Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Gallup Daily Tracking


Gallup Poll

National 3/2 - 3/4
Clinton 48, Obama 44... McCain 63, Huckabee 20, Paul 4

Also:
Gallup Daily: 85% Say Economy is Getting Worse

 

Comments
Andrew S. in California:

I'm convinced Gallup is bi-polar now. They seem best at reversing most of the other pollster trends.

____________________

Bruce:

Andrew, Two notes:

Firstly I'm not sure if you're implying that Gallup is way off, but I would like to comment that both the Hillary and the McCain camp have recently thrashed Obama's "experience" credibility which could easily account for the 4% dip you see. Obama's support has also flatted out lately in many polls.

And secondly, there is about a 3% margin of error associated with this poll so just keep that in mind.

I think a lot of people are worried that Obama is another "John Kerry" now to some degree - all words and no action. While I think it's an unfounded argument (like most political arguments) it could easily be enough to swing the middle-ground voters.

____________________

s.b.:

Um Andrew all, and I mean ALL the pollsters have the race trending to Clinton for about the past week, particularly picking up steam over the last weekend.

Rasmussen has Clinton up by 5% one point off this poll. So if you could elaborate as to which "trends" Gallup is polling against that would be great!

____________________

Chuck R:

sb, don't ask someone blind by obamania to be objective. It's as futile as trying to ask a Republican why they twice voted for GWB.

____________________

ben g:

i think this poll is probably correctly identifying a micro-trend towards clinton (and i say this as an Obama supporter). still, im not especially worried about his long term prospects, because i think that obama will learn from his mistakes that he made in this past week (not being aggressive enough in distinguishing himself from Hillary, and using NAFTA a bit dishonestly as a political football in Ohio, making him look like a bit of hypocrite when the communication with Canada came out).

It's worth remembering that Clinton's only way of winning is in essence anti-democratic: a) to bring in votes from states where her opponent Obama wasn't even on the ballot and hasn't campaigned, and b)to lose in delegates but to win because of back-door deals with super-delegates. It's impossible to support her victory without supporting those anti-democratic initiatives.

One last observation. If you look at the polls by ideology you see that Obama is more popular with both independents *and* with people who describe their ideology as "liberal." Hillary is not the more "liberal" or "progressive" candidate, but the more divisive one, who has the democratic political machinery behind her. This is why her supporters are overwhelmingly democratic partisans-- who have a history of voting the democratic party line regardless of the issues-- as opposed to "progressives" or independents.

____________________

Uri:

Ben, I'm not a voter (foreigner), but I don't think that a superdelegate win (not that I think Hillary would have enough for that) is anti-democratic.

First of all, she may well win the popular vote in the end. Until yesterday, you could argue that it is hypothetical whether the caucuses were an incorrect representation of voter preference (There was a primary in WA, but it doesn't count). However, from looking at the current Caucus results in TX, Obama's leading by more than 10 points. Hence, you will get about 200000 voters sharing 65 delegates, and a couple million sharing twice as much, and the results for the caucuses are reversed. Hillary now has the moral proof to argue that the system is undemocratic.

Second, the superdelegates were built into the system before this started, and they were given power. Everyone knew the rules of the game. There was enough time to change it even in the brief period Obama had been in the Senate. Besides, he's been easily winning over HRC's superdelegates.

Third, I have to agree that in the *democratic party* primaries it is incredibly unfair that a traditional democratic candidate is is winning the majority of votes by those declaring themselves "traditionally democrats".

We all know that these primaries are made for the benefit of Republicans and independents, who have to pick a candidate now so they can help the Republican candidate they will elect in November.

Also, considering that Howard Dean is in the Obama camp, and so is dear old Nancy, and the Kennedies and everyone else including John Kerry and John Edwards (informally), I'm not sure the entire democratic political machine is behind her. Her only major supporter is this former president, Bill Clinton, who might be related to her.

____________________

RDH:

Uri,

Quick note on the caucus issue: While Clinton can point to Texas, Obama can point to Washington. There, he won the caucus and the primary a week later. So it can be argued both ways.

____________________

Uri:

RDH,

He won the caucases in WA 68:31, and he won the primaries 51:45. Since there were 78 delegates at stake and they are allocated proprtionally, that translate to quite a difference if we had used the primary results, not the caucuses.

Or, let's look at the democratic process differently. To me, democracy means each vote should be equal (or about equal).

In Alaska, Obama won 9 delegates by 302 voters. That comes down to 1/33 delegates per voter. In Washington state, he won 53 delegates by 21000 voters, that's about 1/400 delegates per voter. In Ohio, it took him a million voters to get 59 delegates. You do the math.


____________________

Dennis O:

Obama can point to Washington. There, he won the caucus and the primary a week later. So it can be argued both ways.


LMFAO!!! Why don't you tell us the margin of victory in each and how many participated in each contest?

He wins the primary by 4% with 500,000 people voting.

He wins the caucuses by almost 40% with 200,000-250,000 people participating.

So, you think Washington highlights the moral "democracy" and "fairness" of the caucus system? jesus joseph and mary!!!

Your Washington point makes Uri's point *exactly*

____________________

Mike in CA:

Uri,

You're wrong about Alaska only have 302 voters. That total is not total vote count, but rather number of state delegates. Caucuses award state delegates per precict which then go to the state convention and choose federal delegates. Very confusing. The number for Alaska is probably more like 3,000-5,000. Just FYI

____________________

Mike in CA:

Uri,

You're wrong about Alaska only have 302 voters. That total is not total vote count, but rather number of state delegates. Caucuses award state delegates per precict which then go to the state convention and choose federal delegates. Very confusing. The number for Alaska is probably more like 3,000-5,000. Just FYI

____________________

Mike in CA:

Just like Clinton supporters urge Obama supporters to "play by the rules" and accept the will of the superdels, they must play by the rules and accept the will of the caucuses. Goes both ways. Just sayin....

____________________

Mike in CA:

Just like Clinton supporters urge Obama supporters to "play by the rules" and accept the will of the superdels, they must play by the rules and accept the will of the caucuses. Goes both ways. Just sayin....

____________________

Anonymous:

There is a perception that Pledged delegates are democratically selected. However, I think a closer look will show the the "democratic" nature of the pledged delegates is not quite so obvious. Delegate allocation is no more representative of one man one vote than the electoral college. Putting aside the issue of whether a caucus is inherently undemocratic (as it makes it more difficult for older voters and the working poor to participate) it seems that certain primary votes are worth more than others. Delegates are proportionally awarded based on past voting patterns in a district. Therefore an Hispanic voter in S. Texas, where turnout was light in 2004 and 2006, may not have his vote count for as much as an AA voter in a heavily Democratic district in Houston. Or a white male in Vermont may have a more valuable vote than a black woman in Ohio. Yesterday was a good example. In Vermont Obama won the state by 30,000 votes and netted 3 delegates (1 per 10,000 based upon margin of victory). Mrs. Clinton won Ohio by almost 240,000 votes yet netted out only 12 delegates. That is 1 delegate per 20,000 voter margin. A vote in Vermont was worth twice as much as a vote in Ohio. However, those are the rules of the party and everyone agreed to abide by them. But so are the Super delegates. For the Obama supporters to argue that the super delegates are "anti-democratic" because they may not benefit from them is disingenuous. By the same token the Clinton claim to seat Florida and Michigan, after they had agreed that the delegates would not count is specious as well. The whole thing is a mess and I don't see any way out of it that doesn't end up making one side or the other think the election was stolen. My best solution would be a winner take all primary, based only on popular vote for Michigan and Florida voters sometime in June. I don't see either side agreeing to this idea (for differing reasons) but unless something is done half of the Democratic Party is going to be very unhappy in August. President Nixon was a product of a fractured Democratic Party. I would hate to see history repeat itself.

