Irrelevant??? (0.00 / 0)

All polls for states occurring after New Hampshire that were taken before New Hampshire are now considered irrelevant, and thus not included.

 

Do you still think the people of Michigan and Nevada care what the people of New Hampshire and Iowa think? I don't think so at all. I've asked this before and I'll ask it again - Why would the people of Michigan and Nevada - of South Carolina and Florida - of all the Super Tuesday states...

All of who moved up their primaries to be Relevant...

Render themselves irrelevant by bowing down to two tiny states?

Kos isn't basing his vote on anything other that how the candidates impress him over the next month. Iowa/NH are not going to sways him. How about Chris Bowers - is he going to follow blindly follow Iowa/NH? Probably not. Matt Stoller? Probably not. Is any one that reads this blog going to blindly follow Iowa/NH? Probably not. So why deem all the other states polls irrelevant? This thing isn't over until February 5th at the earliest.

All you guys keep using the primary models from when the primaries were spread out over 6 months. Well guess what? The model is different and the model has changed along with the mindset of the voters over the next month.

I say post those polls so we can compare what happens over the next few weeks and see if in fact the model has changed or the relevancy argument and the party in-fighting over moving primary dates up was all for naught.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 15:10:37 PM CST

The polling data of other states is still readily available (0.00 / 0)

And I like the new trimmed down Glance.
And while it is true that people like us may not be swayed by Iowa/NH (let alone career political analysts), MOST Americans are easily swayed by shifting news coverage. And that's the true impact of Iowa and NH - they dominate the news and therefore dominate the information that most voters receive.
I hope this is the last time Iowa/NH play such a large role in choosing nominees, but for now I think the consensus is that their role will be as big as ever.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

---

by: LandStander @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 17:04:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What LandStander said (0.00 / 0)

The polls are and will continue to be available at RealClearPolitics and pollster.com.  With daily tracker polls having started up in NH, we'll be able to see in real time the effect of Iowa on NH.  And we'll be able to compare/contrast the MI and SC polls pre-Iowa with polls of the same states after NH.

There WILL be a noticeable effect.  The only issue is, how big?  With respect to the Dems, I'm in the 'much smaller than 2004 bounce' camp, and have been for eons, due to the extreme stability of the race thus far, and the general happiness of Dems with their choices, compared to 2004; we'll find out soon enough.

But the media tell most people who might win, who has a chance, and who wins which primary changes that narrative.  If Edwards wins Iowa, lots of people who hadn't considered voting for Edwards because 'why waste your vote?' will give him a second look.  If Obama wins Iowa, Edwards supporters in NH and down the road will reconsider their support.

Plus when a candidate wins a primary, s/he looks more like someone who can win a general election than s/he did pre-primary.  And we all want to kick the Pubbies out of the White House.

---

by: low-tech cyclist @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 20:11:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Put the money back (0.00 / 0)

Chris, I'm surprised you've removed the money from the charts. While its no longer relevant for Iowa and NH, it's certainly relevant if Edwards, Huckabee or McCain are serious players after NH. While the polls for the states after may be irrelevant, the primaries themselves aren't (unless Clinton and Romney have strong sweeps), and the money will again be important.

DemConWatch

---

by: msn1 @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 15:45:32 PM CST

I would put it back (0.00 / 0)

But the most recent numbers we have are from Sept. 30th. Right now, no one really knows how much each campaign has.

If there is disclosure on January 15th, I'll put it back in then.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:04:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

More Dead Heat Evidence: Outliers (0.00 / 0)

I realize that outliers are generally discounted in statistical analysis, but when you look at all of the outliers across many polls, you can see a sort of "maximum support factor" emerge.

Over the course of 1+ year and 76 different Iowa polls as tracked by Pollster.com, here are the maximum support for the 3 major Dem candidates:

36% Edwards
35% Clinton
35% Obama

When you look at all the times where candidates finished 32% or higher during these polls, it looks like this:

3 Edwards
5 Clinton
5 Obama

To me, when you look at Iowa opinions spread across a full year, the maximum support for these candidates remain unchanged.  That reflects many of the 29-28-28 polls we're seeing today.

It's almost as if all signs point to a 30-30-30 split with 10% to the other candidates.  Probably not, but I don't see how you could get a tighter race between the three, than what we are seeing right now.

If the three candidates finish in a very tight bunch, I think Iowa cancels itself out.  A very narrow win by Hillary in Iowa and a loss in New Hampshire would not necessarily pre-ordain a Hillary victory as the nominee... in my opinion.

---

by: rustydude @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 15:59:13 PM CST

Rudy? (4.00 / 1)

Our next President will be one of the following six people: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. I don't think Romney can win a general election, so maybe it is just one of five people. Clinton's chances are still the best, but at this point it would be crazy to count any of the other four out. Maybe it is crazy to count Romney out, too.

Rudy does not have as good a chance as Edwards? Both are long
shots.

The scenarios here [on the GOP side] are more dizzying than on the Democratic side.

Indeed. The Rudy scenario is Romney in Iowa, McCain in NH, Huck in SC, Rudy in FL  . . . Long odds, but he's no Fred Thompson.

Visit DebateScoop for political candidate debate news and analysis.

---

by: demondeac @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 16:04:07 PM CST

I think you are ruling JulieAnnie out too soon. (0.00 / 0)

He's got big money, he's got all the NeoCon repertoire of dirty tricks, and if Huckabee or McCain win early primaries, the corporatists and the NeoCons are going to need someone to turn to.  Plus, he's clearly the candidate of the delusional.  I think he's still in it.

---

by: Querent @ Tue Jan 01, 2008 at 23:21:38 PM CST

NeoCons? (0.00 / 0)

The NeoCons love McCain. He was their guy in 2000 before he lost to Bush. Kristol et. al. still love him, as they shoud. He's 100% in agreement with them on foreign policy.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

---

by: clarkent @ Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 09:05:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]