You are reading an awful lot into the results of one poll of one state.
Let’s check the replay monitor:
:rolleyes:
Aint’ it though?
You see adahar here’s the thing … you could just make a reasonable point … that it is way early for team Clinton to count on certain key states as in the bag. In fact given the MOE in that poll (and going by that poll alone) Clinton is statistically tied with most of the GOP field! Based on that poll the race is wide open pretty much no matter if the GOP standard bearer is Bush or Huckabee or Paul or Christie …
Look, simple reality is that polling data at this point is not very meaningful and a single poll with nearly a 5 point MOE even less so. Granted the bits with favorable to unfavorable vs don’t have an opinion may be a bit informative.
FWIW I don’t take the polls that put Clinton up by very much very seriously either. At this point the handicapping is best done by the fundamentals.
While I don’t think the general election polls are anything to get worked up about I’m pretty sure the Democratic primary polls have more signal than noise. We’re 266 days from the Iowa Caucuses and Clinton is polling consistently in the 60s among Dems. This is truly an unprecedented position of dominance at this stage of a race for a major party’s presidential nominee.
Yeah, pretty unlikely to be noise at that level. But her previous run does illustrate how fast still significant shifts can occur … she went from blowing away all of the other potential nominees in 9/06 to losing 32% of her support by the end of October just with Obama’s entry into consideration … and of course lost.
That’s my point. It would take an Obama level candidate entering the race six months ago for her to lose her strangle hold on the polls. A candidate entering now would have to be much more effective than Obama over a shorter time period.
Perhaps the ghost of JFK controlling a 10 foot tall android body could pull that off, but I don’t really see anyone else who could do it.
Also though May '98 Gore was favored by 51% versus 8% for Bradley and while he won it had become a dead heat by October '99 with Bradley actually slightly ahead.
Bradley was no Obama or JFK ghost …
Highly unlikely but more because no one knows of even a Bradley level candidate and Clinton’s funding level. Not because of the polls alone is all I am saying.
Alright, I know you’re not in total disagreement with me, but I’ll post one more anyway.
4/27/2007 RCP polling average for the Iowa Caucuses…
30.3 Edwards
26.8 Clinton
19.5 Obama
Clinton wasn’t even in the lead at this point.
4/27/2015 RCP polling average for the Iowa Caucuses…
58.3 Clinton
17.3 Warren
10.3 Biden
I feel a significant chunk of that 27% is going Clinton’s way when those two don’t run, but even if it doesn’t, she has a huge lead over whoever picks it up. This race at this point does not resemble Clinton’s less successful run for the nomination other than both involved Clinton.
I guess I have one question for the, “it’s too early to tell anything can happen,” crowd. Consider the statement, “Clinton is polling at 60% percent among democrats and the Iowa Caucus is only X days away.” What does X have to be for you to believe that Clinton is going to win the nomination?
It took Bradley 17 months to make up that deficit, and he could dunk. JFK-specter-bot has only 266 days.
But how’s specter-bot’s 3 point shot?
Obama can hit one from a block away. Nothing but net. But nobody dribbles like Ted Cruz!
“No, no, no, no…[del]Billy[/del] Barry Boy, this is Ghana. You, my friend, are shooting for [del]The Sudan[/del] Kenya.”
Your cites don’t support this. It appears to be hyperbole.
Ah, so she didn’t have a double digit lead two months ago?
I can’t wait for the next set of general election polls.
I think the objection is to the use of the term “free fall.” You have to expect some pretty extreme fluctuations this far from Election Day. I think her numbers will rebound as we go on.
I don’t have faith in polls at this point. It’s way too early for them to have any meaning.
It’s way too early for them to predict an election(although many of you took her double digit leads as evidence of cruising to victory). However, they always have meaning. The meaning is that right now she’s damaged. I’ve never heard of a candidate the public believes to be dishonest improving that perception.
Name one candidate in the last 100 years who was honest.
She doesn’t appear to have had a double digit lead a couple of months ago. What data are you using to come to that conclusion? Or is this another one of those times where you substituted your opinion for data?
When I average the last seven Bush v. Clinton general election polls I see that Clinton had averages lead of 8.7 points. This is slightly different than the RCP average due to rounding I believe. (They report 8.9)
When I average the seven polls before that I get an average lead of about 8.6 for Clinton.
New PPP poll of Iowa voters.
The Hillary freefall continues. She’s down to 62% of dem voters who have her as a first choice and 12 % who have her as a second choice. Her favorable/unfavorable is 78/16 among Iowa dems.
This poll was in the field from last Thursday (4/23) until two days ago (4/26).
You’ve failed to establish this. When you make claim, link to supporting articles, and make damn sure they actually support your point.