Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/ on line 472

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/ on line 487

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/ on line 494

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/ on line 530

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/ on line 103

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/ on line 21

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /nfs/c01/h14/mnt/9829/domains/ on line 623
PrezVid MSM Syncometer: Out of touch on Obama at Sibutramine Prices - FDA Checked Pharmacy

PrezVid MSM Syncometer: Out of touch on Obama

The latest Gallup poll shows Hillary Clinton solidly ahead -- and rising -- in the Democratic race. Yet as Politico points out, if you listen to "the developing media storyline" it's Obama who has the surging mo'. And if you listen to the self-declared netroots in blogs, you'd believe that Hillary is sinking fast. So we here at PrezVid decided to quantify this gap by measuring coverage of Clinton and Obama in news media overall, in major MSM outlets, in blogs, and in the Democratic netroots. It's our first PrezVid Syncometer. So how out of sync are they? About as out of sync as Sanjaya. We start with the Gallup poll:
Note Clinton's wide lead and Obama's slight dip (though, as John Bracken points out in the comments, that dip is within the margin of error). Her lead only widens without Gore in the race:
Says Gallup:
Sen. Hillary Clinton remains the dominant presidential front-runner among Democrats nationally, with twice the support as her nearest challenger. Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, and former Vice President Al Gore are tightly bunched in second place, with all other candidates in low single digits. If Gore is removed from the ballot and his supporters' second-place choices substituted, Clinton's lead becomes even more dominant, with Obama and Edwards tied far behind. These data were collected April 2-5, just as reports of Obama's first-quarter fundraising success were made public. The survey results suggest that while Obama may have had a great deal of financial momentum in the past quarter, it was not matched by any increase in voter support. . . . The trend for Obama has been relatively static. The Illinois senator ends up in this latest April poll essentially where he was last January; Obama gets exactly half of the vote given to Clinton.
That sure doesn't seem to be the story we hear from media, does it? Let's see: Now we go to GoogleNews and search on the two leaders. Over the last 30 days, it returns: Hillary Clinton: 8,908 articles Barack Obama: 13,992 articles So media as a whole give Obama the mo'. Well, what about the biggest, most sophisticated outlets of political coverage in America? Same search over the last 30 days yields this at the New York Times: Hillary Clinton: 28 articles Barack Obama: 95 articles And at the Washington Post: Hillary Clinton: 108 articles Barack Obama: 252 articles Obviously, these searches operate differently. But the relative results are the same. The mo' won't quit. The troubled LA Times, however, stands apart: Hillary Clinton: 77 articles Barack Obama: 69 articles So let's go to the blogosphere. According to Blogpulse, the coverage and comment for the two candidates is at least even-handed:
And finally, let's check the netroots. MyDD, a leading blog, just held its straw poll. The results: picture-1.png Edwards first. Clinton fourth. Way, way behind. Boy, those results don't look like those from Gallup -- from the real voters. At the Politics Online conference in Washington a few weeks ago, I remember one of the many pundits there arguing that Hillary has no grass roots support and momentum because you can't find it in the blogosphere. Well, maybe in one blog. : SEE ALSO: Google Trends.

23 Responses to “PrezVid MSM Syncometer: Out of touch on Obama”

  1. 1 John Bracken Apr 11th, 2007 at 8:25 am

    jeff, this is interesting, thanks. I would just note that when the margin of error of the Gallup poll is taken into account (+/- 3%), then Obama’s number show no “slight dip” but remain statistically consistent. Of course, that does not contradict your larger point coverage has not matched popularity. It makes sense that the media would focus on a new face who has been on the national scene for less than 2 and a half years. I wonder how your observation bears out historically. In the first months of 2000, Forbes, Buchanan, Bradley and of course McCain likely all received more coverage than their polling numbers may have suggested.

  2. 2 Jeff Jarvis Apr 11th, 2007 at 8:36 am

    Right, you are. I should have noted that in the post and now have.

  3. 3 Alex Hammer Apr 11th, 2007 at 9:30 am

    Great analysis and another (in a long string) of great pieces.

  4. 4 Craig Apr 11th, 2007 at 9:31 am

    Thanks so much for this. You are totally correct – based on the tone of the media coverage, you would assume Obama was way ahead of Hillary in public opinion. In fact, she has at least a comfortable lead (and in many cases a commanding lead) in all of the national polls. The real story should be that, despite five continuous months of glowing coverage, Obama’s numbers have barely budged. So if anyone’s candidacy is in trouble – it‘s Obama’s.

