SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Clinton crusing to victory in Indiana.

Latest SUSA poll:

HRC - 54
BHO - 42

In 4 tracking polls over the past 5 weeks, Clinton has never polled lower than 52%, Obama has never polled higher than 43%. At the wire, they finish: Clinton 54%, Obama 42%. Among males, the two have been tied in 3 of the 4 tracking polls. Among females, Clinton has always led by at least 14, and finishes ahead by 22. Among Republicans and Independents, the two are effectively tied. Among Democrats, Clinton finishes ahead by 19. Clinton leads among Conservatives, Moderates and Liberals. She leads among Pro Life and Pro Choice voters, among regular and not-so-regular church goers. In Northern Indiana, she leads by 11. In Central and Southern Indiana, she leads by 27. In greater Indianapolis, Obama leads. Among voters under 35, Obama leads. Among voters over 35, Clinton leads.

Tags: clinton, Indiana, obama, Primary, Survey USA (all tags)



by njsketch 2008-05-05 07:22AM | 0 recs
There's a new N. Carolina poll out too

Showing Hillary to within 3 points of Obama:

InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Survey in North Carolina:

Obama 48%; Clinton 45%;

Tied Within Margin of Error torylink_55_380.aspx

by phoenixdreamz 2008-05-05 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Great news! I trust SurveyUSA more than any other pollster. Don't forget undecided - about 4% will made  the decisions later, usually in favor of Hillary. So it can be even 56-43 than!

by engels 2008-05-05 07:26AM | 0 recs

Fantastic news.

We see a similar thing in the new IA poll, with hillary at 45 (3 behind Obama), topping her previous high of 44.

by DaveOinSF 2008-05-05 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Whoa

Above refers to a North Carolina poll

by DaveOinSF 2008-05-05 07:29AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

This kind of margin would be impressive. At this point, I think it will all be about NC, however. It will be interesting to see what happens there. I still think Obama will win NC by double digits, but here's a crazy thought:

Would heads explode if Clinton won NC and Obama won IN?!

by VAAlex 2008-05-05 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Isn't this primary giving you enough heartburn for you to want to see something like this? It would be much easier for the mind if one of them won both than to see such a drastic switch.

But then again, you never know. :)

by LadyEagle 2008-05-05 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Yeah, I wondered about that too.  Given everything else that has happened in this campaign, don't count out the possibiity!

by markjay 2008-05-05 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Yes, yes they would.  How would the pundits handle that, lol :)  "And this shows there both dead in the water, cause we said both candidates had to win these states" lol.

by njc2b5 2008-05-05 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Yeah, talk about confounding expectations. :)

by VAAlex 2008-05-05 10:19AM | 0 recs
Ooh, baby.

by miker2008 2008-05-05 07:30AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Is it possible that HRC could win IN and NC?


by giusd 2008-05-05 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

I think odds are she will win IN by 10+ which is a great achievement.

It is possible she will win NC but unlikely. If the result turns out tight though, it will still be a 'win' for HRC.

by kristoph 2008-05-05 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

It's the one event that would end the superdelegate trickle to Obama. It would raise the specter of an Obama collapse in the media. I said last week that in order to win, she needs to win NC.

by elrod 2008-05-05 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Could Hillary win Indiana by double digits?  Whoa!!  i doubt it.  I think obama is gaining.

by karajan72 2008-05-05 07:35AM | 0 recs
Obama gaining?

Two weeks ago this was his state. His backyard. His stomping ground. And he was going to stomp Hillary.

Now if a poll overstates Hillary's margin Obama is gaining?

I wish I didn't puke every time I tried the kool-aid. Must be nice to be in that place where everything, no matter what, is good for your guy.

by ineedalife 2008-05-05 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama gaining?

I wouldn't say "stomp" but if Obama does lose Indiana, it'll be the first time his campaigns pre-Super Tuesday projections have been wrong for a state. (The numbers tend to be conservative both for his and her percentage wins, but the state 'wins' tend to be accurate.) 208/Obamas_projections.html

Think of this as a palate cleanser prior to dousing your tongues in the expectations game -- at least if you're projecting from the Obama side of things. Of course, it's as meaningless as any projections made in early February, with the added bonus of having been somewhat accurate so far.

This non-partisan post was made possible by a generous grant from the Chubb Corporation.

by Lettuce 2008-05-05 07:52AM | 0 recs
not so

That's not so. His spreadsheet had him losing in Maine and he ended up with 59%.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: not so

Oh, and Clinton grew up next door to Indiana, making it another one of her home states.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 08:20AM | 0 recs
wow, very interesting

If Clinton wins IN by 14 points that will be a huge story.  It will be much more interesting than Obama winning in NC because 99.9999 percent of African Americans voted for him.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

could you clarify your AA comment, please?

by alex100 2008-05-05 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

According to this poster, the most loyal group of Democrats, AA voters, don't count.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

it's really disheartening seeing how it was framed. That's why I want to give her the benefit of the doubt at this point.

