Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: ARG Kentucky/Oregon


American Research Group

Kentucky
Clinton 65, Obama 29

Oregon
Obama 50, Clinton 45

 

Comments
Nickberry:

This Kentucky poll tracks with the previous Kentucky polls.

The Oregon polls are all over the place. This is a closed primary and it is mail-in ballots. This ARG poll shows a tie in ballots already mailed... and Obama ahead in remainder... with 5% undecided.

This may be possibly closer than most think.

____________________

tom brady:

I have to think the ARG poll is underestimating support for Obama, even though they did ask about early voting and the response seems to be that so far the votes are split. However, I can't believe Clinton has made up this much ground in a week. Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge of what's happening in Oregon? If Clinton wins this along with the expected blowout in Kentucky, the narrative changes..

____________________


Here we go again:

ARG in North Carolina - Obama 50, Clinton 42
Results: Obama 56, Clinton 42

ARG in Indiana - Obama 45, Clinton 53
Results: Obama 49, Clinton 51

ARG in Pennsylvania - Obama 40, Clinton 56
Results: Clinton 55, Obama 45

ARG in Ohio - Obama 42, Clinton 56
Results: Clinton 55, Obama 45

I don't know what is wrong with these guys but they constantly get Obama wrong. Suspicious, no? The point is that they don't seem to poll Obama's support that well.

My bet is that Oregon is around 15% on Obama's advantage.

Actually, the other day I read an article from an Oregon newspaper where the reporter was impliying that Hillary's people already know that Oregon is a "lost cause" for them. They already canceled her last day of campainging in the state. She was supposed to spend 2 days in Oregon,Friday and Saturday, but now it is just gonna be 1 day, today Friday.

Furthermore, Hillary's people no longer mention Oregon, so the press doesn't raise expectations for them as they did with North Carolina. Now all they talk about is Kentucky, trying to raise expections for Obama.

In North Carolina, the clintons made the mistake of investing everything they had trying to pull an upset. The result was more devastating than it could have been if they hadn't spend so much time there.

____________________

Nickberry:

Hillary has three new ads today in Oregon. Remember that it is ALL mail-in so that may be where the strategy changes.

And remember that there are only 5% undecided in this poll. So if ARG has been so accurate on Hillary, and not so with Obama...then that means that Obama is only likely to get maximum 10% advantage at 55% with Hillary at 45%.

Compare this for the latest Survey USA Oregon poll (54%-43%) with 2% undecided.

____________________

killias2:

"Compare this for the latest Survey USA Oregon poll (54%-43%) with 2% undecided."

I just did. That pretty much matches exactly. 55-45 vs. 54-43 with 2% undecided.

____________________

carl29:

As Hillary Clinton gets ready for a return visit to Oregon on Friday - her third in the last six weeks - the signs are growing that she doesn't have big hopes out of this state. She was originally set to campaign here both Friday and Saturday, but the second day has been cancelled.

The Clinton campaign hasn't told me yet where she is going, but a good guess is Kentucky, which also holds its primary on Tuesday - and where she is expected to win big. (UPDATE: Clinton Oregon spokeswoman Julie Edwards just confirmed she will be in Kentucky). I was also struck that when her chief spokesman, Howard Wolfson, and other top aides held an hour-long conference call with reporters Wednesday, there was only one brief mention of Oregon (they said they hoped to do well here). Kentucky came up rather frequently.

As one source close to the Clinton campaign explained to me privately, "The only suspense in Oregon is whether Clinton will lose by more than 20."

That may be putting a low-expectations spin on Oregon. But there seems no doubt that the Clinton campaign will be talking a lot more about Kentucky than Oregon on May 20. And I suspect Barack Obama and his campaign will be doing the reverse.

____________________

carl29:

Oregon is tailor-made for Obama. The democrats from Oregon are very liberal, San Francisco kind of democrat. So, Hillary has no hope for their support in big numbers. I read in one of the polls that the #1 issue for democrats voting in Oregon is the war, not the economy. The other state were that was the case? Vermont and I think that Wisconsin too.

As you can see, Hillary's Iraq vote is gonna cost her another state.

____________________

george:

There's also the Portland Tribune poll, released "this morning" according to Jim Tankersley in the Swamp (http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/poll_obama_leads_big_in_oregon.html), which shows Obama over Clinton 55 to 35 in Oregon.

