Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Constituent Dynamics MD/DC/VA


Constituent Dynamics

Maryland
Obama 53, Clinton 36

Virginia
Obama 51, Clinton 34

Washington, DC
Obama 63, Clinton 27

We encourage our readers to click through to see field dates, sample sizes, margins of sampling error, target populations and addition results.

 

Comments
Michael X:

Wow, this is really detailed; very nice. And they polled over 1,000 people per district, so the total in Maryland alone is over 6,000; terrific.

____________________

Tony Rezco:

Well, Obama better enjoy his victory b/c he doesn't have a chance in Texas.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

I don't know about that. The most recent poll on http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has Clinton up by only 10 point, and that was from before Super Tuesday. Obama clearly has momentum and could win there as well. (Or at the very least make it close.) If he wins in Texas, he can argue he is more electable than Clinton in practically every region of the country.

____________________

The General:

Texas will be close because of its primary-caucus hybrid and though I loathe both Obama and Klinton, it's objectively Klinton territory. The two weeks off between Feb 20 and Mar 4 given the Klinton's time to regroup and attack him where he's weak. Expect more race baiting to ensure latinos to turn out. Both of these candidates need to be stopped though. One is a charlatan and the other is a lying sack of crap!

McCain/Romney 08

____________________

Its Tony Rezko, get it right:

I don't think Obama necessarily needs a win in Texas. He has a great crew already on the ground in Ohio, and with a win there, it would really hurt Clinton. There is over 60 delegates that aren't counted yet in states that he has won. I think he will enjoy these 3 wins, along with the nomination.

P.S. I'm sure he will stay within 10 to 15 points of Clinton in Texas, something she cant seem to do anymore in the states hes winning.

____________________

roy:

Well Its, you can hardly expect a person who can't spell Clinton to spell Rezko correctly.

But yeah, Obama isn't running for President of Texas. The "wait till Texas" meme _is_ oddly familiar to a certain other New Yorker's Florida firewall. Clinton can still win this, but when your camp is spending all its time finding a fresh rationalization for each new defeat, it's not exactly a great sign.

____________________

Michael X:

Texas' system (a mixture of primary and caucus) is very complicated, as explained here: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/texass_unique_primaucus.php. So don't assume Clinton has the advantage just because of its size and demographics.

____________________

Michael X:

Oops, need to strip the last "." for the link to work.

____________________

Matt:

To Clinton, a state is only important if she wins it. If not, she makes excuses, like it was a caucus; or there are a lot of black people; or
there are a lot of young people; or educated people; or independents. So it is somehow less important? Is anyone else tired of putting spin ahead of governing?

____________________

Mike:

Matt, you are right on. We never heard Obama making excuses about losing CA, NY, MA, etc. Yet we've had Bill complain and race-bait that Hillary lost SC because of blacks, Hillary whine that she lost WA because of caucuses, etc.

We all knew that FL and MI wouldn't count since 2007. In fact, when campaigning in Iowa, Hillary emphasized that FL and MI "don't count for anything" (a direct quote). Now that Hillary won those two states and is losing everywhere else, Hillary all of a sudden cares about the poor disenfranchised voters in FL and MI. That's just downright sleazy.

____________________

Bill:

I'm a Hillary supporter and just have to give my hat off to Obama. I think it's clear that even if she wins Ohio and Texas the amount will be too small to off set the other states that Obama has won by such large margins. Barring a major Obama screw up, He's in. At least I can come to this realization early. All you other Hillary supporters waiting till March 4th are just going to torture yourselves. I don't know if Obama can win the election, guess that is a whole other story.

____________________

Ruben:

Well, I think its been expected for a while that Febraury was Obama's month. I think Hillary will win Texas and Ohio. If she does she will be on par with Obama. If it goes to the convention, I believe Clinton will be President. There is no way that the brokers at the DNC are going to pick Obama when Clinton has won most of the large states. I can't even remember the last time Democrats had a nominee that didn't win California or New York.

____________________

Steve:

Ruben, you REALLY think the SDs would throw it to Hillary if she is not a head in pledged delegates? That is the most effective way of suppressing the youth vote, independents and non-Clinton-predisposed Dems for the next 20 years I have ever heard.

Have fun trying to beat McCain if it looks like Clinton "stole" the nomination. And don't argue that "Hillary's stolen nomination" won't be the meme that Obama supporters, the media, and McCain, run with, you know it would be. That would peal off enough Dems/Independents to sink any chance she has fair or not. If she wins, its got to be above above-the-board.

____________________

Mike:

I wish 9:46 were Bill Clinton.

____________________

Sournot:

Actually, Hill is ahead. You must count MI and FL. There's no way those votes can be discounted.

