DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[southsider2k5]

A response from Zogby on the Clinton camps characterizations of the poll showing Hill trailing Barack

 

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1394

 

Mark Penn: Buckling Under the Pressure of an Unfavorable Poll

 

All is fair in love and war, the centuries–old proverb states. Politics is not included, but given the way the game is played in modern–day America, maybe it should be. That’s the sense I had again this morning watching Mark Penn, the chief political strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton, denigrate our latest Zogby Interactive survey simply because it showed his client in a bad light (Link to Latest Poll Number). Penn made the contention on the MSNBC morning news program hosted by Joe Scarborough (Link to Video)

 

Penn mischaracterized this latest online Zogby poll as our first interactive survey ever – a bizarre contention, since we have been developing and perfecting our Internet polling methodology for nearly a decade (Zogby Intreractive Methodology), and since Penn’s company has been quietly requesting the results of such polls from Zogby for years. We always comply as part of our pledge to give public Zogby polling results to any and every candidate and campaign that asks for them. What is interesting is that no other campaign has made as many requests for Zogby polling data over the years than Penn has made on behalf of Clinton.

 

Because Mark Penn is a quality pollster himself, we chalk up his contention that our poll is “meaningless” as a knee–jerk reaction by a campaign under pressure coming down the stretch. Several other polls – Zogby surveys and others – have shown her national lead and her leads in early–voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach.

 

Fritz Wenzel

Director of Communications

Zogby International

[Balta1701]

Does it matter if I think Mark Penn is a jerka** too?

[Balta1701]

I'll add this WSJ poll evaluation also.

I opted to use Mr. Mitofsky's method in my own number crunching. I looked at five pollsters that were among the most prolific: Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Zogby (which releases separate telephone and online polls) and Washington, D.C.-based Mason-Dixon. For all but the latter, I used the numbers posted on the organizations' own Web sites. For Mason-Dixon, which keeps some of its poll data behind a subscriber wall, I used Pollster.com to find polls from the two weeks before the election. I checked the results against vote counts as of this Tuesday [...]

 

On to the results: In the Senate races, the average error on the margin of victory was tightly bunched for all the phone polls. Rasmussen (25 races) and Mason-Dixon (15) each were off by an average of fewer than four points on the margin. Zogby's phone polls (10) and SurveyUSA (18) each missed by slightly more than four points. Just four of the 68 phone polls missed by 10 points or more, with the widest miss at 18 points.

 

But the performance of Zogby Interactive, the unit that conducts surveys online, demonstrates the dubious value of judging polls only by whether they pick winners correctly. As Zogby noted in a press release, its online polls identified 18 of 19 Senate winners correctly. But its predictions missed by an average of 8.6 percentage points in those polls -- at least twice the average miss of four other polling operations I examined. Zogby predicted a nine-point win for Democrat Herb Kohl in Wisconsin; he won by 37 points. Democrat Maria Cantwell was expected to win by four points in Washington; she won by 17 [...]

 

The picture was similar in the gubernatorial races (where Zogby polled only online, not by phone). Mason-Dixon's average error was under 3.4 points in 14 races. Rasmussen missed by an average of 3.8 points in 30 races; SurveyUSA was off by 4.4 points, on average, in 18 races. But Zogby's online poll missed by an average of 8.3 points, erring on six races by more than 15 points.

[NorthSideSox72]

So with all the IA and NH talk, we haven't seen many polls in SC, which is the third state in order of those states the candidates and the party are actually considering (they have planned to ignore MI). In most previous polls, Clinton held a substantial lead over Obama, consistently double digits, sometimes 20+ points. Not only has Obama not spent much time there yet, but it is thought by many that Obama's racial heritage would not play well in the south, and further, that southern blacks doubted his chances of winning a national election because of his race.

 

But a few weeks ago, a new poll showed the lead at only 10 points. Now a new poll shows this (change from their previous poll in August in parens):

 

Clinton: 19% (-7)

Obama: 17% (+1)

Edwards: 12% (+2)

Biden: 2% (-1)

Richardson: 1% (-1)

UNDECIDED: 49% (+14)

 

Really interesting. Clinton loses ground and is now in a virtual tie with Obama. And more importantly, it looks like she has lost votes to UNDECIDED. People aren't so sure about her now, it appears. SC sure does look seriously in play.

 

[southsider2k5]

So with all the IA and NH talk, we haven't seen many polls in SC, which is the third state in order of those states the candidates and the party are actually considering (they have planned to ignore MI). In most previous polls, Clinton held a substantial lead over Obama, consistently double digits, sometimes 20+ points. Not only has Obama not spent much time there yet, but it is thought by many that Obama's racial heritage would not play well in the south, and further, that southern blacks doubted his chances of winning a national election because of his race.

 

But a few weeks ago, a new poll showed the lead at only 10 points. Now a new poll shows this (change from their previous poll in August in parens):

 

Clinton: 19% (-7)

Obama: 17% (+1)

Edwards: 12% (+2)

Biden: 2% (-1)

Richardson: 1% (-1)

UNDECIDED: 49% (+14)

 

Really interesting. Clinton loses ground and is now in a virtual tie with Obama. And more importantly, it looks like she has lost votes to UNDECIDED. People aren't so sure about her now, it appears. SC sure does look seriously in play.

 

Wow, that UNDECIDED guy is KILLING everyone!

 

[Balta1701]

Just hitting the wires:

Washington, DC - The DNC issued the following statement regarding the final DNC sanctioned debate:

 

"Due to the uncertainty created by the ongoing labor dispute between CBS and the Writers Guild of America, the DNC has canceled the December 10th debate in Los Angeles. There are no plans to re-schedule," said DNC Communications Director Karen Finney.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just hitting the wires:

This is a joke, right? The writers guild - for a debate?

 

[Balta1701]

This is a joke, right? The writers guild - for a debate?

The candidates have no urge to be seen crossing a picket line, and that's what they'd have to do to appear on CBS once their news writers go on strike (a different strike from the general WGA one on right now)

[NorthSideSox72]

The candidates have no urge to be seen crossing a picket line, and that's what they'd have to do to appear on CBS once their news writers go on strike (a different strike from the general WGA one on right now)

Someone explain to me why the WRITERS would be striking a DEBATE. I simply do not see them as related.

 

[Balta1701]

Someone explain to me why the WRITERS would be striking a DEBATE. I simply do not see them as related.

We're talking about the writers for the CBS Evening news. The CBS Evening news would be the ones hosting the debate. Presumably Couric would be doing the moderating. And hence, the Dems would have to cross a picket line to appear on that debate, because the show that would be hosting the debate would have its writers on strike.

[NorthSideSox72]

We're talking about the writers for the CBS Evening news. The CBS Evening news would be the ones hosting the debate. Presumably Couric would be doing the moderating. And hence, the Dems would have to cross a picket line to appear on that debate, because the show that would be hosting the debate would have its writers on strike.

Garbage. If the writers want to picket, hey, that's fine. But the idea that such a strike will interrupt the dialogue that will help decide who the leader of the free world will be is just assinine.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Here is a thought for the day...

 

If Clinton continues to slip in the polls in IA and/or NH through December, with Obama leading or matching her, I can virtually guarantee she'll pull a nuke out of her back pocket. She's got something big on Obama saved up, I guarantee it. It may or may not even be true, or relevant, but its there. And if she sees a loss coming, she'll use it.

 

So... what might she have, do we think?

But it wont "come" from her or her campaign. It'll be some leak or rumor spread by an unknown source. I am betting on some e-mail beginning to circulate around Dec 15h. SOmething along the lines of the e-mail that went around about 6 months ago about Obama being Muslim or Muslim supporter, something like that,

[Rex Kickass]

Garbage. If the writers want to picket, hey, that's fine. But the idea that such a strike will interrupt the dialogue that will help decide who the leader of the free world will be is just assinine.

 

If you're fighting for labor support, three weeks before a caucus in a state that labor can have a real effect on, you aren't crossing that picket line. Most of those candidates wouldn't dare. It would be insulting to the labor movement in general. And the first rule of politics is you don't s*** in the bed you've made. And the Democrat's bed is Union Made. Have the debate somewhere else with a different moderator.

[FlaSoxxJim]

If you're fighting for labor support, three weeks before a caucus in a state that labor can have a real effect on, you aren't crossing that picket line. Most of those candidates wouldn't dare. It would be insulting to the labor movement in general. And the first rule of politics is you don't s*** in the bed you've made. And the Democrat's bed is Union Made. Have the debate somewhere else with a different moderator.

 

that ^^^

[NorthSideSox72]

If you're fighting for labor support, three weeks before a caucus in a state that labor can have a real effect on, you aren't crossing that picket line. Most of those candidates wouldn't dare. It would be insulting to the labor movement in general. And the first rule of politics is you don't s*** in the bed you've made. And the Democrat's bed is Union Made. Have the debate somewhere else with a different moderator.

That is exactly what I was thinking. I wasn't suggesting crossing the picket lines.

 

[southsider2k5]

Someone explain to me why the WRITERS would be striking a DEBATE. I simply do not see them as related.

 

Do you think the candidates think or talk for THEMSELVES? Of course they need their writers

[NorthSideSox72]

Do you think the candidates think or talk for THEMSELVES? Of course they need their writers

That's one of the two things I was trying to hint at.

 

[Rex Kickass]

Do you think the candidates think or talk for THEMSELVES? Of course they need their writers

Hahaha. Great point!

[NorthSideSox72]

Rasmussen Iowa poll shows a still very tight race, even tigher than the last one from them 2 weeks ago (parens):

 

Clinton: 27% (-2)

Obama: 25% (+1)

Edwards: 24% (-1)

Richardson: 10% (even)

 

-------

 

Also interesting, sort of... New Gingrich comes out and predicts that not only does Obama win Iowa, but that he'll win it by a large margin. Seems to think his ground game is quite good.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Check out the fun Iowa poll chart - check out the trends. Obama is pretty consistently gaining, Edwards consistently falling, Clinton wavering.

 

Also kind of interesting is the "trading" market, people betting on the candidates in an open venue like a financial market. The "price" quotes right now actually show Obama highest, then Clinton, then Edwards. Its right above the chart. Click on the candidate name to see their "financials".

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Edwards cannot finish third in Iowa. He has to AT LEAST beat Obama, he can lose to Hillary, but he can't lose to Barack, because then his spot as the "not Hillary" candidate is done.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yet another poll showing Obama leading Iowa. Results, with change from their last poll in parens:

 

Obama: 27% (+6)

Clinton: 25% (-2)

Edwards: 23% (+3)

Biden: 8% (+3)

Richardson: 4% (-8)

 

So after Clinton or Edwards leading in virtually every poll since last year, the last 5 polls have been:

 

Clinton +2

Obama +4

Tie

Clinton +2

Obama +2

 

Obama now averaging a lead in those 5 polls. Also interesting, Biden moves into 4th for the first time.

 

[Balta1701]

Edwards cannot finish third in Iowa. He has to AT LEAST beat Obama, he can lose to Hillary, but he can't lose to Barack, because then his spot as the "not Hillary" candidate is done.

None of the other candidates would survive a Hillary win in Iowa. I think it'd actually be better for Obama to win Iowa than for Hillary, from Edwards's perspective, because if Hillary takes Iowa or NH, it's all over.

[Balta1701]

Obama, Bloomberg chat over eggs, potatoes.

[southsider2k5]

Obama, Bloomberg chat over eggs, potatoes.

 

That would be a bodyblow of an endorsement...