Gallup Daily: Obama Back Into Lead in Democratic Race

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

...

The dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-D...ratic-Race.aspx

[simple_male 1]

Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

...

The dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-D...ratic-Race.aspx

Hope he keeps the lead all the way!

[metta 0]

Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

...

The dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-D...ratic-Race.aspx

This from pollster.com

Gallup's national tracking poll has Obama retaking the lead over Hillary after bottoming out on the day of his big race speech. Rasmussen's robo-poll, on the other hand, shows Obama losing ground since last Tuesday. True, even Rasmussen doesn't seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on his survey's 6-point shift. But isn't this week's primary race exactly the sort of environment--i.e.., the issue of race is in the air--when robo-polling is supposed to have an advantage over the conventional human telephone polling used by Gallup? Voters wary of looking like bigots to a live operator--'and why didn't you like Obama's plea for mutual for understanding that all the editorial pages liked?'--might lie about their opinions, a phenomenon known as the Bradley Effect. But they might be more willing to tell the truth to a machine. ...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

...

The dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-D...ratic-Race.aspx

This from pollster.com

Gallup's national tracking poll has Obama retaking the lead over Hillary after bottoming out on the day of his big race speech. Rasmussen's robo-poll, on the other hand, shows Obama losing ground since last Tuesday. True, even Rasmussen doesn't seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on his survey's 6-point shift. But isn't this week's primary race exactly the sort of environment--i.e.., the issue of race is in the air--when robo-polling is supposed to have an advantage over the conventional human telephone polling used by Gallup? Voters wary of looking like bigots to a live operator--'and why didn't you like Obama's plea for mutual for understanding that all the editorial pages liked?'--might lie about their opinions, a phenomenon known as the Bradley Effect. But they might be more willing to tell the truth to a machine. ...

Console yourself all you want.

[no name 1]

Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

...

The dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-D...ratic-Race.aspx

This from pollster.com

Gallup's national tracking poll has Obama retaking the lead over Hillary after bottoming out on the day of his big race speech. Rasmussen's robo-poll, on the other hand, shows Obama losing ground since last Tuesday. True, even Rasmussen doesn't seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on his survey's 6-point shift. But isn't this week's primary race exactly the sort of environment--i.e.., the issue of race is in the air--when robo-polling is supposed to have an advantage over the conventional human telephone polling used by Gallup? Voters wary of looking like bigots to a live operator--'and why didn't you like Obama's plea for mutual for understanding that all the editorial pages liked?'--might lie about their opinions, a phenomenon known as the Bradley Effect. But they might be more willing to tell the truth to a machine. ...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Today's Gallup Poll Daily tracking update finds Barack Obama with an eight percentage point advantage over Hillary Clinton (50% to 42%), this gives him a statistically significant advantage for the first time since before the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy.

...

The dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-D...ratic-Race.aspx

This from pollster.com

Gallup's national tracking poll has Obama retaking the lead over Hillary after bottoming out on the day of his big race speech. Rasmussen's robo-poll, on the other hand, shows Obama losing ground since last Tuesday. True, even Rasmussen doesn't seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on his survey's 6-point shift. But isn't this week's primary race exactly the sort of environment--i.e.., the issue of race is in the air--when robo-polling is supposed to have an advantage over the conventional human telephone polling used by Gallup? Voters wary of looking like bigots to a live operator--'and why didn't you like Obama's plea for mutual for understanding that all the editorial pages liked?'--might lie about their opinions, a phenomenon known as the Bradley Effect. But they might be more willing to tell the truth to a machine. ...

Never give up hope, dev.

Hey, we missed you in the other thread where the University of Chicago is coming out with statements suggesting that Obama's bold faced lies aren't lies at all. You're urgently needed there to set the record straight.

[metta 0]

Console yourself all you want.

You can call it "Kool Aid free' analysis

A note in passing: Sip on your calorie-free, nutrient -free and artificially flavored Kool Aid alright but stay sober and don't count your chickens yet

Predict the Race for Yourself

Political analysts have been scaling down Hillary Clinton's chances of victory. Many have taken to offering up numerical odds of her success. A source for the Politico affiliated with the Clinton campaign pegs it at 10%. David Brooks puts it at 5%. The InTrade market has it higher - at about 20%. Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei do not offer a number of their own, but they claim she has "virtually no chance of winning."

I agree that Clinton is more likely to lose than win. I also do not necessarily disagree with these low estimates. However, I disagree with the way these estimates are occasionally presented. There is sometimes an implication that these are precise predictions - when in fact a prediction like this must be very imprecise. This is why I was so vague in offering my own estimate last week.

There are reasons to expect imprecision in this kind of situation. Precision depends in part on the number of variable factors that create that which we are predicting. The more things that must happen for the prediction to come true, the less precise it is. Take an example. Suppose we are predicting whether a pitcher will strike out a batter. We can be reasonably precise. After all, there are just two factors to account for - the pitcher and the batter. Suppose, on the other hand, we're predicting who will win the World Series. Precision is very difficult here. After all, our prediction depends on thousands of factors shaking out in a certain way.

The situation is similar in this election. We can make a prediction of what will happen, and we should predict that Obama is more likely to win than Clinton. However, there are so many factors that will go into who wins the nomination that speaking more precisely than this becomes quite problematic.

Edited March 28, 2008 by metta

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Console yourself all you want.

You can call it "Kool Aid free' analysis

A note in passing: Sip on your calorie-free, nutrient -free and artificially flavored Kool Aid alright but stay sober and don't count your chickens yet

What kool aid? The truth will become painfully obvious soon - even to you.

Edited March 28, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Console yourself all you want.

You can call it "Kool Aid free' analysis

A note in passing: Sip on your calorie-free, nutrient -free and artificially flavored Kool Aid alright but stay sober and don't count your chickens yet

What kool aid? The truth will become painfully obvious soon - even to you.

When Hillary throws her support behind Obama as she should when he wins the nomination, will she too then be drinking the kool aid?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

When Hillary throws her support behind Obama as she should when he wins the nomination, will she too then be drinking the kool aid?

All I know is the Hillbots' won't know what to day or say. Their heads will explode.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Console yourself all you want.

You can call it "Kool Aid free' analysis

A note in passing: Sip on your calorie-free, nutrient -free and artificially flavored Kool Aid alright but stay sober and don't count your chickens yet

What kool aid? The truth will become painfully obvious soon - even to you.

When Hillary throws her support behind Obama as she should when he wins the nomination, will she too then be drinking the kool aid?

Yeah, just as Obama was all of a sudden qualified for the office when Hillary was dreaming about a joint ticket.