____________________

MI and FL are Null:

Actually there is, it's called they went against party rules and were stripped of their delegates. To give them back would be hypocrisy, and it won't happen. The only reasonable compromise would be a do-over, and even that seems illegitimate.

____________________

john:

I think after february obama will be ahead even including super delegates and MI and FL.

____________________

Bill:

Since Obama is going to win the majority of PD's. He'll need to seat MI and FL to insure he has their support during the general. I don't think MI and FL will make a differnce when the primary season is over. Not sure why Obama folks are so frightened of MI and FL since he's pretty much going to wrap this up.

____________________

Obama could very well win Texas. See this analysis by my associate at our blog, Election Inspection - it suggests Obama could win by 3 delegates.

____________________

Jenkster:

"Well, Obama better enjoy his victory b/c he doesn't have a chance in Texas."

Posted by: Tony Rezco

Sounds like a familiar strategy used in Florida by some Republican candidate. What was his name again? Oh no matter. Maybe Clinton can get some advice from him on how to make it work.

____________________

cokie_roberts_bender_id:

Watching the Obama-bots count their chickens before they hatch is pretty hilarious.

Keep assuming the race is over after Feb 19. It will make you all the more foolish looking if it doesn't come to pass for your cult hero.

Drink the kool-aid. It's always worked in history (c.f. Jim Jones).

____________________

RS:

Getting back to the POLL...
Constituent Dynamics has tried to predict the allocation of district-level and state-level delegates using district-wise polls. How much more accurate can this be?

I ran some estimates for the delegate splits on Super Tuesday based on just the state-wide vote shares. For the delegates projected by CNN till now, I am off by only 4 delegates for the 800-odd delegates each candidate has received. When the final counts are in, I might be off by less than 10 delegates - on a base of ~900.

____________________

Brian:

The sad thing about Obama is that no one really knows him, his record, et cetera. In fact, most of his supporters never even knew who he was--or even his name--4 months ago, and now the bandwagon effect. Seems eerily like George W to me. And of course the real kicker is that it was the out-dated and un-democratic Iowa *caucus* that put Obama's name on the map and fed the whole bandwagon effect. Had voters been allowed to choose the candidate of *their choice* as opposed to the candidate of their choice who got more than 15% of the precinct vote, Obama may very well have lost that contest. Shouldn't we all be allowed to vote when we want, for who we want, in private?? This is America, right??

____________________

Michael X:

I think Michigan and Florida could re-schedule a caucus at a later date as a compromise, and if that happens, Obama wouldn't lose many delegates when assigned proportionally. I don't see any way that they will allow these delegates to be reseated unconditionally. Still, I think when all said and done, even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas (a big if since Obama will carry great momentum into March 4th as long as he wins Wisconsin) and later PA, Obama will still finish ahead in term of the number of pledged delegates, the number of states won, and the overall popular vote; when that happens, it will be very hard for the superdelegates to deny his nomination.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

"I think Michigan and Florida could re-schedule a caucus at a later date as a compromise..."

Hell, with the race this tight, they would have more power than if the old numbers counted. It would be a win / win situation.

____________________

Mike:

Why estimate district delegate counts?

So that you don't have another Nevada, where one candidate wins the popular vote, but loses the delegate count. The more gerry-mandered the state, the more closely you need to watch the vote in each district.

____________________

RS:

Actually, my point was more along the lines of - the district-level delegate counts will cancel out. For poll predictions, getting to within 1% of the final tally would be pretty good, IMHO.

By the way, my state-wide estimates overpredicted Senator Obama's count... So Senator Clinton was winning slightly more delegates (+4 last I checked) than would be proportional to her vote share.

____________________

Ban_obamnton :

Expect Hillary to cry for votes on Mar. 4, as she did in NH and CA. She's phony.

Go Mac!

____________________

Ban_obamnton :

Expect Hillary to cry for votes on Mar. 4, as she did in NH and CA. She's phony.

Go Mac!

____________________

Ban_obamnton :

Expect Hillary to cry for votes on Mar. 4, as she did in NH and CA. She's phony.

Go Mac!

____________________

s.b.:

Wow, I guess the people who think Obama will be ahead in votes, and delegates including super delegates and Michigan and Florida can't do math.

Obama will gain somewhere between 30-35 delegates on Clinton today, putting him even or slightly ahead, very slightly. The delegate difference including Florida and Michigan is 65 even if you give Obama 100% of the undeclareds, over 100 if you don't.

Clinton is also ahead right now by 500,000 votes.

So after today if you count, popular vote, all assigned delegates, super delegates even if you assign them 100% as their states voted, which favour her more by the way and is what Obama is calling for lmao, She is still ahead.

