Race Tightening Between Obama and Clinton

After the debacle in New Hampshire, I'm reticent about ever posting about polls again. With that disclaimer, check out Gallup's latest tracking poll. With twenty-two states voting on Super Tuesday, we're at the point where national polls matter. And Hillary Clinton's lead over Barack Obama, recently in double-digits, is now down to four.

On January 20, Clinton had a twenty point lead over Obama. But since then Obama's numbers have steadily increased, while Clinton's have dipped slightly. In key February 5 states, the numbers are also getting closer. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, Clinton is up only three points in California, compared to other polls that showed her with a double-digit advantage there. In Massachusetts, Obama was down 28 points earlier in the month. Now he's down 6. He can thank Teddy Kennedy for the bounce. (It's too soon to know the effect of John Edwards' departure, although the numbers last night, according to Gallup "show no clear indication that either candidate is benefiting disproportionately."

That said, Clinton retains an advantage in virtually every major February 5 state, with the exception of Obama's home turf of Illinois. The numbers are trending Obama's way across the country. But he may not have enough time to make up the difference. If Super Tuesday were on February 12 instead of February 5, the outcome could be very different.

That's why tonight's debate in California is important for Clinton but critical for Obama. A strong showing in the first one-on-one Democratic debate could propel Obama's candidacy a long, long way.

Comments (45)

1. NO! NO! You fools! You suicidal FOOL! He'll kill us all!!!!

   Reject Baba Rodham Yaga at YOUR PERIL! Only SHE can save us...only SHE is the way and the truth and the light, fighting truth, justice, and the American way and knows what evil lurks in the hearts and minds of men!!!!!

   The Mulatto One is a false prophet!!!!!-----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/31/2008 @ Sometime soon|ignore this person

   Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 4:22pm

2. I've got to think those elusive Edwards numbers will favor Obama

   ...then again I am an LA Clippers fan!

   Posted by MATTMAN at 01/31/2008 @ 4:31pm

3. Move on Poll is majorly flawed. i received three confirms of my vote. Two for Barack and one for Hillary. When i clicked to change my vote, another persons phone number appeared.

   Check out the Clinton Collection at The Clinton Collection [hillarydivides.com]

   Posted by indep2008 at 01/31/2008 @ 4:31pm

4. "Move on Poll is majorly flawed." Posted by INDEP2008 01/31/2008 @ 4:31pm

   We are shocked, shocked.

   Posted by sloper at 01/31/2008 @ 4:35pm

5. Posted by INDEP2008 01/31/2008 @ 4:31pm

   That may be their plan. Members asked for the poll...they KNOW which way it's going to go (likely to Obama)...

   so they screw up the polling, to discredit the results, so Akasha's minions can spin it as phoney and inaccurate.

   Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 4:35pm

6. Posted by INDEP2008 01/31/2008 @ 4:31pm

   You should prank call that person.

   Posted by MATTMAN at 01/31/2008 @ 4:36pm

7. I thought about calling the person but decided not to. What a joke

   Posted by indep2008 at 01/31/2008 @ 4:42pm

8. Look for an Obama KNOCK OUT punch tonight at the debate!

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 4:48pm

9. I thought about calling the person but decided not to. What a joke

   Posted by INDEP2008 01/31/2008 @ 4:42pm

   Almost funny...

   Posted by MATTMAN at 01/31/2008 @ 4:50pm

10. Posted by METTEYYA 01/31/2008 @ 4:48pm

    You don't mind if we get some OBJECTIVE post-debate analysis, do you?

    Have a strange feeling that YOUR view of OBAMA's performance...

    and FRANK's view of HER performance...

    not exactly un-emotional and straightforward.

    Posted by Mask at 01/31/2008 @ 4:54pm

11. Move on Poll is majorly flawed. i received three confirms of my vote. Two for Barack and one for Hillary. When i clicked to change my vote, another persons phone number appeared.

    Posted by INDEP2008 01/31/2008 @ 4:31pm | ignore this person

    Indy - You must have lived in Texas; where they vote early and often.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 01/31/2008 @ 4:54pm

12. Who needs Super Bowl hype and trash talking when we have METT and FRANK around.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/31/2008 @ 5:05pm

13. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/31/2008 @ 5:03pm

    Would you mind enlightening us as to what "exactly" Hillary did to help the economy in the 1990s that ended with the speculative dot-com meltdown?

    Dot-com Bubble, real estate Bubble - what's the difference, FRANKGRITS? A FEW profit at the expense of everyone else, the same old Republican or Republican-lite trickle-down economics!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 5:09pm

14. Trash talking?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/31/2008 @ 5:07pm

    Yes; just a sports reference . . . and a joke. Not that your posts are "trashy" FRANK. :)

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/31/2008 @ 5:21pm

15. The good old boys from the Democratic party, as well as the media left to right will eat it! Women accross the country are getting angry. VIVA HILLARY!

    Posted by nursevic at 01/31/2008 @ 5:24pm

16. Posted by NURSEVIC 01/31/2008 @ 5:24pm

    I hear the men have already been angry for quite some time; and with their favorite John-boy out of the race, it doesn't appear that they will flocking to "I'm in control" Hillary!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 5:44pm

17. I just wanted to say that I think Chris Hayes has a decent article on the choice between Obama and Clinton up right now. It is good because it arrives at the correct conclusion (that in a choice between Obama and Clinton the left should clearly go for Obama) and not so great because it does so for mostly bad reasons. Issues of tone and how talented a candidate is seem like side issues at best. Issues of policy are what is important. In general I think Obama and Clinton are relatively similar on domestic policy (some exceptions, like that Obama is clearly better on Social Security where he suggests lifting the payroll cap on Social Security taxes, and Clinton supports...). But on foreign policy there is a really clear answer. Despite what conservative apologists like Frankgrits say, it is just not true that a vote to support the war could be justified by the facts presented to Congress. Despite what the Clinton campaign would have us think Senator Clinton has opposed every legislative step designed to end the war. Anyone with a long enough memory will recall that Clinton was second only to Joe Lieberman among democrats in going on the talk shows and 24 hour news stations defending the war in general. The most criticism she could muster was a criticism of tactics, specifically Rumsfeld's tactics.

    Obama hasn't been a leader of the anti-war cause since he got to the Senate, and that is something Hayes, and other rational Obama supporters will admit. So if we had a serious anti-war candidate in the race, I think Obama would deserve to lose. But we don't. And it is not clear that we ever did. (Kucinich wasn't ever viable and Edwards' vocal opposition to the war came when he was out of office, and so can't serve as the basis for anti war credentials. Edwards was almost completely a domestic issues candidate)And when the choice is between someone who has led the pro-war wing of the party and someone who hasn't led the anti-war wing, I think the choice for anti-war voters is clear.

    So there are two major points to make.

    1. Obama and Clinton are centrists on domestic and economic policy. A caveat to that is that Clinton is running to the left of where she was before the campaign, and Obama seems to be running to the right of where he used to be. If you assume they are both being honest now, then they are the same on this issue, as far as I can tell. If you assume they are both just politicking and that this is what explains the centrism, then the conclusion is that Obama is farther to the left on domestic issues than Clinton. So for the left there is no way, that I can see, in which Clinton comes out ahead on domestic issues.

    2. Obama is clearly better on Iraq, the major foreign policy question of our times. (excluding global warming, which can plausibly be seen as transcending the foreign/domestic policy division and is probably the single most important issue of the day. I don't know enough to judge the relative merits of the candidates on global warming.)

    I would invite any Clinton supporters who are willing to discuss policy proposals and policy positions over the last few years by both candidates to dispute what I have said. I am hoping to stir up the kind of policy debate that I think most of us want. If there is evidence that Clinton, despite being one of the leaders of the DLC, did not legislate as a center-right Senator, I would love to see it.

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/31/2008 @ 5:45pm

18. Again Frank whether Hillary won in the debates is OPINION. Do you get the difference between objective and subjective Frankie? On top of that I kind of doubt there is a huge Republican conspiracy to run against Obama. Can some of the Republicans on this website answer the question of whether you have some clandestine organization that passes messages to all of you in order to synchronize your tactics. Maybe Limbaugh at the end of every show gives out secret messages that you need a decoder ring to figure out. Come on Frank get your head out of the clouds.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/31/2008 @ 5:48pm

19. Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/31/2008 @ 5:45pm

    I agree with you about Obama actually being left of where he recently appears, and Hillary being to the right.

