Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama, Clinton (Rasmussen 10/27-28, 10/30-31)


Rasmussen
Obama survey: 10/27-28/09; 1,000 adults, 3% margin of error
Clinton survey: 10/30-31/09; 1,000 likely voters, 3% margin of error
Mode: Live telephone interviews
(Rasmussen: Obama, Clinton)

National

If Barack Obama was up for re-election right now, how likely would you be to vote for him??
45% Very/Somewhat, 49% Not very/Not at all

Has the election of Barack Obama as President had a positive influence on race relations, a negative influence on race relations or has it had no impact?
37% Positive, 30% Negative, 26% No impact

Since Barack Obama was elected President, are you doing better or worse economically?
16% Better, 48% Worse, 32% Same

Obama Job Rating
42% Excellent/Good, 57% Fair/Poor

Favorable / Unfavorable
Hillary Clinton: 54 / 43 (chart)

Job Approval / Disapproval
Clinton as Secretary of State: 59 / 37

Suppose Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic Presidential nomination. Would she be doing a better job as President than Barack Obama, a worse job as President, or about the same?
27% Better, 14% Worse, 49% Same

Would Hillary Clinton have had more influence if she remained in the U.S. Senate instead of becoming secretary of State
35% Yes, 36% No

 

Comments
sasha:

Good Old Rasmussen...always there to build a story. He should have asked if Al Gore were president in 2000, do you think he would have bankrupt the nation to appease the polar bears that are becoming extinct...what a joke

____________________

Jake Bryant:

Rasmussen continues to get results 5-10% more conservative/Republican/anti-Obama than every other poll. Their "likely voter" screen is apparently from 1994.

____________________

openid.aol.com/Rahmsputin:

C'mon Scottie, don't get their hopes up.

____________________

Xenobion:

If Barack Obama was up for re-election right now, how likely would you be to vote for him??

I mean that question is so dumb without any sort of competitor next to Obama. I don't really make my decision calculus on 1 person.

____________________

Wong:

These guys are polling a different universe. Laughable

____________________

Stillow:

Why is it when PPP released a poll about Obama's re-election and shows him winning all you Dems love it, then when ras has a same poll about his re-election showing him not winning, then all of a sudden Rass is junk again.

Is it election day comedy or what?

____________________

Stillow:

I beelive Demcorpe released a similar poll about Obama's re-election shwoign him winning....I recall it was a dem love fest on here when they did.

____________________

sasha:

Because Stillow PPP (although not my favorable pollster- sometimes to fav to dem or rep) asks question would you re-elect Obama or Palin, Romney, etc. To echo Xeno,Ras' poll is like asking someone do they want to eat sand...not sand or dog feces but just sand.I'm sure the majority of Americans would say no I don't want to eat sand but put next to dog feces'...there is no competition. And this is comparing apples to oranges...why not poll the same amount of reps/dems you used during the campaign. I'm sure the rep ID is much higher. The hillary question is stupid...she is Sec of State..so she is not getting into the weeds of death panels and what not..so the only images people have of her is getting on and off a plane to Madagascar or wherever.

____________________

Stillow:

There is nothing wrong with the question Rass asked....he is asking are you likely to vote for Obama again.....whats wrong with that? In elections people don't just vote for soemone, they vote against someone.

Nothing wrong with this question, this is just a bunch of you Dems whining because you don't like the result. Sort of like what I do when lets forge some documents CBS releases a poll.

Nothing wwrong at all with this qeustion. I know people who voted for Obama and they have made comments about not voting for him again.

____________________

Xenobion:

Its very easy to just lump all our random opinions into "just a bunch of liberals" too Stillow :) Sorry I'm not posting on every forum thread. Will try harder :D

____________________

Gopherguy:

Stillow I asked a question in another forum yesterday and I'm hoping you can answer for me.

If Hoffman wins or comes close, the conservative party will claim victory and push to move all candidates to the far right. I have two questions.