____________________

Anonymous:

There is a perception that Pledged delegates are democratically selected. However, I think a closer look will show the the "democratic" nature of the pledged delegates is not quite so obvious. Delegate allocation is no more representative of one man one vote than the electoral college. Putting aside the issue of whether a caucus is inherently undemocratic (as it makes it more difficult for older voters and the working poor to participate) it seems that certain primary votes are worth more than others. Delegates are proportionally awarded based on past voting patterns in a district. Therefore an Hispanic voter in S. Texas, where turnout was light in 2004 and 2006, may not have his vote count for as much as an AA voter in a heavily Democratic district in Houston. Or a white male in Vermont may have a more valuable vote than a black woman in Ohio. Yesterday was a good example. In Vermont Obama won the state by 30,000 votes and netted 3 delegates (1 per 10,000 based upon margin of victory). Mrs. Clinton won Ohio by almost 240,000 votes yet netted out only 12 delegates. That is 1 delegate per 20,000 voter margin. A vote in Vermont was worth twice as much as a vote in Ohio. However, those are the rules of the party and everyone agreed to abide by them. But so are the Super delegates. For the Obama supporters to argue that the super delegates are "anti-democratic" because they may not benefit from them is disingenuous. By the same token the Clinton claim to seat Florida and Michigan, after they had agreed that the delegates would not count is specious as well. The whole thing is a mess and I don't see any way out of it that doesn't end up making one side or the other think the election was stolen. My best solution would be a winner take all primary, based only on popular vote for Michigan and Florida voters sometime in June. I don't see either side agreeing to this idea (for differing reasons) but unless something is done half of the Democratic Party is going to be very unhappy in August. President Nixon was a product of a fractured Democratic Party. I would hate to see history repeat itself.

____________________

Uri:

I stand corrected on Alaska, the number seemed way too small to me, but I couldn't find the voter numbers anywhere. (Washington state does a much better job at publishing results). Still, my argument for WA stands.

And yes, I agree, the system is peculiar, but it includes Superdelegates and caucuses. That's the rules of the game, that's what we live with. Heck, Bush got elected based on some weird electoral oddity.

____________________

Uri:

I stand corrected on Alaska, the number seemed way too small to me, but I couldn't find the voter numbers anywhere. (Washington state does a much better job at publishing results). Still, my argument for WA stands.

And yes, I agree, the system is peculiar, but it includes Superdelegates and caucuses. That's the rules of the game, that's what we live with. Heck, Bush got elected based on some weird electoral oddity.

____________________

ben g:

Uri:

"Hillary now has the moral proof to argue that the system is undemocratic."

The key word here is "argue". Yes, it can be argued that caucuses or delegates are undemocratic voting systems, but there is no reasonable argument that can be made for superdelegates being democratic.

I agree with you that superdelegates are compeltely within the rules of the game. I was just pointing out that they are anti-democratic .

As for the political machine being behind her this is surely the case. She entered the race as the "inevitable" Democrat and is now the underdog. Obama's endorsements are a result of his message and his results in this election, which have swayed over people like the Kennedy's who did not endorse at the beginning.

____________________

ben g:

Also Uri, I'm wondering whether you think the "rules of the game" should be followed in regards to Clinton's attempt to change the rules of the game mid-election in Florida and Michigan?

____________________

Anonymous:

Mike in CA: Nice predictions for yesterday's contests.

____________________

Uri:

Ben,

Most of the system in the US appears undemocratic to foreigners. The whole system with winner-takes-all for the general elections effectively disenfranchises tons of voters. I'm not even talking about how Congress works. Then you've got a weird system for each state in the primaries, with caucuses, primaries, mixtures of the two, and with tons of states not typically counted because they vote too late. Then you add the superdelegates, and the delegates of territories that can't even vote in the GE. It's a mess. Popular vote is such a simpler system, but alas, it is not tradition.

As for her entering the race as the inevitable candidate, I don't think that had anything to do with the Republican party mechanism behind her, just like Giuliani did not necessarily have much of the Republican mechine behind him. It had to do with enough polls showing her with a lead. I remember the year I moved here when Obama first made the senate, and everyone was talking about him as a president within 8 years. At the time, it didn't seem like Hillary was realistically planning anything but the Senate for life.

My point is this: the wheel of the political process and the crowd preference turns all the time. You can argue that Obama was the inevitable candidate until yesterday, and now he is still the inevitable candidate but he has to make it appear like a fight. The party machine isn't behind anyone specific because both parties are are so divided to begin with.
I am personally not sure that the superdelegates would go to Hillary anyway.

And as for MI and FL: I don't think that the voters themselves deserve to get punished for their state governor's decision (or whoever made this decision, since both parties were moved). However, these were the decisions so the delegates should not be seated as they came up in the primary. Tough for HRC, but that's life.

From what I understand though (and I may be quite wrong, so feel free to correct me), these states were only instructed that the early primaries are not counted; I am not sure that a second primary is not allowed. If these states decide on a second primary and that is within "the rules of the game", I see no problem with them battling it out. The more votes the merrier. In fact, without these two major states seated in any form, the superdelegates get a disproportional representation, OR nobody hits the magic number. I think Obama will hit the magic number if these states vote anyway.

____________________

Anonymous:

In response to this from above:
"Mike in CA: Nice predictions for yesterday's contests." posted by Anon, I'm guessing you are referring to this post from Monday?:


"Notwithstanding actual percentages tomorrow, one thing that is clear:

NOBODY IS GOING TO "WIN" TOMORROW. Obama camp will spin delegates, Clinton camp with spin % wins, supers will forcefully back Obama next week to help put this thing to rest. Clinton withdraws before the end of the month.

EVERYONE CALM DOWN. GEEZ

Posted by: Mike in CA | March 3, 2008 6:28 PM"


hahaha. And what do we have when I turn on the TV? Clinton spinning % wins and Obama spinning delegates. I'm still holding to my latter prediction that supers force this thing to a close, though I may retract that she'll drop by the end of the month. I think she pushes it to PA at least. But unless she wins HUGE there, she'll go out on a good note.

____________________

Mike in CA:

Oops sorry, the post at 12:25 AM was me.

____________________

ben g:

"My point is this: the wheel of the political process and the crowd preference turns all the time."

Sure, I agree with that. Clinton began the contest with a major head start, though, she was expected to win... Iowa amazed ppl. Not just because of demographics/polls, but also because a community organizer, a two year senator, beat the party royalty based on his message. He beat someone who had more money, more recognition,more CEO support, way more lobbyist support than him. In looking at all these cycles, its easy to forget that this is where Obama began.

Uri, which country you from? And what makes you support Clinton? heh.. Nice talking with you so far!

____________________

MacMo:

I'm disgusted the way Canada is meddling in US politics. The race is mathematically beyond the reach of Clinton. I strongly believe the Texas race was determined by cross-over Repubs who were influenced by talk-radio anchors like Rush Limbaugh to vote Clinton to extend the Democratic race. Today Rush Limbaugh and Lara Ingraham were so elated by the results. I believe Texas awarding more delegates to friendly-areas or cities or princints is very good. Can you think of a situation where peeple from unfriendly areas determine the Democratic race and then come November, they vote for the GOP. Many Hispanics voted took part in the Democrat primaries, voted massively for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. This is the only way of rewarding core supporters rather than "flip-swap" supporters.

____________________

MacMo:

I'm disgusted the way Canada is meddling in US politics. The race is mathematically beyond the reach of Clinton. I strongly believe the Texas race was determined by cross-over Repubs who were influenced by talk-radio anchors like Rush Limbaugh to vote Clinton to extend the Democratic race. Today Rush Limbaugh and Lara Ingraham were so elated by the results. I believe Texas awarding more delegates to friendly-areas or cities or princints is very good. Can you think of a situation where people from unfriendly areas determine the Democratic race and then come November, vote for the GOP. Many Hispanics who took part in the Democrat primaries this season, voted massively for Bush in both 2000 and 2004. This is the only way of rewarding core supporters rather than "flip-swap" supporters.

____________________

Evan I:

Excellent article in Newsweek about delegate math and polls.......


http://www.newsweek.com/id/119010

____________________

Mike in CA:

MacMo,

You make an interesting observation, and that is that Clinton seems to be winning handily among Latinos (many of whom voted for Bush). My question is, (and I wonder if there is extensive polling on this), how many of them plan to support McCain in the fall? Out of any Republican in almost the entire party, McCain has been the most liberal in terms of immigration policy. If Latinos split Dem-Rep like they did in 04, then Clinton's advantage among that group will not matter in the fall and we'll still lose AZ, CO, NM and NV. Just a thought?

____________________

Mike in Venice:

The argument that HRC "can't win" b/c she can't win enough pledged delegates can be equally applied to BHO, and so instead of shouting that argument more and more loudly perhaps we should examine, in a less hysterical fashion, what either candidate can do now to clinch the nomination.

The super delegates are part of the process as devised by the Hunt commission in 1982 when the rules for choosing a Democratic candidate were amended by the Democratic Party. The SD's are not bound to follow the popular vote or the will of the people or the direction of the prevailing wind. They are expected to use their own best judgment about which candidate is best for the Democratic Party.

To that extent, both HRC and BHO should be courting and wooing them and trying to persuade them - as both are. This is not "undemocratic" or "sleazy" or "biased" it's the way the Democratic Party decided was the best way to choose a candidate.

So for God's sake lighten up on the hysteria.

____________________

Mike in Venice:

The argument that HRC "can't win" b/c she can't win enough pledged delegates can be equally applied to BHO, and so instead of shouting that argument more and more loudly perhaps we should examine, in a less hysterical fashion, what either candidate can do now to clinch the nomination.

The super delegates are part of the process as devised by the Hunt commission in 1982 when the rules for choosing a Democratic candidate were amended by the Democratic Party. The SD's are not bound to follow the popular vote or the will of the people or the direction of the prevailing wind. They are expected to use their own best judgment about which candidate is best for the Democratic Party.

To that extent, both HRC and BHO should be courting and wooing them and trying to persuade them - as both are. This is not "undemocratic" or "sleazy" or "biased" it's the way the Democratic Party decided was the best way to choose a candidate.

So for God's sake lighten up on the hysteria.

____________________

Mary:


Geee, Mike, why have an election at all then? Why not have the superdelegates go into a room and decide who the nominee will be?

____________________

illinoisindie:

OBAMA People: (and I voted for him) calm down we all need superdelegates to get the nomination no-one gets to 2025 without them Obama's argument is that since he leads in the popular vote (even if we include Florida where he was on the Ballot realclearpolitics.com) he should get more SD's than her which I happen to agree is the democratic thing to do. IMHO, they should shake hands and do a Kemmedy/Johnson I see no other choice because anything but Obama/Clinton will disenfranchise voters and will be a losing proposition for the democrats (Other than maybe Obama/Edwards---he needs Edwards to help with the Blue collar states) Do I want Clinton on the ticket hec no but I want a Democrat in the whitehouse and the infighting needs to stop (I am a republican by the way)

____________________

Uri:

Mary, that question should be pointed at the chairs of the democratic party who decided that back in the 80s. Besides, the Republicans have a similar systerm.

____________________

Peggy :

I cannot vote as I do not live in the U.S. I am interested because I was so elated to think that a person such as Obama could be president of the U.S. There is something about him that transends race, class gender and age. I am 58, a woman but Clinton is just not the type of person the world needs now. We are all looking and hoping for someone that can inspire others and garner respect and affection for the U.S. The highest position in a country that is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world demands a high level of operation, not the lowest levelof tactics. I like the high road as it leads to betterment for all. Obama will solve the problems of ordinary Americans as they will heed his call to come together and reclaim greatness for the U.S. After listening to Obama, I have started to turn my business and social fortunes around by being more dedicated, and committed to my community as well as myself and family.

Blessings
Peggy

____________________

Peggy :

I cannot vote as I do not live in the U.S. I am interested because I was so elated to think that a person such as Obama could be president of the U.S. There is something about him that transends race, class gender and age. I am 58, a woman but Clinton is just not the type of person the world needs now. We are all looking and hoping for someone that can inspire others and garner respect and affection for the U.S. The highest position in a country that is supposed to be the greatest nation in the world demands a high level of operation, not the lowest levelof tactics. I like the high road as it leads to betterment for all. Obama will solve the problems of ordinary Americans as they will heed his call to come together and reclaim greatness for the U.S. After listening to Obama, I have started to turn my business and social fortunes around by being more dedicated, and committed to my community as well as myself and family.

Blessings
Peggy

____________________



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