Rasmussen: Hillary ticks up in Tracking Poll following debate...

[SaveElmer]

Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that on the two nights following the debate (Wednesday and Thursday) Clinton held a 45% to 18% lead over Barack Obama. For Clinton, that’s an improvement from Monday and Tuesday nights when her lead over Obama had been 40% to 24%.

John Edwards was at 10% on the first two nights and 12% on Wednesday and Thursday. Bill Richardson went from 5% to 7% during the same time frames.

MoE is +/- 5 which means at the very least Obama has gained no ground since the debate...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/debate_fallout_has_no_immediate_impact_on_clinton_poll_position

[BeyondGeography]

1. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3675787

[Bitwit1234]

2. Hey Obama bash some more and let her numbers really kick your ass.

[bigdarryl]

3. total B/S as i predicted she does poorly in a debate and we are to believe her polling numbers are..

going up. I think this says a lot about the party as a whole who want a candidate who flips and flops on every issue.

[jmp]

4. Polls lie.

Polls with a +/- 5 MoE lie +/- 5 points.

[SaveElmer]

5. It's funny...

How even when I put a caveat in my post it gets ignored...

So here is how it works...

The referenced poll has Hillary at 45% and Obama at 18%

Assuming the error of 5% is entirely weighted to Obama...meaning that 5% of Hillary's support goes to Obama..then it would be 40% 23%...

The same as the previous poll...

Thus at the worst, no change since the debate...

Understand?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

6. To clarify: The "margin of error" doesn't mean what people sometimes think it does

A 5% margin of error doesn't mean the results are only accurate within a 5% margin.

Say a candidate is at 50% with a 5% MOE. That means that there is a 95% chance that the candidate is between 45% and 55%.

But 50% is still the likeliest number. 49% and 51% are almost as likely as 50%. 45% is considerably less likely than 50%. 55% is considerably less likely than 50%. And so on.

There is no guarantee the "correct" number is between 45%-55%, only a 95% likelihood that it is. It might be 35%, but that would be very, very unlikely.

[jmp]

7. Polls lie.

Polls say whatever the pollster wants it to say. Understand?

[surfermaw]

8. Don't believe the polls...NOT one of them

For the past few years one company polled me constant every few months, they knew I was an Edwards person, guess what I haven't gotten a poll from them in a long long time.....

[avrdream]

24. Funny, same thing happened to me when I declared myself a Hillary supporter.

Why did they stop asking for my opinion? Must be fixed.......let's see, who has gone UP in the polls since they stopped asking me? Hmmmmm, the only ones besides HRC are Dennis and Richardson. You see, I KNEW these polls were rigged by the Dennis and Bill team!

[Joe the Revelator]

9. You forgot this caveat to the poll Elmer....

Caution must be used in interpreting these results for several reasons.

First, the sample sizes are very small—447 Likely Primary Voters on the first two nights and 435 on the second two nights. The margin of sampling error for each set of data is +/- 5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. So, Clinton’s gain and Obama’s decline may be nothing more than statistical noise. However, it is fairly safe to conclude that Obama did not immediately gain any ground.

Second, while there was no immediate impact, it is possible that Obama and Edwards will find a way to capitalize on the Clinton stumbles between now and the Iowa caucuses on January 3. In fact, general public awareness of the debate performance may continue to grow on its own over the coming weeks. Additionally, there may be a general election impact as Senator Clinton’s answer supported two enormously unpopular concepts (drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and the comprehensive immigration reform that failed in the Senate).

Third, while there is little or no national fallout from the debate, the impact may be different in early voting state. Clinton currently leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Rasmussen Reports will conduct additional polling in these states over the next two weeks.

[SaveElmer]

10. No I didn't...

I included the MoE which is the only statistical caveat...the rest is a given with any poll...

[Joe the Revelator]

12. So in all reality, this poll, like all the others, mean absolutely nothingNT

[SaveElmer]

13. No...

Unless you view polling as the art of prediction...which it is not...

[Joe the Revelator]

18. The caveats that you say are a given invalidate all national polls....

how could they not?

[SaveElmer]

19. No I didn't...

Polls, with a reasonable degree of accuracy gauge public opinion at the time they are taken...they are not predictive, do not tell you what will happen 6 months from now...

No pollster I know of has ever claimed they were predictive, and I have not...they simply tell you where things stand today...

So no, they are not meaningless...

[CyberPieHole]

11. POLLS LIE!!!

When you don't agree with them. The fact is that most polls show Clinton leading the pack. That fact is incontrovertible. But if someone doesn't want her to win, what else can they do but question the veracity of ALL polls (individually and collectively). It would be silly, if it were not so pathetic.

I am beginning to like Hillary more as time goes on. But I am still for Biden.

[jmp]

14. Polls lie all the time.

Polls are run by people with agenda's, and are financed by people with agendas. Always.

[CyberPieHole]

21. Yes. Don't believe polls. Don't believe people either...

everyone has an agenda. Everyone lies. Always.:eyes:

[jmp]

22. I believe people because they speak for themselves.

Curiously enough, Hillary supporters seem a bit scarcer in person than in the polls.

[smalll]

27. Love the extraneous apostrophe S!

Goes so well with your unfounded conspiracy-mindedness! :hi:
Also have to commend the way you straddled your bets by giving one agenda an apostrophe S, and giving the other agenda a regular S!

Who's the real triangulator here, hmmmm?

[jmp]

33. Happens to me all the time.

That likely was coincidence. Meaning I was editing from the middle out, and lopped off the "s" from agendas at the same point where I forgot to delete the "'s" from a word that used to be there before. I'm part scatterbrain and all 2 finger typist. Combine that with my tendency to edit and re-write posts from the middle out and it leads to all manner of alphanumeric atrocities. :P

As for the "conspiracy-mindedness" ... there's no conspiracy involved. You work for your boss. Polling companies work for those who finance their work. It's as simple as that.

[democratsin08]

15. great news

i think obama is just too negative

[ClarkUSA]

16. The only polls that really matter are the ones coming from out of Iowa.

Specifically, I'd like to see post-debate polling of likely Iowa caucus goers.

Have there been any out yet?

[Bullet1987]

17. If this is another national poll, then who gives a crap?

[Mountainman]

20. This is meaningless because an unscientific poll at DU says she only has

10% support.:sarcasm:

[Moloch]

23. This is not going to change.....

Edwards and Obama supporters should just fall into line and accept the inevitable. The sooner we all accept a Clinton victory, the better for our party and our chances next November.

[Bullet1987]

25. I'm convinced she will stay ahead in the national polls

until the very end. It's the Iowa and New Hampshire polls that matter.

[Moloch]

35. which she also leads in.........

nt

[BenDavid]

26. Just when all you Obama and Edwards supporters

thought the left leaning blogs were going to go after Clinton after the debate, a funny thing happened. uh huh Many saw it as exactly what I wrote Tuesday night, a setup and a hit piece that began with Brian Williams on the NBC News followed by Russert.

Poor Timmy, he tries to concentrate, but he has only one thing on his mind.Clinton's cock.

"I have a fantasy that at one of these moments(debates), a candidate(HRC) will say, "You know what, Tim,(Wolf,CNN holds the next on 11-15) I'm not going to answer that question. This is serious business. And you, sir, are a disgrace. You have in front of you a group of accomplished, talented leaders, one of whom will in all likelihood be the next president of the United States. You can ask them whatever you want. And you choose to engage in this ridiculous gotcha game, thinking up inane questions you hope will trick us into saying something controversial or stupid. Your fondest hope is that the answer to your question will destroy someone's campaign. You're not a journalist, you're the worst kind of hack, someone whose efforts not only don't contribute to a better informed electorate, they make everyone dumber.Is that the best you can do?"

It would not surprise me in the least if HRC came close on the 15th and spoke this to Wolf Blitzer....So folks be ready



Ben David

[The Magistrate]

28. Sixty-Five Percent Of the Vote, Sir, Will Go To The Candidate Who Says First Exactly What You Wrote

"You know what, Tim, I'm not going to answer that question. This is serious business. And you, sir, are a disgrace. You have in front of you a group of accomplished, talented leaders, one of whom will in all likelihood be the next president of the United States. You can ask them whatever you want. And you choose to engage in this ridiculous gotcha game, thinking up inane questions you hope will trick us into saying something controversial or stupid. Your fondest hope is that the answer to your question will destroy someone's campaign. You're not a journalist, you're the worst kind of hack, someone whose efforts not only don't contribute to a better informed electorate, they make everyone dumber.Is that the best you can do?"

That is a thing of beauty, Mr. David.

[Andromeda]

29. I agree...

Oh, how I wish it would happen.

[sufrommich]

32. I vote for your answer. Well said. nt

[jmp]

34. You can't run on your record ...

While you hide your resume. Nor can you talk out of both sides of your mouth and expect not to get called out for lying. You can't say you support a plan ... and then turn right around and say that you don't endorse it ... and then turn around again and endorse it again. It doesn't depend on what the definition of the word is is. It didn't then and it doesn't now.

Nobody tricked Hillary into saying something controversial or stupid. She did it because she lies as casually as the rest of us breath.

Attacking the moderator won't change that one bit.

[William769]

30. Got to love some of the lame ass responses in the thread.

:rofl:

K&R just t keep it kicked to the top and keep some foaming at the mouth.

[robcon]

31. All polls lie, and always in the same direction.

:sarcasm:

Yes, all pollsters want to be exposed for biased polling.