Recently in Polling Category

"'Obama has many more paths to the nomination than McCain,' the source said. 'They think they can defend the Kerry states. Iowa is gone. That's five votes. New Mexico is in the bag. Then Obama has four or five different ways of winning. He can go Nevada or Colorado, Virginia, any of those, even Indiana. McCain has got to run the board, the whole Bush table.'" According to London's Telegraph, Team Obama is feeling confident about victory these days. "We're much stronger on the ground in Virginia and North Carolina than people realise. If we get out the vote this may not be close at all."

In related news, the McCain camp currently seems lost in the quagmire, particularly after Obama's post-debate bounce and recent developments on the economic front. "'What begins to happen is that the margin that's been in place begins to solidify more and more,' said Matthew Dowd, who was Bush's chief strategist in 2004 and is now an independent analyst. 'There's only two ways this can go,' he added. 'It will either solidify with an Obama four- to five- point lead, or it will loosen and go back to close and go back and forth.'" In other words, another McCain campaign stunt incoming.

Update: I know the EW cover below is apropos of nothing above, really. On the other hand, it is election-related, and I found it laugh-out-loud funny. Hat tips to The Oak and Peasants Under Glass.

"'The Republicans had a very successful convention [sic] and, at least initially, the selection of Sarah Palin has made a big difference,' says political scientist Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. 'He's in a far better position than his people imagined he would be in at this point.'" As I noted over the weekend, you just can't stop the post-convention bounce...Sad to say, some folks just like buyin' whatever's being sold, I guess. In any case, today's Gallup polling has either McCain/Palin up 10 (USA Today/Gallup) (up 4 with registered voters) or up 3 (Daily Tracker). And, though this could be taken as good news if he maintains his recent record, Zogby also has McCain/Palin up 4.

Yikes. Still, I really wouldn't worry about a little post-RNC turbulence just yet. Even before you factor in the huge problems with assessing "likely voters" this cycle, throw in the pollsters' overreliance on landlines (and subsequent undercounting of Obama support), and look at the very favorable state-by-state breakdowns for us, these post-convention bumps are fickle creatures. Ask Presidents Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. "[I]n an analysis of the impact of political conventions since 1960, Sabato concluded that post-convention polls signal the election's outcome only about half the time. 'You could flip a coin and be about as predictive,' he says. 'It is really surprising how quickly convention memories fade.'"

So, don't fret. We'll sail through these choppy waters yet, folks. Update: Put another way... (Via MLR.)

Update 2: And, just like that, it's gone.

“'The most important thing we learned is this: Hillary Clinton won 8 of the last 13 primaries,' said Steve Schmidt, Mr. McCain’s top strategist. 'He is beatable.'" Facing an uphill battle against Sen. Obama, John McCain takes several pages from the Clinton playbook. Well, thanks much for pre-plowing that road, Senator. I don't think it'll make much difference in the end, whatever the polls say at the moment, but we might as well make the GOP work for a strategy next time.

In related news, Bill Clinton still seems stuck in a moment he can't get out of. "'I am not a racist,' he continued. 'I've never made a racist comment and I never attacked him [Obama] personally.'" Uh, riiight. Tell you what, Mr. President: We'll forgive you if you just stop insulting our intelligence about it.

Update: He's still picking at the scab. "'You can argue that nobody is ready to be President,' the former President told ABC News."

"'She's no longer campaigning for president,' said Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithee. 'She's focused on her work in the Senate, campaigning for Senator Obama and other Democrats.'" With the Dems back on the same team, the Clinton campaign scrubs its website of anti-Obama material from the primary era. As such, this seems as good a time as any to definitively put to rest these Penn-inspired primary fictions as well:

"We cannot let this moment slip away,' Clinton pressed. "'For anyone who voted for me and who is now considering not voting, or voting for Sen. McCain, I strongly urge you to reconsider. I urge you to remember what we are standing for in this election.'" In the aptly-named town of Unity, NH, Sen. Clinton campaigns with Sen. Obama. (They've also now maxed out donations to each other, and Obama continues to hire senior Clinton staff.)

In not-unrelated news, new polls put Wisconsin (+13) and Minnesota (+17) pretty firmly in the lean-Obama column. Says CNN: "The Illinois senator now has 231 electoral votes — 39 shy of winning the presidency," and that's not counting OH, FL, CO, NM, VA, or IA...all states we have a solid shot of picking up. Again, I don't want to jinx anything, but I'm feeling pretty confident about our prospects these days.

