Thatcher:

We're too many weeks out to really say much on this poll. However, I will state that this is befuddling:

Q2: If John Edwards endorsed Hillary Clinton,
would it make you more likely or less likely to
vote for Clinton, or would it not make a
difference?

More likely to vote for Clinton ... 12%
Less likely to vote for Clinton ... 31%
No difference ..................... 57%

Wha-a-a-a? Anyone in NC want to illuminate why an Edwards endorsement for Clinton would cause them feel less likely to vote for Clinton?

Posted on March 25, 2008 2:07 PM

 Andrew_in_California:

Interesting results considering how high the sample was of a white population.

Posted on March 25, 2008 2:08 PM

 killias2:

Thatcher,

The thing to remember is this chart:

Base Obama Undecided
More likely to vote
for Clinton
Less likely to vote
for Clinton
No difference
12% 8% 29%
31% 34% 16%
57% 58% 55%

To summarize: Obama people are just saying, "we don't care if Edwards endorses Clinton, she's not getting my vote." Only 8% (!) of Obama supporters say an Edwards endorsement would matter. Since Obama supporters make up the vast majority of this poll, they distort the overall results.

Undecideds, which matter, would 29% be more likely to support Clinton if Edwards endorses her, 16% less likely, 55% doesn't matter. I'm guessing those 16% must not like Clinton, Edwards, or must be more cynical "doesn't matter" voters.

Posted on March 25, 2008 2:21 PM

 Mike_in_CA:

Remember that killer 44-43 PPP Poll from last week? The Wright scandal was going to sink Obama? Well, GUESS WHAT LAST WEEK WAS??

That's right: Spring Break. What is Obama's solid consituency? College Students!! That more people aren't picking up on this is amazingly foolish.

Also, that 44-43 poll was taken on MARCH 17. Anyone remember what day that is? ST. PATRICKS DAY.

This poll is more like it. Obama will win NC easily.

Posted on March 25, 2008 2:29 PM

 Thatcher:

killias2 - thanks - I missed that crosstab. my bad.

Posted on March 25, 2008 2:36 PM

 lsmakc:

nc poll is too untapped right now. not worth the noise.

what is worth the noise is the new obama girl ad and to see if he makes them pull it. it is sheer bullying and will no doubt annoy rather than anything else, looping back on its young demo.

for me the real question is the one that carville did his best to correct politically: how do you run for president and suppress the franchise of two entire states? clinton finally did the right thing and acquiesced to a revote and thus throw out her previous numbers.

whereas obama balked and is happy to NEVER count them and he smugly says, "well, you know the clintons like to win." truth is he prefers to win no matter what, a huge chink in this man's armor that will come back to bite him as president if that is the outcome, and will come back to bite 'we the people'.

caveat emptor: as president, the media gloves will come off, but alas, too late. and we shall see this horrendous implosion of democracy for what it is, was.

in our rush to erase the slave stigma and latent abuse, are we perhaps over compensating by throwing something very precious away. one evil need not create another.

Posted on March 25, 2008 3:04 PM

 killias2:

The Florida revote was dead in the water before Obama did anything.

As for Michigan, yeah, I wish he would've let a re-vote happen, but I understand his concerns. Basically, anyone who voted in the GOP primary wouldn't be able to vote in the next Michigan primary. While that's understandable, you've got to keep in mind the fact that a lot of Michigan democrats decided to vote elsewhere in the first primary because Clinton was the only choice. Clinton's re-vote would've still been stacked in her favor. There were also concerns about funding, how the primary would've worked, securing a mail-in vote, etc. all with no time to consider ANY of these issues.

The most recent polls in Michigan show a close race there. It's not like he would've got stampeded in Michigan. Trying to make this and Florida (where the party, not Obama, killed the re-vote) into a political issue demonstrates just how far gone Clinton is.

Posted on March 25, 2008 3:15 PM

 killias2:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/michigan/election_2008_michigan_democratic_presidential_primary

Thats the poll I was referencing. As far as I know, that's the latest poll out of Michigan.

Posted on March 25, 2008 3:24 PM

 lsmakc:

far gone or not. i will not argue preference. however, this is a country of principles with rules divined to support them. when the principle becomes obstructed the rules are changed, this is the elasticity of the constitution and all state constitutions.

if we give more credence to rules over principle then we have very little business calling ourselves a republic. oligarchies, dictatorships, theocracies, these are rules rigid nations.

Posted on March 25, 2008 3:26 PM

 cinnamonape:

Interesting insights about the NC polls being taken on major holidays (although I'm unsure how St. Patrick's Day would suppress the polling of any particular group). I'm unsure how they could have fathomed a post-Wright/pre-Obama response set of data otherwise, though.

As the phrase goes, "it is what it is". The data will certainly give even greater cheer to the Obama camp as it burgeoned the "come back", perhaps in an exagerratrd fashion.

Still if one goes back a few more weeks the increase in his support is still quite apparent, despite the Wright association.

Pollster Dates N/Pop Clinton Obama Undecided
PPP (D) 3/24/08 673 LV 34 55 11
PPP (D) 3/17/08 521 LV 43 44 13
PPP (D) 3/3/08 508 LV 43 47 10

Posted on March 25, 2008 4:22 PM

 Mike_in_CA:

cinnamonape,

I only think St. Patrick's Day would suppress responses from younger white people, who have tended to make up a large portion of Obama's constituency. Notice the large jump in support from 30 to 40 in white voters between last week's poll and this week's poll.

I dunno it just all seems a little weird -- a 20 point swing?

Posted on March 25, 2008 6:02 PM

 jsh1120:

Mike_in_Ca may be right about Spring Break and St. Pat's day, but I have another suggestion. Reuters reported a huge surge in Clinton support last week compared to the Zogby poll a month before. Now we have a huge surge in Obama support in North Carolina from a week before.

I'm inclined to note that an outlier result followed by a non-outlier (or vice versa) is a more likely explanation than huge swings in public opinion over short periods of time.

Posted on March 25, 2008 6:50 PM

 KS Rose:

My understanding is that John is not well liked in NC. The reasons I don't know but this was not a surprise to me.

Posted on March 25, 2008 7:36 PM

 jr1886:

I take a quick look @ this poll and I don't see anything that seems too crazy. I think their predicted racial composition, 59% white and 34% black, is reasonable. Black turnout can be as low as 33% and as high as 40%. Considering there will be 6 weeks before the NC primary and Obama will be campaigning hard in the state as he tries to lower expectations in PA, I would expect a 37% turnout among black and 55% among white and 8% among Latino.

This poll has Obama getting 80% of AA. That's a bit low, he should get between 85%-90% of that vote. I think Obama can improve among young voters in the coming weeks but he might lose more ground among older voters too which make the the effect a wash.

so with 6 weeks to go, here's the predicted likely NC result:

55% White:58%-42% in favor of Clinton
37% Black:88%-12% in favor of Obama
8% Latino:60-40 in favor of Clinton

Predicted results:
Barack Obama : 58.6%
Hillary Clinton: 41.4%
Barring a major event, this prediction will prove to be correct on election day.

Ps. I am under heavy sniper fire so pardon me for any minor blip.

Posted on March 25, 2008 8:22 PM

 Louis:

In reponse to Thatcher. The more or less likely for Edwards is meaningless as most of these type of questions are. Instead of just asking undecided and leanings they ask the whole survey this question. thue prompmting a knee jerk raction fron Clinton to say yes and from Obama supporters to say no. When of course they have made up their minds anyway. Apparently if this poll shows anything on this question it is that Obama supporters would reject more strongly than Clinton supporters would embrace it.

Posted on March 26, 2008 11:15 AM

 Andrew_in_California:

People should remember Edwards did not win his home state in his VP run in 2004. If that didn't kick things off...

Posted on March 26, 2008 11:36 AM

 jr1886:

Edwards not winning his home state as a vp candidate tell us nothing about the possible impact of his endorsmentin the democratic primary.He would have a huge impact especially among white men. If he endorses Hillary, that would help her inch closer to Obama but that won't be enough for her to win the state. If he endorses Obama, a bigger blow out should be expected.

Posted on March 26, 2008 5:55 PM