Michigan won't matter... (0.00 / 0)

Because she won't beat Obama in Michigan. Obama will completely ignore Michigan, and Clinton, not wanting to waste her time campaigning in a state she has already won, will not go to Michigan.

Michigan won't count. In order for Clinton to actually blunt Obama's momentum, she has to beat him in a head to head contest. That won't be Michigan.

Further Reading

---

by: Dave Sund @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:02:18 PM CST

Michigan will matter, a little (0.00 / 0)

First, there will be a few news reports on Clinton winning Michigan, which will help here a little. Second, since Clinton will win Michigan at the ballot box, in a situation where the delegate count is close after February 5th, she will have first dibs on the delegates.

It will be interesting to see how much Nevada is covered. If Obama only received a 20-24% boost from Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton will still have a shot there.

---

by: Chris Bowers @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:05:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Michigan may matter, prolly not. (0.00 / 0)

If no polling was done then Michigan would matter. Given that the media will almost certainly poll the Michigan primary it is unlikely that they report the results without reporting that they are completely at odds with the polling.

In addition it is quite possible that the exit polls will have a question asking who the individual would vote for were all the options on the ballot. If they do ask such a question you can be sure that this would be what was reported rather than the victory for Clinton.

---

by: StrawMan @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:21:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Post Something On This Chris (0.00 / 0)

and see how much it help Obama.

http://www.dailykos....

Frankly I'm surprised something about this exchange has been pretty much ignored by most bloggers today.

I think Clinton called it vetting.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:29:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Geez (4.00 / 3)

what does a guy have to do to get a little respect around here?

This if off topic - but I have been working on the Edwards campaign - and have no time to blog.  I worked a precinct in Iowa - and it was one of the most important events of my life.  I am now far more interested in actually working on a campaign rather than writing about them now.

Anyway, in JUNE I wrote a diary about how Iowa will effect New Hampshire.

If it wasn't ignored, it was mostly ignored (Chris was a notable exception).  Then Mark Penn writes a MORONIC note about how there will be no bounce out of Iowa.  And then Chris writes some reasons why he thinks I this year won't be as big of a bounce.

I now feel VERY vindicated about Iowa into New Hampshire.  The last CNN/WMUR poll has Obama leading 41 -28, ARG has gone from a 35-31 Clinton lead to a 38-26 lead. 

So let's talk about the national bounce.  I have now run the numbers for the Dems and the Repugs since 1980, and I have a minor update: When a front runner loses New Hampshire, the average swing for the GOP and Dems is +34 in the National Polls.  On average the winner goes up +27 points.

If the bounce is not as big it will be because even before Iowa Obama was something of a co-front runner.

Folks, this is everywhere.  I would be shocked if there is not an effort by the Obama people to support and uncomitted slate in Michigan - and I will be surprised if it doesn't work.

But a caution about the bounce: it is NOT forever.  There is evidence of a backlash that occurs about 3 weeks later.  This was the case with Hart in '84, Tsongas in '92 and Buchanan in '96.  I don't have time to double check my numbers tonight - but right now the average decline 3 weeks from the peak of the bounce is about 6 points for the NH. 

Time to get back to work.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:47:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

don't worry (0.00 / 0)

I consider your numbers the gold standard on the subject of the New Hampshire bounce and I would think most of the regular readers of this blog agree.  In fact, I have seen your work quoted (with credit to fladem) on other blogs.

Since Chris' earlier work (or perhaps it was yours) suggested that the NH bounce peaked 3 to 5 days after Iowa, I have assumed that Obama is the shoe-in nominee.  In the short history of the Iowa-NH duopoly, only six candidates have won a sweep of the two states.  All six won their parties nomination (Carter-1976, Ford-1976, Carter-1980, Dole-1996, Gore-2000, Kerry-2004).  Anybody who got the most votes excluding uncommitted, was the winner.

Huckabee, otoh, lacks so much in NH he is unlikely to win there.  I suspect that the NH winner (either Romney or McCain) will end up as their nominee.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:50:02 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Projecting... (0.00 / 0)

I think that Nevada is very hard to Call for Obama even assuming a NH win unless he gets some big union endorsements there.  I predict that Obama wil win SC unpledged will beat Clinton in MI.  That could really wound Clinon if it happens.

The real question on Feb. 5 is will Edwards still be in the race then.  If he isn't I would guess that most of his support goes to Obama giving him the lead in most states outside of NY and AK.  If he is then I have to hope that he is viable in most districts in primary states.  The real risk for Obama would be a lot of 40:37:13 type districts where the majority vote is for "change" but Clinton gets the edge in delegates while Edwards gets none.  So long as Edwards is viable then those delegates are his and available for Obama or Clinton to court if the convention is brokered.

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

---

by: Luam @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 00:40:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

What about an Edwards deal after Super Tuesday? (4.00 / 1)

Whereby he makes a deal with Clinton or Obama to have his delegates support one of them in support of certain policies or the VP?  At this rate, Edwards could find a way to stay relevant and rack up delegates along the way as well. 

I suspect Edwards would be more likely to throw support to Obama.  Under that scenario, Edwards and Obama would likely have more delegates after super tuesday than Clinton, right? 

---

by: roberto_jordan @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:13:44 PM CST

A Question (0.00 / 0)

Chris, 

It might be helpful to look back at the national polling data in 2004 after Iowa and New Hampshire.  How long did it take for Dean's lead to disappear in the national polls and Kerry to emerge on top?  Does anyone know?

---

by: Anonymous Liberal @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:17:29 PM CST

The 2004 National Primary numbers (0.00 / 0)

and the pre and post iowa change are here.

phttp://www.openleft....

It is really worth noting that obama's post iowa bounce does not approach Kerry's (or Bush in 1980's).  Chris is right to point this out.

I still am confident I am right, though.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:04:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Same as 1992 (0.00 / 0)

I would be cash money, right now, on a Clinton appearance on 60 Minutes next week following the New England playoff game.  That's when she'll try to recapture the narrative by talking more about the pain of Bill's infidelities than she has before, rehumanize herself, etc.

It's the last bullet in her gun.

---

by: Adam B. @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:17:50 PM CST

Actually Adam (4.00 / 1)

her strategy is what you saw last night - and that is drawing contrast between actual records and actions.

Yeah Clinton is a bit thick skinned and not touchy-feely. But that is what we need in the WH to combat the republicans. They will walk all over a touchy-feely guy like Obama. Besides that her record shows that she is more progressive than Obama.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:33:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

She'll lose that argument (0.00 / 0)

She lost in Iowa, she'll lose it in New Hampshire too, as Obama (a) has the record of accomplishment to back up his rhetoric and (b) has the rhetoric to back up the importance of rhetoric ("Words do help...").

---

by: Adam B. @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:45:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Iowa is a different place (4.00 / 1)

and does not represent the views of the nation. Plus Iowa was overly represented by youth that connected with Obama personally because he spent so much time there. That won't be the case after NH.

If touchy-feely trumps experience as it did in the stolen election of 2004 then we as a country deserve what we get - - and don't get.

---

by: progressivesouls @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:00:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Interesting indeed.... (0.00 / 0)

....your comment:

Sure, Clinton has dropped, but surprisingly most of that support has gone to Edwards.

Iluminated Edwards performance in yesterday's NH debate. He didn't say much until the end letting Clinton flail and Obama repeat his, Edwards, talking points until the very end when he oh, so  politely gave Clinton the boot to the crotch.

I think JRE knows he's on the rise and looks to see Obama knock Clinton out giving him a shot.

I look forward to the look on Obama's face when Edwards calls him on his using Edwards talking points....

Could be a priceless moment. If it happens.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

---

by: ACitizen @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:17:56 PM CST

Michigan will not matter (0.00 / 0)

Florida may, but Michigan won't.  What is your agenda here?  Michigan will. not. matter.

---

by: benjamins @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:24:17 PM CST

Momentum. (0.00 / 0)

You are entirely correct that a great deal of momentum hasn't been produced in the national polls yet. However, following a potential blowout in New Hampshire coupled with victories of varying degrees in Nevada and South Carolina there might be a growing amount of momentum in the national polls. All of this occurs before Florida.

We will see at that point how the national lead holds up.

---

by: StrawMan @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:25:46 PM CST

May as (0.00 / 0)

well face up to it.  There's going to be a race on until Feb 5th and matbe afterward.  This one isn't going down easy for anyone.  Too much money in 2 campaigns.

---

by: RalphB @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:29:17 PM CST

I don't get it... (4.00 / 2)

why are you talking so much about Clinton's viability on Feb. 5th before the NH primary even happens, and at a time when most of the post-Iowa polling done in NH was done on Friday and Saturday evenings, which are notoriously unreliable times for polling (and are times when younger people tend to be undercounted)...

See Mark Blumenthal's post on this: http://www.youtube.c...

It strikes me that this whole conversation is premature and unnecessarily speculative (we will have a much more reliable picture of the state of play in a few days, and February 5th is still a long way off....).

---

by: seabrook @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:32:53 PM CST

This kind of piece... (0.00 / 0)

is why Open Left has turned into my favorite political site.  The difference between this kind of analysis, the depth of thinking involved, and the gasbaggery of Matthews, Stephanopolous or Fox News Sunday is remarkable.  Keep up the good work, please?!!

---

by: Wendell @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:42:18 PM CST

No guarantee (0.00 / 0)

There is no guarantee.  However Iowa was probably his most difficult state to win and he won it decisively.

I'd give at least a 5% chance of losing.  So I don't think he is guaranteed to win.  Perhaps if he chose a white man as his VP and people voted against him because of fear of him getting shot.

---

by: Astera @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:42:49 PM CST

Props for healthy skepticism (0.00 / 0)

and a reality check. I posted something very similar a couple of days ago as a comment to another frontpage story, about New  Hampshire -- at that point, the polls were showing very little Iowa bounce for Obama, and I suddenly wondered whether we had taken too many things for granted. Now, though, the large bounce everyone expected has materialized, with even the new CNN/WMUR/UNH poll showing it (one of the most respected according to Pollster.com's survey, unlike ARG and Rasmussen).

I think it'll play out similarly nationally. There may be a few days' lag, but the bounce will come. Especially if Obama does win NH by the huge margins the polls are showing.

---

by: illissius @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 17:59:30 PM CST

How long will Edwards stay in? (0.00 / 0)

After losing IA, Edwards can't win the nomination, so how long will he stick around? If he drops out before Feb 5, that might be all Obama needs to be unstoppable, given that they largely pull from the same pool of voters.

---

by: LaxWI @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:12:13 PM CST

What if they get to the convention essentially tied? (4.00 / 1)

Can we get a brokered convention? (As a potential Edwards delegate - I'm on the ballot in Maryland - I'm still hoping for Edwards to pull ahead.)

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

---

by: Stoic @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:21:10 PM CST

Fun! But Very Unlikely (0.00 / 0)

Just think of all that has to happen for a brokered convention.

---

by: Taran @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:54:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Michigan will have the net effect of the Rep WY caucus... (4.00 / 2)

Which is to say, nothing.  Sure, it's a bigger state, but it's also totally not in contention.  I expect a footnote AP article on it, a mention on the evening news, and not much else.  The press didn't really cover Romney winning in Wyoming, they aren't going to cover HRC running unopposed in Michigan.  If they do, I imagine it's going to be along the lines of Chris Matthews snidely saying "Hillary finally found the primary campaign she always wanted - one with only her on the ballot."

Florida is another story entirely, as everyone is on the ballot.  However, I expect that, given all the candidates have decided to not campaign there (so far), that contest will be extremely low turnout, and based on whatever the national numbers are at that moment.  Clinton can't really be given credit for winning a state if she doesn't campaign there, and given the media's dislike of her, I again would lean against this being spun as a "comeback."

That said, I was thinking that the super Tuesday states do have certain structural advantages for her.  I don't expect at this point either campaign will be settled until significantly later in the primary season. 

---

by: telephasic @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:31:56 PM CST

Michigan will have the net effect of the Rep WY caucus... (0.00 / 0)

Which is to say, nothing.  Sure, it's a bigger state, but it's also totally not in contention.  I expect a footnote AP article on it, a mention on the evening news, and not much else.  The press didn't really cover Romney winning in Wyoming, they aren't going to cover HRC running unopposed in Michigan.  If they do, I imagine it's going to be along the lines of Chris Matthews snidely saying "Hillary finally found the primary campaign she always wanted - one with only her on the ballot."

Florida is another story entirely, as everyone is on the ballot.  However, I expect that, given all the candidates have decided to not campaign there (so far), that contest will be extremely low turnout, and based on whatever the national numbers are at that moment.  Clinton can't really be given credit for winning a state if she doesn't campaign there, and given the media's dislike of her, I again would lean against this being spun as a "comeback."

That said, I was thinking that the super Tuesday states do have certain structural advantages for her.  I don't expect at this point either campaign will be settled until significantly later in the primary season. 

---

by: telephasic @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:31:57 PM CST

slightly off topic (4.00 / 5)

three new polls:

CNN / WMUR (O:39%; C:29%; E:16%)

USA Today / Gallup (O:41%; C:28%; E:19%)

Stragetic Vision (O:38%; C:29%; E:19%)

---

by: taylormattd @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:52:51 PM CST

It's not that I disagree, but... (4.00 / 1)

You just don't have any data to say much on the national polls.  A dataset that is only half after Iowa, and only by a day or so?  From what I'm learned form your posts and fladem's, you do have to wait to see polls taken a few days afterwards. 

Doesn't the data shown above imply Clinton dropped 10 points overnight? 

That said, the voters in the Feb 5 states will certainly have the chance to select Clinton if they want to. 

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 18:58:30 PM CST

NATIONAL POLL BOUNCE (0.00 / 0)

Ih Obama wins NH by double digitd say 12 pts then you will see a big national poll bounce, But if he only wins by 4-6 pts than not so much of a bounce.

---

by: BDM @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 19:21:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There is no historical evidence (4.00 / 1)

that the size of the win effects the national bounce.

I actually think, though, that the gap between edwards and  clinton is more important than the gap between clinton and obama.

---

by: fladem @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:08:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

say more... (0.00 / 0)

do you mean that a big gap between Edwards and Clinton helps Clinton significantly?  Would a small gap mean Edwards has a chance to pick up a win somewhere?  Or something else...

---

by: seabrook @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:19:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think at this point (4.00 / 1)

there is a chance that a two way race could develop between Obama and Edwards.  Clinton needs to put Edwards away - and she won't be able to do it unless she has a good size gap between herself and Edwards.

If Obama wins he wins - it doesn't matter in my view by how much.  An Obama win in NH probably puts SC away, and means Hillary's only hope for a win before Feb 5th is in Nevada. 

In the end, the only path to victory for either Edwards or Clinton goes through Nevada.  Clinton needs a one on one race with Obama in Nevada.  If Edwards is still alive, when Clinton goes negative (and she will) it might allow Edwards to benefit.  Alternatively, if Clinton puts Edwards away, she can go negative in Nevada and not worry about benefiting a third candidate. 

Make sense?

---

by: fladem @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 23:13:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Does Edwards have the resources to compete (0.00 / 0)

on February 5th? My impression is that he doesn't. An Obama-Edwards two way race would be really nice, but I'm having a very hard time seeing it.

---

by: illissius @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 00:07:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I guess in the end (4.00 / 1)

I am pretty iconoclastic about primaries.  I don't think polls in any of them mean anything until after New Hampshire or Iowa.

And I don't think money matters much, either.  In this case, the Feb 5th primaries are so big that I don't think ANY candidate will have a big enough budget to really effect the outcome.

Free media will decide the primaries on the 5th.

Which is why Edwards could still win.

---

by: fladem @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 00:28:21 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Loss after loss for Clinton will be too much (0.00 / 0)

Getting drubbed in NH, as is likely, and then in South Carolina, and losing Nevada will give Clinton an entire month of terrible press with glowing coverage of each Obama victory.  No one can withstand that, not even the Clinton machine.

Michigan won't give her any momentum because she is running unopposed there.

This is just a hunch, but she may not even carry NY on Feb. 5 if the losses start piling up.

---

by: BCdem @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 20:21:55 PM CST

As a resident of Michigan... (0.00 / 0)

I'd say indeed, no one is going to give a shit about our primary. Most of my friends (most of whom are Democrats) and myself have decided we're going to sabotage the GOP primary -- we couldn't settle on whether we should vote for Romney or Paul.

So we decided to do whatever we wanted.

---

by: BradODonnell @ Sun Jan 06, 2008 at 23:55:56 PM CST

Vote for Romney (0.00 / 0)

or maybe Rudy. Voting for Paul makes a statement, but Romney is the one with the greatest chance of winning the primary and losing the general.

---

by: illissius @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 00:09:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It's one freaking poll (0.00 / 0)

I think we should wait to see at least one more pollster with a national post-Iowa poll before we start jumping to conclusions!

---

by: moreaxe @ Mon Jan 07, 2008 at 10:11:12 AM CST