Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: ABC/Post Dem Primary


ABC News/Washington Post
(ABC story, results; Post story, blog, results)

National
Obama 50, Clinton 43

Also:
67% of Democrats and those who lean Democratic want Clinton to stay in the race if she wins one of Texas and Ohio but loses the other; 29% want her to drop out.

 

Comments
Shane:

Who are these democrats who want Clinton to stay in the race if she loses one? Do they not understand what this could do to the party?

____________________

Macy:

Or rather, do they not understand what Obama supporters will do to the party if she stays in?

One might get the impression Obama doesn't want the remaining states to have a chance to vote and express their opinions. He'd rather let those red states he won dictate who the Democratic nominee should be.

____________________

Jay Chamberlain:

Do the American people realize that we are in a recession and have been in one for several months???? Obama is inexperienced and quite frankly I dont care if thats what Clinton campaigns on and I certainly dont care to hear one more time about Obama and change. We all know that we need change and dont you think a woman in the white house would supply just that...change? Women make up more than 50% of the countries population and for years they have been shunned and told to speak only when spoken to....but oddly enough, that when a woman takes charge there tends to be more sensibility about things instead of a knee jerk reaction like we have had over the past 8 years. Folks, Hillary is not Bill or Billary. They are 2 very unique individuals and if you think for one moment that they agree on everything, you have another thought coming..............

____________________

Matt:

Sorry Obama supporters, Clinton should stay in if she wins one or the other. This is an election. You don't get to make up the rules since your candidate is ahead. On to PA. Go Hillary.

____________________

Uri:

You know, I don't buy the "splitting the party arguments". For all the "fighting" between them, the general consensus is that they're both going to be good candidates and (at least democrats and independents) would be happy with either.

So by continuing the campaign the democrats are getting free press, attention, and a lot of enthusiastic voters all the way to the convention, and the convention itself is actually going to attract attention because even if it's decided by then, it'll be a drama.

Meanwhile, the republican race is a complete yawner, and the question of whether McCain is or is not conservative enough doesn't interest most of the base enough. McCain is a good guy, but he's not as colorful and interesting (and probably a horrible president) as Huckabee. Hence, minimal media attention.

____________________

Curious:

Jay,
Should women rule because they make up a majority of the population?

____________________

KS Rose:

Sorry but I don't agree that Bill and Hillary would be two completely different presidents. If you think Hillary didn't get her opinions heard during Bill's presidency then I don't know how you can say she'll be a strong president herself.

She's the one that claimed his accomplishments as her experience now she has to claim the long term negative effects as well. What are those? Well NAFTA, the China situation, they had no coattails so we ended up with Bush and I don't believe they would have coattails this time either.

All that is not to mention I just don't want Bill back in the White House. I'm sick to death of the melodrama and before you say that was then and this is now, I'm very concerned about Bill's activities since his presidency. It seems to me he's become worse than a lobbiest.

But more than that, Obama will be a clean break and a fresh start. I'd like to see an Obama/Edwards or an Obama/Webb ticket. Get clean faces in there with great ideas and drive.

____________________

jan:

Remember when the idea was that the republicans will disintegrate as a party and the democrats will have a walk over victory.
i am loving this every bit. what the people of Iowa did was to give Hope a chance. what the people of Ohio may prove is that maybe there more then one Alabama

____________________

Daniel T:

Uri. I'm with you. Now 100% but 1000%!

____________________

seth:

Anyone have a view as to whether it is wise for the democrats to have these open primaries which allow republicans to inflitrate and manipulate the results? This year it seems because of the all or nothing system of the republicans versus the proportional delegate selection of the democrats the republican race effectively ended some time ago leave republicans free to screw around one way or the other in the democratic primaries. Does it really make sense to allow republicans to decide the democratic nominee?

