Nomination At A Glance, First Post-Debate Edition

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 13:52


All State Polls Taken October 10th through November 7th
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State Est. Date # Polls Clinton Obama Edwards Richardson Biden Kucinich Dodd
Net Avail Cash Sep 30 Q3 $32.2M $30.5M $23.4M* $5.1M $0.8M $0.3M $2.4M
Iowa Jan 03 5 30.0% 23.6% 19.6% 7.8% 5.0% 0.7% 1.4%
New Hampshire Jan 08 (?) 4 38.8% 22.2% 13.0% 6.8% 2.8% 4.0% 2.3%
National Feb 05 NA 46.7% 23.1% 12.0% 2.9% 2.1% 1.8% 0.5%

* = Includes public funds. Significant spending limits apply to Edwards’s remaining cash

In terms of trends, since the last update on October 30th, the national race has tightened by 3.1%, New Hampshire has tightened by 2.6%, and Iowa has tightened by 0.8%. Now, poll averages that go back to October 10th are going to include a significant amount of pre-debate information, so as of yet we do not have a thorough measure of the post-debate shift in the campaign. Personally, I would caution against expecting anything too large. Throughout this campaign, I have seen a small amount of isolated polls repeatedly indicate that the campaign is tightening, only then to see several new polls show the exact opposite. This has happened so many times that I have grown pretty insensitive to the occasional poll supposedly showing bad news for Clinton. I mean, she is ten points ahead of Edwards in Iowa now, a swing of 13.8% since only July 29th, while Obama has only gained 0.6% on Clinton in Iowa in time. Don’t tell me things are getting tighter unless several new polls all confirm that trend. I’m tired of false signs of a closer campaign. It is possible, but I remain skeptical.

Republican Nomination, At a Glance
State Est. Date # Polls Romney Giuliani Hukabee Thompson McCain Paul
Net Avail Cash Sep 30 Q3 $9.2M $11.4M $0.6M $6.4M -$0.1M $5.4M
Iowa Jan 03 5 29.2% 13.2% 15.4% 11.6% 7.8% 2.8%
New Hampshire Jan 08 (?) 3 31.3% 20.7% 7.7% 6.3% 16.0% 4.0%
South Carolina Jan 19 2 23.0% 20.0% 5.0% 14.0% 11.0% 3.0%
National Feb 05 NA 12.3% 31.3% 7.8% 16.2% 15.5% 2.7%

This was a good nine days for Romney. While his lead in Iowa and South Carolina is stagnant, and Giuliani is even further ahead nationally than he was before, Romney has extended his New Hampshire lead by 2.6%. But really, Romney doesn’t lead his early state leads to increase in order to have a good spell for his campaign. Instead, he needs things like Huckabee passing everyone else in Iowa, and also passing Fred Thompson in New Hampshire. Also, Thompson is struggling so badly right now (fourth in Iowa, fifth in New Hampshire, third in South Carolina, almost dropping behind McCain nationally) that is it tempting to drop him behind McCain in the overall rankings. And what is bad for Fred Thompson is very good for Mitt Romney. A weakening top tier makes Romney’s already strong early state position even stronger.

Early state polls can be found here and here. Net available cash means cash on hand for the primaries minus debts owed by the campaigns (info here and here). The primary calendar is still not fixed for Democrats in South Carolina, or for both parties in New Hampshire. Nomination at a glance archives can be found here.
Chris Bowers :: Nomination At A Glance, First Post-Debate Edition

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Something strange is happening in Iowa (0.00 / 0)
I went and copied the nomination at a glance numbers from August 1st to today.  For some reason, it seems like Clinton's numbers are inversely related to Edwards'.  Every gain that Clinton makes seems to come at the expense of Edwards.  When I summed their combined support for each data point, the lowest value I got was 48.3%, and the highest value I got was 51.2%. 

Clinton has apparently been picking up a bunch of Edwards supporters in Iowa, starting around September 10th.  I honestly have no idea why this should be the case--did Edward's public financing announcement scare a bunch of Iowa voters as to his viability?  Even for Iowa, that sounds too wonky.  Is this just poll noise, or different voters coming into play or something? 

I'm genuinely confused.


That is interesting (4.00 / 1)
Maybe it is because Obama and Clinton are running ads, but Edwards isn't. Or maybe it is because in Iowa, unlike most states, Obama supporters are more anti-Clinton than Edwards supporters. In other words, Obama has become the anti-Clinton in Iowa.

Seems possible. If true, I could be wrong about the campaign, and Obama has a much better chance in Iowa than I thought.

[ Parent ]
That's a possible explanation (0.00 / 0)
although it contradicts the anecdotal evidence I have from people inside Iowa, which seems to indicate that Edwards' supporters are the most fanatical there. 

But then again, everyone I know in Iowa is much, much younger than your average voter int he state.


[ Parent ]
2004 vs 2008 Edwards (0.00 / 0)
In the polls much of Edwards' support has been from conservative Democrats who remember his 2004 campaign. The 2008 Edwards campaign has taken a much more left populist line. The timing you note may be related to Trippi's consolidation of his control over the Edwards message, and the sharper left aspect Trippi has given it.

[ Parent ]
Edwards Limits (0.00 / 0)
It's important to note that Edwards doesn't get $13M of that $23M until January 2, 2008 or so, and I'm unsure as to whether he can (a) borrow against or (b) take out advance tv time based on funds he hasn't received yet.

Until then, he has $10M CoH, minus $1M that was spent on 10-1-07 for salary/taxes since 9-30 was a Sunday, plus whatever he can raise this quarter.


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search