Articles and Analysis


POLL: Daily Tracking

Gallup Poll

Obama 55, Clinton 39
Obama 46, McCain 45... Clinton 48, MCCain 44


Obama 46, Clinton 44
McCain 45, Obama 44... Clinton 45, McCain 45

Favorbale / Unfavorable
McCain: 48 / 47
Clinton: 46 / 52
Obama: 48 / 49



I see that the "favorable" ratings are all within the standard of error... and Obama's "unfavorable" is still up.

Interestingly, the McCain matchups still have Hillary as very competitive.

And even though Gallup has Hillary trailing Obama significantly, Hillary is doing better against McCain.



It's interesting how some people can listen to static/noise and think they are hearing Beethoven's 5th.

As I've said in other posts, the national poll numbers mean very little - especially differences or changes of 1 or 2 points - until HRC is no longer included in the equation, and when Democrats have had a chance to coalesce aroung BHO.

We ought to be seeing more meaningful numbers in 2 - 3 weeks. Until then, it's mostly noise.



So I guess it is also "noise" regarding Obama's national poll numbers. OK.


So, what's the explanation for the sizable difference in the Democratic nomination between Gallup and Rasmussen? If it is simply statistical sampling variation, then I'm going to make my usual complaint about Gallup's accompanying commentary which reads way too much into short term trends.



When your are not being attacked, like Hillary, is easy to do well. No one is saying anything bad about you. Think all the bad media that Obama has endured: Rev. Wright and his "I'll show you tour," the RNC, Fox, McCain, Bush, Hillary Camp, and still he and Hillary are statistical even with McCain.

Pay attention and notice that every single day Obama is under attack. How about Hillary? Fox loves her, McCain, Bush and GOP ignores her, Obama does nothing but compliment her, and still she doesn't seem to do a whole world better. You know is not like she is 10 points up against McCain and Obama 10 points down.

For example, in today's Washington Post there is an article about Hillary's radical ties and is someone in the media talking about it? No. Why? No one has her under the microscope.

Actually, I think that up to certain degree McCain enjoys the same treatment. I think that over the weekend his 5th lobbyist stepped down. Where is all the media outcry about Mr. Transparency, the straight talker?



"When your are not being attacked, like Hillary, is easy to do well."

Good thing Obama doesn't have to run against those pesky republicans who tend to go on the attack.



Thanks for making my point! Obama is under attack every single day. Have you check today's papers? and how does it come that Hillary is not doing any better.

Actually, other polls, more reliable ones, ABC/Washington Post, New York Times, NBC, Wall Street Journal, Quinnipiac, NPR, have Obama doing better than Hillary against McCain. How is that possible taking into account that Ms. Clinton is receiving either good media or none.

My only guess is that she always count with the same % of support, no matter what. A politician's negatives go up when he or she is under attack. So, how does it come that no one is attacking Hillary and her negatives are always the highest?

Just imagine if someone was airing Bosnia style stories against her every day.



You can call it "noise" or whatever you want to, but the fact that Clinton is still doing as well as (or better) than Obama in virtually every matchup against McCain 2 weeks after Obama was "annointed" the Democratic nominee by the press is shocking. Even more importantly, Clinton still polls significantly better in the key swing states that decide elections (esp. FL, OH, and PA). Along with the rout in WV last week and a likely big loss tomorrow in KY, it shows Obama's profound weakness with the Reagan Democrats, i.e. the working class white voters that any Democrat needs to carry to win the White House. McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry didn't carry enough of those voters (and Gore didn't appeal to them nearly as well as Bill Clinton), and Obama is performing worse so far with that demographic group than all of the previous losing Democrats. Unless Obama is really able to somehow 'connect' with working class whites (which is a huge challenge for him), he simply cannot win against McCain.


KS Rose:

I've been saying for months that when Obama hit 52% it's all over. Perhaps not totally scientific but I think we're movin on...



Hillary lost the nomination and she knows it. If she doesn't know it, she should ask James Carville. After PA, according to Carville, her path to the nomination was to shock the system by winning a place that was supposed to be his, for example, he said, North Carolina and Oregon.

The rationale was to make the argument to the superdelegates that Obama was in free fall, his coalition had abandoned him and there was buyer's remorse. Turned out that none of that happened in North Carolina and Indiana. Actually, in both states the guy did better than what the polls were suggesting.

At this point, there is nothing that Hillary can say or do change the outcome. This nomination was lost in February.



' Obama is under attack every single day. Have you check today's papers"

tingle up the leg , and everything?

Obama has yet to be more than fly-swatted.
And yet he acts like he's been crucified.



Especially funny that anyone would say that the media or anyone gave Hillary a free pass. I take it you were not cognizant of the 1992 Presidential campaign and the next 8 years of the Clinton presidency. Hillary was a favorite target... and poor Michelle thinks she is getting attacked. Not even close.

And Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea have all been victims of the Clinton Rules (anything goes) during Hillary's campaign. Even polls agree that Hillary has been treated more unfairly by the media.



The last time that Hillary has been under the microscope in this campaign was during the Bosnia. Since Rev. Wright and the bitter comments Obama has not have an easy ride. And you know, I'm glad that it has been that way because that took away one of the most important talking points from the Clintons, that Obama was doing good on the polls because the media was giving a free ride.

Well, the honeymoon ended, the media got obsessed with Rev. Wright and the bitter comments, let's no forget our Dear George and Gibson, and still the implosion never came about. Look at the polls and see that almost everyone knows about Rev. Wright. As one republican said: you got to have been hiding under a rock by this time not knowing about Rev. Wright.

Make no mistake, the numbers that the Clinton camp was praying for were no 1 or 2 points. They were looking for a complete disaster in the guy's numbers. Sorry Clintonites :(



HRC hasn't exactly gotten a free pass and some of the attacks were just senseless.

In fact, even CNN (which is called by some Obama folks the Clinton News Network because it its two foremost Obama supporters are black and not white) ran a front-page headline yesterday about Hillary having to hear a sermon about infidelity at the church in Kentucky yesterday.

What is that if not typical misogyny? Is it her fault that Bill cheated on her? Is that really news? I'm sure she would have preferred to hear the pastor talk about why America deserved 9/11, though she probably would conveniently not be there that day and all the other days.



Dear Uri, first of all, with all your respect I don't think that you are showing the proper education while debating. In all my entrees I have not by a minute assume whether you think this or that. Second, I'm just giving my opinion based on what I've seen, heard,
or read.

For example, I wonder what would have happened if Michelle Obama had been found to being working for a company with ties in the Middle East. Just like it is with Bill Clinton. For the tune of $15,000,000 Bill Clinton has given "advice" to Yucapai, or something like that, and no one knows what this "advice" consist on. Will the story be the same if this was Michelle Obama?

About the story on the Washington Post today, Have you heard about in the Mainstream Media? Remember not everyone reads the Washington Post. If the story does not hit the airwaves, T.V., it goes under the radar.

Have you heard that right now there is a case against the Clintons in California courts for campaign finance fraud? Well there is going on right now, and the media, fine thank you.

Have about if Michelle was working for foreign government promoting treaties that her husband is publicly "opossing." Will the media unquestionably accept that as a fact, and then move on. Will they give Obama such a free pass regarding a contridiction like this in his household. Well, Bill and Hillary got away with that.



@carl29: The "uneducated debate" argument is so typical of elitist Obama supporters who stay positive on the attack. While I do not know you or your background, I would be surprised if I am not more educated than you, we can trade resumes, if you'd like.

Saying that the media did not attack Clinton at all is biased and you know it. If anything, the media are not focusing on Clinton anymore because as you say the game is over. Obama has been the poster child for the media for a long time, and most of the leftist media (e.g., Huffington) have been on him and against Clinton from the getgo.

The good thing about the Clintons is that we already know all about them. As America's first family for 8 years, they've been scrutinized and the Republicans used every ammunition that they had. That's actually one of the advantages of a Clinton nomination had there been one: we know what we're dealing with, and the Reps wasted their ammo early.

With Obama, on the other hand, we are likely to have a treasure trove for the Republicans to find. I would not be surprised if Wright and Resko are just an appretizer. An aggressive, driven, and arrogant like Obama likely has plenty of skeletons in his closet and probably also on his bedpost.



1) Nick, you describe a difference that favors Obama as "withing the standard of error" (I assume this means margin of error), but describe an equal or smaller difference in favor of Clinton as showing that she "is doing better" against McCain. You might want to apply the same standard in both cases or at lest be more subtle about your spin.

2) Who cares? What do you want, a cookie? The home version of our game? If your wildest dreams of Schadenfreude come true, including Uri's bizarre sexual innuendo (of all the astonishing things for a _Clinton_ supporter to bring up!), will the Freude outweigh the Schade for you?



@mago: That was not sexual innuendo, unfortunately.

Of the three candidates in the race, HRC is tainted by Bill, McCain had an affair (his current wife while he was married), and we've been through a year where it seems that every politician is caught with his hand in the cookie jar (or playing footsie).

If there is one thing I can trust the republicans with is digging in the dirt. I somehow doubt that Obama is pure as snow, and since he is a relative unknown,there's a few feet the republicans can dig in. I just wouldn't be surprised if something eventually surfaces. Doesn't even have to be true. All you need is a telling-it-all woman on fox news.

Fact is this: Clinton and McCain weathered years of scrutinity including small personal things. Obama did not. Heck, the surface was only scratched during the primaries with Wright, Ayers, Resko, etc. Everyone has their skeletons, and the closet doors tend to open in October.



Poll numbers like these are why daily tracking polls are so silly. Obviously one or both is horribly wrong. They are, theoretically, polling the same group of people... yet they come out with numbers showing a 14% difference in spread. Even if you give them both their margin of error they don't overlap, not even close. These polling firms really need to increase their sample sizes.

The margin's of error listed are not even really accurate because they are not actually polling a single group of 1000 people or some such number. They are really polling lots of small subgroups of people which they then piece together like a puzzle to fill out the entire picture. Because some of these groups are quite small, as small as 50-100 voters or less, it is very possible that they did not accurately represent the group they are supposed to be part of.

If all polls were 3-4 times larger in sample size you'd see far more accurate polling results which much more closely matched the electorate. Of course it would also drastically increase the price of doing the polling. But it seems to me half as many polls with twice the sample size would be a useful trade-off.

And as to this whole Obama/Clinton back and forth. Both sides in the argument here are doing their best to lose this election. Vote on issues, not on candidates. If you agree with the positions a candidate has then vote for them. Obama/Clinton have the same positions on nearly every issue. Any clinton supporter who votes for mccain over obama clearly is not voting on issues. The same would go for an obama supporter who would not vote for clinton.

Both candidates are very strong. We are lucky to have such good candidates.


Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.