____________________

carl29:

It's very funny to go to Hillary's website and read her supporters talking about their calls to voters. For example, in North Carolina all of them were saying that every person they called was for Hillary. Just imagine, calling people "randomly" in North Carolina and not coming across with anybody supporting Obama. Same story in Indiana. No wonder when the night came and the results were in, these poor women were shocked. Where were those Obama supporters hiding?

Go and see that the story is the same with Oregon now. "Everyone in Oregon is for Hillary." I suspect that Oregonians are about to disappoint some ladies of certain age.

____________________

maxlongstreet:

ARG's underestimation of Obama's support in this campaign borders on the comical. In addition to Carl29's examples, who can forget ARG's last poll before the Iowa caucus that had Clinton up by about 10 points? Or what about their last South Carolina poll that had Clinton and Obama in a statistical tie? I don't know what ARG's smoking, but I wouldn't bet money on a close race in Oregon. With Kentucky, their numbers may well be right.

Also, I notice that ARG goes out of its way on its website to blast a fellow named Poblano, not for his voting predictions, which have been accurate, but for his turnout predictions. If I was ARG I would be laying low under a rock, not blasting the competition.

____________________

nktol:

Deny all you want..as KY will give Obama under 40% at most, so much for Edward, the pin, the cross.

____________________

carl29:

Of course that the Obama campaign is not thinking about KY. This state is not friendly to him, so I bet he will make a brief stop but he won't invest that much time.

Now, the Edwards' show was not about KY. It was about getting rid of the headlines coming out of West Virginia, and let me tell you that everyone agreed that it was a masterful move. Just ask Ed Rendell. You could see how upset he was.

They pulled this card right at the time when Hillary's interviews were about to be aired in every major TV station, enjoying her new momentum. All of a sudden the networks were no longer talking about Hillary's whopping victory in West Virginia; instead, the news was Edwards and Obama. You can't deny that this guy knows how to celebrate a defeat.

Obama is not thinking about KY or the other primaries. He is thinking about the general. He went to MO, Michigan, and will be in Florida next week. As you can see none of this states are upcoming primaries but battleground states in the fall.

____________________

boskop:

given all of obama's success and his mega bucks, it is still strange that rasmussen who formlly announced the suspension of his national tracking with clinton, had to backtrack and start doing it again because despite all, she still beats mccain in more polls than obama does.

strange stuff.

____________________

carl29:

If I remember, Rasmussen said that "Rasmussen Reports believes the race is over and that Barack Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic Party. We will stop tracking the Democratic race in the near future to focus exclusively on the Obama-McCain match-up."

They never said when they would stop. All they said is that in the near future they would not do it. That's all. I don't see the back tracking.

Let's look at the numbers of very reliable polls, no tracking polls which are less scientific and accurate.

For example let's take a look at this one from NPR released on Thursday 15:

Clinton 45, McCain 46
Obama 48, McCain 43

How about Quinnipiac:

Clinton 46, McCain 41
Obama 47, McCain 40

Ah! Don't forget about ABC/Washington Post:

Clinton 49, McCain 46
Obama 51, McCain 44

Yes, you are so right my dear boskop. She is the only one beating McCain.

Poor Obama. It breaks my heart to see how bad he does against McCain.

____________________

Nickberry:

Sure... Obama wins Oregon... but there are still questions as to why Obama is getting blown away at this stage of the game in West Virginia and then Kentucky. If these states had been earlier in the primaries, they may very well have changed the race.

Sure Obama is trying... but Florida is probably a lost cause for Obama. McCain has ties there and they have a very popular Republican governor who supports McCain 1000%. Florida has a large Hispanic vote (Cuban Americans who are reliably GOP) and other Latin Americans who may very well identify with McCain because of his pro-life stance combined with his work on immigration. I do not know how Obama can gain on the Jewish vote with his latest flapping of wings on Bush's speech to the Knesset (which gave Bush a standing ovation.) And Obama's obstruction of the Florida delegates has many Democrats (especially Hillary Democrats) very very unhappy with Obama. Spending lots of money there will not fix these problems.

