LATimes Polls: Bucking the CW

By Big Tent Democrat

The LATimes/Bloomberg polls of PA, IN and NC are out. The results are strikingly at odds with most existing polling:

The [PA]survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters. In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

(Emphasis supplied.) This poll is bucking the CW in all 3 of those states. Waiting to see some internals from this poll to give you some meaningful analysis. Strategic Vision has Clinton with a 9 point PA lead, up from a 5 points lead a week ago.

Got the Internals. LATimes appears to have made a strange choice in its methodology - it has included independents in a closed primary. In addition, it appears to have failed to poll for Republicans in Indiana, which I believe is a completely open primary. More . .

Apparently, the LATimes polled independents who claimed to be registered Dems in PA. And the choice by the Times is quite meaningful because Obama wins Indies in their poll by 53-40. I have no idea what percentage of the vote will be Indy according to the Times, but I do know that PA is a closed primary and thus no actual Independents will be voting in the PA primary.

This error could explain the Times' finding that Clinton only wins white voters by 52-36. Again, the Times chose not to provide turnout models. In addition, the Times strangely chose not to subpoll the A-A vote.

The Times' internals for Indiana and NC are similarly hinky. For example, the Times has Indian awhite voters splitting evenly but Obama with only a 5 point lead. this seems impossible to me. Both the split in white voters and Obama only leading by 5 in such a case. In addition, the high undecided number in Indiana is hard to accept as well.

The internals of the Times poll tell me that it is not a poll to be relied upon imo. I believe it is unreliable in all three states (understating Obama's likely 20 point lead in North Carolina.

< The Inevitable Narrative | D.C. Madam Convicted, Rob Lowe's Nanny Tells All >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:44:55 PM EST
    How does the NC poll buck the CW?

    True - it seems in line with other NC polls (none / 0) (#2)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:47:30 PM EST
    Much closer (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    Polls are so fickle (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Lahdee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    I applaud your penchant for polls, but they make me crazy. Ah for Tuesday when there'll be one less poll.

    Media can now discuss "unreliable polls" (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:52:23 PM EST
    ... instead of actually examining the real trends being reported in other polls.

    How convenient that these wacky polls keep appearing just when the story of Obama's inevitable victory is starting to be undermined by real evidence to the contrary.

    what evidence is there that obama (none / 0) (#27)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:46:41 PM EST
    is being undermined?  the inference of the pollster is that there will be little change to the delegate math if the poll is within a few points of the result.

    of the remaining four hundred and sixty seven delegates, obama will come out with at least half by all measures being reported.  post puerto rico, obama will need dozens of supers, the house of clinton will need hundreds.

    this poll and the rest do nothing to change this.


    The story of Obama's inevitable victory ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:01:19 PM EST
    ... is being undermined by the fact of Obama's inability to clinch victory in the primary, or even maintain any momentum when he is supposed to be a shoe-in for the nomination, and by the many polls and analyses showing that he will lose to McCain in the GE.

    neither candidate is going to (none / 0) (#51)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:38:12 PM EST
    win by the primary process.  the question at large is the super delegates.

    obama will need somewhere between eighty and one hundred and twenty supers to cross the two thousand twenty five mark based upon results predicted in this poll and others.

    the house of clinton will need somewhere around two hundred and thirty of three hundred and thirty remaining supers, two out of three, sixty sixty six percent.

    in order for obama to be undermined, the house of clinton would need to capture two out of every three supers announced.  this is not happening.  this has not been happening and the supers are talking about wrapping up the process post puerto rico.

    it is a stretch to believe this favors the house of clinton.


    The house of Clinton is not a candidate (none / 0) (#52)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:55:36 PM EST
    ... so your analysis makes no sense.

    Sorry... (none / 0) (#55)
    by pattonbt on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:34:47 AM EST
    But please try not to be intentionally obtuse.  The 'math' rational is perfectly clear and perfectly correct.  All it does is not give a high probability to the slim chance that still remains for Clinton.

    All sides are granting the fact that this is in the hands of the supers no matter what but 'the math' camp is simply saying this "if the primary process plays out as expected (and signs are showing it will) Obama will have a significant pledged delegate lead at the end.  With said pledged delegate lead it would require 5 times more supers (or whatever times more) to break for Clinton than Obama in order for Clinton to take the lead and get the most overall delegates to win the nomination" period.

    'The math' argument than goes on to say, the probability that supers go in the necessary numbers for Clinton when there is a clear pledged delegate leader is close to zero.

    At the same time, 'the math' camp will (and should) say the following three things (or at least I do as I am a member of 'the math' camp):

    1. This analysis is barring catastrophe on Obama's side,

    2. Hillary runs the table in convincing fashion (+15 or so in each remaning contests or thereabouts), and

    3. Who knows what, since, technically, the race is still on (never say never kind of thing)

    The problem I have for those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of 'the math' is you end up taking extremely unlikely scenarios and issues and blow them up in very irrational ways that only die hards would accept, and trust me, none of the supers left are die hards on either side, if they were, they would have have committed already.

    The reality as to why the remaining supers havent pledged is:

    1. the possibility of point 1 or 2 above,

    2. the 'whats the long term harm in letting this run through the last primary, if the race stays clean its good for dems', or

    3. They are scared politicians who dont want to be seen as partisan in this fight.  They dont want to make a 'wrong move' and end up on the wrong side of the winner. So they recognize they can wait and stay out of the fray and come out when its absolutely safe.

    Personally I think 3 is the most likely, most of these remaining supers are just waiting for cover to go for pledged delegate leader after the last primary.

    But to dismiss 'the math' as not the best indicator as to the outcome of the primary process is borderline willful follishness or extreme wishfullness.


    I understand all that, but ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by cymro on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 04:58:31 AM EST
    First, there did not seem to be much point in trying to conduct a rational discussion with someone who insists on referring to Hillary as "the house of clinton" in every paragraph.

    Second, all of your explanations of "the math"  deal only with primary delegate math, and not with GE math. However, the only purpose of the entire primary process is for the Democrats to nominate a candidate with the best chance of winning in November. Based on "the math", that decision, I agree, now falls to the superdelegates.

    But this is where "the math", as you describe it, breaks down. Because your observations and calculations about "the remaining supedelegates" miss the point that no super's have yet voted, all they have done is announce their intentions.

    And so when the time comes for them to actually vote, knowing the responsibility they have to pick a winner, they will have to cast their votes according to everything that is known at that time. You say in your first point 1 that your "analysis is barring catastrophe on Obama's side". Well, if I were a superdelgate, and I were looking at electoral college projections that showed that Obama was highly unlikely to defeat McCain, that would seem like a catastrophe to me.

    If the superdelegates do not take electability into account, and pick Obama anyway, and he gets trounced by McCain as I expect, then maybe the party will learn its lesson and do things differently in 2012.


    You make a couple of accurate points (none / 0) (#58)
    by pattonbt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 12:46:48 AM EST
    but you gloss over the political reality of the situation too easily.  I will guarantee you this (or more accurately id be willing to place a gentlemans (womans) bet with you), if the pledged delegates play out as expected right now, there is zero chance the supers will go in enough numbers to Clinton.  Whether people want to accept it or not, that is the primary measure of the nomination process and any overturn of pledged delegates will be suicide.  

    I just cant figure out why it is so hard for people to figure that out.  There is just no scenario barring a fatal Obama collapse a la Greg Norman on Sunday at Augusta that could persuade enough supers to overturn a sizable pledged delegate lead.  As I said, there are scenarios where Clinton can still win, just that the chances of things breaking like that are slim.

    Yes - none of the supers have actually voted yet so they could change their allegiance between now and then.  But do you honestly believe they will overturn a pledged delegate leader.  Honestly?

    Also, your assertion on electibility is not necessarily accurate or supported by evidence.  The EV counter on MyDD has a better chance for Obama than Clinton so that seems to shoot down the pro-Clinton argument on that.  And at the debate tonight Hillary admitted Obama would beat McCain.

    Obama getting trounced is nothing but your opinion, it is not fact.  I do appreciate peoples apprehension with his candidacy, but many of us on the other side have equally serious and strongly felt opinions that are mirrored about Clinton.  Also, there is plenty of evidence both would beat McCain.  I am not blind enough in my pro-Obama stance to simply spout the baseless fact that "Hillary is unelectible".  Thats not true - they are both electible, but in very different ways.  The reality is, McCain is toast when the full glare of TV is on him and when a one on one campaign is undertaken.

