opinions on Monday night CNN dem debate (reprise)

Parent Cafe
1

<p>After 28 pages of discussion following the debate, I thought there might be some interest in a follow-up now that we have seen 2 weeks of post-debate national polling. Check in with the country’s opinion, so to speak.</p>

<p>To put it into context, the debate sparked the exchange between Obama and Clinton on the topic of immediate Presidential summits, without precondition, with Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinejad, al-Assad, and Kim Jong Il. Basically, it touched off a two week barrage of questions about Obama’s foreign policy chops moving from dictator summits to invading Pakistan to ruling out the use of nuclear weapons and deterrence.</p>

<p>The national media hasn’t picked up on it yet, but the polling has been stunning. Polling that had been largely static for months showed dramatic movement.</p>

<p>The Rasmussen daily tracking polls tell the story. They poll every night, 7 days a week. Each day they release a running four day average ending with the previous night’s polling. They’ve had the race static for some time – 35% to 38% Clinton, 25% to 27% Obama. The four day running average through the debate night was 38% to 25%. Look what has happened since, starting with the 4-day average ending with the debate night:</p>

<p>


          Clinton Obama   Edwards
7/24/2007   38% 25% 14%
7/25/2007   **40%**     23%  15%
7/26/2007   **41%**  23% 15%
7/27/2007   **42%**  23% 14%
7/28/2007   41% 23% 15%
7/29/2007   40% 24% 14%
7/30/2007   40% 24% 14%
7/31/2007   41% 23% 14%
8/1/2007    42% 21% 13%
8/2/2007    **43%**  21% 12%
8/3/2007    **45%  **21% 11%

I've bolded new highwater marks for Clinton, starting with her equallng her previous high for the year in Rasmussen polling the night after the debate and then setting four more highwater marks through Thursday night. By contrast, Obama's 21% is his lowest number since February when he entered the race.

These numbers are confirmed by three more national polls taken since the debate, all of which show new highwater marks for Clinton and a widening gap:

**NBC/Wall Street Journal** Clinton 43% Obama 22% Edwards 13%

**Newsweek** Clinton 43% Obama 21% Edwards 12%

**Pew Research** Clinton 40% Obama 21% Edwards 11%

The Pew poll, taken in the days immediately following the debate, has some stunning breakdowns by category, showing Clinton's support as being both deep and wide across all groups of Democratic voters:

I'll give the Clinton/Obama percentages for each demographic split. The number in parenthesis is the increase or decrease for Clinton in that category compared to Pew's last polling in April/May. Sorry Edwards fans, Pew did not include him in the table with this info.



C 40%  O 21% All voters (+6)</p>

<p>C 40%  O 23% Registered Democrat (+4)
C 41%  O 17% Leaning Democrat (+11)</p>

<p>C 39%  O 24% Liberal (+7)
C 40%  O 18% Moderate (+7)
C 42%  O 23% Conservative (+0)</p>

<p>C 37%  O 17% White (+7)
C 47%  O 34% Black (+1)</p>

<p>C 37%  O 19% Male (+8)
C 43%  O 22% Female (+5)</p>

<p>C 38%  O 26% age 18-49 (+4)
C 40%  O 15% age 50-64 (+8)
C 48%  O 15% age 65+ (+10)</p>

<p>C 34%  O 23% College grad (+10)
C 45%  O 26% Some college (+10)
C 43%  O 17% HS or less (+2)

</p>

<p>Clinton beats Obama by double digits in every demographic group and has made big gains with groups where she had been weak, or even trailing Obama – with college educated voters, white voters, male voters, and notably for the general election Independent voters who are leaning Democratic. Most devastating is Clinton’s 25% to 28% lead with voters aged 50 and above who vote in primaries at rates significantly higher than younger voters. The 13% lead with black voters is pretty daunting as well.</p>

<p>In short, since the debate, Obama has been on the ropes, cut over both eyes, and getting hit with left and right hooks while his corner yells at him to keep his guard up. The big problem is that the last two weeks have been framed in terms of her strength (experience & discipline) against his weakness (inexperience and naivete). That’s disaster for a candidate who has not yet crossed the “presidential gravitas” threshold. It will be interesting to see if he can do something to stop the polling trends.</p>

2

<p>^ …So, what’s your point? :D</p>

<p>You stayed up very late just to post a bunch of poll statistics!</p>

3

<p>You probably can find a poll that says anything you want it to. ;)</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202621.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202621.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>From this poll: “Less than six months before Iowa voters open the 2008 presidential nomination battles, the Democratic contest in the Hawkeye State is a deadlock, with Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards in a virtual tie for first place, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.”</p>