1. Will the right wing go after Crist, label him a RINO, and give Rubio the nomination?

2. Should the right wing go after Crist and give Rubio the nomination? Is this smart politics in the long run, not the short run, for the party?

I asked Field Marshal and I would like your take on it.

____________________

Stillow:

Gopherguy:

No you misread what happened in NY23. Scozzy was more liberal than owens. She had no republican attributes. In fact there was talk about her changing parties anyway. She supports nearly 100 percent of the Democratic platofrm and maybe, on a good day, 10 percent of a republican platform. As you can see by polling, Hoffman will probably win which means voters also agreed, Scozzy was no republican at all.

Crist actually is a republican who supports a lot of the fiscal platofrm of republicans.

Plus, there is no danger i nthe GOP getting abck to its Reagan conservatism, after all Reagan won pretty big landslides. Plus, in VA we see the Indy's flcoking to McDonnell...and in NJ a large portion of Indy's have mvoed to Christie. So by going conservative we see Indy's making movement back to the GOP....

____________________

Gopherguy:

Ok, well disregard the NY bit. I'm just curious about those two questions.

Also, 1 tidbit because you bring them up. VA has voted against the President's party for governor the last 8 elections, so VA isn't a trend indicator.

Anyway, if you could flesh out answers to those questions I would appreciate it.

____________________

Stillow:

Gopherguy

If Dems are goign to spin VA that way and say it means nothing that Indy's moved to the GOP, then Obama's victory was not a trend or a mandate either. because only once since WW2 has a party controlled the WH for more than 8 straight years....and that was in 1988 and only because Reagan had above average likability. So it was simply the Dems turn to win the WH.........so no sweeping liberal mandate...!

Its normal for moderate candidates to get primary challenges from the right or the left. Again, look at Lieberman, he was primaried by a liberal who was left of him. It happens all the time. Rubio will make a run, do what he needs to do and move Crist a little more to the right...Crist will wi nthe primary and go on to easily win his senate race.

You guys are trying to make soemthing out of nothing. Things that are totally normal democrats are trying to add shock value to them. In both NJ and VA we see Indy's moving to the GOP.....as is normal when people are unhappy with the party in power. That is why they are called Indy's, they move back and forth.

____________________

Stillow:

McCain tried the wishy washy centrist thing in 2008...he took the moderate lets get along with everyone approach and got fewer votes than Bush did in 2004. The GOP actually lost votes by putting up a moderate like McCain. Its the liberal media who keeps tellign the GOP to put up moderates because they know thats sure way to elect democrats. Republicans win when they are conservative, Reagan, 1994, etc.

____________________

Xenobion:

Uhhh I bet if you poll most Indy's in VA in the past 2 presidential election cycles I would bet you a goat that they were probably once self described republicans or at least a good chunk of them. Lest we forget the massive loss of self described republicans in all these lovely cross-tabs we see day to day. They must be going somewhere unless they fell off the face of the planet.

Aside from that I'll say it yet again that governors races mean nothing. Corizine could win and I would still tell you that. There is a republican governor in Hawaii perhaps the 2nd most liberal state. Woo a conservative mandate has been set!

In summation today means nothing, all of it (NY-23, NJ & VA gov races). A bunch of overhyped races that really mean nothing. I'd be looking at referendums out today, those are the real interesting things. Washington State Ref 71 will be interesting to watch as will Maine's gay rights ref.

____________________

Stillow:

X, that is what I have been saying for ever and a day now. Indy's are moving back to the GOP because the GOP is showing signs of retruning to its conservative roots. When the party moved left under W, you saw a mass departure fro mthe GOP...now the Indy's are coming back because the party is growing a pair again.

There is not enough liberals i nthe country wo win anything. Libs need a weakend conservative opposition to get anywhere...that is why they keep tellign the GOp to put up liberal candidates.

I disagree. We see conservatives doing well in NY, VA and NJ....All areas Obama carried i nthe election.

Indy's are moving back to the right, cus the GOP is finally welcoming them back. I myself am not ready to rejoin the party, but if they keep showing sings of getting back to what makes sense, conservatism, I will happily rejoi nthe party.

