Does Momentum Matter At All?
Obama got none out of Iowa
HRC seems to have gotten some (but not a lot) out of NH
Huckabee got none out of Iowa in New Hampshire but some in SC and FL
McCain got some in SC and CA and FL but none in MI
« Coburn To Endorse McCain | Main | A Nifty Map Of Michigan » Thought For The Morning16 Jan 2008 08:41 am Comments (19)
Yeah I'm with Jay... this is worse than saying yesterday that Rudy is one of the top GOP candidates! 
but McCain did in fact get momentum in Michigan!!! Dont forget he was polling 2-3 pts pre-NH.
Are you really citing poll data for Obama's jump? The polls were horribly wrong in Nevada, and the national polls are starting to settle back to where they were pre-Iowa. He got a bump, but no momentum into New Hampshire. If anything, the momentum tripped over itself. I think that until Feb 5th, there will be no momentum by any major candidate on the Dem side. I think they're going to split SC and Nevada - Obama gets SC, Clinton gets Nevada. I also think that Clinton will win Florida, but it will be discounted by the press. So they go into Feb 5th with about the same standing as they are now, but someone is going to win big on Feb 5th. If Obama loses California, then the momentum will swing to Clinton because she'll win NY too. If Clinton loses California, then I think Obama will gain the momentum.
Sorry, that should read "the polls were horribly wrong in New Hampshire"
If you're not citing polling data, then what evidence is there for any momentum for Hillary, Huckabee, and McCain?
The notion that Obama got no momentum out of Iowa is INSANE. Without Obama winning Iowa, this election would be a done deal. But instead, he's leading in SC, NC, GA, and other primary states, and some polls have him in a dead heat nationally. NONE was true before his Iowa win. C'mon, Marc, you're better than this.
You're too too close to this. You're a 24/7 political news junkie. If you look at RCP's national Dem poll averages, the only significant movement is Obama's ten point bounce out of Iowa. Aside from that one large change, we can also see that the numbers for all three candidates have bounced around a little. If you want to call Hillary's trend a "bounce," okay, but only to slightly below her earlier level.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Obama polling behind Clinton in NH, prior to IA? Post-IA, all the polls showed a HUGE bounce for 'bama. He absolutely had the momentum. Then Hillary countered by crying, and the undecideds broke her way. IOW, Hillary successfully stopped Obama's momentum, and turned it her way. That's not the same as saying Obama had no momentum after IA. A similar point can be made about McCain, who finished at 30% in MI after NH -- far higher than the polls had him prior to NH. Not winning is not the same as not having momentum, or a bounce of some kind.
Also, you watch: Obama will win both NV and SC. Then he'll have the momentum heading in to Big Tue.
Let me spell out what he said for you... That has not happened with a single candidate on either side of the aisle. Certainly a win helps. Otherwise you wouldn't want to win.
Momentum matters when it exists, and doesn't matter when it doesn't. You got it or you ain't.
Did momentum decide the nomination? No. But on the Dem side, it certainly had a huge effect. For one thing Obama closed what was a much bigger gap in NH than the 2.5 pts he eventually lost by. For another, he went from steadily gaining in SC to leading quite easily. For a 3rd, he's now gone from competitive within the black community to absolutely dominant. For a 4th, he's jumped about 10 points nationally. For a 5th, he went from completely uncompetitive in Nevada to getting multiple big endorsements there and being ahead or tied in the recent polls. That's momentum, and it's significant momentum.
Now no one knows if Obama got any momentum out of Iowa or if it was just the press and media in heaven. Ultimately Iowa might be a creepy little anomaly of a state in this campaign where the women were too evang-christian to go with hillary. Or it might be a tsongas-like win of a neigboring state pol like NH in 92 where clinton's 2nd place comeback after jennifer flowers and 60 minutes did astound expectations.
Marc, I have to agree with some of the commenters above; I'm not sure how you conclude that Obama received no momentum from his win in Iowa. I think that Iowa changed the entire dynamic of the Democratic race. Dan (above) is correct that before Iowa, Obama was really a big question mark for many voters (and the Beltway media). Iowa demonstrated that he had the ability to win, and in a State with a very low percentage of minority voters. After Iowa the Democratic Primary became a real race. Yes, the media over-blew the consequences of Iowa-that Obama would ride the wave to victory in NH and then Clinton would be finished- that was always ridiculous. Remember that many polls had Obama was down significantly in NH prior to Iowa; and yes, the Clinton campaign’s attacks (and the media's harsh treatment of Clinton) likely helped to sway many last minute undecided voters. This is going to be a very tough race from here on out- and maybe that is as it should be- for no two states should have the right to choose the Democratic (or Republican) candidate for President. But to say that Obama received no momentum from his win in Iowa is, I think, seriously misreading one of the key dynamics/turning points of this race.
What Obama got from Iowa was something that -- at that crucial moment of his candidacy -- was much more important than "momentum." He got credibility. He crossed a "presidential" threshold. That brute fact completely remade this race.
Obama had big mo out of Iowa, it just all collapsed at the end because of the gender tribalistic backlash with the cry, the iron my shirt guys, the perceprion she was ganged up on in the debate, etc.
Hello, Marc, commenters- I would disagree with the assertion that nobody got momentum after their victories. On both sides, the candidates that won did better in subsequent elections than they would have, if they hadn't. Examples: Huck would never have come in third in Michigan - far ahead of everyone else - w/o winning in Iowa. McCain would never have come in second in Michigan- far ahead of Huck - w/o winning in NH. Rudy was ahead in Michigan for most of the year. After not doing well in Iowa, or NH, he ended up sixth in Michigan. While he wasn't campaigning there - neither was Fred or Paul. And they beat him. Obama would have found his campaign stalled if he hadn't won in Iowa. HRC - too early to judge her momentum yet, but given the bad reviews the campaign was getting prior to NH, it would have been a considerable setback, w/o a win there...
I agree with above..Iowa changed this race..I don't follow the Republicans enuff to comment with credibility..but, Obama would be be packing his bags for Chicago if he'd not won Iowa..He'd have lost NH by a much bigger margin, he would not have the surge in SC he's enjoying now and the MI uncommitted wouldn't have come out as they did yesterday.. And of course, Hillary wouldn't be attacking him every day..
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Obama got none out of Iowa? What do subscribe his subsequent jump in the polls to?
Posted by Jay | January 16, 2008 8:53 AM