Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Daily Tracking


Gallup Poll

National
Obama 52, Clinton 43
McCain 46, Obama 45... Clinton 48, McCain 45

Also
"As Primary Campaign Ends, Clinton's Image Mostly Intact"
"General Election Shaping Up as Change vs. Experience"

Rasmussen Reports

National
Obama 47, McCain 45

Favorable / Unfavorable
McCain: 53 / 44
Obama: 55 / 43

Trust on Issues
Economy: McCain 44, Obama 40
Iraq: McCain 51, Obama 37

 

Comments
Nickberry:

The poll results and narrative for the link above "As Primary Campaign Ends, Clinton's Image Mostly Intact" is very informative and should put to rest those contending Hillary is a "loser" as well as substantiate the feelings of those who feel positve about her.

What should concern Obama supporters is that McCain in this and other polls is beating Obama out on the Economy and Iraq... when these are supposed to be the strengths of the Democratic part this year.

____________________

RS:

@Nickberry:

I do not worry about these numbers - just yet. The wounds of a very tough, divisive primary are still fresh, and will take time to heal.
The more the Obama campaign reaches out to Senator Clinton's supporters and the more the latter realize that on the issues, Senator Obama is far better than Senator McCain, the better these numbers will look for Senator Obama.

____________________

marctx:

I hold great pride in Senator Clinton holding on to a high approval rating and still maintaining the talking point AFTER already loosing....wait for it...Clinton beats McCain, Obama looses. I sure Obama is going to spit in Hillary's and her supporters faces by not picking her as VP. So McCain has a great opportunity to pick a woman and steal A LOT of votes. This getting interesting.

____________________

mago:

I believe 55 is as high as Obama's favorables have been in a long time. We'll see where things go from here.

Who is calling Clinton a 'loser,' beyond the obvious fact that she lost? That's the sort of macho crap we usually hear from Carville and his ilk. She does run the risk of being considered selfish and even delusional, and more importantly, she runs the risk of _being_ selfish and putting her ambition ahead of her country. If she follows that path, no poll will redeem her reputation.

____________________

Nickberry:

Well, if one listens to the news networks, there are plenty calling Hillary "loser." I accused no one here of that, which is evident since I posted first.

And as for being considered as "putting her ambition ahead of her country"... she is no more guilty of that then Obama. This idea that someone is "selfish" because they look out for their own best political interests is dumb... unless you want to assign that attribute to all candidates.

By the way...mago... calling my comment "macho crap" was unwarranted. You might want to read Pollster's comment policy and edit your comments next time around.

____________________

Nickberry:

I cannot see... RS... how Hillary plays into Obama's polling on the economy and Iraq against McCain.

Do you really think that there are that many disenfranchised Hillary supporters in these polling samples? If so, Obama should be worried.

____________________

@ mago,

Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it I guess, there's still plenty of negative macho crap pouring out of Obamadom. For example, last night's NY Times' Opinionator column did a brief round-up that included the following:

Matt Yglesias @ The Atlantic: "I probably shouldn't write any more about this woman and her staff. Suffice it to say that I've found her behavior over the past couple of months to be utterly unconscionable and this speech is no different."

Dana Goldstein @ The American Prospect: "The more I think about it, the more it seems that Hillary's entire speech was manufactured to rile up her supporters."

Jonathan Chait @ The New Republic: "I'd say that anybody on her staff who cares about their party has a moral obligation to publicly quit and endorse Obama."

Isaac Chotiner @ The New Republic: "If Clinton wants people to believe that she cares more about the Democratic Party than her own career, she is failing badly."

Noam Sheiber @ The New Republic: called Hillary's speech "outrageous," "delusional," and "inflammatory."

Now, I pasted all of that to make one point. Even as Obama claimed the nomination - and even as these guys berated Hillary for being divisive - they could not stop themselves from being incredibly obnoxious. Instead of helping to draw Hillary's supporters in, they drove the wedge in deeper.

From this I gather that SOME Obama supporters will not let the hate die. They'll keep pushing and pushing. High off the 'holier than thou' ego boost, perhaps. When things start to go wrong for Barack, it'll be Hillary's fault. Wait and see.

On Gallup's research: I'm sorry to be critical of pollster.com, but there really should have been a link to a different Gallup report: Clinton Maintains Loyalty of Democratic Women to the End http://www.gallup.com/poll/107659/Hillary-Maintains-Loyalty-Democratic-Women-End.aspx.

Having read this, Jay Costs' 4-part analysis of Obama's coalition (including the weaknesses thereof), and SurveyUSA's Obama+VP matchups in California, Ohio and Virginia, it looks pretty obvious that Obama desperately needs to win over white women voters. The best move - the most strategic and efficient move - he could make would be to ask Hillary to be his running mate.

Even I, solidly deadset against voting for Obama in November, would have to reverse myself if Hillary is on the ticket. How could I not vote for a ticket that includes her?

I'm betting he's too proud to do it, and that the rabid portion his fanbase wouldn't allow it. I agree with marktx. Once he turns down Hillary, he'll cement his image as, well, you know.

More trouble ahead, then.

____________________

Uri:

Hillary last night made a statement to all women: If you want something (the VP in this case), use your strength to get it, don't get it as a favour or a trade.

The survey is from before the speech, it would have been interesting to see how that will affect things but we'd have to wait a few days. I wish the pollsters would resume polling about HRC vs. Obama as that may be sign of strength and buyer's remorse (or of HRC disappearing into history), but I'd still like to see the numbers. Doubt they would get them.

____________________

RS:

@Nickberry:
Senator Clinton made a fierce case till almost the very end that she's the better candidate, that Senator Obama doesn't have the experience, etc. Do you think some of her supporters would not have bought it completely?
Many people still perceive Senator McCain as a moderate, a semi-Democrat if you will (Ciccina's head explodes as I write this ;-) ). So given Senator Clinton's line - "I bring a lifetime of experience, Senator McCain brings a lifetime of experience, Senator Obama brings a speech he gave in 2002" (or words to that effect) - I would not be surprised to find many Hillary-crats either undecided or swinging to McCain as of now. That also explains (to some extent) why Senator McCain's performing much better (+10%?) than a generic Republican.

@Ciccina:
Are any of these sources the spokespersons for the Obama campaign? No. Give quotes directly from David Axelrod or Gibbs or Senator Obama himself, and then you have a point. Besides, aren't you yourself unwilling to let the hate die by sitting out November?

As I have said before, I think an Obama/Clinton ticket might be unavoidable. Yet, the prerogative to select a VP rests with the P. And as Congressman Rangel put it, pressure on Senator Obama to pick Senator Clinton as his VP will likely be counter-productive.
Finally, as Senator Clinton's quote shows, she herself has much amends to make, if she really wants the Democrats to win in November. Her quotes are already making their way into GOP ads, I believe. Hard to have a VP who publicly said the P is not qualified - this is not an issue-specific "voodoo economics" comment.

____________________

Patrick:

Ciccina is right. The very best way for Obama to instantly attract white women (not to mention Hispanics, working class men, and Jews) - all key swing groups in the big swing states - would be for him to put Clinton on his ticket. Snubbing her would anger so many of her supporters (who were AT LEAST half of all the voters for both of them and more than half of registered Democrats), he would be putting his own election at great risk. The interesting thing is that if Clinton agrees to the VP slot, Obama is much more likely to be elected (and her own chances of ever being President diminished). But if she's really convinced Obama will not win against McCain without her (and some insiders say she is), she will turn him down even if he asks with the prospect that she can run again in 4 years as a much stronger ("I told you so") presidential candidate.

____________________

Uri:

@RS:
"Senator Clinton made a fierce case that she's the better candidate, that Senator Obama doesn't have the experience, etc. Do you think some of her supporters would not have bought it completely?"

Have you thought about the possibility that some of her voters did not support Obama in the first place for these reasons even without Hillary having to illustrate these points for them?

Somebody who thinks that Obama is completely unqualified (e.g., me) may have thought so as soon as it was first mentioned that he would run, and would still think so even now, and even if Hillary was on the ticket, or if Hillary embraced him, or if Hillary dropped out three months ago.

The fact is that for people who don't trust Obama but who do trust Hillary and Mccain, nothing has changed. I'm personally torn between McCain and Obama since I really like McCain and dislike his opinions, and I dislike Obama but like the opinions he took from Hillary.

____________________

Uri:

@Patrick:

I disagree with the argument that HRC has an interest in having Obama lose just for the "I told you so" factor. That is the kind of mud that's been thrown around in the first place by Obama supporters.

Besides, being VP puts her in a good position in 8 years from now. Not being VP means that nothing is guaranteed.

I don't understand why people think that the pres and VP have to like each other or be a good team, or whatever. It's not like they ever meet each other past inauguration day (present administration excluded).

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

It's a healing process both for McCain and Obama. Ron Paul got 24% of the Idaho vote which was last week, 24%!!! 17% in South Dakota. Both parties aren't united so I think it'll be sloppy for a couple months and perhaps sad for McCain that he hasn't done anything to get hard-core neocons like Limbaugh off his back.

____________________

Nickberry:

LBJ becoming JFK's VP is a good example of how two strong candidates who fought for the nomination can come together to make a winning team. And notably LBJ brought in the winning electoral votes that JFK could not do on his own.

____________________

starbase135:

Ron Paul's results in Idaho and South Dakota are neither surprising nor significant. He is a candidate who has a lot of strong activists behind him who turned out anyway after he effectively ended his campaign. The majority of republicans (who supports McCain relatively heavily) stayed home because the GOP nomination is already tied up. More significant is the number of votes Huckabee is still receiving. Unlike Paul his supporters are not activists but plain normal republicans who don't think that McCain shares their conservative values...THAT is the really troubling thing for the GOP right now.

____________________

Uri:

@Nickberry: You're right. It's probably one of the reasons that Obama did not mention LBJ as a president of change last night... Even though he brought much greater change than JFK, Truman and Roosevelt.

____________________

@ RS - that's okay, I'm using duct tape to hold it together these days. ;-)

I think writing "Obamadom" was a mistake -I should have been more precise and less colorful.

I contend that Yglesias et al represent a cadre of *some* Obama *supporters.* A very visible, obnoxious cadre that influences the way many perceive the campaign. In fact, my point is not that they are puppets of Obama - its the opposite - he can't control them. I don't think he can pull all of these guys and Maureen Dowd back from the brink and on to a different message. They'll in effect act as surrogates, whether Obama likes it or not.

You're absolutely right, I'm not willing to let the hate die. But I'm *already* the villain in this story; the "problem." Obama's camp - and the supporters who happen to influence the way people perceive his camp - are supposed to be the good, high-minded folk who win over voters like me with their noble call to work for the common good. Its just that some of those dogs won't hunt.

Anyhoo, given that the VP slot is a live issue, I think its massively foolish for SurveyUSA to not be testing an Obama-Clinton ticket. I mean, they test Obama-Hagel, but not Obama-Clinton. But its their dime. It looks like Gallup will provide data instead.

____________________

@ Andrew-in-California,

I suspect you are right though about both parties still having significant fault lines. I would think some of the evangelicals still see McCain as a combo of disloyal (to the President), too big government (campaign finance reform) and not sufficiently committed to godliness (moderate image). It would certainly help the Dems if some of those Bush '00 and '04 stay home in '08.

____________________

RS:

@Ciccina:
I am sure Senator Obama will do all he can to bring over Hillary-crats (I wonder if I coined that term - I like it!) After all, he ain't an idiot!

SUSA did poll Michigan with an Obama/Clinton ticket - in addition to Obama/Gore!! Probably because they tested only McCain/Romney (so they could offer more choices on the Dem side). No significant effect, though.
http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/05/28/vp-matchups-romney-helps-mccain-win-michigan/

Still, polling Obama/Hagel and not Obama/Clinton is just dumb. The only point where Hagel appeals to Democrats (other than being White for those Hillary-crats) is the Iraq War. He might as well be SecDef.

@Uri:
You, of course, are entitled to your opinions. Folks conveniently forget that Senator Obama has been elected to public office more often than Senator Clinton. And if such people haven't learned anything from the 16-month-long primary process, well, just too bad.
In any case, I never said your type of people do not exist - but the other group I mentioned probably do as well. And likely in good number - after all, Senator McCain does poll 10+% better than a generic Republican. And Senator Obama needs just 5% or so to score a very comfortable victory.

Somewhat tangentially, there are also those people who would rather there was a separate party and quotas for Blacks and other minorities (like it might be the case in some countries), so Whites never have to vote for a minority candidate. Thankfully, the USA is not one of those countries, and Senator Obama doesn't need the support of such people either.

____________________

Uri:

@RS: I hope you are not suggesting that I am in that tangential group. My problem with Obama has nothing to do with his race. I would dislike him just as well if he was white. He would be like an even worse version of John Edwards, which is bad enough.

I do not think it is a bad idea, however, for racial groups that want to push something to run as a party. That, of course, is only possible in a multiparty system.

____________________

zmercier:

Lets let the emotions die down for a couple weeks and then have all voters answer this question.

What type of judge do you want to replace Justices Stevens and Ginsburg? If McCain replaces these 2 judges all of our lives will change in very dramatic ways. He has already told us so - its no secret.

So Hillary supporters - lets let the dust settle and then think about what is best for the court and our country.

____________________

kingsbridge77:

The candidate whom Drudge decides to support will have the upper edge. Drudge has been called "the most important journalist in the world".

He seems to be an Obama supporter this time around.

Time will tell.

____________________

KS:

Obama supporters should stop fantasizing that Hillary voters would come to the rescue. I think Obama supporters are pitiful - one minute insulting Hillary voters and then another minute begging their support. We won't be fooled. It's time for action - to work full time for McCain, a war hero, to pull down Obama!

____________________

Uri:

@zmercier: I heard those arguments over and over. My guess is that it will bring some HRC voters back into the fold, but far short of all of them.

All the women who so strongly attacked Hillary over the campaign: Huffington, Dowd, etc. will be the ones to blame for the Roe vs. Wade reversal. If they wanted to fight for women's right, they shouldn't have sided with the one who'd call them "sweetie".

____________________

Uri:

@kingsbridge77: Drudge has reported on three elections so far ('96, '00, '04), that is barely a statistical sample to determine his predictive powers. Besides, isn't he the one who announced Hillary won PA by a mere 1%?

____________________

RS:

@KS:
It is quite sad that all you want is to pull down someone, rather than positively support the other candidate.

Good luck with that attitude.

____________________

RS:

Random observation: Even in SD which overall went for Senator Clinton 55-45, Whites aged 18-29 (12% of voters) favored Senator Obama 68-32. I think this has been a major feature of this campaign.
Proof that future generations will not care about race.
Always towards a more perfect union - the USA, still a darn sight better than all other countries.

____________________

Uri:

@RS: I have to agree with KS, what goes around, comes around...

And if you really believe that future generations will not care about race because young voters currently supported Obama, I applaud you. Conservatism and racism increases with age. It's not necessarily that these younger voters are not going to be racists.

Heck, they could simply be more sexists than racists :)

____________________

axiom2008:

Just imagine: Obama doesn't pick Hillary but picks someone like Bidden with foreign experience to counter McCains foregin experience.
However what McCain does is gets Condi Rice as VP and not only has a 'female' but first Black female as VP candidate meaning not only are they breaking Obama's 'black' strength but are also getting all of Hillary's women to come on the other side. This would be war.

____________________

RS:

@Uri:
Let's just say that I have a different, more optimistic worldview than you do. And as I told KS, good luck with that attitude.

As for the rest of your trope - see my response to Ciccina.

____________________

Swingebreech:

Well, if Hillary does get the VP slot, thanks to Cheney's machinations she'll have more power than Barack!

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Cheney didn't increase the powers of the vice-presidency in any legal sort of ways - nor is the influence of a particular cabinet member in one administration indicative of influence in the next.

In JFK's administration, the attorney-general (Bobby Kennedy) had the ear of the president. In the first Nixon administration the NSA was more important than Will Rogers, the secretary of state (Kissinger was eventually made Secretary of State). In the first Bush administration, Wolfowitz was an important player, although he was not really a member of cabinet. It all depends on the mix of people and personalities.

____________________

onelightonevoice:

Uri-

Calling someone sweetie is not akin to calling your WIFE a c*nt (in public no less). Hmm, I wonder who has sexist undertones in their character??? Get real.

____________________

Swingebreech:

@eternaltriangle

I concur with what you've written, and don't think it negates what I've said. Clinton is a power player; her ability to "play the game" is one of the main reasons I voted for her.

If she does end up being the VP, it will be very interesting to see how she would make use of Cheney's precedent. (Legality is not the main issue, only that his power grab has not as yet been specifically marked as illegal.)

____________________

@ RS,

Testy, testy. What happened to the wooing? :-)

I disagree about quotas. My understanding (based almost entirely on Europe) is that when imposed on political parties in parliamentary systems they have worked well in terms of broadening support and increasing enthusiasm. Also the "consociational" parliamentary systems that ensure balanced representation among constituencies have done a good job in promoting tolerance / moderation in countries such as the Netherlands and Suriname. If the Iraqi parliament were to abide by quotas for female MPs, I guarantee you their government would be (more) moderate.

I know I don't need to tell someone with your intelligence this, and I say this out of respect - a word to the wise, so to speak - you can't wish voters like me (and unlike me) away. Nor do we go away just by saying that we're wrong, temperamentally challenged or morally suspect. The problem for Obama persists, and the best hope he and his supporters have for a victory in November is to try to truly understand what we're thinking in our various different ways. This isn't the Kobayashi Maru (sp?) here - there are ways through it [personally, I suggest Hillary as VP]. Right now the temptation to overgeneralize or leave assumptions unchallenged are his / your biggest enemies.

That said, the next time someone mentions racism as a factor for voting for Clinton and doesn't mention the equally "compelling" numbers that point to sexism as a reason for voting for Obama (by this I mean the number of voters who indicated gender was an important factor for them, and voted for Obama) - well, I'm just not going to think very highly of them. So there.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

ciccina, what makes you think obama cares about "voters like you"?

He may care about rational hillary people that are willing to look at facts and vote their interests, but, obviously by his lack of campaigning in WV and KY, he does not care about people with deep biases who would never vote for him anyway - no matter what he said. why cater to people who are racists (not saying you are)?

you have already, in your various posts, tried to portray him as an anti-woman candidate by citing various half-truths, distortions, and outright lies. so why would he give a hoot about you and your kind that demonize him repeatedly without foundation? why do you deserve ANY respect??

the myth that hillary will deliver her voters is just ridiculous. many of her voters are racist and will vote mccain even if she is on the ticket. maybe she will deliver some hardcore feminist supporters, but so what? that pales to the number of supporters he would lose and the bullseye he would have due to the presence of a one bill clinton.

many hillary voters are beginning to come around anyway, so it is a moot point now....

one thing ciccina, once obama opens up a 20 point lead over mccain, what will you say then??

the first debate, when everyone sees them on stage together, it will be over. game. set. match.


____________________

Uri:

@onelight: Have no idea who you're referring to.

____________________

Uri:

@onelight: Have no idea who you're referring to.

Why are HRC voters irrational and "racist" in not supporting Obama, but 99% of AA who support Obama do so based on qualifications?

You could have run OJ Simpson for the nomination and they would have voted for him just as well.

____________________

Uri:

@eternaltriangle: Nobody considered Cheney to be a real vice president because he wasn't actually a politician who hoped for the presidency one way. It's obvious from the start it was Bush's way of nullifying that post, and people were ok with it because it was still a better VP choice than his father's.

____________________

RS:

@Ciccina:
Well... when someone says they support Senator McCain because they want to pull down Senator Obama - you betcha it gets my goat. Still, I never said that is a wrong attitude to have - KS and Uri are welcome to it. It's just different from my perspective. I could be wrong too, but only time will tell. And so I wish them well on their path ;-)

I would never wish Senator Clinton's supporters away, and I am pretty sure Senator Obama won't, either. I am not a fool - they are half the Democratic Party! But really, all we can do is point out rationally and calmly the facts - like the false impression that Senator Obama has NO experience, while the truth is that he has been elected more often to public office than Senator Clinton. And he has been very successful at some of his ventures, e.g. the voter registration drive in Chicago in the early '90s.

Now, if folks don't listen to rational arguments, there's not much anybody can do. All we can do we try. And refrain from calling the other side names, and wrong. They are just... different!

As for quotas - I thought the "separate but equal" canard was exposed in the 1950s by Brown v Board of Education.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

uri-

You obviously have a bit o'trouble when it comes to american politics. maybe you should watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8J9laUNgL4

Let me spell this out for you since you seem to have trouble grasping this concept. Not ALL Clinton supporters are racist, but there are some. Did you watch the video yet?

AAs have supported white candidates their whole lives. I think they have gained the right to support one of their own. But those clowns in the video (and many others around the nation) NEVER will vote for a black person, even if that person is identical in policy to a white person they voted for. They would rather vote for a white guy that doesn't represent their views and is opposite of what they believe than vote for a black guy.

Now most AAs are dems. Even in races with an AA repub, large numbers of AAs voted for the white dem. Or see, keyes vs obama (2004). Why did so many AAs vote for Obama?? Under your ludicrous argument, shouldn't they have been split?


____________________



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