Hillary vs Obama Polls and Current Relevance

This is from TPM

The new Gallup poll shows Hillary Clinton with a huge national lead for the Democratic nomination — indeed, it's almost a full majority. Hillary has 48%, Barack Obama 25%, John Edwards 13%, and no other candidate registers above two percent. With Al Gore added into the mix, Hillary is still way ahead: Clinton 42%, Obama 21%, Gore 15% and Edwards 11%. A third question narrows the choices down to just Hillary and Obama: Clinton 61%, Obama 34%.

Food for thought: Ok, I looked at this poll. Its early. It probably doesn't mean much. However, what on earth accounts for Hillary having such a big lead?

I wonder if its possible if Gallup is calling Republicans by accident or some of the independents (in reality Republicans) are simply voicing their choice for Hillary for tactical reasons: (on the flip)

1. to deny the anti-war left their candidate in Obama

2. to keep Hillary around as a lightning rod to stir up votes for their side , i.e, Democrats chomping at the bit to take on Katherine Harris last year to punish her for 2000 and GOPpers justifiably worried at losing a senate seat

3. they fear change. Hillary is a known quantity, the heart of the Democratic Establishment, and they simply don't know how to deal with Obama except to call him naive or irresponsible, echoing HRC's talking points..

4. They see how Hillary's been moving to the center on some things and fear a genuine persuasive liberal in Obama.

I think that if Hillary is the nominee she could be buried under the crap from the 90s despite how bad Bush is stinking up the joint with Iraq and his scandals.  

Is it worth it for me, an Obama supporter, to worry like this about Hillary being up in the polls this early in the game? Am I being paranoid?  

•  Current relevance = not much.

  Hang in there grasshopper.  Much time to go.

  by funluvn1 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:26:45 PM PDT

•  Don't worry...

  just practice saying "President Obama" ;  )

  by bigpappa10834 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:29:22 PM PDT

  •  I believe that eight years of continuous

    and earnest practice will make it so.

    by DCDemocrat on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:33:23 PM PDT

  •  bigpappa is always the voice

    of soothing, optimistic reason.

    by chicago minx on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:17:07 PM PDT

    •  I try, I try...

      always gotta back up my fellow Obama supporters.

      by bigpappa10834 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:27:21 PM PDT

•  Kucinich is the only peace candidate

  Kucinich has voted against the war from the start, he has voted against every bill to fund the war, and he has made more than 150 speeches before congress to end the war.

  Vote for peace, support Kucinich

  by penguinsong on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:30:39 PM PDT

  •  Kucinich isnt viable imho

    Obama has tons of crossover appeal, and he gave a powerful speech in October 2002 to oppose the war. I dont think most people care about war funding at this point.. This isnt vietnam and defunding yet

    by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:32:10 PM PDT

•  Current relevance = great

  Pollsters have polled from one month to the next since late 2004 concerning the preferences of the Democratic Party for the nomination, and they consistently have shown a clear preference for Hillary.  We are now more or less eight months into the campaign, which arguably started in January or February of this year, and from month to month, not only has Hillary sustained her lead, she has increased it.

  This race is entirely Hillary's to lose.  It is not a question of denying the "anti-war left" their candidate; it's about giving the great plurality of the Democratic electorate, theirs.

  by DCDemocrat on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:32:39 PM PDT

  •  Maybe thats true in the beltway

    But I think Obama will do much better than you think!

    by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:42:04 PM PDT

    •  Maybe that's true at Daily Kos

      But I think Hillary will do much better than you think!

      by DCDemocrat on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:49:23 PM PDT

•  Two things

  It is true that national polls don't mean much at all at this point. It's all about the early primary states.

  However, your diary is written from a point of view that Hillary Clinton can't possibly be liked, and then tries to explain why a poll would show that people actually do like her.

  Here's the explanation: a lot of people out there actually like Hillary Clinton. There's no conspiracy behind that from rightwingers promoting her, there's no fear of other candidates. There are simply quite a few people who like her.

  by Frank on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:33:21 PM PDT

  •  I'm trying to like Hillary, I really am

    but I'm just not getting it. She seems prepackaged, too scripted, too corporate, just not sincere.

    I also have a hard time voting for a candidate that hasn't renounced voting for the Iraq war resolution. I did that in 2004, reluctantly, because Bush was the alternative. Not now.

    by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:45:28 PM PDT

    •  I used to love her

      but it's all over now.

      I bought the book and everything.  Then I realized she was full of crap.  I can't stand being lied to.  Does anyone here like being lied to?  So, I've moved on.  I feel free.

      by theark on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:58:14 PM PDT

    •  I NEVER liked her. I did like her husband though

      by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:06:25 PM PDT

    •  You May have no choice

      If there was a centrist Republican in the mix, one could argue you have some choice.  But you don't.  If Hillary wins the primary ( I admit to being an Obama fan myself), we will all have to embrace her willingly and openly.  Because the consequences are too dire not to support her.  The Supreme Court, restitution of basic civil liberties, some health care reform (some will be better than none), and a reformed energy and conservation policy are just 4 primary issues that any Democrat in the field will be better than the alternatives.

      by mpnoc on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:30:27 PM PDT

      •  I'll vote for her in the general, like any dem

        We NEED the White House! I'll just be sad that it'll be a continuation of the Clinton Establishment as opposed to the new fresh energy of Obama.

        by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:32:17 PM PDT

  •  I hope they like

    saying President Ghouliani or President Romney too, because that's what their like for Hil is going to get them.

    by ThunderHawk13 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:49:16 PM PDT

•  How do they poll our 18-35 year

  olds that only have cell phones?  Don't worry, Obama is not only winning them over in my Tampa Bay area, he also, has the majority of independents and moderates in that age bracket.  We do need to get him thru the primaries to win the general election though!  Hillary will get her ass kicked in my area. (many of these independents registered that way because they did not like the Clinton or Bush administrations)

  by mjd in florida on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:35:16 PM PDT

  •  I'm in that age bracket!

    I'm 26, unmarried, live in an apartment, and have a cell phone. A lot of my friends in Chicago are voting Obama, especially some repentant former hardcore GOPpers, and some previously apathetic or non voters.

    by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:41:37 PM PDT

    •  At the risk of sounding like a crybaby,

      because I also support Obama, I think there is something smelly about these polls.  Something is out of whack.  Everywhere I go, everyone I talk to, all the call-ins to the radio shows, all the huge turnouts at candidate appearances, the huge numbers of contributions----everything is all about Obama.  Every account written up about his appearances says there has never been anything like it for a candidate, with overflowing overflow rooms.  
       And I got even more suspicious when I read the results of a Calif poll which showed Hillary way ahead and the pollster wrote it up with snide remarks about Obama.  It didn't feel right.  Trying not to be too tin foily, I think there are powerful forces at work here.
       If they can mess with our votes.....

      by dotster on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:03:30 PM PDT

      •  I guess I'm a crybaby too. Because the buzz is

        massive for this man.  He had a little lull but he has bounced back.  The past three weeks before Sunday's debate were AWFUL for him, according to the MSM.  I truly believe these polls are fixed.  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

        by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:05:41 PM PDT

        •  and I am reminded of the CNN poll a few weeks ago

          which had Obama ahead for the first time.  And then, unprecedented, according to reports, the pollster redid the poll 7 days later!!!---which is never done ----and voila! ----Hillary was ahead again!  Amazing how that worked out.
           Smelly.

          by dotster on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:10:29 PM PDT

          •  Is there a page for that poll? <nt>

            by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:11:39 PM PDT

            •  I'm no good at that, but someone here should

              be able to locate it----it was discussed here at the time-----maybe you can find it that way.
               And I can't speak with authority, but I believe some here have posted pictures of Hillary with the CNN pollster and I believe he was a big fundraiser for her senate campaign.  Somebody Gupta.  
               Sorry no links----and don't hold me to exact facts here---just what I am remembering in my old brain.

              by dotster on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:16:01 PM PDT

          •  Polls are never done a week later?

            Fasinating.

            by Mike S on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:19:35 PM PDT

            •  Yes that one was I remember it

              They have done polls two week later.  CNN has NEVER waited for an entire month.

              by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:23:18 PM PDT

              •  Scroll down

                four.

                by Mike S on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:32:47 PM PDT

            •  that's what everyone here, who lives

              and dies with the polls, and knows way more about it than I do, reported.  Whatever kind of poll or whatever was the usual frequency, this time it was "redone" sooner than was usual.

              by dotster on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:23:36 PM PDT

              •  You can see all the polls

                you want by following this link to pollingreport.com. I don't see any with  Obama leading but plenty where polls are done a week apart.

                by Mike S on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:31:05 PM PDT

          •  It's a New Vision vs Conventional Thinking

            the msm doesn't want a visionary, they want Clinton so she can fight with the Republicans and they can write about it.

            by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:21:34 PM PDT

            •  Your'e absolutely right!!

              Damn lazy journalists. They might actually have to work instead of pull out the old favorites!

              by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:29:38 PM PDT

              •  The will have a field day. Nothing will get done

                Clinton will try and get back at every Republican that impeached her husband, and the American people will suffer.  

                by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:52:25 PM PDT

                •  I dont see her doing that, oddly enough

                  Thats OUR job!

                  by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:59:49 PM PDT

        •  Add me to the crybaby ranks

          because I know no one who is supporting HRC.  Not one person, and I'm not being disingenuous when I say that.  I have nothing against her;  I wouldn't threaten suicide if she were the nominee.  But all the excitement everywhere I go is for Obama.

          by chicago minx on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:19:39 PM PDT

          •  I know one person who's supporting HRC

            A girl I know... Its a gender thing.

            I'd love to have a woman president, just not HRC.

            by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:33:36 PM PDT

      •  I agree!

        I know national polls matter little at this point, but for voters who like to support a 'winner', they probably drink the national polls like a gallon of kool-aid sweetened with five pounds of sugar!

        The MSM has wanted Hillary to run for president since her and Bill moved out of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue...I'm beginning to think the editors and news directors are only pushing stories that help promote their candidate that's 'FUN' to write about!  

        If I was a MSM journalist, I would want to know why Hillary has such a HUGE lead in the national polls, yet Barack has beat her like she stole something when it comes to fund raising!  IMO, that's the story of the campaign!  Answer me that MSM!  Tell me how Hillary leads in the polls, but those same people are not willing to financially support her campaign?  Repeating a poll every 10-30 days is only part of the story.

        by wscrews on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:56:20 PM PDT

        •  Exactly! Why DOES Hillary have a huge lead?

          If her lead was so big, she'd have raised much bigger money.

          This cartoon says it all

          http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/...

          by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:24:59 PM PDT

          •  also volunteers

            I think we will see the reality of Obama's strength soon on the ground because he will be able to attract far more volunteers to work for his campaign.  He generates genuine enthusiasm, especially among young people, and I plan spending my nights and weekends working to get him elected in the next year.

            by WahooMatt on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:49:28 AM PDT

  •  The cell phone argument

    It has been thrown around regularly over the last years. Mostly by people whose candidate was behind. But, in practice, it turns out that cellphones are not a big factor yet. Although in the future they certainly might be.

    by Frank on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:42:30 PM PDT

    •  It has to be an argument

      because of my 3 kids and all of their friends, not a one has a landline and they are ALL Obama fans and are registered Democrat, Republican and Independent in our Tampa Bay area.

      by mjd in florida on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:46:39 PM PDT

      •  For you, yes

        But who says that your friends and family are more representative of the electorate than the people with landlines that the pollster is calling? That's speculation.

        All I know is that, in very recent history, the cellphone factor has not been one that causes major polling problems, yet.

        by Frank on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 12:48:58 PM PDT

        •  Major Factor, either have AA's young people and

          new voters all of which love Senator Obama.

          by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:03:57 PM PDT

          •  I will repeat myself

            Recent elections have shown that the cellphone factor did not cause any major polling errors.

            A pollster at a workshop at YearlyKos was asked the cellphone question, and he responded that pollsters are aware of the issue, but that it has not been a source of significant errors so far.

            So, there is no reason to assume that it will be a factor that will cause a major upset, especially not if  it is 20 points we're talking about here.

            by Frank on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:10:39 PM PDT

          •  All? Or Some? n/t

            by Caldonia on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:27:46 PM PDT

          •  Obama does well in these demo's

            But Hillary generally does better. Last I checked, the only demo that Obama out and out wins in is professional class, college educated 25--40 year olds.

            by heartofblue on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:53:03 PM PDT

            •  Damn right

              We need to start pulling our weight around to get Obama over Hillary.

              by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:01:11 PM PDT

        •  not

          I am 24 years old, I would say that about 70% of my friends do not have land lines any more, but about 100% of their parents and grandparents do.  I refuse to believe that this is not a significant problem in getting accurate poll results.  It is not a cross section of the population that uses cell phones only, its much, much more common among young people.  

          by WahooMatt on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 04:57:29 AM PDT

      •  Obama's Facebook and Myspace support

        is higher than Hillary's. I think that every single person on the Facebook obama groups is actually going to go out and vote for her. I think that group is fairly sizable

        by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:08:28 PM PDT

        •  That may not mean much

          On Myspace I found Obama's campaign answered almost immediately, Clinton's responded within a few hours, and Edwards responded several days later.  That alone could make a huge difference without necessarily reflecting how people will vote. (Not sure what's up with Edwards inferior outreach through the sight).

          by bythesea on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:09:34 PM PDT

  •  What about Caller ID?

    This might be a weird red herring to throw into the argument, but I don't answer the phone when I don't know who it is.  (So I never get polled.)  What is the profile of people who do answer these calls?

    by theark on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:00:44 PM PDT

    •  Or answering machines

      We have our answering machine set to pick up on the first ring.  If we're there and recognize the person who's calling, we pick it up.  If we don't recognize the person and it doesn't sound like somebody we want to talk to (generally because they hang up as soon as they hear it's an answering machine, we're not bothered with the call.

      In making calls in the 2006 campaign for MoveOn.org, I'm sure that I got well under 5% actual human beings answering the phone, which is MUCH less than was my experience in 2000, and significantly less than even in 2004.  And these are people who HAVE landlines, but simply aren't answering their phones.

      However, at this point, I don't think that either the phone factor or some kind of oversampling of independents is the reason the polls don't mean much.  The reason I don't think they mean much right now is that the vast majority of people aren't paying attention to the Presidential campaign yet.  Most of us in this community have watched multiple Democratic candidate debates, whereas the average Democratic primary voter has yet to watch the first one.

      Pretty clearly, Hillary isn't winning in the Democratic blogosphere, where people pay a lot of attention to politics.  And she isn't winning among people who have paid attention enough, and feel committed enough, to either make a campaign contribution or to volunteer to work on a campaign.  And as more people pay more attention, I think her apparent lead will either greatly diminish or disappear altogether.

      by leevank on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:12:31 PM PDT

      •  I think your'e onto something

        This sounds like 2002-2003 when Kerry and Lieberman were in the lead due to name recognition.

        by sjgman9 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:13:48 PM PDT

      •  I think you're right about people not

        paying attention, too.  I was talking to my sister the other day, assuming that everyone is as insane about this as I am, and she made a comment to the effect of, "Oh, I should start educating myself."  She's a smart girl, she's just into other stuff right now.  (Being a good big sister, I sent her some links!)  Hanging out here, though, I forget that there are 135,000 +/- like us and then tens of millions like my sister.  When does it become real for the masses, though?  

        by theark on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:35:44 PM PDT

        •  I think it becomes real for most people a ...

          couple of weeks before they have to vote (or if they're in a late primary state, shortly after SOMEBODY votes).  It may be a little earlier than that in the traditional early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, since they're very conscious of the role they play nationally, but even there, I don't think most people are paying much attention this early.

          What's weird about the front-loading of the schedule this year is that this is going to pretty much coincide with the Christmas-New Year's holidays, when NOBODY (even political junkies) pays much attention to politics.  How that's going to work itself out, I have no idea.

          by leevank on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:53 PM PDT

          •  Yeah, that front-loading thing

            can't be good.  Or maybe they could set up voting booths in the mall.  Visit Santa, vote in the primary.

            Oy, vey.

            by theark on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:16:58 PM PDT

•  Land lines vs cell phones. Young adults, AA's

  who are the pollsters polling?  Polls are attempt to move the voters to one position or another.

  by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:01:12 PM PDT

•  It means nothing if you are against

  the candidate in the lead. If you are for them it means everything.

  by Mike S on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:08:50 PM PDT

•  Conspiracy VS Fact

  I wonder if you checked the survey's methodology. The survey design, sampling, methodology and statistical significance of the results are what matter.

  That said, opinions may change because a lot can happen between now and when the voting happens. There is nothing to substantiate some sort of Gallup plot against Obama.

  by owl06 on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:12:54 PM PDT

•  National polls ARE relevant ...

  Because they frame the media discussion.  That's why Edwards gets ignored - the media, wannabee sportswriters at heart, all want the Hillary-Obama cage match.  To them Edwards is just clutter like the rest.

  As to why Hillary has the big national lead?  She's a fairly known quantity to the Dem electorate - in comparison, Obama is an abstraction, and Edwards nearly one. Change?  A lot of people wish they could drive back across that damn bridge to the 21st century.

  by al Fubar on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:14:08 PM PDT

•  Any poll taken

  before the Iowa caucus isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

  by JR Hawks on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:34:08 PM PDT

•  Look at this poll from Nov and December 2003.

  Associated Press poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Nov. 18-20 & Dec. 1-3, 2003. N=539 likely Democratic presidential primary/caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.3.

     
  Asked of those who made a choice and did not volunteer Hillary Rodham Clinton: "If New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to seek the Democratic nomination for president, would you continue to support [response from question above] or would you prefer to support Hillary Rodham Clinton?"
  Asked of those who did not have an initial preference: "If New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton decided to seek the Democratic nomination for president, would she be your first choice for the nomination?"

  Recalculated preference:

   %    
  Hillary Rodham Clinton 41    
  Howard Dean 9    
  Wesley Clark 9    
  Richard Gephardt 8    
  John Kerry 8    
  Joe Lieberman 5    
  John Edwards 2    
  Dennis Kucinich 1    
  Al Sharpton 1    
  Carol Moseley Braun 1    
  Other/None/Not sure 15

  So, Clinton has been the leader since before the last election.

  by tigercourse on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:51:39 PM PDT

  •  Well she won't be this November and December 2007

    by Lady Bird Johnson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 01:53:25 PM PDT

•  I Don't Care If The Poll Says

  Clinton 99 % Obama 1%

  I will be the one voting for Barack Obama . There will be NO poll that changes my mind in any way shape or form.

  PERIOD!

  by AnotherObamaGirl on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 02:29:22 PM PDT

•  Stop being paranoid..

  read and rec

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by icebergslim on Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 03:11:39 PM PDT