Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: TIME/SRBI National Survey


TIME/SRBI (analysis, results)

DEMS: Clinton 48, Obama 42
GE: Obama 48, McCain 41... Clinton 46, McCain 46

 

Comments
Rasmus:

Is this a Post-Tuesday poll?
If so, it seems that not much changed 3 days ago.
The margin of delegates did not change so much and the voters preferences did not change also.

It seems that Super Tuesday did neither improve nor stop the Obama momentum, but maybe I am wrong, I think we have if Obama will get a boost after the Potomac primary...

____________________

Rasmus:

Is this a Post-Tuesday poll?
If so, it seems that not much changed 3 days ago.
The margin of delegates did not change so much and the voters preferences did not change also.

It seems that Super Tuesday did neither improve nor stop the Obama momentum, but maybe I am wrong, I think we have if Obama will get a boost after the Potomac primary...

____________________

RS:

Rasmus:
Read the article. The poll was conducted Feb 1-4, before Super Tuesday.

____________________

Amnon:

This national polls are useless. Popular votes don't win elections. To properly analyze Barach or Obama vs. McCain you need to do a state by state analysis or at least potential battleground states

____________________

roy:

Amnan, when was the last time a candidate won the popular vote by even 1% and lost the election? 1888? A candidate who wins the pop. vote by even 3 points has little need to worry about the Electoral College.

This poll is not very interesting for a different reason, namely, that it is so old. We found out Tuesday what voters in half the country thought about the Dem race, we don't need a poll to tell us.

But I was interested to see that 87% of registered voters, and another 5% probably will. Since we know we're not going to have 90% turnout, a lot of respondents have already lied to the pollster before they answer a candidate question.

____________________

Mike Johns:

it doesn't matter b/c alot will happen between now and nov. in terms of the ads against Obama if he is the nominee. you guys need to wake up. Obama lost CA, that's not good.

____________________

Andrew:

Obama lost CA because 10 percent of the freaking state was still voting for Edwards in absentee ballots. Obama is projected to win most of the states until March 4th and Hillary has perhaps only 5 states she can produce in her bracket. Obama has made the most headway in swing and conservative states. Hillary lost overwhelmingly in many of these states. McCain can easily make inroads into left leaning states like California and states that hover above the Bible Belt. California is in the past, we need to worry about inroads states that Obama will have to fight for, in which California is not going to McCain even in November.

____________________

Chantal:

Well, Clinton by far has the better chance of the two dems to pick up Florida, which would be massive. Forget this North Dakota/Idaho bs. McCain has a better shot of picking up CA than dems do of picking up UT or ND or ID.

____________________

RS:

More importantly, what are the chances of Clinton winning Florida (remember Elian Gonzalez) compared to the chances of McCain picking up California?

If McCain gets California, Florida won't even matter.

____________________

KM:

If anything Super Tuesday shows, it is Obama is a weak candidate. With Kennedy families' endorsment, MSM daily promotes him and bashes Hillary, with huge money advantage, he still can't win CA,MA, still lost populate vote. Those red states he won are CAUCUSES.There is no caucuses in general election. Look at his primary wons. IL is his home state, AL and GA have large AA popultation, hardly fair to Clinton. That left MO and CT. MO 49%-48%, he only won 10,000 votes in MO again thanks to large AA population in St.Louis area. CT is 51%-47%, very close. Clinton on the another hand, does much better in primaries. With the exception of NM, all other primary states she won handy. If she is the nominee, I believe she has FL, Arkansas, PA in bag, will be very comeptitive in OH ,TN even OK.

____________________

Gary Kilbride:

Regarding the first comment, by Rasmus, I don't know why we keep expecting wild swings in a Hillary race. The demographics fluctuate from state to state, plus variables like caucus or primary, and it certainly appears the more motivated voters prefer Obama, but overall Hillary is not subject to collapse or surge. She has a natural ceiling, other than extreme conditions that favor her, like Arkansas. When Edwards dropped out, in retrospect it shouldn't be surprising Hillary's margin dipped. No one is wild about Hillary other than the camps who have long supported her. But they are foundational in total.

Chantal's comment about Florida is excellent, IMO. It's why my preference is Hillary over Obama. Give me two swings and not one. With Obama, Ohio is in play but Florida is virtually surrendered.

And the Obama argument about red states in play is comical. Those states are piling on. Irrelevant. You have no chance to win them unless the swing states are already secured. The partisan index may have more variance this year, state to state, with unique characteristics like first woman or first black, but overall the general election trends are very predictable, unlike primary forecasts which depend on motivation and demographics.

Florida is vital and a moderate woman has a chance. But I've been in South Florida for 7 weeks and the slant in favor of McCain is obscene. Before the Florida primary when the GOP primary was considered a tossup I posted a comment on MyDD that Romney would have to do it on his own, since the South Florida media, particularly the Miami Herald, was trumpeting McCain to absurd level, almost daily. Sure enough, about 75,000 of his roughly 100,000 statewide margin was in South Florida. And it's continued. Today's issue of the Herald is like a PR piece for McCain, a huge prominent black box atop page one saying, "McCain takes control" with an incredibly flattering picture for a 72 year old mole and a subheader, "With Romney out, McCain has a lock on the nomination . Now he's reaching out to conservatives."

Unbelievable. Did I miss something? I thought the natural headline was Romney out of the race but the Herald chooses to twist that.

McCain won't win California vs. Obama. If stupid polls want to suggest that on electioneve I'll take advantage on Intrade just like Hillary over Obama in the California primary. California is low double digit Democratic tilt in the partisan index and nothing in this cycle can overcome that.

BTW, I caught Mark Blumenthal on MSNBC with Contessa Brewer a few hours ago. Very impressive, in fact abnormally logical for cable TV. I prefer outrageous. She left you an opening in that direction, with the silly question about possibility of an Obama/Clinton pairing as president and VP. But truthfully I guess I wouldn't rip someone like Contessa Brewer or Norah O'Donnell or especially Robin Meade. :)

Complete fluke I even saw that segment. I was in a Cuban barber shop in Miami and asked them to turn to MSNBC, from Fox News, no idea that Mark would be on. The head barber grumbled but finally agreed to switch the channel. I'd like to bet it's the first time that TV ever saw MSNBC.

____________________

Amnon:

We all know not neither candidate will get a majority from the primaries and the super delegates will determine this. My guess is that the higher ups in the Dem party will force a joint ticket probably Clinton-Obama which will be very formidable in the GE

____________________

Amnon:

KM. I think you are right Clinton is stronger in the battleground states primarily Florida and Ohio. However, one can't discount Obama's grassroots reach and the fact that he is getting 70% of first time voters. He is the only candidate that can use the word "change" which is very powerful in this economy and given the sate of the war.

____________________

Al Gore:

1888? Al Gore won the popular vote and lost to W in 2000...how soon you forget...I mean, the Supremes decided that election....

____________________

Concerned Citizen:

EXCUSE ME, HATE TO BREAK UP YOUR FIGURES AND CALCULATIONS: But why did ALL of you FORGET about ALL the candidates?
No wonder why candidates drop out, they are not all being treated the same way. Mike GRAVEL has some great ideas about how we should run our country, and no body cares. He has not gotten any time to talk. No polls list him, no debates called on him, he doesn't exist. He isn't even on all the ballots for the dem primary. That's another thing: Why do we have to only have 1 dem, 1 republican, 1 green party? 130 some odd schmucks all vied to be the governor of california. They all had the chance to be listed in the offical pamphlet to the voters. Yet we have to narrow down the playing field for President? That's crap!!!!

____________________

Anon:

No ones cares about Mike Gravel.

____________________



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