Keeping in mind that polls five months out from Election Day are basically meaningless, some good news on the swing-state front: Sen. Obama currently leads in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. (What, you mean Mark Penn's swing-state argument was bogus? Who knew?)

This would seem to hinder McCain's likely strategy of using Florida as a safe electoral base from which to make incursions into possible Obama territory in Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and elsewhere -- Now, the mythical maverick will have to play serious defense in the Sunshine State. (Again, June polls say next-to-nothing about the state of play in November, but I'm glad we're 4-10 points up rather than 10-15 down. Plus, these numbers are in keeping with my general feeling -- knock on wood -- that Election Day will be a trouncing.)

Update: More fuel for the fire. A new Newsweek poll has Obama up fifteen on McCain, 51%-36%. "The latest numbers on voter dissatisfaction suggest that Obama may enjoy more than one bounce. The new poll finds that only 14 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the direction of the country...Obama is [also] running much stronger at this point in the race than his two most recent Democratic predecessors, Sen. John Kerry and Vice President Al Gore...In a July 2004 NEWSWEEK Poll, Kerry led Bush by only 6 points (51 percent to 45 percent). In June 2000, Gore was in a dead heat with Bush (45 percent to 45 percent)"

Update 2: It's not an outlier. LA Times/Bloomberg also has Obama up 15 (48%-33%) in a four-way race with Nader and Barr. Against McCain only, our man's up 12.

You know all the media hype we've been hearing of late about Obama's presumed troubles with white voters? According to a study by NYT columnist Charles Blow, the numbers don't bear it out. In fact, quite the converse: "The question is this: Have white Democrats soured on Obama? Apparently not. Although his unfavorable rating from the group is up five percentage points since last summer in polls conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, his favorable rating is up just as much. On the other hand, black Democrats’ opinion of Hillary Clinton has deteriorated substantially (her favorable rating among them is down 36 percentage points over the same period). While a favorable opinion doesn’t necessarily translate into a vote, this should still give the Clintons (and the superdelegates) pause. Electability cuts both ways." That it does. (See also Rural Votes.)

"Clinton is viewed as 'honest and trustworthy' by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy." Who's bitter now? A new poll finds that a solid majority of voters now believes Sen. Clinton is dishonest. "And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards." In other words, all the shenanigans of the past few months seem to have made her unelectable. Oops.

"'I read his national security and foreign policy speeches, and he comes across to me as pragmatic, visionary and tough. He impresses me as a person who wants to use all the tools of presidential power.'" The good news from Indiana: Sen. Obama picked up the endorsment of Lee Hamilton, formerly an Indiana rep and one of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission. (Obama has also continued to out-raise Sen Clinton, although the official numbers aren't yet known.) The bad news from Indiana: A new poll puts Clinton up there by nine, 52% to 43%. Wins in both Indiana and North Carolina on May 6 remain Obama's best chance to put this away before mid-June, so keep your fingers crossed.

Update: More on the fundraising numbers: Sen. Obama's campaign raised over $40 millions in March. "The campaign, which did not release an exact total, said more than 218,000 donors contributed to the campaign for the first time, and the average contribution was $96." Sen. Clinton's campaign, meanwhile, raised only half that.

"I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for." As the press fully and finally catches up with the fact that it's over -- it only took a month, but, hey, math is hard! -- Sen. Clinton digs in for the long haul (and liberally plays the gender card anew), announcing she's staying in until a convention floor fight in August...which, by the way, she'll assuredly lose.

Their hand thus forced, more supers emerge for Sen. Obama, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and, sometime soon, seven House members from North Carolina. And, with the Gallup tracking poll disparity as big as it's ever been (thanks in part to Snipergate, one presumes), I'm guessing Sen. Clinton's fundraising also might be taking a hit. As such, I'm still of the opinion that this will all end May 6 or soon thereafter. Or, at least, that's my hope. This is not 'Nam, Sen. Clinton, this is politics. There are rules.

By the way, if anyone is under the impression that I'm so in the bag for Sen. Obama that no discouraging word about him shall ever be posted here at GitM, I'll say this: This man should never bowl in public ever again. 37? That's really sad. (And how did Bob Casey become a Senator from Pennsylvania bowling only a 71? I'm no Walter Sobchak, but I can't remember bowling under an 80 since the age of ten.) Please, Senator, at least until the election, stick with making baskets.

