Solid versus soft support

Posted: Thursday, December 06, 2007 3:06 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Chuck Todd and Mark Murray
Earlier today, we noted the Washington Post/ABC poll that has Clinton with just a six-point lead over Obama in New Hampshire (35%-29%) -- but with more solid support than her rival from Illinois. One of the reasons for Clinton's more solid support, we speculated, is due to the fact that Obama's base in New Hampshire comes from independents, while Clinton's comes from rank-and-file Democrats.

But Democratic pollster Thomas Riehle, who isn't affiliated with any of the presidential campaigns, offers another view. "Candidates who are gaining support or losing support both tend to have a lot of soft support along a hierarchical vote continuum," he emails First Read. "Supporters have either just arrived from undecided and arrive as soft supporters, or supporters are preparing to depart to undecided, and soft support is the way station. That's why a lot of Obama support would be soft support.

"Candidates who have gained and held support for a while, or who have already lost a lot of support, both would show a large proportion of strong supporters -- either because soft supporters gained earlier have been locked in as strong supporters after a period of time, or because all that's left after a bad stretch are hard-core supporters.

"Obama's not necessarily weaker, because the proportion of his support that is soft is larger than the proportion of Clinton vote that is soft. Obama might be stronger, if his high proportion of soft support is simply an indicator that momentum is on his side -- that is, if he is able to start converting soft supporters to strong supporters while at the same time continuing to pipeline undecideds into the soft support category. Clinton might be approaching a point where she is left with only hard-core supporters and no pipeline of undecideds into her soft support category. Time will tell!"

EMAIL THIS

Comments

"King of Straw Polls"

Ron Paul's Head-to-Head Records (Win-Lose-Tie):
Ron Paul v. Rudy Giuliani 38-7-0
Ron Paul v. Mitt Romney 30-15-0
Ron Paul v. Fred Thompson 29-15-0
Ron Paul v. John McCain 39-5-0
Ron Paul v. Mike Huckabee 37-6-1
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/straw-poll-results/

Angelo, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:50 PM)

Polls change as people start looking at the candidates, some change as people change their minds, don't hold on to polls, they will mess your mind, like promises coming out of the Bush White house, they can only be believed for an hour.

John Alexander,Edinboro,PA (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 11:12 PM)

please also check candidate/party leads at http://www.ireachable.com/vote opinion poll station too. It provides break down of votes by vote circles drawn by state/location, age, gender and more.

Also you can check opinion voting locations on google map.

iReachable, San Jose, CA (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 12:00 AM)

Bee, you work so hard, please go home and have a good sleep. When you wake up tomorrow, you may talk better or make some sense.

gohome (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 12:10 AM)

As far as I see they have all lied to us. No a one of them wants what best for the country. All they can think about is repaying favors they owe and screwing us over to line their own pockets. I am so disappointed in all of them.

Marilyn, Illinois (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 12:27 AM)

As far as I see they have all lied to us. Not a one of them wants what best for the country. All they can think about is repaying favors they owe and screwing us over to line their own pockets. I am so disappointed in all of them.

Marilyn, Illinois (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 12:32 AM)

It's amusing to hear that Thomas Riehle, a democrat, is "not affiliated with any of the candidates." How the hell do we know this? Riehle told us, that's how. After we've been informed of Riehe's "objectivity," he proceeds through all manner of intellectual contortions to demonstrate that Hillary's support may not be as good, and Obama's support may be a lot better. Why the hell would he do that, and why should we be persuaded by such idle and silly speculations? Who cares? Well, come to think of it, if there are some dunderheads, trying to figure out who to vote for, and need help, maybe Riehe, with all his objectivity, can persuade them to move away from Hillary. He's already explained to us, that Obama's support may be stronger, and shouldn't that be reason enough to not vote for her? "But, don't get me wrong; I'm very objective, you know."

God damn. How the hell has Hillary managed to survive this incredible BS? The desperation of Hillary-haters, defies description! I've never seen anything to equal it.

john polifronio (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 1:47 AM)

Clinton's campaign got off to a rocky start because she assumed based on '06 results that Democrats want to battle...voters are savvy enought to want more out of politcs than just a fight and enjoy some years of peace and harmony

eNews Reference (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 4:28 AM)

SPeaking of an event that had the potential to shift polls in Iowa and elsewhere more favorably in Obama's favor.

I just saw over an Obama site that Harry Reid has scheduled an important Energy Vote on Saturday Morning about the same time Obama's Oprah Event in Iowa is scheduled. If true then what I said back in September during the vote on Kyl-Leiberman is FACT. Harry Reid is working on behalf of the Clinton Campaign. Back in September Reid announced the vote was put off indefinitely. Obama leaves for NH. Reid reschedules the vote the next day so Hillary can take her "General Election" vote because as we saw earlier in the year she has to vote the same as Obama to minimize distinctions between the two candidates. The site says that Reid has requested all four candidates return for the vote because supposedly the vote is supposed to be close. If this is true Obama should put aside Senatorial Decorum this time and go public on Reid if he pulls this crap.

Rick Edmond (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 6:23 AM)

This proves what I've been saying all along.
Barrack Oprah-ma might attract some of the independents who voted for Bush, Nader, or Cobb in '04.'
But he would chase mainstream Democrats, like myself, away.
Hillary will energize "the base" of The Democratic Party.
That's the way ot should be too.
A party should always pick its' candidate based upon his or her appeal to the core of its' membership; not, according to what outsiders think, or what splinter group might be attracted to them come the general election.

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 9:15 AM)

"...Excellent analysis by an unaffiliated Democratic strategist.
(Followed by a worthless, biased analysis by a blithering partisan who posts the first two replies - seriously, why should any reader take the comments of posters like Dickie Flatts, Tuck, Susan, Chuck, and Pat seriously when they haven't been able to write a single comment on the primary that wasn't filled with pointed and vitriolic hatred towards Barack Obama; you guys are about as reliable a source on Obama as Dick Morris is on Hillary, and I just wonder how many of you will be on suicide watch should Obama win the nomination.)
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:19 PM)..."

And ah, of course your assessment of Hillary, and your statements to and about her supporters have always been civil and well mannered.
(rolling my eyes, and shaking my head)
Please!

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 9:20 AM)

Barrack Oprah-ma is divisive to The Democratic Party, and bad for America.
We don't need a candidate who will attract independents.
But rather, we need a candidate who will energize "the base."

HILLARY 2008! ***experience counts!***

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 9:23 AM)

One thing for sure that the Clinton campaign knows is that about 22% of those in the polls in favor of Obama are temporary or will not vote. While Clintons are solid. those that left Clinton are temporary shifters and you can't count on them.
So they way I see even if Clinton loose IOWA she is still the front runner for the nomination.
After IOWA NH there will be some that will bail out and guess what 75% will move to Hillary and those are solid voters. The picture looks good.
See ya!

Jose Alemar (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 9:52 AM)

AS A LIFE-LONG DEMOCRAT(BORN 1945),ITS NOT THAT I CANT VOTE FOR CLINTON BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LIKE LISTENING TO MY MOTHER-IN-LAW FOR THE NEXT 4 OR 8 YEARS; ITS BECAUSE OF THIS SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT AMONG BABY BOOMERS THAT I RESENT! THE ICING ON THE CAKE IS THE BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON ARISTOCRACY. HAVE WE STOOPED SO LOW AS A PEOPLE, THAT WE CAN PERPETUATE THESE ARISTOS. KUCINICH, OBAMA, PAUL OR RICHARDSON, ARE ALL MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAN THE ARRAY OF DEMOCRATIC SENATORS RUNNING FOR CABINET POSTS.
AS FAR AS THE GOP, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RON PAUL WHO IS MORE LIBERTIAN THAN REPUBLICAN, THIS IS THE MOST DANGEROUS GROUP OF CANDIDATES EVER PUT ON ONE STAGE IN HISTORY. WHETHER ITS RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM, OR CRIMINAL CUPABILITY, THESE IDIOTS WOULD FURTHER UNDERMINE OUR CONSTITUTION, AND CONTINUE THE POLICIES OF THE GREATEST DISASTER THAT HAS EVER BEFALLEN THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY. AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SERVED UP A "RED SCARE" TO THE TENTH-POWER, USED THE ALIEN-SEDITION ACTS AND SHREDDING OF HABAEUS CORPUS, UNDER THE GUISE OF A "PATRIOT ACT" TO SET AMERICANS AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, AND REWARD THEIR FELLOW-ARISTO-CORPORATE SPONSORS, AND DESTROY THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS!
THE TERM CRIMMINALLY INSANE, IS NOT TOO STRONG FOR THIS CURRENT GROUP OF OUTLAWS NOW INHABITING THE EXECUTUIVE BRANCH.

TOM TYSKIEWICZ, FOREST HILLS, PA (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 10:15 AM)

to j. merle-wow. just unbelievable reasoning and rationale. a true intellectual and factual researcher.

ace p washington, d.c. (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 10:51 AM)

I am a fairly emotional guy and was inmpressed with Romney's speech yesterday; however, he probably did little to impact the evangelical Christian's prejudice against Mormanism. Good political speech, but poor defense of the particular's of his faith around which the evangelicals and fundamentalists rally.

I saw Obama's latest commercial on Hardball and was taken away again. How good it would be to have not only a new presidential perspective, but to have an administration made up of leaders with new pespectives (I dream?). When I look at Hillary, she looks tired, lines on her face, weariness in he pacing around the stage, anxiety regarding her slipping popularity.

It will be very interesting to see if Oprah can make any impact in the woman vote. What she has to say could be crucial, especially for the post-New Hampshire vote.

I considered Hillary for a while; but I really don't want another Clinton administration. Too contentious. Too contrived.

Cornbread, San Antonio (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 10:55 AM)

Monica:

Dean was the establishment candidate? Are you sure about that? I didn't pay a whole lot of attention to coverage of the 2004 nomination battle but I do seem to remember Dean being pegged as more of the outsider candidate - governor of a small state, not part of Washington. I would think Kerry and/or Gephardt would have been the establishment candidates in 04. Anyone else?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 11:13 AM)

SKM, MASS:
Obviously, Hillary did not have her name removed from the Mich. Democratic primary because she is a STRATEGIC THINKER. Superior intelligence goes a long way in becoming/being President.
Obama, Edwards and Richardson all made a serious error in withdrawing their names from the Mich. Democratic primary.
She gives herself every opportunity to WIN.

BubbaDownSouth (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 11:32 AM)

Bee, trust me, we know who you are voting for and who you are not voting for. You've made that perfectly clear about a million times.

Sean (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 7:08 PM)

to j. merle-wow. just unbelievable reasoning and rationale. a true intellectual and factual researcher.

His secret is sniffing glue 24/7.

Carl Brownbackson (Sent Friday, December 07, 2007 7:58 PM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=500592