Wow, just wow. Maybe there is hope after all.

waits for Hillary fans to come and call Mr. Obama names. Its such a pity that supporters for different candidates have stooped so low as to call candidates names as opposed to having objective debate on issues.

We all as democrats are doing worse for our party by not pointing out the policy differences in each candidate but still encouraging all as one of them WILL become the nominee and when they get there if democrats are not united the repubs will win.

It's interesting is that he and John Edwards continue to be the second choices as well (26/26). Gives some context to HRC's recent attempts to up her rhetoric on Obama.

Iowa is going to be a real battleground.

Jesse wrote on November 19, 2007 5:35 PM:

Before you get too excited...this poll was taken before Thursday's debate....Let's see the next poll!!!
****************************************

Actually it was taken through to Sunday which means some or most of the people they talked to had received the reviews (media wise or maybe by watching) of the candidates performance during the debate. The dates of the polling are Nov. 14 to 18:

Link to Wapo full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900940.html?hpid=topnews

Jesse:

I'm sure there is some effect, but it's probably negligible at best. Plus, you assume that people in Iowa (who have vast more exposure to the candidates) will be swayed, one way or the other by a debate. I would assume that meeting each of them face-to-face, often multiple times has more of an impact than a debate (and a piss poor one at that).

I bet the polls don't change noticeably in response to the debate. It's not like someone had a breakout performance or glaring misstep.

Obama's win could be much larger (depending how things go in the next 6 weeks.) From near the end of wapo story:

"According to Dem Party rules, a candidate must draw at least 15 percent at each caucus site ..... Combining the second-choice picks of candidates outside the top three, 34 percent would select Obama, 28 percent Edwards and only 15 percent Clinton. "

waits for Hillary fans to come and call Mr. Obama names. Its such a pity that supporters for different candidates have stooped so low as to call candidates names as opposed to having objective debate on issues.

Here is a Hillary supporter who won't call Obama names, but would just caution against reading too much into a single poll. We need to wait until this is confirmed by other polls, as this WaPo IA poll in August had Obama v Clinton 27-26, while every other poll showed Hillary or Edwards with a slight (often insignificant) edge.

The generally restrained reaction on this board suggests that most people are cautious. The significance of something like this goes beyond the numbers. It might help Obama by changing the narrative and the perceptions...

I expect that Obama will gradually begin to pick up more and more Edwards supporters and Undecided voters as we edge closer to the election.

In addition, I don't see Hillary's numbers changing all that much going forward because I think those who support Obama/Edwards/Others generally have problems with Hillary and aren't likely to be won over at this point.

People do want change ... and a vote for Hillary is a vote for the status quo and business as usual in D.C.

oleeb,

That is one of the reasons why I think if the caucus were tomorrow, Edwards might well win--he is the one candidate with a lot of supporters who already know what they are supposed to be doing (and presumably how to grab those second-choicers).

That said, of course all the campaigns are working hard to get their people ready, and long time campaign experience in Iowa didn't save Gephardt back in 2004. Indeed, Edwards himself proved it is possible to come from WAY back in the pack on short notice, so I wouldn't be ruling anyone out at this point.

By the way, to me the most significant cross-tab is probably the six-point swing from Clinton to Obama on who they trust the most to handle Iraq. It is the most important issue (according to this poll in fact), and perhaps the one on which Clinton is most inherently vulnerable.

I think the most interesting tidbit in the survey and the WAPO article is the large number of Clinton supporters who would be "first time" caucus goers. Caucuses are not the sort of event that first timers are very good at. They can be tedious, long and very boring for most participants. Only a few people in a caucus are doing much more than sitting there. First timers are less likely to attend, less likely to stay, and less likely to do what any given campaign would like to see them do in general.

That is one of the many oddballs in this poll The "concern" with Obama's support in the last DesMoines Register's poll was precisely that it coming mostly first-timers, and just about every other before this one has had much of Obama's support coming from first-timers and/or college students (who were to be his secret army that was to carry him to a win, remember?). This poll upends that heretofore consistent finding. I would like to see other polls reproduce the results of this one before I call it a significant trend (it might be just as short-lived as the much talked about Newsweek poll of a couple of months ago that showed Obama with a similar "lead".)

Pretty much nothing but GREAT news for Obama, particularly:

- His support is up 8 percentage points since July among voters aged 45 and older

- Somewhat fewer first-time caucus-goers as supporters than Clinton (43% for him, 50% for her -- very surprising)

- Combining the second-choice picks of candidates outside the top three, 34 percent would select Obama, 28 percent Edwards and only 15 percent Clinton

- Among Edwards supporters, 43 percent said they would make Obama their second choice, up from 32 percent who said so in July

- Zero percent of his supporters are "not too enthusiastic" about him, compared to 4% of Clinton and 6% of Edwards supporters

It could be Obama's attacks that are turning things, but it could be other things too. Since I personally like Obama but am not a huge fan of the recent attacks, I hope it is other things and I hope it doesn't become CW to judge these results along those lines.

we need to require stats classes for journalist - this poll is EXACTLY the same as the others - a statistical dead heat - movement within the MOE is NOT movement

Jesse wrote on November 19, 2007 5:35 PM:

Before you get too excited...this poll was taken before Thursday's debate....Let's see the next poll!!!

Excellent point. It appears to have been taken at the end of Clinton's worse couple of weeks of the campaign so far, when even die-hard supporters began wondering what was going on in her camp. They are appear to have recovered their stride and that is a Good Thing!

As happy as this poll makes me, it does frustrate me that every four years or so, it's like we all get amnesia.

Can't. Poll. Iowa.

There should be a disclaimer every time they flash these things on the TV screen: "Iowa Caucus Polls Are For Entertainment Purposes Only."

Keep working, organizing, and teaching caucusers the math, everyone!

Anyway, if I was a die-hard Obama fan I'd definitely be whooping it up tonight. Politics should always involve a certain amount of drinking.

I'll drink to that.... :-)

I think Obama is the Repubs worst nightmare - they really don't wnat to run against him -

All their candidates are dumping on HRC -and all their focus is on her.

Obama is their Waterloo, and they know it.

People like Obama. He made a good first impression, but people also like him more the more they see of him.

I guess both Obama and Edwards need to win Iowa. Does it mean Edwards is finished? I am surprised at his numbers as someone said he practically lived there for 6 years.. It looks like if doesn't do well in NH and South Carolina he will probably fall out.

Even if Obama wins Iowa its still long road ahead. I believe in 1992 Bill Clinton came 3rd in Iowa and NH.

I wouldn't take this poll very serious. It went with leaners. JRE is very popular in Iowa, and Obama may be the next Dean. Iowans might like him the best, but they won't go with him in the end. He is not as tested as JRE or Hillary. I think voters will realize that JRE does the best against all the repugs.

Gujar:

I agree, for the most part, with your post, except the last point. Clinton didn't finish well in Iowa, but he also didn't campaign there (none of the Democrats did) because Tom Harkin was running.

"The nadir of the caucuses was in 1992, when Iowa Senator Tom Harkin ran for the Democratic nomination. None of the other Democratic candidates chose to compete in Iowa, which minimized its importance in the nomination process."

So there is little, if anything, to be gleaned from the 1992 Iowa caucus results.

Salmon Jack, the 2006 Election was the Republican's Waterloo. The 2008 is the long walk back home through the Russian Winter that destroyed Napolean's army after its defeat in Waterloo.

Salmon Jack wrote on November 19, 2007 7:03 PM:

I think Obama is the Repubs worst nightmare - they really don't wnat to run against him -

All their candidates are dumping on HRC -and all their focus is on her.

Obama is their Waterloo, and they know it.

This is just silly. The GOP smear machine would be booted up and ready to run a racially charged campaign against Obama, and they won't even try to be subtle about it. I like Obama just fine but he will NOT be POTUS in 2008 America even if he wins the Dem nomination. I would be for him in 2016 when he would be 8 years wiser (won't take baits from one Robert D. Novak and slam a fellow Democrat) and America would have gotten used to the idea of a non-white male POTUS.

Greg Sargent's effort to spin these poll numbers as the result of Hillary's rival's criticism of her seems bogus. Iowa voters have seen Hillary, met her, heard her ads. They know Hillary and seem to be turning to Obama.

The real Hillary is the reason she is losing support.

dcshungu:

You are absolutely HILarious. Repubs need independents to win, no matter who turns out to be the Democratic nominee. Running a racially charged campaign gets them absolutely NO WHERE, especially if Romney or Guiliani is the candidate (both hope to capture some Democrats and a chunk of independents with their more moderate positions). Alienating a good part of the Democractic base and independents is counter-productive, especially where you have a candidate (Obama) that is actually polling better than any other Democrat (in most polls) with Republicans and Independents.

Nothing personal against Obama, folks. But if you think the US of A is gonna even come close to electing a black man, you're either batshit insane or you've been living under a rock for the last 300 years.

NamelessFaceless said: "Polls this far out remain meaningless."

Should have stopped there. What's the point of five more paragaphs?

Jim J,

And the same question to you: what evidence do you have to support your assertion that your fellow Americans are too racist to elect a black man?

I am not a professional when it comes to reading into the statistical relevance of polls. Key to my concern is this: how is one supposed to interpret the margin of error?

Despite TPM-EC screaming headline, this race is a three-way tie... Clinton could be ahead of Obama, Obama could be way ahead of Clinton. Edwards could be ahead of Clinton or Clinton could be way ahead of Edwards. That is what's called a statistical dead hheat.

The logic of JimJ's post is really pretty disgusting: "the country's too racist to elect a black man, so let's honor that racism by not nominating one."

There are those who think the same is true about a woman. I deplore Sen. Clinton's candidacy and fervently wish she's wake up tomorrow morning and decide to be a solid liberal Senator--or, failing that, retire from public life to make milliions as a corporate lawyer--but I think neither her supporters nor her opponents view her candidacy primarily as a factor of her gender. In 2007, Obama's racial background similarly should be a non-factor.

Anonymous at 8:10

You didn't have to read it. At any rate, you may put your hand back down your pants and carry on.

Enjoy.

Sorry...I have been forgetting to close my "blockquotes", making my response and the comments I am responding to indistinguishable, but the content should clarify which is which...

dcshungu wrote on November 19, 2007 8:39 PM:

Sorry...I have been forgetting to close my "blockquotes", making my response and the comments I am responding to indistinguishable, but the content should clarify which is which...

This is a test...

dcshungu: My bad, I was reading too quickly.

Any chance TPM or Election Central will report Mason-Dixon poll in Florida showing Hillry losing to Guiliani, Romeny or Thompson. It also shwos Hillary as the only candidate with higher negatives than favorables: "45 percent of voters have an unfavorable opinion of her, while 38 percent have a favorable opinion."

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2007/11/giuliani-beats.html

These polls are not meant to be predictive. They are meant to justify corporate coverage.

These polls are published so big media doesn't have to cover subjects like Kucinich who has a complete health care program, an impeachment bill pending, and a promise to dump NAFTA. The MSM would rather print spicy but meaningless quotes about 'slinging mud' from their 'frontrunner'

But in the GE, after the Repub smear machine has pushed all the "right" buttons, you can be sure that even some white Dems and Independents would consciously or subconciously become swayed.

sadly, I have to agree. The problem is that while in theory america is "ready" for a black president, I don't see how Obama wins. Simply put, he's going to be attacked relentlessly... he's screwed if he responds agressively, because while America may be ready for to elect a black man, they aren't ready to elect an angry black man. If he doesn't respond aggressively, he's screwed because he'll be portrayed as weak and lacking in "leadership" and "toughness".

One of the reasons that Obama started strong and then faded is that Democrats want a fighter this year -- but Obama knew that if he projected a "fighter" image, the GOP noise machine would immediately start asking "is Obama too angry?" because while he would not have been to angry for Democrats, that "angry" image would doom his general election campaign.

Finally, lets face it... Obama has demonstrated that he lacks the kind of finesse that comes only from experience. He doesn't know what attacks to sidestep, and which ones to confront head on... and he doesn't seem to have any skill at dealing with attacks head-on. (in the debates, he went all wonky.... and he's lashing out at Hillary in ways that don't make sense right now.)

Bottom line, this is not going to be Obama's year -- he's too new, and it will be too easy for the GOP to define him the way they want to. (Four or) eight years from now, if he plays his cards right in the Senate, he will have insulated himself from the GOP attack machine, and learned how to be a viable candidate.

Actually, for such a newbie, Obama has demonstrated that he is capable of running neck-in-neck with one of the most highly touted political machines in modern times.

Fundraising. Crowds.

I realize this 'inexperience' story line is one that is in every morning's talking points email, but that doesn't mean it's true.

I think voters want something new, something other than the same old, same old. Hillary is fatally flawed for the times.

That's not to say that a woman should not be president, just that THIS woman should not be president. And, the times call for someone who can represent a break from the past.

dc, you never cease to amaze me. Sometimes you are off the charts, as I am, with attacks and other times, you are reasonable and well semi-normal. Props on the posts.

signed - wingnut, left wing, wacko, pinko, commie, ocd, etc.

I believe what we are about to see is that Obama is going to morph into a movment in terms of the politics he is representing. Americans are sick and tired of diviseness that doesn't allow us to govern, they are tired of the war and the entire corporate lobbyist corruptive influence over our democracy when it comes to the citizens having representation.

The America public believes our system of government is broken and that HRClinton represents the status quo and more of the same...her remarks about 'lobbyists are Americans, too' is going to haunt her long after she is not the nominee.

Obama has tapped into a powerful discontent and the masses are yearning for leadership out of the muck and mire of DC politics as usually as well as the cynicism and morass that keeps our democracy from functioning.

Obama coming out and identifying how Hillary did not renounce Novaks attack on her just adds to the growing sense of how HRClinton is 'politics as usual' 'textbook campaigning' and 'more of the same'. He tied her to the backbiting and negativity Americans are sick of.

Iowans at the Jeff/Jack dinner heard when Barack said that America has made progress when their leaders stood for something and took a stand to lead on the issues and tell them what they need to hear not what they want to hear. Obama helped Iowans to visualize greatness and reminded them of how much the American dream meant to them and tapped into their American spirit to have each generation build on the last generation.

Obam is becoming a movement...and he would have been one before now had all of his rallys and forums been covered with the same attention to detail that polls are given on our nightly news casts. If the people had seen the masses clamoring to hear this man speak and turning out in droves...Hillary would have fell from the polls long time ago..because it is a sight to behold the diversity of the crowd. America has been waiting 40 years for this type of leader after all the promise of JFK, RFK and MLK were ripped from our national conscious. Their dreams are like smoldering embers simply waiting for the right leader to set ablaze...and Obama is creating glowing embers...Clinton wanted to turn up the heat and she is going to get ran over by the blaze that Obama's movement becomes.

This poll today will be remembered as the beginning of Obama's landslide as the dream of what America can be and the love Americans have for their country began to be a possibility instead of impossibility in Americans minds.

Obama touches all that is good in the hearts of Americans, he inspires Americans to do better, and to beleive that we as Americans CAN have better and we need not settle for the corruption and corporate control of our government.

Go Obama!
Fired up.
Ready to go.

The influence of what happens in Iowa and New Hampshire is becoming less with each election cycle. The real decision day is February 5th. See which candidates are already putting the resources into the big states on that day even without much publicity. One Person, One Vote.

Slightly off-topic, but did TPM have anything on the exchange Obama had with a Republican woman in Iowa about terrorism? Apparently MSNBC gave a too short clip and said he was rude to the woman, and then FOX News of all places had a longer clip and put it into perspective:

http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/11/19/obama-takes-the-tough-questions/

Watching this, I am even more enthusiastic about Obama.

Texas,
great link...thanks

I really liked how Obama delineated the differences between the Sunni, Shia and Muslims.
Bush has told his lies too long..hopefully this will be the beginning of destroying that misinformation to help America lead again globally.

Based on that woman's opinion following the exchange, it seems she was planted by the HRC campaign...her mind was made up seemingly and nothing Barack could have said would have changed her opinion despite him obviously knowing far more than she did to begin with about the sects and muslim cultures.

Barack is a better Republican than Hillary is.

It doesn't matter who the Democrats nominate, thanks to George W. the Democrats will win in 2008. That is why the primary is so exciting.

It would be truly exciting if a real Democrat (like Edwards) were nominated, forcing the Republicans to either vote for the real Democrat or stay home, but that is not going to happen. What will happen is that a Republican with a "Democrat" label will be nominated - either Hillary or Barack.

wow, texas. that's great.
obama/biden '08!

Even if Obama wins in Iowa what difference does it really make? May be he gets some momentum but does it really going to help in other big states like FL, NY and CA against Hillary.

I just checked statewide polls on pollster.com and realclearpolitics.com and in every other states Hillary is leading Obama by significant margins. In addition, there were 3 polls came out in last few days from Iowa (Research 2000, ARG and Rasmussen) all showed Obama at 25, 21, and 24% respectively. Same polls showed Hillary at 26, 27, and 27 respectively. Could this poll in statistical terms an outlier? We will have to wait for few more polls before really concluding that Obama has some momentum in Iowa.

Jim J wrote:
"Nothing personal against Obama, folks. But if you think the US of A is gonna even come close to electing a black man, you're either batshit insane or you've been living under a rock for the last 300 years."

I suspect it depends at least as much on how many people like you there are than on how racist a campaign Repubs run. Are you familiar with the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy?

You remind me of judges who used to rip children out of their loving but "non-traditional" families and then explain that they were just trying to protect the children from being treated badly by society.

Gujar, of course it matters when Obama wins Iowa.

It matters because money and volunteers will divert from losing campaigns into the winnning campaigns. Of the three top candidates, the real loser in Iowa will be the candidate who comes in third.

And, no, we don't know how it's going to play out right now. But I've always viewed Hillary like an incumbent because she has extremely high name recognition on the national level. But I found in my neighborhood that the undecided folks were very high; there were reservations about Hillary. And that's simply NOT a good sign. It means that if Obama closes the sale with voters, then he will win the election. That is, I surmise, what we are starting to see in Iowa. Obama is closing the sale with caucus-goers.

I don't know if Obama can continue closing the sale in Iowa and then go across the nation. But I believe he can.

But, hey, I've been an Obama supporter for quite some time so I've got a dog in this race. :)

stlounick,

I think either Obama or Hillary will be do fine in general election. Obama can win based on his personal charisma and Hillary can win with the Clinton political machine. I am not sure about Edwards. Even though he might be a genuine person he just doesn't have Obama's charisma or Clinton's machine.

Nameless Face has the statistical theory down, but the reason that I continue to say that small phone polls should really be considered to have a margin of error 2-3 times the stated margin of error is in the reality of telephone culture in America today.

This poll is 500 people in just one small state, so that's somewhat better than a 500-person poll meant to represent the whole nation, which isn't worth much more than the paper it's printed on.

The statistical theory rests on the assumption that each data point is truly randomly selected from the larger population. If the date is either X or 0, a true binary choice with no other possibilities, no don't knows, no shades of greys, then a survey which was a true random selection from the larger population would be an accurate reflection of the distribution of Xs and Os in the larger population, with the stated margins of error.

But telephone culture in America today makes 500 calls with completed surveys an inherently skewed sample. There are people who just aren't going to answer their phone, and these also tend to be the people whose intentions are hardest to gauge. Plus political choices are not binary (though stupid poll-writers try to make them seem so), plus cell-phones, plus generational differences, etc., etc. I've done plenty of cold-calling phone work; you will have four people who do answer their phone but just can't be bothered with your rap, for every one who will interact with you. It's just not a random sample anymore.

Now Iowa may have a "midwestern" ethos of answering the phone and being straightforward (doing calls for MoveOn last year, I noticed a very distinct difference between the friendly people of Indiana who answered one out of 4 or 5 calls and talked, and Connecticut where it was all "Your number is not registered as a number we take calls from" and if I got thru to 2 people out of a hundred calls, they wouldn't talk. So 500 calls in Iowa, the true margin of error may be less than twice the stated margin (even in Iowa, the most interesting people aren't necessarily answering their phones).

For a national poll of 500 or 800 phone calls, the true margin of error is probably at least three times the stated margin of error.

How do the people do the quote box to make it color where it showed better when you read?.

Zorba,

At the beginning of the text that you want to set off in a quote box, type the word "blockquote" (without the quotes) bracketed between a less-than (shift+comma) and greater-than (shift+period) symbol. At the end of the quoted text, repeat the same tag with a slash (/) preceding the word "/blockquote" again, bracketed between greater-than and less-than symbols.

Sorry I can't just type it for you to see. If I did, the forum engine would parse the tags and make a quote box.

Actually there is one thing I can try. Maybe this will work if the forum parser supports the "code" tag.

some text that you want to quote

/I think Obama is the Repubs worst nightmare - they really don't wnat to run against him - All their candidates are dumping on HRC -and all their focus is on her. Obama is their Waterloo, and they know it./

I hope you're right. Because I smell a trap.

As much as voters want change and may act on said wants during a primary, I suspect many undecideds waffle at the end and *do* tend to fallback on "experience."

For this reason, I'm worried, actually VERY worried NONE of the leading Democrats possess direct or comparable "executive experience" unlike GOP counterparts, with only Richardson from barren New Mexico able to claim any at all.

That's one reason, I think, Republicans fear "The Clintons" now. Because GOP strategists either know or intuit voters *will* cast their votes for Hillary thinking of Bill.

Which can only mean a general campaign blitz HEAVY on sure-to-be-seeded doubts about the "executive experience" of the Democratic nominee.

In other words, all Democrats who feel warm and fuzzy about their favorite candidate now better be prepared for the blizzard sure to come.

Damn you Al Gore!
This internet stuff is hard!

Damn you Al Gore! This internet stuff is hard!

P.S. thanks for CalD on how to do the text quote

Mr. Gore also gave the global warm but it is scripted for him. it's due to weather from the sun that we did before it was an ice age. this was not from man because it's even before that.

dcshungu says "This is just silly."

I rarely read anything on these poses that I consider "silly." That type of introducaiton to a post telegraphs that a WEAK argument will follow.

dcshungu, tyring to belittle statement you disagree with is certainly in the best Bush-Clinton tradition: if you disagree with me you are the ENEMY. But many of us are trying to raise the level of political disourse so that differences are discussed and understood.

I am sure you have much to contribute to such a discussion. You post VERY often. Please try to leave you "attack mode" at the Clinton Campaign Office" and show a little respect for honest differences of opinion here.

CalD said, "I don't actually see Obama as particularly charismatic."

Your opinion is valid because it's yours. But have you heard Obama speak? Have you looked him in the eye person to person?

You comment suggests that you have not. In Iowa, he has turned many real skeptics into activists. He is electrifyingly charismatic. He has ideas, vision, a gift for expression, the capacity to challenge, inspire, persuade and lead a large marjority of the nation. This nation is crying out for that type of leadership.

CalD, few who have met him and heard him would agree with you.

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-11202007

Here's a new Yahoo news survey that came out today. Guess what. Obama's the most likeable Dem. Heck, I'm a diehard Hillary supporter and I've loved the guy since "the speech" and when he ran for the US Senate in Illinois.

However, when you read the results of this really well done survey, the Leftist-Behind, Circular Firing Squad Wing of the Democratic Party will not find much to cheer about re the Hateful, Triangulatin' (rhymes with) Buppity Itch.

I'm sure this will be a topic today - so take an advance look, Hillogynists, and prepare yourself to advance your "Everybody (I) knows that Hillary is . . . " and "I can't understand how people can be so stupid as to . . ." talking points so their Hillary-hatin' comrades here can take comfort together in their knowlegeable, progressive superiority.

Re this survey of actual Americans who might not live on TPM-EC - they then can disbelieve their own lying eyes re the truth about how progressive Democrats like me really feel about Senator Hillary Clinton, the soon-to-be first woman President in the glorious, progressive history of our nation!

Just to follow up a prior post with a few numbers:

The latest poll I know of which tested the likability issue in depth was the latest NBC/WSJ national poll:

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/wsjnbcpoll20071108.pdf

They asked the respondents to rate whether both Clinton and Obama were "easygoing and likable" on a five point scale, with 5 being the highest, 1 being the lowest, and 3 being mixed. The results were:

Obama: 5=34%, 4=28%, 3=22%, 2=6%, 1=5% (5% NA)

Clinton: 5=18%, 4=16%, 3=25%, 2=12%, 1=27% (2% NA)

So Obama scored dramatically better than Clinton on this attribute, with his positive ratings outweighing his negative ratings 62% to 11%, and Clinton's negative ratings outweighing her positive ratings 39% to 34%. Obama also scored significantly better than Clinton on attributes such as compassion, honesty, moral standards, and being inspirational.

So, it seems that so far most people do not share CalD's feelings that Obama is "rather distant and aloof" and Clinton is "much more personable".

colonpowwow,

Thanks for the link. AP-Yahoo! gave the respondents four choices: very well, somewhat well, slightly, and not-at-all. The pattern they got was consistent with the NBC/WSJ results. Specifically, for likable it was:

Obama: very=25%, somewhat=29%, slightly=24%, not-at-all=19% (4% NA)

Clinton: very=19%, somewhat=22%, slightly=23%, not-at-all=35% (1% NA).

Obama also significantly outpolled Clinton on honest, compassionate, refreshing, ethical, and attractive.

DemAC,

I agree that Clinton laid out worthwhile goals in her response to that question. The problem is that it appears she is not a good choice to achieve those goals, because every poll I have seen indicates that she is indeed a polarizing figure.

colonpowwow,

By the way, I assume you are referring to the part of the poll in which they asked people to say what attributes were most important to them, with likability not ranking particularly high. I am skeptical about how much we can rely on such a response, because studies have shown that people are very poor predictors of their own behavior.

In any event, even taking that result at face value, the news is not good for Clinton. The two most important attributes were honest and ethical. The breakdown for those categories was:

Honest:

Obama: very=16%, somewhat=32%, slightly=29%, not-at-all=19% (NA 5%)

Clinton: very=16%, somewhat=23%, slightly=23%, not-at-all=38% (NA 1%)

Ethical:

Obama: very=18%, somewhat=31%, slightly=29%, not-at-all=19% (NA 4%)

Clinton: very=17%, somewhat=24%, slightly=24%, not-at-all=35% (NA 1%)

So, changing the focus from likability to what the respondents claim matters the most to them (honesty and ethics) actually does not help Clinton.

colonpowwow,

I actually went to the poll data itself, which is available in the PDF link on that page.

I can't explain the numbers in that chart. They claim it is sourced to the poll, but I don't see how they got the numbers in the chart from what is available in the polling data.

DemAC says Clinton confronts the polarizing issue and does it magnificently, and offers a link to a Caucus post about Clinton answering to the issue in Tama, Iowa.

Yes, she spoke to the issue, but not er, what I would call 'magnificently].
Her answer, paraphrased:
1] Bush is polarizing, I am the anti-Bush {so, being the anti-Bush must mean anti-polarizing, in case you missed this leap].
2] I am 'looking for' a way to isolate negativity and diminish extremes.....[still looking?]
3] being a centrist myself.....the way to handle special interests is to 'surround them to defeat them and isolate and marginalize them' [whatever do these words mean???].
4] 'they' have been after me for 15 years, and I am still standing [I am not sure what this means, unless she is saying that she is somehow turning non-polarizing because she has survived being a symbol of one ''side' within the polarization]
5] I am not running to be President of the Democrats, but rather President of the United States where we 'solve problems together'. [flattering of her to use Barack's words....]

DemAC, I do give Clinton credit for trying to address this issue, especially in Tama, Iowa, home of common sensical feet-on-the-ground folks.

I do not agree that her answers were especially good or persuasive. I think Clinton has a real problem with the issue of polarization, especially vis a vis Obama's messages. Her first point [I am the anti-Bush] provided a bizarre polarizing outline for her subsequent statements.

If you call yourself "Election Central" shouldn't you at least mention the candidates? A page search of the main EC paged came up with not one mention of Kucinich, Biden, Richardson, Dodd or Gravel. 12 mentions of Clinton. What the hell are you covering?

Donnag,
Well, for the Obama die hards nothing short of Senator Clinton ending her campaign and endorsing Obama will suffice I suppose.

For many of us however Senator Clinton’s leadership and candidacy is truly inspiring and it’s important to remind people that Senator Clinton will be a very strong candidate in the general election; quite contrary to what her opponents in the Democratic primaries are trying to spin.

Okay, I'm glad he's ahead in a poll. It makes me feel good and I'll take any bandwagon bump we can get. But, on the subject of Iowa caucus polling in general, maybe somebody who has statistics knowledge that wasn't all crammed into short term memory the night before a final exam taken twenty years ago can help me out here.

First, how do find a "likely caucus goer" to poll when a) only a tiny percentage of Iowans (1% - 1.5%, I recall seeing somewhere?) caucus; b) the intake and exit data on who actually caucused in the past apparently pretty terrible; c) apparently not everyone who goes stays until the end, so even if they showed, they don't show up in the exit polling demographics; and, d) there is no consistancy as to whether Iowa is contested from election to election, therefore the historical caucus label is meaningless.

How can you predict caucus attendance based on past behavior when that includes years when some local was in the running and everyone else blew Iowa off? And how can you estimate first time attendance by young people based on past performance when this time you have both an open race, a really unpopular war going on and no "I'll vote for anyone who isn't Bush" factor this time? Then throw in the fact that the date of the thing is moving around the calendar like a lunar holiday.

Finally, even assuming you can get a handle on who will attend, how in the name of all that's logical can you possibly get a statistically meaningful read on the likely actual outcome given the way delegates are actually distributed? Podunk County may have ten people at its caucus while Suburban may have a hundred. But if Podunk County has gone Democratic the last five elections, it may well get more delegates than Suburban County that has three times the population but went Republican the last three times.

How can you possibly draw statistically valid conclusions about what's going to happen in the delegate count given all that?

That's why I say Ouija boards and Magic 8-Balls. So can we please move to another comment and argue about a poll from which one may extract some actual meaning?

"Hillary Clinton is a veteran of six successful (and one unsuccessful) gubernatorial campaigns, two successful presidential campaigns,"

Bullshit (and bullshit), Bullshit

This is kinda amusing.

Rasmussen has consistently had Clinton in the lead in Iowa by a significant amount and nationwide by almost double the support for Obama, but the WaPo/ABC gang keeps putting up polls that show Obama with a lead?

Seems like WaPo/ABC is trying to game the system.

Well, Obama supporters can have the 15 minutes of glee, just like Dean's supporters in 2004.

[blockquote]This is kinda amusing.

Rasmussen has consistently had Clinton in the lead in Iowa by a significant amount and nationwide by almost double the support for Obama, but the WaPo/ABC gang keeps putting up polls that show Obama with a lead?

Seems like WaPo/ABC is trying to game the system.

Well, Obama supporters can have the 15 minutes of glee, just like Dean's supporters in 2004.[/blockquote]

Thanks, Howard. Having a bad day? :-)

NCSteve, I have to agree with you when you question the possibility of "a statistically meaningful read on the likely actual outcome," particularly in a state with a weird and complicated caucus process.

Here's the NY Times on Jan 18, 2004.

What until last week had seemed like a two-way contest for first between Howard Dean and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri has turned into what Democrats described as a four-way free-for-all with two days remaining before Monday's caucuses.

Field ops are more important than polls, as Kerry proved, and supposedly Edwards and Obama are running better field operations than Clinton. They are better able to leverage the current three-way tie than she.

The polls do provide a snapshot (one that takes on a sepia tone very quickly) that can be used to measure trends. From this angle, no one can assume outcomes, but Obama's progress is very encouraging.

The polls, regardless of whether Obama is technically ahead or within the margin of error, are further evidence deflating the myth that HRC is invincible in the primaries.

And I agree with Perplexed. I don't think MikeH has much evidence that there's an MSM conspiracy against Hillary. I can see maybe a Kucinich supporter or a Gravel supporter complaining that their candidate got short schrift from the MSM, but Hillary? Come on. We're talking Wolf Blitzer here.

CalD,

Again as an aside, I certainly wasn't trying to invalidate your personal subjective opinions. My only point was that insofar as we are looking at these issues because we are interested in electoral politics, the relevant issue is what subjective opinions the electorate might have, as opposed to any given individuals.

Anyway, on the experience issue: I am sure that Hillary Clinton did in fact get an opportunity to observe Bill Clinton's campaigns closely. The obvious question then becomes to what degree those observations are transferable to a campaign in which she, and not Bill, is the candidate.

I suspect we may disagree on the answer to that question, and I certainly think reasonable people could disagree. I just think it is a useful distinction to keep in mind (the difference between what you might learn from observing a campaign for someone else, and what you might learn from a campaign in which you are actually the candidate).

As a final note, Obama also participated in a heavily contested primary election for the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate. Without trying to erase the distinction between primary and general elections, I would note that was in fact a statewide contest.

Not sure if this has been explained already, and it's rather an obvious point, but I noticed some inane comments about how the "second choice" percentages don't make sense because Hillary couldn't have lost support if she remained viable. This is wrong. Those numbers represent only the second choices of that *remaining 22 percent* of likely caucus-goers who backed non-viable candidates. And the fact that so few of the fringe-candidate-backers have Hillary as a second choice is an extremely important result of this poll. What this means (though of course the HRC-biased TPM-EC conspicuously does not highlight this) is that Obama's 30-26-22 lead over Clinton and Edwards -- after accounting for second choices of non-viable candidate supporters -- is actually something more like a 38-29-28 lead.

Bye bye M.O.E. And Clinton's in a dead heat with Edwards for the *silver*.

It is of course true that Hillary's numbers in Iowa have remained rigid, impervious (as you might expect from the statements her supporters have tended to make) to even the most well-reasoned criticisms of her on key policy issues (also known, apparently, as "attacks out of the Republican playbook"). And it is true most of Obama's gains have come at the expense of Edwards. To which I am confident even the majority of Edwards supporters (and I count myself among them) would begrudgingly say "fine by us," as it is a much better result than a Hillary victory. What this shows to me is that HRC's numbers aren't going anywhere. When all is said and done, she's got 30 percent of the Democratic party that she hasn't alienated, and who will vote for her simply because she is: (a) a Clinton (and/or famous); (b) a woman; (c) a moderate Republican like themselves, party registration notwithstanding; or (d) some combination of the above. Her leads in the national polls or the polls of other states which are not among the first primaries (polls which often indicate support of 40 percent or greater) are really just a function of the voters in those states not paying close enough attention to the race at this point. The more they pay attention, the more the numbers will resemble Iowa, where voters have been focusing on the primary for over a year.

It is bizarre to me that the MSM has never really bothered to challenge Hillary on her progressive, liberal, democratic credentials, but instead takes it as accepted wisdom. Even Obama and Edwards have pulled punches in this regard. Case in point: Hillary made a point to state in the Vegas debate that she had a "35 year career of fighting for democratic values" (likely not exact quote, but the number of years is correct). This, to me, was an astounding statement. Not simply because it was a lie, since Hillary spent a large chunk of the past 35 years working as a lawyer at a large corporate law firm, and serving on the boards of such progressive companies as Wal-Mart. Not simply for that, but also for what she left *out*. By her reference to "35 years" she is implying that her public life, her career in political activism, *began* 35 years ago, when she (at the urging of her Yale classmate, and new boyfriend, Bill) volunteered for George McGovern in 1972. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Have any of you Clinton supporters read this NY Times article??

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I'll summarize for you.

1960, Chicago, IL: at the age of 13, Hillary -- a child of very conservative republican parents -- pounds the pavement in the aftermath of the presidential election, on behalf of RICHARD NIXON, making the case that JFK and the Dems committed election fraud in Illinois and thereby stole the election.

1964: at the age of 17, Hillary volunteers for the presidential campaign of REPUBLICAN Barry Goldwater!

1965: as a freshman in college -- and may a remind you, this is now *post* Civil Rights Act, and all the civil unrest which preceded it -- Hillary becomes the president of the Wellesley College YOUNG REPUBLICANS!

1968: Hillary, prior to volunteering for the presidential campaign of (concededly moderate) Republican Nelson Rockefeller, spends the summer interning for Melvin Laird (as in Pres. Nixon's eventual defense secretary, Melvin Laird), at the House REPUBLICAN Conference!

These things are undeniably parts of Hillary's story. And what's more, they are parts of her story as to which -- should Edwards or Obama make light of them in the primary -- general-election-paranoid Dems can rest easy that they will provide no ammunition, and highlight no defining flaw, for the GOP to seize hold of and use against Hillary in the general election (can you imagine the GOP trying to win over voters by saying Hillary is too Republican?).

Thus, the case I think either Obama or Edwards should be making against Hillary boils down to highlighting the chief paradox of her candidacy: that she holds the dubious distinction of being, in actuality (and as evidenced not only by her recent voting record, but also her past GOP affiliation), the most conservative, corporate-minded and hawkish among the top 3 candidates (and thus the worst choice for us, on the merits), while simultaneously being almost universally (albeit inaccurately) perceived by those on the right, and even many independents, as the "softest" and most liberal among the top 3 (and thus the worst choice for us, in terms of electability).

Both Obama and Edwards can favorably distinguish themselves from Hillary on this basis. But because both can do so, it is imperative that Edwards and Obama supporters broker a deal, and that they do so *early* in the primary season. Not just for the excess caucus-goers in Iowa, as one poster suggested, but rather, for all of their combined delegates. The "Hillary vs. Any Dem But Hillary" question is not one that has been *directly* asked of voters in any of the recent polls, but if you look closely (particularly at the second choice numbers for Edwards, Obama, and the remainder of the candidates), the information is there. Let Obama and Edwards duke it out for Iowa, and whichever one of them wins (or, at worst, places second to HRC), the other guy needs to get out of the way, and get comfortable with a veep nom.

Excellent points southpaw. It continues to amaze me that in a stunning year where the most progressive candidates are the least polarizing and pull the most independents, we are talking about nominating the least progressive AND most polarizing one.

This is bizarro world for me. True to her DLC colors, Clinton calls removing the SoSec ceiling a "trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class," and it's Edwards and Obama that get booed. Amazing what a machine can do.

I think Obma is the novelty guy because he is no wasp Angle american but ethnic. once a novelty weres off he is no more than hillary being a liberal properganda underneath him. his tax idea suck and ilegal migrant ideas is no good. and his vote record is the democrat. as for experience they both the same not much. so to me Obama and Hillry are same except hes a man and she's Angle. sofar the democrat people have'nt made a candate id like to vote in, and repulican is not too better either. at least my opinion.