Latest Threads
Latest
Greatest Threads
Greatest
Lobby
Lobby
Journals
Journals
Search
Search
Options
Options
Help
Help
Login
Login
Home » Discuss » Journals » WesDem » Read entry Donate to DU
Advertise Liberally! The Liberal Blog Advertising Network
Advertise on more than 70 progressive blogs!
WesDem
Posted by WesDem in General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)
Mon May 11th 2009, 04:46 PM
I keep seeing DUers repeat the argument that Hillary would have beaten Obama in the primaries if Edwards wasn't in the picture. I hope this isn't considered a primary rehash. I think it's a question that needed a definitive answer and I was glad to see Pollster took it on. So let's not upset the mods by getting into tired old fights, but keep discussion to the polling.

This is what happened nationally in the six months after Edwards dropped out:



Let's be a little more specific. The regression line smooths things out (as it is designed to do), but note the change in the dots, the individual survey results. The biggest lurch in support over the course of the two year campaign occurs for Obama just after Edwards dropped out (when pollsters stopped including his name on vote preference questions). Just before the Edwards announcement, most polls showed Obama's support in the mid-30s. Just after, his support surged the mid-40s. Over the same period, Hillary Clinton's aggregate support held mostly steady.


This is how things stood before the Iowa Caucus:

Before Iowa? - Just after Penn's speculation about Iowa appeared, Tom Beaumont of the Des Moines Register produced results from the second choice question on the final Register survey conducted by pollster Ann Selzer:

The Des Moines Register's Iowa Poll, taken in the closing days of the caucus campaign, showed that in fact Obama was the second choice of more Edwards supporters than Clinton was. The numbers? Among Edwards' supporters, 41 percent said Obama was their second choice, compared to 25 percent who said Clinton was their second choice.

Since Penn's speculation was more about how the long Iowa campaign would have transpired had Edwards dropped out at the very outset (rather than in its final days), I asked Selzer about their earlier poll conducted in May 2007. The survey showed a very close race: Edwards ahead with 29% followed by Obama at 23% and Clinton at 21%. But had Edwards not been a candidate, his supporters would have split decisively for Obama. With the second choices recalculated into the total, Obama would have led Clinton by nine percentage points on that first Iowa poll.


And New Hampshire:

Before New Hampshire? - Probably the least plausible hypothetical involves Edwards dropping just after Iowa and before the New Hampshire primary. But if he had, what might have become of the 17% of the New Hampshire vote he received? Of the four polls that provided raw, respondent level data to the Roper Archives, only the Fox News poll included a second choice question. Those who said they were supporting John Edwards on the final survey (n=94, conducted January 4-6, 2008) reported their second choices as follows: Obama 38%, Clinton 14%, Richardson 13%, Kucinich 4% with the rest choosing another candidate or unable to provide a second choice. Yes, that final round of New Hampshire polling notoriously understated Clinton's support, but this result is not exactly strong evidence that Edwards was "draining" more support from Clinton than Obama.


There is a more data at the link.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/the_publicat...



Discuss (0 comments) | Recommend (+8 votes)
Visitor Tools
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Profile Information
Profile Picture
Adelante
Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your ignore list
DU Donor DU Donor
28108 posts
Member since Wed Feb 11th 2004
I was "Jersey" on DU, Summer 2003-February 2004; "WesDem" February 2004-January 2009.
Random Journal
Random Journal
wes clark says


I don't believe that America is run by politicians in Washington. I believe it's run by people like us, in places like this. -Tulsa OK, January 29, 2004


We must assure investments in the technology infrastructure — the broadband and wireless access improved and modernized highway, air, and rail transportation systems, and the access to affordable, reliable sustainable energy essential to continuing economic development. We must have a real plan to achieve energy independence. And we need to do so without further damaging our fragile environment. In fact, sustainable energy and so-called green engineering provide major growth opportunities for American ingenuity, and we must move in that direction. - "Real State Of The Union," January 30, 2006


We need to really get to the bottom of the Abramoff scandal, we should have a special prosecutor appointed for that, we really need a congressional investigation of the whole business of the NSA wiretapping and how far that goes, there's been a lot of squirreling around the edges; we've never completed the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had - the evidence seems pretty clear to me, I've seen that for a long time. I think Americans are best served by a strong 2-party system and that's been out of whack and what I can do in 2006 is try to help the right Democrats get into office and that's what I'm going to do. - "This Week," March 5, 2006




 
Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals  |  Campaigns  |  Links  |  Store  |  Donate
About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.