This race is very close to over (0.00 / 0)

I don't see how people believe that the race as currently constituted continues after Feb 5th.  Clinton is going to have a huge delegate lead, and the calculations will show Obama will need around 75% of the remaining delegates to overtake her.

Absent a change in the narrative - which is hard to do after New Hampshire but possible, Obama's only hope is Edwards gets some boost out of SC today and gets enough delegates to make a brokered convention a possibility. I don't think there is much chance of this, and even where it to happen the super delegates would likely break to Clinton to prevent this from happening.

This was race was decided in the last 36 hours of the New Hampshire Primary.

---

by: fladem @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM UTC

Obama needs big momentum (0.00 / 0)

and a favorable media narrative out of SC.  Not sure what that might be, but either a positive narrative for him, a negtive narrative for Bill or Hillary, or perhaps even a second place finish by Edwards that draws working class support away from Hillary on Super Tuesday.

My guess is that good momentum will win the following states for Obama fairly easily: Georgia, Alabama, Illinois, Kansas, North Dakota, Alaska, Idaho, Utah

Then, these states are tossups: Minnesota, Missouri, Colorado, Delaware, Tennessee, maybe even New Jersey, New Mexico (how many will vote Richardson?), and Arizona (one recent poll had this within 10)

Clinton probably wins: New York, California, Mass., Conn., Arkansas

Edwards probably wins Oklahoma with a good finish in SC

If this happens, or if Obama and Clinton come out with about the same number of delegates...its on to DC-MD-VA

---

by: moreaxe @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:01:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Key Point (0.00 / 0)

is that Super Tuesday states are NOT winner take all.  So the narratives are correct in stating:

There will be nearly 1,700 Democratic delegates at stake on Feb. 5, enough to put a candidate well on his or her way to the 2,025 needed to secure the nomination. But even if somehow either Clinton or Obama won every one of those delegates, it wouldn't be enough. And with two strong candidates, the delegates could be divided fairly evenly because the Democrats award their delegates proportionally - not winner-take-all.

Hillary is already fighting to get the DNC to approve the delegates of Michigan and Florida - and that should tell you why.  She is damn concerned and rightfully so.

Obama has momentum and he will have a lot more after South Carolina. 

Finally, while Hillary may have her campaign people already on the ground in the key states. The Grassroots is mobilizing in record numbers for Obama.

Just saying....it ain't over til the Fat Lady Sings.

If not NOW, when?

---

by: Lizzy @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 15:08:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah (0.00 / 0)

Chris, I've been wondering the same thing.  Lets see though what South Carolina does first.

---

by: Taran @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM UTC

Don't Trust Wikipedia (0.00 / 0)

Those polls aren't all current. In Arizona, for example, the latest poll showed Clinton 37, Obama 27. Assuming Obama has a small boost from SC and actually gets 30% or better in most of the CDs, the delegate count coming out of that state would be virtually tied.

---

by: HatchInBrooklyn @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:57:01 AM UTC

Don't trust them? (0.00 / 0)

What shouldn't I trust them about here? I shouldn't trust them that these polls exist? They do exist. I shouldn't trust them because some polls are old? Yes, some polls are old, but I only included polls from January.

The only reason that the AZ poll wasn't included is because it is so new. Also, could you provide a different link? The one you gave doesn't work.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 13:10:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Direct link (4.00 / 1)

pdf

---

by: IVR Polls @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 13:33:19 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Damn (4.00 / 1)

I thought Obama would be a lot closer in Massachusetts, given the enormous student population here.  This is very discouraging.  We'll see what happens in South Carolina, a few days of great news coverage can go a long way.

This only strengthens my view that Obama needs a game changer by Feb. 5.  I don't think South Carolina will do it.  We'll see what happens with FISA on Monday.

---

by: BCdem @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:01:47 PM UTC

Changes in number's (0.00 / 0)

Obama win's SC BY 15-20PTS WHAT IMPACT?
This is doable look at Zogby AND SUSA final polls

Rasmussen's daily tracking poll today(4 days)
Clinton 36
Obama 33
Edwards 18

What impact will national poll's have on Feb.5th IF OTHER POLL'S SHOW THIS TIGHTENING?

My theory is that the Clinton campaign has been hurt by the narrative of the past few day's about negative campaigning.

Also Bill's being the center of attention has diminished her as a leader in the campaign.

This is starting to now play out in the poll's

Finally I believe a big win for Obama IN sc WILL DOMINATE THE HEADLINES MUCH MORE THAN RACE. tHAT IS BECAUSE THE cLINTON'S PLAYED HERE HARD AND THEIR WAS AN EXPECTATION BEFORE ia THAT THEY WOULD BE VERY COMPETATIVE AND WIN IN sc.

