Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen Kentucky, Minnesota


Rasmussen Reports

Kentucky
McCain 57, Obama 32... Clinton 51, McCain 42
Sen: Lunsford 49, McConnell 44

Minnesota
Obama 53, McCain 38... Clinton 53, McCain 38
Sen: Coleman 47, Franken 45

 

Comments
Snowspinner:

Kentucky went strongly red in all areas around 2000. In 2006 it weakened a little with a Democratic governor. So, given the fact that we're on ridiculously early polling data here, the question is, can the Democrats actually win it back?

It's a state that's particularly well-tuned to the evangelical message - undereducated Protestant Christians rule the day, which means that the Christian right message gets out more easily than mainstream media reports. Hence the higher rate of belief that Obama is a Muslim.

You can also get a sense of the sort of Democratic population Kentucky has by the simple number that 17% of the Democratic primary voters openly admitted to voting for Clinton because she was white. And again, that's open admission.

McCain's vulnerability here is that the state features the evangelical base he has a harder time mobilizing. That said, that base is also the base that has the longest-standing dislike for Clinton. It is likely that the only reason her numbers are high in Kentucky right now is the relative silence about her as Obama has dominated the media cycles. Were the right to turn their attention to Clinton her numbers would go down fast.

It would still probably be closer with Clinton/McCain than Obama/McCain. But I am very skeptical that her lead would hold under a concentrated Republican attack of the sort that would happen in a general election.

____________________

Snowspinner:

A sign of the relative weakness of Clinton from the internals on the poll - Clinton is running with a 56% approval rating in Kentucky. McCain is running with a 59%. Those numbers should not be that close in a blow-out like this poll predicts.

(Obama, meanwhile, is toast in Kentucky - a 40% very unfavorable rating is a game-ender.)

____________________

MC_from_Cali.:

we all know Obama is not going to win kentucky or west virginia for that matter. There are many cultural issues as well as racial undertones in those states, and they will never vote for a black man (which is a sad truth this day in age). over 20% of the voters in those states that did not vote for him said his race was an issues. Some even said we don't want a muslim or another hussain. So a lack of an education has a lot to do with this. But I honestly believe clinton can not win kentucky either. Right now the republican right are attacking obama and clinton is getting a pass, if she were the nominee after constant attacks her numbers would go down and mccain's up in kentucky. But the truth is obama does not need to win those states in order to win the election. He can win with iowa, new mexico, colorado, nevada, and virginia.

____________________

IdahoMulato:

I agree with almost all what the previous bloggers have said. Obama will need to concentrate on CO, NV, NM, NE, Mo, KS, IN, VA, FL and OH. These are going to be the swing states come November.

____________________

IdahoMulato:

I agree with almost all what the previous bloggers have said. Obama will need to concentrate on CO, NV, NM, NE, Mo, KS, IN, VA, FL and OH. These are going to be the swing states come November.

____________________

kingsbridge77:

I think Southerners are not particularly fond of Michelle Obama, who had never been proud of America in her whole adult life until the people rallied against her husband.

____________________

ndirish11:

Clinton is the stronger candidate. That's why all the super delegates haven't jumped on Obama once his delegate lead was 'insurmountable.' Its a shame when the candidate who has won more votes is behind in the delegate system even when delegates are aimed to be given out by the will of the people. Especially when Hillary won the popular vote in two states yet recieved less delegates, the system needs to change.

____________________

cinnamonape:

ndirish: "That's why all the super delegates haven't jumped on Obama once his delegate lead was 'insurmountable.'"

If so then why haven't they jumped to Clinton? Why has Obama been gaining Super Delegates at a 9:1 rate when compared to Clinton...SINCE the beginning of May? And why have about a dozen Super Delegates that declared for Clinton jumped over to Obama?

I guess because they all see that "Clinton is the stronger candidate"?

____________________

cinnamonape:

ndirish: "That's why all the super delegates haven't jumped on Obama once his delegate lead was 'insurmountable.'"

If so then why haven't they jumped to Clinton? Why has Obama been gaining Super Delegates at a 9:1 rate when comapred to Clinton...SINCE the beginning of May? And why have about a dozen Super Delegates that declared for Clinton jumped over to Obama?

