home

Did The Debate Stop Obama's Mo?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

It is always hard to know about these things, but the latest Rassmussen and Gallup polls provide evidence that the minority view expressed by me and Markos that the debate benefitted Hillary Clinton (not that she won the debate, but that she benefitted from it) was right.

The Rassmussen poll has Clinton moving up 2 in the Friday tracking and the Gallup poll has Clinton moving up 4. Her leads in these national polls are 8 and 7 respectively. Who knows if this is right, but it is the only evidence we have seen post debate.

< Crazy Interpretation Of The Day: Obama Win Is a Defeat For Daily Kos | Coming Up for Air and Open Thread >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Did The Debate Stop Obama's Mo? | 92 comments (92 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    debate outcome (5.00 / 0) (#6)
    by tek on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:57:34 PM EST
    Glad to see this article. I searched the latest (same day) polls and I could not see that Obama was tied or only 3 points behind or any of that. Then there was actually a lead story on C & L that the media and the Obama camp were misrepresenting his momentum and the polls to keep people thinking that he was still solidly in the race when it isn't really true. The story came from CNN, people who usually show a bias toward Obama, so interesting, just interesting.

    I looked on C&L and CNN for this story (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    and couldn't find it.  Any more clues?  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Health Care (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by xjt on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:18:25 PM EST
    I think for people who were really looking (versus those of us who have made up our minds), they saw in Hillary someone who had a real command of domestic issues. If you want universal health care it was quite obvious that she was your candidate. I thought Obama did better on Iraq, but really--both candidates are committed to getting the troops out, and I don't think the idea that his judgment is somehow far superior to hers holds water with most adults (his votes on bankruptcy and Iraq WERE better than hers IMO, but that isn't enough reason to hand him the presidency). Overall, if she got a bounce it was because of her impressive grasp of domestic issues. She was so confident, and appeared so ready to take the issues on.

    Obama's health care plan scares me. I think it will fall apart. As I said, I'm pro Hillary, but I think others might be worried about him on health care, too.

    Obama's (none / 0) (#31)
    by hookfan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    lack of definition of major themes (like change) scares me. Change for change sake isn't good. I mean we had alot of change with Bush. Wasn't good. And this is reinforced by his (Obama's) willingness to use repub ideas to attack Hillary. I would like to see some data on Edwards' supporters, and where they are now after Obama's use of the negative flier. If they mostly go for Hillary it could be the end for him.


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ding7777 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:55:17 PM EST
    zinger re driver licenses that undocumented come here to work and not to drive.  Its was a Leno quality joke but he doesn't really say anything about the issue except if we fix our legal immigration system, then I believe we will not have this problem of undocumented workers in this country

    But how will he "fix" it?

    [ Parent ]

    Trojan Horse (none / 0) (#65)
    by horseloverfat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    I wonder about Obama's health care plan collapsing also.  In context, I don't know who Obama's backers are, apart from the Kennedys and the Chicago political machine, perhaps some of Obama's backers prefer a go-slow approach to health care?  Or an approach designed mainly to address corporate rather then citizen concerns about cost and availability?

    [ Parent ]
    Beware Friday night polling. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:22:06 PM EST
    Her base is home on Friday nights--his isn't.

    Sigh (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:29:50 PM EST
    Sure, whatever you say.

    Honestly, does this NOT concern you? Do you really believe the line you just dropped?

    [ Parent ]

    If you look at the Rasmussen historically (none / 0) (#51)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:17:32 PM EST
    There's been a tightening on the Saturday poll the last couple of weeks in Obama's favor, which goes against this line of thinking since, presumably, Clinton's lead should be greatest over weekends. It's not.

    A week ago on 1/26, Obama trailed by only three points at 36-33, which is closer than the days around it by quite a but.  Two weeks ago on 1/19, Obama was down to six points, 38-32 and by Sunday had it down to 38-34.  It then popped back up in the week following to a larger lead for Clinton, where it had been before the weekend.

    I don't know if any of these polls are right, but if there's some sort of pro-Clinton tilt on weekend days because her supporters are too old and decrepit to leave the house, it should appear every weekend.  Not just this one.   It does not.  

    [ Parent ]

    Lawrence Welk demographic? (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:32:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#63)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:23:52 PM EST
    Is that the demo who likes Lawrence Welk or who knows who Lawrence Welk is, er, was?

