Time for another polling memo

Gallup has Obama up 13 in New Hampshire. What does Mark Penn do again?

Um, Mark?

Still waiting for that next polling memo.

Can Hillary fire this guy already? He's fat and ugly and always wrong.

The Obama appeal

Is pretty simple to understand: attractive young candidate, personally appealing, great speaker, right on Iraq War and a fresh face. Such things have always been hugely important in American politics and Democrats have lacked someone of Obama's appeal for some time. While there's nothing wrong with Clinton's experience/talker vs. doer argument, it was clearly not enough and unfortunately this year, Iowa was everything.

Hillary lands a punch

It took four days but her campaign finally dinged Obama.

Hilarious

Dick Bennet from ARG calls the final DMR polling sample "deeply flawed." ARG's final pre-Iowa poll had Clinton up by 9. DMR predicted the outcome within 1-2 points.

Paging Mark Penn

Time for another polling memo:

“Make no mistake about it, there is movement here. Only 50% of this sample is after the Iowa caucus results were known and there has been a 5-point swing on the Democratic side. Clinton started out leading 32% to 26% over Obama and now she is in a dead heat at 31% to 30%. Obama has won in that part of the sample taken since Iowa – and just this past one day alone Obama led by 8 points.

Yesterday, Mark Penn smugly asked: "Where's the bounce?" Idiot.

Words

Hillary:


Obama:

Mark Penn polling memos

Even he knows that Kerry didn't go from 17 down to 20 ahead in barely 48 hours after Iowa. Kerry's bounce was incremental, increasing as the days passed after Iowa before New Hampshire. Besides, Penn is eating crow after his last polling memo, the one that decried the methodology of the last Des Moines Register poll, which...um...predicted 37% Obama, 30% Clinton, 29% Edwards.

Me thinks the Clinton people could use a better and more honest senior strategist.

Recent blogging

I realize a number of my posts prior to Thursday condemned the media for not sufficiently puffing up what looked like a Hillary surge in Iowa. The only poll that really offered any proof that Obama in fact was ahead and by a considerable amount was the final DMR poll. And it proved to be almost perfectly on the mark. Still, it's difficult in close races to know which things to follow, polls or press perception. And had the media been more honest in describing Hillary's strengths (as reflected in the polling) as opposed to her weaknesses in the days and weaks prior to caucus night it's possible the results would have been quite different last Thursday.

Still, the notion emanating from the Clinton campaign, particularly Bill Clinton, is that Hillary's loss it the press' fault. From a campaign that was so adept at managing the media early in the race I find it hard to imagine they've all just decided to blame the press.

Via Marc Ambinder

The Clinton folks have apparently settled on a Giuliani type strategy of relying on the Feb.5 states (in effect a national primary) to stop Obama. They also hope for greater press scrutiny of Obama and a desensitization to the more inspirational aspects of his message in the meantime.

I suppose this might work and Hillary should certainly not be counted out despite the tone of some of my more recent blog posts. Still, she would have to post a strong second in New Hampshire (i.e. within 5 points) and a similarly strong showing in South Carolina. What I find amusing about all this though is the propensity of the press, now that the voting has actually started, to withhold judgement out of some sudden respect for the process. I mean, 2 months ago they acted as if the slightest verbal slip in a debate spelled the end of Hillary Clinton. And now, she's come in 3rd in Iowa and they're pretending there's still a contest.

Post-mortem

This is tough to read. I think the premise of Hillary's campaign probably made sense but the reality is Democrats are not in a pragmatic (re: 2004) state of mind. There is no forminable incumbent to beat, no real fear that somehow a Huckabee or McCain with some new version of Turd Blossom in tow will be a real threat. In other words, Democrats are in the mood to try something different. But it was difficult to believe Obama was for real until he won something. The conciliatory rhetoric I've found particularly annoying as I do his tone sometimes (my dad calls it confidence, I call it 'holier than thou') clearly worked in attracting independents who are so important in Iowa and New Hampshire. And when Obama turns it on, as he did Thursday night in Iowa, the logic of his candidacy seems stunningly clear and Hillary's quips about drawing a contrast and being ready to lead on day one just sound like campaign boilerplate.

Atrios finds a nut

LINK

In all my dealings with Obama people, as well as the man himself, there's always been this sense that they're constantly telling people, "Trust us. We've thought this through. We know what we're doing. It'll work. Yes we understand that you're uncomfortable with this, or that you think it's wrong, but really we know what we're doing."

And then those of us in the cheap seats think that there's no way all of those new/young voters show up to vote in Iowa, that Obama's inclusive rhetoric doesn't have the appeal he imagines, etc.. etc... And then he pulls it off. Maybe he does know what he's doing.

Obama speech

While I personally preferred Hillary in this race, as I wrote last night, the chance of her now stopping Obama in New Hampshire after a weak third place finish in Iowa seems remote. And then there was perhaps one of the great political speeches in recent memory. Obama's last night:

Edwards on CNN

...Spinning the race now as a two way race between him and Obama in an interview with Larry King.

OBAMA

Well, I was completely wrong, except about the Republican race! It's almost impossible to imagine Hillary stopping Obama in New Hampshire.