|
Edited on Tue Nov-20-07 04:25 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
DU might think so, but DU isn't all that analytical.
If the statement was just that it is down to Clinton and Obama because they have the most money, that's reasonable.
But Obama is really no better off anywhere than he was in June.
People follow the media narrative of shifting margins rather than raw support... a major error in a fluid race. The fact that Clinton's run-away expansion has deflated some and Edwards is down doesn't mean Obama has momentum. It's a sign that he is solid where he has been for months. It's like the illusion of movement when you're on a stopped train and the train next to you moves.
For instance, the new WMUR NH poll. Clinton slips by 7 and Obama gains only 1 (and Edwards gains 1) That is not good for Obama... it shows what has been shown everywhere: Obama has serious trouble breaking 25%, state or national. (The recent 30% poll does not, in and of itself, change the trend) People bailing out from Clinton to Richardson is a terrible sign for Obama, since he is supposed to be the alternative. He is probably a niche candidate in the final analysis.
Running back John Riggins once said, "If you need three yards, I'll get you three yards. If you need four yards, I'll get you three yards." Obama is very solid at 22%, but people are showing real resistance to him above that level.
PS: I want to see the full NH poll... all we've seen is the headline numbers. I am curious whether the lower tiers went from 1% to 2% or whether undecideds ballooned.
|