____________________

Xenobion:

See I see it differently. Republicans turned Indy is just that. They have no party affiliation because there are such stringent requirements that if you don't agree with them you can't vote for them. You can be a blue dog democrat, a liberal democrats, support the war and be a democrat, ect. ect. that you really can't be that as a republican. You have to stand for X, Y, and Z or get the hell out.

So far I don't see the Indy numbers getting smaller, only smaller republican party affiliation numbers. Indy numbers outnumber the republican party numbers. When did this ever happen in history?

Who voted Obama in VA? Blacks, social/economic moderates in Urban areas that pretty much realized how unpopular the war in Iraq was. To call the independents categorically the same as those in NJ is misleading. We don't live in a party system anymore, its all about single issues. People will vote in those who reflect those issues better. You aren't finding many republicans these days because not many people are going to subscribe to all their beliefs.

____________________

Gopherguy:

I mostly agree with X. I think you're reading it wrong Stillow.

Yes, there is inherent backlash against Obama so that does fuel support to the opposition party, but these off year elections have historically been poor indicators of national mood.

I don't see a conservative party being inclusive enough to command a majority of the country. Conservatives want candidates devoted to a single agenda, but the country is all over the places on many issues.

In the short run I could see conservatives make strides, but I can't see the country becoming conservative in the long term. The country has never been as conservative as some claim (For example, people liked Reagan but not his policies). But generally speaking I think the media is right. Republicans need to be more inclusive not stuck on a straight line agenda claiming my way or the high way.

P.S. The media isn't as liberal as Republicans claim. The managers, directors, and large shareholders of media corporations are overwhelmingly Republican. The media are for profit, they will say and sell whatever they think makes them money. This is why you never see stories ridiculing car dealerships in papers because papers receive large advertising dollars from car dealers. Outside of FOX and MSNBC, the media are fairly neutral in the totality of their stories (though not necessarily so in how they frame a single story). The media, especially television, is exceptionally poor anyway. Any journalism student or professor will freely admit to that point.

____________________

Stillow:

Well we will disagreethen. i can only speak from personal expereince....I, alongwith my mother in lawboth left the GOPbecause they becameway to liberal. Ithink my wife woulddo so too, but doesn't wantto go thru hte hastle. I alwayspoint back to Reagan, when conservatism isproperly articualted to the people, itwill win you landslides. Trueconservatism doesnotchangeforpolitcal reasons, its beelifsare foundedi ntheConstittuion.

I still say these racesarevery important. I realizethe mediaandthe Dem spin isto say they don'tmatter...andthats becausethe Dems will probably losethese elections...so I expected the media and dems to spin it that way.

To me, if Obama won NJ by double digits and the sitting incumbant dem governor loses to a conservative republican 10 months later, then that is definatley a sign. Its all speculation by both sides, but I think its the start of a trend...if NJ can go conservative for its top exectuive, so can othe rstates....and if the lame GOP actually finds a pure conservative who can actually artiulcate wha tit means to be conservative, they will do very vey well in 2012.

____________________

Xenobion:

To each their own. There hasn't been an after year election worth mentioning in history. Its always mid-terms and if people are trying to stake ground into finding that first moment when it just all changed then I don't mind. Its a petty game like whomever first coined the idea of a Flat Tax. I really wouldn't say the Democrats are spinning these elections, notice how noone is talking about the N. California rep election which is expected to be a Democratic victory. And how the NY-23 race, a district to have had a republican for decades upon decades is being talked about as relevant. The NJ race is really the only thing to balk at and for a unpopular Gov. to be competitive during this supposed upheval of conservatisim I simply have to call BS. Sure Reps will win VA, but who was dumb enough to think VA was a true blue state anyways?

This election will be as memorable as 1999, as in not at all.

____________________

Stillow:

X my freind, you carry the democratic talking points very well....

____________________

platanoman:

I think all these polls are bs to me.

____________________



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