Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Vocero/Univision Puerto Rico


El Vocero/Univision
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (D)
(story, methodology) - Spanish only
(GQR memo) - English

Puerto Rico (5/8-20)
n=800 adults
Clinton 51, Obama 38 **

n= ~300 likely voters ****
Clinton 59, Obama 40

** UPDATE: These results reflect unweighted percentages. We will post the final, weighted numbers as soon as they are sent to us.

**** UPDATE: The original results were weighted, but were not of likely voters, according to Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

 

Comments
sooyapi:

If the high voter turnout in Puerto Rico remains consistent, then this really bodes well for Hillary in her quest for popular votes. Additionally, Puerto Rico has 55 pledged delegates up for grabs (more than was at stake in Oregon).

____________________

Dan:

Maybe, maybe not. If we end up with a 60/40 split in PR, then Clinton would only net 7 delegates. Hardly enough to change anything.

As for popular vote--well, it might give Clinton some bragging rights, but many superdelegates are disinclined to count a US territory in a popular vote, given that the residents play no role in the general election. Besides, the only way for Clinton to "win" the popular vote (even with PR thrown in) is to include MI with 0 votes for Obama, or exclude the 4 caucus states with no vote totals. Hardly fair, in either case.

____________________

Adam_Il:

If Clinton wins by 273000, then she would be ahead in popular vote excluding Michigan and including all caucus votes(estimates). If general election is the yardstick, then why not count electoral votes. Clinton is winning that hands down.

____________________

sooyapi:

I am not quite sure how you figured only 7 net delegates in PR with a 60/40 split. Do you have a source? I just finishing reading an article on how delegates are allocated and it is not a simple math problem and depends on which districts are won by how much.

There are many manifestations on how popular vote is counted with or without Michigan and/or Florida as well as the 4 caucus states without a voter tally, as well as using the Washington State primary for popular votes because they are one of the states without a vote count. BUT in almost all scenarios, Hillary beats or comes within less than 1% with PR projections.

____________________

Nickberry:

FYI... sooyooknownothing.... You are the victim of Indian humor. Sooyapi means "white man" and your most recent reincarnation reveals you to be the "white man knows nothing." Ain't that a kick?

____________________

Dan:

Sigh...so many fallacies, so little time...

@sooyapi:

My 7 delegate split is quite easy to project, actually. Green Papers lists how the delegate allocation works in PR. Assuming that Obama can get at least 37.5% of the vote in each district, then the breakdown would be:

District #1: 4/2
Districts #2 and 8: 3/2
Districts #3, 4, 5, 6 and 7: 2/2
At-large: 7/5
PLEO: 4/3

This yields a delegate total of Clinton 31, Obama 24.

@Adam:

First of all, in order for Clinton to net 273,000 votes, she would need a turn-out of over 1.3 million. That seems unlikely, if recent reports are to be believed.

Second, PR does not have any electoral votes, so your comment on that score is irrelevant.

Third, it is sheer nonsense to allege that Obama is currently "losing" the "electoral vote" (whatever that means, anyway). Do you really expect Obama to lose CA, NY, NJ, MA, and RI in the general election?

____________________

Snowspinner:

I am not sure why one would use a popular vote metric that excludes a swing state like Iowa but includes Puerto Rico, which can't vote.

But I suppose if you do use such an absurd metric then yes, Clinton will likely win it.

____________________

Patrick:

If we didn't have such a ridiculous, crazy, arbitrary nominating process in this country (with some states voting early and others later; "open" primaries vs. "closed" primaries; and caucuses - which are a total mockery of democracy), the term "popular vote" wouldn't exist because there'd only be "the vote" - and whichever candidate got more actual votes (not pledged delegates and/or superdelegates) would be the nominee. People keep accusing Clinton of trying to "change the rules", but she hasn't done that at all. The superdelegates have always been independent. Any calls for them to follow the will of the voters in their district or state is what's changing the rules. They were created to nominate the strongest candidate. So if Clinton can demonstrate she's a stronger candiate (or can show that she has received more actual votes), the superdelegates have every right to vote for her. Otherwise, there would be no point in having them.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

this poll seems suspect. How is only 1% of likely voters undecided? And why are 500 of the original "voters" or "responders" not considered likely voters?

Additionally, 300 LV seems ridiculously LOW for a commonwealth of 4 million people!!

(for reference: PPP polled over 1,000 LV in Oregon, SUSA polled over 1500 reg. voters in Oregon, and Suffolk polled 600 LV in Oregon, which has less delegates than PR)

____________________

Cristobal:

I am not sure how reliable this polling source is. It is not that I don't trust this poll, but I am very use to several polls for a primary with differing methodologies and polling pools. I understand that Survey USA probobly does not have the resources to conduct a poll in spanish and in PR, but I am suspect to a limited amount of polling information. Clinton has sure had command of the Hispanic Vote...but are we to believe that the PR Voters are so akin to the opinions of Texan and Floridian Voters? Could Obama command a 95%+ population of same race voters like the 95%+ in the states like Iowa and Oregon? Obama does have a track record of Island Living...and what type of traction does a Richardson bring to the island if any. If we could see more polling with a exit poll approach I think that this primary could be a lot clearer. I don't feel safe calling Puerto Rico for Hillary. What is the extent of their media from the US and until reports from the ground come in....I don't feel confident that she is the winner. Don't get me wrong...I can believe the number...but I have to say that the lack of data is making this call murky.

Cris

____________________

JLPR:

It doesn't surprise me I have a feeling Puerto Rico will have a low turnout, we are no that interested. =P

____________________

JLPR:

4million wont vote I say that maybe 100,000 may vote I don't know I don't feel a lot of excitement here, maybe it is the fact that we don't vote in the general election.

____________________

random_name:

That 59 to 40 percent lead is among voters that describe themselves as 'certain to vote'. I think that category is different from 'likely to vote'. So the eventual margin might be bigger than thirteen points, but I would think it will end up less than nineteen. (Without considering sampling error, which is quite significant.)

____________________

kathleen san juan:

Great to see a new poll at last! Not loving the methodology, but it does seem to reflect what has happened in other areas where the voters have not had access to information about Obama. They fall back on what they know, which is the Clintons.
This is not about black, white, young, old, urban, rural, latina, anglo, gay, straight, male, female. Whenever voters have access to INFORMATION about Obama's life and message, they vote for him. More and more people every day are getting an opportunity to learn about our next president, #44,Obama, Peacemaker-in-Chief! Thanks for the new poll.

____________________



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