Actually, Obama Just Moved Into Second Place, Not Edwards

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 13:30


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

So, there is some buzz this morning about Edwards pulling into a tie with Obama in the daily Rasmussen tracking poll. For example, over at Dailykos, there is a diary with nearly 200 comments on this subject, heralding that these results mean “[t]he media narrative of a two way race is history.” However, in order to satisfy my general urges to be contrary, I wish to point out that the media narrative on the two-person horserace was pretty much always wrong. In fact, given the typical historical bounces candidates receive from Iowa, Edwards has almost always been ahead of Obama in this campaign. In fact, Edwards has been ahead of Clinton more often than Obama has been ahead of Edwards.

Given that national polls consistently show Clinton in a clear first place and Obama in a clear second place, how can I make this statement? Simple. By calculation the average bounce candidates receive for finishing first, second and third in Iowa, applying that bounce to New Hampshire, and then applying both the Iowa and New Hampshire bounces for first, second and third place finishes to national polls, for eight months now I have maintained a private calculation of where the Democratic nomination campaign stands (at first I used my own crude momentum estimate to do this, and then I used better data provided later on by MyDD and Open Left diarist fladem). All one needs to do is look at two diaries by Fladem for the information on the average historical bounces from Iowa and New Hampshire (see the impact of Iowa on New Hampshire here, and the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire on national polls here), and then apply those bounces to the moving average of Iowa, New Hampshire and national polls as found at Real Clear Politics. Doing so has led me to the following post-New Hampshire national standings for the Democratic nomination campaign, starting with the first New Hampshire poll to include Obama on December 20th of last year:

Projected Post-New Hampshire National Democratic Standings, December 2006—current
Date First Second Third
Dec 20 Edwards Clinton Obama
Jan 14 Edwards Obama Clinton
Jan 19 Edwards Clinton Obama
Feb 05 Clinton Edwards Obama
Feb 09 Clinton Obama Edwards
Mar 22 Clinton Edwards Obama
Apr 03 Edwards Clinton Obama
May 16 Clinton Edwards Obama
May 20 Edwards Clinton Obama
May 26 Clinton Edwards Obama
Jul 30 Clinton Obama Edwards
Aug 03 Clinton Edwards Obama
Aug 05 Clinton Obama Edwards

Overall: 252 days
Clinton: 156 days in first place, 91 days in second pace, 5 days in third
Edwards: 96 days in first place, 87 days in second place, 69 days in third place
Obama: 0 days in first place, 74 days in second place, 178 days in third place

Of course, this all assumes that Iowa and New Hampshire are indeed the first two states in the nomination campaign, and that the bounces candidates receives from finishing in first, second or third in each state is in line with historical averages. Still, nearly half of Obama’s time ahead of Edwards has taken place since July 30th. The rest of it took place in February and March. As you can see, due to the volatile effect of Iowa on New Hampshire, and of Iowa and New Hampshire on national polls, is has been quite reasonable to assume that because Edwards has frequently been ahead in Iowa, that he has also typically been “ahead” of Obama in the nomination campaign overall. As such, it is simply not accurate to say that Edwards is catching up to Obama, as reality is quite the opposite. Over the last month, Obama has moved closer to Edwards in Iowa, and solidified his advantage over Edwards in New Hampshire. It is Obama who has caught, and passed, Edwards for second place in the campaign.

Now, it certainly will come as news to most political journalists and close followers of the election that Edwards has almost always been in a much better position to win the nomination than Obama. However, I am quite certain that anyone following the trends in early state polls more than national polls will nod in agreement when they see this post. No matter what the national polls have said, this has always been a close, three way campaign, due to how close it is in Iowa. In fact, lately, it has become a four person race, given Richardson's emergence in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Still, Edwards does indeed face a serious problem where, despite his frequent and extremely important advantage in Iowa, he severely lags behind Obama and Clinton in terms of news coverage. Unfortunately for Edwards and Edwards supporters, however, that disadvantage has, throughout the campaign, had very little to do with actually being in third place in the nomination campaign. If Edwards is going to break through the two-person horserace narrative, basically the only means I can see is to educate the national media on the importance of winning Iowa.

Notes on the changes to the standings in the table:
  • Dec. 20: First New Hampshire poll including Obama, and thus the start of the chart. At this point, Edwards and Obama are 1-2 in Iowa, and close enough to Clinton in New Hampshire for the resulting momentum to allow them to both overtake her in that state. However, Clinton is far enough ahead in national polls to maintain second place even after consecutive third-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.
  • Jan 14: Same situation as above, except that with the release of the January 14th Gallup poll, Obama has now moved close enough nationally to overtake Clinton in the post-New Hampshire standings.
  • Jan 19: With the release of the January 19th ABC News / WaPo national poll, Clinton once again moves far enough ahead of Obama nationally to keep second place even after consecutive third-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire.
  • Feb 05: With the release of the February 5th CNN / WMUR New Hampshire poll, Clinton is now far enough ahead in New Hampshire to win that state even with a third place finish in Iowa. This would allow her to maintain her national lead after New Hampshire.
  • Feb 09: With the release of the February 9th Zogby poll of Iowa, Clinton leaps from third to first place in the state. As a result, Edwards no longer receives enough of a boost from Iowa to pass Obama in New Hampshire.
  • March 22: With the release of the March 22nd American Research Group Iowa poll, Edwards retakes the lead in the Iowa moving average, and Clinton drops to second. This gives Edwards enough momentum to pass Obama in New Hampshire (and thus nationally), but not enough to pass Clinton.
  • Apr 03: With the release of the April 3rd Zogby poll of New Hampshire, Edwards moves close enough n that state for his Iowa lead to propel him to victory in both early states. This is also project to give Edwards the post-New Hampshire national lead.
  • May 16: With the release of the May 16th Zogby New Hampshire poll, Clinton moves far enough ahead of Edwards in that state to still win despite a second place finish in Iowa. This allows her to retake the national, post-New Hampshire lead.
  • May 20: With the release of the May 20th Strategic Vision poll of Iowa, Clinton drops to third in the state. While she is still far enough ahead of Obama in New Hampshire to finish second in that state, Edwards once again is positioned for an IA-NH sweep, giving him the post-New Hampshire lead.
  • May 26: With the release of the May 26th American Research Group poll of Iowa, Clinton moves back into second in the state. She is projected to be far enough ahead in New Hampshire to survive a second-place defeat in Iowa to Edwards.
  • Jul 30: After a long period of stability in the rankings, with the release of the July 30th American Research Group Iowa poll, Clinton takes the lead in Iowa. While Edwards remains in second in Iowa, Obama is far enough ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire to take second place there. This, combined with Obama’s superior national polling, allows him to remain in second in the post-New Hampshire projections.
  • Aug 03: Edwards regains the lead in Iowa following the completion of the Hart Research poll of Iowa. This narrowly moves him ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, as well.
  • Aug 05: Clinton takes the lead in Iowa with the completion of the August 5th University of Iowa poll, dropping Edwards to third in New Hampshire and keeping him in third nationally.
Chris Bowers :: Actually, Obama Just Moved Into Second Place, Not Edwards

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Now you tell us (0.00 / 0)
Edwards has almost always been ahead of Obama in this campaign. In fact, Edwards has been ahead of Clinton more often than Obama has been ahead of Edwards.

It would have been nice to have this post before Edwards had caught Obama nationally, when people was calling Edwards toast, but hey, like JRE said about Gonzo going bye bye, better late than never.


out there (4.00 / 1)
this is analogous to the 15th - 16th century priests who spent their time counting the number of angels that can dance on the head of pin...

It is actually quite simple (4.00 / 1)
Start with the poll averages in Iowa.

Apply the average bounce in Iowa to the current poll averages in New  Hampshire.

Apply the average Iowa and New Hampshire bounces to the current national standings.

Viola, you have my not so complicated formula to project post-New Hampshire national standings.


[ Parent ]
You're forgetting money, among other things (0.00 / 0)
It's always been true that candidates with deep war chests can take a few losses early, and continue to be quite competitive.  Bush in 2000 is a good example; ditto Reagan in 1976.

Edwards has been well behind in money, as well as in the national polls, for a good while now.  The truth is that if Edwards wins in Iowa, he lives to fight another day, and so do Hillary and Obama.  If Edwards loses in Iowa, he's toast.  If Hillary wins in Iowa, it's freakin' over.

