You can conclude anything you'd like but should you wish to really know what is going, all you have to do id to just look at the trends obtained by using ALL the polls that have been taken since whenever. You'll see clearly and graphically who has been losing ground. Go on, click on the link and then come and pontificate.

ya know I wish you clinton hating democrats (who hate her 90% progressive rating) would just go 3rd party. its starting to really get on my nerves how you kossacks (which I am a member btw) hate Clinton but are in utter love with Edwards.

Edwards when in the senate had a 78% progressive record which is to the right of Byrd and Lieberman!!!! Clinton has a 90%!!!!!

it boggles the mind.. i guess Clinton has done a great job of coming off as a moderate.

ya know I wish you clinton hating democrats (who hate her 90% progressive rating) would just go 3rd party..

Oooooh, I really really really really wouldn't say that. Nader v. 2008 would be a bad thing.

If anything, the 3rd party challenge is one aspect of a Clinton nomination that has me most nervous.

So in a poll a year out from the general Hillary barely beats Giuliani. This is supposed to be good? I would say this result indicates that the public is finding itself once again in the position of having to choose between two candidates they don't like but have no choice. Very sad.

Campaign Diaries has just released its new very detailed rankings of Senate races. New Hampshire is high on the list! Check it out here.

Whatever happens, the Clinton campaign can't fault Kleefeld for effort.

But the rest of us would have to be fools to trust Kleefeld or TPMElectionClinton for complete polling/campaign coverage.

POLLING NEWS YOU WON'T FIND POSTED AT TPMELECTIONCLINTON

Quinnipac poll results from October 23-29:

October 31, 2007 - Treat For Giuliani As He Inches Ahead Of Clinton, Quinnipiac University National Poll Finds; Trick For Clinton As She Drops Overall

Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, leads New York Sen. Hillary Clinton by a razor-thin 45 - 43 percent, [even though] voters say 58 - 37 percent that President George W. Bush's low approval ratings will make it difficult for any Republican to be elected President, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Giuliani's lead reverses a 46 - 43 percent Sen. Clinton lead in an August 15 poll by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University, but Giuliani was up 49 - 40 percent May 3.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama gets 43 percent to Giuliani's 42 percent [while] Arizona Sen. John McCain ties Clinton 44 - 44 percent, wiping out a 47 - 41 percent Clinton lead August 15.

Clinton also has seen her favorability among American voters drop from 48 - 43 percent August 15 to 46 - 46 percent today.

In other head-to-head matchups in the current survey:

* Clinton leads former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson 46 - 41 percent and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 48 - 38 percent, with both leads down from August 15;

* Obama ties McCain 43 - 43 percent and beats Thompson 45 - 37 percent and Romney 46 - 36 percent;

* Former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards trails Giuliani 44 - 41 percent; ties McCain 42 - 42 percent, but beats Thompson 46 - 36 percent and Romney 47 - 34 percent.

You've got to be a foll

Actually, I'd suppose many voting Americans haven't decided yet.

But I'd also guess most American voters dislike liars, dissemblers, fabricators, triangulators and contortionists.

Wingnuts "hate."

Voters decide.

Clintonistas lie, smear, whine and ... cherrypick.

All you O-Bomb-A fluffers make me laugh.

Week in and week out, ever since O-Bomb-A announced, you've been puffing and thumping your little chests, throwing your cockeyed poll tantrums. One excuse after another why mean old Hillary Clinton was still polling ahead of your messiah.

We've heard the "no one polls cell phones" excuse.

We've heard the crooked pollsters excuse (a little paranoid , are we?).

And we've heard that polls so far out don't mean anything.

Yet, dumb-ass Barry and his gay-bashing tour has left him plummeting in the youth vote (while also continuing to decline in So. Carolina).

And the Clinton team is running circles around this phony with the latest post-debate spin.

Well, we're 60 days out now. B.S. Barry still ain't moving and the clock is running out.

O-Bomb-A ain't going nowhere because he doesn't have enough experience; it's repeatedly apparent as his campaign flails wildly... leaving the "Me Me Me Me Me" O-Bomb-A campaign where it always was: about nothing.

Bye-bye Barry. So glad to see you go!

Oh look.

I have a new pseud.

{fume}

But all you O-Bomb-A fluffers still make me laugh.

Week in and week out, ever since O-Bomb-A announced, you've been puffing and thumping your little chests, throwing your cockeyed poll tantrums. One excuse after another why mean old Hillary Clinton was still polling ahead of your messiah.

We've heard the "no one polls cell phones" excuse.

We've heard the crooked pollsters excuse (a little paranoid , are we?).

And we've heard that polls so far out don't mean anything.

Yet, dumb-ass Barry and his gay-bashing tour has left him plummeting in the youth vote (while also continuing to decline in So. Carolina).

And the Clinton team is running circles around this phony with the latest post-debate spin.

Well, we're 60 days out now. B.S. Barry still ain't moving and the clock is running out.

O-Bomb-A ain't going nowhere because he doesn't have enough experience; it's repeatedly apparent as his campaign flails wildly... leaving the "Me Me Me Me Me" O-Bomb-A campaign where it always was: about nothing.

Bye-bye Barry. So glad to see you go!

{/fume}

{fumigate}

...

JimJ, very worthy supporter of your candidate Hillary. Divisiveness and name calling may win the election for you, but Hillary can't govern.

"Support me or you're the enemy politics" is killing the nation.

the "progressive" blogosphere, which is now in the process of showing its true color -- Green.

Funny. With all corporate bundling, rebundling, hiding and disguising of Clinton contributions, I was sure "green" was Clinton's color.

JimJ, Get used to it. Many independents and THINKING Democrats will NEVER vote for Hillary for president. If she's elected by some slim margin or electoral college fluke, or gets appointed by the Supreme Court like her pal Bush, she'll be the most embattled president in U.S. history. So roll the dice with her nomination. And if she wins or the other Republican candidate wins, the nation LOSES.

Bush-Lite's supporters are going to mess around and put another republican in the White House.

the same people whining about Clinton now are the same who whined about Gore in 2000 and said he was the 'lesser of two evils' and voted for Nader... now you are salivating over him. well its too late to change your vote..

Do we detect a note of hysteria on Her Majesty's Secret Service?

If those of us not (yet) in the Clinton camp dare to criticize, well then we're clearly "haters." Never mind that nothing tops pacc's routine characterization of Obama supporters as "fluffers" for offensiveness.

If we express a preference for (gasp) another Democratic candidate before the primaries have even taken place, then we're clearly "Naderites" determined to throw the White House back to the Republicans. Respect the democratic process much?

Absolute belief in inevitability inevitably corrupts the mind, apparently.

By the way, I don't get the argument that criticizing Clinton at this juncture is like supporting Nader over Gore in the 2000 general election. The closest analogy available from 2000 would actually be something like supporting Bradley over Gore in the 2000 primaries. And in retrospect, that might not have been such a bad idea.

I'm no Hillary fan, but why would anyone expect her to 'take a hit' from a debate that about 27 people watched or heard about, most of them family members and the rest by mistake?

As you can see, in that chart Clinton recently has dropped about 5 points from her recent peak in mid-late October.

If you are wondering how to reconcile that with the pollster aggregation dcshungu linked: well, it is complicated. Realclearpolitics uses a simple recent-average approach. Pollster uses a more complicated regression formula. The upshot is that pollster's approach tends to show less random fluctuation, which is good. But it also tends to react more slowly to legitimate trend changes. In fact, a little reflection will tell you those are two sides to the same coin: you can't tell until after the fact what was random and what was a legitimate trend change, so by cancelling out random fluctuations you also necessarily react more slowly to legitimate trend changes.

I have no argument at all with that analysis, especially with the notion that aggregate polls tend to show real trends but that they react more slowly to trend changes. Any fall out from the debate (if any, which I do not expect because I think that it'd elevated HRC for having everyone gunning after her), would not become apparent until the next round of polls.

Looking at all the aggregate polls shows a flat line for Obama (low to mid 20s) throughout much of September and all of October and an uptick for Clinton in early to mid-October (approaching 50%), and then back down to where she had been before that (mid 40s), i.e., -5% or ~20% over Obama. The numbers that have been rock steady at about 12% have been Edwards, which can't be too encouraging for him.

gqmartinez wrote on November 3, 2007 11:13 PM:

Hillary is just like Bush... The same way that Al Gore was just like Bush. People on the left can have just as poor batting averages as a Bill Kristol.

That has not stopped Kristol from continuing to swing the bat and hitting nothing but air, so I do not expect that it would deter the lefties either.

If we want to consider electibility in the general, a sensible forecasting poll might be to poll Republicans on which Democratic candidate they might support. I say this because of a surprise I experienced in canvassing in Iowa recently. As I walked the streets wearing an Obama tee-shirt, some folks [out in their yards, but not at identified Dem houses] made a point of expressing some variant of their admiration for Obama.

One of these surprises was a guy who called at me to let me know that his neighbors were away. So as I retreated from their driveway, he then offered to collect the [Obama] materials to give to them later. He blew me away with, "I'm going to vote for Obama, and I'm a Republican."

When i look at this poll and i compare it to other poll results in October. I can conclude without a doubt that she has lost ground.

I had addressed that bogus claim earlier but I had given the link to graph of trends with Gore included. To fully appreciate just who has lost ground, we should look at the trends without Gore included.

I have the headline already, "Hillary Wins, Hillary Wins, Hillary Wins!!!," in New York, but loses to Mr. 9/11 over all. Storyline is that she so energizes the republican base that they come out in droves to vote against her. The democratic base is disheartened because of a choice between two republicans and fails to support her. She loses all light blue and purple states and ends up with just over 100 electoral votes. Bottom line, the nightmare continues for another 4 years.

My you're up early dc. Analysis, what analysis, it's pure opinion based, among other things, on facts eminating from repuke leaders concerning how your boss energizes their base and based, among other things, on your boss positioning herself as a "centrist."

I know you like this one, in poll after poll 70 percent of the population want out of Iraq yesterday and she wants to keep us there indefinitely. In fact a recent rasmussen poll indicates 56% of the population want out of iraq within a year and 22% want out now. I don't like rasmussen. It uses very questionable methodology and they skew to the right, time and time again, so it kind of makes you wonder about their polling methodology. This result is not quite 70, but "legitimate" polls have indicated 70%. How is your bosses positioning on keeping us there indefinitely "centrist"? Sounds kind of right-wing to me.

Now, you're "analysis" that you throw out all the time is based on cherry picked, questionable polling data that you twist to make your boss look inevitable.

signed dimwitted, uniformed, wacko, pinko, commie, anti-american, hillary-hater, left-wing, lefty, naderite, OCD, various mental disorders, etc. Hope I covered them for you to save you time.

I find the Clinton Haters absolutely hysterical these days.
"We say she bombed the debate. No one else agrees. Whaaaaa!"

So, someone posted this quote from HRC---
HRC: "Well I think I’ve been very clear about that too, we should not conduct or condone torture and it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn’t doing, we’re getting all kinds of mixed messages. [...]"

So, the poster highlighted the "...and it is not clear yet exactly what THIS ADMINISTRATION IS DOING..." part to criticize CLINTON, not BUSH!
Wow.

But the even more hysterical part is, the poster completely ignored HILLARY CLINTON'S OWN stated stand on torture in the exact same sentence, at the begiining:
HRC : Well, I think I've been very clear about that too, (QUOTE) we should not conduct or condone torture...

So, although HRC clearly states she is against torture, she is now being blamed by the Clinton Haters because Bush refuses to tell Hillary whether or not HE is allowing torture.

Whew. Very tortured logic, imo.

audit the polls, one question for you:

After today, can I talk about the New England Patriots being the "frontrunners" to win the Super Bowl, or would that imply to you that I already thought they won the Super Bowl?

I'm not sure how you determine a frontrunner; the very word tells you we are in the middle of the race -- thus no winner yet.

But when one has measurable data, such as these polls or the Patriots' record, you get to say the word "frontrunner" right out loud.

The way to make us all talk about YOUR candidate as the "frontrunner" is for YOUR candidate, whomever he is, to beat Clinton in some measurable way -- not just give his opinion, that he thinks he can beat her.
He need to put his numbers where his mouth is.

So far, we only have OPINIONS from all the other candidates' supporters, but their opinions are not backed up with any black and white numbers.

Clinton's backers have black and white numbers to support their contention that the race is still going on, but that she is currently the frontrunner, mid-race.

Make all the predictions you want, but predictions based on just opinions can be costly when you lose bets because of them.

For those of you like party-of-one who claim to be "eager" to support a Democratic candidate, but for whom DEMOCRATIC candidate Hillary Clinton is "not acceptable"...

imo, anyone who says they are "eager" to support a DEMOCRAT but finds the leading DEMOCRAT "unacceptable" is either not eager or not a Democrat.
So be it.

I am not a Democrat, but I am eager to support one.
For the primary I will be supporting Democrat Senator Clinton.
For the general I will be supporting whoever wins the primary for the Democratic Party.

Thank you for the opportunity to Write a Post-Essay in support of my "boss":

Michael wrote on November 4, 2007 9:50 AM:

My you're up early dc. Analysis, what analysis, it's pure opinion based, among other things, on facts eminating from repuke leaders concerning how your boss energizes their base and based, among other things, on your boss positioning herself as a "centrist."

Thank you for clarifying that your usual screed or rant has no factual basis whatsoever...as we had already suspected. My "boss" is not "positioning" herself as a "cebtrist", she is a centrist Democrat. That this is the case is evident by who her detractors are. The lefties think that she is a Republican "plant" or a Fifth Column among the Dems, while the rightwingnut cases, like the one I met in a cigar lounge here in NYC this weekend who is voting for Giuliani (!), think that she is a liberal! Conclusion: My "boss", like her husband before her, is squarely at the center of the American political divide, where most people are and where elections are won. That, more than anything, is what explains her success so far, as indicated by opinion after opinion poll. The only Repubs that a Hillary candidacy would "energize" in the GE are the 30% or so rabid wingnuts, who are still supporting Bush, and would never vote for her or, for that matter, for any other Dem. Come to think of it, I see little difference between left-wing and right-wing nut cases. Both extremes are rabid, despise centrism with a passion ("The only thing in the middle of the road is a dead skunk", they'd say), and are almost impossible to reason with because they are so "passionate". By that definition, Michael, you are hardly a wingnut case. You are just a head case...

I know you like this one, in poll after poll 70 percent of the population want out of Iraq yesterday and she wants to keep us there indefinitely. In fact a recent rasmussen poll indicates 56% of the population want out of iraq within a year and 22% want out now. I don't like rasmussen. It uses very questionable methodology and they skew to the right, time and time again, so it kind of makes you wonder about their polling methodology. This result is not quite 70, but "legitimate" polls have indicated 70%. How is your bosses positioning on keeping us there indefinitely "centrist"? Sounds kind of right-wing to me.

You are again assuming, based on your "opinion", that my "boss" will keep us in Iraq indefinitely, which is not very bright, if you know even the first thing about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would represent. Just to remind you, she would be the first woman ever to be elected POTUS, a job heretofore reserved only for male WASPs (i.e., until Kennedy, who was a catholic). So, why would a smart woman like Hillary squander such a historic opportunity by making the waging of senseless wars of choice her legacy? One thing that you can be sure of is that she would not hestitate to use military force to defend America; but, really people, could anyone tell me what Hillary would gain by continuing Bush's Misadventure in Mesopotamia, that has no public, or by waging wars of choice? Would she attack Iran just for kicks? Nah... That is not why anyone would seek the presidency. Bush's initial instinct was not to come in and wage wars (he did not do nation-building in 1999, remember?). His problem is that he was too stupid and let the neo-cons and folk at PNAC, who been itching for years to attack Iraq, preempt his presidency. That is why I refer to him as the Village Idiot. He turned himself into the neo-cons' buffoon, and as a result he squandered the historic opportunity that the terrible events of 9/11 had handed him on a silver platter to govern as a "uniter and not a divider." History will not be kind to George W Bush, so why would a woman as smart as Hillary, who would be making history as the first woman POTUS, squander such a chance of a lifetime to repeat or continue the Village Idiot's failures? For that matter why would anyone willingly choose to make someone else's failures his or her own? Would that make any sense? It would be cognitively dissonant for anyone with a little bit of gray matter between the ears. Hillary has already told you in her recent Foreign Affairs essay that as POTUS, she would revive "Liberal Internationalism". If you do not know what that means, just think of it as the anti-Bush in Foreign Policy. In fact, after Hillary had indicated that she sees her husband's role in her administration as that of an "Ambassador for Peace", who would crisscross European and Asian Capitals to try to undo the damage that the eight years of Bush have done to our image and relationships abroad, the British press went approvingly abuzz with it. Hillary is no hawk, Hillary is no Repub "plant", Hillary is no liberal, but she has a solid progressive record that is better than those of her two main Dem opponents (look it up). In short, your "opinion" of Hillary, like anything that comes out of you, has no basis in reality. She has no logical reason to stay in Iraq or start a war with Iran, and, as Sherlock Holmes would say, after you have dismissed every possibility, the one that remains, no matter how improbably is the right one. In your mind, it is unthinkable that Hillary "The Hawk" could be elected POTUS and not go to war or not keep us in Iraq indefinitely. But ask yourself what she would gain by doing either, and you will see that was seems improbably to you is actually what would come to transpire: Hillary would fight like hell for a peaceful word, but also she understands that Si vis pacem para bellum [spelling?] (to win the peace, you sometimes must be prepared to go to war), and she would do what is necessary to defend America.

Now, you're "analysis" that you throw out all the time is based on cherry picked, questionable polling data that you, twist to make your boss look inevitable.

signed dimwitted, uniformed, wacko, pinko, commie, anti-american, hillary-hater, left-wing, lefty, naderite, OCD, various mental disorders, etc. Hope I covered them for you to save you time.

Just OCD would do... :-)

GO PATRIOTS!!!!

dcshungu, I hope you are able to hear my applause.

Well spoken words of wisdom that will probably go either ignored, or answered with a comment of some sort about Hillary Clinton and sex (her body parts, her husband's body parts, her gender, or rumors regarding her own remarks about her gender).

Meanwhile, yet another great poll is out for her today, by ABC/WaPo.
What a "loser," huh?

And, yes, GO PATS!

Kleefeld's as pretty as he is predictable

Girlfriend had a bad week so what do the Hill Sheep herders trot out...The Inevitablity Campaign..

But read the entire article

You think Sgt Kleefeld's spinning his booty now

Just wait a couple weeks

Eric needs to learn the diff between "an Escort" and a "crack ho"

Hillary Clinton does not have a "safe" or "comfortable" lead in the electoral polls. She has only very slight or statistically insignificant leads in the states that will matter.

Many people in this discussion keep citing the Survey USA web-accessible polls as evidence of Hillary Clinton's large national lead -- but here are the latest, web-based SUSA numbers, complete with dates and links, for those who are interested:

Current election polls, from Survey USA:

http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx

Florida (WFLA TV, 11/01/07): Clinton 49%, Giuliani 44%, MOE 4.4 (Clinton has a lead that is slightly larger than margin of error)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=63da605b-ad78-4d68-b226-881aa43f3909&q=40145

Virginia (WDBJ TV, 10/27/07): Clinton 47%, Giuliani 46%, MOE 4.4 (Clinton leads but within margin of error; statistically insignificant)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=97085321-b633-4566-8998-266a41fb3410&q=40145

Oregon (KATU TV, 10/26/07) Clinton 50% Giuliani 45%, MOE 4.4 (Clinton leads, slightly larger than margin of error)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=e9650067-7716-4d71-86a9-f5cd70db14c1&q=40145

New Mexico (KOB TV, 10/22/07): Clinton 47%, Giuliani 48% MOE 4.5 (Giuliani leads but within margin of error; statistically insignificant)
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=85f5230e-01f6-4d1b-8cbe-7d3c130373dd&q=40145

Ohio (WCPO TV, 10/19/07): Clinton 47% Giuliani 45% MOE 4.4 (Clinton leads but within margin of error, statistically insignificant)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReportPopup.aspx?g=88ee22a0-fd25-4335-8757-55c4df15e945&q=40145

Missouri (KCTV TV, 10/20/07): Clinton 50%. Giuliani 43%, MOE 4.3 (Clinton leads, outside of margin of error)

The national polls showing Clinton with a statistically significant national lead over Giuliani must be considered in light of Clinton's large leads over Giuliani in New York and California, which have a substantial percentage fo the nation's population. At the electoral college level, according to SUSA's own telephone-based polls, Giuliani has a substantial electoral edge.

The point is that to believe at this point that Hillary Clinton has a "safe" or "comfortable" lead over Giuliani is incorrect, based on available facts. Clinton is actually the strongest Democratic candidate at the moment but the edge over Giulian is marginal at best, at the electoral college level. (And, as I pointed out last week to much uninformed abuse and name-calling, SUSA's own polls show that Giuliani has a substantial electoral college edge.)

To deal with those who think I am trying to claim Hillary Clinton is "unelectable," or that I am a troll spreading Giuliani happy talk: Hillary Clinton is actually the strongest Democratic candidate against Giuliani. My point is to warn against complacency -- Hillary Clinton and other Democrats do indeed face a formidable challenge in 2008.

The Washington Post this morning sounds a similar note of caution (based on their latest poll) to those who might entertain the notion that Hillary Clinton (or any other Democrat) faces smooth sailing in the 2008 Presidential:

"Much will happen in the coming months
that could reshape the political climate. But at this point, in a matchup of current front-runners, Clinton and Giuliani are tightly paired: 50 percent of respondents would support Clinton, 46 percent Giuliani. Against McCain, Clinton has a clearer edge, 52 percent to 43 percent. She has even larger advantages over former senator Fred D. Thompson of Tennessee (16 points) and Romney (18 points), both of whom remain undefined in the eyes of many voters.

In each of these potential contests, Clinton has a big edge among women. In a head-to-head with Giuliani, 56 percent of women would back Clinton, and 40 percent would vote for Giuliani. By contrast, men would tilt toward Giuliani 51 percent to 44 percent.

Independents, who fueled the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, are evenly divided, 47 percent for Clinton, 46 percent for Giuliani. The split is one indicator that, despite current Democratic advantages and an electorate strongly oriented toward change, the 2008 election is likely to be closely and hotly contested.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted by telephone Oct. 29 to Nov. 1 among a random sample of 1,131 adults, and includes additional interviews with randomly selected African Americans for a total of 203 black respondents. The results from the full poll have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/03/AR2007110301306_3.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007110400561

I hope the people of NYC are getting a good look at who they elected for so many years. I dont see how such a fascist like Rudy can get elected in NYC. Guess the same way Romney was elected as the gov of Mass. I hope the dems will finally get out next year & vote or take advantage of the absentee option for a change. The repubs are by far a minority, but, they vote! If they win elections, it's because non-repub's let them!

Just wait a couple weeks

Promises, promises, pro-mi-ses!

We have been waiting for a lot longer than a couple of weeks. Every debate, every negative attack, every echo in the msm and netroots chamber of "collective unconscious", was going to be the straw that would break the proverbial camel's back, or the long-awaited dropping of the second shoe. Instead, what we've had has been a steady climb in HRC's poll numbers...

DTM wrote on November 4, 2007 4:35 PM:

So I am a little puzzled about why Eric is posting about other polls, but not the Post/ABC poll.

I am tempted to suggest it is because in comparison to the same poll on 9/30, Clinton has lost 4 points and Obama has gained 6 points, for a net swing of 10 points.

But I am willing to give Eric and Co. a little more time.

I am sure that TMP-EC will get around to posting the WaPo/ABC numbers (NYC Marathon, Colts v Pats on the tube...enough to distract anyone!). There is by conspiracy TPM-EC to only post numbers that are favorable for Hillary. It seems that way because so far all the numbers have been favorable for her...EVEN this WaPo/ABC poll, which is really a correction for its last numbers that few polls could reproduce (Mark Blumenthal @ pollster.com has maintained all along that the poll was a clear outlier). The numbers just published are more inline with the trends that have emerged over the past couple of weeks. I had written about it last time in this thread: Clinton is at mid- to high 40s and Obama at low to mid 20s, which is consistent with the latest WaPo/ABC polls:

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton leads the race for the Democratic nomination with 49 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) at 26 percent. Former North Carolina senator John Edwards has 12 percent. Obama bounced back from a low of 20 percent in last month's Post-ABC News poll.

Virtually everyone seems to be showing about the same lead for HRC, so, therefore, there is nothing for her supporters to worry about unless you think a 23% lead is worrisome (a strategy would be for her detractors to raise the expectation that unless she is leading by 30%, she cannot win, which you seem to be doing...).

dcshungu,

As we discussed before, there is preliminary evidence in recent polls of a tightening trend, and that is a trend this poll will help confirm. But as we also discussed before, it is a little too soon to tell for sure whether this is a legitimate trend, so I am content to wait and see. More broadly, I would again note that these polls are not strongly predictive of final outcomes, and that is true regardless of who seems to be gaining at any particular time.

All that said, I feel compelled to correct an error on your part. On October 16, Blumenthal posted again on that 9/30 Post/ABC poll, and in light of subsequent polls, he retracted the claim it was a clear outlier (although he noted it remained on the high side).

On November 4, 2007 6:50 PM above, I meant to write:

"There is NO conspiracy by TPM-EC to only post numbers that are favorable for Hillary. It seems that way because so far all the numbers have been favorable for her..."

Here's dcshungu again, with no argument to make, only blotated, incoherent, ad hominem rambling.

Note that earlier, citing unspecified SUSA polls, dcshungu claims that "If the election were held today, HRC would win every state that Kerry had won, including winning in purple states by more comfortable margins." No links, no data, just argument by assertion.

Except, as I pointed out in a well-documented post above, it is simply not true. Today's public SUSA polls flatly contradict the claims by dcshungu and his ally, heretic. No case can be made about "comfortable" or "safe" electoral college margins for Clinton from the SUSA data. Simply not true. Go to the SUSA web page and check it yourself

(http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.aspx)

How does dcshungu respond to my citation of the SUSA data: With a typical juvenile, ad hominem "He's baaaaaack," and adding quote marks to words like "analysis" and "thesis", as if that were a counter-argument. (Though I am happy to note that today, after I called him on it last week, he's dropped the use of all caps and italics and other ridiculous rhetorical devices in his fact-challenged tauntings.) But still, no rebuttal, no data cited, just repeated undocumented assertions and a reference to what the Giuliani campaign should be doing if (what is manifestly true) were true.

Wanna really play this game, Mr. Medical Physicist dcshungu? Try giving some actual data with links, instead of your playground taunts. Let's have them. Show me the polls with the actual data that indicate Hillary Clinton "winning in purple states by more comfortable margins." Where are the links? Show me the latest SUSA polls indicating Hillary Clinton with "comfortable" margins in Florida, New Mexico, Oregon, and Ohio. Do you understand the concept of margin of error? The word "comfortable" does not mean what you think it means -- not using the data posted by SUSA, as of today.

And, if you want to pony up the $99 for SUSA's own polling data, you can yourself see what I'm talking about regarding Giuliani's large electoral margin in the SUSA state-by-state electoral college polls. I'll leave that up to you. If you want, I'll give you the instructions on how to register and pay to become a SUSA poll consumer. Then you can come back and enlighten us all about what you found out.

The Washingpost has it correct today, based on their latest poll. Here's an assessment of the potential Clinton/Giuliani matchup that serves as a healthy reminder of where we actually are at this early stage (as opposed to the muddied up, false picture painted by dcshungu and his allies like heretic):

"Independents, who fueled the Democratic takeover of Congress last November, are evenly divided, 47 percent for Clinton, 46 percent for Giuliani. The split is one indicator that, despite current Democratic advantages and an electorate strongly oriented toward change, the 2008 election is likely to be closely and hotly contested. "

Note that earlier, citing unspecified SUSA polls, dcshungu claims that "If the election were held today, HRC would win every state that Kerry had won, including winning in purple states by more comfortable margins." No links, no data, just argument by assertion.

I do not wish to waste my time with you. I had told you repeatedly that my source had been the very same state-by-state SUSA poll match ups that you claimed you had used to determine that Rudy was "absolutely crushing" HRC in electoral vote counts, with him getting nearly 400 of them... A virtual impossibility that only a real moron would believe, much less try to defend.

No presidential candidate would win in a Red v. Blue America with ~400 EV (that's not Electron-Volts) without sending a "jolt" (pun intended) that would cripple the losing side for years to come.

Go peddle your moronic stuff elsewhere. We're done.

DTM wrote on November 4, 2007 9:46 PM:

Well, I have my answer. Eric finally posted the Post/ABC poll. And as I noted in the comments there, he dealt with the change since the 9/30 poll by simply ignoring it--even though he made exactly such a comparison with respect to the Newsweek poll, and even with respect to the Republican field in the Post/ABC poll.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

First, it was that Eric had not post the Post/ABC poll because it was not "favorable" for HRC, despite the fact she was crushing Obama by 23%. And then, now that the poll has been posted, you are complaining that it does not state that Hillary has lost ground, while all this poll did was to bring the Post/ABC numbers inline with all the other national polls [the stats expert at pollster.com had called the 10/3 Post/ABC poll an outlier]: HRC mid to high 40s, Obama low to mid 20s, and Edwards steady at 12%. I'd posted this national trend last night BEFORE the WaPo/ABC poll even came out. The Post/ABC poll just confirms that notional trend! Check it out higher in this thread...

I am sure that you'd be happier if your candidate had 49% rather than 26%...

dcshungu,,

Oh, and I know that you know that Blumenthal reassessed his original outlier comment with respect to the 9/30 poll, because I already brought that reassessment to your attention. Frankly, it speaks poorly of your intellectual honesty that you would repeat this talking point under these circumstances.

dcshungu,

First, the post in which I called your attention to pollster's reassessment is above at 7:13 pm.

Second, in the very quote you posted, Blumenthal says: "we do not yet know whether this poll is really a statistical outlier." But you said: "the stats expert at pollster.com had called the 10/3 Post/ABC poll an outlier." Those clearly are NOT the same thing, and yes, it is intellectually dishonest of you to make that claim.

Finally, here is more from that same post at pollster.com: "The 53% result for Clinton on the ABC/Post poll remains on the high end of support for Clinton compared to the trend line, but is no longer 'more of an outlier' than various other polls conducted earlier in the year." Again, Blumenthal reconsidered his original assessment. I could understand if you missed the reassessment. I could even understand if you claim to miss my correction above, although that strikes me as implausible. But it is inexcusable for you to link the post and then misrepresent it.

By the way, I don't care if you apologize or not. I just want you to stop misrepresenting Blumenthal.

Still no links, still no coherent argument, only ad hominem name calling.

Hey, stupid, you see that blood red text in my November 4, 2007 9:51 PM post? That is called a link, and if you use your left mouse button and click on it, it'll take you to my source, which should also be your source. There you'll find out that there is no way Rudy could be "absolutely crushing" HRC in electoral votes. And calling you "stupid" in the light of your continued display of lack of basic comprehension? That is a fitting ad hominem for sure...

dc, took me a while to get back to your diatribe. Way tooooo funny. A scientist/psychiatrist/voodoo poll analyzer (kind of like voodoo economics). Well, your post once again speaks volumes. I am a lawyer and eat you guys for lunch on a daily basis. I can get a scientist to testify to virtually anything, within reason, and do any type of study to support any bs theory. Your "analysis" on this site is pure cherry picked conjecture and opinion, not scientific in the least and you know it.

It really is funny that you always divert attention from facts. You diverted attention once again from polls that you rely heavily on to support your positions, when they are counter to your position. Also, I think your definition of centrist is skewed when you ignore polls that show that your boss is clearly not centrist.

By the way, how do you deal with the fact that republicans want your boss nominated. Why do they want that? Any ideas?

Anyway, interesting post once again.

signed your ocd wingnut, commie, pinko, unamerican, left winger.