We’re now half way through a quiet period in the presidential primaries calendar, which will end with the last major contests in Texas and Ohio next Tuesday. The graphs below show Democratic opinion polling over the past two weeks, bearing in mind that there are almost as many pollsters represented here as polls. The pollsters only record responses from “likely” Democratic voters, which makes it hard for them to get what would strike Australian observers as an impressive sample size: the range was 564 to 902 in Ohio, and 403 to 660 in Texas. Figures sourced from Real Clear Politics.
RB @ 149,
Also the white south is a huge (and much longer-lasting) version of the “Howard battlers” – till 40 years ago a Democrat stronghold, but they now vote Republican as its the party that is more in tune with their values, even if not with their economic interests.
The fact that the Republicans can win without either NY or California shows just how much the south’s disaffection hurts the Dems.
Robert I said she lost because of her courting the ‘right’ with Iraq just one example.You’re saying she lost the nomination when she voted for Iraq.
In terms of vote changing/losing Democrat support your view is more compelling as Iraq is in everyones face.
Tactically i still wonder whether she miscalculated in thinking then , that there could be no serious Democrat contenders , allowing her the Iraq vote without perceived penalty
Max @ 131,
On reflection, I think you may well be right, for the reasons you outline. I’m not 100% convinced though. I’m pretty sure she would give that speech early on primary night, but what would the situation be once the delegate totals came in?
Never underestimate the collective power of the serious political pundits/talking heads in shaping how journalists cover campaigns. If the pledge delegate math is no longer realistic for Hillary after Texas and Ohio, even if she wins both, I think it’s entirely possible that the political commentariat will weigh in en masse saying she can’t win, the journalists (even if they don’t understand the math)will follow and Hillary will be forced from the race. But, after reading your post, I’m not sure. Maybe the momentum out of close Texas and Ohio victories would be enough for her to stay in and hope for a wipeout in Pennsylvania? Maybe the Democratic bigwigs will like the idea of a little insurance in case the GOP digs up something big on Obama in the meantime? Maybe journalists will find it too hard to resist covering the whole thing for a bit longer?
I suppose my scenario is also based on the assumption that close Texas and Ohio Hillary wins mean that the pledge delegate math really does become unrealistic for her. I’m not really 100% sure of this either. How many pledge delegates does she pick up if you count Michigan and Florida (giving Edwards’ to Obama)?
Ex Norfik Local , even with large win in Texas & Ohio , HRC could not overtake Obama in delegates & the large wins in these States are now not going to happen
So the Democrat power brokers should really be leaning on HRC now to concede or at the latest 4/3/08 . Will she listen probably no.
Its gonna take either a large movement in Supers to Obama to force her concession decision or as I expect the Media to go for HRC’s blood after 4/3/08
to force the concession
Ron @ 154,
I agree that even with big wins in Texas and Ohio Hillary would not pull ahead in pledge delegates. However, if she did get big wins on March 3 then it would put her in a position where she can realistically make up the difference in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. I think, on balance, that while she can convince the commentariat that there is a plausible scenario where she overtakes Obama in pledge delegates, then she gets to stay in the race. When she can no longer make that scenario out, I think she gets forced out by the media and the superdelegates. I’m not sure, but I suspect, on current polling, that that moment will come a few days after March 3, once the dust settles.
March 4, not March 3, sorry
#153
How many pledge delegates does she pick up if you count Michigan and Florida (giving Edwards’ to Obama)?
A net total of 19 both States combined (there are 53 unpledged Supers also).
Ex Norfik Local
However, if she did get big wins on March 3 then it would put her in a position where she can realistically make up the difference in Pennsylvania and elsewhere
Ex Norfik #155
HRC can not get even within 60 delegates of Obama even if HRC had big wins in Texas plus Ohio plus her other 4 states where she hoped to have big wins !
