O'MENTUM.
Zogby doesn't have the best reputation among pollsters, but his new numbers showing a slight Obama lead in California are hugely meaningful, if accurate. They track with what I'm hearing on the ground out there, even though, fundamentally, it remains hard for me to believe Obama can actually take the Golden State.
Feeds: 


COMMENTS (24)
Why 'fundamentally', Ez? Cali seems pretty ripe territory for Obama - as would NY if HRC weren't the junior senator.
Posted by: Rene Leys | February 3, 2008 12:35 PM
In the future, I think all pollsters should be presented alongside their accuracy rating, so if Zogby is correct only 40% of the time, he should be referred to as Zogby(40%).
Posted by: Fred F. | February 3, 2008 12:46 PM
IMHO, Zogby's underlying numbers are unreliable, but he does capture real trends.
Posted by: joe | February 3, 2008 1:22 PM
Yay!
Health care stays the same!
Yay!
Posted by: anon7 | February 3, 2008 1:35 PM
Should we trust Zogby's numbers claiming Romney is leading McCain by 3% in California?
I suspect there's a serious sampling error in this latest Zogby poll.
Posted by: Elio M. García, Jr. | February 3, 2008 1:45 PM
I got off my fencepost and contributed to Obama, so I hope he does well in CA and elsewhere next week - staying fully viable would be a victory, IMO.
But, but, I'm really afraid that all the enthusiasm for Barak could prove to be a substantial negative if Hillary sweeps the field, effectively eliminating Obama. There will be many many disappointed, even bitter, Dems, Independents, and Soft Republicans who may choose to sit things out in November - especially the younger voters and minorities.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | February 3, 2008 1:47 PM
Zogby is a meh pollster, but Field is the gold standard in the state, and Field has Obama very nearly closing the gap here. Viz http://www.field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2264.pdf (PDF, but not a big one), which has the gap 36-34 Clinton-Obama -- with a huge amount of undecideds, so it could end up being almost anything.
Posted by: wcw | February 3, 2008 1:49 PM
Obama supporters BEWARE; polls breed complacency and relaxation. Watch out for the New Hampshire effect -- polls showed Obama with an overwhelming lead (attributed to the Iowa bump, a surge in support following the Iowa victory), leading many independents and even die-hard Obama supporters to lose their guard. In short, while Obama stays an underdog in the national races, he will mobilize his supporters, and will win the Feb. 5th states. As soon as his supporters start believing that he is ahead, they will paradoxically (but certainly) cut into their own momentum. So, Obama supporters remember: you are only an Obama supporter if you vote for Sen. Obama on February 5.
Posted by: Jonathan Myers | February 3, 2008 2:01 PM
Nobody can "take" California. Its not a winner take all primary ... none have been since 1988.
Pedantic? Maybe. Pointing out that the "blogosphere" constantly reinforces misleading Mess Media short-hands? Definitely.
Posted by: BruceMcF | February 3, 2008 2:18 PM
Live in PA, so I have a long wait to vote in a primary. The pundits seem over excited about Ted/Carline Kennedy.
Posted by: Alan Mc | February 3, 2008 2:23 PM
I'm really afraid that all the enthusiasm for Barak could prove to be a substantial negative if Hillary sweeps the field, effectively eliminating Obama. There will be many many disappointed, even bitter, Dems, Independents, and Soft Republicans who may choose to sit things out in November - especially the younger voters and minorities.
There's an easy solution to this problem, if the candidates are willing to take it.
Posted by: Jason C. | February 3, 2008 2:37 PM
Right. But they aren't willing.
Barack is not going to settle for VP in an administration that already has two presidents. It's not a very appealing job.
And I don't think Hillary wants the veep job, either.
Posted by: Ted | February 3, 2008 3:04 PM
Posted by: Jason C. | February 3, 2008 2:37 PM
Spell Barack's name rite?
Oh, wait, Clinton/Obama08 ... or, maybe that's Clinton08/Obama16
Posted by: BruceMcF | February 3, 2008 3:06 PM
One of the real questions here is the effect of absentee balloting. You can vote, in California, for several weeks before election day; how many people voted early for candidates who are no longer running, and what effect does that have on the outcome?
Posted by: aphrael | February 3, 2008 4:22 PM
Nice little event here last night at the Edward Jones Dome Convention Center in downtown St. Louis tonight, 20,000 people showed up to see Barack Obama. Security was tight, Secret Service everywhere, one of them grabbed me as I tried to climb on a light stand, nice clean-cut young man.
Once again, the press was kept largely at bay, and away from the stage altogether. Still photographers like myself were relegated to small sections of the two large press platforms, which were dominated by video cameras, I counted at least 25. TV is getting very important now.
I ran into the guys from NHK (Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai) the Japan Broadcasting Corp. at the press sign in table. You know it's big when those guys show up. I did the traditional Japanese exchange of business cards with one of the cameramen, cool. :-)
I got some good pictures, got within 5 feet of Obama as he was leaving the event, so check my photo blog in a day or two for the pics. I'm going to need at least 24 hours to recuperate, because it was pretty hectic, and very exciting. Pretty much the same message as in October, just a much much larger audience this time. I can attest, the folks in St. Louis love Barack Obama.
BFP (Blogger Free Press)
Posted by: Aaron B. Brown | February 3, 2008 4:25 PM
Aaron:
Good news, since I'm a recent Obamafan (Edwards was my guy). Nobody's polled in my state (Virginia) for a while, but I hope he does well here on 2/12.
Posted by: scott | February 3, 2008 4:32 PM
Well, we can truly evaluate Barack's hurricane-like effect in retrospect. In reality, he is truly a breath of fresh air, and an opportunity for an American resolve.The problem with American is that if not daring enough, it ends up defeated. The nature of the challenge, I guess. My vote is for the fairy tale prince.
Posted by: Moira | February 3, 2008 7:49 PM
"O'mentum"?
Ew. Just...ew.
Ezra, PLEASE never use that pun again. Any gastroenterologist can tell you - this word, it does not mean what you think it means.
Posted by: SV | February 3, 2008 9:58 PM
. . . A breath of fresh air. That is about as elusive as change. . . But not likely to happen if the nuclear power plants continue to leak.
Posted by: architecture | February 4, 2008 12:19 AM
Keep shoveling, there might be a unity pony in there somewhere.
Or you could try being objective.
I'm "on the ground" here in California too, and the only people pushing the momentum meme are members of Obama Nation.
Posted by: myiq2xu | February 4, 2008 7:45 AM
"They track with what I'm hearing on the ground out there"
Are you really unaware of the absurdity of that statement?
Posted by: david | February 4, 2008 9:38 AM
Zogby's telephone polls are actually quite respectable. If you go to RCP and compare pollsters' final pre-primary polls with the actual primary results so far this season, Zogby's clearly the best. On bad days, they've been middle-of-the-pack, and on good days, they've been the champs.
IIRC, Zogby also does some polls via the Internet and email, using a sample that's supposedly representative, but it's not random. And the results of those polls suck.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | February 4, 2008 10:05 AM
sv,
had to look it up based on your comment and, yes, big ew!
Posted by: anon7 | February 4, 2008 3:20 PM
Ok. It is February 6th and Hillary won California; by 10 points. Now what are the Obama groupie excuses?
Posted by: Larry P | February 6, 2008 5:13 PM