being shown. That is why I posted this mostly. Some of the postings show Hillary with a huge lead and some show her in a virtual tie. Though I tend not to put alot of stock in the polling right now, I wanted to show the volitility of the polling and post something showing the different numbers.
I tend to agree with you on the fact that it is more of a 3 way with no real front runner.

by vwcat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:22:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

RV polls with Gore: averages (none / 0)

April RV polls with Gore: from RCP

Poll    Date    Sample    Clinton    Obama    Edwards    Gore    Spread

FOX News    04/17 - 04/18    RV    41    20    12    16    Clinton +21.0

USA Today/Gallup    04/13 - 04/15    504 RV    31    26    16    15    Clinton +5.0

CNN    04/10 - 04/12    RV    30    26    12    15    Clinton +4.0

LA Times/Bloomberg    04/05 - 04/09    557 RV    33    23    14    13    Clinton +10.0

Average, 04/05 - 04/18, RV, Clinton (33.75%), Obama (23.75%), Edwards (13.5%), Gore (14.75%)

Clinton +10.0 over Obama in this type of polls in April so far. But, Fox News is the outlier skewing this.

Average (Non-Fox), 04/05 - 04/18, RV, Clinton (31.33%), Obama (25%), Edwards (14%), Gore (14.33%)

Clinton +6.33 over Obama in this type of polls in April so far.

by NuevoLiberal on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:04:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

All Adults polls with Gore: averages (none / 0)

April All Adults polls with Gore: from RCP

Poll Date Sample Clinton Obama Edwards Gore Spread

ABC News/Wash Post 04/12 - 04/15 Adults 37 20 14 17 Clinton +17.0

Gallup 04/02 - 04/05 491 A 38 19 15 14 Clinton +19.0

Averages: Clinton (37.5%), Obama (19.5%), Edwards (14.5%), Gore (15.5%)

With a whopping 18% lead, this looks like a clear winner for Hillary.

Gore and Edwards are essentially tied in this and RV polls, with a narrow edge to Gore. And they're both within 5 pts off Obama for 2nd spot.

So, perhaps Hillary's best bet is to increase voter drives everywhere, before the primaries. That's an incentive for Team Hillary toget everyone registered as Democrats (and it's good for the party and the democracy).

by NuevoLiberal on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:22:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I suppose that "all adults" here refers (none / 0)

to Democrats + Democratic leaning registered independents and third party folks + democratic leaning unregistered voters. I haven't checked the wording in the polls to confirm this.

by NuevoLiberal on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:34:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

LVs, and three way polls, etc (none / 0)

I'll do as time permits later.

It has been my observation Edwards gains considerably when we go from multi-way to three-way, and not that much when we go from multi-way with Gore to multi-way without Gore.

This I think means that Edwards stands to gain from non-top-three and non-Gore candidates more than from Gore.

The two time polls Jerome used to claim Edwards stands to gain most from Gore running are apparently mistaken because in the Time/SRBI polls he used to reach this conclusion:

Time 04/05 - 04/09 493 RV 33 26 25 -- Clinton +7.0

Time 03/23 - 03/26 511 RV 31 24 16 15 Clinton +7.0

the earlier one was multiway with Gore, buy the later one was three-way.

In fact, my observation of polls comparing:

