Don't look now, Hillary...

[zeke12]

Presented without comment, but damn...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-tops-30-m.html

 

[zeke12]

Final number is $32.5 million. No official word on Hillary's numbers, yet.

 

[Killick]

Panel made a pretty big deal about it this morning on This Week with George Snuffleupagus. Said Hilly topped out around $13 million. (and, oh God, how I hate Bay Buchanan -- she was one of the panelists).

 

[zeke12]

I can't imagine she will be that low. She'll be in the 20's, but Obama passing her does start to shoot a hole into her entire front-runner image.

Which is really the base of her entire campaign.

 

[Point of Order]

Could Obama's support in national polls be being underrepresented?

Most (all?) political polls are still done over land-line telephones. Obama's greatest base of support, based on the donations and method of solicitation, are from younger people and the Netroots community.

It stands to reason that younger Americans and Netroots progressives would be far less likely to have a land-line telephone. Are pollsters considering the possibility that they aren't capturing a key base of support for Obama in their polling?

 

[zeke12]

That's a possibility, Point.

Obama's folks are pointing to the number of donors -- over 250,000 unique donations -- as much as they are the actual money.

Bottom line is that Obama's going to be in it until the end with those kinds of dollars.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

That's a possibility, Point.

Obama's folks are pointing to the number of donors -- over 250,000 unique donations -- as much as they are the actual money.

Bottom line is that Obama's going to be in it until the end with those kinds of dollars.

I agree that he'll be in it until the end, but the money won't be the reason why. Romney was the top fundraiser among the republicans and I don't see him doing too well in the polls. I remember a few elections ago when Phil Gramm had about twice as much as any of the other candidates and he still got stomped in the primaries.

I have a feeling Obama will finish a very close second to Hillary in the primaries but that's because he's a good candidate, not because he has more money than she does...

 

[zeke12]

I don't disagree Mizzou, but the situations you're describing aren't really analagous. Obama has not raised more than $55 million dollars. So we're not talking Phil Gramm, here.

And that's an issue for Hillary because here entire campaign is based no being the front runner. She's after money and endorsements, in that order. Obama is after both of those, too, but he's building a ground game, and if he can keep up with her on all of those, he only looks more appealing in the long run.

Just my read on the two campaigns. If Hillary can't show that she's clearly the best in money and organization, what's her appeal to any voter that's still undecided?

 

[spinning27]

Could Obama's support in national polls be being underrepresented?

Most (all?) political polls are still done over land-line telephones. Obama's greatest base of support, based on the donations and method of solicitation, are from younger people and the Netroots community.

It stands to reason that younger Americans and Netroots progressives would be far less likely to have a land-line telephone. Are pollsters considering the possibility that they aren't capturing a key base of support for Obama in their polling?

Historically, black candidates are overrepresented in polling. People will tell someone on the telephone that they would vote for a black candidate, but when they pull the curtain, racism sets in.

 

[Point of Order]

Could Obama's support in national polls be being underrepresented?

Most (all?) political polls are still done over land-line telephones. Obama's greatest base of support, based on the donations and method of solicitation, are from younger people and the Netroots community.

It stands to reason that younger Americans and Netroots progressives would be far less likely to have a land-line telephone. Are pollsters considering the possibility that they aren't capturing a key base of support for Obama in their polling?

Historically, black candidates are overrepresented in polling. People will tell someone on the telephone that they would vote for a black candidate, but when they pull the curtain, racism sets in.

I'm just thinking that there must be something to explain the disparity between Obama's fundraising and where he stands in the polls -- no way is he a better national fundraising organizer than the Clinton camp. Or perhaps there can't be any correlation drawn between polls and fundraising.

I have heard of what you're referring to, known as the "white lie" and I would imagine it would be more of a factor in a general election. If a white person felt the least bit uncomfortable with Obama simply because he was black then they could easily find another pretense for supporting Hillary, Edwards or another Dem. Hence, no need to lie.

 

[zeke12]

I don't know that the "white lie" phenomenon will play out in a nationwide race.

I guess we can find out.

And, Point, I think the one thing that money means is that the big money democratic donors aren't sold on Hillary, yet.

 

[Boom_70]

Could Obama's support in national polls be being underrepresented?

Most (all?) political polls are still done over land-line telephones. Obama's greatest base of support, based on the donations and method of solicitation, are from younger people and the Netroots community.

It stands to reason that younger Americans and Netroots progressives would be far less likely to have a land-line telephone. Are pollsters considering the possibility that they aren't capturing a key base of support for Obama in their polling?

Historically, black candidates are overrepresented in polling. People will tell someone on the telephone that they would vote for a black candidate, but when they pull the curtain, racism sets in.

Is that the same as ordering a medium Diet Coke at Mcdonalds but when you go to the fountain you fill your cup up with regular Coke?

