Rasmussen: "Clinton has bounced back" (and Obama has lost ground/Edwards flatlining)

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton has bounced back. She is now supported by 44% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters, up from a recent low of 39%. Senator Barack Obama earns the vote from 19% while former Senator John Edwards remains at 15%. No other candidate tops the 3% level among Likely Democratic Primary Voters (see recent daily numbers).

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

numbers here:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/daily_presidential_tracking_polling_history

They need to be reduced. Something has to be done about this. Too many polls.

nation doesn't vote on January 3. Only Iowa caucuses that day.

Historically, the results in Iowa will radically changed the landscape for all the candidates. Here is the best analysis I have seen on the phenomenon:

In late 2003 the Kerry campaign made a radical decision: it decided to close most of its New Hampshire campaign and bet everything on Iowa. It's not an often discussed decision, but it remains the best tactical decision I have ever seen a campaign make during the primaries. It was based on the fact that national polling is irrelevant before Iowa, and to some extent so is New Hampshire Polling

What made the decision fascinating at the time is that Kerry's campaign manager was Jeanne Shaheen. While best known as a governor of NH, she is also without a doubt the master of the New Hampshire primary. She has run 3 winning NH campaigns: Carter in '76, Hart in '84 (where I met her) and Gore in '00. Obviously two of those races (Carter and Hart) represent some of the biggest upsets in recent political history.

What Shaheen knew was that Iowa would completely re-make the NH race. And so it did. The tables below show the polling taken before the Iowa results were known, and the impact Iowa had on the final New Hampshire results:

The difference between winning the Iowa caucus and coming in third, for example, may result in as much as a 20% shift (or more?) in the actual New Hampshire primary vote as compared to pre-Iowa-caucus polling in New Hampshire.

If many different polls show the same result, that builds confidence in their methodology and results. Polls that radically disagree are more easily noticed and discounted.

I prefer many different polls by many different groups, put them together logically and you get a sense of reality that you don't have with just 1 or 2.

We'll see

Just like Bill Clinton said yesterday, he was third at this stage in 1991 and he finish first.

Rasmussen is just a hill-shill poll! It didn't even happen, it was a mistake! gobama??

eom

25 point lead!

:)

:shrug:

:eyes:

"In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton has bounced back"


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

"In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Senator Hillary Clinton has bounced back"

:applause:

I mean, if we had a national primary day, I could understand, but as it stands, this is absurd.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_primary-234.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/sc/south_carolina_democratic_primary-234.html


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/fl/florida_democratic_primary-261.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nv/nevada_democratic_caucus-236.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/mi/michigan_democratic_primary-238.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ca/california_democratic_primary-259.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nj/new_jersey_democratic_primary-246.html



You do know that those polled in state and national polls come from the same universe of voters...It would be statistically impossible for a candidate to be doing well in national polls and poorly in all the state polls...

Now , I know there is a hope in the media and among Obama's campaign that HRC will stumble in the early primaries and the voters will take a second look... As they say those are facts not in evidence or suppositions, prayerful assumptions , and dreams as of now...

Polls from late primary states, mostly taken before Hillary imploded. Great job DSB, keep up the good work.


Also, you can keep pretending that everything is hunky-dory in Iowa and NH for Hillary, or that her winning those two primaries don't matter, but you will be arguing against history. Those two states have taken out much better front runners then her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3518385&mesg_id=3701039

I update those graphs daily. Much more informative than looking at a table.

about HRC being on her downward slide?

Yes there are too many polls!

sorry. wrong thread.