ARG poll March 2-5 of 600 likely primary, caucus voters. Clinton 34%, Obama 31%, Edwards 15%

[flpoljunkie]

American Research Group poll. March 2-5, 2007. N=600 likely Democratic primary and caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

Obama appears to be closing the gap.

[NDP]

1. ARG polls are a joke

[Ethelk2044]

2. One Question

Who do you support?

[flpoljunkie]

4. Answer: NOT. BACKING. HILLARY.

[NDP]

9. What does who I "support" have to do with the fact that the ARG state polls are

ridiculously wrong. As such, I could also care less about their "national" polls, especially when national polls mean zero right now anyway.

[papau]

20. Arg is very different from other polls taken at the same time

.
American Research Group poll. March 2-5, 2007. N=600 likely Democratic primary and caucus voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
.
Preference for Democratic Presidential Nominee:
.
%
Hillary Clinton 34
Barack Obama 31
John Edwards 15

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). March 2-5, 2007. Asked of Democrats, and non-Democrats who said they would vote in a Democratic presidential primary (from a total sample of 1,007 adults nationwide).
.
"Let me mention some people who might seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. If the next Democratic primary for president were being held today, for which one of the following candidates would you vote . . . ?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"
.
3/2-5/07 12/8-11/06
% %
Hillary Clinton 40 37
Barack Obama 28 18
John Edwards 15 14
.
"If the choice for the Democratic nomination came down to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for whom would you vote?" If unsure: "Well, which way do you lean?"
.
Hillary
Clinton Barack
Obama Neither/
Other (vol.) Unsure
% % % %
3/2-5/07 47 39 4 10


USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 2-4, 2007. N=482 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide. MoE ± 5.
.
"Next, I'm going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else. . . ." Names rotated
.
3/2-4/07 2/9-11/07 1/12-14/07 12/11-14/06 11/9-12/06
% % % % %
Hillary Rodham Clinton 36 40 29 33 31
Barack Obama 22 21 18 20 19
Al Gore 18 14 11 12 9
John Edwards 9 13 13 8 10
.
"Suppose the choice for the Democratic presidential nomination narrows down to Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. Which one would you prefer the Democratic Party nominate for president: Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama?" Names rotated
.
Clinton Obama Unsure
% % %
3/2-4/07 56 36 8
2/9-11/07 62 33 5
1/12-14/07 53 39 8


Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Feb. 28-March 1, 2007. N=1,202 adults nationwide. Results below are among registered Democrats and Democratic leaners.
.
"Suppose the race for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2008 comes down to a choice between . Who would you MOST like to see nominated?" If other/unsure: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward ?"
.
Hillary
Clinton Barack
Obama Unsure
% % %
2/28 - 3/1/07 52 38 10
1/24-25/07 55 35 10
.

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Feb. 27-28, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. Results below are among Democratic voters (MoE ± 5).
.
"If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today, for whom would you vote if the candidates were ?" Names rotated
.
2/27-28/07 1/30-31/07
% %
Hillary Clinton 34 43
Barack Obama 23 15
Al Gore 14 11
John Edwards 12 12

.
"Now I'm going to read a list of candidates who might be running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008. If the Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, listen carefully to the names and then tell me which candidate you would be most likely to vote for. . . ." Names rotated
Time Poll .
2/23-26/07 1/22-23/07
% %
Hillary Rodham Clinton 36 40
Barack Obama 24 21
Al Gore 13 9
John Edwards 11 11
"What if your choices for the Democratic nomination were just Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and John Edwards, which one would you vote for if you had to decide today?" Names rotated
.
%
Hillary Rodham Clinton 42
Barack Obama 30


ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 22-25, 2007. N=1,082 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS. Results below are among leaned Democrats.
.
"If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were , for whom would you vote?" Names rotated
2/22-25/07
%
Hillary Clinton 43
Barack Obama 27
John Edwards 14