(I’d done the calcs a few weeks ago) & this excludes Edwards Pro ‘O’ delegates
Her case is based on 4 points: that she will get
the Edwards Delegates
Michigan & Florida delegates admitted to the Convention
an overwhelming % of uncommitted Superdelegates
to keep those former massive poll leads she previously had in her big 6 states
…feel all 4 points will not occur
Welcome back, Mr Bowe & assorted crazies…good stuff; Paris, Texas back on.
jaundiced view @ 132-
“129 EC – “she’s an unabashed war-monger.”
Hardly surprising considering she’s married to one. If you look beyond Bill’s affable style you find that he was not much different to GWB in this respect. He was just a whole lot better at PR.
And an unabashed Israel supporter, so the middle east would remain a basket case with her as Commander-In-Chief.
But to be fair, given the place Israel occupies in America’s psyche, every prez has to be an unabashed Israel supporter which, tragically, means none can be the true honest broker needed to resolve the issue. This includes Obama, even if he believes he can be. Political reality won’t allow him, or any other president, to take the tough stance against Israel needed to force a resolution.
RCP has Obama leading Clinton by 4.8% for the nomination, her lead has shrunk in Texas to a draw and down to single digits in Ohio (from 20%+ a month back).
Is Hillary starting to get shrill yet? And, can it do her any good?
Pass the popcorn…
KR @ 161
I would not count 2.5% in Texas as a draw and 8.5% in Ohio is still a big lead.
Stephen, statistically you are right 2.5% is not a draw.
What I would throw into the mix is that Obama has seemed to outperform his polling pretty much everywhere. This tends to indicate there is some type of bias against him in the polling techniques.
So -2.5% plus his normal poll ouitperfromance might be a draw….
Does William or anyone have access to a poll vs actual set of results? I’m claiming the Obama outperformance becuase I seem to remember it happening, but some proof would be intersting.
MayoF @ 160
“Political reality won’t allow him, or any other president, to take the tough stance against Israel needed to force a resolution.”
Sadly I think you might be right at present, but there will come a point at which there will be no option but to kick Israel in the guts. Such a point has arrived and passed many times before I know, but if there is some real leadership from a charismatic President on the issue it might be possible to shift the domestic political mood, even if 3 million New York j*ws will be emotional. If the US could just ‘leave the room’ for a while it might allow some option involving nations other than the US (can’t dare say the UN, unless the US holds off on its veto) to involve themselves to help sort it out. Worth a try anyway – doing nothing is not really an option.
Anyway the point is that Obama would be coming in with cleaner hands, and offers at least some hope for the M East, as against Clinton’s no hope whatsoever.
Reaction to the Clinton camps antics of last night:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/02/26/1203788281739.html
And – Still no Clinton supporters have surfaced to answer the challenge in # 116.
jv @ 116 (and 164),
I think the problem Clinton has is that (to the average American “swinging voter”) almost all her pluses (real or alleged) over Obama are even more magnified in the person of McCain:
– experience – McCain has it in bucketloads, and unlike Clinton some of the things he’s done have actually worked out ok
– strong on national security/hard on America’s enemies – rightly or wrongly, one of McCain’s perceived trump cards
– “real life experience” – those 5 years locked up by the Vietcong might just trump the rigours of being on the Board of Wal-Mart and a Southern Governor’s wife
– patriotism – don’t even bother thinking about it.
I think the Dem primary voters (although they are mostly not “swinging voters”) are instinctively sensing that the electability of Clinton may be limited, because much of her shtick (versus Obama) is just Republican-lite, not distinctive enough to beat a well-known, and (on many issues) reasonably moderate Republican.
The main exception is health care, but even on that, Hillary is “damaged goods”.
162
Stephen Connor
2.5% is within the margin of error, so statistically, it’s a draw in all but name. And, let’s not forget which way the movement has been, from an all but insurmounable lead down to a blip, and a week to go before the vote.
What else would you call it?
Ohio is much more clearly a Clinton lead, and she’d be likely to win it, but as many commentators have pointed out, under the Democrat proportional system, she will need wins in the range of 20 points for her vote majorities to have any gain in the number of delegates.
8% will not cut it.
So, 2.5% is a draw on delegates if nothing else, and 8% gives her much the same result.
That’s all I was saying, in shorthand.
Rates,HRC is behind by over 150 so current polling only gives her 19back Tx & Oh
Unlike the Repug system , the Democrat system makes it mathemitical impossible to claw back such a lead now despite 16 Primarys to go.
J/v I tend to feel MayoF may be right re the pro Israel Lobby but hope you are.
As MayoF said, the M/E seems permanently insolvable because only the US can influence the result but the US represents only one M/E side. Any chance ?
Stephen Connor #162
RCP now has Obama only .7% behind in Texas. Pollster’s poll average makes it even tighter – .1%. Is that close enough to call a tie?
As for Ohio, 8.5% is a significant lead, but to have a chance she needs to be leading in both states by 20%.
There are 161 delegates in Ohio. Splitting them proportionally, an 8% lead should give her 8% more delegates which is only about 12 delegates. Obama increased his lead over her in Hawaii by 10 delegates! Big leads in big states is her only hope and she hasn’t got any.
It’s not exactly the salivating Alien, but Hillary’s winding up the tension:
“The American people don’t have to guess whether I understand the issues or whether I would need a foreign policy instruction manual to guide me through a crisis, or whether I’d have to rely on advisers to introduce me to global affairs,” she said.
…of course the immediate response is to ask if she needed anyone to explain to her that the ‘intelligence’ about WMD’s in Iraq was obviously cooked and the ‘threat to world peace’ was an hysterical bit of nonsense to justify a war of choice.
She’ll never be able to run that line and look credible, and no doubt Mr Obama will remind people of it!
Ron @ 167 – I know it’s a slim chance given the history and the realpolitic, but our guy Barack is that chance – no-one else.
(I say ‘our guy’, because there appear to be no Clinton supporters left here! They are The Disappeared.)
There’s a fascinating article at Votemaster. Using a strict reading of the Constitution, Hillary can’t be POTUS. The wording regarding POTUS only refers to “he”, never “she”. But there is a way she can get around it. If Bill isb her running mate, she can step down immediately and Bill Clinton could be POTUS again. Evidently, the Constitution only says an ex-President cannot run for POTUS again; it doesn’t say they cannot be POTUS.
So we could have Bill take over as POTUS if the Dems win. Or Macca could have George W as VP and die shortly after giving us four more years of heaven with Dubya!
Just as an aside on a bit of personal history about the Iraq war, my view at the time was that the ‘intelligence’ was nonsense, and that Blix all but said there weren’t any, and was only weeks from absolutely verifying it. When Rumsfeld made the ridiculous claim that Saddam had WMD and ‘we know where they are’, the obvious retort was the one Blix gave: tell me where and I’ll inspect.
In the early 90’s the UN had virtually shut down Saddam’s programmes and the relatively small amounts of nerve gas unaccounted for, but most likely destroyed, was probably no longer deliverable since they did not have rockets that could.
That a decade had gone by with no one considering Saddam’s Iraq anything more than a clapped out regime living on scraps, hemmed in by no fly zones, and no funds to develop a sophisticated range of weaponry, the sudden hysteria that the Bush/Cheney gang whipped up was so blatantly suspect that I found it astonishing that someone like Clinton could have so easily abdicated any oversight responsibilities and given this team of hustlers a vote to invade Iraq.
No doubt many others did too, and this will be her Achilles’ heel on ‘experience’.
My morning scan of world newspapers is showing a distinct shift in the mood. Clinton’s ‘Obama is risky’ bleating and her unconscionable release of the turbanned Obama photo are having some negative impact on him. Several editorials are seriously questioning whether he may, indeed, be too risky and untried. Time will tell if Clinton’s tactics back-fire on her, but for now the heat is seeping from the Obama MO.
Some recent polling also seems to indicate a drop in Obama support for the first time in weeks.
