Non Sequitur of the Week there, or just more “Yeah, well, YOUR candidate is WORSE, nyah nyah!” ? Future historians will decide. If they can stop laughing long enough, that is.
Hey Elvis! Long time no hear. Honestly I’ve missed the voice of dissent round these parts.
You certainly have a point and pointing those endorsements out to the rest of us is what we need you for.
Looking into the supers recent moves I see that Hillary actually did have a day where she had a net gain on Obama recently - 4/13 is listed as her going from a 24 delegate lead to 26. But 4/17 had her lead down to its lowest ever, 22. Highest since January was a 97 supers lead on 2/10. Since the beginning of March she’s picked up 10 by that site’s count and he’s picked up 35.
Real life, don’tcha know. Some of us have jobs.
Editing: That was a gracious statement, DSeid. Thanks.
Also worth noting that the Newsweek poll says one thing (Obama +19) and the Gallup and Rasmussen tracking polls say something very different (Clinton +1, Obama +2, respectively).
Obama’s support seemed to have weathered Bittergate just fine, but the PA debate seems to have hit it hard.
Still, it’s worth noting that since early to mid February, when Obama first took the lead in the Gallup tracker, he’s only been behind for two brief stretches before now. One was when Hillary was getting her ‘bump’ from having won Ohio and Texas, and the other was in the wake of the Jeremiah Wright kerfluffle. He’s led except when some very particular things have been happening.
My expectation is that Obama will have a few bad days in the national tracking polls, then bounce back as good as ever. But it’s always possible that his detractors will get lucky this time.
So THAT’s where Moveon.org got the name from? Huh. Learn something new every day.
Makes her remarks a bit more nasty.
Hmmm…
Gallup shows Clinton moving up some (now 1 pt up, had been as much as 10 down). Rassmussen with Clinton only slightly up in small overnight poll data; Rasmussen concludes that “the national numbers are fairly stable”. Wa-Po/ABC shows Obama moving farther ahead. AP-Ipsos shows unchanged. Zogby has his lead growing substantially. And Newsweek went from a statistical tie to that Obama blow-out in the numbers. Over all the poll of polls (RCP avg) puts Obama ahead nationally by 7.7.
Hard to call that having the debate “hit it hard.” Hard to know what these various entrail readings mean, honestly.
Are you taking the poll dates into account? The debate was the night of 4/16. The AP, Zogby, and WaPo national polls were before then. The Gallup and Rasmussen trackers are the only national polls taken entirely since the debate. Rasmussen shows Obama’s lead dropping from 9% to 2%, and of course Gallup’s shows an even bigger swing.
The second day the Newsweek poll was in the field was after the debate, so I can only speculate what happened with that. My WAG is that since most people don’t actually watch such debates, most people’s opinions weren’t affected until at whatever point the next day they heard things about the debate, so much of Newsweek’s 4/17 sample, in addition to their 4/16 sample, was effectively pre-debate.
RTF, well, if you want solely after the debate then you have little to go on. The debate was Wed 4/16. So you’re looking for 4/17 and after only? Gallup showed a 4 pt move before and after the debate but the move up had begun several days before. Look at that graph - times more with “Bittergate” than with the debate. Rassmussen describes their numbers as follows: “While that appears to be a tightening of the race, today’s results are consistent with the general range of support enjoyed by both candidates in recent weeks. Obama has been within three percentage points of the 48% level every day and Clinton has stayed within three points of the 43% level.” And the debate had amazingly good ratings … you can’t say that polling done after the debate can’t count as after the debate, roughly half of Newsweek’s was done after … and it’s swing was dramatic compared to its last numbers.
So one self- declared no significant change, one move up that was part of a move that predated the debate, and one move way up that encompasses the net of over a month. Again, hard to read that as major debate effect.
Don’t get me wrong. I think his debate performance stunk. Being ganged up on like that was a chance to shine actually, and he didn’t. His answers to these “gotcha” questions should be well honed by now - crisp sharp responses that turn them into chances to say positive things about his vision of the future. The fact that he wasn’t prepared to do that was very disappointing and should hurt him. I just don’t see much evidence to conclude that it has yet. I see more evidence that “Bittergate” has, and that was a mistake that I thought he was smarter than to make. There is such thing as a closed door meeting anymore; a politician has to presume that everything (s)he says will be played back across the country the next day. Hadn’t watching Bill suffer for his off the cuff comments taught him that already? He’s off his game.
But back to Hillary’s forkdom. Even with Obama’s stumbles she’s still no better off. She attacks hard and the coveted supers respond negatively. Obama is just running the clock down, spending enough that she has to spend herself out to keep up. Unless she has a close to 20 pt blow-out on Tuesday she’ll have a hard time getting enough money to keep going farther than Indiana and North Carolina. Only SUSA has this as anything more than a single digit win for her. They may be good, but they are the outlier.
As I said in another thread: from the time I got home on Friday night at about 5:00 to yesterday afternoon, her campaign called me 4 times. This seems like a level of desperation. It also pisses me off. Stop calling me!
(And if Obama were calling me I’d be annoyed with him as well! So far his campaign has only called me once.)
See, that’s *proof * that Obama just doesn’t care as much about the working people of Pennsylvania like yourself. 
Timeline: the ‘bitter’ remarks were initially reported on Friday, April 11, and were all over the news the weekend of April 12-13. (Last weekend, though it seems longer ago than that.) So the Gallup and Rasmussen trackers released on Sunday, April 13 would have had the initial effects of ‘Bittergate,’ and Tuesday’s (Gallup) and Wednesday’s (Rasmussen) releases would have been entirely post-Bittergate.
In their last completely pre-bitter polls, Gallup had Obama up by 9, and Rasmussen had Obama up by 2. Gallup, in its three completely post-bitter, pre-debate polls, had Obama up by 11, 8, and 7. Rasmussen, in its two post-bitter, pre-debate polls, had Obama up by 7 both days. (Rasmussen’s tracker has a 4-day rolling sample; Gallup has a 3-day rolling sample, with more people per day.)
Gallup now has two partially post-debate polls, and they have Obama up by 3 and -1. Rasmussen, which releases its trackers ~11am each day (Gallup’s more like 1pm), now has three partially post-debate polls, with Obama up by 5, 2, and now 4.
Gallup has a different view: “These results are based on interviewing conducted April 16-18, including two days of interviewing after the contentious Wednesday night debate in Philadelphia and the media focus that followed. Support for Hillary Clinton has been significantly higher in both of these post-debate nights of interviewing than in recent weeks.”
I tried to label that part as speculation, just a WAG to explain Newsweek’s numbers being different from the trackers, and from pretty much all the other recent polls as well. I have a problem believing that Obama’s lead was within the MOE of 19%, even at the most favorable recent moment for polling.
True, but the comparison is to March 5-6, which was when Hillary was having her brief post TX/OH bounce.
[qutoe]Don’t get me wrong. I think his debate performance stunk.
[/quote]
I was out to dinner with my father and his wife that night, and missed the whole thing. So I’ve got no informed opinion about the debate itself.
While I think the 19% lead that the Newsweek poll gave Obama is way higher than whatever ‘truth’ is, it’s certainly inconsistent with Obama being hurt by Bittergate. Ditto the trackers, IMHO. Unless one sees the effects of Bittergate as not really sinking in until late this past week.
Gallup now has three partially/completely post-debate polls, with Obama up by 3, -1, and now 2.
Given that both Rasmussen and Gallup show Obama’s numbers going up again with Saturday’s polling in their sample, I’m hopeful that the Obama bounce-back is beginning.
I more wouldn’t read too much into the noise of daily polling … either way.
Gallup now has *Clinton * up by 1 nationally.
Elvis, you’re a day behind the conversation. Today Gallup has Obama up by 2. The Clinton up by one was yesterday.
Okay, the inarguable Will of the People has switched twice in two days, then.
Strawman, or just kidding?
If you’re really unsure about that, perhaps it’s time for a break, knowhamean?
Question is, is he unsure because of his own positions, or because it’s sometimes difficult to separate yours from satire? In other words, who’s due the break?
Daniel