Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: SurveyUSA NC/OH


SurveyUSA**

Ohio
Clinton 56, Obama 39... McCain 50, Huckabee 36, Paul 6

North Carolina
Obama 50, Clinton 40... McCain 45, Huckabee 40, Paul 5

 

Comments

Those are actually Survey USA polls, not ours!

____________________

JGK:

For Ohio, interesting that in addition to women and people over the age of 65 (although this poll also has Clinton ahead of all age groups), another advantage for Clinton is that 48% say economy most important issue and Clinton is beating Obama there 60 to 35, fwiw.

____________________

s.b.:

Yes these are Survey USa polls, if they were PPP polls, I'm sure they would show Obama ahead by a landslide.

____________________

cokie roberts social id:

Remember what I told the Obama-bots about counting their chickens before they hatch? Those Ohio numbers should be a sober reminder that the Potomac is not the only area where people get to vote in the next few weeks.

HILLARY/RICHARDSON 08!!!

____________________

Phil:

Assuming an average Obama win of 60/40 in the Potomac area, Wisconsin, and Hawaii, he'll be looking at a 131 pledged delegate lead going into March 4th. That's ignoring the large number of Washington and Colorado delegates that haven't been assigned - he stands to pick up another 30 there. So that's a 161 delegate lead going into Ohio and Texas.

To erase that, Clinton will need to take 75% of the delegates in Ohio and Texas. Even if you give her PA as well, she needs to win 2/3 of the delegates from all three states. Obama, in other words, only needs to push it to a close race in one of the three to keep her from having any real chance of taking a pledged delegate lead.

Note also that the numbers in NC are very close to those in OH. The states are pretty close in size, so NC is going to go a long way towards undoing the advantage of OH.

____________________

Sournot:

Ohio is solid for Hillary. There are other polls that show her higher and show Obama in the high 20's.

____________________

Vin:

Sournot: Which polls? Do you have a link? I really want to compare the polls, especially if they have a breakdown of the votes.

____________________

Phil:

The last poll I can find that has Obama in the 20s was before Edwards dropped out.

____________________

cokie roberts social id:

Sorry to break it to you Phil,

But, if Hillary wins 8 of the 9 largest states in the US (CA, NY, TX, PA, MA, FL, MI, and OH) against a loss in Illinois, the superdelegates, no matter HOW much you despise the system, will break for her. And they probably should.

Obama will NOT get the nomination unless he wins at least one of TX, PA, and OH.

Also, keep in mind that there will great pressure to either count FL (and MI) or have them revote. If that happens, all of the so-called lead that Obama will have would be gone. He would never win a primary in either state, so he'd have to buy off someone to get a caucus format.

I know you like your guy, but do not kid yourself about DNC realities. If Obama has a few percent lead in pledged delegates, but loses every big state, he is NOT getting the nomination.

____________________

Lee Iacocca:

If it comes down to it, puerto rico has 63 delegates that will be allotted on a winner take all basis. We all know that those are going for Hillary.

I agree with Cokie. Obama has to win one of the 9 biggest states in the country outside of his home or he's not getting the nod. It sucks, but it's true.

This is the system we have...superdelegates, voter disenfranchisement in MI and FL, and the dubious caucus format. We live by the rules and die by them. If my candidate loses due to superdelegates, so be it.

____________________

JGK:

Massachusetts a big state? It has 12 electoral votes. Michigan (which shouldn't even be up for discussion) only has 17. Compare with Virinia 13, North Carolina 15, Georgia 15. This is just spin. Anyway, I would be more persuaded if there was polling data that Obama has problems against McCain in big states, but given that Obama does better in polls against McCain than does Clinton then this is probably not the case.

Looks like Obama will give an economic policy address tomorrow, his candidacy needs to appeal to more working class voters.

____________________

The General:

Phil is under the mistaken impression that superdelegates will all break for the candidate with a slim delegate lead. It could happen, but it's not likely.

