2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

The more Clinton camp is going to push this mandate issue, the more she is going to loose votes in New Hampshire

McCain is holding up well in this poll, unlike the ARG poll where he's at 11% in NH.

We would would be wise not to write McCain off. Hillary is in real trouble if Obama wins both Iowa and New Hampshire.

It's going to be a bumpy holiday ride.

Clinton certainly isn't dead in the water by any stretch of the imagination; in fact, the opposite is true, she remains very strongly positioned.

However, all the trends for her are in the wrong direction right now. And there's no way of knowing how long she has to correct those trends...

I think the Rasmussen tracking poll---which shows a change from 41-17 3 days ago to 37--27 nationally looks too good to be true. (I support Obama)

I try, and I try----I cannot get anyone to talk about delegates. A significant number will be chosen on February 5th. I suspect Hillary to do well in the South----and Obama to do well in the North. A lot depends upon whether she gets the black support she is counting on.

The proportional representation will split the count----I believe it is possible no one will go to the convention with 50 percent.

Wow, how surprising. NH voters are now paying attention and the name recognition polls are no longer valid. What a huge surprise--not.

I thought about Biden---but it could help Hillary. Delegates tend to be responsible people---not haters---and 35 or 40 percent of the delegates would put her in a powerful "bring in Bill and make some promises and collect our debts" position.

Thanks for saying something.

Michael:

Obviously, this is all very much speculation, but if none of the three can garner majority support (and Obama/Edwards don't work out a deal), then the obvious "compromise" candidate acceptable to most Democrats would be Al Gore. This is precisely the way that Lincoln got the nod in 1860.

"Brokered" convention or "open" convention? "Brokered" means someone doesn't have 50% from the primaries but the fix is in. I'm sure that's Hillary's Plan B. "Open" means no one had 50% and they go to multiple ballots with the delegates free to vote for whoever they want after the first ballot. Back in the days when this kind of thing was the norm, that tended to favor the one who was the second choice of the most delegates.

Yeah, been on my mind too.

The TV network execs would have a fit. They've been cutting back convention coverage year after year claiming they're boring because they're locked up and there's no suspense. CNN actually broght Mo Rocca to both conventions for the sole apparent purpose of making fun of them (because, you know, there was nothing very significant at stake in 2004--all just fun funny fun. Silly ol' politics.)

But, nah. If they actually had to drop their regularly scheduled "American Banality Island Idol" programming in favor of some call to civic-mindedness, somebody in the Entertainment Division might suffer a reduced bonus. So, they'll just say there's no need for over-the-airwave channels to cover it because, hey, there's CNN, Fox and MSNBC.

Okay, here's my take on this whole Hillary Clinton Campaign Office Siege thing.

I heard about it at the last minute during the day at the office, via Talking Point's Election Central online political blog. When I got home at 5 pm EST, I put the news on. CNN first, of course, because it's less neo-con than Fox News. CNN was saying that the suspect was upset about mental healthcare and he was a local man from New Hampshire. Fox News only stated that they thought the suspect was a local.

By 5:30 a hostage (female) was released, peacefully and calmly. CNN was now giving out the name of the suspect, one Leeland Eisenberg, of Somersville NH. When I flipped one channel up to Fox News, they were showing the hostage being released and stating they thought the suspect was one Troy Stanley, a local who was known to have a record.

By 5:45 another hostage (female) was about to be released, and Fox News was beginning to doubt the name of their suspect. They felt that perhaps it was a man named Leeland Eisenberg instead. According to Fox News, Leeland had a record too.

By 6:00 Wolf Blitzer was turning the situation into his War Room show and enjoying every minute of it. Shortly thereafter, the last hostage (male) was released and then we had a commercial break.

After the commercial break, the headline at the bottom of CNN's screen (shouldn't that be a bottomline?) stated that the police were standing outside the door of Clinton's campaign headquarters and had the building surrounded, and then the headline disappeared while Wolf talked for a few minutes, and the next thing I see is Leeland Eisenberg walking out of the campaign office and into the custody of the SWAT team waiting outside.

CNN airs the footage of Leeland giving himself up, getting handcuffed, and escorted to a police car, all the while raving about how "peaceful" and "textbook" and "perfect" this arrest turned out to be, even going so far as to say they wouldn't be surprised if it should be cited by the FBI and other agencies for training purposes.

Almost immediately after Leeland Eisenberg is driven from the scene in handcuffs, CNN releases the stunning news that they have indeed been in touch with "Lee" almost all afternoon after one of the hostages called them shortly after 1:30 pm saying she was being held hostage.

Shortly thereafter, Hillary gets on camera down in Washington, DC, and gives a 10-minute speech about the bravery of her campaign staff. Shortly afterwards, both Fox News and CNN mention her drop in the New Hampshire and Iowa polls. For the rest of the evening, CNN and Fox News analyze Leeland Eisenberg's state of mind as if they live in his brain and understand everything he is going through.

What a great job of news reporting, eh?

Fox News, of course, never gave CNN the credit for their half-assed knowledge of the story, and I can only hope that they plan to apologize to Troy Stanley and his family.

CNN repeatedly aired a picture of Lee Eisenberg, courtesy of "Fosters Daily Democrat", so I got online and googled Fosters Daily Democrat and found Lee is already on the home news page. When I did a search of Leeland Eisenberg on the local New Hampshire news website, I found several links to news items about Lee, all of them from 2007. Only once is he listed as being a drunk driver, by the way. I found no mention of the domestic abuse that CNN is touting about him, and I found one article and one letter to the editor about his argument with local police acsertaining to his anger over the local police's new habit of opening unlocked cars at night and leaving a flier in each car stating that local residents should lock their car doors at night.

Yet CNN and Fox News have been calling Lee Eisenberg a mentally ill man with a long history of abuse and a police record all night long.

I looked up poor Troy Stanley and found he has a stronger record than does Lee Eisenberg. That doesn't mean Troy deserved to be mentioned on Fox News for over an hour, now does it?

Meantime, Hillary soaks up the spotlight on the evening of what should've been her visit to DC for the Democratic National Convention dinner and flies off to New Hampshire to soak up the spotlight even more, all weekend.

Here is the link to the local news about Leeland Eisenberg, the "siege", and Troy Stanley. Just search their names in the search bar at the top of the Fosters homepage:

http://www.fosters.com/

One more thing I want to add: The person responsible for typing the daily police record at Fosters Daily Democrat has one hell of a sense of humor, LOL!

Good point, Steve C. It's bad enough we all watch American Idol and America's Next Top Model and Survival and all that other rot, and watch these polls as if they mean something.

But it's even worse when we all pay attention to polls only long enough to see a name we find familiar, and vote for it.

The invocation of the S.C. poll differences are specious at best. Most electoral polling companies "push" voters to say which candidate they "lean" for, by asking which from a list of candidates they'd vote for were the election held today.

Academic polls, on the other hand, tend to open-ended, requiring the respondent to volunteer information. As such, their "undecideds" tend to be much higher than those of electoral polls. This isn't some indictment of the vagaries of polling; any basic understanding of polling methods make the results completely unsurprising. One poll "pushed" its respondents to answer, so it misrepresents the number of undecideds but gives a good "shape of the race". The other is open-ended, so it gives you a better idea of what candidate "hard support" looks like, but no real indication of what their "soft" support looks like.

As Mark Blumenthal says:

"However, even if we take both sets of numbers at face value, they may be telling us that the Clinton lead in that state is soft; that voters there who currently prefer Senator Clinton (when pushed) are softer in their support than those leaning to Obama or the other candidates.

All of this gets at a point I've made several times recently: A preference is not a final decision."

Read the rest at pollster.com

Plus, it actually is only one out of every 20 polls where the "real" results are outside the margin of error; you're more likely confusing the rate of occurrence of such error with the fact that some likely voter models create systemic errors. But a poll can be systematically wrong--it polls a non-representative sample of voters--and still be very accurate in terms of representing the views of the population sampled. They're just sampling the wrong population.

And lastly, of course, while aberrant polls are rightly met with skepticism, these polls are only aberrant insofar as they deviate from averages, not from trends. People are reacting strongly not because this is "one poll" and they don't have "long term perspective"...the opposite is true. People are reacting strongly because Hillary's trend line in NH was nearly 60degrees up a week or two ago on pollster, and now its nearly flat...5 polls in a row she's polled below her current trend estimator position, and they've been dropping. Huckabee's rise has been steady and consistent, and seeing it start spread to other states as he gets more media coverage is unsurprising.

Skepticism towards polls in general is good, but I think your skepticism is misplaced, or you're misunderstanding what all the ruckus is about...

Does anyone but me ever become annoyed by people who behave as though pollster.com did not exist?

CalD said "Does anyone but me ever become annoyed by people who behave as though pollster.com did not exist?"

This announcment was approved and paid for by the Hillary for President campaign!

You have no credibility, CalD!

anon:

As one of the "uninformed voters" who supports Senator Clinton, I just want to say that it is my fondest wish to someday be as informed and insightful as you think you are.

colonpowwow, We all wish that for you, but it may be beyond your reach.

