Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: SurveyUSA Iowa


SurveyUSA

Iowa
Obama 49, McCain 45

 

Comments
Mike_in_CA:

unrelated to the results here, but why would SUSA poll Iowa right now, in the midst of catastrophic flooding? One has to wonder how many people have been forced out of their homes, away from their telephones. Probably not the best time to poll a state. Just doesn't really make sense -- there are lots of states to poll lol.

____________________

axt113:

flaw in the poll, It has McCain winning the AA vote 55% to 45%

____________________

onelightonvoice:

That is hilarious, but if you look at the stats, they polled about 11 AAs (not many in Iowa). So they found the 6 AA's in all of Iowa that aren't voting for Obama. Way to go SUSA!

That is the problem with polling only 500 people, it is susceptible to heavy skewing....

____________________

Sacks Romana:

So Obama is still beathing McCain outside the margin of error even after lossing the AA vote. Not too shabby.

I agree with Mike in CA that polling Iowa or any of the flood states at the moment is not going to produce the best results. Cedar Rapids and Iowa City were hit the hardest, and those are also the more liberal centers of population.

____________________

1magine:

28% of those who say they are pro-choice will vote for McCain? Uhmm - maybe its true that there are still tens of million of people not yet paying attention to the race. Anyone remotely concerned about choice I don't think will vote for the candidate who voted last year to criminalize abortion - even in the case of rape, incest and without an exception to save the life of the mother. I don't see this block even at 5-10% going for the guy who has been very clear and forthright that he will appoint judges like Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito who believe Grisswald v. CT. was wrongly decided (CT. outlawed the sale, possession of birth control and made it a crime for a physician to prescribe or give advice regarding birth control, even to married couples. Majority held that there is a 'sphere of privacy' within the marital bedroom that the government can not intrude upon. Dissenters said the word "privacy" does not appear in the Constitution - and Justices must "Strictly Construe" the Constitution and not derive words like "Privacy" from its various Articles. ) This is where the term Strict Constructionalist comes from.

I can only imagine the poll shift when the general public begins to pay attention to McCain's position here.

I realize that choice issues are down on the list after Economy, Iraq, ... But the Supreme COurt has not been 1 vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade before. NEVER. I think when the public realizes how close it is to being overturned, it will rise up the list. Economies get better over time, Supreme Court decisions can last generations.

____________________

kingsbridge77:

Those criticizing SUSA because among 11 blacks McCain is up are idiots. This is likely to happen when only 11 people are included. Morons.

And why would they use a bigger sample? There are very, very few blacks in Iowa.

____________________

brambster:

@1magine

The polls aren't going to shift on this issue. Those that are politically pro-choice already know the difference between McCain and Obama. Your mistake is assuming that everyone is pro-choice will vote for a pro-choice candidate. The fact is that a majority of Americans favor some restrictions on choice, or otherwise don't identify with the movement as a whole.

It is not strange to see a 28% cross-over according to pro-choice ideology. In the last cycle, SurveyUSA found that IOWA was 56% to 41% pro-choice to pro-life, yet Kerry lost to Bush (who is definitely less moderate on the issue than McCain).

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm

The country as a whole is majority pro-choice, but Bush still won twice.

There is certainly a pro-choice voting block, but it's not very dynamic. What you see is what you get. The issues that determine this election will center on the economy, Iraq, and change, and choice will hardly make any headlines.

____________________

marctx:

I personally think it is worse than using the war as a scare tactic to use R.Vs.W as a scare tactic aimed at pro-choice voters, especially women. It is ridiculous to think that if McCain was president somehow that will equate to turning back progress women have made in the last few decades. Absurd. Bush was pro-life??? McCain can personally be pro-life and a majority of the supreme court could be pro-life, but they would still not take away womens right to choose in general. They may tweak it a bit for partial birth, etc. Women wouldn't let that happen and congress would overturn it with an constitutional amendment if they did. You will never hear McCain say one of his priorities is to overturn R.Vs.W. It's just a democratic scare tactic to get votes.

____________________

Mark Blumenthal:

Just posted comments about the small African American sample and the flooding issue.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Abortion is a non-issue politically, because the people on either extreme side of the equation are largely Republicans or Democrats because of abortion - or at least it is a turnout issue. I would wager there are very few centrists on abortion, with some highly nuanced position that, AT THE SAME TIME, consider abortion their one big issue.

Abortion is probably the most ill-discussed issue anyway. If you listen to Arianna Huffington, abortion will ensure that Obama gets women voters. Interesting, except that there is no gender gap on abortion. There is a gender gap over healthcare, military issues, and in particular, space exploration - but not abortion the presumably quintessential "women's issue".

Finally, if you did have a debate on abortion, I don't think Obama would carry all of those pro-choice voters. For instance, 2/3rds of Americans support a partial birth abortion ban - this includes many people that consider themselves "pro-choice". I would think raising the stakes of the abortion issue would hurt Obama more than McCain - if for no other reason than that Obama is currently winning a bunch of folks over that once voted for Bush.

____________________

brambster:

@marctx

McCain has been pandering heavily to conservatives since 2004 when he decided he needed their support to win. His public statements on abortion and judicial appointments are now no different than Bush's.

Just in 2006 the Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, and it has been signaled that the court is not respecting precedent in many areas including abortion. States (Republican wedge masters) are now following on this decision to ratify laws that for instance make it a FELONY to perform ANY abortions (South Dakota, Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act). More laws are coming too, and the idea is to have something in place to challenge Roe vs. Wade.

John Paul Stevens is now 88 years old, and I'm sure he would love to retire. I would give the court a 100% chance of overturning at least most of Roe vs. Wade if he is replaced with a "strict constructionist", and even if Obama wins or as things stand now, there's still a 5-4 court in favor of restricting abortion.

No doubt, McCain = Eventual Overturn of Roe vs. Wade.

I don't think that people are going to be changing votes in large numbers based on this because it is a very old issue, but that doesn't mean that it isn't an issue. It's a huge issue for those that care, and it will help with turnout among both bases just as it has in the past elections.

____________________



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