Not Ignoring the Numbers

In a diary from last night, Jerome Armstrong posted a set of polls which purported to show how badly Obama is supposedly doing in selected states:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/26/2128 52/240

But looking at all the recent state polls shows a far different picture.  In this diary, I want to discuss all the latest polling for swing states, and do so from the perspective of how the Rev. Wright controversy may be affecting these polls.

First, the states Jerome highlited in his diary (I don't feel Alabama or Kentucky will be swing states in this election, but including anyhow):

Arkansas (Rasmussen)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/arkansas/arkansas_2008_pre sidential_election
Obama 30
McCain 59

Clinton    43
McCain 50

Both Democrats are losing to McCain.  The Hillary loss is especially noteworthy, as this is supposed to be one of the states Hillary is most likely to flip to our side if she is the nominee.

Alabama (SUSA)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=6e496712-9ae3-42de-b04f-b 4ab36078802
Obama 35
McCain 62

Clinton 38
McCain 56

Not sure why we're even including Alabama in this lineup, as McCain leads both Democrats by double digits and no Democratic Presidential nominee will win here in November.

Missouri (SUSA)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=8d367ce2-f928-4f60-b2a1-c e2b97ad6144
Obama 39
McCain 53

Clinton 46
McCain 48

This is one state where Hillary seems to have an advantage, though according to this poll, she was still slightly behind McCain. It should be noted however that this poll was conducted on March 14-16, immediately after the Wright controversy exploded, but before Obama’s big speech on the matter. UPDATE: Rasmussen released a Missouri poll yesterday in which both Democrats are significantly behind McCain: http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/missouri/election_2008_missouri_presidential_election Obama 38 McCain 53 Clinton 41 McCain 50

Kentucky (SUSA)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=45313abe-4220-409a-bc6c-5 159d0751f46
Obama 28
McCain 64

Clinton 43
McCain 53

See Alabama above.

Ohio (SUSA)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=32265e32-9fce-4c9e-83e1-5 09847379601
Obama 43
McCain 50

Clinton 50
McCain 44

See Missouri above; Ohio is second state where, apparently due to Wright controversy, Obama's numbers were negatively affected.  Again, let's see how the numbers look once more recent polls come out; this one was conducted right after the Wright matter exploded, but before Obama's speech.

North Carolina (Rasmussn)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/north_carolina/election_20 08_north_carolina_presidential_election
Obama 42
McCain 51

Clinton 34
McCain 50

McCain leads Clinton by significantly bigger margin than the margin he has over Obama.

Now, how about discussing all the other latest swing state polling:

Colorado (Rasmussen)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/colorado/colorado_2008_pre sidential_election
Obama 46
McCain 46

Clinton 38
McCain 52

Poll conducted after the Wright controversy exploded, but before Obama's big speech on the matter.  Nevertheless, Obama still seems to have 14 point advantage over Clinton.

Connecticut (Quinnipiac)

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1296.xml?Rele aseID=1163
Obama 52
McCain 35

Clinton 45
McCain 42

This poll was just released today; was conducted wholly after Obama's speech on the Wright issue.  Interestingly, the results mirror those of a poll Rasmussen conducted prior to the Wright controversy erupting, where Obama led McCain 50 to 38, while Clinton led McCain by only 47 to 44. According to the Quinnipaic poll, independent voters support Obama 45 - 38 percent over McCain; when Clinton faces McCain, independent voters go to the Republican 48 - 36 percent.  Voters under 45 years old back Obama 63 - 30 percent over McCain; Obama wins a huge 73 percent of voters under 35 years old when facing McCain.

California (Public Policy Institute of Calif.)

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/ S_308MBS.pdf
Obama 49
McCain 40

Clinton 46
McCain 43

Poll conducted over one week time span - from pre-Wright, through the date of Obama's speech.
Normally, wouldn't consider California a swing state, but with Hillary's numbers, who knows ?

Florida (Rasmussen)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/florida/florida_2008_presi dential_election
Obama 43
McCain 47

Clinton 40
McCain 47

Poll conducted immediately prior to the Wright controversy.  Not sure how the controversy has affected these numbers, but at least pre-Wright Clinton did not seem to have any sort of advantage here over Obama in how they performed against McCain (despite the conventional wisdom).

Iowa (SUSA)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=798f6e9c-3b4c-4eed-8ae3-e 4560f9a63e6
Obama 50
McCain 44

Clinton 44
McCain 48

Poll conducted immediately after the Wright controversy exploded, but before Obama's big speech on the matter.  Nevertheless, Obama still has 10 point advantage over Hillary in terms of performance against McCain.

Minnesota (Rasmussen)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/minnesota/minnesota_2008_p residential_election
Obama 47
McCain 43

Clinton 46
McCain 47

Poll conducted after Obama's speech on Wright.  According to the poll, "Obama leads McCain by fourteen points among unaffiliated voters while McCain leads Clinton by nine among those same voters."

Nevada (Rasmussen)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/nevada/election_2008_nevad a_presidential_election
Obama 45
McCain 41

Clinton 44
McCain 43

Poll conducted after Obama's speech.

New Hampshire (Rasmussen)

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/new_hampshire/new_hampshir e_2008_presidential_election
Obama 43
McCain 46

Clinton 41
McCain 47

Like Colorado above, conducted right after the Wright explosion, but before Obama's speech.  Obama still does better than Clinton.

Oregon (Rasmussen)

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/oregon/oregon_2008_pre sidential_election
Obama 48
McCain 42

Clinton 40
McCain 46

Another poll released just today, with "post-Wright controversy" numbers.  Obama viewed favorably by 60%; McCain by 51%; Clinton by 46%.

Virginia (SUSA)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=e7fe64e7-b316-4369-b540-9 1f7806ce1ab
Obama 48
McCain 47

Clinton 47
McCain 47

Conducted right after the Wright explosion, but before Obama's speech.  Obama still does marginally better than Clinton.

Washington (SUSA)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=365995e8-13aa-4146-a3aa-7 9fbe1857ace
Obama 52
McCain 41

Clinton 50
McCain 45

Poll conducted immediately after the Wright controversy exploded, but before Obama's big speech on the matter.  Nevertheless, Obama still led McCain by bigger margin than Clinton.

Wisconsin (SUSA)

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rtEmail.aspx?g=3e1b7d41-5888-4c26-8937-e 3a4d7578ed9
Obama 48
McCain 44

Clinton 46
McCain 45

Same as Washington above.

Summary of Results

Bottom line here is this:

Number of state polls here to digest, some conducted just as the Wright controversy was exploding; some after Obama's speech on the controversy was delivered.

Out of all the states polled here, Clinton performs better than Obama when facing McCain in the following states: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri and Ohio -- although out of all of these, she manages to be outright winning only in Ohio.

Obama performs better than Hillary in the following states: Colorado, Connecticut, California, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin -- and he is currently behind McCain in only 3 of these, while Hillary is losing in 7.

Tags: clinton, obama, polls, state (all tags)

Comments

39 Comments

Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers
Great post.
by oregonkcg 2008-03-27 08:57AM | 0 recs
good work!!!

by kindthoughts 2008-03-27 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

If experienced polliticos agree with you come convention time Obama is a sure thing.

So why so worried?

by DTaylor 2008-03-27 09:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

Why do you keep saying everyone is worried? I didn't see any worry there, just a counterpoint. Or is everytime somebody refutes evidence that is pro-Clinton them "worrying" about it?

by ragekage 2008-03-27 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

Who's worried?

I don't care if Clinton stays in the race until 2009.

What concerns me is the recent habit of positively comparing McCain to Obama.   More than that, I think that Hillary Clinton essentially eliminated herself from the veep sweepstakes.   Obama simply cannot select a VP who's own statements make the case that John McCain has passed some magic CiC threshold that Obama has not.

There's a clear and proper way to draw contrasts between yourself and your opponent in a partisan primary.  Have at your opponent on you want - on issues, on personality, hell -- even on personal baggage.

However, the one thing you should ALWAYS do is make it clear that, as one poster has in his/her sig line:

DEM1 >>> DEM2 >>>>>>>>>> GOP Opponent

For Obama, every discussion should be crouched as:

Obama > Clinton >> McCain

For Clinton, it should be:

Clinton > Obama >> McCain.

Both Bill and HIllary have broken this rule in the past month.  THAT needs to stop.

by zonk 2008-03-27 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

So true!!!  Almost ANY Democrat is much >>> than ANY Republican

by lqbruin 2008-03-27 09:18AM | 0 recs
I have that sig line!!!

That is me with the Dem 1>>>Dem 2>>>>>>>>>> ;>>Republican

I adjusted it to show me true revulsion with John McCain's policies.  I think Sen Clinton (whom is my second choice) is so much better than McCain that I can't get it on one line. My only beefs with Sen Clinton are about her tactics.  I like her policies just like I like Obama's because they are basically the same and they are good for the country.  Did anyone listen to either candidate's speech on the foreclosure crisis.  Both democratic candidates are willing to help out homeowners.  John McCain wants to help out corporations.

by Student Guy 2008-03-27 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

Obama has no chance in Kentucky post or pre wright lets just get that out there.

by lori 2008-03-27 09:01AM | 0 recs
Why not?

Specifically, why not?

My guess is, b/c he's a black fella.  Yup.  I've spent enough time in Kentucky.  Not exactly the forefront of race relations.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-27 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

 This is not including the 28% that say they will cross over.
by gunner 2008-03-27 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

There is no 28% who will cross over.  

You should realize that threatening to vote for the other side is the ONLY credible way for people to voice their frustration.  It isn't representative of what people will actually do when the time comes.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-27 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

 I don`t believe it would be 28% either, but even 3 or 4 % can make a big difference.
by gunner 2008-03-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

Although I agree more people say that they will cross over than really will, there is a reason that the Clinton # of crossovers is higher - if you look at the demographics of the Obama supporters and the Clinton supporters, you can see that the Clinton supporters would be much more likely to cross over to McCain.  Obama's strength is AAs, younger voters, liberals, and white men.  Clinton's strength is older voters, women, and hispanics.  I can't see too many Obama voters going for McCain, but I see a number of Clinton voters doing so.  And not just because of anti-Obama sentiment.  As hard as it is for people on this site to comprehend, many people actually LIKE John McCain.  

by AnnC 2008-03-27 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

I can't see too many Obama voters going for McCain, but I see a number of Clinton voters doing so.  And not just because of anti-Obama sentiment.  As hard as it is for people on this site to comprehend, many people actually LIKE John McCain.

That's exactly it. That NBC/WSJ Poll that was just released showed the same percentage of people defecting from each camp, but Obama voters had a net negative opinion of Clinton whereas Clinton voters had net positive opinion of Obama. Given this fact, the only reason I can see that we'd have an equal rate of defection from both camps (or more from the Clinton camp, according to Gallup) is that Clinton supporters have a more positive view of John McCain.

by RP McMurphy 2008-03-27 10:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

states like tennessee , kentucky , oklahoma , west virginia , are not good states for obama.

race plays a factor but that is not the only issue.

by lori 2008-03-27 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

They aren't good for ANY Democrat in the general. At least we can agree on that.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

WV is a legit Dem target in most cycles.

I don't think Obama can carry it, but I do think he can make up for it elsewhere with ease.

by zonk 2008-03-27 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

Hmm, valid point. Seems to be supported by past data. WV has gone both ways.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

Wrong.

Bill Clinton carried Wets Virginia twice.

Hillary Clinton would make Tennessee somewhat competitve but she won't win here , she stands a better chance in kentucky , even though I don't think she would win there too..

by lori 2008-03-27 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

Yes, that's what I said. See above.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 09:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

I suppose the other issue is a lack of education.  Can you tell me what other possible issues would be?

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-27 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

what exactly do you mean by " lack of education ".

That doesn't really sound like a particularly smart thing to say.

by lori 2008-03-27 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

Probably lower levels of college educated in the electorate.

by lqbruin 2008-03-27 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

well , if he is speaking demographically then he might have a case to make.

but the way he/she said it didn't reflect a demographic intention to me , but i could be wrong.

however there is an aging population in quite a few of these states and its a blue collar base .

So in that sense the demographics aren't a fit for him .

mostly the reason is that folks here are culturally conservative mostly and the national democratic party never seem to be able to pick candidates in sync with these parts.

its almost like they don't give a rip about folks in these parts because they think they won't win anyway.

jimmy carter , bill clinton both played well here

by lori 2008-03-27 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

lqbruin is correct.  We aren't exactly talking about the states with the highest average education levels here.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-27 09:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

What does that have to do with voting/not voting for Obama exactly ?

I guess they are too stupid to vote for Obama

by lori 2008-03-27 09:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Why not?

It's been shown throughout this campaign, that the higher one's education levels are, the more likely they are to vote for Obama.

Now, you can draw whatever conclusion you like from that.  But it's true.

by Cycloptichorn 2008-03-27 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

Great diary, thanks for laying it all out there.  These polls are all just snapshots, so I'm not going to put too much emphasis on any of them, but this is a far more balanced data set than what Jerome posted before.  

There's enough info here that reasonable people can draw different conclusions, but at least you've put everything out there.  Thanks.

by HSTruman 2008-03-27 09:06AM | 0 recs
Neither candidate's #'s in CA

are comforting. Even 9 points isn't good for this stage of the game in CA. That said, I think most of this early polling means little unless there is a trend to back it up.

by Mayor McCheese 2008-03-27 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

What about Texas? Hasn't that been at least close-ish in recent polling?

Great diary, BTW!

by animated 2008-03-27 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

Excellent diary.

by ragekage 2008-03-27 09:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

Excellent.  When the rest of the party see it is time to coalesce?

by lqbruin 2008-03-27 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

None of these polls really mean a hill of beans.  McCain will continue to poll better because he isn't in the news.  BO and HRC are constantly in the news and supporters are digging their heels in and tempers are running high (at least on the blogosphere).

When there is a nominee, the numbers will change, although since I am an HRC supporter, my bet is that she would do better against McCain than Obama.

by cmugirl90 2008-03-27 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

Have you learned at all, diarist?

Don't bother posting reality on MyDailyDenial. Armstrong will shut off your ability to post diaries. You should just accede to his ultimate knowledge that Clinton is the better candidate in the general, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I can't remember any other situation in which someone comes to a conclusion despite no evidence to support it.

by sharris0512 2008-03-27 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Ignoring the Numbers

I loved the Clintons.  I worked for the '96 campaign (volunteered, that is), drove the press in the President's motorcade, and have an official White House photo meeting him.  Unfortunately, my attitude toward them has changed this year.  They need to wake up and see the damage being done.  Stay in the race, fine, just be civil.  Stop playing the politics of personal destruction.

by lqbruin 2008-03-27 09:27AM | 0 recs
Alabama

Alabama was in there because Barack and Michelle Obama have touted Alabama as an example of Obama's 'map-changer' status. Your summary largely confirms Jerome's point, Obama's map-changer electability argument has fallen apart, Hillary's Democratic base argument is what we have to rely on. So the electability argument is who can best motivate the Democratic base, not who can change the map.

by souvarine 2008-03-27 09:37AM | 0 recs
Recommended.

A good dissection of the state of the race on a state-by-state basis.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-27 09:50AM | 0 recs
Very good work

Silver Spring, I am going to have to add you to my subscription list because when you post you are very detailed and you put out all of the information.
Recced.
You do not cherry pick (even though you easily could have by not including WV for example)

I can't wait to read your next work.

by Student Guy 2008-03-27 10:42AM | 0 recs
When part of the argument

for Obama's nomination is his success in red states during the primaries and caucuses, how can you say his failure to produce poll results in those states in the GE doesn't matter.

You have every right to support whoever you want, but given that you switched sides over electability, I have to wonder if you didn't jump ship a tad too early.

by Beltway Dem 2008-03-27 10:58AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads