Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: CNN National


CNN/Opinion Research
(release)

National
(921 RV)
Obama 49, McCain 46
Obama 47, McCain 43, Nader 6, Barr 2
Obama/Clinton 52, McCain/Romney 46

Also
Obama 59, Clinton 35 (447 RV)
Clinton 49, McCain 48

 

Comments
Mark Lindeman:

Nader 6?!

Okay, I admit it: I'm surprised.

That is all.

____________________

Uri:

@Mark: I just wish this trend would continue...

If you read Nader's "The Good Fight", you see a message that can resonate fairly well with voters in this election cycle. In fact, many of the current dem ideas (pushed primarily by HRC) came from that source. Add to that the Nader anti-corporate sentiment which is voiced by the dems (no lobbyism, no to big-oil, etc.)... I think some voters are just deciding to go with the source.

However, this is good news for Obama because some of these 6% for Nader could be HRC supporters. The numbers for Barr seem seem surprisingly low though.

____________________

carl29:

I bet Nader won't get more than 2% in Nov. It's kind of hard to be for Nader, and then, all of a sudden do not care about McSame getting in the White House.

Obama 49, McCain 46
Clinton 49, McCain 48

More people support McCain against Hillary than against Obama. But this is past, now is:
Obama/Clinton 52% GOOD!!!

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

If Hillary supporters are voting for Nader because they think Obama stole the election we shall all be overcome by the tidal wave of irony :p

____________________

Uri:

@Andrew: I don't think there are any HRC voters who think that the elections were stolen.

However, considering that in exit polls Hillary voters repeatedly cited the economy as a concern, Nader is not such a stretch. After all, there are very few reasons to vote for Nader if you are not concerned with the economy.

Nader is also a safer non-Obama alternative to McCain. You're still part of the election process, you push for what's important for you, and you vote for someone who's a liberal, all without supporting Obama. Add to that the anti-big-parties sentiment that Nader has, and he would be a good choice even for those mythical HRC voters who believe he stole the elections.

It's true that some democrats (including in my family) blame Nader for 2000. I blame the democrats for being able to lose to Bush with people like Gore and Kerry who should have won by at least 10 poiints.

Either way, if those 6% for Nader didn't come from Hillary voters, where did they come from? It's better for Obama if these are the HRC people because then they may come back. I doubt it's evangelical christians who chose Nader.

I'm not sure how much Nader would actually get, and again, it's a question of which states he would get it in.

We're four days after the last primary and we still don't have blanket surveys for each state. What gives?

____________________

eternaltriangle:

I have seen Nader poll as high as 8%, back in the 2000 election.

____________________

Nickberry:

What is significant and also showed in the Gallup poll is that Obama when partnered with Hillary gains points on McCain.

Gallup (June 5, 2008): "A separate analysis of data from Wednesday night shows that Obama gets a slight bounce in his standing against John McCain when voters are presented with the concept of a Democratic Obama-Clinton ticket for the fall election.... 50%-45%." (Without Hillary, 45%-45% for June 4 polling.)

____________________

carl29:

Hi Dear Nickberry:

GALLUP: Obama 46, McCain 45 "Although Wednesday night's interviewing showed no immediate bounce in national support for Obama versus McCain, Thursday night's results were quite favorable to Obama."

Let's see how things go. However, Rasmussen is sensing something as well:

RASMUSSEN: Obama 45%, McCain 40% "The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows what may be the beginning of a bounce for Barack Obama. Obama now attracts 45% of the vote while John McCain earns 40%."

It is too early to tell, but let's see.

____________________

Snowspinner:

The addition of Nader, ironically, seems to be helping Obama. I suspect this is because a chunk of Clinton supporters who are saying they'll back McCain jump to Nader when given the chance. In practice I expect a healthy chunk of those to return to Obama, but it is possible that Nader could help Obama this time around if he proves a tempting target for Clinton supporters who want a slightly cleaner conscience than they'd get voting for McCain, and if those supporters stay angry.

____________________

Uri:

@Snowspinner: I like your point. I'm wondering if the Dems will do the undemocratic thing and prevent Nader from running in battleground states like PA the way those bastards did in '04.

____________________

HESSIAN:

Snowspinner is exactly correct about ex-Clinton supporters are defecting in the polls, and probably correct that this explains Nader's high numbers and apparent draw from McCain in this poll.

____________________

Uri:

Too bad that Nader and Barr and their VPs weren't in the VP matchup or we would have known if the extra 5% come from HRC voters. (I am not sure).

____________________

mago:

I can remember Republicans getting gleeful over Nader's polling at 5 percent or so early in the '04 campaign. He ended up being reviled by practically everybody who had liked him in 2000 and getting essentially trivial support. This will almost certainly happen again. Nader is well on his way to becoming Lyndon LaRouche.