So…I ask again the question I asked last week: Has Barack peaked too soon?
Ex Norfik Local @ 153
I think in the end it comes to this
– Two losses for Clinton, she definitely concedes
– One loss she probably concedes
– Two wins and she will not concede
As I’ve said a couple of times, this is Obama’s one and only chance to deliver the knock-out punch. Fail here and he has to wangle with party hierarchy and superdelegates, and hope he can open up enough of a lead in the future to take the game. But it becomes a very drawn out process. Each day this goes on after March 4 is harmful to either candidacy.
Will she concede on the night? I think either way she has made a decision regarding her potential dropping out; a figure in her mind. My bet is the fact Bill said ‘we need to win both’ is a fair indicator that that’s her line of thought as well. If she chooses to fight on after, then the questions will be ‘well, why are you and Bill on different tracks?’ That’s three or four news cycles of negative perceptions, while Obama picks up the pieces… and delegates.
But I don’t know whether she would announce her dropping out on the night. I think she would. To not do so would invite a very savage and negative media attack, as they try to get a straight answer and justification for that answer. To drop out on the night invites the perception she fought until it would hurt her party, then gracefully dropped out of the race. That’s my gut feeling anyway.
Robert @ 168
I would add to that post that it is highly unlikely the final result will be 8%. Pretty much every poll prior to every primary has understated Obama’s votes, and (obviously) not taken into consideration his taking of the undecided vote. I would be surprised if the final margin was over 6%. Of course, that means nothing in terms of delegates… but does look worse on paper.
Ferny , think No and No (hope not Yes and Tes)
Obama still has momentum via the narrowing of Texas & Ohio.
IF you take HRC’s best 6 States left and left the Polls at their Jan. levels where she had huge Poll leads in those 6 States , Obama would STILL win the most delegates from Primarys. The narrowing only means Obama will win by more Dele
Perhaps the Clinton camp is operating in another time zone Ferny ?
Ferny, see my post at 172. No doubt Clinton will try cute tricks like a costume shot and bang on about his ‘inexperience’, but the fact is her ‘experience’ is not unquestionable, and he’s more than capable of asking the questions.
I’m not sure I follow you on ‘peaked too soon’ since he had to win everything from Super Tuesday to even be standing, so on that score he had no choice.
Like all things, polls go up and down, so I’d guess after that massive rocket shot over the last month, he’ll need to come down to earth a bit, but overall, he would seem to be the leader and Clinton will have to turn the tide a lot more than that to snatch it back.
#173 FG – “Has Barack peaked too soon?” – I had the same sentiment last week. I think so. A number of things have turned negative for Obama. For the first time the Kumbaya factor is being questioned.
His supporters also show sign being a little precious. EG, the latest being: “The Obama campaign has accused the Clinton camp of “the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering” after the internet site, Drudge report, published an photo of Barack Obama in full Somali traditional dress, which it said it had been sent by a Clinton aide. The photo, taken in 2006, shows the Democrat front-runner dressed as a Somali elder”.
Haven’t they heard of APEC, especially the APEC silly dress session.
175
Max
Yes, I see it pretty much like that too. Clinton must have two good wins (even if she only claws back some delegates) to say that she’s the ‘come back kid’ and justify going on with the fight.
Otherwise, she must bow out gracefully, and no doubt she knows that only too well.
178
The Finnigans
“Haven’t they heard of APEC, especially the APEC silly dress session.”
LOL!
And what about OPEC? Have you seen the garb those guys wear?
Ferny-Latest Poll
“A CNN/Opinion Research survey found Obama leading in Texas for the first time, with 50 percent of likely Democratic primary voters backing him, compared to 46 percent for Clinton.
Given the poll’s 3.5 percentage point margin of error however, the race was still a statistical tie, in line with other state surveys.”
Can I point out to these morons that he is ahead by 4%, which more than the 3.5% MOE? Ignoring this error, what’s this rubbish that if two results are within MOE, its a statistical tie. It’s not. It just means that the difference is less likely than 95% to be due to variability of sampling.
