Articles and Analysis


POLL: AP-Ipsos National


National end date 4/9 (previous end date 2/24)
Obama 46, Clinton 43 (Obama 46, Clinton 43)

McCain 45, Obama 45 (Obama 51, McCain 41)
Clinton 48, McCain 45 (Clinton 48, McCain 43)



Obama blew a 10% lead in that period. And wait till the media no longer has Hillary to kick around. They will take every sentence, every word, every letter uttered by Obama and his wife, and take them out of context or lie.

It's the never-ending story.




I agree. They are already doing it. They all spread Fox virus. McCain is the ultimate media darling. Look how many mistakes McCain has recently made and hardly any mention of it. So much for the liberal media bias. Actually they are biased but for the republican guy.



this is why Hillary is going to win the nomination. This guy has never been vetted before.

MSNBC is owned by GE which supplies most of soldiers in Iraq. Do you really think the Republicans want to run against HRC who unlike Obama will pull our troops out. Obama has ties to William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist. I was an Obama supporter until I heard about Wright and Ayers. The Republicans are setting Obama for the fall.



The reason I like this site is that usually one sees some fairly intelligent and helpful comments. Please, let's try to elevate the tone and avoid the immature rantings, wild accusations, name-calling, and blatant partisanship one sees on so many of the public sites. Besides being in bad taste, they are boring -- and useless, since no one reads them anymore anyway.

So far as McCain recently taking the lead over sometimes Obama, sometimes Clinton, or over either one - this has more to do with the Republicans having settled on a candidate rather than indicating any long-term intrinsic preference. Polling matchups with McCain won't really have any significance until several weeks after the Dems internicine battles are over.



Whenever we look at these head-to-head polls we need to keep in mind that, at this point, ~1/4 of Clinton or Obama supporters are claiming to "defect" if their candidate doesn't win. The fact that McCain is, I am sure, extremely worrisome to the McCain campaign.

Let's do the Math, (generally speaking)
If Dems are currently ~40% of the population, and are fairly evenly split between Clinton-Obama (50-50), and 25% of Clinton supporters say they will not support Obama in the general, that puts Obama's share of Dems at 75% or 30% of the total population. Most likely he will only "permanently" lose ~15% of Hillary supporters, putting his share of Dems at 85% or 34% of the population. That's already a built-in 4% bump. Some analysts put the bump closer to 10% once a Dem nominee emerges and the opponent "concedes".

Head-to-heads are ridiculous when one party has a candidate and the other party is still fighting over theres.

That said, Obama didn't "Blow" a 10 point lead. Au contraire -- Hillary supporters have blown his lead by refusing to support him when questioned by pollsters. Do we honestly think that 25%+ Democrats will not support the Dem nominee in a YEAR LIKE THIS ONE WHERE THE COUNTRY IS JUST SALIVATING FOR CHANGE??

I think the fact that the best McCain can do is TIE both nominees while they are still fighting indicates a Dem blowout in the fall. Just my thoughts.



Clintonite wrote:

"MSNBC is owned by GE which supplies most of soldiers in Iraq"

"Obama has ties to William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist. I was an Obama supporter until I heard about Wright and Ayers"

With crazy comments like those, Obama should be so lucky not to have your support any more. Goodbye and good rittens.



My initial impression of the demographics in the AP/Ipsos sample is that it's significantly more culturally conservative (e.g. evangelical Christians) and somewhat more GOP leaning than other national samples. (Not suggeting intentional bias here.)Does it strike anyone else that way?



"good rittens"? too funny. thanks for that. it is "riddance".

But you are right though. Clitonite is obviously delusional.

jsh1120 -

How does it compare to the previous poll?



Interesting question. Unfortunately, the earlier PDF is no longer (easily) available. I suppose it would be a good idea to archive the results for that sort of comparison.

What I did notice, however, was that AP/Ipsos was an outlier in February (along with CBS/NY Times)and has now slipped back into the pack. Take a look at the list here on Pollster.com)

This illustrates a common phenomenon (especially obvious with Zogby) where an outlier is followed by a non-outlier (or vice versa) and the poll analyis is phrased in terms of significant attitude change rather than potential sampling (or other) artifacts.

I'm not inclined to believe that pollsters intentionally bias their results (with some notable exceptions), but it's clear that news organizations don't find it very interesting to report "no change" in attitudes if they can find some reason to report otherwise.

After years of watching this stuff, long ago professionally and in more recent years as an amateur, I'm always suspicious of rapid, large changes in public opinion. There are just too many factors that limit net changes in most cases. And that's especially true in comparison to the views of highly attentive observers who believe most voters are as obsessed with politics as they are.



That said, Obama didn't "Blow" a 10 point lead. Au contraire -- Hillary supporters have blown his lead by refusing to support him when questioned by pollsters.

Clinton supporters blew Obama's lead????? Why is it everytime there is a failure in Obama's campaign it is the fault of Clinton or her supporters? If Obama can not carry the day on his own it's because of flaws in his candidacy, NOT because of HRC.



re: Hillary suporters blew Obama's lead.

From the AP/Ipsos poll- It's the independents who 'blew Obama's lead'.

"Back in late February, Obama led McCain 51%-41% but now it's a 45%-45% tie. Perhaps most notably, McCain has taken a lead among independents, a core group for Obama.



It's still very early, obviously, but I do think this is a very bad sign for Obama. It seems that as more people have taken a closer look at him, his negatives have gone way up and he's losing support with independents. Remember, it was the independents (along with Republicans) that gave Obama at least half of his primary/caucus wins over Clinton. She actually got more votes from registered Democrats. And the Republicans and media haven't even started to really scrutinize Obama yet. On the Rev. Wright controversy, he basically got a 'free pass' (from every network other than Fox) after his 'race speech' and his comments on "The View" (which totally contradicted his speech) didn't get much coverage at all. Just wait until he's the nominee. The 527 groups and Republicans will crucify him over Rev. Wright, Rezko, his thinnest of records, Michele's comments, etc. Add to that the fact that like Obama, McCain is the other "media darling" in the race, so he won't have the "safety net" of an opponent the media doesn't like. I also think a very large % of the people who say they'll vote for McCain over Obama will stick to their guns. This applies to me and most all my friends, all of whom have voted for every Democrat since the 70's. So it must apply to millions of Democrats nation-wide. We just honestly don't think Obama is qualified to be president and would rather see McCain (who we see as a true moderate) get elected. I honestly don't think Obama or Clinton can beat McCain at this point. Their only hope is a joint ticket, which I don't think is likely at all if Obama gets the nomination. Clinton knows she'd have to put Obama on her ticket. She's basically said so. Prediction: McCain over Obama by 10 pts and 50+ electoral votes. Just watch.



agreed jsh. i, too think the earlier one was an outlier of sorts.


Are you serious? Clinton has gone to the "kitchen sink" strategy. Wait, no, that is understating it - she has gone to the hot water heater, sump pump, and now furnace strategy.

Do you actually expect people NOT to be affected by this??? She should have conceded long ago and unified the party while saving Dems millions for the fall (and Congressional races). BUT NO. Her ambition trumps common sense and Democratic ideals. What a joke.

Obama is being attacked on multiple fronts on a daily basis - Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, Bush, and McCain. Is it any wonder how the random person who doesn't really look in-depth at the issues will respond? The surprise is that his numbers aren't worse.

The ultimate question will be how vigorously Hillary tries to unite the party and campaign for Obama in the fall. Or will she pull an 04 (half-heartedly campaigning for Kerry), kinda hoping he loses so she gets another chance in 4 years??

Hmm, we shall see. This is why the Clintons are hated - even within their own party. They truly will do or say anything for power.



Patrick -

Still on the Clinton payroll, huh? Give it up already.

McCain will not be elected. A guy who supports a bogus war and says he knows little about the economy wont be elected this time around. Bush's approval rating is at 28% - the lowest ever. That's what he is running against. Good luck with that. You are just bitter Hillary won't get the nomination. Obama's policies are nearly identical to Hillary's. McCain's stances are nearly opposite the DEMS. Most Dems with a brain will come around by November since they realize it is much easier to get legislation passed with a DEM in the White House than a republican. See how that works?? Now read that last part again if you are still fuzzy.

And by the way, what will you do when Obama wins the general? Slink away and never post rubbish again? I can only hope.


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.