Update: The Obama campaign pushes back on the WSJ's NC supers story. So apparently the joint endorsement of those seven Reps is not as imminent as reported.

Meanwhile, over in his corner of the campaign trail, Bill Clinton does what he can to poison the well further, saying -- now that chances of a re-do have come and gone, of course -- that the Obama campaign was "desperate to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan." Sigh...at this point, you have to wonder about the man's mental health. Well, since the former president insists on continually behaving like an asshat, with no regard whatsoever for the Democratic party or his historical legacy, it bears repeating once more:

With a six-week lull between now and the next contest, during which I hope to spend more time focusing on Harold Ickes than on Harold Ickes (sorry, dissertation humor), now's a good chance to buck Mark Penn and refocus on the macrotrends in the primary race right now:

For one, superdelegates are clearly trending towards Obama. "Among the 313 of 796 superdelegates who are members of Congress or governors, Clinton has commitments from 103 and Obama is backed by 96, according to lists supplied by the campaigns. Fifty-three of Obama's endorsements have come since he won the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, compared with 12 who have aligned with Clinton since then...[Since Ohio/Texas] the Illinois senator has won backing from nine superdelegates and Clinton one, according to the campaigns and interviews." (Speaking of which, he picked up another one today in Wisconsin's Melissa Schroeder. As you probably know, you can keep track of the supers over at DemConWatch.)

For another, whatever sound and fury Mark Penn tries to kick up about Pennsylvania and electability, it's a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing. In the most recent general election poll of the state, Obama still does better than Clinton against McCain there (although, thanks to all the recent negative press, McCain has moved ahead of both since this poll.) To his credit, Clinton supporter and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, off-message once again, today conceded Obama can take PA over McCain. (And in any case, as Michael Dukakis can tell you, past primary performance is often not a valid predictor of future outcomes.)

Otherwise, Obama is up in the daily trackers, although those tend to be volatile. Most importantly, obviously, Sen. Obama enjoys a sizable, if not insurmountable, lead in pledged delegates, votes, and states, so we're in very good shape, despite what ever sad butchering of reality emanates from Camp Clinton these days. So keep your chin up, y'all. If you got money, donate. If you got time, phonebank, write your supers, and/or get the message out. Let's press this thing home.

By the way, while looking for a good Penn-Microtrends link above, I found this NYT book review that begins with an anecdote about the TV show Numb3rs: "'There’s no way the bad guys can win,' my son assures me each time we watch the show together. 'They can’t do the math, Dad.'" Truer words have never been spoken.

"Simply put: If Obama (and supporters) set expectations for a knockout punch in Pennsylvania, they will be giving oxygen to a gasping Clinton machine on its last breaths. But if they keep Pennsylvania in perspective (no single state has determined the nomination, although New Hampshire, Nevada, and Ohio were all frantically seen and spun as such in their moments), they’ll emerge from the coming Pennsylvania Clinton victory – a kind of Last Hurrah for the politics of the last century – to cross into the 21st century beginning in early May." I added this link to the post below, but in case you missed it: Al Giordano crunches the numbers and argues that focusing on the Keystone State is not the way to go.

Along related lines, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe downplayed the importance of PA today: "Pennsylvania is only one of 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who are nominee will be." (And before anyone argues that this broader focus means Obama can't win Pennsylvania in the general, take a look at the polling there. As in many other states, Obama does significantly better against McCain in Pennsylvania than does Clinton.)

"All that matters tomorrow - and we might not know the answer until later in the week - is which campaign advanced in delegates and which campaign did not, and by how much. That Clinton spokesman Wolfson is saying here that the Texas Caucuses don’t matter is your clearest indication that he thinks they’re going to get shellacked at ‘em. He’s already spinning them into 'doesn’t-matterland' before they’re even held. That’s because it is precisely the caucus results that will advance Obama to a greater lead among pledged delegates nationwide than he has today." As the election season builds to a fever pitch in Ohio and Texas, Clinton sends out more attack ads, and the Clinton campaign begins trying to move the goalposts all over again to stay in the race after tomorrow night, Rural Votes' Al Giordano puts things in perspective.

