Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: PPP Ohio


Public Policy Polling (D)
7/17-20/08; 1,058 LV, 3%
Mode: IVR

Ohio
Obama 48, McCain 40

 

Comments
onelightonvoice:


Wait wait wait, I thought Obama needed Clinton to win Ohio??


____________________

avatarMM:

in 2006 there was a wave and Ohio elected a Dem senator, 1 house pickup and governor because of the corruption stuff.

in 2008 there will be a tsunami and the economy will be the main issue in Ohio so i dont see how republicans are able to survive. i think we get 3+ house pickups and Obama wins by 5+ (which is a landslide in this state)

____________________

Uri:

@onelightonvoice: This is nothing new, he's been leading in Ohio for a while now.

Besides, the argument was always that he needed Clinton for the white vote, which he still doesn' have:

"Obama trails McCain 46-42 among white voters, but his 91-6 advantage with African
Americans gives him the overall lead."

In most battleground state, the racial (racist?) vote will carry Obama to victory.

____________________

ndirish11:

@onelightonvoice:

Well maybe, since Clinton endorsed him and told all her supporters to vote for him had something to do with it? He was losing there before the endorsement and now he is leading. So yes, Obama did need Clinton for Ohio.

____________________

brambster:

@Uri

Since when did a Kerry to Bush split of 88% to 11% turn suddenly "racist" when Obama polls at 91% to 6% for McCain?

Republicans make no secret of the fact that they are against almost all attempts at bringing equality to African-Americans in this country. The Republican party is the party where all of the racist Democrats went during the last 40 years; something termed the Republican's "Southern Strategy". It's beyond me how any black person could vote Republican under these circumstances. It's not racist, it just simply makes sense.

____________________

Uri:

@bramster: There's a big difference between 88%-11% and 91-6%. It means that of the people who don't automatically vote democrat (assuming Kerry was a weak candidate), half will now do so.

Convince me that AAs would vote at the same rates for Obama if he was white and I'll buy your argument.

As for the Republicans standing against anything that AAs believe in, I don't buy that argument. They also stand against things that women and gays care about and yet they get more than 10% of the vote.

And like you said, if the Republicans are so bad for the AAs, why did 11% of them vote for Bush, but only 6% vote for McCain? Did the Republicans suddenly become worse? Is McCain more of a racist than Bush? Or is it just that this is a racial vote?

____________________

Jacob S:

All of you are are making some interesting points. I expect that 90 to 95 percent of the black vote will go for Obama, which means that anything close to a 50/50 split of white voters will translate into an Obama blowout. I do not think that this trend is because of racism. 85%+ of Jews voted for Gore in 2000 (partially due to Lieberman). I do not remember anyone saying that Jewish support for the Democratic ticket was evidence of bigotry.

On this specific poll, I think that we should all be cautious about a poll that is conducted by Dems. However, I think that it is safe to say that McCain has some ground to make-up in Ohio. If he loses Ohio, it will be virtually impossible for him to win the election (name one state that voted for Kerry or Gore that could plausibly vote for McCain).

____________________

Jacob S:

P.S. The Republicans have got to be really careful in Red/lower income states this year. Some people in Mississippi are paying six dollars for gas! I doubt that many of these peoples' incomes have risen a cent in the last few years. People are going to be angry and desperate--and that's a very good atmosphere for Obama to not only win, but lead the Democrats to sweeping congressional victories (pick-ups of 7+ in the Senate and 20+ in the House).

____________________

Uri:

@Jacob:
From the numbers that I've seen,
Jewish vote for dems was:

76-24 in '04, 79-19 in '04, 78-16 in '00 and 80-11 in '92. I am not sure where you are getting the 85% figure for '00, nor why you think Lieberman is a factor.

Most jews were never particularly fond of Lieberman yet were very fond of Clinton and Gore.

And I am sorry but I do still feel that race played a role in this. All the stories about 5$ gas, the economy, and so on, don't show that AAs were for Obama for substantial reasons, and also don't explain why they were usually 95%+ for Obama over Clinton who doesn't share those horrible Republican values you think of. The fact is that AAs (perhaps rightfully so, considering history) want one of their own as president.

Since there is a traditional roughly around a 52-48 split among whites, AAs and apathy to Republicans are going to lead to an Obama blowout, that's fairly obvious. But let us not kid ourselves on the AA support.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Uri -

You are a joke. Look up the word "racist" before using it here. You obviously have a vocabulary problem. Blacks have been voting for whites faaaar longer than the opposite. Your pathetic attempt at saying Kerry's numbers don't equate to Obama's is nonsensical. If they didn't vote for Kerry, guess who they voted for?? Yup, a white guy. Pretty racist stuff there. Get a clue.

Yeah, turnout will be up among AA's since Obama is seen to represent the community. They aren't voting for Obama because they are racist against whites - as many of them have never even had a chance to vote for anyone other than a white. You want racism, genius? Take a gander at this little nugget:

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


Now, that is racism. I have yet to hear from blacks claiming they are voting for Obama because Hillary/McCain is sub-human.

Uri, sometimes it is better to shut your mouth and have people think you are ignorant than open it and remove all doubt.


____________________

ndirish11:

I agree with Uri, there may be a point in a dem vs republican election, because AAs usually vote democrat. However, onenlightonvoice, you can't say that race was not a factor in the Hillary/Obama primary season. If race wasn't a factor the AA vote would be split down the middle. Maybe if the vote was 60-40 Obama I could believe it. But 95+ for Obama? Any educated mind could come to the conclusion that there AA and he is AA, thats why. Just like why more women voted for Hillary (in a much lesser extent).

And I know a lot of people that would argue voting for your own race, just because of race is racist.

____________________

mahlers5th:

What does it mean, if anything, that PPP had Obama beating McCain in OH by a slightly wider margin (50-39)a month ago?

____________________

onelightonvoice:

ndirish -

You too, don't know the meaning of the word "racist". There are plenty of blacks who have voted and will vote for a white again. The same can't be said, to the same extent, of whites. Period.

Maybe you should read my post before responding. View the video too. As I said before, blacks voted for Obama because he (rightly or wrongly) gave the impression that he represents their community/values, etc. Racism means that these same blacks think that white candidates are inferior and will only vote for an AA. Hard to find too many of those....but take a stroll through Appalachia one day and see if you can find some whites who think the reverse.

Now, explain why white women overwhelmingly voted for Clinton without using sexism. Waiting....


____________________

brambster:

Let's be very clear here. Being pro-something, in this regard, can be biased, but it isn't racist. Racism is best described as discrimination based on someone's race or ethnicity. African-Americans are voting for Obama because he is black, not because he isn't white. You certainly couldn't claim that a small tick up in his AA support is a sign of this because that tick up came from those that were voting for a White Republican in past elections.

Just so you know, it's not just the Republicans that have a history of racism and embracing racism and racist policies. McCain voted against the Martin Luther King holiday both while he was in his state's legislature and while in Congress, and Arizona was the last state to recognize the holiday. It is beyond me how anyone can refute the importance of MLK in ending segregation in this country; the last step in becoming a country of universal suffrage (if you ignore the ongoing efforts by Republicans to challenge black people's right to vote in hotly contested elections through intimidation, poll challenges, registration hurdles, and voter ID laws).

So while everyone has some degree of prejudice in them for those that are different, it's ridiculous to call African-Americans racists for supporting an African-American candidate, just like it would be ridiculous to assert that White people were racist for merely supporting a White candidate, or women supporting a woman candidate, or Hispanics supporting a Hispanic candidate.

IT'S A SHAME THAT ANY OF THIS EVEN NEEDS TO BE SAID! Geesh.

____________________

Undecided:

Regarding high gasoline prices and Republicans... I do not think they are going to take the hit. The Democrats are holding off the lifting of the off-shore oil drilling ban which most Americans favor. The Democrats have also just declared that the "gas tax holiday" is NOT going to happen ever... and in fact they are contemplating raising both federal gas and diesel taxes to replenish the Highway Trust Fund.... I will repeat... Democratic leaders in Congress have said they want to INCREASE taxes on gasoline and diesel. So what don't they understand about keeping Independent truckers in business and the extraordinary cost of poor people trying to get to work... and the subsequent increase on food prices? What have they been drinking?

____________________

Paul:

Post-primary --- Obama leads in 4 of 5 Ohio polls. June PPP Poll had Obama +11. RCP has Obama +3.8, 538 has Obama +3.9 (does not include this poll, projects Obama +1.4 with probability of win 59% - toss up); Pollster.com has Obama +5.8.

According to 538, Ohio is by far the most important state in this race (top 7: OH, CO, MI, PA, VA, NM, NV). What realistic scenario exists which has McCain losing Ohio and winning the election?

____________________

m finesod:

GEEEE, a Democrat run poll claims a Democrat is ahead in Ohio. Biased polls like PPP(D) are a waste of time. Real polls, ie Rasmussen, Gallup, show "REAL" numbers. They have McCain ahead in Ohio by 10 points 52% to 42%. This makes logical sense since Obama was trounced in Ohio by Hillary Clinton. Ohio dislikes Obama, and is not a swing state in this election. The swing states are:
Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Mexico. Ohio is an easy McCain state

____________________

Mark:

With regard to the gasoline price issue I do believe Republicans will take a hit. It has already been pointed out by economists (myself included) that the a gas tax holiday will not have any effect on retail prices and will only increase corporate profits. This is because our limited refinery capacity has resulted in an inelastic supply of gasoline. Based on recent polls most Americans seem to understand this simple economic concept. The highway fund is facing a $3 billion shortfall this year. To make up that money the gas tax will have to be raised. The inverse of the fact that a gas tax holiday will have no effect on retail prices is that a tax increase will have no effect on retail prices either. It will simply transfer some of the healthy profits the oil industry is currently earning to the job of maintaining our highways, something most working Americans should be in favor of. I believe most Americans have sufficient economic sense to understand this (perhaps McCain excluded).

As for offshore drilling although a majority favor it, they also realize this will have little effect on oil prices and that what effect it will have will not be realized for a very long time. I have faith that once the arguments against offshore drilling a made cogently and more publicly those poll numbers will change.

More drilling is no more a responsible energy policy than tax cuts are a responsible economic policy. Americans will know who to blame this fall. They won't be fooled again.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

mark -

Agree with your points - because I have a functioning brain that I use (mostly).

I don't share your optimism that Americans won't get fooled again. That's more faith than I have in my fellow citizens. Look who the president has been for the last 8 years. Maybe if the DNC kept running ads showing black-tarred beaches in Florida and Alaska, that might swing some people, along with ads showing economists disparaging the offshore tactic. Maybe Al Gore can pitch in as well. But any logical arguments showing that is a rough sell. We aren't in Europe after all. Who knows, maybe Americans have grown wiser these past few years.......?

In the immortal words of the shrub, "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. It fool me. We can't get fooled again."

____________________



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