Last update: July 19, 1:00 pm eastern State polls taken from June 13th through July 18th
Democratic Nomination, At a Glance
State
Est. Date
# Polls
Clinton
Obama
Edwards
Richardson
Net Avail Cash
Mar 31
Q1
$30M
$33.1M
$11.7M
$7M
Iowa
December
4
24.5%
17.3%
27.5%
8.8%
New Hampshire
December
5
35.6%
23.2%
10.8%
9.0%
Nevada
Jan 19
2
39.5%
16.5%
14.0%
6.5%
South Carolina
Jan 22
2
31.0%
27.5%
17.0%
1.7%
Florida
Jan 29
4
40.5%
21.3%
12.3%
4.5%
National
Feb 05
NA
36.2%
23.4%
12.0%
3.0%
Given these numbers, right now the only real issue is determining just how far ahead Clinton actually is. Considering the typical poll bounce Democratic candidates receive for first place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, I have long operated under the assumption that in order for there to even be a chance for her to lose the nomination, she must lose both states. Her national lead is simply too large to not result in Florida, and then February 5th, victories if she gets a further bounce from a win in either Iowa or New Hampshire. As such, the numbers to watch out for when determining Clinton’s lead break down like this:
If she leads Iowa, the nomination is hers to lose.
If she is second in Iowa, the nomination is still hers to lose as long as, in New Hampshire, she is more than 11 points ahead of the candidate leading Iowa. (Note: this is the current scenario.)
If she is third or fourth in Iowa, the nomination is still hers to lose as long as, in New Hampshire, she is more than seven points ahead of the candidate in second in Iowa, and more than eighteen points ahead of the candidate in first in Iowa.
If she fails to meet all of the above three scenarios, and thus loses both Iowa and New Hampshire, she can still win the nomination if Iowa and New Hampshire are won by two different candidates, if she finishes second in Iowa, and if she is more than fifteen points ahead nationally.
In all other scenarios, I would currently forecast that Clinton would not win the nomination. The shortest route to cause one of those scenarios to come to pass would be, first, for her to fall behind Obama in Iowa. She currently leads him by 7% in Iowa, so that would take about 5,500 Clinton caucus goers flipping to Obama. Second, Obama would then have to pull closer than 7.0% in New Hampshire. Since he currently trails Clinton by 12.4% in New Hampshire, he need to flip about 3% of Clinton’s New Hampshire supporters, or about 7,500 primary voters, to his side. So, the absolute smallest expression of Clinton’s advantage is about 13,000 Iowans and New Hampshirites. To put it a different way, Clinton is currently the favorite for the nomination unless Obama gains 8% on her in Iowa, and 6% on her in New Hampshire. Were that to happen, Obama would become a slight favorite for the nomination. At this point, Edwards needs more help. He would need Obama to gain eight points on Clinton in Iowa without falling behind Obama in Iowa himself. Further, he would also need to gain three points on Obama in New Hampshire and eight points on Clinton in New Hampshire.
So, that is how large Clinton’s lead is right now. Decide for yourself just how significant that advantage is. (And no, Nevada is not going to take place between Iowa and New Hampshire. Not. Gonna. Happen.) It is also interesting to note that these scenarios mean Edwards was the favorite for the nomination from December 20-January 31, from April 29-May 15, and again from May 20-May 25, as the New Hampshire projection tables had him sweeping Iowa and New Hampshire during those times, resulting in a national lead. Otherwise, Clinton has been the favorite, as the New Hampshire projection tables have never shown Obama ahead in either Iowa or New Hampshire. (Note: paragraph updated after further research.)
Republican numbers and methodological notes in the extended entry.
That McCain available cash number is not a misprint. In fact, it might be even lower. He has only $3.2M cash on hand, but he also has $1.8M in debts, and has raised at least $700K for the general. Truly, he is toast, but otherwise the Republican horserace, otherwise known as Fredrick Rudolf Von Romney, is too close to call. Giuliani holds a cash and national poll advantage, a strong lead in Florida, a very close second in both South Carolina and Nevada, and maintains second place in New Hampshire. However, he also clearly has a downward polling trajectory, and is way behind Romney in both Iowa and New Hampshire. Then again, a McCain collapse might be to his benefit. Romney has built large leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and he even leads in Nevada. However, he has spent far more money than any other candidate in order to accomplish this, seems to have hit a ceiling in at least New Hampshire, and still trails badly in the south. Also, since it hasn’t happened in twenty years, there is no way to know how much winning Iowa would benefit the non-front runner on the Republican side. When it comes to Thompson, while he has an upward poll trajectory, he also did not vault into first upon his entry to the campaign, especially in Iowa and New Hampshire. Poll-wise and media wise, it will only become harder and slower for him to make up ground from here. He has an unknown amount of money, and seems to be something of a regional, southern candidate. That does not bode well for his performance in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Poll and Money Notes
Only announced candidates with 5% or more in most polling averages are shown.
“Net Available Cash” equals cash on hand minus debts minus amount raised for general election. More information can be found at Open Secrets. Current numbers are not precise, as all data is not yet available.
For Democrats, early state polls that only include Clinton, Edwards and Obama in the questions were not included.
For Democrats, early state polls that include Gore in the question were only included when Gore-less results were unavailable. One Florida poll included Gore.
February 5th is not actually a national primary, but due to the large number of states holding nomination events on that date, national polls are used as a placeholder.
Calendar notes
I am currently projecting both Iowa and New Hampshire to take place in December of 2007. Currently, the two states are working together, behind the scenes, in order to secure that they are first. Given that Iowa wants to take place eight days before New Hampshire, given that New Hampshire wants to take place seven days before any other non-Iowa state, and given that Nevada is scheduled to take place on January 19, 2008, that means the latest Iowa could be held is Friday, January 4th, 2008. Since Iowa is obviously not going to hold their caucuses either that close to New Year's, much less on a Friday, at this point December seems practically a foregone conclusion. Basically, we are now five months from the Iowa caucus, so anyone who was still doing so can stop saying it is way too early to talk about this stuff.
Interestingly, Michigan is currently looking at five possible dates: February 9th, January 12th, January 5th, December 15th, and December 8th. They could very well move up after Iowa and New Hampshire announce the December move. I bet they move up to January 12th, but given the wide range of possibilities (not to mention the lack of recent Michigan polls), it is best to wait for more info before including Michigan in this table. Still, no matter if, where and when Michigan moves, Iowa and New Hampshire will be first. They are willing to hold events in November, or even October, if that is what it takes to stay first.
South Carolina, currently scheduled for January 29th on the Democratic side and February 2nd on the Republican side, has also threatened to move ahead of Florida, which is scheduled for January 29th. It would be a real shock if South Carolina did not move up.
Design by Politics by Design, Powered by: SoapBlox