In the meantime, the polls -- minus Zogby, who had Obama up 13 in California, and is thus someone I'm not putting much stock in at the moment -- seem to suggest Clinton is pulling away in Ohio (although not by enough to really make a dent in the delegate situation.) Texas polls are more favorable to Obama, although at least one has Clinton pulling ahead there too. But, to be clear, despite these leads (which also don't reflect the respective ground games), neither state shows anything like the margins Clinton needs to stay mathematically viable. Her campaign may continue wheezing and sputtering for several weeks yet, but -- if these numbers hold up, even with Clinton wins -- the race for all intent and purposes ends tomorrow...and not a moment too soon.

Electability update: In case you missed the recent state poll findings showing that at least nine swing states choose Obama over McCain and McCain over Clinton (totalling 100 electoral votes, if you throw in Michigan below), the polling firms have crunched some more numbers. Here are a few more where the party winner doesn't change, but the margin of victory/defeat is considerably better for Sen. Obama:

As posted here awhile ago, national polls have consistently shown Sen. Barack Obama performing better against John McCain than Sen. Hillary Clinton. Well, the polling firm Rasmussen has taken the question a step further, and begun asking swing states what they think of the three remaining candidates. Check these out.

It's just one poll, of an almost meaningless sample, now that we're past Super Tuesday. As we all know, polls have often not been kind to Obama supporters over the past month or so. And the last thing the Obama campaign needs right now is a false sense of security. But, since I've been willing these lines to cross every day over the past few weeks, screw it: I'm blogging it: Obama finally pulls ever-so-slightly ahead of Clinton in the Gallup daily tracker, 45%-44%. Onward and upward. Update: Sen. Obama takes his first statistical lead, 49%-42%. But will it hold?

While the focus is now rightly on Wisconsin and Hawaii, some thoughts on the March 4 contests (I didn't want to post these until the chickens had hatched and the Chesapeake came through):

The good news: Part primary, part caucus, Texas is basically a logistical nightmare. That's good news for the Obama campaign, since thus far it has shown considerable organizational savvy, particularly as compared to Team Clinton. (In fact, people who seem to know what they're talking about are predicting a delegate lead for Obama in the Lone Star State.)

The bad news: A SurveyUSA poll released today has Sen. Obama down 17 in Ohio. We have work to do.

"Generally speaking, the more education a Democrat has, the less likely he or she is to support Hillary Clinton, and the more likely to support Barack Obama." For all the talk of age, race, gender, and class divergences, some analysts at Gallup see a different dynamic at work in the Obama-Clinton race: education. "In short, education is a highly significant predictor of Democrats' vote choices...Gender, too, is a predictor, but is essentially overwhelmed by the impact of education."

In fact, a worthy regression analysis of poll data over at dKos pushes the point further: "It is educational attainment, rather than income level, that appears to be the driving force behind Obama's 'upscale' support. In fact, there is some weak evidence that Obama actually does a bit better in states with lower median household incomes, once we control for educational attainment (but, the effect was not quite statistically significant enough to make the final cut). Trust me -- I looked and looked for this one, analyzing variables such as household income, per capita income, home values, home ownership, unemployment rates, and union membership. The idea that Clinton does better with working class voters seems to be a myth; she does better with voters without college degrees, but not working class voters per se. To the extent any such effects exist, they appear to point in the opposite direction of the conventional wisdom." (Speaking of which, there are number of CW-defying findings in this regression analysis, and it's worth a look-see.) Update: Poblano has more.

Update 2: The WP parses more data and finds the same education cleave. "In each of the states where the Post subscribed to exit polls (and voters were asked about their level of education), Clinton did better among non-college than college-educated white voters. She also outpaced Obama among non-college whites in all 14 of these states, but beat him by more than a single percentage point among college graduates in only five."

"I must now stand aside, for our party and our country. If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win." With an eye to 2012, Governor Mitt Romney is out, meaning the GOP nominee is now, for all intent and purposes, John McCain.

So, now part of the question for our party becomes, which Democrat is more likely to beat McCain? I'm betting you can guess my answer. As Nicholas Kristof notes: "When pollsters offer voters hypothetical matchups, Mr. Obama does better than Mrs. Clinton against Mr. McCain. For example, a Cook Political Report poll of registered voters released this week found Mr. McCain beats Mrs. Clinton, 45 percent to 41 percent. But Mr. Obama beats Mr. McCain, 45 percent to 43 percent. The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll found similar results."

See also David Broder: "In either scenario, women break for the Democratic candidate. McCain leads Clinton by 13 points among men, but only runs even with Obama. Party lines are sharp, and the battle for independents would be close. Currently, independents give McCain a 12-point lead over Clinton but favor Obama by 6 points over the Republican."

Update: Another TIME poll agrees: "Obama captured 48% of the vote in the theoretical match-up against McCain's 41%, the TIME poll reported, while Clinton and McCain would deadlock at 46% of the vote each...The difference, says Mark Schulman, CEO of Abt SRBI, which conducted the poll for TIME, is that 'independents tilt toward McCain when he is matched up against Clinton. But they tilt toward Obama when he is matched up against the Illinois Senator." Independents, added Schulman, 'are a key battleground.'"

"There is one thing on this February night that we do not need the final results to know: our time has come. Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America.” Obama takes the Super Tuesday hit, and not only stands his ground but deals some damage of his own. The result? We need more rounds.

It's Wednesday morning, 3am, so I'll keep it short for now. But, all in all, I'm pretty pleased with how Super Tuesday shook out tonight. Sure, I'd have liked to see Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California in our column, and was rather dismayed when those pesky exit polls -- which had us winning in MA and NJ -- turned out to be bunk. But, around 10pm or so, the tide turned, with Obama racking up a slew of states and drawing particularly notable wins in Connecticut, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, and Missouri. California didn't fall, of course, but I'd written it off hours earlier thanks to that early exit poll data.

The thing is, Super Tuesday was meant to be Clinton's knockout punch -- as little as two weeks ago, she was up 20 in the national polls. And, now, Obama is not only still standing, it looks like he may be (ever-so-slightly, of course) in the lead. At the end of the night, we ended up with more states (13 to 8, with NM outstanding) and -- more importantly -- basically split the delegates (we should know the exact figures in the next few days, but the late tally is 841-837 for Obama, and, regardless, all we had to do is stay close.) And, while Senator Clinton's support has held steady, Senator Obama has jumped 15 points nationally in just the past two weeks. Now, the Obama campaign has money to burn and time to spend on a smaller -- and more favorable -- playing field. We have a ways to go yet, but now that we've made it over the Super Tuesday hurdle, time is on our side.

Update: It's still not absolutely official, but Sen. Obama seems to have won more delegates last night. And, as that was kinda the point of the evening, this is very good news.

As I said before, I don't want to put too much emphasis on polls anymore -- partly because of what happened in New Hampshire, partly because they're all over the place. Still, it looks like Senators Obama and Clinton may now be tied nationally. (Obama even has a statistical lead in one poll.) And, again, while polls differ -- some suggest an Obama lead, some don't -- all seem to indicate the Senator from Illinois is not only surging in California (Thank you, Maria Shriver!), but even threatening Clinton's tri-state home base in Connecticut and New Jersey(!)

A lot of what happens tomorrow will depend on the ground game, and the race will go on past Super Tuesday in almost any event. Still, if we all get out there and make our voices heard, it looks like there's an outside chance Obama could emerge the delegate leader tomorrow night. Sure, a sweep would be wondrous, but let's face it -- it's extremely unlikely. There's still a lot of game left to play, and -- after tomorrow, of course -- slow and steady wins the race. Let's at least get Senator Obama in a good position to move forward. As long as he can keep it close tomorrow, we're good to go.

"The first-term senator from Illinois has become one of the top two Democratic contenders by the strange tactic of perceiving the widespread disgust with political business as usual and by giving it voice...[B]e positive and vote for Sen. Barack Obama. At worst, he's guilty of campaigning on the promise of hope." Following in the footsteps of the Albuquerque Tribune and Santa Fe Mexican, New Mexico's largest paper, the Albuquerque Journal, endorses Obama for president. In not unrelated news, Clinton and Obama appear to be statistically tied in New Mexico. (Obama's up 6, but the margin of error is 7.)

Since the New Hampshire debacle, I've been trying to swear off on posting poll information around here. Still, if you'll forgive one lapse, the trend lines are looking surprisingly good for Senator Obama right now. Recent polls put Obama down 6 nationally (he was down 16 last week), down 6 in Massachusetts (a poll had him down 37 last week), down 12 in New York (a poll had him down 28 a few days ago), and down only 3 in California. Particularly given the proportional allotting of delegates, he's right in there.

Granted, the political landscape has proven nothing if not volatile of late, none of these polls factor in Edwards' exit, and there's a big debate tonight. But, like I said, we definitely seem to be moving in the right direction. Update: Make that down four nationally. Ok...no more polls.

Hrm.

Well, that was unexpected...I must say, if nothing else, "false hopes" had a really good night. But, hey, I guess I should've known better. As The Wire continually reminds us, despite all evidence to the contrary, maybe a new day is never dawning. (You know, I should really develop some new interests. Maybe it's time to become a gardening blog or something.)

Anyway, looking at the numbers, it looks like the difference voters in New Hampshire were women, who returned to Clinton's corner in droves (47% to 34%), and older voters, who've been there all along (65 and over: 48% to 32%, 50-64: 39% to 30%, 40-49: 44% to 33%.) Well, at least the kids are alright. (18-24: 60%-22%, for Obama.)

That all makes a certain amount of sense, I guess. Women more readily see Clinton as a candidate of change by her very nature, and, as I wrote at great length about over the weekend, many older voters seem to buy what she's selling regardless: another eight years of cautious, obfuscating, Grand Theft Auto-blaming and very "experienced" incrementalism.

To be honest, on its face, New Hampshire going Clinton doesn't bother me all that much. It's an older, whiter state, and for all its vaunted independence, it's usually just contrarian for its own sake, like bad Slate columns and Armond White. Once Clinton became the underdog after Iowa, it was a natural pick-up for her.

What does concern me, tho', is the bizarre polling problem we saw tonight. Some polls are occasionally wrong, sure, but every poll -- not one poll, every poll -- had Obama up between five and twelve points this morning. Ok, well, there were a lot of undecided voters, and clearly most of 'em broke for Clinton. So be it. More disconcerting, however, exit polls -- taken after the votes were made, mind you -- also had Obama up by five. So, how did we finish down two at the end of the night (with the polls still getting the GOP race exactly right?) How did every poll miss out on that seven point swing, a swing based on post-voting data? I suppose it's still an open question, but the elephant in the room is the Bradley Effect, and, I gotta say, I'm pretty disgusted right now with my fellow white people. Vote for who you want to vote for, but don't lie about it before or after the fact. If someone has a better explanation about the disparity in exit polls, I'm all ears. Update: Pollster has a good overview of the various prevailing current theories.

As for what explains Clinton's victory, I must confess: even given what I said above, I'm at a bit of a loss. This is mainly because I thought the polls reflected, you know, the actual standings. The only real possible game-changer lately, other than just a collective New Hampshire uprising against media expectations (which is stupid - it was their poll answers creating and driving those expectations), was the "Diner Sob", as Slate is billing it, the other day. Apparently, a sizable majority of New Hampshire's older/women voters looked in to Clinton's heart at that moment, and liked what they saw. Iron Eyes Cody for President! I dunno...admittedly, I'm feeling rather Menckenesque at the moment. Still, I'm reminded of Bernie Birnbaum, John Turturro's character in Miller's Crossing: "What were you gonna do if you caught me? I'd just squirt a few and then you'd let me go again."

Bleah. A no-good, lousy night, to be sure. Unless you're John McCain -- for him, the news is great on both sides of the ledger. If the current paradigm wins, so do Republicans. Now, I have no real inclination to vote Republican, but the fact remains: When it comes to campaign finance reform --the change issue -- McCain has far, far better creds than Clinton.

Still, it's not over yet, and adversity builds character, right? We've split the first two games, and now attention moves to Nevada and my home state of South Carolina. Neither are necessarily unfavorable terrain for Obama, so if he can weather the post-New Hampshire bounce over the next week, we're still good to go. But it's definitely harder now, no doubt. Florence, come to our aid! (For old times' sake, if nothing else.)

By the way, New Hampshire? Eff you, you tired, gaseous windbag of an "independent" state. Robert Frost, Alan Shepard, and Christa McAuliffe notwithstanding, you haven't contributed anything to the polity since Daniel Webster. From now on, I'm hiking in Vermont.

Rasmussen has the first post-Iowa NH poll out for consumption, and Barack Obama has leapt up to ten over Hillary Clinton in the Granite State. "Rasmussen Reports, in a telephone survey of 510 likely Democratic voters on Friday, found 37 percent backing Barack Obama, 27 percent for Clinton, 19 percent for John Edwards and 8 percent for Bill Richardson...The poll's admitted margin of error is 4.5 percent." (Give me a second while I stifle a mighty Yawp! to the heavens.) Keep in mind, though, that late rush polls like this are more likely to have problems (particularly when done on a Friday), And, of course, there's a debate tonight on ABC: Republicans at 7pm, Democrats at 8:45. Update: Don't break out the champagne just yet. A new CNN/WMUR poll has Clinton and Obama tied at 33%. Hmm. I preferred the first one. Update 2: Two more post-Iowa polls: One Concord Monitor, has Obama up 1, 34% to 33%. The other, American Research Group, has Obama up 12, 38% to 26%.

Update 3: What a difference a day makes. As of Sunday night, new polls have Obama up 10 (CNN-WMUR), up 12 (Rasmussen), and up 13 (USAT-Gallup). Looking pretty solid...let's drive this thing home.

With Iowa coming up tomorrow, one last look at the Democratic polls: Reuters/MSNBC/Zogby has Obama and Clinton tied at 28%, with Edwards at 26%. CNN/Opinion Research puts Clinton in the lead at 33% to Obama's 31% and Edwards' 22%. And the Des Moines Register/Selzer's last poll -- considered the most trusted in the industry, partly due to its getting the 2004 results right -- has Obama up big at 32% to Clinton's 25% and Edwards' 24%. (This result presumes a large independent turnout for Obama, however, which is by no means a given.) In any case, the one good bet is it's going to be a barnburner tomorrow evening. Sometime before then, most likely by tomorrow afternoon, I plan to put up a longer endorsement-style post, since the nomination could well be a fait accompli by the NY primary on Feb. 5. No real surprise who I'm getting behind, but at least y'all will be able to poke holes in my reasoning.

"'I’ve never seen anything like it,' Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race, said in an interview in his office on Friday. 'The get-out-the-vote efforts are going to be the best ever.'" As Iowa looms next Thursday and the polls still suggest a virtual dead heat, the Dem candidates ready the ground troops. (Zogby has Clinton at 31% to Obama's 27% and Edwards' 24%. McClatchy puts Edwards in front with 24%, followed by Clinton at 23% and Obama at 22%.) "The developments reflect the tightness of the race...and the dynamics of an unusual contest where so few people vote: about 125,000 in the Democratic caucus of 2004. Aides to the candidates said this contest could be determined by a swing of as few as 1,000 voters."

Another slew of Iowa/NH polls, most of which suggest that, as per the norm, turnout will be the key: ABC News/Wash Post has Obama up by four in the Hawkeye State: Obama 33%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 20%. But a new InsiderAdvantage poll says Iowa is Edwards' to win, with the NC Senator pulling 30% to Clinton and Obama's 26% and 24% respectively. (This latter poll -- by a Republican firm -- has been called into question as an outlier. And speaking of elephants, the elephant in the room at the moment, of course, is the Enquirer's sordid and dubious "grandson of a millworker" story, which Drudge frontlined last night. But thus far it's not getting the traction in the mainstream press one's come to expect from the bimbo eruptions of the Bill Clinton era. Let's hope it stays that way.) Update: Iowa Poll #3: Clinton 30%, Obama 28%, Edwards 26%. "Clinton is the favorite of women, older voters, liberals and those making less than $50,000 a year. Obama has an edge among moderates and younger voters; Edwards does best in union households and among married voters." Two weeks to go...

On the national front, a FOX/Wash Times/Rasmussen poll (and consider the source) finds Hillary Clinton leads the nation in "anti"-votes, with 40 percent of Americans saying they'd vote for her opponent in the general election just to keep her out of office. (Second was Giuliani, with 17%. Obama had 11%, Edwards 2%.) Still, Clinton's prospects look brighter in the Granite State, where a new poll puts her back up 12 over Obama, 38% to 26%. (Edwards comes in third at 14%) "Clinton gained some 7 percentage points over last week's poll, with Obama losing 4 percentage points. 'Nearly all of Clinton's gains come among older voters.'" An 11-point bounce for Clinton in a slow news week? Looks like Shaheen-gate paid dividends for her candidacy after all (although some say it's the weather.) Still, despite Clinton's Boomer boom, NH remains up in the air: "A whopping 65 percent of poll respondents who identify themselves as likely Democratic voters, however, said they have not made a definite decision on their vote."

"'She's in big trouble and she knows it,' a top Democratic operative and Hillary Clinton booster told the newspaper." As the GOP debate again and the Dems prep for their last face-off before the January 3rd Iowa caucus, a new poll finds Obama is now statistically tied with Clinton in New Hampshire. "Clinton is now at 31 percent to Obama's 30 percent. New Hampshire's primary is set for January 8. Clinton's 5-percentage point drop appears to have been largely due to the loss of support among women." Nationally, however, the story is quite different, with Clinton still enjoying a huge lead over Obama, 53-23%. But, after an Iowa/NH bounce, who knows?

Update: As a reflection of how tight things have gotten in the Granite State, NH Clinton campaign co-director Billy Shaheen dabbles in drug hysteria in an attempt to tarnish Obama's potential electability. It should be remembered that Shaheen, husband of former NH Governor Jeanne Shaheen, is the same "statesman" who slung (real) mud at Bob Kerrey and called him a "cripple" during the 2000 primaries, back when he ran Gore's NH operation (the same campaign that eventually connived a traffic jam on I-93 to prevent Bradley voters from getting to the polls.) The fact that this inveterate asshole is not only working for but running the Clinton camp in NH only further diminishes her campaign in my eyes.

Update 2: "I deeply regret the comments I made today and they were not authorized by the campaign in any way." Shaheen retracts his statement, and the Clinton campaign says he was operating solo. But the seed's out there now, right? Pathetic. Whether this gutterball ploy was intended or not, I hope it backfires massively. Update 3: Sheehan resigns. Good riddance.

"In the past I've been disappointed by politicians. In the past I've been discouraged by politicians. For the first time I'm stepping out of my pew because I've been inspired. I've been inspired to believe that a new vision is possible for this country." Meanwhile, on the Democratic side...As Oprah hits the hustings of Williams-Brice stadium for Obama, a new poll puts the Senator from Illinois now competitive with Clinton across several key states: Obama's down 2 in Iowa and only down 3 in New Hampshire and South Carolina. "John Edwards is a major factor in Iowa and South Carolina but trails badly in New Hampshire...Hillary Clinton's support is what you'd expect: women, folks over 50 and union members. Obama does very well among Democrats under 50. In fact, the biggest demographic gap is generational, not gender."

"When I decided to run for president, I accepted that my opponents would dig through my record looking for something to attack. I didn't realize they'd go all the way back to kindergarten." In keeping with their previously announced New Negativity, the Clinton campaign actually digs up dirt on Obama's kindergarten ambitions. (Two days after the press release in question, now that it's not playing so hot in the media, pollster Mark Penn claims it was a joke.) Desperate much? Well, before anybody throws a tantrum, two new polls put Clinton still in the lead in Iowa, by 5% and 7% respectively. Maybe that'll help put an end to this type of sorry stunt by Team Hillary in the future. (By the way, I have no plans to ever run for anything, but just in case it comes up someday (and a la Edwards): When I was in kindergarten I wanted to be Han Solo.)

Another new poll, by way of the Des Moines Register, puts Obama slightly in the Iowa lead at 28%, to Clinton's 25% and Edwards' 23%. (All candidates are within the margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.) Also, it seems Obama may well have cut deeply into Clinton's impressive support among Iowa women: "In the new poll, Obama leads with support from 31 percent of women likely attend the caucuses, compared to 26 percent for Clinton. In October, Clinton was the preferred candidate of 34 percent of women caucusgoers, compared to 21 percent for Obama" Still, Clinton maintains her generational ace in the hole: "Clinton is the top choice among caucusgoers 55 years old and older. The largest share of Democratic caucusgoers -- exactly half -- are in this age group." Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Mike Huckabee leads Mitt Romney 29%-24%, with no one else even close. "That's a gain of 17 percentage points since the last Iowa Poll was taken in early October, when Huckabee trailed both Romney and Fred Thompson." We have a ways to go yet, but it's looking like we've got ourselves a barnburner on both sides of the aisle, and I'm obviously pleased as punch that Obama is not only in the running but leading the pack. Onward and upward.

Update: "Now the fun part starts"? Sensing the obvious danger to her candidacy in Obama's Iowa lead, Hillary Clinton announces she's going negative, and illustrates thus by insinuating Obama has character issues. “'I want a long term relationship,' she said. 'I don’t want to just have a one night stand with all of you.'"