My dis-claimer, I could be wrong, but I think that my theory is very plausible.

---

by: BDM @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:13:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Is it over? (4.00 / 1)

The Rasmussen Daily Tracking poll for today was just released and it has
Clinton 36 %
Obama 33%
Edwards 18%

This represents an 8 point one day shift from the previous couple of days (plus a two point bump for Edwards.)  I think we might be jumping to conclusions when we say that South Carolina won't have an impact. Granted this could be a one-day abberration, but I think the Clinton's ethical issues are starting to take hold with the Democratic voters.

If Edwards can build some momentum out of S. Carolina and linger above the 15% mark, then he can definitely keep anyone from winning it on Feb. 5th.  I think there is definitely room for him to grow amongst voters who are turning away from Clinton but don't want to go to Obama.

Plus, an Illinois poll just came out:
Obama 51%
Clinton 22%
Edwards 15%

Also, the California trend line (or what you can make of one from the limited polling,) shows a tightening of the race towards Obama.

I don't think South Carolina in itself is going to have an effect, but Monday's debate is percolating into the general media narrative and it is hurting Clinton.

On top of this the recent pandering to Michigan and Florida reinforces Obama's argument that she will do or say anything to get elected.

---

by: jbsloan @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:05:51 PM UTC

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for this.  The race still looks very competitive.

It seems like it's going to take a big SC win, plus great news coverage for the next week for Obama to have a shot to split Feb. 5.  Next week should be the most interesting week of the campaign thus far.  Hopefully, Obama has something up his sleeve.

I keep harping on this, but a strong FISA stand on Monday would go a long way for Obama on the Feb. 5 primaries.

---

by: BCdem @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:10:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You know your candidate is about to lose... (0.00 / 0)

when you take a few polls and "polling trends" from here and there and try to make a case that things are tightening up.  I wish they were, but I think a cold-eyed observer (and I put Chris in that category) looks at the numbers and says Clinton has it. Someone once said: "The race doesn't always go to the swift or the battle to the strongest, but that's the way to bet 'em."

---

by: historyrocks @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:13:22 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Link to the Illinois poll? (0.00 / 0)

I'd very much appreciate one, if you have it.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 14:18:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Agree Chris (0.00 / 0)

  It's hard to see how Obama overcomes Clinton's strenght in the February 5 states.  He needed to run the table in the first four contests and he didn't do it. 

---

by: historyrocks @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM UTC

obviously the big question (0.00 / 0)

Is whether Obama's campaign can make him go up in the polls.  Since national ads just began, it's likely that none of these polls include significant campaigning by Obama in the form of ads.  (or Clinton, of course) 

Sure it would be over if the election were held today, and Obama faces an uphill battle.  We do know though the 4 states actually competed were much closer than this, and that was not true in polls of NH, IA, NV, and SC taken a long time ago.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM UTC

Of my personal canvassing. (0.00 / 0)

of friends and relatives and near relatives, it is almost exclusively Obama.

I literally ran into my friend two friends supporting Clinton this week. In my circle Obama is running the table at about 95%, and some of these include my IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) pop who lives in the Central Valley.

Which we so quaintly call California's bible belt, and where low information voters tend to be numerous.

Although, my dad is definitely NOT a low information voter.

There are a lot more genuine undecideds in California then the polls would lead one to believe though.

Obama's support comes just as much from anti-Clinton sentiment as pro-Obama, and some are folks (like myself), who were honestly undecided between him and Edwards.

Also, I think Hill's greatest strength is going to be the same block of people that sat on their hands after Steve Westley lost the primary for Governor last time. The "Liberals with money" block.

I say this even though Steve has endorsed Obama.

Right now there is no true progressive standard bearer for California. The biq question is how Barbara Boxer supports (if anyone), that could swing a lot of undecideds one way or the other.

But she has a good relationship with Obama and Clinton so she might sit it out.

hmmm...
still, i'm overjoyed that our vote actually matters this time.

-C.

---

by: neutron @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:43:09 PM UTC

coming to terms (4.00 / 1)

I am slowly coming to terms with our candidate being Clinton.  I am an Edwards supporter, with Obama as my second choice, but my fear of a Clinton win is diminishing.  I have watched her dirty tactics with horror at first (the idealist in me still winces), but I am now at the point where I am ready to focus my anger at the republican nominee.  The economy has fucked over our small business, made our house worth squat, and scares the crap out of me - unleash the below the belt, dirty politics...give them hell Hil!  The fuckers deserve it.

Of course there is the very real possibility that Sen. Clinton will continue to screw us "middle & lower classes" just as much (although I cannot believe she will be as bad as *any* of the republican nominees) so that does lead me to my last crumb of hope...

