Oprah could win SC (0.00 / 0)

Drudgie is saying that a new Rasmussen poll will show Obama up by 2 in SC. This is BEFORE the Oprah event. I think African Americans who are worried that Obama can't win the nomination are starting to trend his way as they see his numbers rise in Iowa. If Clinton isn't careful, her African American support may begin leaving in droves. Oprah only helps this even more.

---

by: the new @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:12:28 AM CST

Actually... (0.00 / 0)

New SC Rasmussen has Clinton falling 7% to 36%.

Obama up one to 34%.

Blacks breaking overwhelmingly for Obama. Clinton still strong among whites.

What's the Point?

---

by: Vermonter @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:07:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Wow, it's really, really exciting. (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, Chris.

---

by: sb @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:21:05 AM CST

Anyone else find this bizarre? (0.00 / 0)

The leader in the GOP nomination campaigns has only 20% of the vote? 20%!!! And it's not like there's a whole lot of viable candidates on their side, certainly fewer than on ours. What gives? There must be a TON of undecideds, which translates to "They're all bums and I'm not voting at all."

---

by: ColoDem @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:28:00 AM CST

Spreads (0.00 / 0)

Those spreads seem about right.

Does anyone know if the undecided rate in NH, 60% for Dems last I heard) is normal historically?

I would much rather see percentages that don't push leaners and accurately report undecided.  The race looks different when you do that.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:34:51 AM CST

Edwards, I'm telling you (0.00 / 0)

Edwards rise in NH is much sharper than Obama's and is tracking similar but albeit more slowly than what was happening to Huckster on the GOP side.

Gravity has taken over and Clinton and Obama are increasing there sniping.  Obama is smartly trying to take the high road but will fire back once Clinton starts drawing blood. 

The NIE on Iran is explosive.  Edwards has spoken out numerous time on Iran and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.  Clinton is trapped by her vote and Obama by his non-vote.  I give Edwards the advantage here.  I expect him to address this issue forcefully during the next debate with even sharper terms than the NPR debate.  I expect Biden and Kucinich to be the most critical of the failed policies toward Iran.

Man, this is really, really turning out to be super exciting.  As we know in politics, 28 days is forever, I will expect the unexpected.  Either way though, I think the strongest possible candidate will emerge from this battle.  Made wiser and stronger through the process and America will be better for it.  My hope is for Edwards, of course, but I will gladly accept the will of the majority of Democrats. 

PS I'll bet you a gillion dollars Huckster starts to rally his base of supporters that attacks against him are proxy attacks against his supporters and they need to fight against these incessant attacks on ...christianity.

---

by: gaspare @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:43:46 AM CST

sample size (0.00 / 0)

I just flipped a penny seven times, five times it came up tails.

It is foolish to build a model on such a small sample size. If you want to propose a theory you have to dig deeper into the numbers and the environment of each primary. fladem's analysis appeals to many people because they think it explains Dean's collapse in 2004, but Dean's problems were deeper than losing Iowa. Poblano's ideas about information are interesting, but he is too caught up in the precision of his numbers. The more precise these models get, the more they look like GIGO.

---

by: souvarine @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:46:19 AM CST

thank you (0.00 / 0)

a reliable statistical sample requires something like 20 data points--a model for presidential politics, if you consider both the republican and democratic contests seperately, therefore, requires that we include every race back to 1964 in order to include enough data to make precise statistical statements possible.  Obviously, primary politics have changed significantly over the same time span, and so you run into that problem then, not to mention all of the noncontested, or weakly contested primaries that you're putting into the sample set.

Any number crunching regarding the primaries is going to be a loose estimate, at best.  It's helpful to figure out about what a reasonable Iowa and New Hampshire bounce is going to be, and to rank candidates, but single digit precision in these estimates is unrealistic.

---

by: Valatan @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:24:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, today's Ramussen... (4.00 / 1)

... has Obama even closer, within 7%...

Clinton: 33% Down 8 since 11/27
Obama: 26% Up 9 since 11/27

What's the Point?

---

by: Vermonter @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:05:09 AM CST

Rationally, there were a lot of reasons to believe that things would tighten (0.00 / 0)

It was just difficult to believe looking at how stupidly stagnant things were over the summer. 

Here's to hoping that the Dems don't get a brokered convention, or that it comes down to superdelegates.  Either case probably means Clinton is the nominee.

---

by: Valatan @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:13:26 AM CST

Brokered (0.00 / 0)

I think that if we have a brokered convention then we will see the delegates for Edwards and Obama uniting behind a single candidate, that will hurt Clinton.  Also, I have it on good authority that many of the congressional super delegates that have not yet spoken out are wary of a Clinton nomination, but are intimidated by the idea that she will hold a grudge if she becomes president.  If super delegates have the ability to swing the election, I don't think they will break as strongly for Hilary Clinton as current numbers indicate.

My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
Philly for Obama

---

by: Luam @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 11:48:04 AM CST

[ Parent ]

numbers (0.00 / 0)

The statistical models on Iowa's impact on NH are very interesting but as others have pointed out, do not really tell us much. Because the important variables are not the size of the win but how it impacts media coverage, and what the situation on the ground (and airwaves) in NH is when the Iowa results come in. In this sense, Obama and even Edwards are much better positioned in NH than Kerry or Gephardt were in NH when they won Iowa -- and also as or more likely to benefit from coverage of their win. I think even a 1-point win for either one makes it an even race in NH. Though if all three finish near the top, with Clinton third, thats another factor in terms of dividing media coverage. And no previous year has had such a short cycle so its even harder to predict.

On South Carolina, using crowd size to predict votes is literally the textbook example of "environmental fallacy." And its actually a terrible way to make voter contact, since unles you get attendees to fill out a questionnaire or respond to questions on the spot, you learn almost nothing about their voting or issue preferences. You simply know that they came to see Oprah Winfrey.

---

by: desmoulins @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 14:06:48 PM CST

I just threw up in my mouth a little. (0.00 / 0)

Oprah run herself?

Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!  Stop.  It.

For some reason, it seems that Obama has some pathological and deep-seated psychological need for Republicans to like him.  Seriously.  It's weird.

---

by: avenged savant @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 14:44:02 PM CST

Interesting predictive model, but... (0.00 / 0)

I wouldn't put much on it except as an exercise in curiosity.

The main concern I have with it isn't the sample size.  It's that the time between NH and IA has been compressed.  As you've noted before, that's going to have some sort of effect.  We have zero data points for predicting what it will be.

We know there will be a bump for the winner.  We can pretty fairly assess that this bump will be connected to feedback from positive media stories about the candidate.  Some of that bump is usually noise - Thomas Holbrooke from the University of Minnesota (I think) finds that in his book, "Do Campaigns Matter."  Some of it probably isn't.  This will be the first time when the next primary happens while the media bump hasn't had time to recede.  So we're going to get an interesting indicator of how much of that self-reporting has always been noise and how much of it is signal. 

My point, I guess, is that all the predictive models are in trouble this time out, because so many of the standing assumptions have are out of whack.

---

by: sierradave @ Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 18:32:31 PM CST