Polls, polls, polls...

[BrettStah]

National Gallup tracking poll, showing Obama with what is apparently his largest lead ever over Hillary:
http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/033008DailyUpdateGraph1_ponm_bf730lslmnvp2.gif

To point out again how stupid it is to try to use states' general election electoral college votes as some sort of valid argument:

New York poll #1 (McCain vs. Hillary):
http://www.barbierfamily.com/shared/2008-03-31_0811_mccain-v-clinton.jpg.png

New York poll #2 (McCain vs. Obama):
http://www.barbierfamily.com/shared/2008-03-31_0812_mccain-v-obama.jpg.png

[aindik]

I'd like to see a poll of voters who have already voted in primaries.
Question 1: For whom did you vote in the Democratic Primary?
Question 2: If your state's Democratic primary were held today, for whom would you vote?

[grondramb]

If you are gonna look at states then battle ground states would be the logical ones to consider. Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio have been the tipping red/blue states lately.

[BrettStah]

Latest Rasmussen poll in Pennsylvania shows the gap closing:
Clinton, 47% --- Obama, 42% --- Undecided, 11%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

I'm not convinced it's closed THAT much already... Clinton has been really ahead for awhile there - 15-20 points ahead not long ago.

[Redux]

Latest Rasmussen poll in Pennsylvania shows the gap closing:
Clinton, 47% --- Obama, 42% --- Undecided, 11%

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

I'm not convinced it's closed THAT much already... Clinton has been really ahead for awhile there - 15-20 points ahead not long ago.12 points ahead in PA now according to both USA & Quinnipiac. A tightening race but the bad news for Obama supporters is it raises expectations.

Obama win (impossible) she quits.
Clinton wins 3-4 points, she's marginalized to the point of pity.
Clinton wins high single digits she stays in but off the front page.
Clinton wins > 9 there is some remaining momentum into Indiana (NC is lost) and with a Clinton victory there life becomes entertaining for us political junkies.

[JP]

12 points ahead in PA now according to both USA & Quinnipiac. A tightening race but the bad news for Obama supporters is it raises expectations.

Obama win (impossible) she quits.
Clinton wins 3-4 points, she's marginalized to the point of pity.
Clinton wins high single digits she stays in but off the front page.
Clinton wins > 9 there is some remaining momentum into Indiana (NC is lost) and with a Clinton victory there life becomes entertaining for us political junkies.It could be troubling for Obama, yes. Look for her campaign to do what it did in Ohio - declare that as Obama has managed to cut her 20-point lead in half that it's a huge loss for him if he doesn't win.

She did the same thing with Texas, as I recall, try to over-inflate expectations for Obama so she can crow when he doesn't get over the bar she's raised higher for him.

[pdhenry]

And we know how Texas went. I suspect that the delegate totals will be closer than the polls indicate even if Clinton wins the delegate majority.

[JP]

And we know how Texas went. I suspect that the delegate totals will be closer than the polls indicate even if Clinton wins the delegate majority.Obama hasn't got a caucus to make up the difference in PA, though, so he'll have to take a cut to his pledged delegate lead. It won't be a big one by most predictions, however.

There's a couple district-by-district breakdowns out there, like this one here (http://www.keystonepolitics.com/blog/dannybauder/pa-delegate-predictions). It reckons with a 58/42 (16 point) Hillary victory in the raw vote she'll only gain on Obama by 21 delegates in the best case scenario, and it may be as few as 10. To stay on track to catch him in pledged delegates by the end of the primary season she needs to gain on him by 48.

[smak]

PA is 47-42 in the latest Rasmussen poll.

-smak-

[RegBarc]

The averages of the biggest polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

I've always found that site helpful. I was an addict when last election was at its peak.

[RegBarc]

Here's an average of the Pennsylvania D polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

[TheIndependent]

Polls, polls, polls...

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/+2006/walesa-lech.jpg

[smak]

The averages of the biggest polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

I've always found that site helpful. I was an addict when last election was at its peak.

Yah, they're pretty good. They're the only place i've seen the +115,000 Obama votes that nobody counts towards his popular vote numbers.

-smak-

[BrettStah]

Here's another poll - this one the RCP poll that aggregates the other polls into a super-duper poll of sorts:

http://www.barbierfamily.com/shared/rcp_penn_poll_average_4-2-08.jpg.png

[pdhenry]

Here's another poll - this one the RCP poll that aggregates the other polls into a super-duper poll of sorts:
If I understand how they aggregate the data for that there's a time lag in the data (because the surveys it aggregates occur over some period of time) so it will be slower to reflect the improvement in Obama's numbers

[BrettStah]

Here's another poll - this one the RCP poll that aggregates the other polls into a super-duper poll of sorts:
If I understand how they aggregate the data for that there's a time lag in the data (because the surveys it aggregates occur over some period of time) so it will be slower to reflect the improvement in Obama's numbers
I confess that I do not know the particulars involved in generating that chart - I just liked the recent trends showing Hillary's numbers declining while Obama's numbers are increasing. :)

Expect some more kitchen sink attacks on Obama in the coming days to try to slow down his gains...

[grondramb]

Here's another poll - this one the RCP poll that aggregates the other polls into a super-duper poll of sorts:
If I understand how they aggregate the data for that there's a time lag in the data (because the surveys it aggregates occur over some period of time) so it will be slower to reflect the improvement in Obama's numbers

I've discussion of, but nothing conclusive about how RCP and Pollster calculate their trend lines.

I have a friend with a PhD from MIT who tried to reverse engineer Pollsters curve before the New Hampshire Democratic primary and concluded "I have not f***ing idea how they did it."

That said, I like Pollster's graphs because they show the scatter of the polls they are using. You can second guess whether they are trending correctly and you can look at outliers to see if they have known biases.

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzDems600.png

I think, looking at everything, that Jpriller was right and I was wrong after the Wright thing, that the tracking polls are showing mainly an oscillation rather than the Wright thing being pivotal.

But looking at all the polls I think its an oscillation riding on a 3-4% Obama lead that is reasonably steady rather than showing a trend either up or down.

How subject to change that is really depends of how firm you think Obama's numbers are. The opinion of Hillary is really - half the country can stand her, maybe 15-20% actively like her and the rest would support her if they have not better choice.

[JP]

I think, looking at everything, that Jpriller was right and I was wrong after the Wright thing, that the tracking polls are showing mainly an oscillation rather than the Wright thing being pivotal.I wouldn't say you were completely wrong about the Wright thing, I'm sure it did have an effect on Obama's numbers. But the place to see that expressed isn't Obama vs Hillary, it's Obama vs McCain. Obama and Hillary have been and likely will continue to see-saw past each other, as each campaign gets good and bad news cycles (Wright, Bosnian sniper-fire, surrogate foot-in-mouth, denouncing and rejecting, etc) that effect Dem (not general election) voters.

How subject to change that is really depends of how firm you think Obama's numbers are. The opinion of Hillary is really - half the country can stand her, maybe 15-20% actively like her and the rest would support her if they have not better choice.I dunno if the graph supports that. It looks to me as if Hillary's had about the same support for the last six months, not much wavering one way or the other, as Obama's sucked up all but the last few bits of uncommitteds - that's when his line leveled off in the plot above, when he picked up just about everybody not already for Hillary.

To rise any farther he has to knock some supporters out of her column, and the graph shows so far that's not happening in any big way. Of course this late in the primary race he doesn't need to rise any further compared to Hillary, if he can keep from dropping he can coast to the nomination.

[grondramb]

How subject to change that is really depends of how firm you think Obama's numbers are. The opinion of Hillary is really - half the country can stand her, maybe 15-20% actively like her and the rest would support her if they have not better choice.I dunno if the graph supports that. It looks to me as if Hillary's had about the same support for the last six months, not much wavering one way or the other, as Obama's sucked up all but the last few bits of uncommitteds - that's when his line leveled off in the plot above, when he picked up just about everybody not already for Hillary.

To rise any farther he has to knock some supporters out of her column, and the graph shows so far that's not happening in any big way. Of course this late in the primary race he doesn't need to rise any further compared to Hillary, if he can keep from dropping he can coast to the nomination.

I'm not sure our positions are that contradictory. If she has real support from 20% of the country that would be about 40% of Dems and Dem leaning independents. That consistent with undecideds going to Barak but Hillary not slipping much.

What I'm not confident of and where you may disagree is with how firm Barak's numbers are.

I tend to view him as great speaker who is more liberal than the bulk of the voters, particularly undecideds. Thus I view his support as subject to some erosion if we ever get focused on issues.

As I understand it, you view his support as more fundamentally grounded.

[BrettStah]

Obama may have problems with a different religious mentor - here's what another mentor is quoted as saying about the whole planet, not just the U.S.:

I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already on fire! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.

That's pretty incendiary language (no pun intended) - aren't religious leaders supposed to preach peace and harmony, and not about setting the planet on fire and bringing divisiveness?

[JP]

I'm not sure our positions are that contradictory. If she has real support from 20% of the country that would be about 40% of Dems and Dem leaning independents. That consistent with undecideds going to Barak but Hillary not slipping much.I see, I thought your 20% was just of Dem voters, meaning about half of her support in the graph was firm support and the other half capable of wavering. As there hasn't been much wavering in her support over the last 6 months, not even as Obama was rocketing upwards, I think that tells us her supporters are heavily weighted toward "firm".

What I'm not confident of and where you may disagree is with how firm Barak's numbers are.

I tend to view him as great speaker who is more liberal than the bulk of the voters, particularly undecideds. Thus I view his support as subject to some erosion if we ever get focused on issues. I disgree. Look at any issues poll you like, most Americans like liberal ideas better and like the idea of Dems making the decisions on most issues: healthcare, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, the mortage and credit crises, etc. Actually concentrating on the issues is only going to help Obama, as he's positioned where a majority of Americans want us to be headed.

Pretending to concentrate on the issues, i.e. conservapundits and allied wingnuts wailing that he's going to raise taxes through the roof and immediately surrender to the terrorists and the economy will collapse and WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!, that's something else. That's not discussing the issues, that's just the same tired old fearmongering. Of course many of the people who were capable of falling for that in the past, for example in 2004, may well fall for it again. It's just a question of how many people do.

[JP]

I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already on fire! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed! Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division.Bah. The KJV may be less accurate, but it's lyrical. :)

[grondramb]

I tend to view him as great speaker who is more liberal than the bulk of the voters, particularly undecideds. Thus I view his support as subject to some erosion if we ever get focused on issues. I disgree. Look at any issues poll you like, most Americans like liberal ideas better and like the idea of Dems making the decisions on most issues: healthcare, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, the mortage and credit crises, etc. Actually concentrating on the issues is only going to help Obama, as he's positioned where a majority of Americans want us to be headed.

... that's just the same tired old fearmongering. Of

Well, like everything else its good to define terms and separate issues from rhetoric.

Take "liberal" and Iraq. Since this is nation building without economic benefit but we are there now and obligated, I would argue it was liberal to invade and conservative to stay.

With regard to new programs, they certainly can be subject to rhetorical fear mongering.

That said, there are only three ways to pay for new programs:

They can pay for themselves with cost savings or profits, they can be paid by going into debt or new taxes.

I suspect the average tax paying American understands we are already in enough debt and have high enough taxes.

What they probably don't realize but it would be good to examine is that quitting a war half way through is less likely to produce a peace dividend than winning it or not starting it in the first place.

[JP]

Well, like everything else its good to define terms and separate issues from rhetoric.

Take "liberal" and Iraq. Since this is nation building without economic benefit but we are there now and obligated, I would argue it was liberal to invade and conservative to stay.That's an interesting attempt at sloughing off blame for this disaster, but we didn't invade anything like "liberally". We invaded neoconservatively, shrieking hysterically about WMD and Al Qaeda ties and mushroom clouds, having planned no further ahead for the post-war phase than "pull down Saddam statures, receive flowers and candy from grateful population, return home in triumph".

And it's not conservative to stay. There's no economic benefit and staying probably makes our national security worse rather than better, so there's no clear national interest. The conservative thing to do would be to say "this isn't getting us anything we need, let's bug out".

With regard to new programs, they certainly can be subject to rhetorical fear mongering.

That said, there are only three ways to pay for new programs:

They can pay for themselves with cost savings or profits, they can be paid by going into debt or new taxes.

I suspect the average tax paying American understands we are already in enough debt and have high enough taxes.There you would be wrong. Ask aindik, he'll tell you there's no shortage of folks happy to soak the rich. Getting out of Iraq and letting most of George's tax cuts expire may be enough.

What they probably don't realize but it would be good to examine is that quitting a war half way through is less likely to produce a peace dividend than winning it or not starting it in the first place.We can't go back in time and stop us from invading, though if it were possible I'd have long ago gone back to have a quiet word with the designer of the "butterfly ballot".

But you'll have to explain to me how leaving could realistically - realistically, not giving in to wildest harebrained fantasy like "Al Qaeda taking over the country" - cost us more than staying. Neither the Sunnis nor the Shia are interested in giving Al Qaeda any foothold. Iraqis aren't interested in "following us home", Al Qaeda is determined to hit targets in America no matter what we do and staying actually helps them recruit and train with our troops as live targets. Iran, the nation with by far the most influence in the region (thanks to us taking out Saddam for them) aren't interested in chaos if they're the ones who have to deal with it rather than it being our problem.

So how can staying realistically cost us less than leaving?

[aindik]

Every American thinks his taxes are too high. The problem is that too many think that their rich neighbor's taxes are too low.

Obama is running a classic "I won't raise taxes on you, I'll raise taxes on him," leftist class warfare campaign.

[pseudonym]

Every American thinks his taxes are too high. The problem is that too many think that their rich neighbor's taxes are too low.

Obama is running a classic "I won't raise taxes on you, I'll raise taxes on him," leftist class warfare campaign.
Plenty of people in the income brackets that would see tax hikes (or restorations to the rates of a few years ago) support Obama.

[TheIndependent]

Every American thinks his taxes are too high. The problem is that too many think that their rich neighbor's taxes are too low.

Obama is running a classic "I won't raise taxes on you, I'll raise taxes on him," leftist class warfare campaign.
Plenty of people in the income brackets that would see tax hikes (or restorations to the rates of a few years ago) support Obama.

plenty of socialists love socialism, plenty of communists love communism

[BrettStah]

Superdelegate trends since Super Tuesday:

http://blog.prospect.org/blog/ezraklein/superdelegates.jpg