The other thing you're ignoring is that there's every reason to be extremely skeptical of merely taking the average of previous Iowa/NH bounces.  Some years, people were paying attention early; some years, not.  In some years, people really liked the choice of candidates; some years, they felt like they were looking through the discard bin, hoping something decent would turn up.

Let's suppose Edwards wins Iowa.  How much of a bounce will he get, coming into NH?  Enough to propel him into the lead?  Or just enough to get him into second, but still 8-10% behind Hillary?  I'm going with the second option, and I'm ready to wager some money on it.  At that point, Hillary quickly goes negative on Edwards' ass, Edwards doesn't respond quickly enough to help himself much, and Hillary gets the NH bounce.  Since she's leading everywhere else, it's game over.

The national polls matter because they reflect a lot of states, including the ones that follow Iowa.  How's Hillary doing in Michigan or Florida?  Yep, she's well ahead there too.  Nevada?  SC?  Yeppers.

I'll tell you a secret: even if Edwards or Obama takes both Iowa and NH, Hillary's going to win at least one pre-Feb. 5 state, probably two.  That will be enough 'bounce', combined with her money and organization, to get her a decent share of the Feb. 5 states.  And after that, she's in it until the end.

That's her worst-case scenario.

Hillary's ahead, and has really been> ahead every day for the past six months.  I don't like it, but it's the reality we've got to deal with.

And if you, I, or anyone else wants to keep her from running away with it, the time to act is pretty damned soon.  If you don't want Hillary to win, don't keep your powder dry until after the moment when you can make an impact.  Choose an alternative, endorse him, work to get him nominated.

But don't wait until freakin' November when it won't matter much.


[ Parent ]
:) (0.00 / 0)
see the really terrible thing is I understood it before I even read it. i have been following it all so closely that i knew what you were trying to say. i think fladem is on to something. however, i am not sure that it is predictive of much of anything--the only polling that will count is the one in early january.  all it does is get us back to a simple view of the race: iowa and nh will make or break the candiates and the nat'l polling is meaningless--except that hrc is pretty formidable. (and what fun is that.)

[ Parent ]
Question for Chris and Matt (0.00 / 0)
In light of your antidlc views, why is Edward's electability or Clinton's, less important to you than the fact than he is the one candidate who openly challenges the "corporate Dems?"  What is your response to David's post on mydd.com?  Do you really want someone who is supported by both Robert Rubin, and the pro-iraq war dlc, to run away with the nomination, with no challengers? 

What are you talking about? (0.00 / 0)
Seriously, I have no idea. Could you provide a link or some context to at least one of your questions?

[ Parent ]
I think he/she is suggesting (0.00 / 0)
that neither of you are doing enough to support either Edwards or Obama or are not doing enough to pump each of them up. I don't know who either of you "support" but I think this is a rather anti-Hillary blog and I don't see his point.

[ Parent ]
It is on the frontpage but here is a direct link (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Please (4.00 / 2)
Please turn this site back into MyDD. I miss endless candidate profiles with clear partisan taking swipes at each other.

Thanx.


[ Parent ]
He's asking about endorsements (0.00 / 0)
I am personally not really interested in endorsements considering I just migrated over here from Mydd.

What I am interested in however are the issues, and they play out in the process. For example, how the candidate values may affect outcomes next year, etc. And, what do you think of potential messaging issues for candidates.


[ Parent ]
the "one" candidate? (4.00 / 1)
So I guess Obama's rhetoric against lobbyists doesn't matter to you?  More importantly, I guess his extensive history on the issue--and ethics--and campaign finance--and transparency--doesn't matter to you? 

His detailed proposals on ethics in an Obama White House doesn't mean anything to you?

?

I'm confused by this sudden meme emanating from some (not all! but some) Edwards supporters that he's the only candidate to take on the Establishment's corrupt ways.  Kind of ironic, considering another candidate has made that his signature issue not just in this race, but in his entire career both in state and federal government.


[ Parent ]
Obama's rhetoric is good, but he draws support (0.00 / 0)
from Robert Rubin and the Hamilton project, so I tend to not take him seriously.  Google, Obama, the Hamilton project and Robert Rubin and you will understand this.  Secondly his record of challenging corporate dems like Lieberman is not good.

He is my second choice after Edwards though.


[ Parent ]
er... (4.00 / 1)
I don't know how you could have much better a record of challenging "corporate" Dems.

You can read about it here, though I'll give you the relevant passage:

On this issue, Obama leads the pack - I'd say PAC, but he (and Edwards) don't take their checks, either. He helped pass a far-reaching ethics and campaign finance bill in the Illinois state Senate and made the issue a priority on arriving in Washington. Much to the displeasure of his colleagues, Obama promoted an outside commission to handle Senate ethics complaints. He co-authored the lobbying reform bill awaiting President Bush's signature and pushed - again to the dismay of some colleagues - to include a provision requiring lawmakers to report the names of their lobbyist-bundlers.

He has co-sponsored bills to overhaul the presidential public financing system and public financing of Senate campaigns. It's nice to hear Clinton talk about how "we've got to move toward public financing" - Edwards backs it, too - but I don't see her name on those measures.

Obama readily agreed to identify his bundlers. Unlike Clinton and Edwards, he has released his income tax returns. Perhaps most important, Obama has pledged to take public financing for the general election if he is the Democratic nominee and his Republican opponent will do the same.

Any Democrat wanting to "get the money out of American politics" (Clinton) or demonstrate that "the Democratic Party is the party of the people" (Edwards) ought to leap at this chance. Their silence on Obama's public financing proposal - they'll "consider" it - has been more telling than anything they have actually said.


[ Parent ]
Yep (0.00 / 0)
I am quite certain that anyone following the trends in early state polls more than national polls will nod in agreement when they see this post.

Haha, I was literally nodding along while reading when I got to this line :D

I've been looking at 3 state polls mainly: Iowa, NH, and SC.  In those states, I saw for awhile now:

Iowa: Edwards falling, Obama falling, Clinton rising

NH: Clinton and Obama rising, Edwards failing

SC: Same as NH

Only, of late, the trend-line on Obama in Iowa has started to turn around.  Overall, its still down from his early peak at ~20%, but he seems to have hit the bottom of his down-turn and is going back up there.  He went from a low of ~16% in the pollster.com tracker to a current 18.5% regression estimate. You can see the trend estimate starting to round out a point of inflection.  Meanwhile, his support in NH is rising and his support in SC is spiking.  For the last 3 weeks or so, I've gotten the impression that, contra media narratives of a stalling/flagging campaign, he's starting to rise again.

I never bought the media narrative about a 2-man race, but Edwards is sinking so badly in NH and SC, and I mean really, bottom-falling-out type of stuff, and his slow-bleed of support in Iowa, well, he's not in the best position here.

On the other hand, as I've noted at length (and was echoed on this site earlier), voter preference is very fluid right now, and a lot can change.  What's more, and I can't stress this enough:

Its not even labor day yet!

The campaigns are just starting to kick it into gear. 


I thought (0.00 / 0)
Obama was rising in IA and NH last time I checked...

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
He was falling in Iowa for awhile, but like I said, he's started to turn it around.  I think its a little early to say flat-out that he's surging in Iowa, but he's definitely "stemmed the bleeding" in the state.  And I did say he was rising in NH, and spiking in SC at that.

BTW, here are the poll tracking #s I use

Iowa

NH

SC

The track on Obama in Iowa used to be a steep decline, but its started to round out.  It hasn't started definitely rising yet.  I'm very skeptical of short-term blips, so when the regression shows signs of long-term gains, I'll believe it.

But I think, in general, we're not in disagreement.


[ Parent ]
One objection: (0.00 / 0)
how well does poll performance in Iowa actually correlate to winning Iowa?  With the 7% caucus turnout and the insane way that the caucus translates numbers of caucus supporters into delegates, there are bound to be distortions. 

Really, the effect is probably just to make this more of a three way race where it's unclear who is out ahead.  Just casually looking at a few late poll results from 2004, it seems that Kerry's vote and delegate totals in IA are inflated from what he was polling at on election eve.


Lieberman and edwards (0.00 / 0)
In the last election Lieberman was polling first in state elections as well.  Early state polling doesn't really matter either. 

What actually tends to be useful is polling nearing election night and I'd say that doesn't necessarily correlate to being first early on.


thank you, Chris (0.00 / 0)
I've been telling my friends this story about where the race *really* stands, and they still don't believe me.  And, to be honest, though the logic is sound, I was a little weirded out that I hadn't read a similar analysis in the papers or here on the interwebs.  So thanks for being That Guy =D

Make no small plans.






Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search