____________________

seth:

Anyone have a view as to whether it is wise for the democrats to have these open primaries which allow republicans to inflitrate and manipulate the results? This year it seems because of the all or nothing system of the republicans versus the proportional delegate selection of the democrats the republican race effectively ended some time ago leave republicans free to screw around one way or the other in the democratic primaries. Does it really make sense to allow republicans to decide the democratic nominee?

____________________

Mitch:

We all know if the tables were turn and Hillary won 11 in a row that we would not even be here at Texas and Ohio. This is why the democrated party can't win. Or when they do it's barely. All the negitivity Billary put out this past week on Obama, if Obama would of went there we all know that he would of been blamed for not sticking to his message of change...so she gets the advantage of the negivitive punches. I'm just sad that as much as the American people say they don't like all the negitivity, they base their votes by it...amazing. How can you be proud to be an American when we as American's have no real and true morrows...Shameful.

____________________

Mitch:

We all know if the tables were turn and Hillary won 11 in a row that we would not even be here at Texas and Ohio. This is why the democrated party can't win. Or when they do it's barely. All the negitivity Billary put out this past week on Obama, if Obama would of went there we all know that he would of been blamed for not sticking to his message of change...so she gets the advantage of the negivitive punches. I'm just sad that as much as the American people say they don't like all the negitivity, they base their votes by it...amazing. How can you be proud to be an American when we as American's have no real and true morrows...Shameful.

____________________

Mike in CA:

It's wise, because as a party, Democrats want to make sure their candidate doesnt just win among ~35% of the population, but among indies and Repubs as well. It gives them a better idea of how their candidate will fare in the fall. It's a prudent decision. Democrats want to give party outsiders a chance because maybe the choice of Democrats is not necessarily the best chance to win in the fall.

As for Repubs and indies "manipulating" the results, that mostly just a conspiracy theory. Most people really vote without alterior motives. There will always be a few, but not enough to change the outcome.

____________________

seth:

Mike,

Any hard data to support the number of manipulators? I know and have heard of plenty of people who intend to vote for republicans in the fall but entered the democratic race to stick it to Hillary. Now Rush Limbaugh is asking people to do the opposite. How do you know the numbers are not enough to affect the outcome in close states?

____________________

seth:

Mike,

Any hard data to support the number of manipulators? I know and have heard of plenty of people who intend to vote for republicans in the fall but entered the democratic race to stick it to Hillary. Now Rush Limbaugh is asking people to do the opposite. How do you know the numbers are not enough to affect the outcome in close states?

____________________

seth:

Mike,

Any hard data to support the number of manipulators? I know and have heard of plenty of people who intend to vote for republicans in the fall but entered the democratic race to stick it to Hillary. Now Rush Limbaugh is asking people to do the opposite. How do you know the numbers are not enough to affect the outcome in close states?

____________________

Shane:

To the Clinton fans, it's not about making the rules when you're ahead, it's about following the rules to begin with. If she doesn't win both by significant margins, she has to pull off some sort of herculean triumphs in PA and the other remaining states JUST TO REMAIN VIABLE. She has almost no chance to catch him in terms of pledged delegates, so half of her strategy is dependent on superdelegates falling overwhelmingly behind her.

It won't happen, and, if it does, I'm leaving the Democratic Party and voting third party. Why should I stay in a party dominated by 800 random guys with a super vote? I understand elected federal democrats, the DNC, and democratic governors, but this superdelegate inflation is just out of hand. If Hillary thinks she can win by lying (Obama didn't promise Canada about NAFTA), scare-mongering (Obama is not muslim), calling Obama's fliers "Karl Rove-like" because they pointed out issues with her healthcare plan, and depending on non-elected superdelegates.. and she ends up right in these thoughts...

Well, then I don't want to be a part of this party anymore.

____________________

Lucas:

Ohio and Texas are the places where the lies and bigotry of BaRezko Obama and the Axelroddettes marketing fayries will drown.

____________________

Patrick:

If Hillary wins OH (and RI), she should definitely stay in. They're only 100 delegates apart and neither Obama or Clinton is ANYWHERE NEAR the 2,000+ delegates either needs, the key Democratic state of PA (along w/ several other states) hasn't voted yet, and the DNC needs to figure out how to give the voters of FL and MI some voice in the nominating process. Along w/ OH and PA, those 2 states are much more important to Democrats in the general election than TX (which could give her an even further boost in momentum). Regardless of who you think will ultimately do better against McCain (when BOTH candidate are vetted), these are FACTS: Hillary thus far has won 1 million more votes from actual Democratic voters; many of Obama's wins came from Repulicans and Independents (most of whom will vote for McCain); Hillary has won all the biggest Blue states (except for Obama's home state of IL) that Dems need to win the White House (and several of the swing states); Several polls say that far more Clinton supporters will support McCain over Obama (including me and most of my friends) than Obama supporters who would back McCain over Clinton; Dem (and Rep) nominations weren't typically 'sewn up' until June or later (e.g. Bill Clinton, Carter, Modale, etc) until recently; and Obama most certainly has gotten a "free ride" with the national press that seems to have FINALLY worn off (and big) this week as everyone has finally noticed. This whole situation finally sheds a spotlight on what is so ridiculous about the whole nominating system, esp on the Dem side: the season is way too long; many states (but not all) allow Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primaries (and "highjack" their race); caucuses attract a tiny % of voters (and are manipulated by activisits), but determine just as many delegates; the voting schedule is totally unfair (some states that favor certain candidates go earlier and give them "momentum"); and most egregiously, the DNC is so poorly run (resign, Howard Dean!), they're all ready to totally disenfranchise millions of voters in 2 of the most important states to the Dems in the general (FL and MI) while allowing the voters in a completely "Red" (Republican) state (SC) vote early (and have too much influence). And then they're too cowardly to call on the superdelegates do what they were created to do: decide who's best suited to be the nominee if the primaries and caucuses haven't. I'm a lifelong Democrat and if the DNC doesn't seat the delegates from FL and MI or pushes Clinton to drop out and/or the superdelegates to back Obama before this contest has run its course, I'm not voting Dem over again. And I'm certainly not voting for someone with literally less than 5 years total government experience to be the leader of the free world!

____________________

Twister:

Ohio and Texas are the places where the lies and bigotry of BaRezko Obama and the Axelroddettes marketing fayries will drown.

____________________

st paul sage:

why stop it early? to stop having these dumb conversations, that's why.

should supers decide? should the original mi or fl votes count for something? should caucuses count? (oops maybe someone should have told all the states that had caucuses)

by supporting a black man are we being sexist? by supporting a white woman are we being racist? by supporting either, are we being racist against latinos or unfairly ignoring dodd or edwards cos they're white guys?

dumb questions! and the sooner i stop hearing them the better. and if hillary were leading by 150 delegates i would be saying the same thing.

____________________

Marianne from Michigan:

Patrick, Thank you so much for your wise comments. You don't know how angry Michigan Democrats are with Dean and Pelosi's transparent plot to throw it to Obama by suppressing the Michigan results. We will put a stop to that dishonest effort at disenfranchisement. I also would like to ask if anyone has totaled how many votes, in caucuses or primaries, Hillary and Obama have gotten thus far. I'm guessing Hillary is way ahead in any popular vote total, because Obama derives his support from relatively small caucuses. Has someone actually tabulated this figure? This simple arithmatic might put an end to a distortion of Obama as the "front-runner."

