It looks obvious

This column supports, sort of and with actual numbers, the point I made yesterday - Clinton’s campaign didn’t really suffered from Bill Clinton Comments. Obama rising numbers didn’t came from Clinton’s falling but buy his ability to draft new support:

Here’s my two cents, idiosyncratic as they may be: According to the chart, Clinton’s national poll average was basically unchanged between the beginning of October and the middle of May, starting at about 41 percent and ending at about 42 percent. Although Clinton verged on 50 percent of the average poll and dipped to just below 40 before the New Hampshire primary, her numbers remained relatively steady. Meanwhile, Obama’s numbers started at about 22 percent in October and rose faster than CO2 levels in the atmosphere, breaking 50 percent at the end.

One interpretation of the average poll data—my interpretation—is that as the field of candidates thinned and undecideds got off the pot, they migrated to Obama in huge numbers, first after the Iowa caucuses and then before Super Tuesday. Clinton, on the other hand, was a candidate whose market share was fixed. She never really expanded from her core of support, despite the many style, substance, and personnel changes she made during the campaign and no matter how much money she spent. And even then, she just barely lost the delegate count.

The fact that it was close competition all the way to the end is not so trivial, my bet is that will not that close coming november.

Related posts

• Who has smaller? (0)
• The increasing threat of national service (0)
• It isn’t about social justice (0)