  5. 5 lawton Apr 11th, 2007 at 9:54 am

    I have read your report and believe you are right on - Hillary is doing everything right and is in the place she wants to be - a winner. We don’t need to knock anyone but we do need to be honest! The media is not sure what to do about Hiiary - she is ahead, she is smart, she is going to win - people expect her to win and this doesn’t make news so some of the far right stations and radio are trying to painta false pictures and this is not honest - but who would expect teh religious far right to be honest? They tried to destroy Bill Clinton and they will continue to try to destory Hillary! Continue to give us the facts and the truth!

    Lawton Lowe

  6. 6 John Abbey Apr 11th, 2007 at 11:07 am

    No one believe the media any more. Yesterday was about Anna Nicole, today is about Don Imus. Thanks for pointing this out. Barack is a nice guy but this is not the time. We are talking about the President of America; I am must add I am also an African American. I am proud to see him represent.

  7. 7 Terry Lake Apr 11th, 2007 at 11:36 am

    Great article. But frankly the polls are all over the map. A Rasmussen poll conducted 4/6 shows Clinton with only a 5 point lead over Obama (34% to 29%).

    One website that I visited is the Real Clear Politics site that lists the latest poll results for all the polls including Gallop. See URL below.

  8. 8 Robert Morrow Apr 11th, 2007 at 12:07 pm

    Jeff, you are not being sophisticated here. What you do not understand is that those poll numbers are extremely soft and Hillary’s advantage is built purely out of name ID from the last 15 years. Most average Democrats do not even know who the other candidates are or they know very little about them. They will be educated next year by the activists and advertising dollars of other candidates.
    There are 2 primaries going on. There is the primary of the Democratic elites, activists and fundraisers. And then there is the primaries that will be occurring in Jan and Fed. of 2008.
    Hillary is getting her ass kicked in the primary of the Demo elites because they are extremely worried that this unpopular woman will actually lose the general election in a year 2008 that is supposed to be good to Demos. Remember I mentioned there are 2 primaries. Well, the members of the primary of the Demo elites are the ones who are going to tell the members of actual primaries who to vote for. And a LOT of these people are for Obama and to a lesser extent John Edwards. The point is, they are AGAINST Hillary.
    Fundraising, where Obama scored a huge coup against a woman who has been running for president for 20 years, is important because it is how all those blue collar Democrats, your maids, union workers, construction guys who are not on the internet - it is how they are going to be hearing a LOT about Obama and even Edwards later this year and early in 2008.
    So Hillary is having extreme problems in the primary of the elites, the influential activists, opinion makers and money people and this will lead to extreme problems when the primaries and caucuses begin next year.

  9. 9 Robert Morrow Apr 11th, 2007 at 12:20 pm - a lot more accurate than a Gallop poll

    One more thing, to invest a lot of importance in a Gallop poll at this stage of the game is silly. There is absolutely no one in any of the campaigns who takes that thing seriously this far out. Maybe 2 days before a general election.
    Here is a better poll for you: This is where people trade contracts of political candidates and they put their money where their mouth is. Right now it says Hillary has less than a 50% chance of being the Demo nominee. Obama has a 30% chance. Gore 9% chance; Edwards 8% chance. Even here, I think Hillary’s odds are extremely overpriced. I think she only has a 30% chance of being the Demo nominee.
    When gametime occurs next year, Obama will have more grassroots firepower and more money than Hillary who will have a LOT more “baggage.”

  10. 10 bill Apr 11th, 2007 at 1:38 pm

    As an independent voter, I appreciate this article. Frankly, this is precisely why so many people distrust the main stream media, but that is an old story. The main stream media does not want to hear or report the truth, they want to create a new truth and are willing to present a false picture of the facts to the rest of us in order to do so. It is more of a mission than a desire to sell papers. Isvestia and Pravda have no corner on that market.

  11. 11 Canaan Apr 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm

    The article points out the anti-Hillary ‘groupthink’ that’s going on in the Netroots right now. ‘She hasn’t apologized for the war’ (i.e., she won’t capitulate to the Netroots) doesn’t carry any weight beyond the lefty blogosphere.

    Obama is getting the ‘kid gloves’ treatment because the other Democrats are smart enough not to alienate Black voters for the general election (google New York mayor’s race 2000). With the kid gloves off, Obama would get his cherry busted by Giuliani, and no, Rudy will not be gentle. E.g., Obama ‘pledges’ Universal Health Care in his first term, but doesn’t have a plan and has no idea what he’s up against with the insurance lobby–I guess if we just believe hard enough, it will happen. Clinton lets him get away with this, instead emphasizing “all the Democrats support universal coverage” because she wants more Dems in Congress in 2008 to beat a filibuster. But Rudy would punch Obama’s lights out.

    Charles Rangel, the most powerful black politician in American history, said on Meet The Press “Of course, Obama is not qualified to be President” and he doesn’t expect Obama to be around for the final rounds. Nobody in politics is smarter than Rangel. Rangel, by the way, encouraged Obama to run for President. Obama is laying the foundation for his own great future. But 2008 general is Hillary vs. Rudy.

    Funny how all the ‘people power’ talk has morphed into talk of Obama’s support among the techie elites. Some people are more equal than others?

  12. 12 Robert Morrow Apr 11th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    The bottom line is Hillary is irresponsible with power. Hillary has spent 35 years treating people like dirt and it is all coming back to haunt her now and would should have been a cakewalk to the Demo nomination.
    Her campaign is almost, but not quite, in full blown panic mode. Hillary has no grassroots firepower. When you treat people like dirt, depend on fear rather than love and respect for power, people will not run through a brick wall for you.
    In fact, the opposite has occurred; there are a LOT of people who will do everything they can to see that Hillary is not nominated in 2008, much less let Nurse Ratched become president.
    Check out Hillary’s LONG history of racial and ethnic slurs at YouTube; hit the pause button to read the text.

  13. 13 Jeff Jarvis Apr 11th, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Ah, Robert, I knew your stripes would come out. You just don’t like Hillary. Obsessively. Pointing out her lead in the polls isn’t naive. It’s just grating to you.

  14. 14 Robert Morrow Apr 11th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    Absolutely, I am partisan anti-Hillary. But I am correct in saying the no one in any of those campaigns takes those polls seriously. Hillary’s true position is much more precarious for the reasons I listed above.
    If Hillary were on the road to being coronated she would be at 55-60% in Demo polls, which would give some margin for error. Also, look at how few public officials are on her bandwagon outside of New York, where even the governor is distancing himself from her by refusing to endorse her. And Schumer hates her; I don’t see him yapping in front of a TV camera for Hillary. As for Rangel, his heart is obviously with Obama if you watch him on TV. So even her home base of New York has BIG reservations about her.
    If you want to see progress in her campaign, then it will be when she has the OPEN and enthusiastic support of governors, senators and congressmen who are not located in New York. These folks have to run on the same ticket with Hillary and they are mortified that they might be impaled on the same spears that will be tossed at her in a general election.
    Again, check; it is a lot more accurate than Gallop.

  15. 15 Sheldon Apr 11th, 2007 at 4:35 pm

    I think your analysis shows the superficiality of the media in covering the 2008 presidential race. I am no partisan of Hillary Clinton, having written an anti-Hillary book (”Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton And America’s Demise”)but what is required is objective analysis of the facts on the ground. Barack Obama no doubt has been very successful in fundraising and creating a media image, however, as Howard Dean learned four years ago, triumphal campaigns require solid organization. What the media is ignoring is that Hillary Clinton, ably advised by Bill Clinton, is quietly hiring the leading political talent across the country to staff her campaign infrastructure. When the primaries are actually underway I think we will see how wrong the media got the story of the formative part of the 2008 presidential campaign.

  16. 16 Joe Schulte Apr 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am

    I believe more accurate poll numbers will be recorded after voters see and hear live debates . Is the first April 26 in South Carolina ? Watching candidates on the same stage at the same time enables a comparison not found elseware . From my observation Obama will have a real opportunity to advance and Clinton to decline . Other polls tend to point to the college educated higher income Democrats now support Obama while Clinton supporters are blue collar high school educated . The hurdle for Clinton is to persuade an educated group already convinced she would lose the general election to support her . With Obama , a black man , a community organizer , the exposure next to the other candidates will position himself for an easier change of minds in groups now supporting Clinton and others . The debates can make or break a campaign . Remember the recorded Nixon- Kennedy debate ?

  1. 1 Changes in the media-- for better or worse « A Random Walk Pingback on Apr 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am
  2. 2 Who gets better spin? at PrezVid Pingback on May 4th, 2007 at 8:58 am
  3. 3 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Obama, the internet victor? Pingback on Jan 8th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
  4. 4 Obama, the internet victor? at PrezVid Pingback on Jan 8th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
  5. 5 BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » The new metrics of campaigns Pingback on Jan 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
  6. 6 Destinee Trackback on Aug 10th, 2009 at 1:28 am
  7. 7 Alondra Trackback on Aug 10th, 2009 at 2:57 am

Leave a Reply