What exactly did she mean?

by alex100 2008-05-05 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

It's certainly not racist, it's like saying Hillary wins because she's getting 99,999% of white women. Both are false and a little offensive, but not racist/sexist.

by eumc 2008-05-05 07:42AM | 0 recs

That is absolutely not true. She is getting the OLDER white women. The younger ones know better, thank you.

by april34fff 2008-05-05 07:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc

Unsubstantiated talk: Hillary won white young voters in PA by 4 points. Look at the exit polls, there aren't many primaries where Obama won the white youth vote

by eumc 2008-05-05 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc

So!!! That's in PA.

What about all of the many states Barack won, especially the states that had majority white populations, hmmm?

by april34fff 2008-05-05 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc

How about looking it yourself in the exit polls, then come back and support your words?

My point is that he's got an advantage on the aggregated youth vote, but the whole 'young revolt' meme is just crazy talk, his margins simply aren't overwhelming

by eumc 2008-05-05 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc

First of all, I was replying to YOUR unsubstantiated statement. So why don't YOU provide the exit polls to back up your comment.

by april34fff 2008-05-05 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc
I provided the PA number.
Here you go: es/results/epolls/#PADEM
by eumc 2008-05-05 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc 05/03_obama_strikes_chord_with_generati on_next

Btween 17-24 yr olds, Obama won:

Overall, he has 70 per cent of the youth vote compared to Hillary's 30 percent.
I think that is overwhelming.

by april34fff 2008-05-05 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc

I am 25, am i not a part of the youth? And remember, Hillary won 25-29 in NH, I wonder why.

besides, the 17-24 numbers probably have smth like 10% margin of error, it's just too small a demographic.

by eumc 2008-05-05 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc

This is silly. I fail to see what your overall point is. The youth are a major part of Barack's demographic and all you are doing is picking one or two states out of the union to make...some kind of a point.

It's common knowledge that Barack has sealed the under 40 vote and you can spin it all you'd like.

Accept it...move on.

by april34fff 2008-05-05 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Eumc
yes, it is common knowledge that he's better than Hillary for the under-40
But his advantage is small, not lopsided, not  locked.
by eumc 2008-05-05 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

who has said anything about Hillary winning in the same context? That would be an overtly sexist remark. Hillary wins majority of women and that's a fact in her having success. As it is a fact that blacks have helped in obama's success.

but no one I've seen on any blog has put the terms of someone winning a state as "more interesting becuase candidate "A" gets 99.99% of the black vote".

put bluntly, it's the same thing as saying, "Obama's win in N.C. is more interesting because 99.9% of old white women in IN will vote for her".

it's not only unnecessary but crazy talk.

by alex100 2008-05-05 07:54AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

So it's a little offensive, but not racist/sexist. Anything you disagree with?

by eumc 2008-05-05 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

i think it is racist. Something in someone has to force such an unneeded comment to surface. To even come up with the idea that something is more interesting because blacks are a large part of the N.C. electorate is fairly telling. Especially when it doesn't add to the debate in any way, shape or form.

i'm not sure if you were part of the talk a month ago when a women made mention that the word "hysterical" was misogynistic. Well, it was stretching the term mysogynist for me but it's something that has validity in the traditional sense. So I'm aware of it now and it's something I would cringe at if I heard someone calling a women hysterical.

by alex100 2008-05-05 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

Yes, 'hysterical' can be constructed that way. Saying blacks vote similarly cannot be constructed as something peculiar of their race.

It's just generally unwise to say people vote somehow just because of what they are, I agree with that.

by eumc 2008-05-05 08:19AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

I'm not arguing generalities. You might get that but I just want to be clear about that.

My masters research at Yale has been about demographics this semester so it's something I deal with on a daily basis. Discussing  demographics in terms of this primary (especially this primary) is completely valid. But how it's done is the telling part.

My point is that her statement's construct is inherently negative and it pinpoints one particular voting block to that negativity. I understand what you're saying and I agree with you but her construct was not about "blacks voting similarly".

by alex100 2008-05-05 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

Let's play deconstruction on her comment. By 'interesting' she means it will more relevant to the media and  the SDs. And it will be! Why? First, because everybody says Hillary has no chance in NC. Secondly, because everybody has heard of his 'white voting class' problem by now. Black community support for Obama is simply not news and actually that is good news for Obama's prospects as unifying candidate.

PPP is saying almost the same thing

At the end of the day North Carolina's demographics make it nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to do much better than a ten point loss here.


by eumc 2008-05-05 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

i'm not following you.

PPP doesn't say "NC is unreachable for Hillary because she won't get 99.9% of older white women  vote".

That's the big difference IMO. PPP's comment isn't contextualized in a negative way to begin with. Demographics is a broad term that includes college educated, age groups, income levels, political affiliation and race.

Obama will be helped out in N.C. because of 1) black vote 2) N.C. is a "young" state 3) lots of colleges and universities. 4) lots of white collar jobs in the Research triangle.

HIllary will be helped out in IN because of 1) older state 2) larger percentage of whites whites 3) larger percentage of older voters and so on...

there are ways to contextualize things in a way that's honest and poignant.

by alex100 2008-05-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
The Old White Women

voting for Hillary aren't the slightest bit offended.  We think she is best qualifed...her being another old white women is just ice cream with our cake.  I think Obama supporters freak out about the same point about AA because deep down they know he is not as qualified but rather is often just benefitting from identity politics.  So use what you got.  That's politics.  But unfortunately, it won't work for him in the general.

by emmasaint 2008-05-05 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

No, facts can't be racist/sexist. Treating facts regarding a demographic uninteresting because you decide to dismiss this demographic can be though.

If Obama convinces 1 out of 3 white women, but Hillary only convinces 1 out 10 black people (women and men both) then Hillary has a certain problem among this demographic that must be responded to, not dismissed as "uninteresting".

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-05 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

On one hand, you're right, it's a problem that should be addressed. I read that Hillary thinks she won more of the PA block vote than the exist polls say and she's trying to improve it in NC.

On the other hand, these both are historic candidacies and the black community is much more united than the 'white women community'. A fun fact: in SC, Hillary has done better with younger blacks, just like BO does better with younger white women.

by eumc 2008-05-05 08:05AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

Anything could be racist. It always depends on how it is said, and what is meant by it.

by pollbuster 2008-05-05 08:08AM | 0 recs
nope , sorry

if the same demographic votes the same way over and over and over it ceases to be interesting.  That is not to say it is not important.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 09:13AM | 0 recs
If BHO were not running, the

AAs would still like Hillary (as she deserves, given her record) and would vote for her, and she would not be the "evil Clinton" that she has somehow magically become in the year 2008.

The fact that they vote near-monolithically for an African-American against someone they used to like is completely understandable.  But don't jump on people for stating simple facts, ok?   Some of us are starting to get "bitter" about that.

by miker2008 2008-05-05 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: If BHO were not running, the
I have no problem with Identity politics.  I wish women had the good sense to vote for Clinton in the same percentages.
But it is a fact that African Americans are voting in huge percentages for Obama and it has ceased to be very interesting in terms of what is driving this race.  It is expected.
But of course Obamafans have to make something racist out of my saying that, it is what so many of them do.  
Now I am a racist as is Geraldine Ferraro, Bill and Hillary Clinton and everyone else brand that way.
by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: If BHO were not running, the

Identity politics is one thing. Your approach to identity politics is another and myopic to say the least.

Of course we have to "bring this up". You are no victim and I am not afraid to say so.

the very fact that you yourself made this about race is telling. and the fact that you bring up Geraldine up as she's not a racist herself seals the deal.

Thanks for clearing the question posed to you.

by alex100 2008-05-05 08:01AM | 0 recs

you are making no sense.

But of course crying racism is so very popular among Obama supporters these days I am not surprised you went there.

Let me try again... it is not longer news or very interesting that Black people are voting for Obama in huge numbers.  It is expected. The only change is in other demographics.  That is why In is more interesting than NC.

But let me say this.  If African Americans vote for Obama in less than, say, 85 percent, NOW THAT will be interesting.

I am just thinking in terms of news interest.  You can make that racist if you like.  It is an honor to be included in the same category with the Clintons and Geraldine Ferraro who was slandered for saying something Obama said himself.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:14AM | 0 recs
Re: huh?

I didn't "cry" racism. I simply asked for you to clarify.

and you did. and I got my answer. Enough said on the subject.

Anyone that goes down the path you take is someone I don't want to associate with. There's something that triggers certain unneeded comments and your initial reply did nothing to explain your framing.

I find it simply astonishing that you have tried to turn around the dialogue with a logical fallacy ("crying racism is popular among obama supporters"). This is something that's chipping at you isn't it?

in any regard, that's that. Hopefully you can concentrate on the good news that comes your candidates way moving forward.


by alex100 2008-05-05 08:27AM | 0 recs
Face it, at this point anyone

who is white or a Hillary supporter cannot utter the words "black", "african-american", "Jesse Jackson", or "race" without being automatically a racist.  That's where Mr. Obama's post-racial approach to politics has gotten us.   Horrible.

And you know what, I've recently had a very unhappy premonition about the presidential race.  It's not going to stop after the primary.  If Obama is nominated it's going to continue right through the general election.  I think some of us Dems are making an incorrect assumption that the Republicans cannot be swayed by racial guilt and entitlement arguments.  BUT ...

The corporate media have already proven they can easily be swayed, and no commercial or corporate interest wants to see the race issue cut into profits or lead to riots in the streets (bad for business, you know).  

by miker2008 2008-05-05 08:25AM | 0 recs
that is an

inexcusable thing to say about me.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 07:46AM | 0 recs
Re: that is an

No it's not. It happens to be true. When framed as, AA are going to vote for him anyway and the only "interesting" vote is that of white voters it creates a dynamic where AA voters don't count. We can see that in the current narrative being pushed by Clinton and MSM. Obama is in trouble with white voters. Nothing is said of people of color.

There are voters = white people and everyone else. Theresa if you can't see that then pick up a fucking book. Or perhaps your one of those uneducated bigot white voters that Clinton is so proud to be winning.

Yours truly,

Elitist white voter

by sacca28 2008-05-05 07:58AM | 0 recs
you know nothing about me
Obama supporters crying racism is also not very interesting as that is also expected.
You pick up a book, I am way beyond any liberal white guilt I had as a younger women.  Obama has FAILED to transcend race as his campaign "promised".  In fact he and his supporters have embraced and exploited it.
by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:18AM | 0 recs
You're wrong in so many ways,

"When framed as, AA are going to vote for him anyway and the only "interesting" vote is that of white voters it creates a dynamic where AA voters don't count. We can see that in the current narrative being pushed by Clinton and MSM. Obama is in trouble with white voters. Nothing is said of people of color."

"When framed as" ...  This is not framing, it is fact.   AAs are going to vote for him anyway.  Hasn't that been shown time and time again in this primary?   When Obama supporters accuse people who speak TRUTH of being racist, they are treading on very thin ice.    

"Creates a dynamic" ... First, what exactly is a "dynamic"?  Second, if there is a "dynamic" in this campaign, it's that white people and Hillary supporters are being gagged by spurious charges of racism.

"Nothing is said of people of color" ... You've got to be joking.  That's ALL this campaign has been about.  And if they're no longer interested in that demographic it's because there is nothing of interest HAPPENING in that demographic.  If blacks were divided then it would be interesting to speculate on which way they'd go.  But they're not divided.  

I sense that this is all wasted words, though.

by miker2008 2008-05-05 08:48AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

How is she saying they don't count?  Not following your reasoning here.  They count a great deal.

by jarhead5536 2008-05-05 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

Or at least they aren't "interesting."

by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 08:21AM | 0 recs
I clarify it for you. This from

"The most recent polls -- at least among those that have disclosed their demographics -- have converged around a black percentage of 32-33%. Needless to say, given the near monolithic support that African Americans have given Barack Obama, that percentage will ultimately be critical to his share of the vote on Tuesday."

"Near monolithic" is pretty much 99.9999999%

by miker2008 2008-05-05 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: I clarify it for you. This from

Well, there are many AA voters supporting Hillary and her chances in NC are somehow tied to winning more than 8% in that demographic.

It is a little offensive, though certainly not racist. Nobody likes being called a part of 0.000001%

by eumc 2008-05-05 07:46AM | 0 recs
Au contraire, I think the 0.0000001

electorate deserves high praise.  

by miker2008 2008-05-05 07:50AM | 0 recs
Comme vous voulez

That's why Mike Gravel should be the nominee and his voters are to be praised

by eumc 2008-05-05 07:53AM | 0 recs

I didn't think an exaggeration was insulting to anyone.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Okay

A rational comment - who woulda thought?

Now, actually the AA vote in NC is hugely important in the sense that any "fragmentation" of the type of support Obama has had in other Southern states could deliver the state to Hillary.

If she can break the 16% threshold among AA with an AA turnout of the 33% most polls seem to agree on, she is likely to win the state. Now that would be an upset victory

by Nordicus 2008-05-05 08:27AM | 0 recs
but you have to admit

that it is ONLY interesting if that happens.  If he wins 90% or better of the AA vote that is not terribly interesting at this point in terms of the news.

"Obama gets 90 percent of the AA vote.  In other news the sun rose in the east."

I am sorry that sounds dismissive to people, I was simply dealing in facts as I see them.  

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:59AM | 0 recs

and saying that the fact that 90 percent of AAs are voting for Obama is not interesting is not the same as saying it is not important.

Some people around here need a lesson in logic.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 09:00AM | 0 recs
if women were voting for Clinton at 99.999 percent this would be all over long ago and she would be our nominee.
 There is no surprise in Obama winning where there are huge AA communities.  The story is his losing support from other groups if that is indeed what happens tomorrow.  
Now I dare you to make something racist out of that when every Obama supporter on this blog has said that he will win because of the AA vote in NC.
by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: sure

There is indeed something wrong with you. Maybe you need a nap or something because your vitriol knows no bounds. Furthermore, Hillary is getting the older white women vote and older voters period. Not the younger white woman vote. My friends and I are all for Barack, dear.

by april34fff 2008-05-05 07:59AM | 0 recs

so now everyone over 35 is old?
Maybe you need a nap...dear.  

= )

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: lol`

I was referring to your nasty vitriolic manner..not your age when I made that comment.

by april34fff 2008-05-05 08:05AM | 0 recs

my vitriolic what?

You are projecting.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:20AM | 0 recs
go study for a final or something.

by miker2008 2008-05-05 08:56AM | 0 recs
Ouch, that was nasty.

by miker2008 2008-05-05 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

You know, this will probably get TR'd, but you are really a pathetic racist.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-05 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

how is repeating what the media has stated when breaking down demographics racist?

are we supposed to ignore the AA bloc and how they are voting?

by colebiancardi 2008-05-05 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

"how is repeating what the media has stated when breaking down demographics racist?"

Yes, really, give us a break. It's not news that AAs are breaking at around 90% for BO.

by 07rescue 2008-05-05 07:45AM | 0 recs
Your name is certainly

appropriate.   Your comment does deserve a troll rating, mostly because you've offered no evidence or logic to back it up.  

Want to try again?

by miker2008 2008-05-05 07:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Your name is certainly

You are absolutely right.  

I've seen a pattern of this behavior from the poster in numerous threads, but I shouldn't be making any comments without backing them up.

I apologize.

Feel free to hide-rate the comment.

In fact, I'm tired of listening to ridiculous racist bullshit on what should be a progressive site.  I'm asking the mods to delete my account.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-05 08:20AM | 0 recs
oh yes, you have me all figured out

I am a racist because I do not support Obama and because I am disgusted with his playing, or allowing his campaign to slander good people with the charge of racism.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:50AM | 0 recs
you must be right

can I give you my ex's address so you can discuss it with him?  He's Black and i am sure he will disagree with you.  

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: you must be right

i'll take you up on this offer.

by alex100 2008-05-05 08:44AM | 0 recs
Aha, just as I suspected. You

actually identify with black people. This is how the Clintons got caught.  They were so comfortable in their skins with the black community that they actually made the mistake of feeling like they were members of the black community.    And therefore feeling comfortable speaking some rather innocent truths about one of its members (Obama is inspirational like MLK, while Hillary is policy-wonk like LBJ).  

I recall the video that made the rounds, of Bill Clinton falling asleep in MLK III's speech, and what it said to me is how comfortable Bill is in a black church.   So comfortable he can sleep.   Someone like McCain would've been sitting ramrod straight watching his back the whole time.  

But they sure skewered him for feeling comfortable, didn't they?   I guess this proves that a white person who feels so much kinship with the black community that they might actually be comfortable criticizing one of its members ... well they have no place in Mr. Obama's post-racial society.

by miker2008 2008-05-05 09:04AM | 0 recs
yes, it is funny/strange

I have worked very hard to be comfortable with all people and to celebrate and appreciate the surface cultural differences (food, music etc...).  Now I feel like that is a liability because I do not understand how everything can be seen through the template of race.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: wow, very interesting

There are some who gave you mojo for calling someone a pathetic racist. Wonder how it reflects on their pathetic personality or lack of it.

Will you accept such people as true Americans?

by Sandeep 2008-05-05 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

certainly good news for Hillary. I don't doubt she'll come close to these numbers as SUSA was successful at gauging Ohio, a much more difficult state to poll IMO.

It'll be good for campaign narrative as well. Even thought NC is the big prize tomorrow she needs to find a way to balance out his win there to win the media narrative and it seems she'll be able to do that with a 10+ win.

Hopefully this doesn't happen but it seems likely at this point.

by alex100 2008-05-05 07:36AM | 0 recs
Will SUSA release a final NC poll?
If so, when?
by eumc 2008-05-05 07:36AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Great numbers for Hillary.  She leads in 3 of 4 regions.  Health care, the economy, social security and national security seem to be the issue areas where she has made her mark over Obama.  

by khyber900 2008-05-05 07:36AM | 0 recs

If Hillary wins IN and NC you will here shrieking and crying from Daily Kos to Big Bill Richardson to John Kerry not to mention NBC News it will be a thing of beauty because they will know there screwed. I wonder if Oprah will have the first woman President on her show next year lol wait Hillary will give Ellen the interview

by rossinatl 2008-05-05 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Joe Andrews doesn't believe it, he's been reading NewsMax/Zogby.

by Jerome Armstrong 2008-05-05 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Meanwhile, Clinton posters here love those News Max stories!!

by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 07:39AM | 0 recs
I'll say ... newsmax with its media

blanketing ads "Should Hillary quit?!?!?!" complete with a picture obviously doctored to make her look like a vampire.   Gotta love 'em!

by miker2008 2008-05-05 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

I guess even Newsmax doesn't like Zogby anymore.

In January/February it was Reuters/Zogby, PA was Newsmax/Zogby, now it's Zogby alone

by eumc 2008-05-05 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Why are you and Joe Andrews fighting again? I mean, if it's his leadership, you've seemed to forgive Ed Rendell.

If Hillary wins, great. Looks like she will, and it'll be her first legitimate upset, if you base the 'expectations' around historical figures, such as Obama's post-Super Tuesday projections. 208/Obamas_projections.html

But, at the end of the day, it's always about the delegates, always about the math. So y'all might want to temper the gloating. It'll be a nice win for her, maybe a fine way to end the show on a high note. But barring something severe, Obama's still the nominee.

by Lettuce 2008-05-05 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Obama's spreadsheet has been off before, both in the %s and in the win-loss, and so I don't know why anyone should take that as the standard for an upset.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

I said the percentages were off, but other than Maine (a projected Clinton win, an Obama upset) it's been amazingly accurate. Again, Indiana would be Hillary's first upset using those ancient goalposts.

Still, as others said, it's a remarkable piece of campaign literature.

by Lettuce 2008-05-05 08:54AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

As a Clinton supporter since 1992, I just have to say this: the Obama spreadsheet is one of the most impressive pieces of political forecasting / analysis I have ever seen.

No, scratch that. Not just political - I have never seen anything that impressive in business either, and as a business consultant I saw a lot of good analysis in my time.

Whoever wins this nomination should make sure that the guys in the back room around Axelrod don't go off anytime soon. They are superb.

by Nordicus 2008-05-05 08:36AM | 0 recs
I didn't know weasels

could read.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:22AM | 0 recs
HRC wins "pro-life"

voters 58-37!    This is not to say that she would have that margin over a republican, but I hope someone does that survey as I'd love to see the numbers.

in a Democratic primary I would have thought that the pro-life contingent wouldn't really care one way or the other between two Democrats who are both supporters of Roe v. Wade.   I therefore interpret this to mean one (or both) of two things:

a) Obama has received negative press from the conservative side about his failing to vote against partial-birth abortion.  This is yet another source of trouble for Obama in a GE.

b) Hillary connects with women across the board.  This is how Hillary will plumb a whole new wave of voters across the country:   women of every party affiliation!

by miker2008 2008-05-05 07:39AM | 0 recs
Interestingly enough

Obama has been getting support from a lot of pro-life folks, including Catholic Republicans like Doug Kmiec, because he's willing to incorporate abstinence education and certain faith-based initiatives in addition to the usual pro-choice stuff; his goal is to reduce abortions by 95% over 10 years by whatever means necessary while still upholding Roe vs. Wade.

He's put a lot of thought into the issue and is unwilling to demonize the pro-life position; for single-issue voters, that might be an attractive position in the general; McCain's stance is highly inelastic: "No abortions, period."

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 08:05AM | 0 recs
Abstinence education? How many

times has that been proven not to work?  I'm highly unimpressed there.

by miker2008 2008-05-05 09:09AM | 0 recs
Not if it's the ONLY thing they're doing

Bush's abstinence education policy fails because it's the only thing he's endorsing.  Obama's going to endorse that, plus sex education, plus access to contraceptives, plus reproductive rights education.

It's far more comprehensive than anything that's gone before.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 09:17AM | 0 recs
just what women need, for the government pay churches to preach at them some more about abstinence.
Thanks for reminding me what a freaking creep Obama can be to gain votes.
by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 09:27AM | 0 recs
Do shush, please

That's not what I'm talking about.  Nobody's going to force anything down anyone's throat.  Outreach programs extend a hand, it's up to a person to decide whether to take it.

You're implying that Obama would have a preacher come in and talk down at someone for choosing abortion.  What the reality of it would be is, they'd make clergy available if someone were to ask for them while making a horrendously personal and far-reaching choice.

I'm incredibly pro-choice, but I see no problem in someone asking for advice from someone of their religious denomination in what is, at its core, a moral issue for the individual.  Americans demonize both sides of the abortion issue at one point or another; the poor woman who has to make the choice sometimes becomes a tool of both factions, as if she were a playing card to be used as a trump.

Is it any wonder that the "Roe" of Roe vs. Wade eventually became vehemently pro-life?  The pro-choice movement stopped discussing the magnitude of the decision and started speaking of it in terms that would lessen the impact for the women who get abortions.  

In my book, both sides have gotten it wrong at times: it's a civil rights issue and women must control their own bodies, but at the same time, it's a moral and, to some, religious issue, and we can't just sweep it under the rug and assume that the morality will sort itself out.

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 10:36AM | 0 recs
you would think that some
pro-life voters would understand by now that republicans are not going to end abortion and would start voting on other issues.
Perhaps that is what is happening here.  I have no doubt that some women are voting for her regardless of their stand on abortion because they too know the glass ceiling needs to be broken and because she is, even more importantly, the best candidate.
by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

If Hillary wins Indiana by 5 points or more it will be a blow out.  Obama started out ahead in that state.  

by karajan72 2008-05-05 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Not really. Wright has reset expectations.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

I'm revising my expectations based on Zogby:

If Obama does not win Indiana by double-digits, it's a huge loss for him.
If Obama does not win North Carolina by 20 points, it's a huge loss for him.

by Benjamin3 2008-05-05 08:04AM | 0 recs

this is asinine.

by kindthoughts 2008-05-05 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42


by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Obama never started out ahead in Indiana.  He has always been behind.  When HRC wins (by 7, I think) it will not be a surprise or a blowout or a comeback.

Please see the graph of Indiana which refutes your claim that Obama started ahead. rimary.php

by CAchemist 2008-05-05 07:55AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42
Obama starte out ahead? Depends on if you trust the initial poll, he's been consistently down in IN. Anyway, what's your evidence?
by clad 2008-05-05 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

These are excellent polling numbers for Hillary. Interestingly CNN which usually has far different numbers then most polling groups, has also indicated that Hillary is pulling comfortably ahead in Indiana. Far more important here are some very troubling statistics for Obama:

* Six in 10 Americans have an unfavorable opinion of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor, according to the latest CNN Opinion Research Corp. survey.

* Nearly four in 10 Americans (38 percent) have an unfavorable opinion of Obama in the latest CNN polling, up 10 percentage points from the beginning of the year.

* Half of Americans think a John McCain presidency would bring different policies than the Bush administration.

* And in a new Pew Research Center national survey, Clinton's lead among whites who didn't attend college has increased to 40 percentage points from 10 in March.

In his analysis of the Pew data, research director Andrew Kohut writes, "Fewer Democrats ascribe positive qualities to Obama than did so a month ago, with white working-class Democrats, in particular, expressing more skeptical views of the Illinois senator

The Wright Effect

by steve468 2008-05-05 07:45AM | 0 recs
cherry picking much?

by kindthoughts 2008-05-05 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

The problem with relying on uneducated whites (particularly men) is that the same ignorance - and it is racism - that leads them to look down on Obama over Wright will cause them to look down on Clinton because she's a woman.

White working class men vote Republican because they feel Democrats somehow emasculate them. They are susceptible to charges of cultural elitism because elitism implies a gendered notion of weakness. Dems aren't "manly" enough. But blacks are "manly" in a dangerous sort of way so they are even worse. White working class men are not going to vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain.

What will help Clinton is white working class women, who obviously don't have the same gender hangups as white working class men.

by elrod 2008-05-05 08:18AM | 0 recs
yes, anyone not voting for Obama

is racist.  I hear you loud and clear.

but maybe you should consider this... those same demographics were supporting him (so maybe they aren't racist?) until he called them ignorant uneducated racists.

You crack me up because you just do not get why Obama is losing voters. It is easy to cry racism and hard to understand elitism.  That is why Obama will lose in November if the party doesn't save us from his campaign.

I sympathize though because I never understood until  this year why republicans could call us elitists and get away with it.  I understand it now and all the screaming in the world about issues and how right democrats are will not change the facts.   Liberals are generally myopic to the extreme about why they are elitist.  And I am saying that as a hardcore liberal.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:35AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Didnt working class men vote for Bill Clinton?  My guess is this has something to do with the candidates and there positions on issues and not race or if they feel emasculated.


by giusd 2008-05-05 08:48AM | 0 recs
You mean those white working

class guys who spend all day Saturday and Sunday cheering for black male athletes, while telling the "little woman" to "go get me a beer."    Hey it is easy to stereotype people who are not like yourself.  

Obama has a multitude of problems with the working class, black and white.   It's just that the symbolism of having a black president means so much to the black working class that they are generous with him when it comes to policy.  

For white working class, ok I'll admit it, the symbolism is not an overriding consideration and policy matters more.  Plus the white working class REALLY liked the Clintons.   Does that mean they are racist?  I don't think so.  

by miker2008 2008-05-05 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

This is the troubling result.

* Half of Americans think a John McCain presidency would bring different policies than the Bush administration.

My guess is John McCain is going to be a much harder candidate too run against than people think. It would have been much better if it was Rommey.  It's like he has some set in stone narrative.


by giusd 2008-05-05 08:25AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

I agree, anyone who thinks that McCain is easy to beat is fooling themselves.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

And I think that anyone who thinks that John McCain's narrative is set in stone thinks that political campaigns don't matter -- when that's simply not the case.

by politicsmatters 2008-05-05 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Didnt i say "It's like he has some set in stone narrative"?

by giusd 2008-05-05 09:01AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

SUSA has been the gold standard of polls this primary season.

by pollbuster 2008-05-05 08:09AM | 0 recs
they have also been wrong

by kindthoughts 2008-05-05 08:11AM | 0 recs
Re: they have also been wrong

They have had a couple wrong, no ones perfect, but they have been far better than anyone else.

by pollbuster 2008-05-05 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

i consider them the best. I have said that before crucial primaries, like california where there was conflicting data.

The only two I think they got wrong completely were missouri and new Hampshire.

Everyone missed n.h., and I don't know what happened in missouri.

But they are clearly the best this year.  

by yellowdem1129 2008-05-05 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Absolutely and if the Obama folk are counting on them being wrong in indiana, I think they are going to be quite disappointed.

by pollbuster 2008-05-05 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Looks as though Wright was a game changer.  How about them apples...

by Scope441 2008-05-05 08:12AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

The only concern I see with these numbers is that the AA vote is 77/21 Obama. This is not in keeping with the usual trends. If HRC actually gets 21% of the AA vote right in BHO backyard, this would mean that the Rev. Wright flap has done some very serious damage.

Please don't attack me as being racist for stating the obvious. I happen to be AA. It is really painful to watch the race-baiting that is occurring. The minute someone says anything concerning AA and BHO, it is interpreted as race-baiting. IMO, this diminishes his candidacy, and serves no useful purpose but to alienate other voters from him.

There is absolutely nothing wrong for AA voters to favor him in droves. As Americans we root for the American in world sports whether we know them or not. It is a matter of pride, however we should not get to the stage where we name call other AA who choose to vote for another candidate.

by LadyEagle 2008-05-05 08:18AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

you're right.

The Hillary number looks about right, but Obama will rise to about 45-46 % on the strength of 89 - 90 black vote.

But if that happens: Hillary 54-46.  What a great outcome!

A neighboring state, being outspent, etc., etc.

by yellowdem1129 2008-05-05 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Very fair point, but I have read comments from pollsters in NC that HRC is polling much higher among AAs there than they expected - in the high teens.

The AA vote in Indiana is relatively small, so even if the actual numbers are 85/15 rather than 77/21, the 14 point "swing" will only dent her margin by 1.5% or so.

by Nordicus 2008-05-05 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

Another problem with the numbers is that SUSA only polled 52% females, and as I had commented before, the actual number of female voters in the dem primaries this year has been closer to 60%. SUSA shows Hillary winning females in Indiana at 60-38, so a turnout closer to 60% would add 2 or 3 more points to Hillary's 12 point lead.

by pollbuster 2008-05-05 10:53AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42

great comment ladyeagle.  i agree with you.  i see nothing wrong with AA voting with obama, even if only because he is black.  i view that as having pride in who you are, the challenges your community has over come and looking toward a new society where race is slowly becoming a non issue.  

since you are AA, what do you think of wright?  i am a white male and i started off liking obama and wright is what turned me off to him.  primary reason anyway.  i just feel as though i would never be accepted in wrights church and blamed for many of the AA struggles over time.  wright made me feel as though i would be rejected in an obama campaign because i fear that obama may hold many of wrights views.  i am thinking many whites might feel the same way.  not because they are racist but because they feel obama may not have their interests in mind now.

do most AAs feel the same about wright in your opinion?

by Scope441 2008-05-05 08:25AM | 0 recs
ok to vote bc skin color?

first of all: obama is not an african american in  the sense of having roots in this country.
His mom was white, dad was an african.  He didn't grow up in the community either.

So this is really people voting simply based on a black face.  For people to countenance that is strange since Obama claims he wants to move beyond this type of thinking, and also, what would stop all white women and white men from voting for Hillary on the same grounds, "proud of a white woman" overcoming etc., etc.

This is sad that so-called progressives are not so progressive in thinking.

I am black:

I say vote for the best candidate and explain a reason that matters to you in your life.

For ex:

I know many people who would benefit from Hillary's foreclosure plan and healthcare plan.

I also like Hillary's toughness when it comes to walking away from the Left.  I know many people here hate it, but I think it is right for the country.

by yellowdem1129 2008-05-05 08:33AM | 0 recs
the left is baaaadd
The right is much better, right?
by kindthoughts 2008-05-05 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: yeah...

between the right and the left, as they are known, America will choose the right everytime.

However, if people look at each issue individually, many great ideas on are the left.

Its' just the excesses on the left are scary.

The ideas that people support.
For example, remember in the debate we had John Edwards apologize for not support gay marriage, and saying it would be up to his 3 grade kid to decide whether to read a book about 2 Princes?

That is so over the top and non-sensical.

I'd take the religious nuts over that.

by yellowdem1129 2008-05-05 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: ok to vote bc skin color?

I think Hillary is more progressive than Obama on some things I really care about.  I am the left, but in a way I agree with you.  I don't thinks she so much walks away from the left as she is not afraid to tell them what she thinks even if they disagree.  I like that about her.

by TeresaInPa 2008-05-05 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: SUSA Indiana: HRC 54 / BHO 42
yellowdem, great comments as well.  you vote on the issues and what is best for this country.  unfortunately, most people do not.  i learned that in 2004 when the majority of this country voted for who they would rather have a beer with.
wish most voters did research like you have.  country would be in a much better place today if they did.
by Scope441 2008-05-05 08:37AM | 0 recs
overall i agree

about the bush/kerry race.

I voted for kerry but I liked bush better than kerry.

Kerry is an elitist. He doesn't eat cheesesteaks, and went windsurfing, and used big words to answer easy simple questions.

bush shared my values much more seemingly.

Kerry got my vote because I ignored a WHOLE LOT and went with the issues.

Democrats need to start making it easy to vote for dem candidates for president.

Between these 2 clinton is better than obama.

Obama really believes some left-wing stuff. He cares what is said at harvard and the nytimes editorial page.

hillary and bill are either more normal, or better at faking being more normal.  Either way,  they know when to stay and fight and when to switch positions.

They are winners.

by yellowdem1129 2008-05-05 08:49AM | 0 recs

So, you bought into the Kerry elitist stuff, and yet you think that Hillary Clinton, who lived in presidential/gubinatorial mansions for two decades of her life and has bank accounts in excess of $30 million, is somehow a down-home American?  The same Hillary Clinton that has run the gauntlet of power distributing and collecting on favors better than any politician in recent memory?

You're starting to get a bit ridiculous here.

Oh no, Obama believes left wing stuff!  What a horrible democrat!

by Dracomicron 2008-05-05 10:48AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads