Obama 46, McCain 38
Sen: Smith (R-i) 47, Merkley 38
Closer than I would have predicted. The following results are telling and might explain:
Is Barack Obama too inexperienced to be President?
Posted on June 13, 2008 4:55 PM
@Nickberry -- Doom and gloom in every thread. We get it, you'll find any reason to undermine good poll numbers for Obama. Clinton would have been the stronger candidate. Dems are going to go down in flames in November. blah blah blah.
I think these numbers are very good considering John Kerry won by a measly 4 points in 2004. We forget, Oregon is a swing state, or rather -- USED TO BE. The 8 point lead that Obama has in Oregon is one point shy of the 9 point lead McCain has in Mississippi. Is MS a swing state too?
Posted on June 13, 2008 6:38 PM
@Nick, et al. - The practice of picking out an extraneous question from a broader poll is generally done in order to attempt to prove a point that contradicts the same poll's primary finding is nothing more than a dishonest ruse or if you want to be nice, maybe also as a result of a lack of understanding. I would hope that most here can figure that out.
Barack Obama has had a history of closing strong in most primaries because of his lack of name recognition in comparison to Hillary Clinton. Many chose him as they became more familiar with him, and before HRC became a pit bull intent on tearing him down personally. He finished the primaries weak because he chose not to attack HRC for the good of the party, knowing that he had already sewed up enough support to coast to victory. That hurt him short-term, but it helps him in the long run as he didn't tarnish himself in the process and can still claim to be above the fray.
Now that the general election has truly begun, it is time for independents and Republicans to get to know Obama, and he will no doubt rise in the polls over the short term. I also suspect that enough HRC supporters were under-polling for Obama during the Democratic race if for no other reason but to go along with the HRC mantra that she was stronger against McCain.
So what we have now is pretty much expected. Oregon, like most states West of the Mississippi, holds little prejustice for a mixed race candidate (hence Obama's strength in the primaries), and in the last election where Bush was teetering around 50% approval, he still lost Oregon, but now at less than 30%, it just makes sense that Obama will do even better than Kerry there. In fact, Obama is polling better than Kerry finished in all but a handful of states.
Nick did make a good point about Mississippi polling just as close, but I would think that there's still no real chance of Mississippi being picked up by Obama without a 400 EV total (a huge blowout). While Oregon is used to picking both state-wide and national candidates from both parties, Mississippi is not. The US government candidates MS have been purely Republican for decades, and the Democratic vote has been very largely AA. Bill Clinton could win Mississippi in 2008, but Obama would need McCain to implode for this to happen. Oregon's electorate is much more dynamic in their voting patterns in such elections.
While things look great for Obama right now, Kerry was also enjoying similar numbers at exactly this point in 2004. If Obama's surge keeps up, I expect the swift-boating to begin in short order, and we'll see how effective that will be. It did work for HRC, but this time I expect Obama to fight back.
Posted on June 13, 2008 8:17 PM
Hey.. Mike_in_CA.... Stick to the statistics and quit personally belittling me. Again read the comment policy. And next time please control your impulse to insult others.
When is factually quoting directly from the poll considered "undermining?" Get a reality check.
Hey... brambster...There were only 13 questions. How is that "picking out an extraneous question?. Quit directing your condescending remarks at me. It is considered harassment and is unwarranted.
Posted on June 13, 2008 11:22 PM
That's really funny and also a bit strange that you accused me of harassment; so I decided to look up some of your other comments here. It seems that you are quite a partisan little whiner.
You drop pro-Hillary and pro-McCain talking points all over your posts, you pull extraneous information out to attempt to show the greener side of whatever is anti-Obama, and then when almost anyone disagrees with you, you claim harassment or you cry foul about a violation of the comment policy.
I'm not going to spend any more time debating you on issues, but I thought that I would share what I found after your surprising claim of harassment so others don't waste their time with someone that sees things differently simply because he wants to.
Posted on June 14, 2008 4:47 PM
Excellent point, though to compare apples-to-apples, Rasmussen's 5/27 MS poll shows McCain ahead just 50-44!! Wonder what Nickberry has to say about that...
Posted on June 14, 2008 6:41 PM
FYI... Both of you made ME the issue when I only made a simple observation based on poll data. And neither one of you ever refuted that information. So....What do you guys not get about the concept of "civil" debate? Again stick to the statistics. I stand by my initial comment that I thought Obama would have had a larger lead in Oregon. I checked the survey, and found what appeared to be a correlation on the "experience" factor. So how is that "partisan?"
Hey... brambster... You do continue to harass me with the following statement.... "It seems that you are quite a partisan little whiner." Again..quit the bullying and name-calling.
