Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll

[question everything]

Source: Reuters

Thu Mar 20, 2008 10:49am EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters, according to a new Gallup poll.

The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.

The poll was a snapshot of current popular feeling, but Clinton trails Obama in the state-by-state contest which began in January to select a nominee to face presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the November election to succeed President George W. Bush.

Gallup said the poll lead was the first statistically significant one for Clinton since a tracking poll conducted February 7-9, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. The two candidates had largely been locked in a statistical tie since then, with Obama last holding a lead over Clinton in a March 11-13 poll.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN2037834020080320

[Bonobo]

1. 1,200 people? To represent the entire nation? How can that be statistically meaningful?

[question everything]

3. That's the way polls are conducted

If you don't like this one you should not have accepted earlier ones, when Obama led.

Either way, we are still four months away from the convention. Things will change several times.

[Bonobo]

10. I have never put much stock in polls.

[Rydz777]

22. Well said. This reminds me of an exchange at a Congressional

hearing some years ago:
Senator: "I don't believe you can draw general conclusions from samples."
Pollster: "You may be right, Senator. May I suggest that the next time your doctor wants a blood sample you should insist that he take all your blood."

[nodehopper]

34. HA. that is brilliant.

[goodgd_yall]

36. Heh, heh

Good one.

[heliarc]

43. People aren't a liquid that circulates the body in all of one to 2 minutes.

Its a retarded comparison.

[fascisthunter]

46. now that was a good one (nt)

[customerserviceguy]

49. My thoughts exactly

It's not like you can take blood from a part of the body that has more cholesterol...

[AX10]

52. HAHA!

:kick:

[Captain Hilts]

5. It's actually a scientific process. Gallup, however, doesn't balance their data in a tidy manner...

so they fluctuate more than other surveys.

[robcon]

6. Take a course in statistics, and you'll find out.

Or, on the other hand, flail about something you wish weren't true. You apparently chose the latter course of action.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbonds]

18. Statistics will tell you that the sample size is too small to be meaningful.

You need 5000 to be at the edge of meaningful. But so many people are refusing the polling calls now that they are having to half and half again their sample size just to report.

[Clear Blue Sky]

12. Poll=educated guess

[roguevalley]

29. don't worry. Gallup is not a very good poll. A Christian nutcase runs

it and they have always been an outlier in previous elections.

[fascisthunter]

47. Who is This "Christian Nutcase"

I'd like to research this person.... it would do good.

[nodehopper]

33. would you have that same reaction if Obama was leading?

if not then you are being intellectually dishonest.

[Ron Green]

2. Doesn't surprise me.

I think the "powers that be" are so scared of Obama that they'd engineer this.

[question everything]

4. I always thought that the "powers that be" who have loathed the Clintons so much

yet were faced with Bill's popularity, were the ones who were actively seeking someone to run against her and grabbed Obama.

[Ron Green]

8. I don't think the "powers that be" really loathe the Clintons.

I think they PRETEND to loathe the Clintons, but they know the Clintons are corporate players like themselves. Obama, however, could be the real threat: a President with the hearts and minds of the citizens supporting him.

[Donnachaidh]

21. oh puhleeze!

:rofl: Obama is JUST as much a corporate player as Hillary. Probably MORE. *hearts and minds* :rofl: :rofl:

[Ron Green]

37. Obama is probably more of a corporate player than Hillary?

That seems unlikely to me, although you may have more information than I.

[lark]

50. When Hillary wanted to stop foreclosures

Obama said it would be nice but couldn't be done because it wasn't possible. Who's for common folks and who's for corporations in this instance? Obama is all show, no go, says he's beyond racism, yet has attended a racist church for 20 years. Tell me another one.

[Megahurtz]

39. Right.

[JoFerret]

59. He's very cute

but not my first pic for president. Although he will have my 100% support should he win the nomination.

[robcon]

9. You always thought that "powers that be" chose Obama?

Are you saying that Obama hasn't achieved anything by his speeches, positions and personality? It's some unnamed "powers that be"??????

Pathetic excuse for not doing any thinking.

[question everything]

15. He did come from nowhere

He was specifically "advised" by Kennedy and Daschle to start running before he built a record of speeches and votes in the Senate that were going to haunt him - as we've seen with Kerry.

Can you imagine of any other candidate - a woman, for example - who would decide to run for President after only two years in the Senate? And, no, state office do not really count. When was the last time a state senator or a state house member even tried to run in national elections?

Seems like you are the one who needs some thinking of why backing a complete unknown, with no specific suggestions and ideas, but who sounds great, is such a wise idea, based on facts and information, instead of charisma and eloquence.

[robcon]

20. I agree with you on Obama - his lack of experience is a problem.

That's why I prefer Clinton.

But the notion of him as a "powers that be" choice, rather the choice by Obama to run, is a nasty fantasy of yours, IMO. His keynote speech in the 2004 convention, and his oratory since then, has driven his candidacy and his popularity. His consultation with other party leaders (if that is what happened) is just that - a consultation. Making a big thing of that is a stretch, or a spin.

[hifalutin]

40. Hey,

he does give a good speech!

[heliarc]

45. Bill Clinton's claim that he had more experience than Obama in 88 is silly.

He was a Governor, Obama is a Senator. Whatever. They were both working a the top echelons of government and for very little time. "Can we imagine any other candidate- a woman for example..." Here we go again pitting women against men, and trying to develop some racial/or gender metric to gauge experience. There is some desperate mean-spirited sentiment on Hillary's side that I simply don't understand. It's a real shame. I find Obama and Hillary to be just about as qualified as each other. Frankly, when I listen to Hillary, she seems to have a very bitter and trite motivation for the things she says. Obama seems much more calm, reasoned and eloquent... I will vote for the democrat who wins the candidacy, but I have been very disappointed in the tactics I see from Hillary's camp. The latter definitely had an effect on how I voted.

[lark]

51. Come on

For once would an Obama supporter show an ounce of credibility. Clinton RAN a state government, was the chief executive of a state for EIGHT years. Governors have won the presidency many times. Obama was a member of the Illinois state senate for 4, and a senator for 4 although that would be very difficult to tell based on the number of votes he's missed. One was head of government, one merely a member - that seems to be a pretty telling difference to me. Clinton brought people together, Obama's dividing them. Talk about tactics, how can you get much lower than disenfranchising voters? And people call him a liberal???

[billbuckhead]

53. Bill Clinton was also Arkansas attorney general

It is amazing how they think Hillary's opponent is either more experienced because he was "community activist" or that experience doesn't matter. :spray:

[heliarc]

56. you have a problem with community activism I see.

I guess that corporate cronyism is more your speed. Or perhaps pandering to the Republican leadership in the Senate to jockey for power and then do absolutely nothing with it. You should watch this piece on her inaction regarding Blackwater...

http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=1144&thisview=item

Frankly Obama and Hillary's plans in Iraq are very similar, but I feel very strongly that he is the only one who has been level with the American people without trying to backstab his opponent.

[billbuckhead]

57. No, but it's no preparation for foreign relations.

[heliarc]

58. Neither is being a Governor. nt

[wowimthere]

62. Clinton has actually been wrong on all the critical issues...

How's that for experience? War. NAFTA. Kyle/Liberman. Levin Amendment. Bankruptcy bill. FISA vote. Out-campaigned by someone who was 20 points down. What the hell more do you want to convince you that his skills exceed hers.

[billbuckhead]

63. That's why the Clinton years we're the best in American history

The souless empty suit was able with the help of the media to swiftboat the Clinton's on race but the blowback is now sinking his campaign. Like Yankee rednecks say, "What goes around, comes around".

[DiverDave]

67. Huh, tell the rust belt folks that

he was the best, hear of a thing called NAFTA?

I worked for a trucking company that picked up factory equipment (WHOLE FACTORY'S, they were empty shells when we got through) in OH. PA. IL. IN. and drove them to Laredo TX. so they could be shipped across the border and set up in Mexico.

They have never recovered.

Yeah, he was the best.

[axollot]

65. everyone brings up experience.....

BUT - I think it's the so-called 'experience' that is holding this country back with the same type of leader every time around. I was a STRONG Edwards supporter and since he is no longer in the race, I am backing Obama. Heck, I even donated to his campaign, something I've never done before. (would have for Gore too - but just got here while the race was under way).

We have so many people that are experienced in DC and what are they doing? NADA, at least for the country - I'm sure many are lining their pockets though or are available to vote their own raise in.

Lord knows we need a good speaker in this country and we have one in Obama, we need someone diplomatic, and Obama seems to be quite diplomatic - because diplomacy will go a LONG way for this country in repairing the damage little Bush and co have done to our reputation around the world.

The man is highly educated and the level of intelligence shines though in his speeches and in his debates.

Clinton was FIRST LADY people, she may know her way around DC and where the light switches are in the White House but her experience isn't all that much more than Obama's, however, we all know how tight the Bushes and the Clinton's are - Bill hangs with Daddy Bush all the time - and I liked Bill as president, but hated NAFTA and a few smaller things he did. Lewinsky isn't one of those either. In that regard, I thought the man had mad talent - working in the Oval Office, on the phone with Diplomats all while getting a little something. People that is talent and he is well known to be one of the hardest working President's the country's ever had - but that doesn't make Hillary *just* as qualified to run this country because she is married to a man who was President.

I'm married to a man that makes Brawny paper towels and Angel Soft TP (buy GP products that are UNION MADE!)- he tells me about his job all the time, I've even been to events and parties where I've met many co-workers. That doesn't mean I could go and fill his shoes and claim all of the years hubby has worked there as *my* experience on the job application.

And for the pastor - I think Obama is one of many people in this country that have gone to a church for 20+ years only to find out later that that person was a thief, a bigot, a cheat, a child molester etc. Does it now make YOU the same thing? No - because your NOT that person and Obama is not Rev Wright.

:cheers: heres to hoping Obama wins the General Election - and that NOT having experience means he's *NOT* already bought and paid for by every chuckle head idiot in DC.

Cheers
Sandy

[heliarc]

55. Obama's disenfranchising voters?

Did you listen to his speech on race in the US? That was the most inclusive and honest political speech I can remember ever hearing. Hillary is also "merely a member" of Congress in case you've forgotten, and if you haven't been paying attention Hillary has disenfranchised the entire black voting public as well as a lot of other democrats with her weird race-baiting and answers to questions like "Is Obama a Muslim" she responds "there's nothing to base that on -- as far as I know." What a crock. "as far as I know"??? And then she has the nerve to cozy up to McCain over Obama? Today she wouldn't deny that her campaign is still pushing the Jeremiah Wright story. She is playing such a Rovian game of dirty politics here it makes me sick. And you know what? At first I was a Hillary Clinton Supporter. I can't stomach her horrible politics. If you want to bring up a voting record, why don't you explain her vote to authorize the war, or her inability to take a firm stand on contractors in Iraq until about two seconds ago when Obama started to firm up his withdrawal plans. You should watch the following clip from the Real news:

http://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=1144&thisview=item

Please explain to me how Obama has disenfranchised voters.

[LuckyLib]

48. Chimpy was an "unknown" Texas governor (in a weak governor state)

and look what the good ole boys pushed on us for President. Experience in political life and foreign policy? Not so much.

[Star]

68. Abraham Lincoln had only 2 years in the House

(1846 - 1848) after which he decided not to run for re-election because of a controversy over a speech he had made.

Not counting his state legislative experience, which doesn't really count of course.

The president with the most experience was James Buchanan.

"The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to the rank as America’s worst president.

Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow. and we all know what a truly great president he was."

http://polizeros.com/2008/02/21/experience-and-presidents/

Maybe there's something else that matters much more than experience? Maybe leadership?

[AlphaCentauri]

11. That may say that America is not ready to have a dialog about race? n/t

[sybylla]

31. Poll ended the same day of Barack Obama's speech on Tuesday

Chances are, it wasn't much of a factor yet. The next poll, on the other hand, should be a better reflection of how prepared the nation is to address race.

[AlphaCentauri]

54. Thanks for the clarification

Most likely people were influenced by the comments around Reverend Wright speech.

[Bacchus39]

13. was it a poll of voters in upcoming Democratic primary states?

thats the real issue for the moment at least.

[David__77]

14. Interesting, but most of the country already had its say.

So this is far more academic at this point.

[humbled_opinion]

16. Figures she and hubby stirred the

Shit-pot and now they act all innocent. Congratulations Her Smugness...

[acmavm]

17. Oh brother. Yesterday I saw a poll, CNN I think, that said only 31% of the

people didn't support blivet.

Polls are useless.

edit: Just to add that this is really funny. Looking at the Obamites responses you can see that they jump all over the polls that show him ahead. They just HAVE to be true. The Annointed One couldn't be in any position but way out ahead.

Then another poll comes up with a different and watch 'em squawk.

I don't like Obama. I don't like the Clinton. But I definitely do think this shit is funny.

[ironflange]

64. i agree

this thread is almost as funny as the one about oscar the mixed animal

[chapel hill dem]

19. I think there is a schism developing between "Likely Voter" and "Registered

Voter" polls. Obama seems to do better in polls that sample Registered Voters or "Adults". HRC and McCain do best in rolling polls of Likely Voters.

From what I understand, the difference between being a Registered Voter and a Likely Voter is whether one has voted in an election before and is likely to vote in the upcoming election. New voters, and especially young people, may be under-represented. Also, in 2004, the poll takers only called land-line phones and not cell phones. If they are still doing this, they may be missing younger voters who only nave cellular service.

FWIW

[smiley_glad_hands]

23. All depends on how the question was framed and who you ask.

Some polls are better than others. Lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics.

[Sonnenschein]

24. People are easily swayed by the media. Otherwise nobody would pay millions for ads.

[sunnystarr]

25. hmmm when it was the other way around they told me it was a virtual tie ...

So Hillary on top = significant lead
Obama on top = statistical tie

[Igel]

42. The thing to look at is the margin of error.

The numbers were 49/42, with a MOE of +/- 3. I assume they're using a confidence interval of 95.

That means that if they took their sample correctly and played nice, they're 95% confident that the real support for HRC is between 46-52 and 95% confident that the real level of support for BO is between is 39-45. There's no overlap. (Another way I was told to understand it is that they predict that only in 5% of the trials will the real value for each candidate's support be outside of the intervals, whether above or below is immaterial.)

Since they don't overlap, it's statistically significant. If they did overlap, the chances that HRC is leading BO would drop significantly.

One can argue that there's still a chance that the poll's wrong--after all, there's a possibility that the true values aren't in the interval because even a truly random sample can be biased, it just happens sometimes. One can argue that the sample isn't random, while the stats assume randomness. One can even argue that the weightings given to the raw data are wrong.

[scarface2004]

26. sez who??!?!

the pundits and their mainstream enablers are a bunch of assholes just making it up as they go along! screw them!

[politicaholic]

27. The polls are definitely going to cut into Obama's massive delegate lead...

All of the polls in the world aren't going to change the fact that Clinton can't mathematically win unless she can drag up a better scandal than Rev. Wright. Perhaps she should switch from the racist or inexperienced route to the gay route. Latch onto that YOUTUBE blow job story. I wouldn't put it past her.

[RamboLiberal]

28. And the Rasmussen shows McCain as the big gainer

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows John McCain’s lead growing against both potential Democratic opponents. McCain currently leads Barack Obama 49% to 42% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41% margin (see recent daily results). African-American support for Clinton has collapsed, falling to 55% in the general election match-up. Obama, on the other hand, earns solid support from African-American voters but attracts only 36% of white voters in a match-up with McCain.

Over the past month, McCain has gained ground in Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania. Both Democrats continue to lead in New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and California (see summary of recent state general election polling).

-----

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Obama now leads Clinton 46% to 43%. Before the story broke about his former Pastor, Obama led by eight. (see recent daily results). New polling data released today shows that Clinton leads handily in West Virginia’s Presidential Primary.

-----

On Thursday, Barack Obama’s favorable ratings are unchanged for the third straight day—48% favorable, 49% unfavorable. McCain is viewed favorably by 53% of voters nationwide and unfavorably by 43%. For Clinton, those numbers are 43% favorable, 55% unfavorable (see recent daily results).

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

And I want to thank for this the MSM for their endless playing of Reverend Wright, Hillary and Bill for pissing off a lot of African-Americans, Hillary for elevating McCain, Reverend Wright for giving the MSM their easy sound bytes, and for idiot voters who once more play the fool, etc.

[superkia]

30. Bill Clinton said that by the end of this, the polls will show Hillary...

in front and that the super delegates will take that into account. And just like when bush sat next to his brother on a plane and said that he knew he would win Florida, as they both smirked at each other...he was right? Fuck the polls, fuck the media, think for yourselves and educate yourselves, then vote. Any other way and you are just part of the herd, get ready for your prodding and your branding!

[odelisk8]

32. we'll see about that

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/20/7798/

[BklnDem75]

35. March 14-18?

So this was a poll before the impact of Obama's speech?

[Megahurtz]

38. That's gotta be Bullshit.

I don't believe it for a minute.

[crimsonblue]

41. It's too bad the polls are completely worthless at this point...

Considering most of America has already voted. Plus, the polls mean nothing in relation to the General Election. Plus, the polls have been sooo accurate thus far this year.. Just admit it Hillary-- it's over. Now please go away.

[bamacrat]

44. Booooooooo.

[wowimthere]

60. There are already signs this lead will not last...

The polling internals are proving that the Wright situation hasn't had as much impact as the Right and Clinton would have wanted.

[wowimthere]

61. Once the Dems have Obama... McCain's lead will evaporate...

in any scenario. Polls are only snapshots of the moment. It is a long political cycle.

[Exultant Democracy]

66. Yes and Rasmussen came out with a larger sample and had the numbers the other way around, whatever.

It isn't like Clinton can win the nomination anyway.

[truthisfreedom]

69. Too true.

[goforit]

70. Nice try Gallop!...........It ain't gonna work!

[Political Heretic]

71. Um... new poll - thought it was gallup, has Obama back in the lead over Clinton

.... :shrug: