Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Daily Tracking


Gallup Poll

National (5/31 to 6/4)
McCain 46, Obama 45

National (6/4 only)
Obama 45, McCain 45
Obama/Clinton 50, McCain 45

Also
"An Early Gallup Road Map to the McCain-Obama Matchup"

Rasmussen Reports

National
Obama 47, McCain 45

Favorable / Unfavorable
McCain 55 / 42
Obama 54 / 43

Also
"51% of Democrats Back Obama-Clinton Ticket"

 

Comments
Uri:

What happened to the tracking graphs on this site for the GE matchup?

Time to bring them back for the daily tracking...

____________________

onelightonvoice:

mark,

please post this susa poll as well....it will help explain why there is barely any effect with clinton on the ticket:


http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/06/05/is-hillary-more-interested-in-whats-best-for-america-or-whats-best-for-hillary-clinton/

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: Extra! Extra! Read all about it!
Obama supporters think HRC wants the VP for herself, HRC supporters say it's for the country.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

wow, you can't even read a poll. I can ask you politely right, do you know english?


"Asked of registered voters (including Republicans and Independents):"


This wasn't asked of just people who support one or the other. Gawd, do I have to explain everything to you? Every thread, I have to explain something to you.


From "Anchorman":

"Maybe you should stop talking for awhile there champ....yeah, sit a couple plays out"

____________________

Uri:

There are no crosstabs given so we can't tell how many were republicans and independents (who are all Obama's new supporters now, right?).

However, it is interesting that the results correspond to Obama bastions (Wash state, Philly)

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: Before you flame, my little troll, try to read the available crosstabs by candidate votes.

For example, take Wash state:
Clinton voters ~75% "what's good for the country", whereas non-clinton voters ~75% "What's good for Hillary".

Since WA and Philly are democratic Obama bastions, the number of HRC voters is simply not high enough.

How is that different from what I said to begin with?

____________________

onelightonvoice:

uri-

yup, New York is an Obama bastion, uh-huh, ok. Keep livin the dream there bud, or nightmare, whatever it may be for you....

denial is not a river in egypt, silly, silly guy.

clinton only brings in 5 points, not even outside the moe. geez, read much?

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: My time allotment for dealing with trolls for today is about expired.

However, I stand by what I said, you can see a clear progression by which way voters are leaning. Obamamites and Republicans say "for Hillary", Hillary voters say "for the country".

____________________

onelightonvoice:

@URI-

Umm, okaaaay. The truth hurts, doesn't it? It's okay, hush now, it will all be over soon....

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

@Uri: Please ignore onelightonvoice. He does not represent the vast majority of us rational, pragmatic, intelligent Obama supporters. I understand you are rattled by this long primary season, and I only hope that you'll formulate your opinion of Obama for the general not from trolls like onelightonvoice, but from rational people like me, or the candidate himself, who, you will find, is actually very similar to Hillary policy-wise, and will undoubtedly surround himself with extremely qualified, "experienced" advisors.

____________________

mago:

I don't much care why Clinton wants the VP slot, since she won't be making the decision.

Today's Ras poll: O 45 M 40. Also from Ras, In Missouri O +1, in W. Virginia M +7 (I think, could be 8). These numbers all hint at a post-victory bounce; +5 nationally and +1 MO are both good, and -7 in WV is a big improvement over SUSA's -18.

____________________

Nickberry:

Unfortunately, "onelightvoice" does not agree or abide with the "comment policy"... and based on his phrasing I would say that he has been warned or banned already several times under different screennames.

I want to commend Uri for engaging in "intelligent and civil comment." Hope to see you on the next pollster topic.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

nickberry-

That's real funny nickleberry. I believe calling women who support Obama "Jezebel-style faux-neo-feminists" is not intelligent nor civil. But, hey, rules and regulations only apply to Obama and his supporters, right? Isn't that how the game is played for Clinton supporters?

Funny, her political career is over. The tactics she used during the last few months assured her of no spot on anyone's ticket.


And further evidence of her deceptive practices continue to come out (almost daily it seems):

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/06/clinton-supporter-says-campaign-aide-looked-to-use-racial-tension/

____________________

Nickberry:

Maybe I am missing something... where did I or anyone on this particular topic use that term? And anyway how does a generalized statement equate to directly disparaging another poster... as in how you went on the personal attack against Uri in questioning his reading and comprehension skills? Such was truly unwarranted.

Again I (with civility) ask that the "comment policy" be taken seriously: "Our one primary rule is that commenters keep the dialogue civil."


____________________

onelightonvoice:

nickleberry-

Yeah, you might want to check the last thread for the despicable way he described women who support Obama.

Uri has repeatedly used derogatory terms to describe Obama supporters. He apparently doesn't understand that calling McCain the "crypt keeper" isn't quite equivalent to calling Obama the "n-word". Maybe you should explain it to him......

(that's also on the last thread)


By the way, still waiting for an explanation from Clinton supporters for:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/06/clinton-supporter-says-campaign-aide-looked-to-use-racial-tension/

____________________

Nickberry:

First... your link is an unsubstantiated claim from a disgruntled person.

Second... What does another topic thread have to do with your bad behavior on this thread?

Third... I am done here. You got the message. Whether you choose to be civil or not is your prerogative, but do not expect others to ignore harassing comments targeted at another poster.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

nicklberry-

First - The link is from a CLINTON SUPPORTER, New Jersey Congressman Rob Andrews. Nice try trying to make him seem illegitimate. Nope, that didn't work. Try again. Funny how anyone who brings truth to the forefront is automatically labeled "disgruntled". It didn't work for Bush, what makes you think it'll work for you??


Second - Let me repost it since you seemed to have not read it the first time around:

"I believe calling women who support Obama "Jezebel-style faux-neo-feminists" is not intelligent nor civil. But, hey, rules and regulations only apply to Obama and his supporters, right? Isn't that how the game is played for Clinton supporters?"


Third- Hmmm, I guess it's "do as I say not as I do". Why am I not surprised??

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: Since I used that term, I have to object to the argument that I described all female Obama supporters as such.

However, there is a small core group of young yuppie women who write primarily in the online media, that on the one hand preach feminism and on the other hand shame the republicans in their sexist remarks about Hillary.

Jezebel from Gawker media (who run the much-better Consumerist) had articles this week such as "a graph of Hillary losses" (with a lot of sexist remarks), and a description of her speech on Tuesday as "Genocidal" (which they have taken off later on). Earlier in the primary season, they made fun of her fashion sense. These women are supposedly feminist, but their incredibly popular blog primarily deal with reality show, fashion, sex (of the slutty=feminist approach, etc.)

This kind of approach is similar to Huffington's descriptions of Hillary as "The witch" and so on.

These are obviously not all female Obama supporters, but a very distinct and vocal group who stand by what they believe.


____________________

Nickberry:

Yes... I know the link is from a "Clinton" supporter... but he just lost his New Jersey primary bid to 84-year old Senator Frank Lautenberg (uncommitted at the time)... one of America's best-know Jewish politicians. This guy was running uncontested and Lautenberg was recruited to run against him.

Additionally, this racial divide between Jews and blacks was supposed to be exploited in the Pennsylvania race... And Hillary already had the Jewish vote. (Note: Governor Rendell is Jewish.) Hillary is NOT the one with the Jewish vote problem.

There is NO substantiating evidence, and apparently this guy will not reveal the name of the person who supposedly made that phone call to him.

I think he is just lashing out and also trying to ingratiate himself with the Obama campaign.

____________________

Nickberry:

And...onelightvoice... What is this: "Third- Hmmm, I guess it's "do as I say not as I do". Why am I not surprised??"

I have been in full compliance with the comment policy. False accusations against me are unwarranted.

Thank you, Uri... for further addressing one of the issues that is bothering "onelightvoice." I agree that some of these so-called feminists are really out there.... and deserve to be labeled "faux neo-feminists" with whatever additional descriptors one believes to be required.

____________________

Uri:

Trying to use the mythical black-jew hatred (which pretty much exists in the one neighborhood in NYC that they actually share but not in the rest of the country) is nonsensical and I doubt the HRC camp would have gone for it. In fact, it would have been difficult for them to do it without attracting an even higher turnout in Philly from the AAs which would be self-defeating. A better strategy would have been to expose Obama on his fake commitment to Israeli security.

I'm not sure Hillary really ever had the jewish vote.

Obama did get a lot of the younger yuppie jews, the intellectuals, and the college kids that tend to be in the "let's be friends to Israel by telling it how wrong it is" camp. Anecdotally, there's actually been a car covered with Obama stickers always parking in front of the Pittsburgh Hillel the last few times I was visiting the city.

The older voters that tend to be more pro-Israeli (and who were in the Clinton camp anyway because of race) tended to naturally go with her. But many are actually republicans.

I think that Obama is still going to pick up the younger jews, but McCain will likely make a play for the older ones in Florida and southeastern PA.

Obama's recent appearance at AIPAC may have bought him some supporters (even though he didn't even do basic fact-checking about the three soldiers: one of them is in Hamas's hand, it's not only Hizbollah).

However, most jews likely see through it and are waiting to see how he speaks to muslims in Michigan. He was more pro-Israeli than Bush ever was, and that made him seem like he was trying to please to audience too much.

I would think that Obama loses a jew every time Carter shows up. Carter is considered an antisemite red-flag in most jewish circles, and that affiliation will hopefully hurt Obama.

Another interesting anecdote about the jewish vote is that I remember reading a few years ago that for a while political polls in Israel included Bill Clinton as a possible candidate for prime minister there in order to tease out the actual level of support for the native candidates, and he won overwhelmingly. Considering that the current PM has approval ratings that are even lower than President Bush's, maybe Obama fans should consider sending Hillary out there to run in the upcoming elections :)

____________________

Nickberry:

Hillary does have the Jewish vote. The exit polls indicated that... and that Obama has problems there. And she is Senator of the State of New York which has one of the largest Jewish populations. Historically, the majority of Jewish voters go with Democrats. There is no need to have even considered a strategy of Jew/black divisiveness.

Obama really flipped on his position with his speech at AIPAC. Originally, Obama went after both Hillary and McCain for voting for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment that designated the Iran Red Guard (?) as a terrorist organization... and then this week said that in fact these guys should be listed as terrorists. Of course, Senator Lieberman had a few choice words to say against Obama on his hyprocrisy... and apparently Obama confronted Lieberman in the Senate... as an aside "private" conversation. Wow, to be a fly on the wall at that moment. Bottom line is that Jewish voters like Obama's "new" position, but they do not trust him.

Very interesting anecdote about Israel.... and humorous.

____________________



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