Posted on June 14, 2008 9:55 PM
The question regarding whether Obama is too inexperienced to be President is primarily a partisan question. You would get virtually the same answer if they were asked if Obama is too liberal to be President.
If you had the crosstabs, I would bet that you would see similar stats as party breakdowns with crossover votes, with self-identified Republicans keeping a near 90/10 too inexperienced opinion, and self-identified Democrats being closer to 20/80, and independents breaking close to the way they do in presidential preference.
Obama probably scores a small bit worse than one might expect based on party identity due to Hillary's attacks during the primary starting with the 3 a.m. ad, likely causing some Democratic supporting voters to say this despite their stated support for Obama. Another thing to consider is that people don't assume experience to start, so Obama's numbers will improve over time with swing and uncommitted voters as they get to known him better.
In any event, experience is not something that people vote on with Democrat vs. Republican, it is primarily an expression of their partisan views.
This election will be primarily about three things (for those that aren't fixated in one ideological position):
1) George W. Bush
2) The war in Iraq
3) The economy
The swing voters will primarily be considering those things. I do not see how this could possibly break favorably for McCain this year unless we are attacked by terrorists again. That would only happen if the public actually trusts Republicans more than Democrats if an attack comes 7 1/2 years into a Republican administration.
I truly believe that your claim that this question was a sign of weakness for Obama is a reflection of a lack of understanding at best, but I'm guessing that it is more likely just the result of a partisan regurgitating talking points in an effort to further his cause. Wasn't that why you where here acting pro-Hillary for the last few months?
Posted on June 15, 2008 6:02 AM
So what is your explanation of the Oregon poll numbers being closer than expected... other than the "3am ad" that was not used in Oregon? Also note that Obama blew Hillary away in the Oregon Democratic primary.
And as I have already explained... the only "points" I am "regurgitating" are from the poll itself.
Posted on June 15, 2008 11:10 PM
8 points is neither what I would consider to be close, nor is it closer than expected. It is in fact wider than expected based on the last two elections.
Right now we are in a phase of polling where third-party candidates are getting attention. With Nader achieving above 5% in some states, and Barr in others, this has drawn away support from both candidates. This particular poll showed 9% Other, and 7% undecided. Since it is Oregon and not North Carolina, we can assume that this is largely Nader taking away from Obama at this point, but weak candidates always lose strength in the final month before the election as voters move to the best of the two rather than their most liked candidate/protest vote, especially if a state is looking close. If you look in Pollster's own trends for this state, McCain is in a long-term dive, and a slight tick down in Obama's lead is not showing up in McCain's column.
As has been pointed out, Obama is within 8 or even leading in many states that were not considered to be even swing states. Nevada was hardly contested in 2004, but leans Obama now. Obama seems to have a nice lead and benefits from a party-switching trend in Virginia. Indiana looks like a very close race. Colorado looks to be solidly in his column. Then there are what I would consider to be big surprises in other non-swing states like North Carolina, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, South Carolina and Alaska. All of those states are trending at least as close as Oregon. Obama is also ahead of McCain in every state that voted for Kerry, and ahead of McCain in all of the states that were less than 5% for Bush in 2004.
And to boot, Intrade, where money trumps political affiliation, Oregon is trading at 86% Obama, while Oklahoma is trading at 88% McCain.
I don't know what it is that you are seeing, but it's pretty clear where things stand right now. I doubt that Obama nor McCain will spend any real money in neither Oregon nor Oklahoma because the outcome and the trends are pretty clear.
Your original point however was about the experience question in the poll, and as polls go, this is a question that is heavily influenced by partisan factors. Iowa and Minnesota are showing similar numbers on the same question, and similar leads as well. Not a surprise at all, and it's not a question that has any statistical significance on it's own in the way it was asked.
For McCain, this election will hinge on Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio. McCain can't afford to lose less than one of these states due to the pickups that Obama has made in the Plains and the West. Obama is favored at Intrade in these three states by 78%, 82% and 62% respectively.
www.270towin.com shows the current poll predictions that almost perfectly match the data that I am sourcing right now (WV seems like an error), and it has Obama winning the electoral vote by 327 to 211.
The only strategy to change this dynamic will be to tear Obama down. I expect Obama to take some big lumps, but I don't know that the electorate will respond to attacks strongly enough to put a Republican back in the White House in a year that is the toughest year for Republicans since 1974.
Posted on June 16, 2008 12:21 AM
Yet... you still deign to call me names.
Obama is a ripe target for negative campaigning. I hope you can stand the heat and do not resort to "whining" about it.
Posted on June 16, 2008 12:12 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