Michael:

As per usual, it looks like you nailed it Mark on the weekend polling effects in the previous post.

Well done.

Posted on January 6, 2008 6:31 PM

 Nate:

Holy moly. That puts Obama up +10 over Clinton, where for the 1/4-1/5 poll (same pollster) they were dead even.

Posted on January 6, 2008 6:44 PM

 Michael:

Gallup has him up 13!

linky

That, ladies and gents, is a bounce.

Posted on January 6, 2008 7:24 PM

 Andrew:

The media may now stop pretending to like Barack Obama and begin Swiftboating him.

Posted on January 6, 2008 7:34 PM

 Michael:

Er, Andrew, the media doesn't "swiftboat". That term refers to attack ads bought by private political groups supposedly unaffiliated with rival campaigns.

That's not to say the media won't happily tear down politicians they don't like, or at least try to (they certainly didn't succeed with Bill), just that you're misusing the term.

And, its not obvious that the media doesn't like Obama, anyway. Recent history suggests the opposite is true: they like him very much, just like most every other American.

Posted on January 6, 2008 8:00 PM

 Prantha:

I have been waiting for Mark to adjust the trend lines in his NH chart (so that the yellow Obama line crosses over and rises above Hillary's purple line...)

Posted on January 6, 2008 8:49 PM

 True Dem:

Truly unfortunate that these small states get to kick off the primaries. Obama may do well in these tiny states but when the real deal comes with Michigan being the first big state to have its primaries then you can expect his hype to go way back down. Because right now though he may be doing well in these itty bitty states, he sure isn't doing well in the big one's. And that is what is the most crucial part of this election; Guliani surely knows that. Godbelss the big states, they are what make up most of this nation and should realistically have most of the say.

Posted on January 6, 2008 9:43 PM

  Sha:

Over decades the Clintons and Bush'e establishment have made billions from MidEast oil, contracts from war project and controbutions from Chinese and Indian lobbyists. The old establishment including McCain, Clintons, supported or watched all that was bad for America from sending Bush to expensive war, letting illegal immigration go unquestioned, helping corporations outsource American jobs to India and China. While they were killing American economy they kept telling American people that American people should not worry about any of these things as it is all good. When McCains, Clintons and others from old establishment saw that ordinanry people are understanding their tricks and Obama and Edward, Huckabee, and Romney are becoming the light of hope, McCain and Clinton started offering change. My Question is : why they could not bring the change they are talking about when they had over 30 years of time in Washington. Is this another trick from the hat to mislead the ordinary people?
Sorry McCain and Clinton your time is over!
You cannot fool all the people all of the time...

Posted on January 6, 2008 10:13 PM

 Sha:

Over decades the Clintons and Bush's establishment have made billions from MidEast oil, contracts from war projects and contributions from Chinese and Indian lobbyists. The old establishment including McCain, Clintons, supported or watched all that was bad for America from sending Bush to expensive war, letting illegal immigration go unquestioned, helping corporations outsource American jobs to India and China. While they were killing American jobs and economy they kept telling American people that American people should not worry about any of these things as it is all good. As a result we are close to recession, our jobs have gone overseas as a result unemployment in US has increased, cost od commodities have gone hiked. When McCains, Clintons and others from old establishment felt that ordinanry people are understanding their tricks and Obama and Edward, Huckabee, and Romney etc are becoming the light of hope, McCain and Clinton started offering change. My Question is : why they could not bring the change they are talking about when they had over 30 years of time in Washington. Is this another trick from the hat to mislead the ordinary people?
Sorry McCain and Clinton your time is over!
You cannot fool all the people all of the time...

Posted on January 6, 2008 10:22 PM

 jjcooper:

Truedem, i hear what your saying, but i disagree only a little. About the primary system, I think it's better that the smaller states go first in the process. For starters it forces candidates to meet people and address concerns directly, rather than being able to rely on a pure mass media campaign, retail politicking rather than wholesale.
And as for Michigan, if Obama had been campaigning in MI maybe we could see how he would do, but he's not and neither is any other candidate. The reason Clinton poll numbers there are so high is that she's obviously benefiting from her name recognition.

Posted on January 7, 2008 12:03 AM

 akr:

re: "real" results from Michigan as opposed to those of small states like Iowa & NH: I'm sure the poster who made this point is well aware that only a few options are available on the Michigan ballot, because Michigan (and Florida?) opted to defy party rules and go early, and ended up getting penalized by not having their delegates recognized. And then most candidates took their names off the ballot (not sure that was such a good decision; as I recall, the national party asked for it).

As a result, if you are a MI voter, your choices are, I believe: Clinton, Gravel, perhaps Dodd and/or Kucinich, and "uncommitted." Certainly Clinton is the only candidate with a chance on the Michigan ballot.

If you are an Obama (or Edwards) supporter in Michigan, it is very important that you tick the box "uncommitted." (Better, also, than not not showing up at all.) Write-in votes, I've read multiple times, will not be counted (though I encourage you to doublecheck this with your local registrar of voters).

It may have been a bad decision by the Obama and Edwards campaigns, and those of several others that once looked viable, to have gone along with the national party's request that they not put their name on the ballots when Michigan joined the rush to the front of the line. But a Clinton "landslide" in Michigan will be absolutely meaningless given that none of her viable competitors are on the ballot.

"Uncommitted" beating Clinton, however, might be a bit of a story. (Obama plus Edwards? That could be quite a number. Probably won't be, because most will stay home - but let's at least not let her walk away saying "wow, won the first BIG state!" without a little commentary on how & why).

And meanwhile let's all also take a little bit closer look at who actually has experience, dedication, and judgment, as well as rare rhetorical skill. There are a variety of ways to acquire experience and to dedicate one's life to making change, and they confer different bits of wisdom.

(Stop here unless you want an Obama pitch)

I personally made the decision to vote for Obama long before he decided to run, but every public statement I've read or heard since then has only reinforced that. There is PLENTY of substance, PLENTY of experience, if you're just willing to look.

Look at speeches besides the stump speech (who wants to hear the details of a 10-point plan that's going to have be renegotiated with Congress anyway in a stump speech?). Look at the speech at the Wilson Center on foreign policy, for example: I thought it erred on the side of excess detail.

But at last night's debate, when the moderator opened with Hillary Clinton's attack line from a previous debate re a remark (taken out of context) from that speech - that we retain the right to take out OBL in Pakistan if there were actionable intelligence on which the Pakistani government would not or could not act - he stood his ground, and Edwards & Richardson, lo and behold, backed him up. (Clinton, wisely, let it go.)

(By the way, Bhutto was on record as not having a problem with his statement, either: it was a "we go in only with reliable actionable intelligence against people who have actually attacked us, and only if Pakistan's government has been given the opportunity to act first but can't or won't" point - so it wasn't the rash statement the HRC campaign tried to make it out as being in the first place; but I'm sure Bhutto's comment on Obama's statement had to do with internal Pakistani politics, which I don't understand well - surely in some fashion a comment on Musharaff's failures - but nonetheless it did reflect an understanding that a measured response from a threatened outside power is to be expected if you can't control threats emerging from your own territory.)

Self-defense may occasionally require action abroad, and no sensible President would ever take that option off the table - but Obama also seems to have not just an intellectual but an instinctive grasp of the potential that ill-informed or precipitous action could do more harm than good, so I really do simply trust his judgment more than the others, at a time when I think our reputation, and thus our influence, in the world is at risk.

To restore our reputation, we have to restore a belief in American values - and our willingness to stand for them - both at home, and abroad.

He's the best man to accomplish that job (and though it's not fair to anyone else, the face and the name help at this particular moment and time. He himself has said that at another moment in time, he might think someone else would be a better choice.).

He articulates the American dream in a unifying fashion. He has dedicated his life to helping others achieve that dream. He has experience doing more than fending off attack ads, but has also shown himself to be pretty good at fending off attacks from within the party.

You think they can smear this guy without ending up looking like scumbags?

He is by far the hardest viable candidate in either party to smear without the smearer getting hit harder by the blowback than the man or woman who attempted to smear him.

Posted on January 7, 2008 12:29 AM

 katerina:

In the release they said that the margin of error for one of the subgroups was 5% and one was 6%, but it wasn't clear which was which due to a typo. I'm assuming since the Dems were the smaller sample (less than 300 LV) the 6% applied to them, but you list both as 5% so I'm a little confused.

Posted on January 7, 2008 2:50 AM

 Gary Denton:

I wonder what the final Zogby poll will show? Although the other pollsters don't like him he was very accurate in his final Iowa poll.

As it is, there is a big boom for Obama, a minor boom for Edwards and Clinton cratering as all seem to be saying.

Posted on January 7, 2008 3:38 AM

 chris matthews:

If you live in MI and find yourself disenfranchised, you can always cross over and vote for Ron Paul. :)

Posted on January 7, 2008 4:28 AM

 Paul:

As to latest Zogby (Jan 6 on Jan 4-5 polling, but says only 50% after Iowa Caucus results known), Clinton +1 on Obama, with internal positive movement for Obama (5 points in one week), and Romney +1 on McCain with positive movement for Romney (5 points in one week). Zogby Obama trend similar to other recent polls but Zogby Romney trend in opposite direction.

As to Michigan and Florida, what a mess for the Democrats (I am not sure about the Republicans). Given that some candidates said they would not campaign, these two states arguably should be meaningless. But of course they are not meaningless if the media puts them in play.

I hope that some definitive statements will be made by the major media and well the major pollsters as to how they will approach these two states, whose Democratic leadership intentionally defied national directives about timing, therefore, as I understand it, losing their delegates from this vote. Given that in the final analysis, the primary process is all about delegates, then it arguably makes these two primaries ambiguous and misleading.

Posted on January 7, 2008 6:25 AM

 Jeff Winchell:

Can a 10 point change in one day for a single polling organization really be explained by the difference in Friday/Saturday sampling vs. Saturday/Sunday sampling?

To me, if there are these kinds of effects, a whole boat load of recent polls need to be throw away as useless.

Do you have a trend estimate when you exclude weekend polls?

Posted on January 7, 2008 6:36 AM

 mypoll:

Mitt will best Rudy in Florida and become the real 'comeback kid' and it will be meaningful.

Posted on January 7, 2008 8:53 AM

 Jeff Winchell:

I'm not so sure Zogby was so accurate despite the press release posted. His 1st choice numbers vs. the entrance poll were off about as much as most of the other pollsters. Only Selzer was noticeable better vs. the entrance poll. Now, perhaps the entrance poll was a bad, but I haven't heard any evidence to suggest that.

Zogby's press release is based on his own guess of how the 2nd choice predictions would change the results and they were notably off (again assuming the entrance poll was correct). Zogby said that 37% of the 2nd choice vote would go to Edwards, it was 57%. He said that 36% of it would go to Obama, it was 20%.

Posted on January 7, 2008 8:31 PM