Polling rebuts Wash. Times claim that Clinton "in trouble" with Dem base over war

[SaveElmer]

From Mediamatters...

A May 9 Washington Times editorial, subsequently highlighted by the Republican National Committee, claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "is in trouble with the far-left base of the Democratic Party" over her 2002 vote in favor of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The Times cited no evidence to support this claim, and in fact, the Times' claim is contradicted by a WNBC/Marist poll released the previous day, May 8, at 6 p.m. The summary that accompanied the poll stated: "Hillary Clinton's position on the war in Iraq is also not hurting her among Democrats. Only 9% of Democrats say her position makes them less likely to vote for her, and 48% say it actually makes them more likely to support her."

From the WNBC/Marist poll:

Does Hillary Clinton's position on the war in Iraq make you more likely or less likely to support her, or does it make no difference to you?





...

Further, the Times misrepresented Clinton's vote in favor of the 2002 Iraq resolution as a vote "in favor of going to war in Iraq" and misrepresented the explanation she gave on the Senate floor preceding her vote as "a lengthy Senate speech explaining how dangerous Saddam Hussein was." In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted, the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq for which Clinton and a majority of her congressional colleagues voted gave the president the authority to go to war in Iraq; it was not, as the Times suggested, a congressional declaration of war or a directive to the president to launch an invasion. Additionally, Clinton made clear in her Senate floor statement on October 10, 2002, that she did not intend her vote as a directive to launch a war against Iraq.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705100004

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Actually, with her high negatives she is not that stable. she has soft support.

[SaveElmer]

2. From the same poll...

Would you say that you strongly support Hillary Clinton, somewhat support her, or do you think that you might vote differently on primary day?

Strongly Support 60%
Somewhat Support 21%
Might Vote Differently 18%
Unsure 1%

Doesn't look too soft to me!!!

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/CP070508.htm

[wyldwolf]

3. no, she does not have "soft" support

As the overwhelming frontrunner (yes, that is nationally and state by state), 60% polled said their support for Clinton is strong.

[knight_of_the_star]

4. Just to point something out

That's talking about those already in her camp, you're still looking at another good-sized chunk among her own supporters who don't feel so strongly, and that's not even taking into account the rest of the party.

[wyldwolf]

7. she's also the overwhelming second choice of Democrats

...at 60%.

If all this is "soft" support, what does it say about Obama and Edwards?

[knight_of_the_star]

9. Where did you get that statistic

Aside from thin air that is.

That and something to point out:

Second place in politics in the US is also known as being the LOSER.

[wyldwolf]

10. LOL! FIRST choice among the majority of Dems, SECOND choice among a majority of Dems

Where did you get that statistic, aside from thin air that is.

6. (Asked of Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party who named a candidate they support for the Democratic nomination in 2008) Who would be your second choice?

Hillary Clinton 60%

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-05-07-poll.htm

[knight_of_the_star]

17. That's one poll

Taken of Democrats and Dem-leaning independents, NOT of likely primary voters as your own post indicates. BIG difference between the people involved. That and you are misquoting the statistics:

The one that actually covers who their FIRST choice is most recently says 45%, NOT 60% as you are insinuating. The 60% you are talking about is for SECOND choice which as I said earlier in American politics is the first loser.

That and just to point out, a sample of 491 is rather small for what you are looking for, most statistically sound polls taken in the field of politics usually involve at least 1000 respondents, not 491. That and I'm curious as to WHERE the sampling was done and what the methods were. That and here's some find print at the bottom:

For results based on the total sample of National Adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 427 Republicans or Republican leaners, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 491 Democrats or Democratic leaners, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.



Just to point something out, having recently taken statistics, 95% confidence level is the lowest you can go as far as a confidence level and still have a possibly valid poll, and that kind of confidence level involves a sizable room for error. Having a 3% sampling error tied with that is also a pretty wide area for variance and error.

The 5% margin of error is also rather large, this poll looks like it was done based on the bare minimum requirements of what could be considered valid and informative. In short, this poll was done with an unusually small sample for a national poll with the absolute minimum acceptable levels to be considered valid.

[rinsd]

18. Response and a whole shitload of polling

"That and just to point out, a sample of 491 is rather small for what you are looking for, most statistically sound polls taken in the field of politics usually involve at least 1000 respondents, not 491."

If you will check the sample size for specifics such as Democrat or Republicans are almost always around this number.

"The 5% margin of error is also rather large, this poll looks like it was done based on the bare minimum requirements of what could be considered valid and informative. In short, this poll was done with an unusually small sample for a national poll with the absolute minimum acceptable levels to be considered valid."

That MOE is again consistent with nearly all of the polling that has been done where 3 percent is the norm for the whole and 5% is the norm for the further demo breakdown.

Here is nearly every single poll taken so far this election season for Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_2008_presidential_candidates

[knight_of_the_star]

19. To refute your post

"That MOE is again consistent with nearly all of the polling that has been done where 3 percent is the norm for the whole and 5% is the norm for the further demo breakdown."

You were ignoring the other variables such as confidence level and the sampling margin of error as I pointed out, both of which are more important than the MOE. That the MOE is so wide simply shores up that the poll is not being conducted to as high a standard as it could or should be, a more solid poll would have been done to the level and standards of 99% confidence level not 95%. Having such a low confidence level (in statistics 95% is considered low) increases the chances of error and suspect data.

That and I still maintain that 491 is a small sample size for the scale of the poll being conducted and just to point out the link you provided only gives the results, not all the other information I listed here such as sample size, confidence level, or sampling margin of error all of which are more important than the margin of error for the result. That and I would like to know if you actually took the time to check every single one of those polls linked there to back up the following statement:

"If you will check the sample size for specifics such as Democrat or Republicans are almost always around this number."

[rinsd]

22. Response

I gave you a list on nearly every poll taken(there are links next to each). Here's another site (below) which has the sample size but not the confidence margin. You can look those up individually yourself if you think I am lying about it.

"That and I still maintain that 491 is a small sample size for the scale of the poll being conducted and just to point out the link you provided only gives the results, not all the other information I listed here such as sample size, confidence level, or sampling margin of error all of which are more important than the margin of error for the result."

Here is a link to every Dem poll with sample size and MOE

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

The samples sizes are usually between 400 and 600 for just the Dem primary (though a few don't seem to provide the breakdown only the totel sample usually around 1000) with most MOE between 4 & 5.

So what is your point again? The poll in the OP isn't some absurd outlier, it runs in line with most of the polls out there.

[knight_of_the_star]

23. You are still ignoring evidence

"The samples sizes are usually between 400 and 600 for just the Dem primary"

That is an inaccurate characterization of the evidence you just presented. In fact the range is from 303-1141 and not to mention there are several polls that are 900-1100, five to be exact out of twenty, in the list you provided as well as three that are under 400. There you're talking about almost half of the samples in question are solidly outside of the range you mentioned, one quarter of which fit the specifics of what I was saying is considered more sound. Two short of half isn't what I would call usually, that's more like almost half outside of the range you specified as usually. That isn't even taking into account the polls that fall below four hundred and for a nationwide poll that is ridiculously small.

The total lack of confidence levels and sampling error also leaves out something fairly important information as far as how accurate the polls in question are.

"Here is a link to every Dem poll with sample size and MOE"

Again, I was NEVER talking about the MOE as the big issue with the polls in question, the issue I was bringing up was something called SAMPLING error, there is an important difference. MOE is the range that the results are in, that has much less impact on how accurate or reliable a poll is as the sampling error does, which shows how much room for error you are allowing in the sampling process. MOE also does not matter as much as the confidence level, and considering that 95% is the lowest you can get and still be considered acceptable, that should be saying something about the particular original poll that was referenced.

I would talk more about the specifics and technical points, but it doesn't seem that you are a.) reading my posts or b.) know what I'm talking about so I'll just stop now before you prove your ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[rinsd]

24. LOL. So basically you have no point!

Fun with numbers

"In fact the range is from 303-1141 and not to mention there are several polls that are 900-1100, five to be exact out of twenty,"

Lets look at those shall we since you ignored my other post which said

(though a few don't seem to provide the breakdown only the totel sample usually around 1000)

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. April 17-18, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Results below are among Democratic voters

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 12-15, 2007. N=1,141 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS. Results below are among leaned Democrats.

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. March 27-28, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Results below are among Democratic voters

McLaughlin & Associates (R). March 21-25, 2007. N=1,000 likely voters nationwide. Results below are among Democrats and independents

"in the list you provided as well as three that are under 400"

Two were at 392, one at 355 and one was at 303. I was so off when I said most were between 400 and 600 :eyes:

Again what is your point? That the polls are wrong? that dozens of polls showing basically the same thing are wrong?

[rinsd]

14. Their support is obviously "harder" and even more obviously SMALLER.

[OHdem10]

5. I find this hard to square with the fact that all the Networks

and cable are reporting Hilary comfortably ahead of all
Democrats truly leading the pack so to speak. Outpacing
Obama handily.

It seems to me that if Hilary were in serious trouble she
would not be leading in the polls.

[NoPasaran]

12. By the Zen of GD:Politics

Hillary is in trouble because she is leading in the polls.

[Tom Joad]

6. What year did hc give any indication she opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq?

[spag68]

8. The moonie paper

is such a piece of crap, why would anyone here give it any credence at all?

[MadHound]

11. A rather disingenous polling source that you are using there friend

Marist is a student operated polling service. It isn't professional, it is done as a learning experience for college students. Second, the WNBC/Marist collaberation is only polling people in the NY, NJ, CT tristate region, not nationwide. Not very accurate, no not at all. <http://www.marist.edu/magazine/f03/page08.html> In fact it brings their entire poll into question. Such regional polling, expecially in Clinton's own stomping grounds is not very indicative of how she is percieved of nationwide. But perhaps this was your intention:shrug:

Next time you come up with a poll like this, try using polling results that are compounded by professionals, you know, the ones who actually get paid for what they do instead of learning from what they do. It would also help if these polls were actually nationwide instead of regional results. It tends to skew the results quite a bit, as we see from your poll.

[SaveElmer]

13. Nice try...

This poll was done for WNBC...and

This survey was conducted April 26th through May 1st, 2007. 1,003 adults 18 years of age or older within the continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population.

[rinsd]

15. Um so posting a Media Matter rebuttal to the Moonie times is out of bounds?

We should have stuck with the Moonie interpretation of the Marist poll?

"
Next time you come up with a poll like this, try using polling results that are compounded by professionals, you know, the ones who actually get paid for what they do instead of learning from what they do. It would also help if these polls were actually nationwide instead of regional results. It tends to skew the results quite a bit, as we see from your poll. "

Also you may want to actually check out the poll before making such assumptions

http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/usapolls/CP070508.htm

"Nature of the Sample: 1,003 Americans
This survey was conducted April 26th through May 1st, 2007. 1,003 adults 18 years of age or older within the continental United States were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. The results of the entire survey are statistically significant at ±3%. There are 823 registered voters including 279 Democrats, 227 Republicans, and 299 independent voters. The results for registered voters are statistically significant at ±3.5%. Independent voters were asked a follow-up question to ascertain whether they lean towards either the Democratic or Republican party. There are 392 Democrats and Democratic leaning independents and 306 Republicans and Republican leaning independents. The results for the Democratic and Republican primary sub-samples, which include independent voters who lean toward a political party, are statistically significant at ±4.5% and ±5%, respectively. The margin for error increases for cross-tabulations."

[Totally Committed]

16. As it is often said...

Denial is not just a river in Egypt.

TC

[calteacherguy]

20. Problem I see with that poll is what does "position on the war" mean?

I would interpret that to mean her position on the war now. They should have asked directly about the IWR vote.

[mmonk]

21. Time, debates, questions and events

will determine if she makes it.