Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: CNN/LA Times/Politico California Primary


A new CNN/Los Angeles Times/Politico California survey (1/23 through 1/27) finds:

690 Democratic LVs (± 4%)

49 Clinton
32 Obama
14 Edwards
4 Undecided

427 Republican LVs (± 4.5%)

39 McCain
26 Romney
13 Giuliani
11 Huckabee
4 Undecided

 

Comments
John McCutchen:

As if NH and SC busts weren't enough to discourage it, we are now moving into that phase of the primaries where statewide polls are even less relevant to the outcomes on February 5

Best to heed the many posts here at Pollster.com, midterms, 2006 (or was it just PolArithmetik back in those days??)


This is a race for congressional districts and to complicate matters even further, in the Democratic primaries, unlike 2006, a race for proportional selection in those districts.

Recalling the gymnastics involved in translating from national polls to actual outcomes then, HELP

What is a poll junkie to do???

____________________

Andrew:

I agree, John McCutchen, and I think that Pollster.com should reserve an article just for ARG, analyzing why it has been so atrocious this year. If I'm not wrong, ARG found that Clinton would win in Iowa, Obama would win in NH, and Obama lead Clinton in SC by 3% a couple of days before the actual SC vote.

That is terrible. They should fire their CEO or polling coordinator or something.

____________________

Steve Dasbach:

CNN/Los Angeles Times/Politico fails to give Ron Paul as a choice but includes Giuliani. Earth to CNN -- Paul has beaten Giuliani in every state but one thus far. The best Giuliani has managed to do is 4th place -- Paul has placed second in Nevada and Louisiana. Oh, and Paul has earned more delegates than Giuliani.

No, I'm not suggesting that the poll should have excluded Giuliani, although I wonder if he'll still be in the race by Super Tuesday. It just seems to me that legitimate news organizations list ALL the candidates when conducting an honest, credible poll.

You would think they would know that leaving off Paul, who's polled as much as 7% in other California polls (within the margin of error of Huckabee's result) would bias their results. But maybe that's the idea. After all, they can't have those pesky voters voting for the "wrong" candidate now, can they?

____________________

PR:

CNN/Los Angeles Times/Politico fails to give Ron Paul as a choice but includes Giuliani.

This is not true. Paul was listed as a choice and was chosen by 2% of the respondents. You can see the full results here (scroll down to question #13):

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2008/images/01/28/relca2a.pdf

So much for the conspiracy theory.

____________________

Emcee:

PR, Facts?! Well that's just no fun at all.

____________________

LAC:

There's a new SurveyUSA California poll out that has Clinton 49, Obama 38, Edwards 8. Though there appears to be a typo on their website, it claims the survey was taken after the SC results were known.

Why won't Pollster.com start posting the numbers for other February 5 states?

____________________

sharon:

reuters and rasmussen were pretty wrong on CA

____________________



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