Washington Post/ABC Poll: Obama closes in on Clinton as Giuliani widens his lead

[Eraserhead]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022701030_pf.html

Dems:
Clinton 36%
Obama 24%
Gore 14%
Edwards 12%

GOP:
Giuliani 44%
McCain 21%
Gingrich 15%
Romney 4%


Leaving Gore off helps Clinton while leaving Gingrich off helps Giuliani a lot (Rudy leads McCain 53% to 23% in that case).

[Verily]

I would be a little surprised if Gingrich doesn't run, given the favorable poll numbers he's been getting. He could take over McCain's position as the non-Giuliani candidate.


Clinton: 43
Obama: 27
Edwards: 14

Giuliani: 44
McCain: 21
Gingrich: 15
Romney: 4


Overall, a great poll for Clinton, Obama, Giuliani and Gingrich, and more bad news for Edwards and McCain. Again, I must express the opinion that Gore's transfer support is probably soft for Clinton and mostly based on name-recognition. This is because the liberal supporters of Gore are the ones who dislike Clinton the most so their support probably went to Obama or Edwards, leaving Clinton with only the name-recognition Gore supporters.

This poll is a new record high for both Giuliani and Obama.

[Mr. Morden]

I agree with everything you said Verily, but let's not forget that Edwards and McCain seem to be in better shape in the early primary states than they are nationally, so it's not really as bad for them as this poll would indicate.

Speaking of which, now that Obama seems to have taken the lead among black voters, I'd really love to see a new SC poll.  I don't think we've gotten one since December (the Elon University one doesn't count, as the sample size was pathetic).

[Reaganfan]

I agree with everything you said Verily, but let's not forget that Edwards and McCain seem to be in better shape in the early primary states than they are nationally, so it's not really as bad for them as this poll would indicate.

Speaking of which, now that Obama seems to have taken the lead among black voters, I'd really love to see a new SC poll.  I don't think we've gotten one since December (the Elon University one doesn't count, as the sample size was pathetic).

Right. Remember, winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, ect...can change everything. It did that for Kerry in 2004.

[Sam Spade]

A couple of things so far:

1. About a day or two ago, I changed my mind on the impact of last week's Obama-Clinton tussle because of the various news reports et al.  I determined that regardless of what I thought about who won (Clinton), people were interpreting it "correctly" as being an Obama win and the media was shaping it as such.  On things like this, sometimes the media decides who wins and who loses.  This was such a case.  You saw this in my moving Clinton down 5 basis points and Obama up 5.  I was tempted to move Edwards down too, but decided against it.  That may be incorrect.

2. Gore is not running.  I am willing to bet considerable money on this.  I also suspect Gingrich will not run as well and will choose to endorse Giuliani, although I am not willing to bet money on it, yet.

3. Considering that Edwards has spent the last 3 years in the early primary states, one would hope for his campaign that he would be in better shape in them.  That doesn't say much about his odds, which are clearly below Hillary's and Obama's.

[Verily]

I agree with everything you said Verily, but let's not forget that Edwards and McCain seem to be in better shape in the early primary states than they are nationally, so it's not really as bad for them as this poll would indicate.

Speaking of which, now that Obama seems to have taken the lead among black voters, I'd really love to see a new SC poll.  I don't think we've gotten one since December (the Elon University one doesn't count, as the sample size was pathetic).

Right. Remember, winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, ect...can change everything. It did that for Kerry in 2004.

This is still nearly a year before the Iowa caucus. Kerry started losing support nationally to Dean only around August of 2003, and he was always in at worst a strong second in national polls. Edwards is in a distant third nationally and falling more than six months earlier than that, and he's campaigned in all of these states before.

This also holds for McCain, though less so. McCain has held on to second place nationally, and, while he has campaigned in all of these states before, too, that was eight years ago, not four.

[Mr. Morden]

This is still nearly a year before the Iowa caucus. Kerry started losing support nationally to Dean only around August of 2003, and he was always in at worst a strong second in national polls.

Huh?  What are you talking about?  Kerry looked to be completely dead in the water in late 2003.  Go here:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04dem.htm

and check out any poll from late 2003, or even early January 2004.  Some examples:

CNN/USA Today Gallup
December 11-14, 2003

Dean 31
Lieberman 13
Clark 10
Kerry 10
Gephardt 8

NBC News/WSJ
December 13, 2003

Dean 29
Gephardt 12
Clark 10
Lieberman 7
Kerry 6

Pew
December 19, 2003-January 4, 2004

Dean 27
Lieberman 13
Clark 10
Gephardt 10
Kerry 7

Still, even when Kerry was in 4th or 5th place nationally, he was still in third (behind Dean and Gephardt) in Iowa and in second (behind Dean) in NH in most polls, as far as I can recall.  (Granted, that was a very distant third and a very distant second by December '03.)

[Verily]

Okay, I was misremembering. Sorry