4

<p>ID: Interesting results, trends; thanks for posting. I have noticed that since that last debate (where I thought Edwards was outstanding–as was Clinton, obviously), Edward’s name seems to have all but disappeared in the media. :frowning: </p>

<p>I still don’t trust her as much as I do Edwards (though I admit-- “trust” is relative when talking about any of these folks), there’s no doubt she’s smart, capable, and has the background and experience to lead this country. (I just hope this current administration doesn’t destroy us all before then.)</p>

5

<p>Oh, I just saw your link, sokkermom. Thanks. Obviously, I haven’t been reading the right newspapers. I feel much better now. I do trust Edwards more.</p>

<p>So what’s up with Gravel, by the way. I thought he was all but ignored in that debate, so what’s in this for him? Is he mainly up there to point out the problems with all the other “leading” candidates? He seems awfully hard-bitten and ornery, though I liked him. He seemed a little “off,” though. Is he sane, do you think?</p>

6

<p>Gravel’s only campaign appearances are at the debates. Recent polling has been pointing out that he gets 0. Not 0 percent. 0 period.</p>

<p>He’s in the debates because nobody will tell him no. Thank Howard Dean. Gravel gets a spot over your regular run of th mill crackpot off the street because he was a US Senator 30 years ago. </p>

<p>He was involved in leaking the Pentagon Papers in a short-lived, but firey anti-Vietnam political career.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>Indeed. </p>

<p>The key is to look for consistency across multiple polling firms and across multiple days. There are so many pollsters doing national polls so often that it is pretty easy to spot the fluke polls.</p>

<p>Both Iowa and South Carolina have been all over the board. The polling is infrequent and different pollsters are getting wildly different results. So, you end up with curious statements like Edwards campaign manager, John Bonnier on TV last night saying, “if you average the five most recent polls in Iowa, not counting the WSJ and ARG polls, Edwards is leading.”</p>

<p>Polling is all over the board in Iowa because only about 15% of registered voters show up to caucus. How tightly a pollster tries to screen for those voters will impact the poll results. For example, survey respondents saying they will caucus for three hours on a snowy night and survey respondents who have actually caucused in the past are two very different poll samples.</p>

<p>The last three polls in Iowa, all taken in the last two weeks have shown:</p>

<p>a) a 9% Clinton lead over Edwards with Obama third</p>

<p>b) a 5% Edwards lead over Clinton with Obama third</p>

<p>c) a 1 point Obama lead in a virtual dead heat</p>

<p>Take your pick.</p>

8

<p>ID: Thanks; I knew about Gravel and the Pentagon Papers, but I figured there was more. Hmm . . . I guess not. He gets pretty fired up, and I thought he was an “interesting” addition at the Monday night debate. I felt bad for him, though. Now if only Dan Rather could have been in Anderson’s shoes . . . that would have been [more] fun.</p>

9

<p>I have to agree Clinton was masterful when she called Obama “naive.” Well done! I think it will stick. But will she draft a “naive” man as her vp?</p>

10

<p>I feel bad for the serious candidates who are working harder than any human possibly could, day in and day out, on the campaign trail only to turn around and see novelty stunt candidates standing next to them at the debates.</p>

<p>To put the workload into perspective, Clinton has been campaigning non-stop since January and has only missed 10 US Senate votes (3%). At the other end of the scale, John McCain has missed 147 votes (48%).</p>

11

<p>Well, they didn’t poll me about Gravel. :wink: I think he may be the worst candidate up there (or maybe not), but certainly the most honest and perceptive.</p>

12

<p>More Poll stuff. Probably doesn’t mean much.</p>

<p>South Carolina Primary Polls - Obama Takes Lead Over Clinton</p>

<p>South Carolina 8/1/2007 11:27 AM GMT (TransWorldNews)</p>

<p>American Research Group has polled voters in South Carolina to measure the Democratic and Republican races.</p>

<p>The Democratic poll shows Barack Obama taking the lead in South Carolina over Hillary Clinton. John Edwards was in third place with 18%. No other candidate was able to get over 3%.</p>

<p>The Republican poll shows a statistical dead heat between Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson. Giuliani is in statistical dead heats in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.</p>

13

<p>All I can say is, if a Republican gets into office next go round, we’re leaving the country. This is most especially true if Fred Thompson (shudder at the thought) or Giuliani wins. If that happens, this is a country that has gone completely 'round the bend, and I certainly wouldn’t want to live here any longer. The embarrassment alone would be too much.</p>