Uri, I am amused to hear that the Democrats controlled the electoral process in Ohio in 2004.

____________________

Nickberry:

OK... carl29... I already know that, but you wanted to change the focus of my comment. I was specifically targeting a different "bounce" number. Quit being so competitive... or at least leave me out of it when you do.

Having said that....Rasmussen today: Obama 46% and McCain 42%. WITHOUT LEANERS. It looks like that 4-5% is the extent of a bounce. With leaners, the numbers are closer: Obama 48% and McCain 45%.

No opinions, just focusing on the statistical data.

____________________

Uri:

@mago: Not in OH (not sure what went around there) but here in PA when they had a whole law team to get him off the ballot.

If you ever get a chance, come to one of his rallies. It's amazing how much straight talk you can get from a guy with negative charisma.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

I met Nader in Denver....he is a tool in person and on tv. he has no shot and is just wasting peoples' money and time.

Obama is polling 4 points above mccan't and that is with a poll that has nader at 6. unbelievable. barr hasn't even got a lot of press yet. good grief.....this puppy is over.

____________________

SunnyD:

"this puppy is over."

Wow, a little over-confident. I mean sheez, I was looking back at the debates in 2007, and it was amazing that only Huckabee and Edwards realized that the economy was the most important issue. By March 2008, Hillary had narrowed the gap because both Iraq and health care had been pushed to the back; she was "instinctively" the better candidate for the working class. It was almost as if the non-recession recession snuck up on people.

There are at least three October surprises.

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: I met him in Pittsburgh in '04, and he is a very uncharismatic man, but a very smart, realistic, and driven man.

The greatest relief for me in this election cycle is that with Hillary's loss I can return to supporting him. I liked the past dem candidates (Clinton/Gore/Kerry) so now I can "return home".

____________________

Tom:

I expected a bigger bounce, but since Obama had been running a point or two behind McCain in most recent polls, this is good.

Elsewhere, it was noted that the continuing Obama/Clinton campaign could be having an impact on the Obama-Clinton/McCain matchups. I think this may have been true. I suspect the pollsters were asking the Obama/Clinton matchup first, and possibly varying the question order based on the response (i.e. if Obama was picked, ask the Clinton/McCain matchup, and vice versa), or if the order was random, some may have been anticipating the other matchup will be asked and varying their response accordingly. Now that Clinton is out of the race, I suspect we won't see that happen anymore. We are seeing some evidence of this with the SUSA polls, especially in Missouri.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Prediction: Barr will not break 1% of the vote, or 1 million votes.

Why? He is polling okay... Ron Paul got about a million votes.

1. Ron Paul's support came mostly from angry antiwar college kids, many of whom were not really libertarians, but liberals (they were overwhelmingly young independents). Barr will not have anything near Paul's donor base - thus far he has raised under 300,000 dollars. Moreover, as a recent convert, Barr has little credibility as a libertarian (the Libertarians explicitly targeted him in 2002).
2. Even if Paul throws his support behind Barr, Paul's moment is the convention, which is too late if you want to raise money, etc. I would not be surprised if Paul backed Chuck Baldwin over Barr.
3. His support is especially weak among the libertarian base. He will have trouble with a lack of volunteers. In fact many people in the party have a vested interest in Barr flopping, so they can maintain their control over the election-losing enterprise that is the Libertarian party.
4. The folks angry about John McCain's apostasies against conservatism are not about to embrace somebody MORE liberal than John McCain on a range of social issues (and foreign policy).
5. The other gaggle of free voters - angry Clinton Democrats - are not likely to vote for a guy best known for trying to impeach their candidate's husband.
6. Barr will get little media attention, will not get into the debates, and will be forced to resort to silly stunts like Alan Keyes trying to force his way into the debates. Even if he got there, he isn't exactly charismatic, and wastes far too much time bashing the two party system, rather than making substantive points.
7. He will actually be a success by Libertarian standards, perhaps increasing their share of the vote 50% (500,000 to 750,000), but he will fail to live up to present expectations.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

@Nickberry,

The "unity bounce" is more of a two week thing. Rasmussen today has it 50-43 Obama. The unity bounce is just beginning. my prediction is and has been O 52, M-38 after the whole "bounce" is complete.

____________________

Uri:

@Mike: I think the bounce also depends on whether McCain would actually pop up into the media at some point. He has been incredibly silent. My wife is developing this "conspiracy theory" where the Republicans want to lose for four years so the democrats can fix thing a little. I was naturally skeptical but seeing the Republican paralysis, I'm starting to wonder.

Also, note that Rasmussen have an error in their analysis: "Data from Rasmussen Markets gives Obama a 95.0 % chance of winning.". That is chance of winning the nomination, not the presidency.

Also, expect polls on SC and TX at 5pm est, and other states tomorrow. Going to be an interesting day.

____________________

Uri:

BTW, Gallup's daily tracking (why can't we get single day crosstabs from them) is still 46-45 but that aggregates June 2 to June 6.
We'll see the bump in the next few days, I suppose.

____________________

SunnyD:

@Uri
"My wife is developing this "conspiracy theory" where the Republicans want to lose for four years so the democrats can fix thing a little. I was naturally skeptical but seeing the Republican paralysis, I'm starting to wonder."

This is not as far-fetched as you might think. Because the news has been so fixated with the Obama-Clinton soap opera, there's little mention of the larger geopolitical economic picture (but $140 oil sure did open people's eyes though). We are in the second inning of the worse economic recession since the Great Depression. Hell, Medvedev basically said in his first public speech that America financially was screwed and that if we came begging, he might help us. So unfortunately, the message of "change" will be replaced with simply putting out fires, and voting blocs will feel betrayed. Just this past week, the Congressional GOP actually out-maneuvered the Dems and backed them into a corner: cap-and-trade v. the economy. Luckily, a procedural rule prevented the vote, but the Pelosi Congress is looking inept every step of this crisis. One, now possible another, stimulus package, and no one has even noticed that heating oil and natural gas are at record highs DURING THE FREAKING SUMMER. In a way, I feel sorry for the Democrat party, just like feel sorry for GWB (at least economically). It seems as no one, except for Nader, fully comprehends the effects of globalization. We've been able to mask it by rampant borrowing, but now the credit card is maxed out. If anyone actually believes that universal health care or tax cuts are possible given $200 oil, you've been sipping too much Kool-Aid. Withdrawal from Iraq in 6 months? You think the Saudis will let us leave with stabilizing the region? This isn't Vietnam, a patch of jungle. An oil embargo would put us in the stone age. And yes, we've still got hundreds of billions of dollars in Pension funds obligations that are guaranteed by the government (PBGC) once the dinosaurs (GM, Ford, Airlines, etc) go bankrupt. Unfairly, Obama will be the next Hoover, and the Democrat Party, along with race relations, will be set back decades. C'est la vie.

____________________

I can't wait for this week's polls. Tomorrow's numbers might be too soon - I want to see what happens after the media revs up their new direction - say, Weds or Thursday.

Dunno if any of you noticed, but angry Hillary-voter blogs, websites and listserves are popping up all over the place. Howard Dean is just fanning the flames re: Denver, and Obama hasn't lifted a finger to 'bring us in.' I heard yesterday that he is "considering" making a statement on women's rights. I don't think either one of them are capable of taking any responsibility for having alienated a large number of Democrats.

I attended the Clinton event yesterday, and one thing the Senator said really struck me- in the past 40 years we've had 10 presidents. Only three of them were Democrats; two of them were named Clinton. But I guess Howard knows best....

____________________

onelightonvoice:

What if I said that I flipped a coin and it came up heads 7 out of 10 times. Would that mean anything???

The above statement is equally meaningless. So what, Bill Clinton was elected twice. AND?????????

Regarding the ridiculous "angry hillary voter blog" statement. Again, AND??? There are "angry creationism blogs" too. SO WHAT?

If you are going to make a point, I suppose it helps if there is a point....or even some evidence.

By the way, the "establishment" candidate that wanted to follow the gore/kerry roadmap just got her lunch handed to her. meanwhile the dean 50 state strategy already is making gains in the house for dems and will win them the executive and legislative branches in about 5 months. particularly funny is how obama used the dean internet network to mobilize an army to take down the inevitable nominee. hmmmm, what does dean know?


____________________

onelightonvoice:

That was one hillaryous post sunnyd. The next hoover? ROTFLMMAO. I thought he was supposed to be the next carter? It is too bad Bush wasn't the next ANYONE. He was the first GWB. The historic way in which he brought down the country will be told ad infinitum...he was like the last 25 emperors of Rome. At least the Romans had 2 millenia......

____________________

Uri:


Rasmussen posted a poll about media objectivity.

68% think reporters are biased towards a specific candidate.

When asked who benefited most:
54%-22%-14% Obama-McCain-Clinton

When asked who treated worst:
17%-27%-43% Obama-McCain-Clinton

43%-54% in a survey of dems, reps and independents goes way beyond HRC voters which is interesting.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Uri-

NEWSFLASH - sometimes there's a REASON for the bias. Did that ever occur to you?

Say, for example, we had George Bush running against Al Gore again....in 2004. Which one do you think would the media be "biased" towards? If you have a lot of "baggage" - meaning you lie and continue to lie and deceive the people, and are involved in numerous scandals, people tend to get biased against you. AS THEY SHOULD!

By the way, just to refute a rather weak assertion (at best) of this "bias" poll, chew on this for a minute:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/incoming.html

____________________

onelightonvoice:

just to be clear, negative stories that are true are not "bias".

anyways, sullivan has a thought on when exactly clinton "lost". great clip.


http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/when-she-lost.html

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

@Cicinna,

Now this is just getting ridiculous re: "Obama hasn't lifted a finger to bring us in". Be bitter. Fine. But blaming Obama is probably one of the most ridiculous things ever. When you go to his website the FIRST thing you see is a "Thank You Senator Clinton" Page with the option to write Sen. Clinton a letter of support. If you go to his blog page its filled with excerpts of those letters. He has been emphasizing universal health care, and is meeting with Clinton donors today, and is giving great thought to Clinton as VP.

WHAT THE HELL ELSE DO YOU WANT?! Honest to God, this is getting sick. As the polls ALREADY show, supporters are coming over. Either get with the program or support someone who plans on taking away your reproductive rights and setting us back decades into conservative hell. Clinton herself is asking you to back Obama. Cut the bitter, loathing BS. Honestly. (PS, I don't care if this turns you off more. Your post was idiotic. He's not "doing enough"?? Seriously. knock it off. This isn't about YOU)

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

@Ciccina:

By the way, how's this for "reaching out to Clinton supporters":

Obama Says He's Partnering With Elizabeth Edwards On Health Care
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/obama_to_partner_with_elizabet.php

:)

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Mike- in CA,


Easy, mike, easy. You have got to understand people like ciccina were invested in Hillary just (and only) because she is a woman. They felt it was time for a woman president, just like many AAs felt it was time for a AA prez.

So having that sort of pure emotional attachment not based on logic (read policy postions), they are understandably upset that they may not see a woman president in their lifetimes. There are those women whose support was both logical and emotional and now have decided to switch over to Obama because they know who (and which party) represents their interests, despite the fact they are emotionally still tied to Clinton. It helps greatly that Clinton gave quite a speech regarding unity. Some will choose to listen to the message, others will just wallow in their misery and keep making up inane and nonsensical lies about how Obama is sexist or the media was out to get Hillary as a rationlaization of why "the inevitable one" lost. They don't blame the campaign or Hillary or Bill, just all those "sexists" out there attacking Hillary. Check my link above to 538 site (in a previous post) about attacks during the primary season - it pretty much destroys their "argument".

If they want to vote against their interests, hey, that is their right. Look how many millions did the last 8 years. It is nothing new, Americans are phenomenally stupid people (in general) - now I know you don't need any links to prove that.

Despite the threats to sit out or vote McCain, it won't do any good. The first debate will destroy whatever chances McCain currently has. Many people vote on style/visuals/aesthetics/personality. This is why Bush "won" in 00/04, and it will play a role in 08. Just imagine them side by side, an old relic next to a dynamic, new phenom. Game. Set. And Match.


Also, the world wants Obama. Look at the numbers from Europe below.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/obama-president.html


It will be hard for many people to ignore that, as having a leader who is universally admired and loved is an undeniable asset in bringing countries together. His rise is only beginning.....


____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: ". You have got to understand people like ciccina were invested in Hillary just (and only) because she is a woman".

You've just shown that you really don't understand why people support Hillary and why people don't support her.

The people who are "switching over" are not the hardcore supporters but rather people who had a preference but are ok with both democrats. That's why you see the bump in all the polls (Gallup now reports the bump as well).

Since McCain is MIA, that may be enough for Obama. If things get tighter though, he may need the rest of the true HRC core, and I don't see him getting them anytime soon.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Uri-

Whatever. It is hard to argue with someone that does not use logic or facts. I'm sorry the truth hurts.

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonevoice: How does your explanation of why Ciccina supposedly supports HRC a fact? Does your regular trolling include drilling into her head?

Also, interests do not end in Roe vs. Wade.
People have different "interests". For some people the interest is a responsible president so McCain is a legitimate option for many in that regards. For some it's a president they like and respect so they can reestablish their belief in our government system. There can be many other reasons.

I personally consider Obama untrustable. Say what you will about Hillary's Bosnia stories, at least it's obvious when she's lying or fudging. Same thing with McCain and his creepy smile.

Obama, on the other hand, can convincingly preach about positive campaigning, knowing that most people won't remember what he did in IL. He can talk of being "not part of the system" but it's that chicago machine that got him illected in IL.

Besides, any person who has the audacity to write his memoir at 30 is seriously too full of himself to be a reliable leader.


____________________



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