USA Today / Gallup: Clinton flat, Obama fades, Edwards Rises

[wyldwolf]

A Little Movement In The New USA Today/Gallup Poll...

Clinton 45% (-3), Obama 24% (-1) Edwards 16% (+3). John Edwards, as you can see, picks up three percent this week, Clinton loses three percent, and Obama loses 1%. But where the new poll gets interesting is the "first and second choices combined" portion where Edwards shines and Obama fades. Clinton holds from the last poll at 63% to lead the pack, but Obama drops 5 to 41% and Edwards gains 6 to 31%.

Also, if the race for the Democratic nomination for President narrowed to just Clinton and Obama, Clinton wins with 63% (+2). Obama loses 2 points from the previous poll and would currently be the choice of 32%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2007-09-09-politics-poll.htm

[Buzz Clik]

1. Just in time for the primaries.

[wyldwolf]

2. How many weeks to go?

[Ninga]

3. We are going to be in a stomach churning state until the middle of February.

I still remember the rush and rise of Howard Dean, and Kerry polling at 9% the beginning of December 03....and 8 weeks later, Dean was toast and Kerry came from behind the pack and won by a length.

I suggest we remove our fortune telling turbans......and let the candidates do what they are going to do....what ever that is....and hang on for a bumpy ride.

[Apollo11]

4. Everything changes after Iowa

If John Edwards wins Iowa and then does better than expected in NH (either 1st or 2nd), we will see a tidal shift of support in Edwards' direction.

My feeling is that a lot of Obama, Edwards and Kucinich supporters will be willing to get behind whoever (of these 3) has the best chance of winning the nomination.

I wouldn't call it "Anybody But Clinton".

I would call it "Let's choose a candidate who speaks for grassroots democrats".

But it's just a hunch at this point ...

:kick:

[Ninga]

6. If "walking around talking to friends" polling counts, then this year will be no

different than 2003/2004 when Dean was a million miles ahead, and Kerry was a million miles behind, and look what ultimately happened.

Even though all of this started early, many party regulars are undecided..... it is anyone's race at this point.

[wyldwolf]

7. Except 2003-2004 was the exception, not the norm

Aside from 1992 and again in 2004, early polling has been quite accurate in most primary battles of our lifetime.

[Ninga]

11. I agree it wasn't the norm, however, we don't know what the norm will be going

forward do we?

Norm only become norm, retrospectively, after the fact, when we are able to compare and do the anaylsis.

The dynamic of the cycle we are in at this time makes it a bit tricky to say we have a defacto nominee, it is just too early in the process. We will be able to re-visit in the spring of 08 after we know who the nominee will be.

[wyldwolf]

12. of course not. But betting on the norm is still the safest bet

The polls have remaimed consistant over the last 6 months with Clinton actually (on average) padding her lead.

[zulchzulu]

17. You are correct

Iowa and New Hampshire results will create a media buzz leading to Nevada and South Carolina. Whoever does well or is perceived as doing well will get a lot of momentum in the ridiculous February 5 20-state bonanza.

I still don't think it will be over until after Wisconsin on February 19th.

It's all about five months away from the first votes, which is political infinity.

[Ninja Jordan]

5. Edwards still well behind

Some of his weird comments have ultimately sunk him.

[Apollo11]

10. Not in Iowa

Most people believe that the Iowa caucuses will be more important in 2008 than ever before.

They will set the tone for the crucial 4 weeks leading up to Super-Duper Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama also believe that winning Iowa is important!

But despite their best efforts in Iowa, John Edwards is still in the lead.

:kick:

[Adelante]

22. It's pretty much tied in Iowa

There is movement forward and back and back and forward, but Iowa is staying a close race, and Edwards is not in the lead there, although he should be, all things considered.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Sir Rupert Thanks You For Your Devotion!!!

[wyldwolf]

9. Rupert has what to do with this?

[zulchzulu]

13. So flat= -3 but fade= -1

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

15. did you look at the OTHER numbers included? ...no, of course not.

:eyes:

"where the new poll gets interesting is the "first and second choices combined" portion where Edwards shines and Obama fades. Clinton holds from the last poll at 63% to lead the pack, but Obama drops 5 to 41% and Edwards gains 6 to 31%.

Also, if the race for the Democratic nomination for President narrowed to just Clinton and Obama, Clinton wins with 63% (+2). Obama loses 2 points from the previous poll and would currently be the choice of 32%.

Na na na na... na na na na... hey hey hey... good bye!

[zulchzulu]

18. Your overconfidence in a retreaded candidate is amusing

Keep it up!

By your analysis and belief in national polls at this point in the race, you must still have that picture of President Gephardt on your wall next to the one of President Muskie.

:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

19. LOL! Denial ain't just a river in Egypt for you!

[zulchzulu]

21. Wow... you are so clever. Do you write copy for Hallmark?

:crazy:

[wyldwolf]

23. Ah, irrelevancy. Why detract from the fact Obama just can't gain any traction?

[BeyondGeography]

14. Your Obama fixation continues to get the better of you

He's down one whole point in this poll but the thread title says he's "fading," and Edwards, who remains stuck in third with one-third less support, is "rising." Clinton, who drops three points, is "flat."

Do you realize what this interpretation of the story would earn you in a real editorial environment?

Oh, you will say, but he has dropped further in the mythical "first and second" choices combined category. If there's anything that means less than a national poll at this point, it's asking people who are only beginning to pay attention who their top two choices are. And, even there, where Edwards is supposedly "shining," he trails Obama by double-digits.

Lame.

[wyldwolf]

16. did you look at the OTHER numbers included? ... no, of course not.

"where the new poll gets interesting is the "first and second choices combined" portion where Edwards shines and Obama fades. Clinton holds from the last poll at 63% to lead the pack, but Obama drops 5 to 41% and Edwards gains 6 to 31%.

Also, if the race for the Democratic nomination for President narrowed to just Clinton and Obama, Clinton wins with 63% (+2). Obama loses 2 points from the previous poll and would currently be the choice of 32%.

Na na na na... na na na na... hey hey hey... good bye!

[TwilightGardener]

20. Minus one percent is fading? WTF? That's quite the spin--probably a

difference of a handful of people polled, and within the margin of error. Nice try though.

[wyldwolf]

24. Did you look at the other numbers? No, of course not.

"where the new poll gets interesting is the "first and second choices combined" portion where Edwards shines and Obama fades. Clinton holds from the last poll at 63% to lead the pack, but Obama drops 5 to 41% and Edwards gains 6 to 31%.

Also, if the race for the Democratic nomination for President narrowed to just Clinton and Obama, Clinton wins with 63% (+2). Obama loses 2 points from the previous poll and would currently be the choice of 32%.

Na na na na... na na na na... hey hey hey... good bye!

[TwilightGardener]

27. Two whole points...MY GOD!!! LOL.

[wyldwolf]

29. ..would mean the difference... right?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. When is the last time a national poll showed Obama gaining ground?

Increasing number of voters: "Where's the beef?" :)

[robcon]

26. Phony analysis: the numbers are within the MOE

In other words, there is no statistically significant change - no fade for Obama, no rise for Edwards. No change for anyone.

When the thread-starter tries to use "second choice" as some kind of measure of fading/rising, you know the entire analysis is phony spin.

[wyldwolf]

28. people just have to ask themselves...

1. When someone talks about the margin or error, why on candidate routinely picks up percentage points and one routinely loses them.

2. Why would robcon accuse the thread starter of using "second choice" as some kind of measure of fading/rising when it was, in fact, Gallup that did so.

:shrug:

I understand the need to rationalize poll numbers and try to explain them away - especially when they never say what you want them to - but it does get a little funny watching it.

[robcon]

30. The numbers say exactly what I "want" them to say,

because, unlike you apparently, I want them to reveal the truth as best that statistics can reveal it.

There is no change - no rising by Edwards, no decline by Obama, wyldwolf, and your pathetic attempt to find some succor in the numbers is very revealing...

Agenda-driven stats and pathetic spin.

[Colobo]

31. Obama fades? You wish!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. 3 months ago: Obama 30%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 11%

What a difference this summer made...