Anon wrote: Her candidacy cannot withstand much scrutiny because most of her support is from uninformed voters [blah blah blah] even uninformed women who previously supported her simply out of a desire to see a woman elected President

Like colonpowwow I wish to thank you, anon, for your intelligent and distinguished commentary.

colonpowwow,

Um, you do realize Obama is a Senator from Illinois, right? And we have a great deal of electoral and polling data from Illinois which says he has broader, not narrower, appeal than a typical Democrat, including among white, suburban, rural, blue collar, and so on voters.

And since you strike me as a person with a conscience, I will ask you to think about the following:

What if your speculation about the effects of Obama's race is in fact wrong? But what if by promoting the idea that he cannot be elected because he is black, you and others like you succeed in preventing him from being nominated, even though he would have otherwise? And as a result, what if as a result of your actions the American people are never given a chance to prove you are wrong? What would that say about you, and the people like you, who killed his nomination just because he was black?

I point this out just because I think anyone with a conscience needs to be very, very careful before making the sort of argument you just made (because if you are wrong, you might be participating in something truly tragic).

At a minimum, I think you need to have clear and convincing evidence that Obama in particular has a serious race problem before particpating in something like that. And since the evidence is in fact to the contrary, I urge you to consult your conscience and drop this line of argument immediately.

Also, are you denying that some women are simply supporting Hillary because she's a woman?

How the Hell would you know?

If you have such magic, psychic Mel Gibson-like qualities as to hear and know what millions of women voters think, why don’t you cash in and start a political consulting firm? I’m sure business would be great.

colonpowwow and others:

I think it would be tough to prove that more people wouldn't vote for Obama because he's African-American than wouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton because she's Hillary Clinton.

This isn't (Clintonian?) parsing on my part--I honestly don't know. I'll credit that some racism probably remains... but it seems to me that it's much more speculative than the proven antipathy to Hillary Clinton out there. 45 to 48 percent of those polled consistently say they wouldn't vote for her under any circumstances. I suspect the number for Obama is about 10 points lower, which means he has a lot more room to grow in a GE race.

Otherwise, while I respect the wish to elect "the first woman president," I can't help but think it would a bigger triumph for feminism if that barrier-breaker wasn't the wife of another president. This isn't to say that "Hillary Rodham," in an alternate universe where she'd never met Bill Clinton, wouldn't be a person of national prominence; I think she would be. (I also suspect I'd like her politics much, much better... but that's another conversation.)

But in our reality, she's trying to have it both ways, as usual: champion for women AND steeped in the ways and means of power by virtue of marriage. I hope you can see how that grates on some of us.

In my post, second last sentence, I meant to say, of course - ". . . that IS my (hopefully) informed opinion . . ."

Preview is our friend ;-)

ben smith had a couple of contributors with interesting takes on the non delegates of Florida and Michigan------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's a fun scenario to think about. Say HIllary and Obama divide up the early states and go to split a the Feb 5th delegates. what if at the end of the nomination, Obama is ahead of Hillary in delegates, but by less than 156. Could there then be a legal battle to count Michigan's delegates so that Hillary can have the nomination. I would hope that Hillary would not pursue something like that for the good of the party, but I can't say I believe she wouldn't...

Posted By: RKA | December 01, 2007 at 01:48 PM
REPORT ABUSE

It would be interesting to see how this would play out in the unlikely scenario where there is no clear nominee by convention. Though it seems inconceivable for that to happen in this day and age, it could certainly result if Edwards were to win Iowa and Obama New Hampshire setting up a three-way split of the Feb 5 states. If that were to play out, it would be very interesting to see the machinations that would go on at a convention where Florida and Michigan would be able to be the kingmakers if they had their delegates, but don't.

Posted By: nbpolitico | December 01, 2007 at 01:57 PM

colonpowwow,

First, I highlighted the fact Obama was from Illinois because when you were describing Wisconsin, you could well have been describing Illinois. And I have seen over the last few years how Obama has generated broad support in Illinois, including in the sorts of communities you are worried about.

Moreover, we now have decent evidence on this issue from places like Iowa and New Hampshire, where the Obama has been actively campaigning. And it is the same story in those states as in Illinois: polls show that his appeal is very broad. Indeed, in relevant polls he is doing better among Republicans and independents in those (predominantly white) states than his fellow Democratic candidates.

All this evidence points the same way: relatively conservative white people tend to like Obama more, not less, than a typical Democrat. I know that is not what your intuition is telling you should be happening, but I think the evidence available is clearly demonstrating that your original intuition on this subject was wrong.