    [ Parent ]
    PBS Masterpiece Theatre demographic. (none / 0) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    I recently talked with some elderly (meaning older than I am) ladies who had just gone to Lawrence Welk Village in So Cal. to see a show.  One sd. the show was about Lawrence Welk.  But the others chimed in, no it was about Liberace and quite good. It was a weekday matinee, I might add.

    [ Parent ]
    I watch that (none / 0) (#69)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    and I am younger than Obama.

    :-P

    [ Parent ]

    Show used to be a don't miss. But (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:31:50 PM EST
    then I became addicted to blogging.  

    [ Parent ]
    It peaked with Jeremy Irons' nudity (none / 0) (#72)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    and hasn't reached a high point like that again.

    Naw, it's good, but not as good as the days of Brideshead Revisited, I Claudius, Upstairs Downstairs, etc.  I did read recently that some major makeovers are planned for Masterpiece Theatre, so I'll be watching.  

    [ Parent ]

    oh the butt shot (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:25:13 PM EST
    I watched with my dad and that was icky.
    My dad loved sir larry.

    [ Parent ]
    Be still my heart. I go back to (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:43:42 PM EST
    Forsyth Saga.  I've heard the new Jane Austen adaptations are excellent.  

    [ Parent ]
    you dont like (none / 0) (#75)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:23:55 PM EST
    Jane Tennison?  The new Forsythe's with that gorgeous red head?

    [ Parent ]
    Haven't seen anything on MPT lately. (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:38:03 PM EST
    Are you referring to the new Jane Austen series?

    [ Parent ]
    Not MPT, but I assume you also (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:39:01 PM EST
    enjoyed Damage.

    [ Parent ]
    The only moment from the debate that (none / 0) (#84)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:22:10 PM EST
    concerned me was the stupid "dream ticket" question--makes people think they can get a 2 for 1 by just voting for Clinton and assuming she'll pick him for VP.

    For the record, I would urge him STRONGLY to reject such an offer if things don't go well.

    [ Parent ]

    that would be (none / 0) (#86)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:23:12 PM EST
    really bad advice.

    [ Parent ]
    And all the Kerry voters have cell phone (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    only, right?

    [ Parent ]
    nono (none / 0) (#33)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:39:25 PM EST
    That's Ron Paul voters.


    [ Parent ]
    Dates from at least 2004 and Kerry (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:40:24 PM EST
    Though I might have been used for Dean as well (that's a little before my time).

    [ Parent ]
    And that is supported by? (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by standingup on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    Here is a some factual information on the new Gallup daily tracking poll from Pollster.com:

    ...Starting in early January, Gallup started completing 1,000 interviews each night. Starting last week, they are now reporting a three-day rolling average of the presidential primary trial-heat questions.
    ...
    ... According to Newport, the Gallup Daily uses the "same robust methodology" as all other Gallup polls: live interviewers, a random-digit-dial sample, as many as 5 "call-backs" to those not home when they call, cell-phone sampling to reach those in cell-phone only households (something Gallup also introduced to their standard methodology this month) and Spanish speaking interviewers available for when they reach a household in which only Spanish is spoken.

    That "call back" procedure may sound excruciatingly wonky, but it is important and a key distinction from the Rasmussen tracking. So far at least, Gallup has used a procedure that dialed each sampled number as many as five times over successive nights if the initial attempts were unsuccessful (that is, if the number was busy or if no one answered the telephone). They structure their calling procedure so that the sample on any given day is equivalent to a sample dialed for many days. Each day has the same mix of attempts (first, second, third and so on). (emphasis added)

    Can't speak for Rasmussen but it appears Gallup has implemented a methodology to account for those Obama supporters not at home on Friday nights.

    [ Parent ]

    I havent heard (3.66 / 3) (#23)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:24:46 PM EST
    that Kos shuts down on Fridays. Is that true?

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't use to be, but (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:35:30 PM EST
    maybe it's lost the boomers finding other cyberplaces to be.  Yesterday's wreck list and this morning's looked a lot alike, little change. . . .

    Of course, lately, everything on the wreck list at any time looks a lot like the same diary, over and over, a hallelujah! parsing the same points and/or rather too-personal confessions of conversion -- "I have been SAVED from my sins of ever liking Bill, I say SAVED!" And all designed to elicit similar confessions and/or conflict, that key indicator of msm-style "civic journalism".  

