CBS News/New York Times (release)
(CBS story, Dems, GE, Times story, results)
Obama 54, Clinton 38
Obama 50, McCain 38... Clinton 46, McCain 46
so, this national poll is somewhat consistent with the recent gallup poll, but again way off from the gallup tracking poll...
are these one-shot polls picking up trends that the tracking polls do not? or is there methodology and sampling just that different?
Posted on February 25, 2008 7:05 PM
polls for november are highly unpredictable..
Posted on February 25, 2008 7:27 PM
Why are they choosing to poll RV instead of LV?, like Gallup & Rasmussen. Is it because the election is too far away?
Posted on February 25, 2008 7:28 PM
Perhaps because all of the polling error this time around is due to an inability to use previous voting patterns to predict turnout this time around. Look at Hawaii. The record for votes in a Dem caucus there was 5,000. This year, it was more than 37,000. Or look at early voting in Texas. In 2004, the Democrats averaged 13,800 early votes per day over 12 days. Through the first 7 days of early voting this time around, we have averaged over 50,000 votes per day. Turnout is 362% of 2004 turnout for early voting. We will see almost as many early votes in Texas as we saw TOTAL votes in 2004 (840,000 total in '04, perhaps 650,000 early votes in '08). Similar numbers are turning up from Maine to Washington to Alaska, and going back to Iowa. Remember, we had 120,000 votes in Iowa on the Dem side in '04. Edwards predicted 120,00 again. Clinton's people had it at 150,000. Obama's thought they could turn out new voters and make it 170,000. One newspaper suggested 200,000 and was WIDELY panned for not knowing what they were doing. 240,000 showed up. "Likely" is something you only discuss when you have some idea what might happen. No one knows what Obama's turn out will be. So use Registered Voters to keep the guessing in the dark to a minimum.
Posted on February 25, 2008 7:40 PM
These polls are very skewed lately. Some are showing Obama is up by a lot nationally, some show a tie, some show Clinton up in Texas, some Obama.
I think the demographics are way too diverse in this election, Independent voters are be overlooked, the enthusiastic young votes are being overlooked...basically you'll see what happens on election day.
Posted on February 25, 2008 9:15 PM
Posted on February 25, 2008 9:16 PM
A pattern is obvious: Polls using likely voters show McCain on top, while polls with registered voters show Obama on top.
Posted on February 25, 2008 10:42 PM
There comes a point when a trend becomes a fact -- For whatever reason (I tend to think it is Obama's charisma, but who knows), dems are turning out like never before. We are seeing it week after week, and we are seeing it THIS week. When does it become the reality?
For sure, if this continues into November, the dems will sweep into office, probably on all levels. If I was a dem candidate, or a dem superdelegate, its an unmistakable choice -- dont I want the tsunami maker at the head of my ticket?
Posted on February 25, 2008 10:55 PM
It is illogical to believe that because the Democrats have larger turnouts in the primaries, they will win the General Elections.
Republicans are not as motivated now as they will in November, once Obama has been turned into a communist, unpatriotic, feminine, stuck-up devil by the right wing/corporate media partnership. Republicans will feel compelled to save the nation once again from the devilish Gore's and Kerry's and Obama's of the world.
Pollster.com should once and for all collect data and make graphs disproving the theory that the party with largest primary turnout will necessarily come out victorious in the GE.
Posted on February 25, 2008 11:42 PM
Give me a break. Obama has a 16 point lead on Clinton nationally? I mean I love Obama, and it's who I voted for, but let's be serious. A 7 or 8 point lead seems even a bit excessive. Or maybe I'm wrong, and this is what we need for Hillary to get out after Ohio and Texas, and not do what Huckabee is trying to do for the republicans: Split and Destroy their own party.
Posted on February 25, 2008 11:54 PM
Wow, new SUSA Texas poll has Obama up by 4! This race is really shifting. I was prepared to discount ARG and CNN, but when SUSA joins the chorus I can only conclude that the race is either tied or Obama leads, at this point in time.
Posted on February 26, 2008 12:08 AM
A Ohio Poll within the past few days that was sponsored by the University of Cincinnati found Clinton ahead with 47 percent and Obama with 39 percent.
Posted on February 26, 2008 12:13 AM
Yeah, the SurveyUSA poll convinced me that Obama had indeed pulled slightly ahead in Texas. However, from the numbers, they show 25% of people already voted, and Clinton is leading those 51% to 46%; not a significant margin, but it means Obama needs to hold onto the momentum to keep the advantage in people who will vote on Tuesday. The sample has 21% Blacks and 28% Hispancis, and I think the percentages are reasonable.
Also for the "Could change your mind" question, does the 76% who responded they have made up their mind include those who have voted? If not, combining that (50%-45% in favor of Obama) with early voting means the race is essentially tied, and the key is those 24% who could change their mind and who currently favor Obama 46%-38%.
Posted on February 26, 2008 12:24 AM
Pollster.com results for Ohio:
American Research Group
Public Policy Polling
University of Cincinnati
Clinton is ahead in every single one of these polls. And she has strong ground support in all 4 states that are coming up.
Posted on February 26, 2008 12:25 AM
Mike, about your comment that "For whatever reason (I tend to think it is Obama's charisma, but who knows), dems are turning out like never before.", I have to disagree.
First, the democrat turnout could simply be higher because the race hasn't been decided yet. Last year time around, Kerry was the de-facto candidate even before super Tuesday. Look at how the Republican turnout was higher before McCain became the obvious winner.
Second, since we have repeatedly seen in exit polls that Hillary does as good as Obama among democrats (and often even better),one could just as well argue that Democrats are coming to vote for her. Even if she wasn't doing as well, an increase in voter reflects on both candidates.
In Wisconsin (and in many other places) much of the Obama lead came from independents and Republicans. You could argue that these came to vote because Obama is a wonderful candidate that crosses divides. However, you could also argue that these are either Republicans that despise Hillary, or people who want to exercise a chance to vote in a primary when their state still matters, and when's the last time that this happened?
Overall, it doesn't matter. Hillary lost, and the phenomenon is now going to face the Republican war machine.
Posted on February 26, 2008 12:37 AM
What Hillary has decided on is to continue her hypocrisy. She may say on camera like she did at the debate that she is honored to be in the race with Barack, but what her campain does is send out a picture to the press trying to stir up anti-Muslim sentiment, not to mention ruin her opponent. Unfortunately for her, being so cold hearted and a fear monger is why her negatives are so high in the first place.
Posted on February 26, 2008 12:46 AM
The only way Hillary has any kind of a realistic shot of catching up with Obama in the delegate count is to win Ohio and Texas by really huge +20 point margains. Folks, there is very little, to no chance, of that happening. Which poll is trending her way? None are. Not one. Every poll released today in Texas has Obama taking a four to eight point lead. Her biggest lead in Ohio is 11. That same poll had her up 21 points last week. The last poll out of Ohio today has her lead down to 4 points. She may lose Vermont by 20 points or more. After 3-4, she's probably going to lose saturday in Wyoming and then lose in Mississippi on 3-11. Then Obama has FIVE WEEKS to campaign in Pennsylvania. What don't people understand here? Unless there is an tidal wave of support of Hillary out there that absolutely no one can see, Hillary's campaign is in its last 7 days.
Posted on February 26, 2008 12:56 AM
We need more of your input, which was well thought out.
I think the percentages look reasonable as well, but I was surprised at the 51-46% lead for Hillary among the 25% early voters.
My gut (sometimes wrong...caveat emptor) tells me the hispanic vote will not be as close as 52-39, but the white vote will not be as favorable for Hillary as projected.
I recall seeing polls in AZ and CA a week before their elections showing that hispanics were moving en masse to Obama, much like the movement shown in the last two SUSA polls. I just am uneasy about that.
I also wonder about turnout. Hispanics are 35% of the Texas population. Saying that they will be 28% is sort of a crap shoot, since there is nothing historic to go off of that compares to this primary.
I think turnout of hispanics vs african americans will be a surprise and will determine who wins...and the win could be "easy" too, for Obama more than likely.
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:00 AM
assuming that there is a "middle" class of voters, and there is, november polling is highly unreliable. stiff party loyals will support their party's nominee; the middle has heard more about obama at this point, so they support him in polling data (assuming it's correct). But many months remain....
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:03 AM
"Unless there is an tidal wave of support of Hillary out there that absolutely no one can see, Hillary's campaign is in its last 7 days. "
This is true! Unless reality strikes her campaign earlier and she bows out gracefully in an effort to reunite the party and help it to take back the presidency.
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:06 AM
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:09 AM
"reunite the party"
Why is that her responsibility? Isn't that the leaders? Barack Obama?
After all, he's the winner. He's the one who is the uniter and leader.
The loser does not unite the party. Is Mike Huckabee expected to unite the party?
And keep in mind, the Democratic party, based on members who ARE Democrats, favored Hillary, 50-44 in the primaries to date. Independents and Republicans have given Obama an overwhelming edge. I support open primaries, but why is it Hillary's responsibility to "unite" a party that by the numbers, favored her over Obama, even if narrowly? Leaders unite. Losers go back to doing what they were doing before.
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:12 AM
"But many months remain...."
Yes, they do. Dukakis was up double digits in the spring/summer of 1988.
Those who have feigned indignity about the "horrors" of Hillary's attacks have no idea how harsh the 527s from the GOP attack machine will be. They will probably make this the nasiest election ever because their party depends on it. By all survey/poll indications, the Dems will pick up 10-20 house and 2-5 senate seats. If that is coupled with a Democratic president, the GOP knows that will push their agenda back decades. They will fight it like you cannot believe.
It will make Hillary's so-called "mocking" yesterday in Providence look like child's play. I think polls right now are completely pointless because Obama is riding a wave and of course he'd be doing well against McCain.
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:17 AM
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:35 AM
Take it to DailyKos.
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:46 AM
Posted on February 26, 2008 1:51 AM
Byrd: your post suggests that Hillary's mere presence in the election divides the party. Why? Doesn't she have the right to run? We do not want a coronation, do we? Just repeating language I have heard so often. The only way in which Clinton's presence could be divisive is that she has huge support, especially among Dems. If she were, say, Nader, it wouldn't matter. So, she should pull out because she has lots of support. I get it..Thanks.
Posted on February 26, 2008 2:10 AM
"So, she should pull out because she has lots of support. I get it..Thanks."
That's Jonathan Alter's position, which Dan Abrams went to town on. To relate this to polls and statistics, I fail to see how someone who has won the Democratic vote by 6% heretofore, should be forced to drop out so that she unites the party. If Obama is as great of a leader as his supporters say he is, he should have no problem uniting the party, right? Isn't that what leaders do?
Either candidate should be able to win easily against the "straight talk" express and there are many many months left to run a general election, even if this went to late April. People need to chill and let the candidates run their campaigns.
Posted on February 26, 2008 2:27 AM
There will be no uniting the DEM party under Obama. DEMS across America that have already voted for Hillary are leaving the DEM party in protest. And are calling Dean and telling him they are leaving because of the cult behavior Obamas people are showing. And they and us will not be lead by any cult god. And for the way Obama has been unfairly treating both Clinton's. And my family, friends and I are joining them. All of us will be registering IND and will vote for Nader in Nov.
We pray Hillary will win and we still believe she will. And we are making calls for her, GOTV and donating to her campaign. We did the same thing for Kerry and Gore and they still didn't make it to the WH. So you never know how things are going to work out.
If Hillary is not our nominee we will leave the DEM party ( all of us are lifelong DEMS) and vote for Nader. And from I am seeing there are a whole allot of people like us across America that are going to do the same. I don't see how Obama wins without a large number of Hillary supporters. And we wouldn't vote for Obama if the world was ending.
Posted on February 26, 2008 3:15 AM
Below is an alternate theory on polling and why it is impossible to get an accurate measure until election day this year.
Posted on February 26, 2008 8:18 AM
rowjimmy - I saw Alter on one of the cable news networks trying to explain his position. It looked like even he couldn't believe what he was saying.
One thing he said was that if Hillary drops out now, she'd preserve her leadership status, while if she waited till after the next round, she'd lose clout. Because, you know, that worked so well for Biden, Dodd and Edwards.
It made no sense whatsoever. Alter looked positively seasick during the segment.
Dammit, pollster.com... late for a meeting again!
Posted on February 26, 2008 8:31 AM
Obama seems to be bringing out new voters, so using likely voters won't be an accurate look at how things will turn out election day.
What has seemed to be the trend in most cases is states Obama has been behind 5-10 points in the polls, he has pulled even or slightly ahead election day.
So I will use my theory. Take the poll numbers and add 5-10 points and that is what the result will be.
My prediction will be:
Ohio- Clinton 52-Obama 48
or Obama 51- Clinton 49
I say Ohio will be a nail biter and either candidate will eek out a win.
In Texas- I will say between Obama 58- Clinton 42 or Obama 55- 45.
Clinton has had a great deal of negative coverage over the last few days, and it is evident she is at the throw the kitchen sink point. Voters sense the dying days of a campaign and will respond with a Tsunami wave.
Clinton's negatives are going up considerably and my predictions were conservative. If the wave hits in the next week it is over for Clinton. And my prediction for Ohio will be 60 Obama-40 Clinton and in Texas 65 Obama-35 Clinton.
Posted on February 26, 2008 8:42 AM
(1) The thought that dems will run to Nader is downright bizarre. If the Cult of Clinton is that strong, then maybe we all deserve another 4 years of the Reps in the WH. Isnt it more likely that the Dems will be able to rally support against the war, the economy, the mortgage issues, etc etc, to transfer to a change at the top. McCain (unlike some of the other Reps who ran) is too tied to this admin and its war efforts to put any real space between him and Bush.
To say that the Clinton supporters will be so hurt that there candidate failed that they would jettison the future is just March talk. It happens every time during the heat of the battle.
Posted on February 26, 2008 9:21 AM
obviously, the national polls are not representative b/c this was taken when he won the 10 primaries.
But the more accurate poll is the one taken daily that show them tied.
I think the polls are playing games b/c HRC will win OHIO and possibly TX so they want to make it hard for her, but Obamba-bots can't take it that if she wins OHIO, TX, AND PA, Obama is toast b/c he only wins states that we can't win in NOV
Also, he only wins open primaries where Republicans like myself have been told to vote for him b/c he is the easier candidate to beat.
Oh you DEMS, you just love losing, don't you, lol. Obama has ties to a terrorist and we are just waiting to release it.
Posted on February 26, 2008 9:26 AM
You seem skeptical that Obama could be up by 17 points in a national poll. Please point out to everyone here which of the last 11 primary/caucuses was within 17 point.
The answer is zero. There's a reason she's swinging so hard (and dirty trying to land punches). She's got to ruin him in 8 days or her politcal life is over.
Posted on February 26, 2008 10:07 AM
mike in ohio,
I agree 100%. People just need to chill out. Saying a LIFELONG DEM will abandon the party's one good hope in the last decade to elect a democrat to the White House is LUDICROUS.
Besides, Obama will have a fairly easy time winning them back as he has stayed relatively "above the fray", and refused to really get down in the mud.
This is all evident from the plethora of polls which say that ~80% of Dem Primary voters would be happy with either candidate as their nominee.
My guess is that people who say they are Dems and will abandon the party with an Obama nom are either trolls, or just really passionate people who havent exactly thought things through.
I posted this same thing on a poll a few days ago. Everything will sort itself out.
Posted on February 26, 2008 10:15 AM
The people that say they will "leave the party" if Obama gets the nomination are either a bit too invested in Hillary, delusional, or are racist.
This WHOLE campaign, all we have ever heard is that the candidates are nearly identical on the issues - except for a small difference on healthcare, Hillary's Iraq vote, and earlier NAFTA support (which she flip-flopped on now - rather conveniently).
It is now apparent in various polls who has the best chance of beating down McCain in November.
Obama has started a movement no one in the Democratic party saw coming. Generally, in every election, only half the populace even votes. In November, you will see that mark go up. What this movement means is that Obama has fueled a new generation of voters not just to be involved in voting but the entire political process - that means engaging others in politics. This spells disaster for the Republicans - not just this election but for many to come. The lasting legacy of the Bush administration is that he has helped created a Democratic, progressive movement that will not subside for some time (unless they royally screw it up - and that'll take some doing as Bush set the bar pretty damn low).
The Democrats now have a dynamic candidate that pulls in people from all walks of life - even conservatives. Hillary would NEVER have been able to do that. In fact, conservatives would have come out of the woodwork to vote against her had she been the nominee.
Obama's star is still rising. It is remarkable how many Republicans are switching over - they even have a name for them now - Obamacans.
DO NOT underestimate the power of the Obama movement. A landslide in November is still possible - I put no feat beyond this man.
Posted on February 26, 2008 11:10 AM
You and others like you who say that you will vote for Nader or leave the party are just Clinton Hacks. Get a clue.
Obama is winning the general election - WITH OR WITHOUT YOU!!!
You can either hop on board the Obama Express - or get the hell out of the way. We really don't give a ****.
Posted on February 26, 2008 11:46 AM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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