Ron, I think Camp Clinton is operating on pure desperation at the moment. Their comments and actions over the last few days were not those of rational people. Panic, I suspect, roams the halls of Clinton HQ.
KR, it’s one thing to win, but quite another to create such a euphoric, emotion charged atmosphere. The danger with euphoria is that it quickly passes, and can easily morph is cynicism. As the emotion subsides, therefore, so can his support. Shooting stars are amazing things – then they vanish.
There’s a long way to go till November. Obama’s big risk is that the people may be sick of the sight of him by then.
#179 – KR – What about the APEC FM Karaoke Session? Remember Dolly was belting away Beach Boys’ Kokomo in his Hawaiian shirt minus the fishnet
Calling HRC a war monger (compared with Obama) doesn’t sit quite right. Have a look at
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_cli.html
Includes:
“In fact, Obama’s Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton’s. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. Just last week, in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Obama conceded that his position on the war is not the “polar opposite” of Clinton’s.”
ViggoP. She voted for the war while he was speaking at anti-war rallies. That seems different to me. Also he wants to withdraw in about 12 mths she says withdraw by about 2013. Voting for who should be Commander in Chief is a seperate question to whether or not either of them support the war
ViggoP – Let’s not misrepresent the facts.
BEFORE the illegal invasion, Obama was against the war, Clinton was for the war.
AFTER the illegal invasion, they now share similar positions.
Ferny G: Given Clinton has 20+ poll leads in Ohio and Texas less than a month ago. Its very Shanahanesque to claim that Obama’s momentum has stalled at 10% behind in both states. 🙂
183
The Finnigans
oh boy, was that a highlight of his career! He shouldn’t give up his day job, (damn, that’s right, he was voted out of that!), on the strength of that performance.
182
Ferny Grover
yes, you are right, it’s hard to sustain for a long time, but for this phase, ie winning the nomination, I think he’ll do so.
The next phase, beating McCain in November, well, that’s a different beast, and he’ll no doubt tone down the rally ra-ra stuff and put on the more serious face.
Look, if anyone can hold that ‘up’ mood for a long time, he can, and it’s a remarkable ability. (It sure as hell took Clinton’s camp by surprise! LOL). But it’s not long to go now for the Dem race, and after that, whole new ball game.
Good grief Asanque. Is an alternative view “Shanahanesque” now?
Project a little. My comments are not in relation to how far he’s come – which has been a phenomenal ride. My focus is on whether the Obama train will run out of steam when it counts. High emotion environments are unpredictable places – and I’ve never seen any politician in my lifetime stir the emotions like Obama.
And bear in mind that I say this as a BHO flag waver.
Yes Diogenes….
I feel some remedial stats is necessary for a few around here.
The MOE is an arbitrary 95% to 5% distinction and is used to separate things considered unlikely and therefore able to be discounted (5% or less) from things considered likely enough that you can’t discount them (more than 5%).
This tends to lead to some people assuming the that results within the MOE are the same – they are not.
In a hypothetical poll, if Clinton leads Obama by 2.5%, when the MOE is 3%, what the poll is saying is that there is something like a 80% chance Clinton is ahead and a 20% chance Obama is ahead. Because the 80-20 is not as exteme as 95-5 it is within the MOE, but that doesn’t mean Clinton isn’t winning.
Moreover, if instead Clinton was ahead by 3.5%, that would indicate that there is about a 97% chance she is ahead and about a 3% chance Obama is ahead. Since this is greater than 95-5 it is outside the MOE, but it still should be understood probabilistically, not as a dichotomous choice. There is a chance Obama is ahead and Clinton just got a lucky sample – but not a high chance.
An 80% chance that Clinton is ahead does not a tie make.