    I do agree the supers should take electibility into account, but mostly they are going to take the will of the democratic party into account first.  They want to put the candidate forward that most democrats want to see.  The problem we have this year is we have two very different but excellent candidates and the choice is very hard as both have solid strengths and weaknesses.  One good candidate is going to lose which sucks, but a measure of the will has to be undertaken and someone has to lose.  And to overturn the primary measure of the process based on polls four months out (which at this time showed Kerry handily beating Bush) will not be the measure.

    Of course, all this is my opinion, and based on my own biases and hunches, so a grain fo salt with this as always.


    If superdelegates can never ... (none / 0) (#59)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:58:10 AM EST
    overturn a pledged delegate leader

    ... then they have no purpose, period. Clearly the party intended to enable exactly that possibility, or they would not have added superdelegates to the pledged delegates when they instituted the present primary rules. There is no reason for the role of superdelegate to exist, if all they are ever going to do is rubber stamp the pledged delegate leader. They would be the Democratic Party's equivalent of the Queen of England, who (technically, under the royal prerogative) appoints government ministers, but who in reality simply approves party appointments. I don't believe the Democratic Party created superdelegates to fulfill that kind of ceremonial role.

    So, yes, I honestly do believe they can overturn the pledged delegate outcome, because that is why we have them. I agree with you that they are going to take into account both electability, and the question of who "most democrats want to see." Finally, I believe that by the time we get to the convention, it will be apparent from both the primary vote totals and the polls that most Democrats favor Clinton as the candidate with the best chance of winning in November.

    In fact, I've seen analyses showing that Clinton already leads Obama among Democrats, just not among all those who have voted in the Democratic primaries. But if Clinton keeps beating Obama between now and the convention, and catches him in the popular vote, and Obama's keeps slipping relative to Clinton in the GE predictions, then the Superdelegates -- including those who have already announced their intent -- will be forced to pick Clinton, or risk looking foolish in November.


    Again, true (none / 0) (#60)
    by pattonbt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:15:40 AM EST
    The supers of course can overturn the pledged delegate lead.  That is unquestioned.

    I do not think they will, but they most certainly can.

    Again, my reasons for why I dont think they will are pretty basic and of course dependent upon whatever happens in the next couple of months.  I dont want to go into my reasons because I will end up rambling and I want to try and stay succinct this time.

    On the rest, we will probably have to just agree to disagree.  Since I think both Clinton and Obama are equally electible (by the way is it 'electable' with an 'a' or 'electible' with a 'b'?  I never get that one right I think) I wont argue that Clinton cant win.  I just think they both win different ways and for different reasons.  

    And my personal take is Obama would win larger and in more states than Clinton would with much higher coattail advantages.  Again, thats just my take.


    So we'll just have to wait and see, but ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:26:12 AM EST
    ... I get the feeling that we both wish we had less excitement in our lives!

    Yup (none / 0) (#62)
    by pattonbt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 02:52:11 AM EST
    Thats why I hate this drawn out primary.  I found myself too often getting actually upset at other dems throughout this process.

    It was about when this break before the PA primary started that I finally got completely over my 'Hillary hysteria'.  Dont get me wrong, she is not my preferred candidate.  And actually my support for Obama is more borne out of my refusal to give Hillary my primary support, but I had always said is she was the nom, she would get my vote.

    And I also tried to honestly, as best I could, assess the facts as they were and I came to conclusion that, yes, Hillary would defeat McCain and defeating McCain is paramount in all this.  So I tuned out for a very short bit but when I came back the vitriol was still there, and I think most of it is unfounded on both sides.  So I decided to try, probably hopelessly for now, to be a bit of bridge (with some room for good snark here and there).

    The tribalism of the long campaign was going to eventually lead to this I guess, I just hope we have enough time when its all said and done to come together.  Reading stuff here and on DKos does not warm my belly at times, but I think in the end we are mostly in the right place, just fervently supporting our guy/gal.

    I just made a comment elsewhere that I wish we could do a Reces Peanut Butter cup with the two candidates, mash up the best bits of both and put that forward as our candidate.  But reality says, one of our great candidates will have to go home, and thats going to hurt a lot of dems no matter who it is.


    I wish ... (none / 0) (#63)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 01:40:56 PM EST
    ... I felt as confident of Obama's abilities as you.  I can feel OK about a joint Clinton/Obama ticket, but I don't think Obama is ready for the top spot, especially with the state of the world in 2008.

    This election cycle feels very similar to 1976, when Carter won -- as an "outsider" promising change, just as Obama is doing. He lasted just one term, was sabotaged by world events (and Bush-orchestrated conspiracies), and as a result we had to endure 12 years of Reagan and Bush. I could see that cycle being repeated if Obama were elected.

    However, in this instance, if Obama is the nominee, I believe McCain will win. So the Democrats will have another 4 years to get organized into a coherent party, or at least try to figure out how to be an effective opposition party in Congress, and really control the McCain administration.


    So (none / 0) (#64)
    by pattonbt on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:58:35 PM EST
    If Obama is the nominee will you support him and/or vote for him?

    As I said I can appreciate anyones concerns with Obama, but honestly, I dont think anyone is ready for the presidency and it is not a 'one person job' anyway.

    Obama/Clinton will not be Atlas with the world solely on their shoulders.  They would both be supported by many, many good people and would both make great decisions.

    There is no 3am moment in reality.  24 is fiction and there is never a 'ticking time bomb' scenario that requires that kind of judgment individually at a snap.

    So I just judge the character of the candidates, see who they surround themselves with and try and guage how their mind works and what their nature is.  And both Clinton and Obama will make good choices.

    I believe whoever is president this next cycle is in for one of the most historically turbulent and tough periods ever and they will suffer from it because most of it will really be out of their control.  I just think McCain will make it much, much, much worse than either Clinton or Obama.  But all three would suffer from the possibility of one term presidencies since times will be tough.

    But I can be assured that both Obama and Clinton will make decisions that I agree with (say in regards to Supreme Court, Intervention, Security, Economy, etc.) more than anything McCain would.


    small polling samples (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:57:55 PM EST
    Also last September, the LA Times decided to halve its polling department and outsource interviews. I wonder if that's a factor.

    make that tiny samples (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    the la times says the poll was conducted Thurs to Monday -- five days --

    total polled:  "623 voters in Pennsylvania, 687 in Indiana and 691 in North Carolina who expected to cast Democratic ballots. The margin of sampling error for the findings in each state is plus or minus 4 percentage points."

    That's about 100 people per day polled for each state.


    Thats about what SUSA uses (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jgarza on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:13:08 PM EST
    the high number of undecideds struck me as odd.

    With 25% undecided.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by ineedalife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    you can say anything.  The eventual outcome will be explained away as undecideds breaking late. Meanwhile Obama gets a headline that can be used to blunt Clinton's momentum from the other polls.

    Yep, Obama got the headline for this (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 09:19:51 AM EST
    in my paper in Milwaukee, the rightie Journal Sentinel.  It never reports other polls favoring Clinton with such headlines, so all most folks know here is that she must be losing, losing badly. . . .

    Blecch.  Every day's paper reaffirms why we need other and online news sources, too.


    So I finally (5.00 / 8) (#6)
    by lefty lawyer on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:00:23 PM EST
    get up off my ass and get an account here, after being disgusted on a daily basis by the orange-tinged glasses being worn over at Daily Obama, and what do I find?

    Big Tent Democrat, doing a bazillion poll analyses a day, after having sworn off all polls in 2004.

    It's just like the old days.  Good times, man, good times.  I think I'm gonna like it here.  And the analysis is just as acerbic and tart (and accurate) as it was back then.

    welcome but do me a favor (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:04:17 PM EST
    and read the comment rules okay? It's very different than what you are used to...no profanity (an occasional asterisk in place of letters is ok), no name-calling or personal insults or attacks to name a few.

    Glad you found BTD over here.


    welcome! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:03:00 PM EST
    Has there been a study on polls? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:01:33 PM EST
    comparing corporate media polls to "other" polls.

    Survey USA explains the disparity in (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:06:19 PM EST
    PA polls here.

    low polling numbers... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:07:12 PM EST
    suit Clinton. Run like your behind.  Expectations of a close race are all to her benefit--especially if SUSA is showing her 10 pts ahead.

    I don't see Obama being superpopular after the last week.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:13:11 PM EST

    I don't think we could've expected better from Bloomberg.

    it didn't change a thing. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:14:23 PM EST
    Obama being superpopular

    people aren't as stupid as Clinton supporters think they are.  While Obama certainly chose words poorly to make his point, most people have a relatively rational filter.

    he'll certainly lose there. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Salo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:23:57 PM EST
    So it's literally true that he's less popular than Clinton there. He was probably going to swamp her with ad spending before the "clinging" comment surfaced.

    But I'm much more interested in the general election at this point.  Clinton is more or less a spent force politically. Given that she's widely seen as defeated: Why is he lagging behind her in Pennsylvannia? and why has Obama has also cratered in places like Florida vs McCain?


    demographics (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:30:05 PM EST
    the same reason Obama beat Hillary in so many other states.

    The same reason he beats McCain in Michigan GE match ups ,and Clinton loses there big.


    Oh really? (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:14:18 PM EST
    I don't think so.

    The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win 10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

    McCain currently is narrowly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan, and behind in the others. A Marist survey last week shocked many by showing McCain ahead of Obama by 2% in New York State (an 18% Kerry win in 2004). If McCain is within 10% of winning in New York in November, he will not need the state to win the election, for he likely will have won most or all of the blue states on his target list above.

    Opinions differ, it seems.


    Mccain was losing to Obama (none / 0) (#39)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:50:38 PM EST
    in the lasted MI poll.

    latest (none / 0) (#40)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:51:05 PM EST
    me type bad

    Cherry-picking polls... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:19:04 PM EST
    Double edged sword there, for supporters of a candidate to cherry pick the polls that have them ahead.  While it's great to demoralize your opponent's supporters by showing them lacking the numbers, if you're using unreliable polls to do that, come election day you just make the other candidate's victory (or smaller loss) much more significant...  If a candidate is consistently ahead by 10 points in polls and then wins by 10 points...no big deal...  But if the polls are wrong and they lose or the gap is significantly narrowed, it's a weak showing which can be very damaging......

    So I certainly don't mind the media harping on polls that show Obama doing much better than he may actually do on Tuesday.

    I tend to go with (none / 0) (#24)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:31:21 PM EST
    SUSA or polling averages, then expect to be suprised voting day.

    cross-tabs-- the voters' ages? (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by CookCountyDem on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:20:05 PM EST
    Just one thing I noticed that gives me pause...the LAT/Bloomberg X-tabs list only two age categories-- with 45 yrs. being the cut-off.

    From what I know about the demographics in the race in general, and a state like Pa. in particular, I would hope that the pollsters were not simply looking for an age sample that had equal parts above and below the 45 yr. old cut-off.  

    If that is indeed how they conducted it, the results would skew far too young and likely  inflate Obama's performance.

    A more reliable poll would look for samples of 18-29, 30-35, 45-54, etc.  The recent interest of college students notwithstanding, an accurate poll for would give added weight to older voters who-- esp in a primary-- tend to be more reliable voters.

    That's just my reading of it.

    Anecdotal story about the LA Times (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by joanneleon on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:31:29 PM EST
    Last summer at YKos, in a hallway outside the meeting rooms, my friend and I were approached by an LA Times reporter.  He asked us if we were there when Clinton got booed at the debate.  We said yes, we were there.  He wanted to know if we were booing.  We said no, and also said that we didn't think the booing was a highlight of the debate.  He started to walk away.  He clearly had no interest in talking to us about it anymore, because he was looking for somebody who could give him some negative quotes.

    I called him out on this and said, wait, if you are writing a story about Clinton's reception during the debate, why don't you want to hear both sides of the story?  Are you going to report this story fairly or what?   He began to get nasty then, and said something like "well, don't read the story then."  To which I responded, of course, that I surely wouldn't and that cherry picking quotes and opinions is dishonest reporting.  

    So, since then, I have had my doubts about the LA Times ability to be objective about Clinton.

    I get back to the boss if I possibly can (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:59:47 PM EST
    when this happens. The other day I read Mark Benjamin in Salon.com report that Obama had voted "against" the war.  Fortunately Joan Walsh and Mark's e-mail were easily accessable and I jotted off a challenge to that lie and got a mea culpa likity split.  However the story was out there already. Nice, real nice.

    oh wow that is very telling story..... (none / 0) (#32)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:09:47 PM EST
    I wouldn't put it past the LA Times . . . (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    I wouldn't put it past the LA Times to rig a poll for their favorite candidate.

    This changes the story from "Obama's support cratering" to "Obama remains strong as Clinton's attacks fail," giving him better press coverage for the next few crucial days.

    Later, the LAT can dismiss their polls as a fluke.

    The LAT has a capitalist mindset when it comes to credibility: the point of building it up is so that they can spend it.

    arent the LATIMES owned by the chicago tribune ? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:13:38 PM EST

    I don't know (none / 0) (#45)
    by IzikLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:10:04 PM EST
    But I do know that they endorsed Obama...

    Yes, the Tribune company owns the LA Times (none / 0) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:13:23 PM EST
    Older voters gravitate to Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:47:07 PM EST
    because they're too wise to be fooled by Barack Obama's rhetoric, former president Bill Clinton told Pennsylvania voters today.

    So says WJC.

    I don't believe these polls they probably they don't fully represent HRC's demographic advantages in Indiana and Pennsylvania.  (And I'm not just talking about the folks who Bill says can't be fooled.)

    The North Carolina numbers seem to agree with other polling.

    I know that some are worried that BO is alienating HRC supporters, would those who have this concern agree that WJC is being reckless with these comments above?  


    Please (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:05:53 PM EST
    read his quote, he says that older people remember that the Clinton years were much better than the Bush years, which they were. Obama has spent his entire campaign tearing down Bill Clinton's presidency, while praising Reagan and Bush I, not to mention other republicans like Lugar. Bill Clinton has a right to stand up for himself and his work as president, which was overall positive and good for our nation. He was not a perfect president, but he did a lot of good things, and Obama is supposed to be a Democrat. He should focus on Hillary and her plans instead of tearing down the only 2-term Dem we have had in a VERY long time. Remember, he needs the Dem economic legacy, which was formed under Clinton most recently, in the general. If he tears it down, he doesn't have much credibility pointing to it later.

    or because they the like the familar (none / 0) (#42)
    by libfighter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:54:10 PM EST
    and fear change.

    CNN and MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:00:49 PM EST
    only talking about LA Times polls, not SUSA.  The narrative is that "Obama is holding his own and pulling ahead in IN.  Clinton's clinging to bittergate is not working."

    I hope the SUSA polls are right again so they can call Clinton the comeback kid once again!

    MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by IzikLA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:13:30 PM EST
    Is all Clinton bashing all the time.  CNN is slightly less obvious but still so.  You are absolutely right though.  I only get MSNBC in my office and all I've seen is the LAT poll over and over and over again, accompanied by the story that the 'bitter' attacks don't seem to be working.  I can't wait for next Tuesday to get here.  This 6 week break was just way too long for anything good to come of it.  I think there may be some shock.  This will be the first time people go to the polls since "bitter" (we should really say "cling") and the appearance of Wright I might add.  Let's see what happens.

    citizen big tent democrat, your (none / 0) (#36)
    by cy street on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:36:26 PM EST
    takes on the polls are new to me and i appreciate the insight.  thank you.

    what is the relevance of pollster dot com?

    they give a seven point edge for clinton, it seems reliable to a novice; is it?  

    My opinion (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 06:47:48 PM EST
    I think their regression model is ridiculous. I give it no value at all. That is just me though. Other people really think it is worthwhile.

    It is a reliable index of polls, regardless ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:14:58 PM EST
    ... of whether you accept their regression analysis as a valid methodology. I agree that poll outliers seem to carry more weight than they should in determining the regression lines. I'd really like to have an interactive tool that allowed me to recalculate the regression lines dynamically based on my choice of which polls to include. But that would require a lot programming to develop, and way more server horsepower to deliver.

    But I think it's still a very useful and well-maintained service. I like being able to find all the polls listed and plotted in one place, and being able to navigate easily to individual poll results. And their blog provides thoughtful commentary from time to time, too.


    Well you are fond of trend lines- what do (none / 0) (#50)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:38:05 PM EST
    the polls in combination as to trend lines tell us? About the 'gaffe' for example?