↑ Grab this Headline Animator
Last Week (20,219 votes) John Edwards - 42% Barack Obama - 41% Hillary Clinton - 9%
Today (with 5,077 votes so far) Barack Obama - 77% Hillary Clinton - 11%
To post this comment click here:
Otherwise click cancel.
While voters won't shift as much, the resources of the first shift could play a big role in deciding the shares of the split on Tuesday. - John McCain
It's entirely unclear who the Edwards voters are going to turn to, but we do know that Clinton picked up no activist support in the blogosphere. Obama has fully consolidated the netroots, from last month when there was a split with Edwards. I expect to see internal pressure from heavily creative class dominated institutions who emerged from 1998-2006 to move into Obama's camp.
I expect to see internal pressure from heavily creative class dominated institutions who emerged from 1998-2006 to move into Obama's camp.
All of the kick-ass orgs torn between Obama and Edwards are now coalescing around Obama, it should be expected for all of them to get in the game.
This may not play an important role by Tuesday, but the with Obama's new offsite online-machine, it works to his favor the longer this drags out.
Obama is now the first candidate to own a mature netroots during a presidential primary. I've been saying for years I didn't think the netroots would be strong enough to choose the candidate this cycle, but maybe strong enough to veto. The rest of the primary will be the most interesting time online since we kicked Lieberman out of our Party.
This is the most important poll I've seen this week, by far. - John McCain
Polls are only as good as the data they are derived from. The poll is based on the population that is the Daily Kos readers. Due to the site being predominately weighted against Hillary Clinton it's readers will tend to fall along the same lines. In addition, many of it's readers that were for John Edwards previously, but leaned towards Obama would prefer to read Daily Kos over those who leaned towards Clinton. Again you are taking a sampling of readers of Daily Kos which is weighted towards Obama and the poll shows exactly the same thing. It is great to support your candidate but be we must be cautious reading polls, particularly non-scientific polls.
A non-scientific poll like this is useless no matter how much data you have because it is all bad data. You are are entitled to your opinion but not the facts.
Obama 301,779 Clinton 83,259
Don't forget YouTube views (Obama 25% growth):
Obama 13,617,636 Clinton 5,391,403
Polls are a snapshot in time, only two dimensional and instantly dated. The internet is a 3D view of what can be.
- John McCain
From the numbers you point to, you can conclude that on those sites the Obama material gets more views than the Clinton material. Those numbers do not tell you why that is true or the opinions of those viewers. There could be numerous possibilities for those numbers.
I am not disagreeing or agreeing with any opinion, just pointing out that numbers and statistics can be misused and are all the time.
My position was that a non-scientific poll must be used extremely carefully. Instead my position is changed to being " totally backwards" because "Fact is, Obama now owns the internet. Not just because of this poll, but this was the most telling as to his consolidation. " I was not discussing that as a position.
This hypothesis is then given supporting data about view counts on other web pages with a conclusion that "Polls are a snapshot in time, only two dimensional and instantly dated. The internet is a 3D view of what can be." That is refuting a position I didn't take.
I am making a simple point about polls and using the data from them. I am not trying to agree or disagree with any one's opinion. If you don't want to listen, so be it. Say what you will, but there are proper ways to use statistics.
While there is obviously no such thing as a Daily Kos primary, Bob's right about the shift of activist resources that this could signal. Especially here in CA - dKos has always had a big CA readership. More importantly, as many of the Edwards activists are either bloggers or have close ties to those that are bloggers, and if they start justifying a switch to Obama, I expect that to reverberate in local Edwards groups. It's not the same as a poll of CA Democratic voters, but it's not something to dismiss either. You can check out any time you like but you can never leave
Will some people that actively supported Edwards actively support Obama? Yes. Will some actively support Clinton? Yes. Will some do something else? Yes. However this poll tells you nothing about that.
And through the years, these polls have had a large enough sample size that they track regularly with with other progressive blog votes and if you forget about Kucinich are ahead of the curve with voting on the polls for the major email list orgs. - John McCain
You say Daily Kos is a site "about progressive activism". That is true to an extent. I don't disagree that many of it's readers would say that. However, when you then say "that Clinton performs so DRAMATICALLY badly in such a group is relevant" that assumes that all people that would want to visit a site about progressive activism read Daily Kos and participate in their polls. That is a false assumption partly because the Daily Kos is not unbiased in it's view to accommodate all that consider themselves progressive activists and for numerous of other reasons.
As to the second portion of your comment, the poll is again not being presented as representative of any entire group, but rather reflective of one trend which, mixed with many others, will feed into the path of the race in the future.
Any argument that such a poll is completely irrelevant is absurd, because nothing is completely irrelevant. This is mostly just a matter of degrees. "We need men who can dream of things that never were." -JFK
In regards to the Iowa polls, those are different because they are scientific polls specifically designed to capture a true representation of the entire population of Iowa and not a subset. Even with that the scientific polls have been had many problems this year.
A Smart Politics study of nearly three-dozen polls of likely voters in California conducted during the past 12 months found Edwards' departure should provide a boost for the Obama campaign. Edwards and Obama were fighting over the anti-Clinton vote - their polling numbers in California are negatively correlated (-.506, significant at the .01 level). Neither Edwards nor Obama's numbers were correlated with Clinton's. When a regression analysis was performed, the polling data reveals for every 1-point increase in support for Edwards, there was a 1.017-point drop in support for Obama in the state of California, holding for Clinton (significant at the .01 level).
Edwards and Obama were fighting over the anti-Clinton vote - their polling numbers in California are negatively correlated (-.506, significant at the .01 level). Neither Edwards nor Obama's numbers were correlated with Clinton's.
When a regression analysis was performed, the polling data reveals for every 1-point increase in support for Edwards, there was a 1.017-point drop in support for Obama in the state of California, holding for Clinton (significant at the .01 level).