    Reads like a weird revival meeting, witnessing at each other, shaming and ostracizing . . . and even  snakes (in the grass, with deceptive headers) and all.    

    [ Parent ]

    okay (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:42:32 PM EST
    not to keep repeating myself, but I dont read there.  It went south a long time ago for me...not that I really ever posted.  Once in a blue moon maybe very early on when it was small and more personal.  Then I started seeing some real anti-female filthy comments esp about Judy Miller - someone I did not like at all but did not deserve the vicious garbage being posted.  I am for freedom of the press etc but when several people call for a woman to be raped and are not deleted or corrected I am gone.

    [ Parent ]
    Judith (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:31:56 PM EST
    I agree with you, and I think that this points to a larger problem with polling the blogs for the national temperature: they are riddled with angry young men.  A shrink friend* of mine has a theory: these young guys are the first generation who was majority-raised by single mothers.  They were made to put down the toilet seat, no one in authority laughed at their fart jokes and they were popped on the nose for stepping out of line.  In short, they were raised by strong women.  Now that they are on their own and in an anonymous atmosphere, they  are able to rail against women with impunity.  It's like Lord of the Flies on crack.

    *keeping in mind "friend" stories should be taken with a grain of salt

    [ Parent ]

    No! No blaming single mothers yet again (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:53:27 PM EST
    please.  I've got enough guilt.

    But I was raised in a family of boys.  So I grew up with fart jokes and told my son a few.  I never made a big issue with him about toilet seats.  (His father actually is the prudish and fussy one on that -- but he was raised by a single mother, too, a WWII widow, and he married me. . . .)  

    And my son also always seeks out strong women -- still in the dating stage -- and I've seen that with many, many strong mothers and sons.  So I don't think this is so.  I really don't.  There is something else going on . . . and when I think of angry young men I know (and I teach, so I know a lot of them), it seems to be more about messages they got from their fathers.  (Reinforced by misogynistic media, of course.)

    [ Parent ]

    Ahhh... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Kathy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    yes, I am much more comfortable blaming the fathers!  Hahaha!

    And bless your heart for being a teacher.  Talk about being surrounded by angry youths.

    [ Parent ]

    I think it is (none / 0) (#85)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:22:14 PM EST
    the anonymity combined with immaturity myself.

    [ Parent ]
    And, of course, far more wonderful students (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:38:42 PM EST
    with wonderful parents -- including great single fathers who raised sons and daughters so well.

    The angry young really are so few.  Just so much more visible, in real space as well as virtual space.  I so often talk with people who only hear about those young people and wish they could come into our classrooms and see that our future will be fine in the hands of the incredible 99 percent.

    [ Parent ]

    lovely (none / 0) (#91)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:18:55 PM EST
    post. Cream.  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Just out of curiosity (none / 0) (#46)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    I reviewed friday polling in the rasmussen poll several months back.

    The Friday samples did not stand out as being positive for Clinton (or negative for Obama).


    [ Parent ]

    There goes my theory. (none / 0) (#87)
    by Geekesque on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:24:43 PM EST
    One-day bumps in tracking polls are tricky to read, because such a bump could also be produced by a really bad day dropping out.  We'll see.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll take a wild guess (none / 0) (#53)
    by Nasarius on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:21:50 PM EST
    And bet that these polls, like every other scientific poll, are weighted by demographics.

    I don't mind spin, but it should at least be grounded in basic facts.

    [ Parent ]
    This is crazy (none / 0) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    Has there ever been a primary with that much movement from one week to the next? Are people really paying attention? Did the writer's strike increase the focus on the election? Is this the uber reality show?

    Re writers' strike, (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:55:12 PM EST
    young man working at rental car company says yes.  He supports Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    I remember this (none / 0) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    Honestly, are people seeing this as a big reality show?

    [ Parent ]
    when I first came here (none / 0) (#11)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:07:47 PM EST
    people said this was all a game...

    tv is about rating and blogs are about page hits.  Whatever gets eyeballs wins.

    [ Parent ]

    +4 (none / 0) (#2)
    by TheRealFrank on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST
    ..in the Gallup tracking poll, not +3

    I might be evidence that Clinton stopped Obama's momentum. And she needed to, because if the trends had continued, he would have been ahead on Tuesday.

    Caught that (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:52:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    TPM says she dropped (none / 0) (#10)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:06:14 PM EST
    3 points.  Here you say she gained 3.  I dunno.

    [ Parent ]
    btw (none / 0) (#12)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:09:45 PM EST
    saying HRC gained from the deabte is not a minority view - I have seen it and heard it alot.


    [ Parent ]
    The only 2 blogs I saw that said it (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    were me and Markos.

    [ Parent ]
    ah (none / 0) (#21)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:22:28 PM EST
    blogs. Okay.  I did not realize you meant blogs only.

    [ Parent ]
    is Taylor Marsh (none / 0) (#48)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:06:02 PM EST
    a blogger?  I read there debate night nd she thought HRC won.  

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:10:15 PM EST
    I dunno what TPM is smoking but she rose 2 and 4 points in these polls.

    [ Parent ]
    Gallup Daily Tracking report today (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:21:00 PM EST
    that I just found, for the four-day period ending yesterday, shows -- nationally -- Clinton at 48, up from 44 yesterday, and Obama at 41 both days.

    So isn't that a 7-point lead for Clinton now?  Not in just Super Tuesday states, of course.  And it is Gallup's new and yet-to-be tested method, of course.

    Btw, Fox is another up-to-date poll, and it gives Clinton a 10-point lead.  But it's, y'know, Fox.

    [ Parent ]

    that's actually (none / 0) (#81)
    by english teacher on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    an opinion dynamics poll paid for by fox, not a fox poll.  i saw brett baier report it by seriously touting obama's momentum.  they just put up the graphic showing clinton up by ten and tried to distract from it.

    sorry all but this is a fact.  i caught a little fox and they were pushing obama.  imho, it's time for him to get out of the way.  the only impact he is having now is forestalling the clinton landslide come november.  he risks getting himself crushed.  

    [ Parent ]

    all my fault (none / 0) (#22)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:23:37 PM EST
    for looking there and not here.

    I always go with your stats - you are always spot on.

    [ Parent ]

    I have practically stopped (none / 0) (#37)
    by standingup on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:43:14 PM EST
    reading TPM in the last week.  I noticed a strong disconnect with the way they were popping up the latest Rasmussen polls without any examination or comparison with other polls.  It supported a big surge for Obama but was really a disservice to readers.  

    [ Parent ]
    clearly - you are right (none / 0) (#39)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:45:41 PM EST
    I like to go to see pictures of Sam.


    [ Parent ]
    Ignore above: I see -- it's the bump (none / 0) (#34)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    the change you're citing, not the split.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously- (none / 0) (#42)
    by magisterludi on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    TPM has gone down in my estimation. It's not the outright BHO support as much as it is the shading of the truth to cast Obama in only good lighting. Karenhughesian IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    that was just (none / 0) (#15)
    by along on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:11:47 PM EST
    an old headline leftover overnight

    [ Parent ]
    TPM tracking old (none / 0) (#66)
    by delandjim on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:07:20 PM EST
    The tracking poll TPM cited is old, the newer one which is dated 1/30-2/01 shows a +5 for Clinton and +0 for Obama, widening the gap to 7 points apart.

    The previous day which is what TPM cites has Clinton + 1 and Obama +2 closing the gap to 3 points apart.

    The poll TPM uses wouldn't show debate impact, the 2/1 tracking poll may show some of the impact. Tomorrow's tracking poll will be a better indicator.

    Personally I think daily fluctuations vary too much to use. Trend lines are more indicative. However, Obama's gain may have been slowed.

    Here is the thing, his campaign seems to be better at using the system to get more delegates with less votes. Which is a really good tactic. And none of the polls show you popularity down to the congressional district which is what you need to predict delegates.

    [ Parent ]

    Natural Tightening? (none / 0) (#16)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    It seems that lots of blogs and the media in general could be mistaking the natural tightening that takes place in polling as every election day approaches.

    The only time polls don't tighten is when there will be a real blowout, and that won't happen this time.

    Just a thought.

    [ Parent ]

    And how (none / 0) (#49)
    by Camorrista on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:06:24 PM EST
    I watched the debate with mixed group of two dozen, all sexes, all colors, ranging in age from 26 to 70.

    Though there were a handful of fierce advocates for each senator, mostly the spectators were strong leaners--my guess is more towards Obama than towards Clinton, but we didn't take a head count.

    What struck me most forcefully at the end of the show (and, yes, on one level it was a show) was that only three of the specatators insisted that their candidate had won the debate.   Everyone else agreed that Clinton did better at some moments, Obama at others, and both had a terrific night.  In other words, everyone agreed that it was a hell of thing to watch two very impressive politicians (who were not, as we all were pleased to notice, white men) vividly demonstrating why either of them was worthy of the prize.

    Like RalphB, I think what we're seeing is the typical tightening that occurs in a race as more and more voters pay attention--and I suspect that the tightening will continue.  Absent a scandal, it's hard to imagine either of these candidates, or their surrogates, finding a tactic (never mind a strategy) that would cripple the other.  Who truly believes an endorsement (whether by a pol or a union or a newspaper or a TV talking-head or a web-based interest group) can actually deliver a pivotal number of voters?  Is there any evidence that's happened thus far in the race?  

    In any event, as a Democrat who's neither a -phile nor a -phobe, I'm enjoying myself hugely.  What a wonderful choice!

    [ Parent ]

    Glad it's not just me (none / 0) (#64)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:42:12 PM EST
    For the life of me, I don't see any endorsement etc making much of a difference.  Gore might but I don't even know if that would have more than a marginal effect.  Polls will bounce around up to the election and afterward we'll know the results.

    I really think what happened in NH is the pollsters began to believe their own narrative and shifted the demographics of the polls to match.  Odds are what happened in NH could be explained by adjusting the voter models to a more normal year than Iowa.

    It's a great race!


    [ Parent ]

    definitely could be, but (none / 0) (#4)
    by along on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:54:52 PM EST
    I think it might more plausibly be the last bit of Edwards' supporters aligning with Clinton. Which would be its own momentum-stopper.

    or they are just (none / 0) (#24)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:25:42 PM EST
    trying to figure out which way to go.

    [ Parent ]
    what I mean is (none / 0) (#26)
    by along on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:31:03 PM EST
    that the last 4% of Edwards supporters who were on the Gallup board yesterday are now entirely folded into the two-person race, and they appear to have all gone to Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    okay (none / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    good info.  I dont argue stats - I dont follow them myself and look to people here for them.

    Seems only natural that if healthcare is your priority as an Edwards supporter you would go to HRC.  

    [ Parent ]

    but we can't ignore the (none / 0) (#28)
    by along on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:33:27 PM EST
    9% that answered "no opinion" or "other".

    [ Parent ]
    Mmm (none / 0) (#8)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    interesting analysis to see this as a result of Edwards spill-over.  There is more in common b/w JE and HRC in terms of policy, especially now with the healthcare flyers issue.  

    Is it also possible that BO isn't living up to the hype?  I read on another blog about how someone was supporting BO and thought the media was only showed the 'hope and unity' part of his speech and that naturally he spoke about specific policy too.  Then he went to a BO rally and left disappointed b/c it really was all rhetoric.  It's a lot of hype to live up to.

    Also interesting, that the BO supporters rank Iraq as their biggest issue, when clearly the economy has taken over as the top concern for those, let's say, who are not independently wealthy or are too young to care...

    Inversion Layer at Rallies (none / 0) (#9)
    by blogtopus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    Seems to me that the more people see Obama in person, the less interested they are in his policies, such as they are.

    Reverse for Hillary. The more they see her in person, the more interested they are in voting for her.

    Now why would THAT be? Hmmm

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's recent rise in polls (none / 0) (#27)
    by dk on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    Is indeed probably at least in part because of the debate. But even without the debate she probably would be going back up.around now. This is a sign that South Carolina and Kennedy's endorsements only provided temporary bumps for Obaba in the polls.  Now that those events are "ancient history" for most people, the polls are showing a correction in actual support levels.  

    Kennedy? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:51:40 PM EST
    Was Kennedy a bump?

    [ Parent ]
    Another theory (none / 0) (#38)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:45:20 PM EST
    from what I've read, it seems like a lot of women were really turned off by BO helping HRC with her chair and especially putting his hands on the small of her back thing.  

    Is it possible more and more women are joining a 'sisterhood movement' to elect the first female President?  It's like the Silent Majority all over again.

    Personally, I wasn't offended by the chivalry, although perhaps it was a bit over-the-top, but it definitely proved to me that he knew he was wrong to snub her and in that way, HRC came out on top.  

    Soccer moms (none / 0) (#40)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    I keep asking about them and no one knows where they went...they were for Security last time, where are they now. My 73 year old brother voted for Hillary because she is a woman. His comment, " men had their chance".

    [ Parent ]
    I think they live in NJ (none / 0) (#44)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:57:18 PM EST
    and are voting for HRC.  We'll see.

    [ Parent ]
    The kids of the last election's soccer moms (none / 0) (#68)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:24:26 PM EST
    are now driving; amongst my friends, those women support Obama.  Also, a younger friend who is a "swim team mom" supports Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    While the soccer moms and their moms (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:35:07 PM EST
    are coming out for Clinton, from some analyses we've seen -- the analyses that see some gendering, sure.

    But within this economic class (as economic class is the most significant indicator so far), it's about age . . . which means it's about economic issues for a group soon or already past working age, or what used to be retirement age, before all the screwups in the economy, health care, housing value, etc.

    So it is about experience -- voters' experience with what happens when we find out we can work hard for decades or all of our working lives and still be on the edge.  And we get more realistic about how much can hope for real change; we just hope to get our kids out of college, get out of our houses what we put into them, get out of Social Security what we put into it, and get by.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting. I'm reflecting on my friends' (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:46:05 PM EST
    views, but these friends are in two-income, professional families.  Maybe the demographic of the single, professional, working mom needs a closer look.

    [ Parent ]
    Some one here pointed out that (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    after he stood ready to help HRC, in her weakened condition, get up from her chair, he looked at the photographers.  Quite revealing.  

    [ Parent ]
    it was obv (none / 0) (#60)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:56:52 PM EST
    deliberate.  He stood there long enough. He sure did a 180 on the manners bit. It didnt bug me, I found it mildly amusing.  I dint see him look at the cameras, but I wouldnt be suprised.He needs to go to the Princess Di school of photo ops.

    [ Parent ]
    An observation (none / 0) (#47)
    by NJDem on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    so I've been looking at the Huff, DK, and others and there are more positive stories (even about the recent polls favoring HRC)and comments about her than ever--it's almost weird.  Actually, it's been that way since the debates.  

    And I've read other comments that the health-care flyer and latest General McPeak rant (since retracted) are more signs of desperation than anything else.  

    I think that's a stretch, and we won't know until 2./5, but today wasn't the completely slow news day I would have thought...

    why would there (none / 0) (#50)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    be a slow down the weekend before the biggest primary vote?  Doesnt seem at all intuitve to me to think that just because of a football game.

     

    [ Parent ]

    But we all are ignoring (none / 0) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    the Groundhog's Day effect canceling out the Super Bowl effect.  Early risers, some full of hope for spring . . . some sad to see the end of that other sort of season that fills their lives, and still in bed to be rested and  ready for a game that need take less than two hours but will stretch to at least ten hours of coverage.

    Of course, in my household, we have a Hoosier -- so we're already seeing pre-March Madness season.  Sigh.

    [ Parent ]

    I have to travel all week (none / 0) (#56)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    so I will miss all the fun.

    [ Parent ]
    Time to go wireless, Judith. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I have wireless (none / 0) (#62)
    by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    thanks.  :-)

    [ Parent ]
    I Hope The General McPeak Story Gets Legs (none / 0) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:59:11 PM EST
    On top of the "snub," this will bring women out in force to vote for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Drop off of South Carolina bump? (none / 0) (#52)
    by BDB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    I think the debate probably helped, if only to remind folks they like Clinton.  But I also wonder if this isn't the natural decline in Obama's bump following the South Carolina win.  

    And Florida effect of win for Clinton (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:27:32 PM EST
    in the popular vote, if not the ##@!$@! delegate count?

    [ Parent ]
    Transformational Change (none / 0) (#83)
    by bob h on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    will only come if the Republicans are stomped into the ground.  Clinton-Obama should offer the promise of a blowout victory with big additions to Democratic majorities in the Congress.  I have my fingers crossed for Clinton-Obama.

    YES, sounds good to me (none / 0) (#89)
    by RalphB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:48:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the CNN focus group (none / 0) (#88)
    by athyrio on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:36:13 PM EST
    at the debate thought Hillary won too 60% to 40%...Glad the polls are starting to reflect the latest stuff.....

    I hope your premise is correct. (none / 0) (#92)
    by magnetics on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:14:25 PM EST


    Did The Debate Stop Obama's Mo? | 92 comments (92 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment