Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: SurveyUSA Missouri


SurveyUSA

Missouri

Pres: McCain 48, Obama 45... Clinton 48, McCain 46

Gov: Nixon 57, Hulshof 33... Nixon 58, Steelman 33

Gov Rep Primary: Hulshof 29, Steelman 25

MO-06: Graves 49, Barnes 39

 

Comments
Nickberry:

The rural white vote will make the difference in Missouri. Hillary lost the primary by only 1.4% with getting the rural vote, whereas Obama depended on his urban (large African American populations). I do not see how Obama can get a much larger AA vote to offset McCain votes, because the primary was already a high turnout. Unlike what many Obama supporters have posited... Obama needs those white conservative Democrats that voted for Hillary to win.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Hillary won't win the primary.

____________________

starbase135:

What I find really interesting is now that Hillary has found her "voice" aka working class hero/fighter for everyone she is doing a lot better across the country. Shortly after Super Tuesday SurveyUSA had her trailing McCain in Missouri whereas Obama would have beaten McCain. The same applied to North Carolina then (though Obama also trailed McCain there but by a much smaller margin).

Now with Hillary 2.0 the picture is reversed. She is not only doing much better than Obama in battleground states like OH, PA and FL (where she always did very well) but also in other key states like Missouri or North Carolina.

That makes me think that Hillary 2.0 would have performed much better against Obama on Super Tuesday. Instead of 90 delegates she might have lead by as much as 200...and of course she would have performed even a bit better in the following contests.

____________________

Adam_Il:

Obama used the loop holes in the nomination process to his advantage. By any fair rule, Hillary would have been the nominee.

____________________

Nickberry:

Also since Super Tuesday... Obama has had his own problems (Wright, "bitter" comments) and notably his unfavorable ratings have also gone up.... which happens when voters find out more about the candidates. McCain and Hillary's favorable/unfavorable ratings are more consistent over time because they are already known.

____________________

Nickberry:

One media person just queried that if the Democrats had known that the Michigan/Florida issue would be a molehill that became a mountain... Would they (DNC) have done things differently?

It surely has hurt Hillary as the primary played out. I also have never heard a good answer to why instead of reducing the delegate counts by half, why ALL delegates were thrown under the bus... when the DNC rules said half (Same as RNC). A special rule was put in place to say ALL. Who did that? Why?

____________________

BLeigh82:

Adam_IL

What loop holes would those be? At least back up your statement with some context.

From what I've seen, Senator Obama has beaten Senator Clinton fair and square. The nomination process is about winning delegates. She didn't deliver the knock out blow on Super Tuesday and paid the price big time in the rest of February. Had her campaign been more prepared to compete in those states, I do think some of his margins would have gone down. That has been the single biggest difference in Senator Obama gaining his lead in this nomination race in my opinion.

I do agree with earlier posts that had she found honed her populist message earlier...things may have ended up differently. Timing is everything in politics...but she just wasn't able to do it soon enough.

____________________

killias2:

Coulda shoulda woulda. Obama still trounced her in Oregon, and, from the data I've seen, the same would still be true in the West, Midwest and the African American states - which is where his support has always come from. Clinton hasn't really improved much. The later states just happen to be in Clinton territory. PA has the second oldest population in the country, and West Virginia and Kentucky are *cough*racists*cough*.

Indiana was basically a tie. Texas was basically a tie. Ohio had a good showing for Clinton, but Obama had good showings in Oregon and North Carolina.

The fact of the matter is that the race was finished in February, and nobody has wanted to admit it until now.

____________________

Patrick:

It's so ironic that just as Obama is clinching the Democratic nomination, we are seeing more evidence than ever that he is a weaker general election candidate than Clinton, and much weaker in the biggest swing states that decide elections in this country. He is not connecting with working class white voters (who are the biggest 'swing' demographic in the nation; far outnumbering the total # of African Americans) at all. In fact, his support among the all important "Reagan Democrats" is getting worse and worse. (When you lose key swing states by 35-41% AFTER the media has 'annointed' you the nominee AND 70% of Dems say they won't vote for you, that is a huge problem). Obama's pledged delegate lead has come largely from "Red" states that never vote Democratic in the general, from caucuses that are often manipulated by intimidating party activists (the one I attended was a travesty), and from Republican and Independent voters who will back McCain in the general. Clinton has won almost all the big "Blue" and swing states that any Democrat needs to win the White House, most of the primaries (which are much more democratic than caucuses), and her states have 80+ more electoral votes than Obama's. If the Democrats had the same nominating rules as the Republicans ("winner take all" like the general election, rather than proportional), Clinton would already be the nominee. And we all know she would have won FL and MI (who were arbitrarily stripped of their delegates -- New Hampshire broke the same rules!) anyway. It's so pathetic that the Democrats are about to nominate a candidate who has the same exact demographic problems (only worse) as the last 3 or 4 Democratic nominees who all lost the general election. When you have a party that has a loser like Howard Dean in charge, strips 2 of the most important swing states of their delegates, and simply refuses to learn from history (no matter how recent), it's certainly no surprise that we've had exactly one 2-term Democrat in the White House since World War II. His name was Clinton.

____________________

killias2:

Patrick,

Your post is filled with so many lies and half-truths that it is hard to know where to begin.

1) A few state polls were released today that looked good for Clinton. However, Florida has consistently been a stronger state for Clinton, as has Missouri. Colorado is stronger for Obama and has been for some time. North Carolina, I argue, is an outlier. No other poll has demonstrated any kind of chance for Clinton in North Carolina.

What you're missing here are the numerous states where Obama does better. Did you know that some polls show Oregon to be competitive in a Clinton vs. McCain matchup? Did you know Obama has, for the most part, done better in polling for Iowa, Wisconsin, Nevada, Michigan, Minnesota, and North Dakota? He also does better in South Carolina and Virginia, although he is unlikely to win either state.

Also, according to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx)
Obama actually does JUST AS WELL as Clinton among WHITE MEN against McCain. The big difference in terms of general election support is among white women (who are more likely to go for Clinton) and minorities (who are more likely to go for Obama).

2)This race has had its rules set for a long period of time. All parties agreed to the rules before hand. For the most part, these are the same rules that Clinton won with in the early 90's. Some states hold caucuses because they feel that it is a better way to build a party. If you want to disagree, fine, but it's not a form of cheating by Obama. It is the state party's decision to decide how to pick delegates.

Obama has won just as many swing states as Clinton, it just depends on how you define swing state. Because of 2000 and 2004, there is an unhealthy obsession with Ohio and Florida. Nonetheless, there are swing states all over the country, and Obama has won many of them.

There is a reason the Democrats do not use the Republicans' system for choosing nominees: it isn't really that great of a system. I still find it amazing that the same people who lamented Gore's loss despite his popular vote victory in 2000 now sing the praises of a system that depends on winner take all. Obviously, the system we do have is not straight popular vote (how could it be with different voting systems in different states?), but the delegate system we have is more responsive to differences WITHIN states than differences BETWEEN states. That means that, despite the fact that PA went for Clinton by 10%, my vote, as a Pennsylvanian who went for Obama, still counts. It went for a delegate who will support Obama at the convention. Clinton's problem is that, with a few obvious exceptions, her wins have been by far smaller margins than Obama's. It's telling that Obama still has a popular vote count among states he was on the ticket in DESPITE the fact that many of his victories came from caucuses.

3)Clinton would've won Florida, but Michigan is up in the air. The last polls I saw were virtually tied. Pollster doesn't have these post-January polls, but you can find them on if you look hard enough.

4)A final note to consider: despite Clinton's claims of victimization, the media has been especially brutal to Obama over the past few months. As a frontrunner, he has dealt with attacks from President Bush, McCain, Clinton, and all of their surrogates. Clinton, however, has been virtually praised by her old nemesis: the right wing media. If she were the frontrunner, her poll numbers would reflect the different context.

____________________

Claude:

Polls now show Clinton losing in a New Jersey and Massachusetts against Obama, politico had a piece where they talked about how Hillary moved to the right after most of the "liberal" states had voted on supertuesday and the next month. If all the states were to vote again today the New England states would Obama blowouts of Oregon proportions, Clinton would maybe win Missouri and that's about it.


Also, looking at the crosstabs Obama has an advantage, Obama is only 3 points behind despite getting support of only 72% of democrats there is a lot of room for growth there where as with Hillary she already has 82% of Democrats on her side. She is running worse with independents. Obama has a lot of room for growth whereas this might be the ceiling of McCain's support in Missouri (90% of republicans already back him with only 3 % undecided compared to 7% undecided dems and many clinton supporters who in this poll said they will vote for McCain but after the convention are going to have Obama's back)

____________________

Nickberry:

Hillary did not "move to the right"... she is where she has always been. How do you think that she won upper New York so overwhelmingly in her Senate contests? The difference is probably in greater numbers of African American voters who are now polarized for Obama.

Note that Hillary lost Missouri by only 1.4%. So saying that Hillary would win Missouri is not a real stretch.

Again, Obama does have room for growth... but it is among those rural white voters who he needs to win over. Does not look good at this time.

____________________

marctx:

Claude: "Polls now show Clinton losing in a New Jersey and Massachusetts against Obama"???? Who's doing polls of primary voters after the primary??? Please provide the link. I'd like to see if that is true.

____________________

adocarbog:

The Gallup poll comparison of Obama v. Hillary vote, average of May 1-13 compared to May 16-18 shows a wholesale shift towards Obama in all groups and races. This is now confirmed by Zogby.

Only issue will be will Hillary die hard feminists be able to let go and come over to the Obama camp and not vote for McCain in revenge as he really has no issue similarities to HRC. A vote for McCain would essentially be an FU to Obama. I think they'll get over it in time (if there is time). If she takes this to the convention then there will not be enough time.


As for Obama beating HRC in NJ I have seen a recent what if poll and he is beating her quite handily. Same for CA. I cannot find the polls though.

____________________



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