Is Obama Really Trailing Clinton?

[FlaxieB]

Mount Prospect, Ill.: How do you reconcile the apparent wide gap between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (according to recent polls) and the significant reaction (both in donors and total dollars) that puts Obama at the top tier, above Clinton? Is it possible that despite those polls, this grassroot movement for Obama is something the media is missing that will show its strength at the voting/caucus settings, and that is why Obama continues to avoid any strident criticisms of Clinton?


Anne E. Kornblut: It's a great question,and one we spend a lot of time scratching our heads over here. Your theory is entirely possible; it is, after all, about three months until we see actual voting begin. And let's not forget who was the front-runner for the Democratic nomination four years ago (hint: it was not John Kerry). The Clinton campaign, though, would say that Obama's support donation-wise is a reflection of his support from elites who can afford to help him (and donors overall make up a small portion of the population), whereas Clinton has broad popular support... We will find out soon enough.



http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/28/is_obama_really_trailing_clint.html

[Ethelk2044]

1. I do not believe the polls are speaking for Obama supporters. They are taking those who

normally votes. However, I have asked several people I know if they have been polled. They have stated they have not. However, I feel the MSM will be surprised once the voters go to the polls. They were fooled in before and will be fooled again.

[silverweb]

2. How polls are conducted.

I think a major question is how are the polls conducted?

We've seen this before. A lot of people (and I am one) don't have land-line telephones, but use cell phones exclusively, and my understanding is that we are thus cut out of the majority of telephone polls.

As for the Clinton campaign's claim that "elites" are the ones supporting Obama, that's already proven to be not the case.

If anything, it's Clinton who's falling behind because her donors are the "elites" and have already maxed out their allowable contributions.

Obama has a larger number of overall donors who give more frequently in smaller amounts... and we're not done!

So I don't trust the polls. They're quite incomplete.

[Kelly Rupert]

5. Yeah, we heard all about the secret reservoir of cell-only support before.

Remember 2004, how the unpolled cell-phone-only kids were going to ensure John Kerry won the presidency? Turns out the polls ended up being spot-on to the actual results.

[silverweb]

6. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Won't we? :)

NO ONE I know has ever been polled.

In the meantime...

[Kelly Rupert]

8. Given that

each poll only hits about 1,000 people, in a nation of 300,000,000 it's pretty easy to see how you could have a social network in which nobody you know closely has been polled recently.

(I got polled once by Time, I think, back in 2004.)

We'll see indeed. But if I were on Obama's campaign, I'd be acting based on what the polls said, not on the outside chance that there was a secret base of invisible support ready to swoop in and rescue him.

[silverweb]

12. True about polling samples.

But never fear. I'm quite sure Obama isn't waiting "on the outside chance that there was a secret base of invisible support ready to swoop in and rescue him."

:D

[AtomicKitten]

3. Obama will can and will give Hillary a run for her money.

By accepting public $, Edwards will get an influx of quick cash (which may be part of his blitzkrieg strategy in Ohio), but he's really throwing the dice. Gotta give him snaps for that.

[Kelly Rupert]

4. Yes, actually, he is.

Obama has money and media coverage on par with Clinton, but his actual support is about fifteen to twenty-five points below hers.

Comparisons with 2004 aren't as valid as they might seem to be at first glance; not only are candidates' name recognition totals higher than they were at this point in '04 (meaning fewer undecideds), but the race started earlier and as such it's more ossified than it was at this point in '04. Dean never had the kind of lead that Hillary's had for the past month and a half.

[FlaxieB]

7. You're referring to national polls. Not a real determining factor in real results.

The mainstream media wants you to believe that she has a major lead hoping to psychologically convince americans to support Hillary. It's the grass roots efforts in each individual state (not tracked by the media) that tells the true story. His efforts are working brilliantly and the true results will br justified during the elections.

[Kelly Rupert]

9. The local polls don't look any better right now.

Clinton's edging him in Iowa (where he's about tied with Edwards), and realistically if he doesn't win there he's shot, since she's crushing him in NH, with a 20+ lead in each poll. FL--which might or might not matter--is Clinton by over 20 points. South Carolina, she's got double digits on him.

So he's got just under a 1/3 chance to win Iowa right now. If he does, he might be able to make a campaign out of it, maybe. If he doesn't, he's sunk.

If that's a plan that's "working brilliantly," he needs to fire some people quickly.

[Jane Austin]

11. The last Iowa poll I saw (today) had Obama

edging out Clinton among likely caucus -goers, and very close behind her among all polled, so I can't agree with you on who is leading in Iowa.

[FlaxieB]

10. His approach to this win is working just fine.

Not the least bit worried. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

[msongs]

13. maybe he has a 75 point lead but the media is out to get him? nt