Zogby America Poll. Feb. 22-24, 2007. N=439 likely Democratic primary voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.8.
.
"If the Democratic primary for president were held today, for whom would you vote: ?"
.
2/22-24/07 1/5-9/07 12/6-8/05
% % %
Hillary Clinton 33 29 26
Barack Obama 25 14 7
John Edwards 12 13 12

[flpoljunkie]

43. However, McCain reportedly excited about his ranking in this same ARG poll

The McCain camp is also excited about a poll just out from American Research Group showing Mr. McCain within 4 percentage points of Mr. Giuliani nationally, in contrast to most polls showing in the neighborhood of a 20-point gap. ARG president Dick Bennett tells me his poll is more accurate than most of the other national polls floating around because he's measuring likely Republican primary voters and caucus-goers (they self-identify by telling ARG they will definitely vote).

http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/03/the-mccain-response.html

Link to ARG Republican 2008 poll: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08rep.htm

[papau]

45. true - it is the sieve to get "likely" that causes the dif - but if McCain is happy- all is well n/t

n/t

[PresidentObama]

3. Yawn. Another poll, another day.

Let me know how things are in 10 months.

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. When Gore's In The Race

I hope. :-)

[zulchzulu]

6. MOE plus/minus 4% with 600 peeps is a crappy poll

An MOE of 3 or less is mo' bettah...

I do like the trend though...

[flpoljunkie]

7. Yes, it is the trend toward Obama this and other polls are showing that stands out.

[karynnj]

8. As it's a year away, only huge shifts matter

What is clear is that Obama has very significantly improved, while Edwards has likely gained only very slightly. (The slight increase may be mostly by Kerry and Warner being out.)

THe WSJ polls immediately under this poll on the OP"s link are fascinating. Obama went from 18 to 28, while most of the others stayed the same. His numbers seemed to have come from Kerry who had 11% in December. (You can't say this for sure, but it seems a likely hypothesis.)

[NDP]

11. Wrong. The only thing that matters is the "sample" and the "questions."

[karynnj]

28. The question was given in polling report.,com

and there is no reason to think there was anything unusual about the sampling technigue here. At any rate, my comment was not intended to support the methodology or the integrity of that poll, but rather to agree on its limitations. Given the sample size, which determines the variance, this sample can not be used for anything other than seeing major shifts. That is a true statement. As I worked as a statistician for over 20 years, I am pretty comfortable with that.

[NDP]

41. Didn't they just post the sample and MOE up this thread? ARG polls this year have terrible samples

[karynnj]

44. They posted the MOE and the sample size

There are other issues not addressed - such as what was the sampling frame (ie the list from which people were sampled), and the actual sample methodology.

A small sample size leads to a larger MOE, but does not make it a less valid sample, just a less precise sample. This would be more important if the election were next week and the difference between 2 candidates was say 2%. Then a sample with a MOE of 4% or even 2% would be useless. That is why I said that given the precision, only Obama's increase is significant from this study. (Hillary's and Obama's numbers have not changed from past studies enough to see in a study with this precision.)

If you know something about the methodology used in ARG studies that introduces a systemic bias, I would love to read it. I have not seen anything. My comments were based only on the stated sample size - which leads to a high MOE.

[NDP]

10. Exactly, just like their state polls. There is always a sample bias towards Clinton in ARG polls

They had Hillary easily winning Iowa and South Carolina, which is absurd.

[Clarkie1]

12. I don't think Edwards has much of a chance.

I can't imagine any circumstance where Edwards would become more popular than Obama, absent some unforeseen revelation.

[ddeclue]

16. Edwards wins by doing well early on in IA, NV, NH, and SC.

That's how the game is played and he is playing it very well.

Hillary and Obama will focus on each other and tear each other to shreds long before the primaries. Edwards will win.

Doug D.

[Clarkie1]

17. A war enabler will not win. nt.

[ddeclue]

18. You're right HILLARY won't win...

Edwards has long ago (2005) apologized and changed his tune so don't even go there.. it's just lame.