____________________

Nickberry:

McCain is beating Obama by an average of 8-9 points in both Florida and Missouri. The demographics combined with number of GOP voters favors McCain. (See my comment on Florida above.) Obama barely beat Hillary (1.4%) in Missouri because of urban turnout. He loses his small advantage in the general... unless he can get those darn bitter rural conservatives to vote for him.

Michigan is statistically tied. Since Michigan has a delegate problem, it would be prudent to not put much weight on the polls until after the Democrats decide on the seating of their delegates. Could be congenial... or a backlash.

____________________

carl29:

Well, I'm not sure at what polls you are looking, but the most recent numbers are from Quinnipiac dated 04/23 - 04/29 with a sample of 1411:

Results: McCain 44, Obama 43

This is remarkable since Obama has never been able to campaign here. Yes I said here because I live in FLORIDA, Miami to be exact.

What surprises me is the fact that McCain is not passing the 50% threshold in a state where he is widely known. He is in fact tie with a guy that here in Florida has never campaign.

____________________

Nickberry:

The key descriptor is "AVERAGE" of polls... not latest polls. Check out Pollster and Real Clear Politics for trends and averages. Quinnipiac is included in the tally... but should not be used as a stand-alone until other polls show similar results.

Rasmussen 4/10/08 500 LV McCain 53 Obama 38

____________________

hardheadedliberal:

Nickberry:

All that the WV & KY numbers show is that a very large of majority of Southern & border state white people - especially those in Appalachia and those over 65 - still think they would rather drop dead tomorrow than vote for a black candidate. I thought it was noteworthy that one 60+ white lady interviewed by cable news in WV said she couldn't vote for a black candidate because "they" [her people] had so much trouble with blacks. African-Americans are 4% of the voters in WV, and not concentrated anywhere in the state enough to threaten whites in fact - as opposed to in the media, in fantasy, in scape-goating & in wish fulfillment.

That's too bad, but that's the way it is. Fortunately my son (who grew up in SC) and his generation (20 somethings) mostly don't give a rip about a person's color, gender, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation. My guess (and hope) is that Obama will be the last African-American candidate for whom his race will be a major obstacle to winning national office, just as JFK was the last Catholic candidate for whom his religion was viewed by many (including my late father, a Protestant clergyman) as a major obstacle to voting for him.

The polls indicate that Clinton could probably have won two states (AR & WV) with a total of 11 EVs that Obama will not be competitive in in the general election. Obama, on the other hand, will probably win Iowa (7 EV) and two or three mountain states that Clinton could not compete as strongly in (CO, NV, NM, total 19 EV).

In fact, if Obama wins all four of those states, and holds the Great Lakes battleground states (MI, WI, PA), he does not need to win either OH or FL to take the Presidency. Right now, even after Obama has been taking a beating in the press and in the WV primary, Obama wins all of the seven states mentioned more than half the time in the computer simulations that Poblano at fivethirtyeight.com runs with his mutliple regression models. Since Poblano's multiple regression statistical models include both demographic variables and variables showing other campaign-effort factors, such as funds contributed from each state and the number of campaign appearances in each state, his models are likely to project [not predict, he emphasizes] results that can only improve for Obama as Clinton rallies her supporters behind the Party's nominee.

I know that you, Nickberry, and most pundits on cable and broadcast media don't intend to be racialist (i.e., giving special emphasis to events or facts either through a racial lens OR giving undue emphasis to events that are irrelevant because they have occurred in a highly race-conscious environment that is not typical). But the WV and KY primaries are taking place in highly race-conscious states that are completely atypical of the states that Obama needs to win the general election. The over-emphasis on the Appalachian state primary results is racialist, whether intended or not. Such an over-emphasis on WV and KY actually contaminates the political discourse unnecessarily.

____________________

carl29:

Dear Nickberry you are making the worst mistake when it comes to polling, combining olds polls with recent ones. Actually, that is the reason why polls at this state of the race are useless when it comes to how will the picture look in Nov.

See the polls that you are mixing, old food with "fresh food."

04/23 - 04/29 1411 RV
04/10 - 04/10 500 LV
03/15 - 03/16 618 LV

The average of the polls make sense if you are taking into account polls from around the same time. Look at the dates, Do you think that these data pass the reasonable pollster test?

P.S: You have no idea how is Florida changing thanks to inmigration. I am one of those "changes." This is the first presidential election in which I will cast my
vote. On June 13, 2006, I became U.S. Citizen. There are so many hispanic people becoming US Citizens and the bulk of them are going democrat, especially cuban inmigrants who have arrived in the last 20 years. Why?

Well, because thanks to the old guard, the first wave of cubans who are part of the GOP, recent cuban inmigrants have a hard time visiting their families in CUBA.

____________________

Nickberry:

First... hardheadedliberal.... focusing on me or others as "racialist" is a very bigoted approach to "statistical" polling analysis. There are demographic groups found in Kentucky and West Virginia that also occur in great numbers in some of the states that you say Obama needs to win. And these demographic groups happen to be white... lower-income... less educated... more religious.

And the "race" factor needs to be factored in because African Americans are voting in such great numbers for Obama. The fact is that "white" voters still outnumber AA voters but with significantly different proportions in different states... Thus the numbers would not tell the whole story (the data would appear skewed) if one did not include race.

Finally... "racialist" is not relevant to a discussion of demographics and polls because "emphasis" is not put on race but rather race is one of several factors considered as part of the whole. As is gender, age groups, education, income level, religion, etc.

Look at the facts... experienced pollsters, historians, and political consultants think Obama's NEW map for electoral votes is very risky... especially if he cannot get the women's vote in great numbers as well as a substantial (albeit not majority) of the white conservative vote (aka Reagan Democrats.) The non-Cuban Hispanic vote (Cuban Hispanics are strong GOP) is also a major factor with McCain as the GOP nominee. And the Jewish vote is in play because McCain is making inroads there. So Obama's problem includes gender, Reagan Democrats (more than just race), Hispanics (especially pro-life Catholics), and Jewish (taking on Bush for the Knesset speech may have been a bad move).

____________________

Nickberry:

Hey... carl 29... please do not be so freakin' condescending. I did not make the "worst mistake." So how many statistics classes have you taken?

Of course, polls are "snapshots" in time... and that is why one cannot rely on a single poll... and that is why both Real Politics and Pollster provide averages... as well as Pollster has excellent graphic trend lines. This is hardly "mixing, old food with fresh food."

I know you are an Obama supporter, but McCain has a history on promoting comprehensive immigration reform. He is the "maverick" in his party... i.e. not known to walk in lockstep with GOP. He has a very good relationship with the Hispanic communities.

Additionally, McCain has the advantage in Florida of the GOP governor, the panhandle conservatives, the Jewish vote, and the large number of Republican voters... all combined he beats Obama handily.

By the way... there are many Republicans who also want to open up visitation for Cuban families. Bush is your problem... He is the one who tightened the Cuban embargo in 2004 to "hasten democratic change." Things have changed quite a bit since then... I think this will not be an issue after Bush is gone... no matter who is elected President.

____________________

carl29:

Oh lord ! Well, first of all, I personally had to take a few math courses- 2 Statistics, 2 calculus, 2 Algebras, and another that I can't even remember- in order to get my Business degree. Second, I'm married to a college professor, Florida International University. What subject? You guessed, Math. My husband, who happens to be right here next to me, is a math Phd. What college? Tutfs University in Boston, Masachussetts.

The point is that you want to prove something that frankly can't be proven. I for one can only tell it like it is at this time. There is no way I can tell how things are going to be on Nov. 4 of 5. However, so far Obama is on his way to be the nominee, position he has earned with a lot of hard work.

There is no way that the democratic party is gonna take the nomination away from him. Do you want to bet?

About Miami, oh God, my dear "ghetto." I said not you. Things are finally changing in this area. Prove? For the first time in almost 20 years someone is challenging the representatives from this area, 3 crazy people who all they talk about is Fidel Castro and his dictatorship. They talk about Cuba's dictatorship but how about the one here in Miami, one that they are a part of.

Thank God at least 2 of these gangsters are on their way out. Let me tell you, things are getting good here in Miami. Raul Martinez, a very well known democratic politician, is challenging Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Joe Garcia, former DNC chairman, is challenging Mario Diaz-Balart for their place in US congress. The challengers, Raul and Joe are against the restrictions of cubans to travel to the island to visit their families. Meanwhile, the Diaz-Balart brothers are the masterminders of these restrictions.

I don't have to tell you how energize the younger generation of cubans, the ones coming within the last 20 years, are over this issue. McCain is big ally of the Diaz-Balart brothers.

____________________

carl29:

Oh gosh, Charlie Crist is another story- Florida is full of stories. Where do I begin? First of all, I have to admit that I like Charlie up to some extent. Do my fellow South Floridians like him? I'm not sure. Why? Property Taxes. While campaigning for Gov., Charlie Crist promised to lower property taxes which are a major issue in South Florida, not in North Florida, Central Florida, just South Florida.

This past Jan.29 my dear Charlie finally "delivered" on his promise. Thanks to Charlie I would save an extra $200 a year. This is his reduction of the property taxes. The problem? Well, that here is South Florida property taxes are in the thousands. For example, mine is $10,412.00. Needless to say that this sort of "lowering" was not what we had in mind. At least judging by the way my dear Charlie made it sound. He said: "taxes are going to fall like a rock." Yeah, a rock made of foam that falls in water.

Ah! About Jewish voters. Obama is supported by prominent Jewish politians from this area, Rep. Wexler whom I love. Now, I have thought about the danger of McCain hanging around Lieberman woowing Jews. So, I think Obama should put someone that can secure almost unanimously this vote. Who? Eddy Rendell. I think he'll be perfect. What do you think?

____________________

Tybo:

The concept that West VIrginia and Kentucky reject Obama because of racism is laughable..
After all, Obama called them bitter and clinging to religion and guns...

while the black voters who cling to religion and guns are endlessly praised by Obama.

SO who is bigoted? Barry seems to believe that if you support him , you're special.
The people of Kentucky and West Virginian recognized his game and rejected him for his bias.

____________________

cinnamonape:

Just an interesting observation of ARG's accuracy.

They showed Sununu leading Shaheen by an almost insurmountable amount in their poll just before the New Years.

/08-NH-Sen-GE-SvS.html

One (or a few) problems. None of the other polls showed such a huge Sununu lead...in fact they all showed just the opposite. In fact they showed remarkable stability with the differences. ARG's poll was the outrageous oddball.

And then ARG's own poll three months later produced very same results...as the other polls. So what to think?

Did Sununu make a dramatic comeback and then nosedive. Or were the other polls wrong?

Or maybe someone from ARG reversed the results...oooops!

____________________

cinnamonape:

Except Obama never made such claims of Kentuckians and West Virginians.

____________________

Tom:

The most recent polls show Obama within three points in VA, NC and SC, within one point in OH and NM, tied in IN, and winning CO and IA. What do all those states (totalling 88 electoral votes) have in common? All went for Bush in 2004. It should be worth noting that in all tose states except OH, Obama is doing better than Clinton against McCain.

Also note that in the crosstabs in the most recent national polls, Obama and Clinton do equally well with white males. Clinton does better with women, while Obama does better with independants and Republicans.

____________________

Tom:

Oh, and I forgot to note that Obama is down only one point in FL (with Clinton ahead). Anther 27 electoral votes that Bush had in 2004 that are in play.

____________________

Tybo:

" cinnamonape:


Except Obama never made such claims of Kentuckians and West Virginians."

Yes, he did
He claims that of all white working people who do not support him.


____________________

cinnamonape:

Tybo: "He claims that of all white people who do not support him".

Quite simply he doesn't. And anyone who is interested in polling would see that the same issue was one that has been problematical in many of these areas since Jimmy Carter. It's not due to race, and Obama never said that. It's about "big government" and it's impotence. And that has been played off very well by the Republican party...successfully blaming the other branches of government for the "problems". That, of course, worked until they actually controlled both Congress and the Executive Branches.

This same demographic generally voted against Carter, Dukakis, Mondale, Clinton (the majority voted for Bush+Perot), Gore, and Kerry...not a black (or mixed race) man amongst any of those candidates.

Here's what Obama actually said:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the MIDWEST, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not."

"And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

First off...Nothing at all about Kentucky or West Virginia (never considered them MIDWEST)

And second...nothing at all about WHITES vs. BLACKS. Or whites that vote FOR Obama vs. those that don't.

The comments were about people (not just working class people) who have seen jobs in their towns wither away and are justifiably frustrated.

I think that you are imprinting a lot of your own personal issues about Obama on these statements.

____________________



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