Obama Closing On Hillary In Another National Poll
Another national poll -- this one from Pew -- shows Obama closing on Hillary in the run-up to Super Tuesday. Here are the numbers, as compared with this same poll earlier in January:
Clinton 46% (before 46%)Obama 38% (before 31%)
Hillary's non-movement suggests that much of Edwards' support has gone to Obama and the remainder of it remains undecided, the pollsters suggest. Obama jumped seven points in the last few weeks nationally to close within single digits of Hillary.
What's more, the poll shows that Obama's national support has jumped an astonishing 20 points since December.
Meanwhile, on the GOP side, McCain has dramatically expanded his lead: He has 42%, putting him 20 points ahead of Romney, who has 22%. Huckabee has 20%.
Separately, the poll has some very interesting things to say indeed about whether Bill's recent antics have damaged Hillary against Obama. Take a look.
68% want Bill Clinton back in the white house. Unbelievable. These morons think the nineties are coming back if they throw the lever for Hillary. Boy are they in for a rude shock.
February 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Err, a semantic point that is not irrelevant.
The poll shows that Obama has closed the gap since early January. This should surprise nobody.
The poll does not show that Obama is closing on Hillary right now. That may be the million dollar question for a lot of people, but only the daily tracking polls can answer it.
February 3, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure if that last link really has anything to do with how Bill has affected Hillary's support. The question was whether one would like to see him back in the White House. There might be a correllation between the two, but I don't see how its proven there is a causation between whether people wouldn't mind seeing him in the White House and how it affects their vote in a primary.
February 3, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In addition to making it more difficult for people to post their comments, this site has now become totally focused on only what the polls are reporting. Looks like this blog has decided that it now wants to play a part in the vacuous echo chamber politics of national TV coverage.
February 3, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pew and Rasmussen are fine and well, but the gold standard of opinion polling remains the Gallup Organization. And their three-day tracking poll, just posted, shows Clinton 46%, Obama 44%. That’s a statistical dead heat.
From the write-up:
“Clinton appeared to reverse the trend toward Obama with a strong day on Feb. 1 -- the first day of interviewing after the Thursday night debate between the two candidates in Hollywood. But Saturday's polling showed a strong day for Obama, bringing the candidates back closer together in the latest three-day rolling average.”
That's more than a little interesting. Rasmussen and Gallup both showed Clinton widening the gap right after the debate. That means that most pundits (myself included) got the debate wrong. Once again, America's women found themselves drawn to Hillary when she wasn't spending her time launching attacks.
But in yesterday's sample, Rasmussen and Gallup produced very different results. Why would that be? The obvious answer is that it was Saturday, the toughest day of the week for polling. (Mark Blumenthal has eloquently detailed the challenges associated with Saturday polling at pollster.com, for the curious.) In general this cycle, Saturday polling has hurt Obama. It tends to undersample those who are out and about, and has a particularly large effect in robopolls, where many respondents hang up when they're busy. Gallup has a much more robust methodology, and though the poll is fairly new, we've seen much less variation between its Saturday and weekday samples that with Rasmussen.
So if I were a betting man, I'd wager that Gallup is closer to the mark here, and Rasmussen, too, will show a tightening race tomorrow. Worth noting: Sunday is the best day of the week for pollsters. Look for the final day of tracking polls to show this race tightening back up (Rasmussen) or evenly split (Gallup). And, because we're talking about trends, look for Obama to ride that surge into a better than expected performance on Tuesday.
February 3, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls on a national basis are all over the place. Rasmussen's lead for Hillary increased to 11 today.
As far as Gallup being the "gold standard" I think readers need to refer to this: http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/01/26/2008-presidential-primary-pollster-report-card-through-012608/ Gallup was rated 16th out of 25. Rasmussen was slightly, but only slightly ahead in accuracy.
One might say that Gallup is the General Motors of polling.
February 3, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Memo To Pundits: New Poll Finds That Number Of Dems Who Like Idea Of Bill Back In White House Hasn't Budged"
OK, I'll quibble. The fact is, H. Clinton's numbers haven't changed, and lo and behold, the people who want B. Clinton back in the White House appear to be the same. However, Baracks's numbers have risen substantially in a fairly short period of time, and I dare you to say that at least some of that isn't due to the specter of seeing Bill back, and everything that entails.
Did Bill's over-the-top attacks and outright distortions against a member of his own party hurt Bill's credibility? I'd say yes.
Did Bill's transparent attempt to polarize the campaign and the electorate in SC along racial lines hurt Hillary's campaign? I don't think there's any doubt about that.
How about the fact that during NH, and immediately afterward, Bill Clinton gleefully took over as the face of the campaign and completely overshadowed Hillary while unloading on Obama with everything he could muster? That hurt some, but I'm of the mind it hurts her much much more in the general.
Right now, you have the very legitimate question of, "what exactly has Bill been doing over the past 7 years?" The NYT provided some answers this past week, and it wasn't a good moment for the Clinton campaign. The though of going to bat again for the Clinton's throughout their administration doesn't strike me as something I have any desire to do at this point.
The numbers do say one thing though, and it's probably not a good thing for Team Clinton. It suggests that Hillary does indeed have a ceiling in the Democratic primary (which doesn't bode well for her in the general). And it suggests that Hillary's support is intrinsically tied to Bill, at least among Democrats. Again, a weakness in the general as Republicans will target Bill first and foremost, and they WILL take him out. Bill Clinton's legacy, which has taken a beating here in the primaries will not survive the 2008 Presidential campaign, regardless of who wins in the end. And this is what is dangerous about Bill and Hill running again. Everything Bill has done from the time he took office until today will be on trial for the voters to judge, and I don't think Hillary can survive that. Definitely not against McCain.
Ok, so I did more than just quibble.
February 3, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a theory about thee polls and why Obama, while still obviously the one with momentum, hasn't clearly pulled ahead...but will do MUCH better on Tuesday than anyone else believes....
If Obama's audiences were all home and not out at one of his 15 - 20 thousand strong rallys, the polling would be even more in favor of Obama, across the board, state by state.
HRC has more people (at home) to be polled because Obama voters are out at rally's in the tens of thousands, as opposed to Clinton's thousand or two.
Just a thought.
February 3, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why I keep getting logged out here. It's starting to get kinda annoying. I'm going to repost this, and my original comment will probably show up further down the thread. Sorry about the double post if it does, but I don't want to wait 2 hours for my comment to get approved and then posted.
#############################
"Memo To Pundits: New Poll Finds That Number Of Dems Who Like Idea Of Bill Back In White House Hasn't Budged"
Ok, I'll quibble. The fact is, H. Clinton's numbers haven't changed, and lo and behold, the people who want B. Clinton back in the White House appear to be the same. However, Baracks's numbers have risen substantially in a fairly short period of time, and I dare you to say that at least some of that isn't due to the specter of seeing Bill back, and everything that entails.
Did Bill's over-the-top attacks and outright distortions against a member of his own party hurt Bill's credibility? I'd say yes.
Did Bill's transparent attempt to polarize the campaign and the electorate in SC along racial lines hurt Hillary's campaign? I don't think there's any doubt about that.
How about the fact that during NH, and immediately afterward, Bill Clinton gleefully took over as the face of the campaign and completely overshadowed Hillary while unloading on Obama with everything he could muster? That hurt some, but I'm of the mind it hurts her much much more in the general.
Right now, you have the very legitimate question of, "what exactly has Bill been doing over the past 7 years?" The NYT provided some answers this past week, and it wasn't a good moment for the Clinton campaign. The though of going to bat again for the Clinton's throughout their administration doesn't strike me as something I have any desire to do at this point.
The numbers do say one thing though, and it's probably not a good thing for Team Clinton. It suggests that Hillary does indeed have a ceiling in the Democratic primary (which doesn't bode well for her in the general). And it suggests that Hillary's support is intrinsically tied to Bill, at least among Democrats. Again, a weakness in the general as Republicans will target Bill first and foremost, and they WILL take him out. Bill Clinton's legacy, which has taken a beating here in the primaries will not survive the 2008 Presidential campaign, regardless of who wins in the end. And this is what is dangerous about Bill and Hill running again. Everything Bill has done from the time he took office until today will be on trial for the voters to judge, and I don't think Hillary can survive that. Definitely not against McCain.
Ok, so I did more than just quibble.
February 3, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is skyrocketing so fast that anything but a poll taken within the hour is irrelevant. With constant high-powered endorsements that continue all during each day and his grass roots organization...well just hold on!!!
February 3, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
My support for Hillary dropped when she suggested that people be forced to buy insurance! So much for her ideas of health care.
I hope Obama wins, I don't think forcing healthy people to buy insurance is such a good idea, it is a tax when all else is non-disputed.
On that issue alone, should people be forced to buy insurance, I feel that obama wins, he should just call it the largest tax increase in history.
February 3, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Things are apparently so fluid at the moment that surveys may be unable to truly get a "representative sample." And thus the disparities between different polls seem so wide, because the samples may not be representative... or people are just wildly changing their minds... or those surveyed simply won't tell the truth... thus different stories.
I think this is one primary where the only thing that counts is the votes cast on the day.
I am heartened to see Obama's rapid rise in these polls. If Fly on the Wall is correct, then I feel even more heartened.
February 3, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Had the same problem. Post disappeared. Very frustrating as the software keeps logging me out unpredictably.
Heartened to see Obama's rise in the polls. Wondering if perhaps the poll disparities are due to difficulty of getting representative samples. Or people not willing to state their true preferences.
I hope Fly on the Wall above is correct that Gallop is more trustworthy. May it be so!
February 3, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's all well and good for die-hard Dems to say that Bill Clinton still stands high in their esteem. I suppose it's all well and good for die-hard Dems to say that Hillary has their vote because she's his wife and has a great record on her own, to boot.
But I'm a newly-registered Democrat and I don't want to have anything to do with the Clintons. I only registered because Obama is a Democrat, and he's the candidate I'm voting for.
February 3, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know how many voters will be seeing AP stories, but this one has the potential to single-handedly knock her out of the race:
http://apnews.myway.com//article/20080203/D8UJ05EO0.html
I can't believe they let this happen.
February 3, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
LisB nails the problem with inferring Bill having done no damage based on that poll because you're only looking at the Democrat's number. Obama has a much stronger appeal for Independents than either Clinton, and there was a significant 10-point shift in those who dislike the idea of Bill back in the White House.
Also, based on the huge overall increase of people participating in the primaries to-date, it's clear that Obama is bringing people out who haven't previously bothered and are very likely undersampled in these polls, both on the Democrat and Independent side.
February 3, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Together the polls show three things:
1. That where Obama and Clinton go head to head, the Clinton double digit leads vanish
2. Obama is surging in across the country
3. The undecided vote which can be expected to break in Obama's favor is surprisingly large
Latest Rasmussen Poll from CA Sunday, February 03, 2008
Barack Obama 45%
Hillary Clinton 44%.
February 3, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most fascinating divide to me, which is consistent across polls, is between the 65 and over group and the 50-65 group. The former is lopsidedly for Hillary, the latter tends to break evenly or slightly for Obama.
Partly, I suspect this is driven by the tendency of old people to prize experience over any other qualities. But, thinking about the radical changes in the social fabric between, say 1958 and 1968, I wonder if there's ever been as big a generational divide between people in these two age groups as there is now.
February 3, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been a loyal Democrat my whole life, and I can't stand the Clintons anymore. I refuse to vote for Hillary, ever. I'm so disgusted with their characters, their dirty campaign tricks and blatant lies, they are barely better than Republicans in my book. I know plenty of people who feel the same way, and ONE poll isn't going to convince me that this hasn't hurt them. Seriously, you are basing this on ONE poll? Look at every single poll in NH, and those were all bullshit apparently, and now we are basing things definitively on a single poll? Give me a break. The Clintons are scum and they've proven that to a lot of people in the last few months.
February 3, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a theory about the polls and why Obama is doing MUCH better then even the current numbers show.
While still obviously the one with momentum, Obama hasn't clearly pulled ahead or rather why the polls have been fluctuating so much... and why he will do MUCH better on Tuesday than anyone else realizes...
If Obama's audiences were all home and not out at one of his 15 - 20 thousand strong rallies, the polling would be even more in favor of Obama, across the board, state by state.
HRC has more people (at home) to be polled because Obama voters are out at rally's in the tens of thousands, as opposed to Clinton's thousand or two.
Just a thought.
February 3, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems Fly your gold standard on polls is the poll that suits you that day it seems. The polls have been off all season because of the absentee voting, thats gonna make them off, the more of them the more the polls will be off.
February 3, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeing as how my post still hasn't been submitted after, oh, at least 15 minutes, I think I'm getting tired of this site..
And I just saw a different poll that showed a 6% drop in Bill's favorable rating. Like I tried to say in my first post, basing all of that crap on a single poll is pretty stupid. I know what I know, and I know a lot of Dems, me included, are disgusted with the Clintons, both of them, and I could never cast a vote in favor of either of them ever again in good conscience. I know I'm not alone.
February 3, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure the polls are reasonably accurate reflecting an increased interest in Obama. That said, I think this interest is too little, too late, and will be very fleeting. Their volatility is the big news. I don't think the pollsters know quite how to adjust their numbers for the historic turnouts, for the vocal Internet minority who's volume far exceeds their numbers at the polling booth, etc.
My guess--we'll see more up and down before Tuesday. Obama will win Illinois and like a few others. I doubt he'll win 8 of the 22 as I've seen some suggest. Georgia shows the volatility with some radically different numbers.
But, after Tuesday, Hillary will be marked as the winner, even if as few as 14 of 22. The momentum will be hers and I think across the board there will be a strong push for everyone to rally around her. Especially as the Republican race will be all but over.
But, you know, even if it goes on competitively to Texas and the other remaining states, it only becomes better for Clinton and good for the party. Time becomes Obama's enemy. He doesn't offer much different than Clinton, his lack of experience increasingly becomes clear, the lasting image of his debate losses are revisited since no new debates appear currently planned, the drip-drip-drip of Rezko continues to pop up as a distraction and embarrassment, and people will begin more clearly comparing the two against McCain. Clinton is the clear choice and I'm sure will become the candidate of choice by traditional Democratic voters. Obama becomes an also ran, a spoiler maybe, but increasingly non-competitive in the big picture.
I'm 48 and have to admit that this is the best election cycle I have seen since becoming eligible to vote. I look forward to a Clinton-McCain matchup. I suspect Huckabee and Obama can play very important supporting roles.
February 3, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
"...Clinton is the clear choice and I'm sure will become the candidate of choice by traditional Democratic voters."
Why do I feel like I'm gonna be branded a heretic if the Clintons get the nomination? Death before dishonor. Principles matter to those who oppose your candidate, until she and her supporters display some, you'll never have my vote. How's that for a "traditional Democratic voter"?!
February 3, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm...my comments are psoting fairly erractically...so if this is repeat, apologies.
"Clinton is the clear choice and I'm sure will become the candidate of choice by traditional Democratic voters"
Why does this stuff I keep seeing from Clinton supprters tell me I'll be labeled as a heretic if she gets the nomination for supporting Obama and not the Clintons? It seems they're trying to say anyone who doesn't support the Clintons is not a real Democrat. I won't vote for her precisely because I'm a Democrat.
And these polls seem pretty fluid from day-to-day...I wouldn't put much stock in them...yet.
February 3, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times From January 8, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
"Women Are Never Front-Runners
By GLORIA STEINEM
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
If you answered no to either question, you’re not alone. Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life, whether the question is who must be in the kitchen or who could be in the White House. This country is way down the list of countries electing women and, according to one study, it polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy.
That’s why the Iowa primary was following our historical pattern of making change. Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women (with the possible exception of obedient family members in the latter).
If the lawyer described above had been just as charismatic but named, say, Achola Obama instead of Barack Obama, her goose would have been cooked long ago. Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex.
What worries me is that she is accused of “playing the gender card” when citing the old boys’ club, while he is seen as unifying by citing civil rights confrontations.
1 of 2
What worries me is that male Iowa voters were seen as gender-free when supporting their own, while female voters were seen as biased if they did and disloyal if they didn’t.
What worries me is that reporters ignore Mr. Obama’s dependence on the old — for instance, the frequent campaign comparisons to John F. Kennedy, though Senator Edward Kennedy is supporting Senator Clinton — while not challenging the slander that her progressive policies are part of the Washington status quo.
What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.
This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers. We have to be able to say: “I’m supporting her because she’ll be a great president and because she’s a woman.”
Gloria Steinem is a co-founder of the Women’s Media Center."
February 3, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink