Rasmussen Reports, um...reports that, in a poll taken after the Florida primary but before John Edwards dropped out of the race, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were knotted in a statistical tie in the California Democratic primary race, with Clinton pulling 43% to Obama's 40%. Senator Clinton's lead is within the poll's margin of error.
Since the poll was taken prior to John Edwards' exit from the race, and no-one really knows what effect that will have on the candidates' numbers, it is hard to say what this poll means for California's 441 delegates. The numbers show a sharp tightening of the race for sure, but the "Edwards Effect" could nullify or magnify that. It is definitely not good news for Hillary Clinton.
Rasmussen's daily tracking polls, taken from a much smaller sample, still show Hillary with a more commanding, but still narrowing, 42% to 35% lead nationally, but there was a very interesting, extremely preliminary trendlet emerging:
In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it's now Hillary Clinton 42% and Barack Obama 35%. Last night was the first night of interviews without John Edwards in the race. For last night's data alone, Clinton and Obama were essentially even. Samples for individual nights are very small and results should be interpreted with caution. The next Presidential Tracking Poll update is scheduled for Friday at 11:00 a.m.
It's still way too early to tell much of anything from this, but if I was Barack Obama, I'd be breathing a sigh of relief that the early numbers didn't go the other way. Both candidates performed well in tonight's debate, so I wouldn't expect much movement from that. Barring a major gaffe or a coup by one or the other, we might not see much movement unless John Edwards endorses before Super Tuesday.
Update: DavidG, I did check the sources you provided, they are, for the most part, unattributed. I'm not going to do your research for you, I have enough to do already. Unfortunately, I can't list every single reason why I will delete comments, but commentary that is presented as "News" needs to pass certain tests. Yours did not. These are my standards, perhaps another writer will let them be, or is too busy to moderate comments, which I sometimes am. I will say this, to all of my readers, if you have your own blog article that you'd like me to see, or that you think I might use, by all means, email me. Diversity of opinion is good, diversity of fact is not.
Can we get some new blood in the White House. I dont know if I can take another Clinton or Bush
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Izzi Roquemore
8:42AM Feb 1st 2008
Martin Luther King is singing for joy as many of us are right now....Wow what a great time to be proud of being a woman and a minority...Doctor KING job well done..Yes SIR we have been listening and we will continue to carry your LEGACY!!!!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Napoleon Dynamite
9:20AM Feb 1st 2008
(Sorry, too thinly sourced. TC)
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Davidg
9:36AM Feb 1st 2008
Wow Napoleon...that is Dynamite if it's true.
This should not be hard to trace. Is Obama's half-brother a militant Muslim preaching Islamic Jihad? Is his cousin really Odinga? Did Obama really fly to Kenya to campaign for him?
CNN, FOX, MSNBC, AOL Bloggers???? Anybody????
This is the kind of thing we maybe need to know, you know, maybe BEFORE THE ELECTION...hello...anyone...crickets chirping.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Davidg
9:38AM Feb 1st 2008
Too thinly sourced? Meaning you don't want to check it?
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Joan
9:40AM Feb 1st 2008
I HOPE WE CAN GET BOTH OF THESE TWO OBAMA AND CLINTON WOULD BE A PREFECT TICKET IN NOVEMBER
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Otto
10:00AM Feb 1st 2008
This story is misleading. Each California congressional district elects three delegates to the convention. Therefore reporting that 40% of the entire state of CA prefer your candidate is useless. The CA districts vary widely in their liberal or conservative alignment.
Therefore the only useful info would be by district.
FYI, New York State does have a winner take all primary. By the way, moving all the big states to one day like Feb 5th is intended to prevent the people from generating a candidate to stand up to the Clinton-types, people with money and huge prior followings. So with this technique of bunching all the big states on one day, you are prevented from hearing about a new candidate with new ideas. Peace to you all.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
ed
10:55AM Feb 1st 2008
For most Obama supporters, its not about race or gender. Its about the ultimate potential of our country that none of the other candidates can bring forth at this time.
Obama is the LEADER we need ... the leader the world needs.
OBAMA 08!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
ed
10:53AM Feb 1st 2008
Clinton went for the war because the numbers were there. That's the kind of person she is. She is not principaled enough to be the leader of this country. She would possibly make a good advisor (stretch), but she is not the person that we need to lead this country. She just can't do it!
Obama 08!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
rickster
6:26AM Feb 15th 2008
So much for polls.We saw that in New Hampshire.Anybody with any common sense will say we need a change,but I know that when the President was Bill Clinton this country was in damn good shape.A gallon of high test gas was 1.49.Intrest rates were as low as they had ever been.We werent in a war that was backed by the gain of oil.The housing industry was flourshing.That just begins to tell of how good things were back then Not all the issues were settled back then but we were sure more united as a nation and wernt afraid of loosing our homes, our jobs, our lives to terriorist.We could fly on a plane back then without having to get a cavity search. SO LETS TALK The nation as a whole was sure alot better off then than now.Evev Obama admitted that last night in the debate,that the Clinton record speaks for itself,Bills and Hillaries.So why not put Hillary in office.Why not lets get back to the way things were and move on in some positive direction.Why not have our jobs stay here and not be outsourced to other nations.Why not stop the war,mission was accomplished a long long time ago. We dont need new blood ,we need experienced blood in the white house.We need a cabinet like we had under the Clinton administration.We have a democratic congress.Lets move on with PROVEN leaders.Not I hope so or I hope they can.We know they can based upon their record.WE will all be in good shape if Hillary gets in office.Its not just George Bush who messed this country up ,its the whole republican party and the trickle down economics they support.IT DONT WORK. They get the meat.We get the bones Look at these facts when you go to vote come November
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Lori M
12:10PM Feb 1st 2008
OUR COUNTRY NEEDS CHANGE!!! Omaba says he will be right from day one, using the issue of Iraq as his sole primer. Considering that at the time he was not a member of the US Senate NOR the House of Representatives, Obama was not privy to the information that made the case for so many who voted for the resolutions that were so disaterously abused by the Presidency. (you can look it up for yourself)Did the American public believe that we were in danger? Did the people of this great nation think that something needed to be done? Did YOU feel we needed to be protected? With the information we were given to justify the means, why did Obama think that NOTHING should have been done? I think it's yet another instance of his own ability to "politic" and "point fingers". In the same forum he touts that he will be "right" from day one yet states that he will build a cabinet of advisors because he will "not always BE right". We need more than inspiration and rhetoric. Obama says he is above the game of politics but at every turn he demonstrates his own genious at using inspiration to cloud and distract from his use of politics. All the while pointing fingers at others. Don't be fooled people, don't be hypnotized by idealism. In the state we're in, this country needs more than what Obama is offering. Give him some time and more experience. Clinton 2008!!!!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Hako
12:09PM Feb 1st 2008
I think Hillary and Barack are great candidates, and impressive people. That said, I'm stilling leading toward Hillary because she really does have more experience abroad, and a more impressive command of the facts on health care. Also, where the economy is concerned, Hillary only has to remember what worked so well in the 90's.....and Bill would be right there to remind her.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Lady of Light
12:09PM Feb 1st 2008
Your analysis of the current situation is excellent. I wonder why John Edwards isn't endorsing either Democratic Candidate. Can you find out more about that? I was impressed with the fact that Obama and Hillary were civil with each other and didn't bicker at the debate last night. As I typed this, I just heard that Edwards is supporting Obama - what will this mean for Hillary? I thank you for all the interesting info you provide on this blog. I have never been so well-informed on the elections before and we look forward to voting on super Tuesday in NJ (I did a discussion of the Republican on my blog yesterday - go to http://theladyoflight.blogsot.com/or use Tommy Christopher's mom's link.
Lady of Light
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
mike
12:19PM Feb 1st 2008
I'M STILL VOTING FOR EDWARDS
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
demvictory in 08
1:06PM Feb 1st 2008
The media is most disappointed that there were no attacks or fireworks between Hillary and Obama in last nights debate. Put an end to the mud-slinging and attack hurling in Politics, and watch the repititious demonizing Media noise become IRRELEVANT. They are the scum of Republican sewers!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Wo
1:24PM Feb 1st 2008
To speak the truth, Barack is the Leader the world and America needs at this point in history. His election will do alot more good for America and the entire world than the election of Mrs Cliton. Cliton is a great Women with a great mind. But I think right now age is not on her side. She is not the same Cliton she was 24 or 16 years ago as far age is concerned. This is evident in her constant changing in her position on several issues. But barack is a great mind, still youthful and energetic and can reason fast and he seems to have exact image of how he intend to solve the world's problem. But Cliton keeps changing every day. This is a clear sign that age is now setting in. Obamas election will completely melt down majority of the problems America is now facing on international fronts. I just hope Americans will be sart enough to make a choice that has a greater potential for peace and hamony.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
rena
1:56PM Feb 1st 2008
People, this is about getting our country together. Any ignorant individual would make this a racial issue. Don't see Obama as a "BLACK" or should I say bi-racial man, see him as A MAN WORKING VERY HARD TO BETTER THIS COUNTRY. If we could see no color then what would someone complain about?
I AGREE with this statement:'For most Obama supporters, its not about race or gender. Its about the ultimate potential of our country that none of the other candidates can bring forth at this time.
Obama is the LEADER we need ... the leader the world needs.'
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
rena
1:59PM Feb 1st 2008
One more post...I am an "African American" woman. I'd like to see Mrs. Clinton in office with Obama as Vice President. I say this because of a previous post where someone said "we don't need new blood, we need experienced." So very true.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Diana
3:35PM Feb 1st 2008
I don't believe that Obama will carry California, as the Latino electorate overwhelmingly supports Hillary and has historically been very loyal to the Clintons. Speaking as someone who has been immersed in the Latino culture, Latinos dislike Obama & I believe that the rivalry between blacks & Latinos is very real. Sorry,OBAMA: !NO, TU NO PODRAS! (or you will not be able, in response to "Si, se puede").
GO HILLARY!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
David S.
4:40PM Feb 1st 2008
Last night's debate was so civil..I was waiting for rock 'em sock 'em robots. But no. Hillary did better on the health care stuff. She is detailed and had specifics. Barack did better on the Iraq War stuff. Hillary, no matter how hard she spins it, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. She finds herself in the position Kerry did in '04. I voted for it, but not really...this was part of John Edwards problem too. This is why senators have a tough time getting to be president. Your votes come back to haunt you.