New NY Times/CBS Poll: Hillary 42 Obama 27 Edwards 11

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14cnd-npoll.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The poll showed a more stable Democratic race: Among Democratic primary voters nationally, Mrs. Clinton remains the favorite of 42 percent, compared with 27 percent backing Mr. Obama — essentially unchanged since December. Former Senator John Edwards remains in third place with 11 percent.

UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!!!!



x(
rocknation

if the national polls would have changed if Obama had beat Clinton in New Hampshire?

They were virtually tied in nat'l polls after IA...

suddenly people are flip-flopping support based on who won a state?

People are so freaking weird.

You do buy whatever they sell you.

I guess it's only women with real experience of life who know that men can be heartfelt and sincere while they're lying. Obama lies, my darling. All the time.

how many people seem to think a poll tells them who they should vote for.

That reaction may change - after the next news. it's why Iowa and NH have so much influence - people accept them as fait accompli. It happened more dramatically in 2004 - where Iowa ended the primaries. All the leads other candidates had in other states evaporated in a flash.

Because, ye gods, that's a bit outside the margin of error.

These national polls mean nothing.

Before the candidates rolled into Iowa and stayed a while, Hillary had numbers like
that as well--and look what happened. Obama came in first, despite all of these
national polls that look just like the one you posted.

Same thing happened in NH. Clinton won by two points, but most of the concurrent
national polls have her in double-digit leads.

Obama is leading decidedly in South Carolina--as this national poll that you posted,
shows Hillary with a wide national lead.

These national polls mean nothing. Hillary gets some benefit from name recognition
and from her "inevitability" meme. The farther out you go with your sampling, the
more you get people who aren't paying attention or who haven't been exposed to the
candidates yet.

When the candidates come to the individual states and campaign, the entire dynamic changes.

Look at the polls from the states in which upcoming elections are taking place. Those
are the only polls that matter.

there is no time to campaign. It'll all be tv ads and name recongition. National polls now mean something.

...become more significant in the Super Tuesday states.

However, the candidates are still campaiging very aggressively in those states.

Those states are on their current travel schedules.

The campaigns also have large volunteer networks that are working hard--making
phone calls, canvassing, etc.

I do agree that the more people rely on vacuous television advertising and
name recognition--the more likely they are to vote for Hillary. Conversely,
the more people get to know Obama, and hear what he has to say, the more they
defect to his camp and gain his support.

Super Tuesday depends a great deal on what happens in NV, SC and FL. If
one of the candidates can take 2 or 3--that will give them a massive
advantage and momentum. A scenario like that would make moot Hillary's
name recognition.

So, we'll see what happens!

~

...but they don't vote until Feb 5th.

Like I said, when the candidates roll into these states and make their
cases---the dynamic will change significantly.

I think we should all keep an eye on Jersey!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofREAy8JLVE&feature=related

I'm in a good mood...

considering I'm going to have the Munsters theme stuck in my head all night long!

put these OP in check! keeeYA!:headbang:

nt

If so, it looks like its going to be an outlier when compared to Rasmussen and ABC

Just thought I'd add this to the wrinkle of pretty-much-useless national poll data...

Convention would be that undecideds would split probably Clinton 8, Obama 8 and Edwards 4 , putting Clinton on 50, Obama on 35 and Edwards on 11.

Thats still a heck of a national lead.

Edwards at 11? That's sad.

Even if his voters broke 70-30 for Obama which is unlikely it would still 46%-33%...

Madame You-Know-What. :evilgrin:

What exactly is this "large shift" to Obama from ABC that Drudge is reporting. ABC's last poll had HRC like 35 points ahead. If it's 15 points now, I hardly call that a large shift.

Anybody have ABC numbers?

~

nt