Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Rasmussen North Carolina, Nevada, Arkansas


Rasmussen Reports

North Carolina (7/15/08; 500 LV, 4.5)
McCain 48, Obama 45
Sen: Dole (R-i) 54, Hagan (D) 43

Arkansas (7/15/08; 500 LV, 4.5)
McCain 47, Obama 37

Nevada (7/16/08; 500 LV, 4.5)
Obama 47, McCain 45

 

Comments
Undecided:

McCain is supported by 85% of Republicans ....Obama is backed by 69% of Democrats. Obama indeed depends on those non-affiliated voters.


____________________

OGLiberal:

Depends on what state you're talking about. I think a Democrat in North Carolina is a lot different than a Dem from California or Pennsylvania...or even Virginia, for that matter. Dems in NC are probably considerably more conservative and McCain would appeal to them as a moderate Republican, even though he really is a conservative Republican.

____________________

political_junki:

Well, why bob Barr wasn't in the option. It could have made a big difference. I think.

____________________

Paul:

NC at McCain +3 appears consistent with four NC polls post-primary, which showed McCain +5, +4, +2, and +4. 538 is projecting McCain at +4.5% and leaning GOP with probability of victory 76%.

____________________

sherman:

Only 69% of Democrats in NC support Obama? On the one hand, that's pretty bad considering how well he did in the primary. I wonder what's eating NC Dems up so much. Hillary? On the other hand, I think it is much easier to convince Dems back to Obama's side than it is to try to cajole independents, so there still is an opening for Obama to make a play.

____________________

carl29:

O.K., time to look at historical data:

In 2004 Bush won 96% of the republican vote, McCain is getting 85%, 9% down. Bush won 16% of the democratic vote; McCain is getting 18%, 2% up. Bush won independents by 15%; McCain is losing independents by 10%. McCain is not doing any better than Bush among democrats and is doing a pretty worst among republicans and independents.

Barack's success in North Carolina depends on those democrats and republicans who are neither supporting him nor McCain to stay at home, or vote for Bob Barr for that matter. He also needs to keep the edge among independents and a record AA turnout. I think that if the day on Nov. 3, polls keep showing a tie race, as it appears now, Barack has a very good shot at it, why? I don't think that any pollster has the right % of AA turnout in the south, for which I don't blame them because this is so historical that no one knows for sure how that is going to be.

P.S: Obama needs that the lack of support among some democrats never translate into support for McCain. So far so good. Let's cross our fingers!!!

____________________

brambster:

I've found it next to useless to parse out supporting stats in these really small sample polls as a way to prove anything except for gross variability.

I'm sure that Obama is doing better than the historical average with both Dems and independents rather than doing worse with Dems and substantially better with independents. That's what you get when you take a tiny sample and then move it to party ID weighting. All IMO of course.

These polls are only really useful as an average of many.

____________________

onelightonvoice:

Arkansas is the really interesting one to me.

I kinda expected the Nevada result....it has been turning for awhile now.

The 10 point diff in Arkansas may be a reason to put Hillary on the ticket because it essentially guarantees he wins there and very likely Florida. I still don't like the Hillary vp choice, but hey, it would be an easy road for him campaigning wise. Say what you want about Hill-Billy, but they are as tough as nails and can campaign extremely well. That would be a certain landslide. If she had just been more civil and didn't force him to spend millions during the primary season, she would be an easy choice. Now, not so much.

____________________

Paul:

Arkansas at McCain +10 is consistent with the June Rasmussen poll which has McCain +9. 538 projects McCain as likely winner at +13 (93% probability of GOP win).

____________________

Undecided:

I think the surprise is that McCain is viewed favorably by 60% (with very unfavorable at only 16%) considering his position on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.

____________________

CaptainPatent:

@Undecided

While I do think you have a valid point, Yucca Mountain doesn't place anywhere near the current top concerns. Right now favorability and unfavorability are being heavily judged by economic and diplomatic issues such as the weakening dollar and the Iraq War.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

The poll shows Obama down by three, yet only getting 69% of Democrats. That's a good sign for his potential to grow. If he can get 80%, which he should, he will have a slight advantage.

____________________

Clint Cooper:

I believe Nevada will go narrowly for Obama, but I'm not sure. One thing to look at is the large uptick in Democratic voter registrations in the state. In 2004, there was a tiny voter registration advantage for Republicans which translated into a small Bush victory in Nevada.

As of now, Democratic registrations outnumber Republican ones by 72,000 for a 5 point advantage overall. And that advantage is growing daily. It should be interesting to watch and see if either Obama or McCain campaign vigorously for Nevada's 5 electoral votes.

____________________

skibum1981:

whoops someone already beat me to it!

____________________

Undecided:

I do see your point... CaptainPatent... but I was coming from the context of the Nevada news headlines about McCain.

So the 60% favorability in Nevada for McCain could include the economy and Iraq War. That would also be good news for McCain

____________________

brambster:

@Nicki

Don't confuse Rasmussen's "Favorability" numbers with the way that other pollsters ask. The choices are not the same and therefore not comparable. Most other pollsters ask either Favorable, Unfavorable, or Not Sure. Rasmussen asks Very Favorable, Somewhat Favorable, Somewhat Unfavorable, Very Unfavorable and Not Sure. The three choice question encourages more people to be Unfavorable because they view favorability as something where they are in support of a candidate or position, whereas the 5 choice question moves some Unfavorable respondants over to Somewhat Favorable.

Think about it this way...If you like Vanilla and Chocolate, but don't like Strawberry, and I asked you if you were Favorable or Unfavorable to a sunday with all three, you might say that you were Unfavorable. If I also included Somewhat Favorable as a choice, you would likely answer Somewhat Favorable instead of just simply Unfavorable.

Mark covered this to some extent just yesterday in this post:

/blogs/the_times_obama_and_race.html

So don't mistake Rasmussen's way of asking favorability with benchmarks set by other pollsters because there is no good way to rectify them. Normally 60% favorability is a really good result, but in this case it says nothing, and the fact that McCain has more in Rasmussen's net favorability numbers than Obama despite lower poll numbers is easily explained by the fact that more Republicans are 'haters' than Democrats. This is clearly reflected by Rasmussen's regular showing of Obama's higher Very Unfavorable numbers in states where he leads, even substantially leads. If you note that even in this election, Obama has specifically tried to avoid non-policy issues, and while McCain has done mostly the same, the Republican media machine can't even keep themselves from calling a simple fist bump a "terrorist fist bump", or spreading lies about Obama's religion. I don't think it is unique for just Republicans to employ these tactics, but this is in fact what many democrats dislike about Hillary Clinton. As far as I'm concerned, Rove-ian attack politics mostly started with Bill Clinton, and it's a real shame that we can't have an election about policy to a greater extent than it is on mud. The reason why mud plays such a big role is because it is the losing candidate's best tool to gain an advantage so long as our media plays along with this game.

____________________

Undecided:

I had already read Mark's article. I am not at all confused about Rasmussen favorable and unfavorable ratings. In fact, the Rasmussen narrative (and I) do not compare to other polls but between candidates, between states and with national Rasmussen as well previous Rasumussen ratings for that state. And in that context 60% favorability is high.

FYI... When it came to Democrat support only (in the polls including exit)... Hillary won out over Obama. Do not confuse Obama supporters as all being "Democrats." For example, the his youth supporter lean more to identifying themselves as "Independents."

Additionally, the high unfavorable ratings for Obama are not all "Republicans."

____________________

Undecided:

So any problems that Obama has is because of Bill Clinton who the Obama campaign targeted as being racist. So who is using the real Rovian tactics?

____________________

brambster:

@Nicki

I've noted your disappointment over Hillary's loss in the primaries. I can see that you generally are more favorable to candidates that are women. I think that's fine. What strikes me as odd is what you see in Obama and his actions that are even remotely comparable to the heavy handed tactics of many modern politicians.

It's a common belief that women candidates have an advantage in attack politics because it is considered rude or inappropriate to even speak down to a woman in the political arena. I only recently figured out that you were a woman, and I wouldn't have exchanged dialog with you in the way that I did if I knew what I now know. This isn't sexism, it's just simply how men and women communicate differently. You called yourself Nick, and I treated you like you were a Nick.

Back to Hillary. When she ran for Senate the first time, Lazio walked across the stage and held a piece of paper out (a pledge) in front of Hillary. He was blasted for this as being too aggressive, but it was in fact hardly noticeable as an act of aggression. Al Gore on the other hand literally stalked Bush in a 2000 debate and got off as just simply being impatient and condescending. There's clearly a double standard.

Just like I didn't see the sexism and you might have, black people in South Carolina might have seen the racism while you and I didn't. Just because it is your perception doesn't mean that it is the correct opinion or even the popular opinion.

I don't believe that Obama even tried hard to fight with Hillary following Super Tuesday. He wrapped up the race in March and it was a statistical certainty that he would win eventually. I don't know why Hillary thought that she had a chance, and why she would damage her party's chances of getting into the White House by fighting a hopeless battle. The math was possible, the reality wasn't. If Obama went negative in return, he would lose his tarnish, and do so without gaining any benefit being that his opponent was already defeated despite her not realizing it.

When you are behind, you attack, and this is what Hillary did. I personally had it with her when her campaign released the photo of Obama in Somali garb, and then appeared on 60 minutes and essentially said that she wasn't sure if Obama was a Christian. This was done solely to play on people's fears about Muslims and Blacks. Hillary was asked twice in that interview, and she only dug the hole deeper when she was given an opportunity to correct her wording. Instead of correcting it, she sought an opportunity to add doubt. This is the most shameless form of politics that there is.

It only got worse from there. The list of candidates that refuse to conceded on the night that the results became clear is very, very short. Hillary is now one of those, and it really speaks to her arrogance. Who could possibly lose such a race and then believe (not pretend to believe) that the fight was still on. She was more than willing to tear apart the party for her own ambition so long as there was a speck of hope (including assassination as she was quoted multiple times saying). This likely ruined her chances to ever become President. I really expected more of her even though I didn't expect much in the first place.

So while you find fault with Obama for winning, I determined months ago that I would not only refuse to ever vote for Hillary again (she's my senator), I will actually vote for her strongest opponent until we are rid of her. It's politicians like this that turn government into a circus of personal ambition and dastardly tactics, and we're better off without them. Nevertheless, I don't generally go around flaming Hillary, or making up things to say that would hurt her (nor do I do this about McCain).

There's two sides to every story, and this one isn't just simply black and white.

____________________

Paul:

Rasmussen's last three polls for Nevada had McCain +5, +6 and +3 ... now Obama +2 ... argument for Nevada now a toss-up. Here is a scenario to consider, albeit somewhat unlikely: Obama wins all the Kerry states plus Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico ... electoral vote is tied 269-269, goes to House, McCain wins. The most likely win remaining for Obama is Colorado, where if he wins, he does not need Nevada and wins 273-265. A win in Ohio makes victory 293-245. A win in Virginia makes victory 306-232.

____________________

brambster:

@Paul

Obama wins if it goes to the House. The House has one vote per state, and one would think that majority rules of a state's House delegation. I can't remember the exact breakdown, but the Democrats actually have more majorities on the state level by a comfortable enough margin to make this a majority. There are a lot of so-called Red states that are majority Democrat represented now, such as North Carolina, Mississippi, Indiana, Ohio, North and South Dakota, etc. So in short, Obama wins the ties.

Don't forget however that Obama is the odds-on favorite in Iowa now, so the likelihood of a tie in the EV would likely only exist if Obama carried the Kerry states plus IA, NV and NM, but lost all the others. Obama only needs to pick up IA plus two of the three of CO, NV and NM to win. Certainly would be easier than picking up Florida as an alternative. His other likely routes to a win would be Kerry plus VA and IA or NM or CO or NV, or Kerry plus OH. McCain must carry VA, OH and two of the three in the Southwest to win. That's a lot of diversity as well as ground to cover for someone that is behind.

____________________

Undecided:

Regarding a tie... McCain could pick up 1 EV in Maine. (Obama 3 EV)

____________________



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