More likely is a revote in Michigan and possibly Florida, which would seem to favor Hillary demographically.

A lot can happen in three weeks, but if I were a Hillary supporter, I would be pretty happy to see my candidate up 17 points in OH after the incredible run Obama's had. I think TX will be more competitive for the defeat-o-crats.

McCain/Romney

____________________

Phil:

I don't think the DNC is likely to sweat it if their nominee fails to win NY, CA, MA, or MI - all states that are going to go for them anyway. Nor do I think it's meaningful to complain that someone didn't win MI when they weren't on the ballot. Similarly, TX isn't going to go to them no matter what. So we're left weighing PA, OH, and FL against someone who is strong in a number of states that could have turned the 2000 or 2004 elections.

And the pressure argument is a non-starter - it's decided by the existing delegates. In other words, if Obama has a delegate lead without them, MI and FL don't get seated. If Clinton does, they do. Period. There's not a backdoor on that one.

I do not see the superdelegates picking a partisan, divisive candidate who is behind on pledged delegates to go up against someone with massive appeal among independent voters. I'm a firm believer in the stupidity of the DNC, but that's excessive.

____________________

Mike:

Lee Iacocca, Puerto Rico is not winner take all. Puerto Rico holds caucuses with proportional allocation like all Democratic primaries/caucuses.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/PR-D.phtml
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/will_puerto_rico_decide_everyt.html

____________________

cokie roberts social id:

Fact is, here are the 8 largest states in the country:

California ~36.7 million
Texas ~24 million
New York 19 million
Florida 18.2 million
Illinois 12.8 million
Pennsylvania 12.4 million
Ohio 11.5 million
Michigan 10 million

Obama has one win for sure among those.
If he cannot win one more from TX, OH, or PA, he is not getting the nomination. Too many superdelegates will see his double digit losses in primary holding contests in the largest states in the country as a sign of weakness. His wins in caucus states were inflated due to the caucus format. Or do you honestly think he's more popular in North Dakota and Washington, than his home state?

____________________

Lee Iacocca:

On Puerto Rico: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_democratic_primaries#Special_rules:_Puerto_Rico

Learn before you post. It makes Democrats look bad when you post ill-informed.

____________________

Phil:

Lee, you didn't just try to counter the Washington Post with Wikipedia, did you?

As for his "caucus advantage," do I think the caucus numbers helped him? Yes. Do I think they where why he won? No. He's too consistently strong in that area to account for it that way.

And I just don't see Senators and Representatives putting themselves in a position to be accused by their constituents of ignoring the will of the district. Certainly not Senators and Representatives of states that can swing.

____________________

cokie roberts social id:

It's not going to Puerto Rico, so who cares?

When Obama loses PA, and he will, he will receive heavy pressure from Dean and the DNC to drop out to let their princess Clinton win. Superdelegates will go to her in droves if she wins both TX and OH by double digits. PA is more OH than even OH is, so don't expect PA to be different.

And wait until you tell the voters of Florida their 1.75 million votes don't count. That should ensure a GOP victory there.

____________________

Lee Iacocca:

Wiki contains links and sources from the NYT and US news and world report to come to their conclusion that PR would be winner take all. The Washington Post is a mouth piece for Obama-bots, so I would take their "journalism" with a grain of salt.

Neither candidate will have 2,025 by the end of it all, and the Clinton machine will make sure that she gets the nod. Representatives and Senators do not care about the will of the people. They care about kick backs and power. If the race comes down to a power struggle, that's one area when I'm afraid Obama cannot win.

He can win by winning Mar 4. End of story. She concedes Mar 5 (guaranteed) if she loses the day.

____________________

Phil:

Florida is a closed primary. The voters whose votes "don't count" are, in other words, all Democrats. I don't see them as a group that's in much danger of jumping ship.

____________________

Mike:

If you read the Post article, you would see it linked to those same articles from Wikipedia. If you looked carefully, you would see that the Wikipedia articles were labeled as "Opinion". If you looked at Wikipedia carefully, you would see that Puerto Rico is allocated 36 district level, 12 at-large, 7 PLEO, and 8 superdelegates.

The only reason PR went unanimously the last few elections was that the nomination was over long before June.

And on a separate note, NYT is the one that endorsed Hillary. Post has not endorsed anyone.

____________________

Anonymous:

Phil - Florida Dems are not Mass Dems; they will jump ship. I lived in Florida for over 18 years. They have a history of electing Repubs and Dems to the Senate and in governors' races. I take no other position on these issues.

____________________

Jake:

In addition to the Post article cited by Mike, Chrysler's other Wikipedia "source" is a talking head on a PBS show, speaking off the cuff.

Any official Democratic Party documents will show the delegate formula in Puerto Rico is proportional, a step someone who accuses others of being ill-informed might do well to take.

____________________

tony:

I just read conflicting stories about PR (just google it). I am an HRC fan - but I have problems with one "state" being winner-take-all but the others not. Equal protection? But then again, the parties are typically considered private entities - which is why they could strip FL voters of their delegates (but not ability to vote).

Does anyone think that the "popular vote" will matter? Even if FL/Mich delegates do not -- if you include the states in the popular vote totals, I think Hill gets it.

____________________

eponymous coward:

OK, let's rebut this categorically.

"When Obama loses PA, and he will, he will receive heavy pressure from Dean and the DNC to drop out to let their princess Clinton win."

- I seriously doubt Dean favors either candidate dramatically, or would publicly say so, as he's too sharp an operator to do that, but if he DOES favor one, I'll wager on Intrade it's not the one from New York. Remember, Terry McAucliffe and Rahm Emanuel have been sticking knives in Dean's back over the 50 state strategy for a LONG time, and they are best buds with the Clintons. Compare and contrast with Obama, who IS the poster child for the 50 state strategy with his results in red states.

- "Superdelegates will go to her in droves if she wins both TX and OH by double digits."

Maybe, and the OH data doesn't look good, since Hillary's over 50%. I think Obama's goal here is to get it down under double digits, which may or may not be doable.

TX, on the other hand, may be another story, because it's a primacaucus- this weird hybrid where D voters can go caucus after they cast their vote, and that's how 1/3rd of the delegates show up. We all know Obama blows Hillary away in a red state caucus, right?

Oh, and guess what? Texas is an open primary. So you may see crossover votes from Rs/Is.

That, plus Clinton giving her Latina manager the heave-ho (and folks, anyone who says they are quitting to "spend time with their family" is being given the heave-ho)... well, I don't make Obama the FAVORITE, but consider Obama ran neck and neck in Nevada and New Mexico, and I think betting on a double-digit blowout might be chancy. He might lose 52-48 and STILL come out ahead on delegates.

Oh, and there's VT and RI that night, too. Small states, but if he does well in those states, he COULD come out doing something like this:

Lose OH 55-45
Lose TX primary 53-47
Win TX caucuses and be even or even plus on TX delegates
Win VT, RI by decent margins

And come out close to even, even or even slightly ahead on the delegate count.

I think Hillary's been playing up March 4 WAAAAAAY too much, IMO. All Obama has to do at this point is not get stomped and fight to a draw, just like he managed on Feb 5, and suddenly, it doesn't look so good for Hillary taking a delegate lead.

____________________

rowjimmy:

"We all know Obama blows Hillary away in a red state caucus, right?"

Yep. Tribal democracy in action.

Voted in three caucuses before. Last one was in CO. Never do I hope to again. The savages in Boulder were all for Nader that year and were about as obnoxious as a crowd can be.

I think the DNC really does run the risk of alienating Florida if they don't find a way to make their 1.7 million votes count. JMO. Florida is a swing state and going a little more red (Gore almost won, Kerry didn't come close).

The DNC does not want a long drawn out primary battle, so to the extent that I agree with anything said here, I do agree there will be enormous pressure from the DNC and on superdelegates to not drag this out.

____________________

Anonymous:

"the OH data doesn't look good, since Hillary's over 50%..."

What does that mean? How can a 17 point lead for one candidate not look good? HRC people have to be happy that their firewall in OH has held. Her support in that state is spatially diverse, so she will get a lion's share of the delegates.

I actually think TX is more competitive due to the strange (f'ed up?) system they have. Hillary +6 looks right to me.

I think it's PA that looks really bad for Obama. That state is so old it's practically a morgue. Additionally, it's socially conservative in the rural areas(kind of code for racist, which sucks). The blue-collar message resonates there. Finally, the governor endorses Hillary

____________________

rowjimmy:

"the OH data doesn't look good, since Hillary's over 50%..."

What does that mean? How can a 17 point lead for one candidate not look good? HRC people have to be happy that their firewall in OH has held. Her support in that state is spatially diverse, so she will get a lion's share of the delegates.

I actually think TX is more competitive due to the strange (f'ed up?) system they have. Hillary +6 looks right to me.

I think it's PA that looks really bad for Obama. That state is so old it's practically a morgue. Additionally, it's socially conservative in the rural areas(kind of code for racist, which sucks). The blue-collar message resonates there. Finally, the governor endorses Hillary.

I think the races after PA favor Obama, but there is no PA unless Hillary wins OH and TX. Two months is a lifetime politically. Edwards endorsement could either put NC in play for HRC, or seal the deal for Obama. Lots of factors. The talking heads on TV calling it "over" and saying Hillary should drop out tomorrow are insane.

____________________

rowjimmy:

On the muddy waters of the caucus system. Not sure how supporters of either candidate favor the caucus over the primary. Worth a read:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120278068751360997.html?mod=Politics-and-Policy

____________________

polsaa:

The internals on the SUSA Ohio poll look a little off to me. The black percentage is lower than the 2004 exit poll and Obama's share of the black vote is too low. Correct both of those and you narrow the gap considerably. And that's even if everything else stays the same. I expect to see future polls show this closer, especially after tonight and if Obama wins next Tuesday in Wisconsin. Don't forget, Obama hasn't even campaigned in Ohio yet and he has a significant financial advantage now.

____________________

Tony:

Polsaa -- According to CNN data, blacks comprised 14% of the Dem primary vote in '04. The SUSA data place them at 15% so it's actually higher. And Obama's black support has been roughly in that range (70s). I am not sure where you are getting your info....

____________________

rowjimmy:

Tony,

If Obama is getting 90% of the African American vote, that's one place where the poll could be underestimating his support.

But the internals looks spot on to me.

Clinton will have a lot of cash to fight for Ohio and Texas. She didn't put a lot of money (and it showed) in the Potomac region.

If I were betting, I would put Hillary at +10 on Election night in Ohio. She's been very strong with the blue-collar crowd and I think Obama will cut into that some. But not enough to win the state outright.

Plus, debates will help Hillary. They are free press for her, and generally some of her better moments. Though he does well too, but Obama's element is the large crowd, not the debate.

____________________

I watched on CNN Obama deliver his victory speech after sweeping the Potomac primaries. I was inspired by his booming voice but I found no substantive details on how he will solve America's problems. Hope is good but it will fizzle out in the maze of guesswork. Obama should have listened to McCain's speech after making his own. It was a sharp rebuke to Obama's dreamland speech.

____________________

DC Sniper:

There's a new DC Sniper in the area! His name is Barack Obama!!!!!!!!!

He's shootin down the female cracker one state at a time!

Up next for the slaughter, Wisconsin and Hawaii!

Clintons are dead. The DC Sniper has spoken again!

night boyzzzzzzzz

____________________

vh:

DC Sniper didn't succeed for long. Same will happen to Obama.

____________________

polsaa:

Black vote was only 14% of total in 2004, but was 17% in 2000. But I would expect it to be closer to 20% this year.

As for McCain's "sharp rebuke" to Obama, McCain is not only dull and uninspiring, he is taking positions on the war, the economy, and health care that are well to the right of where the American electorate is in 2008.

____________________

eponymous coward:

I should have had "doesn't look good for Obama, since Clinton is over 50%".

But still, if you look at the leaked spreadsheet from Obama's camp, you have their projections at:

TX: lose 51-47, Hillary +9 delegates
OH: lose 53-46 Hillary +9 delegates
RI: lose 57-42, Hillary +5 delegates

(and just for fun)

PA: lose 52-47, Hillary + 8 delegates

However, this is the important caveat: for EVERY state listed after 2/5 so far, Obama has beaten that spreadsheet and the projected delegate count. That spreadsheet has Obama at 1806, Clinton at 1789, with the remaining superdelegates holding the balance... but Obama's beating the percentages and delegates for the other contests he's won since 2/5 handily, so I would guess we're looking at something more like 1850/1750 right now.

To sum up: I think Hillary's screwed, unless she blows Obama away in OH, TX and PA. I also am not convinced she'll do it. Weirder things have happened, though. MY guess is she concedes between TX/OH/VT/RI and PA.

____________________

tony:

polsaa -- the american electorate is weird. they were angry about the economy in '04, but they elected the "tax cuts for the wealthy" man. the economy was pretty good in '00, but they thought clinton's blowjob was worse than having a moron from texas in office. americans, unfortunately, do not learn. neither do the Dems. Obama's speeches are feel good sermons and this will not move republicans whatsoever. the only "hope" republicans will embrace is that hope that they continue to dominate the white house. The only effective thing the Dems have done is lose presidential elections. Electing a one-term senator whom they can characterize as "the most liberal senator" will repeat this process.

____________________

s.b.:

Although Puerto Rico is a caucus supposedly proportional, they award their delegates unanimously. You should be informed. The caucus vote goes through two more stages. Puerto Rico has always sent its delegates unanimously. This, by the way can happen in any other caucus state as well. If it is close, New Mexico for example could also decide to award its delegates unanimously at its convention. This factor is something people haven't been discussing.

Delegate counts have to include Florida and Michigan. She is still ahead. There will be given their delegates. There will be no caucus and no revote. They will come up with some administrative way to recertify the delegates or something.

Obama can not expect Super delegates to ignore that Michigan and Florida exist in their minds either. They do exist and make up close to 10% of the democratic electorate. They can't be ignored. Its childish to demand that. But what does one expect from children.

____________________

Momintn:

People like Dick Morris and Karl Rove are pulling for Obama. I heard Dick Morris on tv go into a long spiel on tv, I forget which channel, about how anyone could vote in the Democratic primary and how Republicans in Texas would just line up to vote against Hillary. He was given alot of air time and was just gloating over the possibility of defeat of Hillary by the Republicans in the Democratic primary. Here is one of Dick Morris's posts where you can read his "prediction" that Obama can win the primary.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1968888/posts
"(Although in Texas' open primary, Republicans and Independents may flock to the Dem primary to beat Hillary)."
Last night, I heard that one of the races had 10% of the votes for Obama by Republicans. I think it is fairly naive to think that Republicans are seriously voting for the most liberal senator for president who has been endorsed by Kennedy and will not vote Republican in the general election. I am quite worried that this is just another Karl Rove tactic to manipulate our democratic process and put a Republican in the White House.

____________________

Doosh:

I may be a doosh, but Cokie is insane if she thinks that Obama only wins one of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Ohio, and Michigan in the GE. I'm a Californian, and I'm not saying my primary vote doesn't matter, but you can be damn sure that those 55 electoral votes will in the D column in the fall, regardless of who is at the top of the ticket. Virginia's 13, though...

____________________

eponymous coward:

So, let me get this straight- it's childish not to change the rules halfway through the game?

See, I would argue it's childish to change the rules (I played with people like that when I was a kid). Look, everyone knew what the rules are when we started this. FL and MI ignored them (had they scheduled a caucus or election between now and April, they'd have TREMENDOUS influence on the process). Sucks to be them, but I don't see why they should have gotten an early primary when other states OBERYED the rules- and how fair is it to the candidates to include states where they withdrew from the ballot because of DNC rules?

Hillary wasn't bitching about caucuses before she was behind. She wasn't bitching about FL and MI before she won them. I don't take these complaints very seriously when they are clearly self-serving.

____________________

strricha12:

Bear in mind, y'all, Caucus delegates are not weighted as equally as primary delegates; the former are not elected to the convention.

____________________

Rorgg:

The center cannot hold. This is just a starting point for the Obama/Clinton fight in Ohio. But nobody can deny the central fact of the campaign so far:

Everywhere Obama puts his feet on the ground and campaigns, he gains massively against Hillary Clinton, very quickly.

It happened in New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, all over the Super Tuesday states, though with so many, he didn't get on the ground as much, and you saw a dilution.

But look at after: He went to Maine, to Washington, to Nebraska. Bang bang bang.

He went to Virginia, to Maryland... bang bang.

Wherever he ended up tended to be a function of:
(a) what the polls looked like before he started campaigning;
(b) How long he was physically on the ground campaigning; and
(c) Whether the contest was a caucus or a primary, due to the enthusiasm gap.

Obama may or may not win Ohio -- this is a lot of ground to make up. But there's a lot of time between now and March 4, and he's not even started there yet. There is no way on god's green Earth that Clinton wins Ohio by 17 points.

____________________

John:

@Momintn. I really have a lot of respect for your and your comment. You are one of the few Americans who is not fooled by the media. I read something similar to your comment at the link below. May God bless you.

http://thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

____________________

Phil:

I'm sure it's possible to have a discussion of this election without reference to paranoid rants about Bush and Rove's secret plan to impose martial law...

But in any case, exit polls have 7% of the electorate in the Virginia Democratic primary as Republicans, and of those 72% voted for Obama. So we're looking at 5% of the electorate being Republicans voting for Obama. OK. But if you imagine Virginia to have been a closed primary, you'd get a 62/38 lead for Obama by the exit polls - a 2% swing, in other words, for each candidate. Maybe enough in a very close state, but you'd be nuts to think that it had a significant impact on Virginia. If the best that the shadowy mastermind trying to impose martial law can muster is changing the margin of a blow-out from 24 points to 29 points I have few fears for my civil liberties.

____________________

rowjimmy:

"I have few fears for my civil liberties."

You should have more than a few:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021201202.html?hpid=topnews

____________________

Phil:

Note the conditional there. What I have a hard time believing is that members of this administration would waste time swinging a landslide to slightly more of a landslide. I can believe that they'd dramatically expand their surveillance powers all too easily.

____________________

rowjimmy:

What I cannot believe is that some chicken s*it Democrats voted for this! About a third of the Democrats joined Republicans to chip away even more at our civil liberties. Extremely disappointing.

____________________

jan:

X Y and Z obama wins deont count because ......

---- my husbend did not win there either-----

____________________

JR:

I was looking at the trend lines in each state poll leading up to primary day and in every state, except one, Obama significantly closed the gap on HRC's lead or passed her. The movement happened from mid Dec. up to primary day with dramatic upturns in Jan. in most states.

The exception is Florida which I find very strange since there was supposedly no campaigning. Shortly before the primary HRC's numbers took a sharp turn upwards and Obama's took a sharp turn downwards !?

No other state has shown Obama taking a downward turn leading up to the primary. I've heard that HRC was conducting phone banks in FL, and have been told by people in FL that they received calls from her campaign. Has anyone else heard this?

____________________

cokie roberts:

Obviously, I don't have a copyright on my name. However, when my cousin brought this posting to my attention, I thought it important to make clear that the person writing this is not me. I don't have a candidate. I am a journalist.
Cokie Roberts, ABC News, NPR

____________________



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