The only thing he is ahead in is states won, So what! He won Idaho. etc etc They will never vote Democrat in a general election and they don't come with many super delegates. Why exactly should ALL duely elected superdelegates be compelled to vote against Michigan, Florida the popular vote and their own states because Obama won Idaho????

Clinton is very happy to have the votes of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry et. al., by the way, if that's what the screeching Obamacans demand. She's also happy to have all the super delegates vote for the popular vote winnner, her.

The battle turns in her favour after next tuesday, small states and she looks to win Wisconsin, by the way. Then Obama can kiss the undemocratic caucuses good by and the nomination.

____________________

s.b.:

And if for some reason the hysterical Obama camp does manage to continue the disenfranchisement of 2 million voters in Florida and Michigan and convince Super delegates that they must vote against the popular vote winner, Clinton, against Florida and Michigan, and against their own states to nominate Obama because he won several caucuses in Republican states, that is a losing ticket to the white house.

That would be the dumbest thing the Democratic Party has ever done.

By criticising duely elected super delegates who have for 30 years under the constitution fo the DNC had the right to vote at conventions, Obama has probably kissed any chance he had at a second run or the VP spot good by. It is a very very very bad strategy to be criticising the Party that is supposed to support your nomination in this manner when you have won many of your delegates with Republican votes that dont come with organizations that back you. VERY BAD!

Super delegates are not just one vote, they carry entire election machines with them.

He is playing a very dangerous game thinking he can get elected without them or by bad mouthing them, not to mention without Michigan and Florida. He is losing the white house with his attempts to win the nomination by disenfranchising delegates of all kinds.

____________________

Ruben:

Michigan and Florida will be counted, I have no doubt about that. To not do so is to cause the democrats to lose both States in November. In the end Hillary will be ahead if only slightly. I again very much doubt that the DNC big wigs in a brokered convention are going to pick an inexperience "new" candidates over a well known, expirienced canddidate. Especially if she wins the largest States. How would pick Utah or California.?

____________________

Harald K:

A bit amusing hearing the Clinton supporters accuse the Obama supporters of being "hysterical".

It's an old misogynistic slur, folks, not at all appropriate for supporters of the first woman president (maybe!).

____________________

RS:

@s.b.:

The superdelegates were put in place to ensure "the liberal radicals" of the party didn't swing the nomination to someone the party establishment considered "unelectable." Never mind if said unelectable nominee won the popular vote. By even your logic, that is undemocratic.
On the other hand, let's say superdelegates can do what they want, and back someone "electable" in their minds, because that's what the party rules apparently say.
Then, MI and FL don't count either - that's what the party rules also say!

The rules are what they are. You can't pick and choose among them to get the result in your favor.

As for winning what you might "red" states - if Senator Obama wins the Virginia primaries today by a huge margin, doesn't that mean he would be the better candidate to win Virginia in the general? After all, the state-wide offices have been trending Democratic recently.

____________________

Anonymous:

"If he wins in Texas, he can argue he is more electable than Clinton in practically every region of the country."

Except California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Tennessee, Florida...states Democrats need to win in order to win the White House. It's cute that he won the Alaska and Idaho (among others) primaries, but those states aren't going to swing Dem in '08.

____________________

Anonymous:

scratch that...Idaho and Alaska CAUCUSES.

____________________

RS:

@anonymous:
Are you suggesting that if Senator Obama wins the delegate count, he should not be the nominee just because he did not win CA/MA/NJ - traditional Democratic strongholds, just like Idaho is Republican?

By the way, the Democrats do not "need" to win TN (which, along with AR, has gone convincingly Republican in both 2000 and 2004). There are other winnable, currently-Republican states - e.g. Colorado (Obama), Virginia (probably Obama), and maybe New Mexico (toss-up, currently Clinton).

____________________

Noor:

I'm a Hillary supporter. I believe she will ultimately win a hard won battle. If Obama does miraculously win, I'm sorry, but I can't vote for someone that no one really knows. Even Obama's supporters can't say what tangible things he's accomplished for his constituencies. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will have to go with the experienced candidate with a serious resume and that is John McCain.

____________________

s.b.:

The only way Obama wins is to systematically disenfranchise voters, through caucuses, denying Florida and Michigan their delegates and bad mouthing super delegates. How many people do you think you can disenfranchise before you have lost the white house.

By the way the "rules" say nothing about taking delegates away from Florida and Michigan. Howard Dean did that. it can be refersed and will be or the Democrates will not win the white house.

And I am familair with the etymology of the word hysterical. How about cult followers or American Idolizers? Like I said, just how many democrats and election machines do you think you can disenfranchise and still win the white house?

By the way, there are no caucuses in a general election.

____________________

@ Expect Hillary to cry for votes on Mar. 4, as she did in NH and CA. She's phony.
Posted by: Ban_obamnton | February 12, 2008 5:56 AM

I'm not touching it. I see it, but I'm not touching it.

@RS, re: MI and FL - alas, you can pick and choose amongst the rules. Creating, changing, cancelling, folding, spindling and mutilating the rules is what being a party insider is all about. That's their thing; it makes them happy. Besides, whatever happens will be seen as a good thing by those who benefit and a bad thing by those who lose out. Holding special caucuses / primaries for MI and FL will be seen by Clinton supporters as rewriting history if Obama subsequently wins them, and if he loses them, Obama supporters will see it as making an end run around the rule that those delegates won't count (forgetting they asked for the special caucuses / primaries to begin with). And so it goes...

____________________

emcee:

Fellow dems - but we've got two of the best candidates we've ever had.

Clearly, there is room for disagreement over which is best, but your second choice is still pretty darned good.

So let's take the flame-war down a notch, shall we?

____________________

Bryan:

It does look good for the Dems, no matter who is on the ticket in November

____________________

RS:

@Noor: Even if Senator Clinton were the nominee, she would still lose to Senator McCain on the basis of "experience." She can't touch his record - American hero, prisoner-of-war and all that, actually elected repeatedly for decades, very long history of sticking to his principles even if it means defying party orthodoxy, etc.

@s.b. - Nobody bad-mouthed superdelegates. All Senator Obama said was "they should follow the wishes of the electorate." If Senator Clinton comes out ahead, well, they should back her. How hard is that? As for disenfranchising voters - we are all aware of the Nevada fiasco, where Clinton-backers tried to stop the caucus sites on the Strip after the Culinary Workers endorsed Senator Obama - almost a year after the original plan was proposed and approved by all concerned.
Of course, the irony there is those Strip caucuses went heavily for Senator Clinton. As I think Roland Martin said on CNN, "be careful who you try to disenfranchise... they may be your supporters!"

@Ciccina: FL and MI are going to make things ugly, for sure. The only way I see out of this is either Senator Clinton gets a blow-out victory in Texas and Ohio, or Senator Obama does something similar. Wanna bet on that? :-)

____________________

Noor:

Sorry RS, don't buy it. John McCain military
record I admit is hard to touch, but his Achille's heel is elsewhere and that is domestic policy. He can't touch Hillary on that. People are having a difficult time now in this economy and her expertise on that front is what we need right now. Obama doesn't have any record of military service period. At least Hillary is a member of the Armed Services committee and very well regarded in that capacity.

____________________

s.b.:

RS the Obama campaign is most certainly bad mouthing super delegates and the entire Democratic PArty and election machine with them, which are one and the same of course. By supporting the electorate what exactly does he mean by the way?

As I have outlined if they vote with their state, she gains more super delegates, if they vote with the popular vote, she gains more super delegates and if they vote with their conscience including Michigan and Florida delegates in their head count, Clinton wins the Super delegates (and in my democratic Party there are voters in Michigan and Florida)

What is it exactly the Obama camp wants? She wins in all scenarios except the systematic bad mouthing of voters in Florida and Michigan and Superdelegates?

Please outline who you think super delegates should vote with? Their State, the popular vote, delegates including Florida and Michigan, or for Obama?

Seems to me like you just want them to vote for Obama or to disenfranchise them with bad mouthing. They are duely elected representatives of the democratic party and the democratic electorate by the way. And why shouldnt they count Florida nad Michigan in their minds to make up their decisions?

Please elaborate because any way I do the math, Clinton should have more super delegate votes, if not all of them, by your logic.

Again bad mouthing the super delegates free vote, which is in essence the entire democratic election machine, is no way to win the white house!

____________________

RS:

What exactly does the Obama camp want - ask them that. I am not connected with them in any way. Heck, I'd be happy if either McCain, Clinton or Obama becomes President - for different reasons (read my blog for that).

If you do the state-wide popular vote counts, it turns out Senator Clinton actually won more delegates on Super Tuesday than would be proportional to her vote (again, I have a post on my blog about how I get there).

But - count *all* pledged delegates (excluding FL/MI) - and Senator Obama as of now still comes out ahead. This is, of course, assuming no back-room maneuvering goes on to distort the results of caucus states at their state conventions.

All of this is as yet premature. Any argument (popular vote, delegates, states) is based on contests thus far; we still have many more states to go (Potomac primaries, Texas, Ohio, PA, RI, VT, IN... PR!) As one of the Superdelegates said, they should hold off till the contest is further along. This route could favor Senator Clinton or Senator Obama - but let the chips fall where they may. If you read my blog, you'd know that I foresee a difficult path ahead for Senator Obama.

By the way, s.b. - I haven't bad-mouthed superdelegates anywhere - do not try to distort my record! ;-)

____________________



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