Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
IS THERE ANY MEANING TO THESE POLLS?
I’m not sure how much these polls mean, but Barack Obama is now leading Hillary Clinton in Georgia and Colorado, states he never led her before this month and, in Colorado’s case, this week. Ditto for Connecticut, where as of today he is now tied with Clinton. And in Arizona, he’s cut her earlier lead of about 20 points in half. Other states—including big, critical states like California, Massachusetts and New Jersey—seem to be holding steady for Clinton, and Alabama is trending toward her.
Of course, many of these comparisons are between recent polls with results only a few weeks ago, while others compare recent results with polls from months ago; and the polling firms may be using different sampling and screening methods. It’s hard to conclude too much. But if Obama is tied in Connecticut and leading in Colorado and Georgia, states where he was losing by double-digits in the fall, there seems to be some tightening of the race.
And then there is the wildcard of the Edwards' supporters. I mean, who really knows what the hell is going to happen on Tuesday? Boy, this is getting really, really interesting.
--Tom Schaller
COMMENTS (8)
as someone who was going to vote for edwards in New York, now i don't have a candidate to support - someone, please explain to me why i should vote for either obama or clinton?
Posted by: derek | January 30, 2008 2:07 PM
Honestly, why don't you understand that polls don't mean very much in isolation.
The only numbers that mean anything in isolation are market driven numbers from the Iowa market or from Intrade.
Posted by: neil wilson | January 30, 2008 2:41 PM
Gallup has Clinton up by only 6, which is my magic Super Tuesday number. If that figure holds, then Obama will be down by about 100 delegates, and can start making up ground with the favorable territory in February.
It also means he just might win a few states that might be considered surprises, like Connecticut or even New Jersey if he's lucky.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | January 30, 2008 2:55 PM
As I recall, Obama started running ads in CT last week, right? Is Clinton not running ads? If so it seems plausible. Also thanks to the Lamont campaign the gate-crashers in CT are well organized and connected, that might be a factor.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | January 30, 2008 3:00 PM
Derek, I'd be happy to try to give you reasons to vote for Obama, if I knew your priorities. I don't work for him or anything, I am just another voter. Drop me a line and I will do my sincere best to help.
CAPTCHAs delenda est. I keep having to try multiple times to post. What a pain.
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | January 30, 2008 3:24 PM
Whoops: you can email me at prospect.org@narcissus.net. (Yes, you read that right.)
Posted by: Ben Rosengart | January 30, 2008 3:25 PM
Other states—including big, critical states like California, Massachusetts and New Jersey—seem to be holding steady for Clinton, and Alabama is trending toward her.
Of those four states, only California (11-point margin) has any post-South Carolina polling data, and only one poll there. None of the four has post-Kennedy endorsement(s) polling data.
Posted by: Gee | January 30, 2008 4:11 PM
very nice post..sesli sohbet
Posted by: sesli chat | September 12, 2009 8:09 PM