    Posted by MATTMAN at 01/31/2008 @ 5:53pm

20. Yeah Frankie, all the Republican's in the US have decoder rings. They all watch Limbaugh and at the end he gives a secret message that their decoder rings decode. This weeks message was vote for Obama. Can the Republican's who post on this site come to confirm this please?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/31/2008 @ 5:56pm

21. DENTED, I pretty much agree. If someone is an anti-war voter, then the choice is clear.

    CCCOMFO1, there's no need to have a republican come forward with that information. (1) it would violate some obscure unwritten republican law; and (2) we all know de-coder rings come from a box of Froot Loops. What more evidence do you need? :)

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 6:01pm

22. Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/31/2008 @ 6:01pm

    Good point Fritz. Now to get my hands on one of the decoder rings.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/31/2008 @ 6:08pm

23. Posted by DENTEDPAT 01/31/2008 @ 5:45pm

    Well, I think we finally agree on something, DENTEDPAT!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 6:16pm

24. I am interested in knowing what Frank thinks the Clinton formula that guarantees surpluses is.

    Cutting entitlement programs? Hoping for stock market bubbles? Small tinkering with the tax code?

    The recession was coming. There was no way to stop that. The surpluses were going to go away. Now it is certainly true that more macroeconomic policy of the Clinton style would have been better than Bush's policies. The tax cuts and war spending have made the deficits completely unsustainable. But the idea that Clinton was some economic whiz kid is just not supported by any facts at all. I used to believe he had found some magic potion to get all that we wanted out of the economy too (low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment) but it is clear if you do any reading in economics that this false.

    And I am not using right wing economists here. The people to read on this are people like Robert Pollin (Umass Amherst) whow is really left wing, Paul Krugman, and Joe Stiglitz (who was Clinton's cheif economic advisor, and one of his few economic advisors who is held in high regard by fellow economists. Reich and Rubin did their post-graduate work in law, not economics, for example. Summers has no achievements to match Stiglitz's)

    Posted by dentedpat at 01/31/2008 @ 6:17pm

25. Presidents have nothing to do with the economy. it's businessman, bankers, oil giants, fed chairman, etc... The president has very little power over the economy. The last 8 years there have been continual bandaids put on the economy(stimulus packages) and we're due for a major correction. The bandaids have been trying to fix the ecomony that Bill left Bush with. But again Bill and bush have little real power over the economy.

    I will say that signing NAFTA helped big box retailers offer cheaper prices, but jobs were destroyed and slave labor is used all over the world. i saw some hillary nut on tv yesterday saying that Hillary opposed NAFTA and voiced her opinion to her husband before he signed it. What a crock, especially after todays walmart board meeting tapes.

    Posted by indep2008 at 01/31/2008 @ 6:19pm

26. And speaking of Iraq, a couple of stories coming out today I noticed. One is that suicides and suicide attempts are up in the Army and two, Bush is showing signs that the troop reduction will slow or even stop pretty soon.

    :::sigh:::

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/31/2008 @ 6:50pm

27. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/31/2008 @ 6:27pm

    So it is "blame the Republicans" rather than figuring out a way to work with them for the good of all? Is that their plan for '09?

    This is the problem with the Clintons, they don't take responsibilities for their failures, and take credit from other people for their successes. What a bunch of morons!

    The plain fact is that the Clintons were lucky to find themselves at the beginning of a post-recovery economy when they were in office during the 90s, and any observer of economics knows that these boom cycles usually last for at least 10-15 years whether the Clintons were there or not!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 6:58pm

28. You're not a democrat. You're a fraud. Now I'm on to you. You've given yourself away. Now I know why you are so obsessed with Obama. You need Hillary out of the way. Who's pulling your strings?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/31/2008 @ 7:00pm

    Wow I'm starting to think Frank is completely out of his mind.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/31/2008 @ 7:10pm

29. Beleive me, I've been involved in democratic politics for too long not to regognize a mole when I see one. Just giving everyone a heads up. He almost got away with it.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/31/2008 @ 7:15pm

    Frank has definitely lost it. His candidate is losing steam and so now his mind's cogs are falling apart.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/31/2008 @ 7:18pm

30. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/31/2008 @ 7:11pm

    LoL!!!

    You really have lost it, FRANKGRITS!

    I am about as progressive as they come, and live in the MOST progressive town in America! Our county went 91% for Kerry in the last election, and Republicans don't even bother campaigning here.

    If I am a Republican for stating the obvious that the Clintons didn't do a God damn thing to help the economy in the 90s and just rode out the normal business cycle, then you really are the fool, FRANKGRITS.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 7:35pm

31. You seem awfully nervous about this debate tonight, FRANKGRITS!

    Was the economy supposed to be Hillary's secret knock out punch, and now you are angry that I poked enough holes in that to sink her ship?

    Too bad, FRANKGRITS. If all the Clintons have is "spin" rather than real ability to fix things, then no one should be voting for them anyway. Period.

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 7:43pm

32. I have to go to an Obama event, but I will say that both candidates did pretty well.

    Barack stood out, however, in making the case that he would provide the better contrast with McCain because of his opposition of the war from the start, and Hillary fumbled the judgment question about opposing the Levin amendment in 2003 that would have forced Bush to come back to Congress before launching the war in Iraq!

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/31/2008 @ 9:59pm

33. Thank God this farce will be over soon. "Change" vs. "Experience", indeed.

    Posted by ZERO 01/31/2008 @ 4:58pm

    the unity candidate will have "experiange".

    or chanperience.............

    Posted by frosty zoom at 01/31/2008 @ 11:22pm

34. Will this :

    http://www.pollster.com/USTopzDems.php

    Soon look like this:

    http://www.pollster.com/SCTopzDems.php

    or this:

    http://www.pollster.com/GATopzDems.php

    But then don't ever forget there 'was' this:

    http://www.pollster.com/NHTopzDems.php

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 01/31/2008 @ 6:48pm

    Posted by hsuBfools at 01/31/2008 @ 11:42pm

35. Frank,

    1. Go back and look at the difference between the top bracket income tax rate before Reagan and after. Then go and look at the same difference between the end of Bush I and the beginning of Bush II. The tax increases were small. Maybe you were so busy fuming at Limbaugh that you bought their lies about it being a huge tax increase.

    2. Have you any response to the stuff about the bubble? Take a look at some historical data on the budget and the stock market and try to notice some trends. For some real analysis I would suggest Clinton's first head of the council of economic advisors, Joe Stiglitz, and his book 'The Roaring Nineties'. He was hired by Bill Clinton, so you can trust him.

    3. You seem hesitant to talk about things like the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. I understand. It is hard to admit the damage that Clinton did to the poor in signing that bill. It took me several years to face the truth about Clinton myself. You will get there someday.

    If you stop reading campaign biographies.

    Posted by dentedpat at 02/01/2008 @ 03:08am

36. You know (and this is slightly off topic) it occurred to me last night that Obama, win or lose, might just be the one who finally gets the Baby Boomers over the Race Thing, sort of like the Spanish American War was a singular event that helped get North and South "over" the Civil War. The mere fact that he is there running, and his real supporters don't really think of him as "the African-American candidate " is a step in the right direction. The Clintons, of course did everything they could to promote that idea. But then, they're part of the problem.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/01/2008 @ 09:04am

37. Everyone. Metteyya is not a democrat. He's a republican operative planted here to try to destroy the democrats by getting Hillary out.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/31/2008 @ 7:11pm

    Okay, can somebody come up with a list....

    if you don't support Hillary you are-

    1. a "Clinton hater"

    2. a sexist

    3. a "Republican operative"

    any others???

    Posted by Mask at 02/01/2008 @ 09:22am

38. BEWARE !!! Hillary's so-called 'Universal' Health Care Plan is to make it AGAINST THE LAW FOR ANYONE TO NOT BUY THEIR OWN HEALTH INSURANCE (LIKE AUTO INSURANCE)That's not health care....that's just a law (that's what mandate means) !!!!! Under Hillary's health care plan everyone who breaks her law and does not buy their own health coverage (if not offered through their job) would be fined and wages could be garnished. Also, everyone would have to prove that they already have health insurance (show an insurance policy) before they could get a new job if that new job does not offer coverage.If people could afford health care they would have it.To make it a law will just make people unable to afford the coverage afraid to go to the hospital when ill in fear of getting caught breaking the law (without coverage). TERRIBLE !!! DON'T BE FOOLED AMERICA !!!!!

    Posted by gregjones at 02/01/2008 @ 10:06am

39. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 09:22am

    4. Ignored because you could be making viable points about a certain candidate.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 02/01/2008 @ 10:28am

40. Posted by MASK 02/01/2008 @ 09:22am

    5. sane.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 02/01/2008 @ 10:36am

41. Well, Mask, those epithets aren't so bad:

    "Clinton Hater" I would proudly admit to

    "Sexist" I consider a made up non-word.

    "Republican Operative" means I'm affiliated with the Party of Lincoln.

    I'm there! :)

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/01/2008 @ 10:53am

42. Oh and

    4 Ignored-Possibly a problem only after determining the ignorer.

    5.Sane-Me? How Dare You!

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/01/2008 @ 10:55am

43. I'm not sure yet whether Obama really means what he says about unity, or both sides causing the polarization problems infecting this country, "No more Red & Blue" etc., but whether he believes it or not, it's true. It's also not a myth that it's both sides, as Hayes prefers to think. It is both sides, and has been for many years. Call it a legacy of the Lousiest Generation: both Lib & Con, Dem & Rep, Red & Blue are responsible for such uncompromising thought processes, such disdain for our Constitution, such anger at "the other side," as if the audacity of one to disagree were itself an assault upon the other. It must stop, and guys like Obama (and, I think, Paul) are the only ones I've seen out there prepared to change things. If Obama means what he says, then Hayes is going to be sorely disappointed, because, as the content of his article demonstrates, he's part of the problem.

    Charles "Chimp" Thornton

    Reisterstown, MD

    It's difficult to select a starting point to begin dissecting that rambling, loose cannon of a letter.

    Apparently the central problem of American politics is poor manners. That's right, chipster. If we just act like bonobos instead of chimps everything is gonna be alright.

    You first, bud.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/01/2008 @ 11:36am

44. Dear B Kool

    1. My middle name is Henry

    2. You spend WAY to much time on Wikepedia

    3. Bad Manners had nothing to do with my letter

    4. I take it from your response that you LIKE the idea that our country is totally, obstinantly split into 2 unyielding camps, always thinking the other guy is wrong, never considering another world or even national view. I guess that makes YOU part of the problem too.

    CT

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 02/01/2008 @ 2:13pm

45. At the end of the day, not only was Obama right about Iraq from "Day 1," he doesn't have the Clinton baggage to carry. Even now the Clinton's are still dealing with an election funding indiscretion left over from 2000 when Hillary was running for Senate. Just google "Peter Paul" or "event 39". What is so compelling about this is the fact that the FEC has already found the New York Senate 2000 committee guilty in the matter, and fined them. Now that matter is being reopened, and even though the Clintons will most likely be able to ride the storm out, it's going to take a while. The reason that it isn't cleared up is because the Clintons' chose to involve themselves with 'bad people'. Now, another allegation has come up concerning Bill Clinton's business dealings with Canadian mining mogul Frank Giustra. And, of course, none of this is the first time we've seen this sort of thing involving the Clintons. There was the Norman Hsu incident just a very short time ago. My own take is that the Clintons' themselves, being people involved in power, are likely to draw all sorts of shady people looking to use a bit of their magic. I don't necessarily think that this makes them law breakers or anything like that. My concern goes back to the lack of judgment and discretion. Clearly they are not vetting these people properly. Peter Paul had been convicted and down a total of four years federal time, long before the Clintons ever started taking his checks. There really isn't any good excuse for winding up in a rat's nest with these type of rats. At this time in our nation's history, we need to avoid the very appearance of wrong doing. Besides, this is the very sort of thing that Republicans are very good at making hay with.

    Posted by Alamantra at 02/01/2008 @ 7:20pm