Obama can claim whatever he likes but he never had to vote on it...so I don't put much faith in that - neither did Clarke who isn't claiming to even be running. Clarke won't win anyways.

The only candidates with any chance to win are Edwards, Obama, and Gore since Kerry dropped out.

Doug D.

[Clarkie1]

19. He co-sponsered the resolution!

And an "I'm sorry" is supposed to excuse that?

:eyes:

[ddeclue]

23. Along with a lot of other people....

and YES his apology is sincere. I saw him give it at the Florida Democratic Party Convention back in December 2005.

You can always vote for Hillary if you don't like Edwards.

Doug D.

[Clarkie1]

26. Actually, not with a lot of other people.

I will never vote for Hillary or Edwards.

But, hey, there are more important issues. War with Iran is looming...please consider signing the petition if you care about peace.

www.stopiranwar.com

Peace.

[ddeclue]

27. Oh stop it...

How many voted in the Senate for the War and how many against... that's the only meaningful point... and what did they have to work with? A bunch of lies they were told by the Bush administration.

Edwards has apologized long ago for falling for those lies and has long opposed the war. Hillary has not. There is a vast difference.

I take it had you been alive in 1968 you would have voted against Robert Kennedy because he helped get us into Vietnam in the early 60's - In 1968, however, he had recognized the error and was working to get uss OUT.

In short, your attitude towards Edwards is totally unjustified by reality - it's irrational and emotional, nothing more.

And there will be no war with Iran because that WOULD be enough for the remaining Republicans in Congress to join the Democrats in impeaching him and yes Bush is a moron but even he isn't that stupid... the question would be "with what Army"? There is no one left to fight a third war...

Clarke, and Kucinich don't really have a chance and while Obama is charismatic (I also saw him speak at the same FDP convention) he has no clear message - Edwards does:

End Poverty both at home and around the world.
Stop the war.
Provide healthcare to all Americans.
Bring back integrity to our government at home and respect abroad.

Doug D.
Edwards Supporter
Orlando, FL

[Clarkie1]

30. I'm really just intersted in getting more people to sign the petition at this point.

Hope you will consider signing it.

I'm not interested in political games or who is ahead of who, there are more important issues.

www.stopiranwar.com

[ddeclue]

33. I get a million petition requests for internet petitions a day...

and I don't sign all of them because a lot aren't worth my time...

I'm not going to waste my time signing a petition against a war that isn't going to happen... I'd rather focus on the one that's happening right now in Iraq.

Doug D.

[Clarkie1]

34. A million, huh?

Well, I can see where your priorities are. Hope you will reconsider.

It's sponsored by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, if that makes any difference to you at all.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Well if it doesn't happen, hope you will thank us,

who cared enough not be too smug on what's gonna happen and what ain't.

They are still talking shit.....
http://www.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/world/2007/03/08/malveaux.netanyahu.interview.cnn

[ddeclue]

39. Again WITH WHAT ARMY????

We don't have anyone to fight Iran with...it won't happen... if it does Bush is impeached...he's probably going to be impeached anyways.. no one will follow him down this path...

Doug D.

[Clarkie1]

42. Airstrikes.

Well, from the strategic perspective, I can tell you that it's going to be air and naval and maybe some Marine action along the Persian Gulf. I think we can flood the skies over Iran. I think we can precision target every significant military base, everything connected with the nuclear weapons program, all of their command and control. I think that the- won't be an overnight strike. This may go on a week. It may go on two weeks. It may go on three weeks. But at the end of it Iran's conventional military strength will be severely impacted.

http://www.stopiranwar.com/?page_id=16


www.stopiranwar.com

[Clarkie1]

31. Again, I agree with you that Clarke has no chance.

But that's not really important now, is it?

[FrenchieCat]

21. Geeze.....November of 2005 seems like an eternity!

My sister's baby wasn't even born then....and now she can walk at 17 months old!

Now her brother is 5 and 1/2 years old, and just started kindergarden......he was born right before the Iraq war vote.

[Clarkie1]

22. I agree with you that Clarke won't win. Hasn't got a chance. nt

[FrenchieCat]

24. But Clarke would be good as Homeland Security Czar!

His last book was Amazing!

[ddeclue]

29. The first thing a Democratic President needs to do

is abolish "homeland security"...

What a disaster -it's what caused such a problem in Hurricane Katrina.

We already have a DEFENSE department - why do we need TWO of them? Isn't one sufficient?

All that DHS has done is to place another layer of bureaucracy between the President and the intelligence agencies so that when he screws up the next time he can blame DHS for not passing him the info.

We need to flatten out the bureaucracy, not add more layers to it.


Doug D.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Well good luck on that! n/t

[ddeclue]

35. You need to read some of the recent books on Katrina...

They all point the finger at DHS for taking FEMA out of the cabinet and out of direct contact with the President as major reasons for the inability to respond after Katrina (or before it for that matter).

The entire focus of DHS is on terrorism and it fails to recognize that natural disasters like hurricanes and earthquakes are MUCH more likely. If it didn't have the word "terrorism" attached to it, it didn't get funded.

Doug D.

[FrenchieCat]

36. I have some other issues that I consider burning besides

that one.

Everything that Bush has touched as turned to shit, Homeland Security Dept nothwithstanding.

I think it could have worked under a "normal" competent administration though.

I don't really like the word homeland though.....kind of 1930ish, IYAM.

[ddeclue]

37. That's another reason...

these people are the ones with "the no fly list" and they tend to find the Constitution a real bother...

I don't think DHS works under any administration because it adds bureacracy and it is redundant bureaucracy. It is just an excuse for a President who didn't want to pay attention - DHS was created to hold his hand and spoon feed him but it added layers of filtering rather than removed them - this is the actual problem, not the solution.

Doug D.

[Clark2008]

13. I wasn't asked.

I've been voting for 19 years - how come I'm never polled?

[FrenchieCat]

25. They called my house a couple of times, but only wanted to speak

to the man of the house in order to do a political poll.

I stated that he wasn't at home but that I wanted to do the poll....but the guy said no, they only wanted to talk to him and hung up on me.

Guess they had already filled their quota of females. :shrug:

Probably called the rest homes first.

They do that, you know? They target their calls normally to get a reflection of what they want to reflect. They'll call certain zip codes at certain hours and ask to speak to only certain people.....none of it is random.

Polling is a marketing business....just like war is, and our elections....evidently!

[ddeclue]

14. ANOTHER MEANINGLESS POLL...

FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME:

Polls only matter if they are of:

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
IN EARLY PRIMARY STATES

If they aren't then they are just propaganda fluff put out by people with an axe to grind so stop posting them, misleading people and wasting time.

REGISTERED VOTERS DONT MATTER - ITS LIKELY VOTERS
IF THEY AREN'T EARY PRIMARY STATES IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[ddeclue]

15. ANOTHER MEANINGLESS POLL...

FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME:

Polls only matter if they are of:

LIKELY DEMOCRATIC VOTERS
IN EARLY PRIMARY STATES

If they aren't then they are just propaganda fluff put out by people with an axe to grind so stop posting them, misleading people and wasting time.

REGISTERED VOTERS DONT MATTER - ITS LIKELY VOTERS
IF THEY AREN'T EARY PRIMARY STATES IT DOESN'T MATTER EITHER.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Czolgosz]

40. Thank God for Mike Gravel. I LOVE Dennis Kucinich and I'm glad to see someone give Dennis a break

from polling last. I understand why Dennis isn't polling among the top candidates (his views are as out of the mainstream as mine), but I'll never understand why he doesn't poll is at least a little bit higher (are he and I really that far out of the mainstream?).

Polls in the first caucus and primary states are barely relevant. National polls at this early stage are just silly.

[Alexander]

46. Notice that Gore is 3rd in many of these poll questions, with 18%...

and he's not even running.