In the last 10 yrs or so, our society's treatment of women is surreal.  I still can't get over how much ground feminists have lost.  Having a woman as President will help.  I don't necessarily think Clinton will specifically do much for us, but having her there will empower a lot of women to start calling bullshit on how we are treated in a much louder voice - it will encourage organized women to tell the horrible political pundits and media idiots to STFU.  And hopefully help de-program the younger generations. 

So even though a part of me dies to hear Clinton will most likely get the nom, I am directing my anger at the incredibly horrific choices on the republican side.

---

by: sisterfish @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 12:55:08 PM UTC

yep (0.00 / 0)

Emotionally, I feel EXACTLY the same way with one queasy addition; I think, current matchup polls notwithstanding, that many analysts (even the astute Chris Bowers) are underestimating the extent to which Clinton's unlikability will impact her ability to win a general election race... particularly against McCain who likely will enjoy a massive media advantage throughout the campaign. 

Dems have nominated unlikeable candidates often over the past 30 years, and they've all lost.

---

by: Tom Gilpin Jr @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 13:06:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ad spending by state? (0.00 / 0)

Does anyone know the extent to which the candidates have been running ads in 2/5 states, and how this spending is being allocated?

At this point I'm skeptical of any attempt to get too granular or predictive re: Feb 5, since we're in a very tight timeframe (as was the case with the IA-to-NH transition) during which a whole lot of low-involvement/info voters have to make decisions in a very short time--probably based on what they'll be exposed to in the nine days following SC.  And, based on a quick look at the Wiki site, most of the polls it lists are not all that current and, as the totals suggest, have a lot of undecideds still in the mix.

The good thing for those of us who like analyze the numbers is that there should be a whole lot of them after 2/5, including actual vote and delegate counts as well as exit polls.  We'll also have a better sense of the extent to which Edwards can capture enough delegates to be a factor in choosing a nominee. 

All that being said, I do think its fair to say that Clinton enjoys a fundamental advantage and that Obama needs voters to hear and be positively influenced by his message a lot more than seems to be the case at this point if he's going to win the nomination. 

---

by: mitchipd @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 13:01:58 PM UTC

I know ads (0.00 / 0)

are running in California.

You are right to caution against reading too much into the polls, and to highlight the transition.

---

by: fladem @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 13:10:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm seeing a lot of Obama ads in Georgia (0.00 / 0)

none for other candidates though..

---

by: moreaxe @ Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 00:03:49 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

More Recent Polling Data (4.00 / 2)

(It's all linked from the left sidebar of RealClearPolitics.)

Arizona: Clinton 37, Obama 27 (+10 Obama compared with your data)

Missouri: Clinton 44, Obama 31 (+6 Obama compared with your data)

California: Clinton 43, Obama 28 (+1 Clinton compared with your data)

Other new polls listed there:

Tennessee: Clinton 34, Obama 20

Illinois: Obama 51, Clinton 22

---

by: The Field @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 13:19:27 PM UTC

thanks! (0.00 / 0)

Will update!

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 14:20:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Quite right (0.00 / 0)

Obama needs to stay within 6% of Clinton to stay competitive. Now, there's a lot of advertising between here and Feb 5th. But the dynamic has to change.

---

by: nbeaudrot @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 13:32:06 PM UTC

Not very likely (0.00 / 0)

After all Clinton didn't beat Obama in Nevada by 20 points.

And in my opinion the way she won in nevada actually hurt her because it wasn't a clear victory and generated a lot of negative press.

My opinion is if Obama keeps the news about SC he gets in a favorable position whereas Clinton gets in an even better position if the news is about florida.

And Obama seems to be doing a lot better at managing the media than clinton.

My opinion is Obama wins feb 5th if he effectively counters Clinton's lies about his record(IE claiming he is anti-abortion or something similar).  Not an easy task, but doable.

I'd put the odds in Clinton's favor, but not by very much at all.

---

by: Astera @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 14:00:48 PM UTC

So where should Obama spend his time (0.00 / 0)

between now and Feb. 5th?  I'd say all of it in California, with a massive rally or two thrown in sometime before the election (if the campaign can pull it off).  Maybe he can convince California voters that under an Obama presidency we will get back as much tax money as we put into the federal coffers.  We're tired of subsidizing red states!!!  Maybe he can convince Hispanics to vote for him even though Clinton has endorsements from the Mayor of LA, the UFW, and Dolores Huerta.  Maybe there haven't been enough absentee votes already cast to determine the outcome for Clinton.  Maybe, maybe, maybe.

---

by: historyrocks @ Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 17:12:31 PM UTC