multiway with Gore
multiway witout Gore

have generally shown a split of Gore's voters as going for (roughly): HRC (40%), Obama (20%), Edwards (20%), others (20%).

~~~~~~~~

It will also be interesting how four-way polls, i.e. HRC-Obama-Gore-JRE type, would look like.

by NuevoLiberal on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:52:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

turnout will be very low (none / 0)

Will turnout even reach 20 percent in any primary? I doubt it.

All of these polls are sampling large numbers of people who will never vote in a primary.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:27:56 AM EST

Re: turnout will be very low (none / 0)

yes! the theory is spreading!

by Chris Bowers on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:35:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no offense, Chris (none / 0)

But I have been saying this for a while! Back before Vilsack dropped out, robliberal used to mock me for saying Hillary would finish fourth in Iowa.

When I talk to the Democrats in my precinct who actually showed up to caucus in January 2004 I cannot find Hillary supporters. I'm sure she has some in my precinct, but I am not finding them yet. Turnout in 2004 was about 125,000 in the caucus--I don't know what that percentage is, but I'm sure it's less than 20 percent.

John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

by desmoinesdem on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:48:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no offense, Chris (none / 0)

Oh, I know you have been talking about it for a while. I just think there is a growing way for people to articulate this problem with polling, en masse. That is what is spreading. Soon, it will become as conventional as pointing out that a poll is oversampling one partisan group or another.

by Chris Bowers on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:53:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no offense, Chris (none / 0)

after attending a Nevada opening of Obama's office in Vegas I wonder if the same thing will happen in Nevada 200 people showed up to meet eat and hear from a campaign offical. The staff stuck me as extremely capable in organizing for the caucus in January, one point that stuck with me is how few voters they got in 04 for the caucus and that 40,000 votes should win us the state, Edwards may have some union support and Obama the grassroots but where is Hillary going to find the caucus goers here.

Obama! because 51% isn't enough!

by nevadadem on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:15:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: turnout will be very low (none / 0)

The polls always capture a bunch of Independents who state that they lean Democratic. They become part of the total polling sample and the makeup of the poll. Yet, they are the least likely group to show up in the primaries. You get a polling picture that is skewed towards Obama and Edwards and shortchanges Clinton, because Independents as a group are not as likely to favor Clinton than rank-and-file Democrats do. Take this group at their usual primary participation and weigh accordingly, and the numbers go up for Clinton and down for Obama and Edwards in any of these polls.

While it is true that the likely primary vote is not going to be 40% and that of those 40+% who now claim that they will be going ot the primaries only half will probably do, that is spread out over all candidates. For some odd reason some here assume that that skews the poll numbers in Clinton's favor. I don't see any evidence for that at all. Current Clinton voters in general voice a very strong preference for her. Support of both Edwards and Obama, but particularly Obama, is somewhat softer, not as strongly convinced as it is for Clinton. Being strongly convinced of a candidate translates into "showing up at the polling booth," and responses to those types of questions in polls are instrumental in gauging who eventually decides to show up at the polls at all. I submit that the strong preference shown to Clinton by many of her current supporters spells good news for her. Obama's current support is across-the-board softer and also younger, both troubling indicators. The youth vote, where Obama is strongest, is amongst partisans generally the least likely to show up come primary time.

One other factor to keep in mind is that Clinton has a clear majority of current first AND second choice votes amongst the top 3 candidates (generally over 60%) and can draw from that pool for potential support whereas Obama and Edwards generally have much less than that, in fact Edwards shows only about 30% of respondents who have him as their first OR second choice. That would be his Democratic primary glass ceiling of sorts, because he would have to convince many of his "second choicers" to make him their first choice in order to move up, a cache of potential Edwards voters that is very small at this point.

If we are to expect low primary turnout again rather than the 39% to 45% who currently state they intend to vote in the primaries, you have to assume that Clinton has an additional edge, because the groups that are generally the least likely to vote at all (but voice all intentions to do so "this time" and participate happily in all polls) currently gravitate towards candidates other than Clinton.

by georgep on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 04:47:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't tell Momma ... (none / 0)

But Obama is down double digits.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id= 3053012&page=1

by dpANDREWS on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 08:52:16 AM EST

Sure, if we're cherry-picking polls (none / 0)

by mihan on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 Polls in the Past 10 Days Shows Hillary's le (none / 0)

Like Chris, who had started a theory and has been picked up by other blogs (not all are democratic ones but, newsy kinds), it is being debated now that the polling is probably not that accurate.
That the race is much closer and Hillary's support is probably very soft.

by vwcat on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:26:34 AM EST

Re: 3 Polls in the Past 10 Days Shows Hillary's le (none / 0)

Let us know when a poll shows Obama ahead. So far not a single one has shown that, in fact the last two polls show a widening gap again. Further, recent state polls show Clinton a lot stronger than Obama across the board, in MA, NJ and PA.

Perhaps wishful thinking is trumping logic here. If the race is supposedly "closer," should some polls not be showing an Obama lead, some larger, some less so, and some showing a Clinton lead, to arrive at the median of a "tied" or "very close" race? Is the theory pushed here that ALL polls except the closest ones (i.e. Rasmussen) are garbage and not to be considered? Like I said, wishful thinking sometimes crowds out logical thinking.

by georgep on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 10:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Slipping and sliding... (none / 0)

No matter how you slice it you can't deny that Hillary's numbers are headed in the wrong direction. You can argue about just how rapidly her numbers are decling, but you can't deny the fact that she inherited a huge lead from her husband and that since the actual campaigning has begun she has lost a good portion of that lead.

Imagine for a moment that she was not married to Bill Clinton and thus would not have begun this campaign with a 20+ point lead... imagine that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton had started off even--in that case Obama would be the frontrunner with Edwards in second and Hillary last. This is a good measure of the relative strengths of the candidates on their own merits. Since the campaign began both Obama and Edwards have gained ground while Hillary has lost ground.

She can only ride her husbands coat-tails just so far. With nine months to go those coat-tails of his are starting look a bit threadbare...

by Mystylplx on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 01:27:28 PM EST

Re: Slipping and sliding... (none / 0)

Reading many comments here right after the 2006 mid-terms, Clinton was supposedly going to be a non-starter, limping into third place right from the start, then just "going away" quietly. It obviously did not work out that way so far, quite the opposite.

The race looks largely unchanged, is at 9.7% in the RCP averages and Clinton is in solid double-digit territory if Gore is not considered.

by georgep on Fri Apr 20, 2007 at 02:54:12 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.