Obama Campaign: National Polls Are Bunk, Please Ignore Them; Hillary's people disagree

[jefferson_dem]

No surprises here, but it's fun to watch both sides spin the numbers...

Obama Campaign: National Polls Are Bunk, Please Ignore Them
By Greg Sargent | bio

Obama campaign manager David Plouffe has just sent out an email to "friends and supporters," and one chunk of it jumps out at us: The part where he pushes back very hard against the national press and its obsession with national polls, which consistently show Hillary far ahead of Obama. From the memo:

The national press continues to be obsessed about national primary polling, but as we outlined in the last memo, we fundamentally reject the importance of these national primary polls. This is a sequential process that begins in Iowa and carries through the calendar. If national polls were affecting our ability to grow the campaign, perhaps we would pay them some attention. But they have not, so we don’t.

Even early state polls at this point are poor predictors. So even when there are positive polls for us – like one out late last week that shows us with a slight lead in Iowa, and tied in the New Hampshire primary and another that had us ahead again in the South Carolina primary -- we do not get overheated.

This race is covered often times as if the election is occurring tomorrow. It is, of course not. In fact we have many months, and this campaign several lifetimes, until voters begin to have their say. We are confident about where we are today; confident in the pacing and progress we are making and confident in our ability to ultimately win the nomination and the general election.

Needless to say, the Hillary campaign would disagree. In fact, it already has. Hillary pollster Mark Penn also sent out a memo earlier today, before Obama's went out.

Wouldn't you know it, but Penn's memo makes precisely the opposite case: The national polls are not just meaningful, but also prove that voters are already making up their minds. Penn says the polls show that voters are "taking a good hard look at all the candidates and concluding that Hillary has what it takes to be President."

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/06/obama_campaign_national_polls_are_bunk

[AtomicKitten]

1. It's exhausting.

[bigdarryl]

2. Hey Mark Penn ask Dean if the voters had there minds made up

[Drunken Irishman]

3. National polls are useless.

Since there is not a national primary. If Clinton loses badly in Iowa, her ratings in national poll will decline rather quickly.

Remember, Dean was #1 in the national polls by a wide margin the night before the '04 Iowa caucus. After coming in 3rd, he plummeted nationally.

[bigdarryl]

4. Obviously Mr. Penn has a short memory of that

[rinsd]

11. I doubt he has any memory of that because it didn't happen.

[rinsd]

10. "Remember, Dean was #1 in the national polls by a wide margin the night before the '04 IA caucus"

Except that simply isn't true. People don't seem to realize this isn't 2004 when most of the field beyond Joe Lieberman was unknown.

In the CBS poll taken 1/12 to 1/15, Dean was at 24% with Clark @ 12% and 15% undecided.

In a FoxNews/Opinion Dynamics Poll taken 1/7 to 1/9, he was at 20%, Clark at 11% and not sure was at 27%.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup on 1/9 to 1/11 had Dean with a 6 point lead over Clark.

Time/CNN taken 1/14 to 1/15 had Dean with a 5 pt lead over Clark.

Newsweek on 1/8-1/9 has him with a 12 pt lead on Clark.

The numbers over and over again point to at best a 12 pt lead (averaging probably around an 8 pt lead) over Wes Clark in the national polls prior to IA.

The difference between Dean and Hillary is that Hillary has gone over 40% and had 20+ pt lead in a wide vareity of polls for more than a single instance. Even at his very peak of popularity Dean was not able to do that.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

"After coming in 3rd, he plummeted nationally."

He did.

Which brings me to my next point

"If Clinton loses badly in Iowa, her ratings in national poll will decline rather quickly."

If any of the top 3 lose IA badly, they will be in serious trouble. I think either Obama or Hillary could survive a 3rd place finish provided either wins in NH. But that is iffy.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. Your last statement proves my point.

The only poll right now that matters is Iowa. If Clinton wins Iowa, or comes in a strong 2nd, she will probably win the nomination. However a 3rd or worse finish will doom her to defeat and it won't matter what her national numbers are. The only way national numbers matter if it's a national race and the primary isn't.

It would be very difficult for Hillary or Obama to finish 3rd in Iowa and still win New Hampshire. Could it be done? Theoretically, yes, but I wouldn’t bet on it. National polls don't mean a lick if the candidate can't succeed in the two early primary states.

[rinsd]

17. I wouldn't say IA is the only poll that matters.

NH & SC polling worth keeping up on.

And national polls do give insight into a candidate's popularity with Democrats.

[Drunken Irishman]

19. They are, but I think those polls will change depending on the Iowa results.

If a candidate struggles in Iowa, after being pegged to do well there, it could spell disaster in the two other states.

[Clintonista2]

5. Then why do Obama fans post every poll that has Obama leading a state?nt.

[Connie_Corleone]

12. Because state polls are more important.

[Clintonista2]

18. What does importance have to do with anything?

Obama zombies attack the legitamacy of polls in general, not the importance of polls.

[Connie_Corleone]

20. I'll ignore your childish name calling.

State polls are important to any candidate running for president. If you can't see the importance of them, then that's your problem.

[Clintonista2]

21. I'M not denying the importance of them, I'm talking about the percieved legitamacy of them

Obama supporters claim any poll showing Hillary in the lead to be a "MSM conspiracy", and therefore false. Any poll showing Obama in the lead, is considered to be very important and irrefutable.

[SaveElmer]

6. If I were as far behind as Obama...

I'd try to downplay them too...

[Drunken Irishman]

14. Of course she doesn't lead in Iowa.

And isn't far off from being 3rd there, either. Hillary finishes 3rd (or Obama/Edwards for that matter) and they're pretty much done, no matter what the national polls say.

[SaveElmer]

15. Depends on which poll you look at...

One she was behind by 4, one she is tied, one she is 9 ahead...

[Drunken Irishman]

16. And that's too close to call, for all candidates.

No one is a favorite to win Iowa right now, which tells me national polls really don't mean much at this time. If Hillary wins Iowa, she'll win the nomination most likely. If she comes in 2nd place, her odds of winning the nomination goes down, but she's still got a good shot. A 3rd place finish though, which at this point is still possible, would most likely mean she won't win the nomination.

Touting national polls really does nothing at this stage, because they will change after Iowa.

[TheWraith]

7. Yes, national polls are pretty much pointless.

National candidate support is about as solid as pudding right now. The way that things shake out in the first few states will have an enormous impact on how the rest of the election turns out.

Later on, national polls start to have a little meaning, but they never matter in a primary the way they do in a general election.

[William769]

8. Thats just like saying, don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

:rofl:

[zulchzulu]

9. Over five months before any vote is cast

That's nearly infinity politically. A lot can happen between now and then.