On the issue of your conscience: I don't blame you for initially being worried about this issue, assuming you were not aware of the evidence I just noted. What I am suggesting is this: before actually making this argument against his candidacy, it is your duty to be more than "hopefully" informed, because of the gravity of what you are suggesting (namely, that Democrats should vote against a black candidate just because he is black, and therefore in your view unelectable).

And I very much believe that if you look at the evidence available, it will demonstrate that your original worries were misplaced. Which doesn't mean you have to support him--it just means you should stop using this particular argument against him.

But if you continue to make this argument without carefully considering the implications of the available evidence--well, then I would in fact judge you harshly. And I would do that because you would deserve it.

DemAC,

Actually, the polls were not inaccurate with respect to the Ford-Corker race (and if anything actually overstated Corker's lead). In general, what you are suggesting about polls and black candidates was true at one time, but recent polling has not reflected such an effect. See here for an extended discussion from Pew:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/408/can-you-trust-what-polls-say-about-obamas-electoral-prospects

Again, though, I'm not blaming anyone for starting with this notion about inaccurate polling of black candidates, because it was true in the 1980s and 1990s. I would only blame those who were made aware of the recent evidence and then continued to promote this idea as part of an argument for not voting for a black person.

DTM said:

"But if you continue to make this argument without carefully considering the implications of the available evidence--well, then I would in fact judge you harshly. And I would do that because you would deserve it."

It's not an argument, as I said, it's a "Chertoffian gut feeling" and strictly my opinion based on what I see around me, coupled with my knowlege of a solidly-Democratic-voting old industrial cities like Milwaukee (Green Bay, Racine, Kenosha, LaCrosse, Waukesha) and its racist shortcomings. I think for a number of reasons, that Hillary Clinton is more electable than Barack Obama. And one major reason is, unfortunately IMO: him being a black man in racist America would swing close purple states into the Republican column.

I've lived for long periods of my life in both Wisconsin (25 years) and Illinois (18 years), and although I love my Badger birthplace, Illinois voters seeme to me to be much more politically sophisticated when it comes to race and politics - also IMO.

Why is this so unreasonable for me to surmise? I see and consider your data with hope, but people don't like to present or see themselves as racist in these surveys. I am very well travelled in the states and my experiences tell me otherwise. Racism is more entrenched than ever and the policies of the last 7 years have done nothing but scratch at the scabs. You know that the Republican attack in the GE would be in "subtle" racist scare "code" like "Does America want to become the newest Third World country?" and things like that.

Do you think that the race factor in urban centers like Milwaukee (or Albuqurque, Little Rock, Miami, Des Moines etc.) is statistically too insignificant to throw a close election in those swing states to the Republicans? Everyone that considers voting to elect a black man or a woman candidate for the first time as a candidate for President, has asked themselves "can a black man or a woman win the general election?" Don't confuse the Politics of Hope with the Politics of the Hopelessly Naive.

A more relevant question might be - how did Harold Ford do in his recent senate race in the traditionally more Democratic leaning urban areas like Nashville and Memphis compared to recent historical voting patterns? I don't know - but I'm going to look into it and will write more with what I find out.

By the way, to their credit, this is something the Republicans have understood for a while now: conservative white people will vote for conservative black people over liberal white people, and so it doesn't harm them to nominate conservative black candidates.

Obama is just a slight variation on that theme: he is not conservative per se, but he appeals to a relatively large number of conservatives for a variety of reasons. Hence, he is just as electable as any Democrat with cross-over appeal (such as Bill Clinton), and it won't harm Democrats to nominate him even though he is black.

colonpowwow,

Just as a reminder, this is what you wrote to another poster (admittedly an Anonymous poster, but still a real person):

"If you think a black man (and I think Obama is an inspirational, honest, and thoughtful man) can get elected in 2008 America, I have a bridge to nowhere that I'd like to sell you."

My point is that before you make such arguments (or whatever you would like to call such a statement made to another person in the context of a political discussion), you should make absolutely sure you are right about the factual claim in question.

Again, though, I don't blame you for asking the question. But I have brought to your attention information which I believe should call into very serious doubt the assumptions you are making. I have urged you to reflect on that information, and reconsider whether you are really in a position to be making arguments (or what have you) of the kind you have made in this thread.

And in the end that is all I can do. The rest is up to your conscience, as I noted in the beginning.

colonpowwow,

Just to be clear one more time, I don't blame anyone for being worried about this initially, including you. It is only people who are made aware of the available evidence and then who continue to make this argument that I believe should be judged harshly.