Rasmussen: Clinton's California Lead Smallest in a Year

Rasmussen Reports has conducted its first polling on the California primary, and though one cannot make an apples-to-apples comparison between its data and the data culled by other organizations, it's worth noting that the Rasmussen poll finds Hillary Clinton's lead to be as small as it has been in any public polling since January 2007.

CandidateRasmussenPollster.com
Clinton3847.6
Obama3329.0
Edwards1212.1

We're still a long way off from the California primary, and a lot can happen between now and February 5th (like Nevada and South Carolina, for instance, and at least one or two more debates). That said, a lot of California voters like myself have their ballots in hand now, and with perhaps half of all primary voters sending in their ballots before super duper Tuesday, so voter sentiments today do in fact matter.

This poll, which was in the field just a single day (Monday) and had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, could be an outlier. Clinton's lead in the other three polls taken in California this month have shown her lead to be 12, 15 and 16 points, much higher than her 5-point lead per Rasmussen (which is within the poll's margin of error). That sad, if there is in fact a tightening in California, it might be an harder for Clinton to put away the race on February 5.



Display:


Re: Rasmussen: Clinton's California Lead Smallest (none / 0)

Boy, I'd love to believe this!


by Drummond on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 03:42:55 AM EST

Re: Rasmussen: Clinton's California Lead (none / 0)

This certainly appears to be an outlier at this point, but if Obama can't get over the top in CA, I think it's all over but the cryin' with the solid leads that Clinton seems to have in the NE 2/5 states like NY and NJ, so this has to be a beacon of hope for the Obama faithful.


NJ Hussein Independent
by NJIndependent on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 08:52:46 AM EST

Hasn't voting started already (none / 0)

with Absentee Ballots in CA?


by NvDem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 09:59:04 AM EST

Should have read farther down... (none / 0)


by NvDem on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:00:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I just voted two days ago in Calif for HILL!!! (1.00 / 1)

Barack trying to invoke Ronald Reagan is yet another attempt to get Republicans to choose our nominee.  He needed them in Iowa, New Hampshire, and he needs them here in Cali too.

This DEMOCRAT voted for Hillary!! wooo!!


by KyleSIU on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM EST

Re: I just voted two days ago in Calif for HILL!!! (none / 0)

This Democrat, and my entire family (all Democrats) and friends (all Democrats) think Hillary is awful.  Every single one of us voted for uncommitted in Michigan.


by skipos on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:28:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and this Democrat, and everybody I know... (none / 0)

voted for Barack Obama, it would have been a split between Edwards and Obama, but your candidate is running too strong with the low information voters.


by neutron on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:56:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rasmussen: Clinton's California Lead Smallest (none / 0)

Last night on Countdown, it was mentioned that the Reagan mention on Obama's part was important for the independent vote particularly in California.  Hadn't realized that California was also an open primary state.


by NYMARJ on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:47:37 AM EST

Obama is closing in FL too... (none / 0)

...if he ekes out a win in NV, wins big in SC, then wins or comes close in FL, then a win in CA would probably put him up on Clinton.  Of course, if he wins NV/SC/FL, the media narrative and momentum will be almost entirely his.  
A loss in SC would probably be the beginning of the end, though a loss in NV is survivable.
What happens if, at the end of the primaries, after superdelegates all endorse, it's Clinton 45 percent, Obama 40 percent, Edwards 10 percent, uncommited 5 percent?  
Isn't that pretty much a situation where Clinton is forced to offer the veep slot to Obama, or where Obama is forced to cut a deal with Edwards?
by megaplayboy on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:56:57 AM EST

Re: Rasmussen: Clinton's California (none / 0)

Go Obama!!!!!


John McCain: Drill, Drill, Surge!!!!!
by TennesseeGurl on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 10:58:12 AM EST

Re: Rasmussen: Clinton's California Lead Smallest (none / 0)

Outlier or no, California has swung so far to VBM that tighening polls may not matter too much.


by Lucas O'Connor on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 12:20:15 PM EST

Re: Rasmussen: Clinton's California Lead Smallest (none / 0)

Okay, I give. What is VBM


by msobel on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:23:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Rasmussen: Clinton's California Lead Smallest (none / 0)

I guess
1) Vote By Mail,  meaning that if people are voting by mail now (about 50% by mail) then even if opinions change later, it will have diminished results.
or
2) mean Vote By Machine (and since Hillary and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy control the outcome, the True Voice of The People will not be heard.

Since this is a rational blog, I'm going with 1.


by msobel on Fri Jan 18, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.