____________________

Patrick:

"Why should I stay in a party dominated by 800 random guys with a super vote?" - Shane

Well, you live in a country where the entire Presidency is decided by 539 partisan individuals who aren't even legally obligated to support anyone (i.e. the electors), not the 200+ million voters. Our elitest founding fathers saw to that. The "popular vote" (a term that doesn't even exist in true democracies!) has been overturned in 3 presidential elections so far. Al Gore won by 500,000+ votes less than 8 years ago. But guess who the got to be the President? So if we're all so apathetic that we accept the Electoral College, why should we be at all upset if the superdelegates (the "party elders") of the DEMOCRATIC Party (which is a quasi private organization) make the decision to secure the nomination of the candidate who actually got the most DEMOCRATIC votes in the primary season (and won in most all the key "Blue" Democrat states), especially if their "little voice" tells them that maybe the other candidate really isn't ready, hasn't been vetted by the national media, and likely will not really do as well in the general election against a national hero with 45 years of experience once he is. That's what the superdelegates were created to do. What's the big hurry? Let's hear from the voters in PA and the other states and let's see what the situation is then. The convention isn't for 6 months. And the election isn't for 8!

____________________

Nickberry:

Why is it only the Obama campaign/supporters who keep voicing that Hillary should drop out? What are they really afraid of? The spin is that a majority of people think so... hmmm the polls show differently (2/3 Democrats and Democrat-leaning want Hillary to stay in.)

Why is it that Obama has campaigned constantly on the idea of his supporters not voting for Clinton, but Clinton supporters will vote for him? It may be true if in reality Obama's main support is from OUTSIDE the Democratic party, where these people only care about the "movement" and not the policies and issues.

Hillary is a tough campaigner and knows from "experience" that the party will come together afterwards. She in fact committed herself to campaign hard for any Democratic nominee. Notably, Clinton campaigned and raised funds for Obama when he ran for the Senate. She would do so again. That is who she is.

Obama has not made such a commitment, yet we all know if Obama urged his followers to vote for Clinton if she were the nominee that they indeed would do so in great numbers.

But because Obama has used this idea of his supporters not voting for Hillary and that is why he is the strongest candidate, Obama has shown who he is and it ain't pretty.

____________________

Anonymous:

Marianne,

Realclearpolitics.com has a summary of the popular vote. Basically, without Florida, Michigan, or most of the caucus states, Obama is ahead by around 1,000,000. With Florida, its about 600,000 (keeping in mind this still doesn't count some of Obama's overwhelming caucus wins). I still don't think Michigan should count because Hillary was the only choice.. you couldn't even write-in Obama, so.. yeah.. Hilldawg is down by 600,000 or more.

____________________

Steve:

I see Patrick is pulling out every illogical excuse in the book, again.

____________________

NOT-DHinMI:

Why should she drop out of her parties nomination race? She is winning her party by a significant amount. http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/28/a-number-you-probably-haven-t-seen.aspx

She's tied in national polls with him. She's going to win 2 more big states tonight. Party conventions have occurred in the past and we should allow her to go there if she's still polling even with the so-called frontrunner. Obama just wants her out of the race, as do his citizen and media supporters. Let the people vote and let the party figure it out.

Or are you scared of democracy, Democrats?

____________________

Shane:

That "winning among democrats" number is suspect for a number of reasons. #1 - We don't have clear results from a number of caucuses Obama won easily. #2 - This counts Michigan and Florida.. He's never even campaigned there, and he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan! #3 - Some states don't have official registration. What counts as a democrat there? #4 - These are based on exit polls.. hardly reliable in this primary season.

Beyond all of these, we need to keep in mind that there are reasons we have open and semi-open primaries in a lot of states: in order to play for the independent vote. The polls are clear that Obama plays better amongst Republicans and Independents in the Primaries AND IN THE GENERAL ELECTION ITSELF.

I'm sorry, but, by the rules of the party, Michigan and Florida do not get delegates, caucuses count, and, in some states, independents and republicans can vote.

____________________

Dewrdeye:

Hillary better hope Obama has a thing for under-aged girls and is caught on Dateline's "To Catch a Predator" show.


Otherwise, Patrick, s.b, Cokie, ciccina, Kabindra, rowjimmty, John, JON, Andrew, tony, Gabe, etc, etc. - pack Hillary's bags and start her Lexus, cause it's all over after Ohio and Texas!

____________________

"Michigan and Florida do not get delegates"

And one, if not both, will go red because of it. Florida almost for certain. Michigan is already disenchanted with their Dem governor. This just adds to the fire.

The Democratic party has spoken, and they prefer Hillary thus far.

Democrats for a day have spoken, and they prefer Obama thus far. But we have no proof that they'll necessarily give Obama a win in November.

"The polls are clear that Obama plays better amongst Republicans and Independents in the Primaries AND IN THE GENERAL ELECTION ITSELF."

And the polls are clear that Hillary does 8% better (81% vs 89%) among Democrats IN THE GENERAL ELECTION ITSELF.

Bottom line is that if she is forced to drop out after a big night tonight, that will cause blowback to the party and its nominee.

Again, I ask. Are you scared of democracy, Democrats? Let's have this play out and see what the party does in August.

____________________

Oliver:

I just love how so many of Barack Obama's supporters are all ready to just "shut down" the process now, disenfranchise the voters of FL, MI, PA, KY, OR, WV (and all the other states that haven't voted yet), and "declare the winner" now. Does that represent the "fundamental change" that Barack Obama has been preaching?? Or is that just POLITICS AS USUAL?? Regardless of the exact # of Democrats vs. Independents vs. Republican who have voted for each of them, isn't it pretty clear that Democrats like them both and want more time to decide? Apparently so, according to the polls. So why can't we just let the process run its course? It's not actually impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in pledged delegates. It's unlikely, but since Obama is the least vetted presidential candidate (and the least experienced) we've had in the modern era, anything can happen between now and June. And there is absolutely no reason the superdelegates need to decide who to back until August. So let the rest of the country vote, the DNC can figure out the fairest thing to do about FL and MI, and then we'll see where we are in June when PR (the last primary) votes. That's still 2 months before the convention!

____________________

michael:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/delegate.counter/

I recommend that people saying this or that is "impossible" play around with this delegate counter.

If you assume a tie in all upcoming contests for which there is no data, and use the pollster.com averages for states that have data (and assume that delegate numbers follow the popular vote), then Clinton would need 220 out of 363 remaining super-delegates (over 60%).

At the same time, a number of the states hold potential advantages for Clinton. Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia have a large working class white population with few African Americans. Puerto Rico, as well, may go strongly for Clinton.

If Clinton wins each of those contests with 55% of the vote, while Obama takes the small caucuses 66-33, Guam 75-25, and Mississipi by 57-43; while Oregon is a tie, Clinton needs the same number of super-delegates.

If Clinton wins 60-40 in Kentucky, Indiana, West Virginia and Puerto Rico; and 55-45 in Oregon, she needs 57% of the remaining super-delegates.

If Florida is seated, giving Clinton a net of 20 delegates, Clinton can get by with 53-54% of super-delegates.

Likely? No. Possible? Yes. If I were a betting man I would say that Clinton has about a 1 in 4 chance to pull it off.

____________________

Cookie Roberts:

Dewrdeye,

You were saying?

____________________

Chris Choi:

This election is crucial for the future of our country. We cannot afford an inexperienced, just words president. Obama has proved that is all rhetoric and politics. Explicitly stated in debate that he will use threat of cancelling NAFTA as a hammer to force Canada and Mexico to renegotiate? Well one of his top financial advisors said to Canadian officials not to worry, in reality he is not palnning any of that. He will withdraw all our forces from Iraq within a year as he repeatedly states? Well, all words-one of his top foreign policy advisors stated that he does not intend to do so, it depends on conditions at the time. That makes sense, but Obama feels that he needs to lie in public to exploit the antiwar sentiment. He claims that he is for uniting the country and work across the isle, but his very brief senate record shows none of that, quite the opposite-a lot of play it safe and partisan votes. Wake up people, what exactly has he done to give validity to his claim that he is our self appointed savor? Wake up people and vote for Hilary if you want the american dream to continue being alive. Do not cause our demise as a country.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR