Articles and Analysis


POLL: National Daily Tracking for 4/27

The Gallup Daily

Obama 47, Clinton 47
McCain 45, Obama 45... Clinton 47, McCain 44

Rasmussen Reports

Obama 48, Clinton 42
McCain 46, Obama 46... McCain 47, Clinton 45



Why did I have to agree to share my email before I could post on this site? Is this kosher?

Anyway, I think that those who feel that pointing out Obama's weakening poll numbers is not "helpful" should go to a place where they would get what they wish to hear. This site provides info on whatever is out there and all indications are that Obama has lost his "shine".

The superdelegates must take this into account, otherwise there would be no rationale for the whole concept of superdels, if all they do is to ratify the status quo. Obama would not reach the number of delegates needed to win the nomination without the superdels, which means that their existence is not predicated upon endorsing whoever is "ahead" in pledged delegates. Their "raison d'etre" makes sense only if they would help choose someone who has the best chance to lead the party to a victory. At this point, Obama is looking less and less like that someone...according to the data posted here, which is why his supporters are saying that it is not "helpful" to point that out.



Hillary Clinton: " Let's debate Lincoln-Douglas style, just the two of us, because the people of Indiana and North Carolina deserve a debate!"

bo: " Debating is hard, why would I do something that scary for you Indiana, you small town bitter hicks, you are no better than Pennsylvanians are."

McCain: "I'd much rather debate Obama in November! Not only because I'll win against him without a doubt, but also because I don't deal well with stress anymore... Then again, I'd be so scared to debate Hillary that it might help my constipation. Darn, I wouldn't like to be in Obama's shoes if they do a Lincoln-Douglas type of debate, I was sitting on the very first row and I remember how intense those seven debates were!"



is it possible to get an updated post on the cyclical nature of the gallup polls? to my untrained eye, it seems the last few weeks of gallup seem to support that initial analysis.. -- widening margin mid week, tightening by weekend..



every new poll is wonderful and insightful for the incremental but clear picture it paints.
given the protracted democratic competition, it is the first time in maybe a hundred years to really get to know the candidates beyond the first blush of hype.

we see them in dog fights and we see them hang in there, we see them age and we see them in all their moods. and doesn't it really come down to their character in the long run, the very thing that Bush's profile was a predictor of that we failed to heed?

that's why these polls play a more significant role than perhaps ever before. they gauge the very subtle shifting of the population as we come to truly know these candidates. even more important is the stalemate of the numbers. once, a few months ago when obama was behind in the delegates but looked like he could lead in the popular vote, he insisted that delegates fall in line with that. i recall he said that they must heed the popular vote by state regardless of their favorite sons or daughters.

with the possibility of a locked convention, the party heads and the super delegates need data. they need to know what florida would do if they had another chance and they need to know the same about michigan. polls are the only way to provide this essential info. i hope that pollsters also open their resources to consider new questions like: "if you had to vote again and in the light of what you now know about the candidates versus what you knew then, would you change your vote?"

i think this more than anything is the most important polling data that could be compiled given the nature of this remarkable contest.



Oh, istas, does the endless Clinton spin (lies) never tire you? Show me a national poll where Clinton does better against McCain than Obama - above the margin of error, and I'll show you another poll that shows the opposite.

You forget to mention, "electorally rich states and more Democrat votes" do not mean ANYTHING. According to the rules (yes, those things Clinton fanatics never know the meaning of), only pledged delegates matter.

I love hearing how polls now should be taken into account for November. Hmm, what did the polls say 5 months ago again?

Everything about match-up polls and "electorally rich state" polls is BS. They mean NOTHING. Talk to me in August/October about polls. (And even then they mean little to nothing. Remember NH, where Obama was leading by 10 right before the election?) Super delegates aren't stupid (not all of them anyway), and they will not take any of those nonsense polls into account - that is why they will back Obama - the winner of the most pledged delegates.

Now, if the bogus claim is that super delegates should overturn the will of the people (Obama has won double the number of primaries and caucuses and also will have the pledged delegate lead), based on polling and "electability" then WHY HAVE ELECTIONS AT ALL?? In order to be "electable", you need to win ELECTIONS - something Clinton has been unable to do against Obama. Why would she fare any better against McCain??

One thing you conveniently forgot about polls the past few months:

Obama ALWAYS does better than what the polls initially say months before - especially after campaigning in a state extensively.

Has Clinton EVER done this? Look at PA, she had a 20 point lead that evaporated to 9 in a matter of weeks.

That is why polls now will not be ANY kind of determining factor for the super delegates. If anything, they would factor in the Obama-effect and see that he would come out with over 300 electoral votes come November (look at how many states are "in-play" already) - and by that consequence add substantially more Congressional seats for the DEMS than Clinton would ever be able to - even in her wildest dreams.

This is neither here nor there, but every day I pray, PRAY I TELL YOU, that the super delegates will overturn the will of the people and give it to Billary. I would love nothing more than this to happen. No, not to see John McCain trounce Billary in the fall, but to see the birth of a new party.

I have no doubt that Obama would then form a new party of people tired with the politics of yesterday. Hmmm, I bet Chuck Hagel would sign on as VP. A Republican and Democrat forming a new party. I have no doubt that a slew of people will join them from both sides. Probabaly a lot of Ron Paul's people too. Be afraid dimwits, be very afraid. Then, a reviled man's recent comments, "A change is a coming" would certainly be quite prophetic.



an interesting rant, thanks! but were obama to form a third party it would be left of left given his record. this is the peculiar irony of his intent to 'change' and why less people are falling for it hook line and sinker.

the ones better positioned to start a third party are the more independent candidates and i agree with you, it's time there should be that other party. obama however has no skin in the game and must stick with same old same old. this is why he more than others will renege on his bargain to cross the aisle and transcend politics. he only plays on the left side of the court.



Boskop if you look at exit poll numbers you'll see that Obama time and time again brings in the most conservative and most liberal democrats while Hillary gets the moderate democrats. So I don't know what playbook you are looking at.



voting record.



oops, busted again boskop!

How different is Hillary's voting record from Obama's????

Ooops. Try again!


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.