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

$$$ are good, but lets not forget that Howard Dean also had some pretty astounding $$$ numbers around this time in 2003. Here are the numbers Obama needs to be worrying about:

Average polling data in Iowa:
Edwards 25.5
Clinton 24.3
Obama 19.5

Average polling data in New Hampshire:
Clinton 34.3
Obama 19.5
Edwards 13.0

Average polling data in South Carolina:
Clinton 28.8
Obama 26.0
Edwards 17.3

(All numbers courtesy of realclearpolitics.com)

If Obama doesn't win at least one of those states, he can kiss the nomination goodbye. Since 1976, when Iowa and South Carolina took on their added importance, there has never been a nominee who did not win at least one of those states. If Obama finishes third in IA and Hillary beats him by >10% in NH, Hillary and Edwards will have all the momentum going into SC. So Obama will need to save his campaign in SC and will be facing the equivalent of a QB trying to do a game-saving drive into a heavy wind.

2004 -- Kerry took IA, NH
2000 -- Bush took IA, SC; Gore took IA, NH, SC
1996 -- Dole took IA, SC
1992 -- Clinton took SC (the only outlier...SC wasn't nearly as important in 1992 and Clinton established himself as a contender with the 2nd place finish in NH. But if Clinton had a Hillary-like heavyweight in the race -- i.e. Cuomo -- he would have been toast)
1988 -- Bush took NH, SC; Dukakis took NH
1984 -- Mondale took IA
1980 -- Reagan took NH, SC; Carter took IA, NH, SC
1976 -- Carter took IA, NH; Ford took IA, NH

 

[Point of Order]

$$$ are good, but lets not forget that Howard Dean also had some pretty astounding $$$ numbers around this time in 2003. Here are the numbers Obama needs to be worrying about:

Average polling data in Iowa:
Edwards 25.5
Clinton 24.3
Obama 19.5

Average polling data in New Hampshire:
Clinton 34.3
Obama 19.5
Edwards 13.0

Average polling data in South Carolina:
Clinton 28.8
Obama 26.0
Edwards 17.3

(All numbers courtesy of realclearpolitics.com)

If Obama doesn't win at least one of those states, he can kiss the nomination goodbye. Since 1976, when Iowa and South Carolina took on their added importance, there has never been a nominee who did not win at least one of those states. If Obama finishes third in IA and Hillary beats him by >10% in NH, Hillary and Edwards will have all the momentum going into SC. So Obama will need to save his campaign in SC and will be facing the equivalent of a QB trying to do a game-saving drive into a heavy wind.

2004 -- Kerry took IA, NH
2000 -- Bush took IA, SC; Gore took IA, NH, SC
1996 -- Dole took IA, SC
1992 -- Clinton took SC (the only outlier...SC wasn't nearly as important in 1992 and Clinton established himself as a contender with the 2nd place finish in NH. But if Clinton had a Hillary-like heavyweight in the race -- i.e. Cuomo -- he would have been toast)
1988 -- Bush took NH, SC; Dukakis took NH
1984 -- Mondale took IA
1980 -- Reagan took NH, SC; Carter took IA, NH, SC
1976 -- Carter took IA, NH; Ford took IA, NH

Pope,
Dean was also ahead in ALL of the polling at this point in his run. That's what I'm having a hard time figuring out the discrepancy between Obama's poll numbers and his money. Is this a significant discrepancy or a peculiar oddity? If it were Hillary I could understand it better. She's the definition of establishment.

But I think Obama will have enough money to stay competitive in the race even after the early primaries if he shows decent in them. Of course he can't get blown out in any of them, but he could win the nomination if he showed well and others split the first three (Edwards wins one, Hill wins two, Obama 2nd both times.)

 

[spinning27]

Could Obama's support in national polls be being underrepresented?

Most (all?) political polls are still done over land-line telephones. Obama's greatest base of support, based on the donations and method of solicitation, are from younger people and the Netroots community.

It stands to reason that younger Americans and Netroots progressives would be far less likely to have a land-line telephone. Are pollsters considering the possibility that they aren't capturing a key base of support for Obama in their polling?

Historically, black candidates are overrepresented in polling. People will tell someone on the telephone that they would vote for a black candidate, but when they pull the curtain, racism sets in.

Is that the same as ordering a medium Diet Coke at Mcdonalds but when you go to the fountain you fill your cup up with regular Coke?

Like most of your posts and repugnant wing-nut opinions, Boom, that was utterly worthless.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

$$$ are good, but lets not forget that Howard Dean also had some pretty astounding $$$ numbers around this time in 2003. Here are the numbers Obama needs to be worrying about:

Average polling data in Iowa:
Edwards 25.5
Clinton 24.3
Obama 19.5

Average polling data in New Hampshire:
Clinton 34.3
Obama 19.5
Edwards 13.0

Average polling data in South Carolina:
Clinton 28.8
Obama 26.0
Edwards 17.3

(All numbers courtesy of realclearpolitics.com)

If Obama doesn't win at least one of those states, he can kiss the nomination goodbye. Since 1976, when Iowa and South Carolina took on their added importance, there has never been a nominee who did not win at least one of those states. If Obama finishes third in IA and Hillary beats him by >10% in NH, Hillary and Edwards will have all the momentum going into SC. So Obama will need to save his campaign in SC and will be facing the equivalent of a QB trying to do a game-saving drive into a heavy wind.

2004 -- Kerry took IA, NH
2000 -- Bush took IA, SC; Gore took IA, NH, SC
1996 -- Dole took IA, SC
1992 -- Clinton took SC (the only outlier...SC wasn't nearly as important in 1992 and Clinton established himself as a contender with the 2nd place finish in NH. But if Clinton had a Hillary-like heavyweight in the race -- i.e. Cuomo -- he would have been toast)
1988 -- Bush took NH, SC; Dukakis took NH
1984 -- Mondale took IA
1980 -- Reagan took NH, SC; Carter took IA, NH, SC
1976 -- Carter took IA, NH; Ford took IA, NH

Of course, Iowa's a caucus, so raw polling numbers don't mean as much as they do in NH or SC.
Not quite that cut and dried, Your Holiness. Of course, if he goes 0-3 in the primaries you named, then he's got problems (You're assuming HRC goes 3-3, I'm guessing.) The great question is what happens with a two-way, or even a three-way split. (Edwards's numbers in NH, while a thin lead, have been a consistent one.) Obama could, for example, lose SC on 1/29 but win Florida on the same day, setting up a free-for-all on Super Tuesday. For the D's, at least, SC's buried in the process a bit this time around.

 

[spinning27]

$$$ are good, but lets not forget that Howard Dean also had some pretty astounding $$$ numbers around this time in 2003. Here are the numbers Obama needs to be worrying about:

Average polling data in Iowa:
Edwards 25.5
Clinton 24.3
Obama 19.5

Average polling data in New Hampshire:
Clinton 34.3
Obama 19.5
Edwards 13.0

Average polling data in South Carolina:
Clinton 28.8
Obama 26.0
Edwards 17.3

(All numbers courtesy of realclearpolitics.com)

If Obama doesn't win at least one of those states, he can kiss the nomination goodbye. Since 1976, when Iowa and South Carolina took on their added importance, there has never been a nominee who did not win at least one of those states. If Obama finishes third in IA and Hillary beats him by >10% in NH, Hillary and Edwards will have all the momentum going into SC. So Obama will need to save his campaign in SC and will be facing the equivalent of a QB trying to do a game-saving drive into a heavy wind.

2004 -- Kerry took IA, NH
2000 -- Bush took IA, SC; Gore took IA, NH, SC
1996 -- Dole took IA, SC
1992 -- Clinton took SC (the only outlier...SC wasn't nearly as important in 1992 and Clinton established himself as a contender with the 2nd place finish in NH. But if Clinton had a Hillary-like heavyweight in the race -- i.e. Cuomo -- he would have been toast)
1988 -- Bush took NH, SC; Dukakis took NH
1984 -- Mondale took IA
1980 -- Reagan took NH, SC; Carter took IA, NH, SC
1976 -- Carter took IA, NH; Ford took IA, NH

Pope,
Dean was also ahead in ALL of the polling at this point in his run. That's what I'm having a hard time figuring out the discrepancy between Obama's poll numbers and his money. Is this a significant discrepancy or a peculiar oddity? If it were Hillary I could understand it better. She's the definition of establishment.

But I think Obama will have enough money to stay competitive in the race even after the early primaries if he shows decent in them. Of course he can't get blown out in any of them, but he could win the nomination if he showed well and others split the first three (Edwards wins one, Hill wins two, Obama 2nd both times.)

$$$ are good, but lets not forget that Howard Dean also had some pretty astounding $$$ numbers around this time in 2003. Here are the numbers Obama needs to be worrying about:

Average polling data in Iowa:
Edwards 25.5
Clinton 24.3
Obama 19.5

Average polling data in New Hampshire:
Clinton 34.3
Obama 19.5
Edwards 13.0

Average polling data in South Carolina:
Clinton 28.8
Obama 26.0
Edwards 17.3

(All numbers courtesy of realclearpolitics.com)

If Obama doesn't win at least one of those states, he can kiss the nomination goodbye. Since 1976, when Iowa and South Carolina took on their added importance, there has never been a nominee who did not win at least one of those states. If Obama finishes third in IA and Hillary beats him by >10% in NH, Hillary and Edwards will have all the momentum going into SC. So Obama will need to save his campaign in SC and will be facing the equivalent of a QB trying to do a game-saving drive into a heavy wind.

2004 -- Kerry took IA, NH
2000 -- Bush took IA, SC; Gore took IA, NH, SC
1996 -- Dole took IA, SC
1992 -- Clinton took SC (the only outlier...SC wasn't nearly as important in 1992 and Clinton established himself as a contender with the 2nd place finish in NH. But if Clinton had a Hillary-like heavyweight in the race -- i.e. Cuomo -- he would have been toast)
1988 -- Bush took NH, SC; Dukakis took NH
1984 -- Mondale took IA
1980 -- Reagan took NH, SC; Carter took IA, NH, SC
1976 -- Carter took IA, NH; Ford took IA, NH

Pope,
Dean was also ahead in ALL of the polling at this point in his run. That's what I'm having a hard time figuring out the discrepancy between Obama's poll numbers and his money. Is this a significant discrepancy or a peculiar oddity? If it were Hillary I could understand it better. She's the definition of establishment.

But I think Obama will have enough money to stay competitive in the race even after the early primaries if he shows decent in them. Of course he can't get blown out in any of them, but he could win the nomination if he showed well and others split the first three (Edwards wins one, Hill wins two, Obama 2nd both times.)

I am very worried about Obama. He'll be a terrible general election candidate, unless he can dramatically change his style over the next year.

If people thought Gore was professorial and long-winded and nuanced, what will they think of Obama? When people talk about his "charisma," I honestly believe it's code for "He's a black candidate who doesn't come off like a race-baiting windbag like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton." Have people actually heard Obama speak? Dull, dull, dull. Cliche, cliche, cliche. Then 10-point plans and long-winded explanations followed by more dull.

 

[PopeDirkBenedict]

Pope,
Dean was also ahead in ALL of the polling at this point in his run. That's what I'm having a hard time figuring out the discrepancy between Obama's poll numbers and his money. Is this a significant discrepancy or a peculiar oddity? If it were Hillary I could understand it better. She's the definition of establishment.

But I think Obama will have enough money to stay competitive in the race even after the early primaries if he shows decent in them. Of course he can't get blown out in any of them, but he could win the nomination if he showed well and others split the first three (Edwards wins one, Hill wins two, Obama 2nd both times.)

I think the discrepancy has to do with the types of voters supporting Hillary and the types supporting Obama. Obama supporters are much more likely to be upper-class, college-educated whites who can afford to donate the maximum amount. And I think Obama voters are much more passionate about their candidate than Hillary supporters. I posted this link on another thread, but this political analysis is so good, it deserves to be repeated:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-brownstein25mar25,0,6496358.column?coll=la-opinion-center

You are right that Dean had similiar polling numbers at this stage. But Dean's political team had no clue how to manage that kind of success, didn't know how to handle the transition from "insurgent" to front-runner and spent almost the entire budget in Iowa. Contrary to established legend, Dean's campaign was flailing before he ever let out the famed scream. I don't see Hillary facing those same pratfalls.

Obama might have the $$$ to stay in the race until the end, but if Hillary wins NH and SC, she is going to cruise. Look at the political landscape after that point. Hillary will be on the magazine covers, her campaign is going to be fellated on the Sunday morning shows and all of her poll numbers will be boosted. Obama will have been beat in a state with a large percentage of African-American voters (SC) by a white woman from New York. Then the campaigns will move on to Tsunami Tuesday. Obama will have lost the chance to be able to grab the spotlight by winning a single state and Hillary, who is already leading in the polls in the key TT states, will be riding a huge momentum surge. Absent a major political shakeup, he isn't going to make a comeback.

 

[zeke12]

And depending on how many of the current candidates are still running when the Iowa caucuses come around, an awful lot of votes are going to be up for grabs on caucus day. If your candidate doesn't draw a certain percentage at your polling place that candidate is declared not viable and those voters have a chance to switch. Crazy ****ing system.

If Edwards wins Iowa with Obama second and Hillary wins New Hampshire with Obama second, he's fine going into South Carolina -- where polls have showed him with the lead. Especially if Richardson, Biden and Dodd all stay in it at least that long.

 

[zeke12]

I am very worried about Obama. He'll be a terrible general election candidate, unless he can dramatically change his style over the next year.

If people thought Gore was professorial and long-winded and nuanced, what will they think of Obama? When people talk about his "charisma," I honestly believe it's code for "He's a black candidate who doesn't come off like a race-baiting windbag like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton." Have people actually heard Obama speak? Dull, dull, dull. Cliche, cliche, cliche. Then 10-point plans and long-winded explanations followed by more dull.

You, apparently, have been asleep since the last Democratic convention.