The Baraklash……
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23274495-26397,00.html
181 Ferny- You have an uncanny way of putting into words thoughts that have been banging around in my head. I too am concerned about the euphoria and emotion getting sapped into cynicism re Obama. The sooner he finishes off Billary, the better. Then everyone can have a nice lie down, cup of tea and regroup before the Convention. All that emotion is bad for you, according to this cold-hearted bastard.
Ferny you can now ” lead” Diogenes where ever you want
I don’t know what what votes were taken in the Senate, other than the one mentioned in the article, but there were definitely some on funding for the war on which, seemingly, they voted the same way. If I were a US voter I would not be too concerned about their relative positions pre-war: I would want to know what they will do.
If it is an election issue about who has changed his mind so be it.
Does anyone have a list of what the issues are that Democrat voters are considering in choosing their candidate, and the relative positions of Obama and Clinton?
Ferny G: My Shanahanesque comments were in relation to the so-called “narrowing” that was to occur as the year went on last year during the Australian election (although arguably the final result did narrow).
My point is that there is no empirical evidence to show that the Obama momentum has slowed given all recent poll results.
If you look at national polls, Obama is ahead now for the first time.
If you look at Texas and Ohio, Obama is continually closing on the lead from a month ago.
There is no empirical evidence to show that Obama has peaked or has plateaued.
You cannot look at polls in isolation over a daily or even weekly time frame.
Whilst it will be increasingly harder for Obama to gather the same percentage swing in the months ahead, we must also take a reality check when viewing each state. Obama is not going to win each and every state, despite winning 11 in a row.
However, he can be very competitive in states where he was formerly non-competitive. Whether a moderate loss in Ohio and Texas counts as a stalling in momentum versus a better result then expected, I leave to your opinion.
Sidenote: My calculations on an Obama win take into account a 20 point loss in Ohio, a 16 point loss in Texas and a 20 point loss in Pennsylvania.
Based on Davidoff’s figures (a sad loss to this forum).
Dio @ 191: It’s the behaviourist in me – and years of observing how populations operate. I’m all for emotion – we’ve all become far too boring and predictable – but I recognise that emotion is an unpredictable thing once let loose. It can easily morph from joy to grief; adoration to hostility.
Another issue is that front-runners usually attract more media attention – and analysis – than the rest of the field. So Obama can expect the searchlight of media scrutiny to intensify. Time will tell if that makes a difference.
As for the Baracklash, GG @ 190, that’s a poor attempt to create a story out of nothing. It may be the beginning of more serious, negative analysis however.
But that’s politics.
there you go Ferny , introduce some realism to us
the GG article you are right is the first of many , although the shades of Shanahan being exported were scary.
Primary Delegates only , Obama leads by 152….981 still to be won.
IF Hillary won all 16 Primarys left by 10% margin, she wins ONLY 90.
Game was over for HRC on Super Tuesday night
Asanque – ah the narrowing – which became harrowing in the last couple of days of that campaign.
My comments are purely speculative. As you say, there is not much empirical evidence to show a slow down in his support at this stage. I’m just sensing a mood change and wondering whether the emotion-charged atmosphere surrounding Obama may yet turn on him in the run to November.
and MOST of those Primarysa she is actually going to lose !
Love your unswerving optimism Ron! Preach it brother!
The Dems are in the womderful position of having two spectacularly gifted and capable candidates. The GOP on the other hand had to choose from an amazing array of mediocrity. The choice for them was easy – the least worst of a very bad lot.
The quality of HRC and BHO has made the decision much harder for the Dems.
190
Rates Analyst
On the strength of your concise argument, I’ll withdraw my comment and say that Texas is a ‘virtual draw’, since the whole point was not who is actually ahead by a small number of votes, but who will win in the delegate stakes.
Of course mixing statistics, probability theory, and the arcane manner of Democratic primary voting is a weirdly hybrid beast, and trying discern an appreciable lead out of a couple of percent has not been overly accurate in the past.
But essentially, if Clinton wins by the polling amount we’re talking about then she is tied by delegates (more or less!). See what I mean? LOL