I guess because they all see that "Clinton is the stronger candidate"?

____________________

MC_from_Cali.:

cinnamonape:

I agree, super delegates are free to back which ever canidate they want and if they think clinton is the stronger canidate why aren't they backing her? There not all jumping ship to obama all at once because if they all went at once then clinton backers would say she got pushed out before the rest of the states got to vote. So after montana and S. Dakota he will get the rest of them. Also people like to forget that obama's name wasn't even on the michigan ballot and there were still numerous votes for undeclared (for obama) in michigan. I'm not saying clinton couldn't win the election if she were the nominee, I'm just saying Obama is going to be nominee and he to can win the election.

____________________

MC_from_Cali.:

cinnamonape:

I agree, super delegates are free to back which ever canidate they want and if they think clinton is the stronger canidate why aren't they backing her? There not all jumping ship to obama all at once because if they all went at once then clinton backers would say she got pushed out before the rest of the states got to vote. So after montana and S. Dakota he will get the rest of them. Also people like to forget that obama's name wasn't even on the michigan ballot and there were still numerous votes for undeclared (for obama) in michigan.

I'm not saying clinton couldn't win the election if she were the nominee, I'm just saying Obama is going to be nominee and he to can win the election.

____________________

marctx:

Spin it anyway you want, but everyone including the Obama supporting media pundits admit Clinton is the stronger candidate right now. In the state by state polls Clinton beats McCain by 100 electoral votes and Obama looses by 50. I understand it is too late to give it to Clinton, so I guess the supers are okay with a McCain win. I just can't wait to see how they spin it in November. Will they blame themselves or acknowledge they should have listened to voters.

____________________

sooyapi:

It is never too late... that is what conventions are all about.

I read an article about McCain internal polls and they are very happy with their strengths in the critical states against Obama. The key is that Obama has emerged as quite a LIBERAL with his demographic base reflecting that fact. Race/ethnicity is not the issue, but rather the "culture" of socio-economic classes who are more ideologically conservative.

This particular poll in Kentucky may also reflect the "comfort level" that voters have with Hillary because she so recently spent so much in that state, whereas Obama did not. Former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford (notably a black man who lost his senatorial bid in the last election by a very small margin) wrote an op-ed giving advice to Obama that basicallly said Obama needs to also spend time with the regular folks so they get to know him.

____________________

Tybo:

The superdelegates are jumping for Clinton because the Barack campaign has effectively labeled everyone who dares critic him as racists.

it won't cow the republicans but the whimpy democratic leadership is sure bowed.

The democratic leadership- pelosi, kerry,kennedy, are simply incapable of actually leading.

____________________

thatmakessense2:

tybo,


Don't you get tired of trotting out the same old lies, day-in day-out? You sound like that tool, lanny davis. At least he's getting paid to BS. Are you?

When has ANYONE in Obama's campaign said opponents are "racist"?? They are too classy for that.

By the way, a lot of people who voted for Clinton and won't vote for Obama ARE racist - especially in states like WV, KY, TN, etc. Or did you miss the news reports like these:

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

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ODaxZSz3Awg

As far as you clowns who keep parroting the line about the polls showing Clinton beating McCain, and Obama tying/losing to him - well, polls don't mean anything. If they did, we wouldn't have elections, we would just have the super delegates give the nomination/election to whoever was leading in the polls. It sure would save a lot of money too...

By the way, didn't the polls show Clinton beating Obama in every state by a minimum of 20 points just a few months ago? I can already hear it now, "See, what had happened was....."

Uh-huh, okay, what's that? The supers should reverse the will of the people based on polls? You mean those things that are SO amazingly accurate? The democratic process should be overturned by that logic? Wow, that makes a lot of sense.....hmmm, I wonder if that will happen.....


In order to be electable, you need to win those funny things they call ELECTIONS. Here is a run-down for those of you who are challenged:

Election wins to date for Democrats:

Obama - 33
Clinton - 18

Yeah, I know, the truth hurts. Sorry, those are the rules. Deal with it.

____________________

Snowspinner:

I think it remains a big mistake to read too much into comparative polls, which naturally set Clinton and Obama off as opposing choices even when trying to answer the question "who will win in November." It's telling that the major poll that dropped Clinton - SurveyUSA - immediately saw huge jumps for Obama.

Beyond that, there are plenty of encouraging signs for Obama - he polls well ahead of McCain in MN - that was one of the supposed big Republican targets. The Newsweek poll that just came out has him with the highest favorability rating of any of the three.

With anti-Obama anger on the part of Clinton supporters at its peak, he polls even to ahead of McCain, with strength in swing states. Even if only 50% of the voters who say they'll defect to McCain come back, he'll be fine.

____________________

Tybo:

"In order to be electable, you need to win those funny things they call ELECTIONS"

yeah, caucus's have so much to do with elections, don't they?

Are alabama and georgia,utah and North dakota really going to help in the GE?

It's not suprizing that the democrats keep losing elections given that their nomination process is NOT tie to the reality of actually of getting elected in any way shape or form

____________________

MC_from_Cali.:

I know some of you like to spin things your own way in order to make your canidate look good. But the truth is that obama IS NOT DOWN 50 electoral votes to mccain right now. According to recent polls he is beating mccain in every state kerry won last time around which include New Hamshire and Pennsylvania. In addition to those states he is beating mccain in colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, and Virginia. That's close to 300 electoral votes, add them up.

____________________

Snowspinner:

Tybo - Alabama and Utah are unlikely flips, but no more unlikely than Clinton's "big state win" in Texas, and her wins in Oklahoma and Tennessee.

North Dakota is more interesting - the polls there are ancient, but show a close race - McCain leads by 6 in one poll, Obama leads by 4 in the other.

Georgia is less likely than North Dakota, but more likely than Alabama and Utah - 13 point deficit at the moment. Still, that's close enough that Obama can make McCain waste money defending in Georgia, which is tactically useful.

As for caucuses, they seem to have a lot to do with elections, in that they involve people showing up and casting votes for people.

____________________

sooyapi:

If one says that Obama is beating McCain in certain states, then maybe one should refer to the polls upon which he is basing that decision... This being a poll-driven website.

For example, using the weighting from 538, Obama is losing New Hampshire and Virginia. Add to that losing in Florida, Missouri, and Nevada. And McCain is showing well in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.


____________________

sooyapi:

Really, what is significant in the Kentucky and Minnesota polls is how well the Democrat Senate candidates are doing against the incumbents. McConnell is behind and Franken is relevant. Wow!

____________________

Snowspinner:

sooyapi - I am generally skeptical of the applicability of comparative polls in May on a general election in November that Clinton will probably not be appearing in. I think the first relevant polls will start coming in in mid-June, when the nomination is settled, Clinton has made her graceful withdrawal, and the general election begins in full. And I think Obama will get, essentially, a mini convention bump come June 4th.

We'll see. For now, it seems to me enough to note that Obama is ahead on the most recent NH poll (which is weeks newer than the next newest), ahead on the most recent VA (which is the first Clinton-free VA poll), closing fast in FL, striking distance in MO, leading in the SurveyUSA OH poll, and still quite close in NV.

All where he should be at this point.

____________________

thatmakessense2:

that's it tybo, that's the ticket, we should just have certain "important" states vote.

I know, just give up on the rest of the country and have California, Ohio and Florida vote every year.....makes a lot of sense.....


____________________

sooyapi:

The relevance of comparative polls is that people are most likely indicating their preference (moderate or liberal) because the candidates are pretty well ideologically identified at this time. The political consultants seem to take some value from these polls in that context and are directing their candidates to move toward the center where the majority of swing voters reside.

In other words, Obama may fare better if he can convince voters that he will represent their issues and values, and that will give him the "bump" in the polls... not Hillary's exit.

____________________

Snowspinner:

The problem I have with comparative polls is that they are, at this point, redundant. Clinton will not win the nomination - this is clear. The November race is Obama vs. McCain. And adding a spurious question that is clearly designed to get information other than "who will win in November" has a non-trivial effect on the results. I suspect this is especially true in a poll like this one where, so far as I can tell, the questions were not rotated, so that Clinton was always asked about before Obama, making the Obama vs. McCain question explicitly one that is phrased in comparison to Clinton.

____________________



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