Poll: New Hampshire Dem Race A Dead Heat, Huckabee Not Surging Here With GOP

Comments (42)

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 8:41 AM:

It is interesting that Clinton's drop in support came mostly among women. I wonder if women in particular are reacting poorly to Clinton's decision to go aggressively negative on Obama.

demwinger wrote on December 12, 2007 8:56 AM:

no matter who wins the primary we MUST SUPPORT THEM in the general!!

Guiliani or McCain would be tough matchups.. but according to the polls Huckabee and Romney would be cake walks.

so we must unite behind whomever Iowa and NH picks

truthmissile wrote on December 12, 2007 9:04 AM:

Thank God. Clinton can't win the White House, Obama can.

Many women, thanks to Oprah, are realizing this.

Elect Clinton, we change parties... but stay in Iraq.

Elect Obama... we have a shot at changing America, and maybe getting out of Iraq.

PEACE :-)

Obama '08

Nickal1 wrote on December 12, 2007 9:13 AM:

Remember 2003? The eventual Democratic Party standard bearer was polling under 10% in Iowa. Why does TPM spend so much time covering this polling crap and so little time comparing the policy positions of the candidates and their potential effect on the American people?
TOM is fast becoming the MSM. Too bad. There was great potential for this site to be different.

wigwam wrote on December 12, 2007 9:17 AM:

Demwinger, it just so happens that the two Republicans that you mention the polls show the Dems trouncing are both relative unknowns on the national stage while the two Republicans that are competitive are known nationally. This is all to say, I wouldn't exactly rely on general election polls at this stage. Moreover, Huckabee in particular is an extremely gifted politician and shouldn't be taken lightly.

bridoc wrote on December 12, 2007 9:24 AM:

I agree we have to stand behind whoever wins, because no matter how moderate Clinton is, if she wins she will still definitively be the lesser of two evils. I guess she ought to thank the Republicans they are so far to the Right, else so many people wouldn't be under the delusion that she is liberal.

For now, I'm still hoping for Obama to pull out a win, because he is the only way we are going to move forward in a meaningful way.

And yeah, there really should be more analysis of their policies, rather than the constant poll rat race. I must admit though, as worthless as polls are, I'm slightly addicted. I guess if it comes down to polls or meth, we are on the right side...so...yeah...don't do meth people.

Anne wrote on December 12, 2007 9:27 AM:

If this is the same CNN poll that had Edwards beating likely GOP opponents ahead of what Clinton and Obama were polling in the same matchups, it would be nice to see that getting some play. But no, because even CNN, whose own polling shows some very interesting numbers on Edwards in the matchups – which points to him being more electable than the anointed ones - has reduced the Democratic field to two. And those two may not be the most electable Democrats.

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 12, 2007 9:30 AM:

This will be a great contest. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have great staffs and supporters who will work their fingers to the bone. What I am happy about is that this will be a way for all the candidates to become battle tested for the Big Show in November. Also, this is arguably one of the most important elections in American history (Did anyone read the news this morning?). We deserve a thorough debate about what kind of leadership and vision we need over the next decade. It would be terrible for anyone to waltz into the nomination.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 9:31 AM:

ERIC you write:

"Hillary has 31% support to Obama's 30%, a statistically insignificant lead"

Is this your way of saying that Hillary's numbers are within the margin of error? If so, that does not mean the same as statistically insignificant. I beleive you are using the terms 'statistically insignificant' and 'within the MOE" interchangeable, when they are not the same at all.

Statistically insignificant implies that if the same poll was conducted on different voters, with the same parameters, it would NOT yield identical results. In other words their is NO certainty that these results are statistically accurate.

Whereas, margin of errors, implies a level of precision and accuracy based on the statistical results falling within the margin of eror.

Which in turn means that the results are statistical significant within the margin of error.

And your calling the results statistically insignificant are misleading when it comes to the data set itself.

If you want to assert that HRClinton has a lead it is much more accurate to say that her lead is within the margin of error rather than it is a statistically insignificant lead.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 9:33 AM:

Always tip,

what news in particular are you inquiring about i.e. what paper

Merle wrote on December 12, 2007 9:39 AM:

Nickall - I just looked at TPM Election Central's front page and only 4 of 16 stories were about polls. They're not ignoring the substantive issues. In fact the other TPM sites do a better job than any "MSM" outlet I have seen of covering things like corruption, Iran and illegal wiretapping. Do you want them to completely ignore the polls? Even on a section of the site dedicated to tracking the election?

framecop wrote on December 12, 2007 9:44 AM:

Voters dated Hillary, they're sleeping around with Barack, but in the end they will marry Edwards.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 9:44 AM:

Here's my favorite nugget from the weekend:

"...In fact, the former president is such a campaign asset that according to the poll, roughly as many Democrats are supporting the New York senator because of her husband as are supporting her because of her experience. Twenty-six percent of Hillary Clinton's supporters name Bill Clinton as the top reason they are backing her, while 23 percent say her own experience is the biggest factor."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
From the NYT/CBS poll.

This is not so much a knock on Hillary as our electorate. Nice to see the American people voting for someone with the "experience" of being first lady and the "courage and conviction" to bag a president.

Helter wrote on December 12, 2007 9:47 AM:

Clinton has put herself out there as the democratic establishment candidate, while Obama has grabbed the "change" motif. Polls show either one of them is electable, so Hillary's plan to focus on electability has got to go. The idea of change is popular right now. If she's going to win, Hillary needs to explain why the democratic establishment should remain in place, even as the democratic leadership of Congress seems to get whooped by the republicans even today. She hasn't been doing that. She keeps repeating the same lines about being experienced and electable.

Gervaise wrote on December 12, 2007 9:49 AM:

So TPM is trumpeting that Obama has caught Clinton in N.H. in the CNN poll but in almost the same breath telling us that they are now posting Pollster graphs one of which shows Clinton at 34.9 and Obama at 24.3 in N.H. -- do any of these numbers have any meaning?

bridoc wrote on December 12, 2007 9:57 AM:

What kind of bothers me though, is that a large chunk of Hillary's support comes from the fact that she is married to Bill Clinton (26% according to a recent poll), and not because she is the better candidate. The same poll shows that 44% of Democratic primary voters are more likely to vote for her because of Bill. Is this really how we are choosing our leaders nowadays? Doesn't that strike anyone as a little pathetic? Nearly half of Democratic primary voters are willingly swayed by who the candidate is married to...and that is a sad state of affairs (no pun intended).

It just bothers me every time I look at a poll where her and Obama are near tied, and I can't help but think that without her ex-President husband she wouldn't even be close to where Obama is right now (to say nothing of that fact she probably wouldn't even be a Senator in the first place).

I guess if nothing else it shows how amazing the grassroots support behind Obama is, that he can compete with a heavyweight like Hillary, without the aid of a famous ex-President spouse padding his numbers. He really has worked his ass off for this, and I think that is the only indication in this race, on either side, that the American dream is still possible.

DonnaG wrote on December 12, 2007 10:16 AM:

There is just an off-key note that keeps hitting the senses when watching the Clinton campaign, and maybe repetition of this jarring of senses is settling in.
We watch Hillary presented as so tough and tempered by survival in the political world..... yet, at the least bit of trouble, out comes Bill to build up her crowd sizes, to run interference for her, to claim victimhood for her, to directly substitute for her in tough voter milieus.....in short, the tough one seems to require constant shoring up.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 10:21 AM:

savvy,

Indeed, there is a lot of sloppy talk about polls.

Incidentally, Kevin Drum once posted a handy reference chart where you can look at the lead and the MOE and determine the approximate probability the person is really ahead. According to that chart, with a 1% lead and 5% MOE (as in this poll), the probability that Clinton is actually ahead is actually something like 58%.

Note, by the way, that as long as you are at least tied, that percentage would not go below 50%. So, what this chart shows is that having a 1 point lead in a poll with a 5% MOE only increases your probability of actually leading from 50% to 58% (versus being tied).

Personally, I think it is fair to say that additional 8% chance of being ahead is not particularly significant, so a 1 point lead in a 5% MOE poll is not particularly significant. But I also think it would be a good idea just to make all this more explicit, rather than using potentially misleading language.

AlwaysTipTheWaitress wrote on December 12, 2007 10:25 AM:

Dear Savvy,

1. Unprecedented ice melt in the North Sea.

2. Multipe Assassinations and boimbings in the Middle East.

3. Continued meltdown in the Housing market

And that's on a "slow" day.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 10:27 AM:

bridoc,

I agree with you. Only I think it is absurd as opposed to pathetic, especially when you consider that half of her 'claimed' experience is the 8 years she spent in the WH!...which means that 3/4's of her support is nothing but the Bill factor.

I wish some of these 527's would come out and knock out the Bill factor for the good of the country.
Obama can't do it as it would cause even greater divisiveness within the party and he does not want that. He knows that he needs the party to have unity even if their are separate factions within that unity.

Somebody needs to start running attack ads against Bill Clinton and his record. Whereas, there are those who say he is not the candidate, we all know from the polls that he IS the reason folks even consider HRClinton electable. It is time to push the Clintons off the stage, they have had their turn. We need change we can beleive in.

As far as the grassroots thing goes, what Obama has done is absolutely phenomenal when you consider he has only been on the national scene 3 years. He was catapaulted into America's conscious during the 2003 DNC and he was the most sought after speaker for all Dems running in 2004. He was sought after in KA, MO, KY, GA, etc. So when folks say he can't win in red states they have not been paying attention. For Obama to even be a contender up against the established power of the Clintons is staggering, when you think about how he has outraised them. History will show that this was a defining moment in american politics and without Obama we might have been stuck repeating the same ol mistakes.

GERVAISE,
those poll graphs show TRENDS...they are a compilation of several polls over time as opposed to looking at any singular poll. The graphs are more indicative of what has been happening over time vs. in the moment of when any one poll was taken. That Obama's trend line is moving up overtime is a good thing.

gcs wrote on December 12, 2007 10:30 AM:

Pity the pundits my friends. Imagine how they must feel knowing they're not going to get the Clinton / Giuliani campaign they've been shoving down our throats for a year. And now they're oh so confused - how can this be they ask themselves. People are choosing their own candidates?! But we're so smart, and pretty...

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 10:35 AM:

Thanks for that info DTM.

It is somewhat annoying and frustrating at times the way verbage and language are used by the writers here at TPM-EC. I find it to be misleading and find myself realizing half way through reading what is written,that even though they wrote one thing the substance and facts convey an entirely different thing. UGH!!

Always tip, thanks for the clarification.

I beleived your point to be political given the subject of the sentence preceeding your parentheses was about the election coming up.

Keith wrote on December 12, 2007 10:49 AM:

To the poster who referenced 2003-4 election where Kerry and Edwards staged a surprise, John Zogby had a great post on Huffington Post that has gotten zero mention outside of that site.

One of the things that is seldom talked about during the 2004 election was that we caught Sadaam Hussein in December 2003. According to Zogby's data, prior to that, the Iowa (D) voters believed two things (1) that Bush couldn't be defeated and (2) in light of that fact, they wanted a candidate who would put pressure on Bush regarding Iraq. When Sadaam was caught, essentially they (for whatever reason) came to believe that Bush was beatable and that Iraq wasn't the largest issue. Couple that with the murder-suicide pack between Dean and Gephardt and I think it's pretty clear why Dean didn't win the nomination.

The question, then, is what events, if any, will change the Iowa (D) voters demand for change. I'm not sure there is anything at this point, but then I don't have a crystal ball.

As for this poll . . . wow. Obama picked up 11 points in 3 weeks. Wow. So far he's handled/weathered Clinton's counter-attacks and attempts to change the narrative. I hope that he spends the next two days on debate prep. She's rolling out a new attack (it's her campaign's MO)....

In your heart, you know she is THE one! wrote on December 12, 2007 10:51 AM:

Is America ready for a MUSLIM president?

dennisS wrote on December 12, 2007 10:51 AM:

I appreciate enthusiasm for Obama. He's my favorite too, but there are at least four other Dems in this race I find almost as attractive and they'll all make strong candidates; best field in my 50 years, imho.

Don't knock Hillary's experience. She's been involved since *before* McGovern. She's been a good senator and lawyer (primary breadwinner by-the-way) and beat Guliani during his peak popularity. Also, knocking her experience in one paragraph, then marvelling over Obama's meteoric rise in the next is a bit... um... conflicted. Not, that I agree he's new to the scene-- lawyer, professor on constitutional law, Chicago activist.

My humble request is we not get too married to our favorites. We have great candidates and they're running excellent campaigns. I agree with AlwaysTip, this process is going to produce a winner.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 10:51 AM:

Gervaise,

The thing about pollster's charts is that they use a relatively conservative regression analysis, the result of which is that they show a minimum of statistical noise but are also relatively slow to reflect legitimate trends (an unavoidable tradeoff).

Which doesn't mean those charts are not very useful. But at this relatively late stage in a primary contest, when the polls often get very volatile, I think one has to expect that pollster's charts will sometimes be a little late to catch some significant developments. As I think of them, they are sort of the most conservative take on the possible dynamics at this point, but in that sense a useful counterbalance to the people who live and die with each new poll (which, unfortunately, includes most of the national press).

LJ wrote on December 12, 2007 10:53 AM:

dennisS wrote:

...beat Guliani during his peak popularity.

Unless I'm mistaken, Guiliani dropped out due to cancer.

bridoc wrote on December 12, 2007 10:56 AM:

savvy,

Oh I have no doubt that the anti-Bill attacks will come, only not until after she is nominated (assuming that happens, which again, I hope we can avoid that). The Right is just waiting in anticipation for Hillary to get the nod so they can ramp up their muck machine for a year of mud slinging and character assassination. If Hillary gets the nod I'm going to check out for the rest of the year because I don't even want to witness what politics will be like. I'll vote for her, if only because she is not Mitt or Giuliani or Huckabee, or whoever else, but that will be the only reason. One day I'd really like to be able to vote because I LOVE and candidate, and not just because they are not someone I hate. Just once, it would be nice, to actually want a candidate, for once.

Which of course is why Obama is my president, and hopefully I'll get the chance to vote for him in the general election.

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 10:57 AM:

Keith,

We'll only know in retrospect, but I'd nominate the Iran NIE and CIA torture tape stories as potentially having that sort of external-event impact on the Democratic primary campaign. I think both of those stories have the potential to make Democratic voters less worried about beating the Republicans and also less inclined to support the Democratic establishment. But again, we shall see.

TheraP wrote on December 12, 2007 11:02 AM:

savvy... I disagree with your distinction of "statistically insignificant" and "margin of error."

Indeed, a poll is only a sample. Thus, both phrases really mean that if you compare the data from your sample to the larger population, how correct is the info you found out? So, one term is used by statisticians (the "margin of error, which tells you exactly how close you are to the mark or not) and the other is a descriptor for the general reader.... which may not include the specific info about the margin of error... but in fact tells the reader something about what "margin of error" means. So it tells the reader, ok, our sample showed "this" - but if we do it again and again (= if we compare it to the larger population we're trying to sample from) here's what we'd expect as variation from our sample.

DRinOH wrote on December 12, 2007 11:02 AM:

DennisS,

As LJ points out, when did Hillary beat Guiliani?

dajafi wrote on December 12, 2007 11:06 AM:

One thing I'm pretty sure about is that there is no "Howard Dean 2004" in this year's Democratic race.

Hillary had the big leads nationally, but never had the buzz that powered Dean through 2003. (At the same time, her support was obviously stronger than that of Lieberman, the "name recognition front-runner" of that year.) Obama has some of that buzz, but I don't think his support has the cult-of-personality feel that made some of us antsy about Dean. His backers--and I'm one of them--see his flaws and anticipate some bumps; we just like the guy's judgment and see the potential for greatness in him. Lincoln in 1860 wasn't the Lincoln of history; ditto the FDR of 1932.

And I still wouldn't be at all sorry to see Edwards seize the victory in Iowa and go on to the nomination from there--though I can't shake the feeling that even if he does win the caucuses, he doesn't have the money and organization in the subsequent contests to hold off the two front-runners.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 11:07 AM:

bridoc

I want those Bill attacks to commence NOW!

I couldn't agree with you more on checking out in 08 if she gets the nomination. I am so fed up with all that fighting, bickering and divisiveness I don't know what to do. Besides, my biggest problem is that I have fought those battles once and been the Clintons staunchest supporter. I do not want to go back through that again. I just don't.

I also feel the exact same way about wanting to vote FOR a candidate instead of just voting the lesser of 2 evils.

I just HAVE to beleive ...Hope HAS to be on the way.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 12, 2007 11:10 AM:

truthmissile,

Kool-aid much? Obama has been running to the right of Clinton for six weeks now . . . At his present rate, he will make Tancredo look like a 'lib-ba-rool' by New Years' Day.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 11:10 AM:

TheraP,
I think you stated differently what I said.

Gervaise wrote on December 12, 2007 11:13 AM:

Thanks DTM and savvy for your remarks regarding interpreting polls. It would be useful for those of us who have trouble figuring out all this data if TPM would include a little more analysis so that we can gauge the importance of the poll.

dennisS wrote on December 12, 2007 11:18 AM:

LJ,

Good point. I forgot that detail. Very clever of him to get out of the way of her steamroller. ;^) Also, another mistake, it was in 2000 before 9/11 so not actually peak popularity. And, he probably dumped the race not so much because of her campaign or the cancer, but because his affair was front and center right then, plus disinterest in working that hard. Sure glad that particular McGovern supporter switched sides. Giuliani is as bad as they come.

TheraP wrote on December 12, 2007 11:18 AM:

Ok... glad we're on the same page, savvy.

Gervaise.... the problem with polls is that it is ONLY A SAMPLE. Thus, you are always stuck with the fact that it gives something like a very fuzzy picture. Think of it like a fuzzy picture. And you can't be sure exactly where things would fall if every person had been surveyed. And even the people polled might have changed their minds by tomorrow or the day after... which is why they want to know "strong" supporters etc.

So, you're always stuck with how good a sample the poll really was and there's that huge margin of error... so people could be up or down by 4 points sometimes.

You want more info. But it's hard to give you that!

I hate to say it... but you may need to take a basic statistics course...and then you'll understand the bit about the "fuzzy photo."

DTM wrote on December 12, 2007 11:22 AM:

TheraP,

I'm of mixed minds about the MOE concept. On the one hand, it is challenging enough just to get people not to think of poll numbers as absolutes, and popularizing the MOE concept has really helped people realize there is always some uncertainty associated with polls. On the other hand, the MOE concept encourages the incorrect notion that there is some hard dividing line between numbers which are meaningfully different and numbers which are not, when in truth the differences just gradually get increasingly significant.

Still, maybe it is asking too much that the press really get into the mathematical details when reporting on polls. But I think the best compromise is then to just report the numbers and the MOE without adding commentary--or if you add commentary, to understand the math well enough to make sure your commentary is accurate.

savvy wrote on December 12, 2007 11:29 AM:

DTM
I agree with you. It's the KISS theory.

TheraP wrote on December 12, 2007 11:51 AM:

Yes, I agree DTM. They should always report the margin of error (and not use your acronym... which I know you used for convenience).

Yes. Always. Otherwise who knows what it means? And they can say. The margin of error is..... And follow that by "this means the numbers at this point have a statistically meaningless difference.

Polls a are a huge problem. Depending on the questions, that can shape the answers. Then you have the voters who vary day by day. The sample and how it's done. The fact that different polls end up with different numbers is also confusing to people.

The horse race! What a mess!

The poll stuff is easier to debate than the candidates!

Pete wrote on December 12, 2007 4:51 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)