Public Policy Polling (D)
McCain 47, Clinton 43
McCain 50, Obama 39
Clinton 56, Obama 30
This is troubling for Obama, but I'm not surprised. FL has so many seniors, Jews, and Hispanics, I just don't think Obama could possibly win it. But Hillary has a good chance. FL is a key swing state and if we see similar poll numbers in June in OH, PA, NJ, and few other key Dem states (which we are likely to), his lock on the nomination will really be in doubt. This is especially true if Clinton surpasses him in the popular vote which is seeming more plausible from PA onward. The superdelegates are smart politicians who want to win the White House and they can change their minds on a dime. They won't care how Obama performed in all the tradional "red" states if there are polls like this in key "blue" and "purple" states.
Posted on March 18, 2008 1:19 PM
Obama's numbers in Florida reflect the fact that his position on seating their delegates is a swindle. Obama's stated position on Florida is that the delegate distribution there should reflect the overall results. In other words, the actual choices made by the Florida voters should be disregarded and, instead, the average of the choices made in other states should be imposed on them. This is outrageous. Doesn't he think people can see through this dishonest approach?
His speech on racism today would have been moving, if it had not been hypocritical. Last week he and his campaign insisted Ferraro had to be ejected over her benign observation that, due to excitement by a significant share of voters over the election of the first "black" president, he had benefitted. This is, in fact, true, as any glance at his poll numbers among blacks can prove. Obama wants Wright's false and far more offensive comments to be viewed in an historical context and given understanding. He hasn't ejected Wright from his life, and Hillary hasn't called for that. Obama has masterfully played the race card in this race, marginalizing and publicly disparaging Bill Clinton and Ferraro over trivial, true, unoffensive remarks -- mischaracterized as "racist." Why didn't he call on people to understand their statements in context? He can't have it both ways. He's a cheat and manipulator.
Posted on March 18, 2008 1:56 PM
Impressive poll numbers out of PA for HC. Looking forward to seeing the upcoming Franklin & Marshall poll I participated in via phone (+1 for HRC).
Only thing to make note of as far as this poll from PPP and Quinnipiac Univ. is that Quinnipiac used 1300 people and came out with +12 and PPP used 600 people and came out with +26.
The PDF link for the PPP poll has some interesting demographic numbers:
African Americans: 63-27 Obama, rather low considering Obama has gotten 80% in key primaries thus far.
Whites: 63-23 Clinton
Females: 66-20 Clinton
Makes: 45-41 Clinton
It doesnt give numbers but it says the race is tight for people aged 18-45, and Clinton with a "significant advantage" for people aged over 45.
Posted on March 18, 2008 3:49 PM
Ferraro deserved to be disparaged. Her comments weren't remotely true. We've had presidential nominees in the past that have failed to ascertain the presidency. To comment that Obama's momentum is based off of some flippant trend of exuberance for an African American rather than anything he actually stands for is ridiculous. Obama doesn't have to speak for other people's words to understand them contextually, that's Ferraro and Clinton's responsibility. Obama would like to move forward but understands that race will always be in the equation. I think his speech today was uncanny as it honed in a full scope of all racial problems in the United States. I truly believe this is something that makes us need him to continue to move beyond race.
Posted on March 18, 2008 3:56 PM
Now, you see Andrew, I thought about responding affirmatively to elements in the first two posts, but then I realized that my contribution would have nothing to do with the poll numbers presented here.
I think it is safe to say that some people feel as you do, and others feel as I do that Ferraro's statement was accurate, if inelegantly phrased.
Let's leave it at that.
Posted on March 18, 2008 4:03 PM
"Ferraro's statement was accurate"
- really Ciccina? So do you agree the ONLY reason Hillary is a candidate is only due to her being a WOMAN??
Okay, uh-huh, that's it.
Posted on March 18, 2008 4:17 PM
Ferraro's comment accurately reflected the indisputable fact that Obama won by large margins in the Potomac primary and in the deep south due to African-Americans voting as a block, anywhere from 78% to over 90%. No other voting group surveyed yields those type of huge margins for any candidate, and that is an advantage based on race.
Posted on March 18, 2008 5:11 PM
I personally think that this is a place to discuss the polls and not the comments of ferroro or rev. wright or even his speech unless it is to directly make a point directly regarding the numbers of the polls and even then we could probably do it in a way as to not start a fight. I will admit I have had my moments, but i have come back from the dark side and really like the discussion based on the polls and their numbers.
Posted on March 18, 2008 5:15 PM
Whatever the vision of this site there will always be people who will spill over to the pure politics of the situation. I find it hard that people will keep polling conversation sterile to just polling numbers and whether or not they are changing 1 or 2 points every day. You can only comment on the methodology, cross-tabs, ect. so much before it gets repetitive.
I say embrace the hybrid Politico-type site that this site has become in recent weeks. People here seem to think that these polls are a-political from the start but even Mark putting up a Rasmussen Poll about Rev. Wright will warrant questions of the relevancy of highlighting the poll. People are impassioned over politics, and although I have no say on this site, establishing a more open forum will keep a community coming to this site rather than scaring people off by censoring supposed "off-topic" posts.
Posted on March 18, 2008 6:00 PM
This site is for people for whom discussions of methodology, cross-tabs, cell vs. landline and the like NEVER gets repetitive. To paraphrase Judd Nelson, it may be sad and demented, but its social - and it works.
This is (or used to be) one of the few sites where people could discuss the mechanics of political work without it devolving into "my candidate is better than your candidate." Its a place where you can really learn things about one aspect of campaigning.
And though I have no say over things either, it should be a place where you can raise questions about the relationship between data and strategy without it being misconstrued as an attack on a candidate, mere spin, or "lies."
I think the hope is that running battles between true believers be taken elsewhere, to one of the many sites (like Politico) better suited to that purpose, and that insults disappear entirely, including name-calling and insults of the candidates. Opinions are okay, but things have gotten out of hand.
But that's just my take on things. Nobody said this website is a democracy :-)
Posted on March 18, 2008 7:49 PM
I don't believe that really anyone here can post a holier than thou argument. I can easily go back to Super Tuesday posts as evidence.
Posted on March 18, 2008 9:37 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
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.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
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