Zogby Latest:
Quote:Both parties have staged tight, seesawing battles for the nominations for November's presidential election. Clinton, the New York senator, and Obama split the first four Democratic contests -- Obama won Iowa and South Carolina, while Clinton won New Hampshire and Nevada.
In California, the poll found Obama led Clinton by 45 percent to 41 percent, with a margin of error of 2.9 percentage points. Clinton held statistically insignificant 1-point leads on Obama in New Jersey and Missouri, well within the margin of error of 3.4 percentage points in both surveys.
New Jersey, Obama was way down earlier this month. Big Mo.
Utah? Hillary's not competing there:
Quote:Obama leads the "most likely to vote" Democrats 53-29 percent over Clinton.
If Obama wins CA he wins on super Tues.
Cycloptichorn
I didn't see anything about the new Field poll here, forgive me if I'm duplicating. Plus just one poll. But some wowie stuff in it:
Quote:A startling surge of support for Barack Obama has catapulted the Illinois senator into a virtual tie with Hillary Rodham Clinton in California's Democratic presidential primary, a Field Poll released Saturday shows.
[...]
But the Democratic numbers are the shocker. Clinton, a longtime California favorite, saw her once-commanding lead slip to two percentage points, 36 to 34 percent, in the new survey. That's down from the New York senator's 12 percentage point lead in mid-January and a 25 percentage point margin over Obama in October.[/quote]
Quote:The new poll shows why Obama's campaign has been targeting decline-to-state voters, who can cast ballots in the Democratic primary. While Clinton has a 37 to 31 percent lead over Obama among Democrats, Obama leads by an overwhelming 54 to 32 percent among nonpartisans, who will make up an estimated 13 percent of the primary voters.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/03/MNF7UR6FE.DTL&tsp=1
Rasmussen: Obama by 1 in Cali
Multiple polls confirm Obama surge in California!
Cycloptichorn
Pretty good explanation of the delegate process and, in particular, California's complicated mathematical process of distributing democratic delegates.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/02/03/MNE1UOVB1.DTL
Quote:
Late Update: Gallup track swings in the other direction. A two point race. Clinton 46%, Obama 44%.
Late Update: Meanwhile, USAToday/Gallup has a one point race: Clinton 45%, Obama 44%. Obviously, this sounds kind of weird since it's two polls by the Gallup organization. But this is one conventional poll sponsored by USAToday. And a separate tracking poll by the Gallup organization. IN other words, this is not two different slicings and dicings of the same survey.
Two different gallup polls, two similar results!
Cycloptichorn
edit - in fact, since the first is a three-day tracking poll, and Obama was behind by more yesterday... today's numbers must have been great for Obama....
Toldja they were all at rallies on Friday.
Since Edwards drop out, Hillary has risen 2-4 points. Obama has risen 8-11 points. I think it's fair to say that the majority of Edwards voters have switched to Obama.
Cycloptichorn
That's a much nicer-looking chart than yesterdays'.
I'm still antsy.
I'd be happy if something big happened tomorrow (Edwards or Gore, pretty much).
This is interesting, just saw it (as in, after I wrote the above):
Quote: The Latest on Gore
According to a source close to Al Gore, multiple people in the former VP's orbit are in touch with him on a regular basis to urge an Obama endorsement. According to this source, Gore's hesitation is three-fold:
1.) The memory of the ill-fated Dean endorsement looms large for him.
2.) (Which is somewhat related to 1.) He's worried about somehow jinxing Obama.
3.) He's enjoying the contrast between himself (statesman-like, above the fray) and Bill Clinton, who's been rooting around in the mud for his wife and damaging his legacy in the process.
To that list, I can't help adding a thought of my own: If, as now seems possible, this race goes to the convention and the convention gets deadlocked, is it so crazy for Gore to imagine himself as either a.) one of the party elders who decides the outcome, or b.) a unifying, white knight candidate in his own right? And, if that's not crazy, shouldn't Gore sit tight for now?
Just askin'...
--Noam Scheiber
Especially #2! I admit the same thought crossed my mind. :-)
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2008/02/03/the-latest-on-gore.aspx
sozobe wrote:That's a much nicer-looking chart than yesterdays'.
I'm still antsy.
I'd be happy if something big happened tomorrow (Edwards or Gore, pretty much).
How 'bout Maria Schriver?
That picture will be on the front of every paper on Monday morning.
Cycloptichorn
Shriver's cool but not HUGE. It'll probably help though, you're right. Especially the surprise element and the story element -- that Arnold is a prominent supporter of McCain, etc. As in, it'll probably get a fair amount of media attention, and any media attention centering on "I support Obama and here's why" will be good.
The CBS thing is nice, too.
Here's what I'm most concerned about (and what's behind my generally wet-blanket tone...)
Obama surges in California. The buzz that accompanies that surge goes too far, and raises expectations too high. He ends up finishing a close second. This should be tremendous news -- Hillary had an incredible lead for a very long time. But because of the hype, it'll be seen as a momentum-dampening disappointment. "Man, I thought he'd win this."
I hope this resembles his last surge in popularity.....you all remember what happened next...Clinton won in NH.
I hope all the Obama supporters hear about these polls too, and these gains he's making. It will make it that much easier for them not to show up at the polls on Tuesday.
Not really. His last surge in popularity was South Carolina, where he beat her by even more than the polls predicted, and by the biggest margin of the contest between them so far.
I do think NH will be the exception there, for two reasons. 1) the media thought they knew what was going to happen and acted accordingly -- they're now gunshy because of how thoroughly wrong they were proven. 2) Obama and his campaign believed the hype, too, and got a bit complacent. He didn't do any of the town hall-type stuff he'd been doing up until then, for example. As with #1, I don't think anyone's taking anything for granted after NH.
I was responding to this:
Quote:I hope this resembles his last surge in popularity.....you all remember what happened next...Clinton won in NH.
I hope all the Obama supporters hear about these polls too, and these gains he's making. It will make it that much easier for them not to show up at the polls on Tuesday.
But yes, if the general buzz is that Obama is going to win California, even if the media minds their manners, the effect will be NH redux if he comes in a close second.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Rasmussen: Obama by 1 in Cali
Multiple polls confirm Obama surge in California!
Cycloptichorn
And Rasmussen has McCain and Romney in a deadheat in California, and Reuters has Romney by 3. The momentum seems to have Romney eating away at McCains lead in some states. If people begin to perceive that Huckabee has little chance, they might defect to their second choice, either McCain or Romney, so things could be somewhat fluid until election day, as people try to figure out the most logical choice.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_republican_primary-258.html
In Georgia, its almost a tossup.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ga/georgia_republican_primary-267.html
Its also going to be my guess that Romney wins more easily in Massachusetts than McCain does in Arizona. Last poll shows Romney trailing in AZ 43 to 34.