<p>Agree about Gravel, but if they’re gonna let anybody run and be in these debates, I think it’s only fair to let them have as much time as anybody else. Otherwise, just have debates with the 3 top candidates.</p>

14

<p>The last three polls in South Carolina (all taken in the last two weeks), show:</p>

<p>Clinton +14%
Clinton +15%
Obama +4% (the one you mention)</p>

<p>One of the ways to see which polls the candidates believe is to watch their actions, specifically where they are spending money. Obama started running radio ads in South Carolina last week – an ad tailored to the African American voters with a distinctly different message than his national pitch. He’s running it only on 32 black radio stations in the state.</p>

<p>South Carolina is a must-win primary for Obama in the same way that Edwards must win Iowa. It is nearly impossible to map out winning formulas for either candidate without wins in their respective early firewall states. South Carolina’s Democratic electorate is 50% African American. If Obama doesn’t win there, he’s in big trouble.</p>

15

<p>Everytime I complain about Gravel, I stop and count my lucky stars. At least the Democrats don’t have Tom Tancredo in the race. </p>

<p>Now, he’s a piece of work. How did you like his proposal to threaten US bombing of the holy sites of Mecca and Medinah in Saudi Arabia as a way to deter radical Islamic fundamentalism? Wow. Talk about a wingnut.</p>

16

<p>Mitt Romney, during the Republican debate in Iowa referring to Barack Obama said,
“I mean, in one week he went from saying he’s going to sit down, you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he’s going to bomb our allies, he’s gone from Jane Fonda to Dr. Strangelove in one week.” </p>

<p>This from a man who has never met a flip he couldn’t flop.</p>

17

<p><a href=“http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070806/cm_huffpost/059274[/url]”>http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20070806/cm_huffpost/059274&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>“At this point national polls are meaningless. We do not vote in national elections for the primaries. We vote in individual state primaries and participate in individual state caucuses. What matters are how the candidates are doing in the specific states and those polls are much tighter than the national polls.”</p>

<p>“Once people start focusing on the candidates this fall we could see some changes in the poll standings. Senator Clinton has very high negative ratings. Many people cannot say why they do not like the New York senator other than they feel she is too structured and too programmed. Some say she does not seem real or have beliefs that haven’t been tested before focus groups before she gives a speech.”</p>

<p>We know this was not written by Hillary’s campaign manager…:cool:</p>

18

<p>Guttman makes two factual mistatements:</p>

<p>a) The race is actually not close at all in many of the individual state polls, including large states like Florida, California, New York, etc. With the exception of Iowa and South Carolina (and one outlier poll in NH), Clinton has clear leads in every state if you look at the average of the most recent polling.</p>

<p>b) It is also false that voters are not focusing on the Democratic race. All the polling shows an unprecedented degree of interest at this point. The extremely low number of undecided voters in the polling confirms the voter engagement.</p>

<p>All election races are dynamic. It is certainly possible that the dynamics of this race could change between now and February 5th when it will be decided. The front runner could make a fatal gaffe or fail to do the basic organizational blocking and tackling on the ground. One of the challengers could successfully cross the “presidential gravitas” threshold. The only thing we can say for sure is that Edwards and Obama would rather be playing Clinton’s cards today than their own hands.</p>

19

<p>Quick update:</p>

<p>A new USA Today/Gallup Poll surveying from Thursday thru Sunday (Aug 2-5) has the candidates at:</p>

<p>Clinton 48%
Obama 26%
Edwards 12%</p>

<p>That’s a 10 point swing since the last Gallup poll three weeks ago, up 8% for Clinton, down 2% for Obama.</p>

20

<p>And for Sokkermom, who is interested in early state polls, a new SurveyUSA California poll. 764 likely Democratic primary voters, margin of error: 3.6%</p>

<p>


      All Male    Female</p>

<p>Clinton     51% 38% 62%
Obama       27% 34% 21%
Edwards     14% 18% 10%
Other       6%  8%  4%
Undecided   3%  2%  4%

</p>

<p>The gender gap on this one is breathtaking – 62% for Clinton in an 8 candidate field. Especially because of the 2000 voters they initially contacted, the breakdown of likely Democratic primary voters was 57% female, 43% male.</p>

<p>Obama wins the black vote in California, 57% to 38%. However Clinton offsets that with the white vote (43% to 26%) and stunning margins with Latino/a voters (64% to 20%) and Asian American voters (59% to 23%).</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=09756021-204b-4006-ac7e-2b89f6468ba4[/url]”>SurveyUSA Election Poll #12446;