2.01.2008

Holding firm among women, Clinton keeps her Massachusetts and New Jersey leads

We are only 4 days from Super Tuesday, but the small numbers of polls that is being released is stunning. We have gotten one poll from California and one from New York in days, and nothing for a couple of weeks from key battlegrounds like Missouri and Minnesota. Compare this with the situation just like week in Florida. As a result, it is difficult to measure the extent of Obama's upward movement and to have any idea of what is going to happen in most of Tuesday's states. With that, here are the few surveys that were released since last night:

  • Rasmussen polled New Jersey and finds that Clinton is ahead by double-digits, 49% to 37%. The poll was conducted on Wednesday, and it marks a significant improvement for Barack who trailed 45% to 27% two weeks ago.
Edwards is not included in this poll, and his supporters appear to have moved disproportionately to Obama, giving him the highest total he has ever gotten in a New Jersey poll. That could be key come Tuesday because Obama would be able to get a significant number of delegates if he stays close to his rival. Obama's continuing weakness is the female vote, which Clinton is winning by 24%. Obama is actually ahead among males by 5%, a rather massive gender gap. Clinton has been safe for months now because of her advantage among women, and Obama has not been able to break that code just yet.

  • Among Republicans, John McCain is ahead 43% to 29% with Huckabee at 7%. Giuliani was not included in the poll and McCain is heading to victory in a winner-take-all state.
As we have pointed out many times before, McCain's strongholds are winner-take-all (Arizona, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey), which is going to shut Romney out of delegates in some massive states. By contrast, Romney's home-state of Massachusetts is one of the only state that allocates delegates proportionally, which is obviously awful news for Romney. We got two polls today to confirm that Romney has a large lead in MA:

  • Rasmussen attributes 55% to Romney and 23% to McCain, followed by Huckabee at 8%.
  • SUSA shows Romney with 57% to McCain's 34%.

  • The Democratic race is much more interesting in MA now that Kennedy (and Kerry) have endorsed Obama. A Rasmussen survey a few days ago gave Clinton a 6% lead, but SUSA is much more reassuring, pitting the race at 57% for Clinton and 33% for Obama. That is still a significant improvement for Barack, who trailed 59% to 22% just a week ago.
If Obama is picking up 13% a week throughout the country, that could put him over the top in places where he started closer to Clinton. But here again, Obama will have to find a way to challenge Clinton among the female vote. He is being crushed 65% to 26% among women in this poll; compare that to males where he is tied at 44%, up from 48% to 25% last week. If Obama's momentum is limited to male voters until Tuesday, he could get close to Clinton but will have a hard time coming out on top.

Finally, Rasmussen also released a poll from Illinois, Obama's home-state. It has Obama leading 60% to 24%. The survey was conducted on Tuesday, so it still has Edwards at 11%. This is great news for Obama, who is winning Illinois by a far larger margin than Clinton is winning New York and that could prevent Clinton from getting a lot of delegates in Illinois and could allow Obama to create some margin between the two nationally.

Update: I obviously deleted the comment from an Obama supporter that was filled with a stunning list of profanities, words to which many of the comments in this thread are responding. I know the Obama-Clinton contest is coming down to the wire and that supporters of both candidates are very tense and eager to defend their choice, but that's no reason to resort to such language or that much hatred.

Labels: , , ,

19 Comments:

  • I'd be interested in an analysis of the Maine Republican caucuses, which start today.

    Thanks again for this great blog; you have some of the best and most in-depth analysis out there.

    By Anonymous anon4rp, At 01 February, 2008 11:33  

  • Amazing how many people are willing to vote for the corrupt clinton's and their culture of creepy, corrupt cronies.

    She is the only candidate that had to cancel two fund raisers in December because the hosts had gotten indicted.

    One of her major bundlers has already been sent to jail (3 year term) for fraud.

    Another from her Senate campaign has been suing her.

    Sigh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 12:26  

  • In your discussion on the New Jersey poll, you mention Hillary is ahead by 24, but Obama is "actually ahead among males by 5%". Why does it seem strange that a man would be ahead amongst voting men? It would seem more strange if Hillary was ahead among men.

    By Anonymous Gerard, At 01 February, 2008 12:48  

  • It's nice to see Obama with a big lead in Illinois, as that's one of the few places where Edwards' exit from the race could help Clinton pick up a few extra delegates.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 12:57  

  • Well the other democrat bought his home from his indicted friend and contributor so she's actually the cleaner of the two. And anyone can be sued,that doesn't imply guilt. Compared to the culture of corruption on the republican side, any democrat is sqeaky clean. The republicans have squandered generations of money on their sleazy endeavors, hoping for the "rapture" to come and destroy the world. Public financing of elections would clear Hillary's standing,but not Barack's. He personally profitted. Now there's another allegation of a bio-tech firm getting legislative help from him even though he was a stockholder. Ill gotten campaign funds pale to peddling political favor. One is immoral and the other is criminal. I think I prefer the lesser of two evils on the top of the ticket.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 12:57  

  • Norman Hsu's conviction had nothing to do with politics. I think you're the "ignorant bitch" in the room. Rezko was was indicted for peddling influence and part of that influence was written on senate letterhead by Barack. Public financing is not matching. Again you are ignorant. Public financing would eliminate ALL donors entirely. So save your stupid profanic reponses to your defeat party where you can bitch at all the equally moronic fools such as yourself. People like you are the reason Obama is in for trouble.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 13:38  

  • Resorting to name calling and profanity is the sure sign of a sore loser.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 13:41  

  • The outrageous behavior of the Obama supporters is like a modern day lynch mob. Every one of them seems to think that by spewing vitriolic comments, that they're helping their cause. The opposite is true. The focus on ethics hurts the least ethical. Spewing lies about your opponent only proves yourself to be a liar. I feel sorry for Barack that he has such foolish surrogates.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 13:57  

  • A little decorum, please! (to some of previous posts). I just heard Pat Buchanan say on MSNBC that Ann Coulter said on Fox Noise last night that she would support Hillary Clinton before she would vote for John McCain. Wow!

    By Anonymous stone621, At 01 February, 2008 14:09  

  • Yeah,the woman that says women shouldn't be allowed to vote is voting? I think that's a transparent act of misdirection to paint Hillary as a conservative and McCain as a liberal. Very funny. The question is; was that pro-Obama or pro-Romney?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 14:14  

  • Thanks for deleting the foul Obaman. You might as well delete my 13:38 response to it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 14:28  

  • It's unfortunate that there's this much animosity. Clinton and Obama have extremely similar views on most of the issues, and (in my opinion) both would be great presidents.

    I'm planning to vote for Hillary, but I'd certainly support Obama if he won. I think many Obama supporters feel the same way about Hillary, but if the Democrats spend the next month and a half tearing each other down and accusing each other of corruption, neither of them will be in good shape to deal with John McCain.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 16:06  

  • When a house is dirty, the best choice to clean it is a woman. Vote for Hillery.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 16:10  

  • I strongly suspect the anti-Hillary posters claiming to support Obama are really republicans trying to foster a division in the democratic base.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 17:31  

  • actually, I consider myself independent...and have never voted for a republican in any election. That being said, I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever vote for billary. Ever.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 18:39  

  • Well most intelligent people vote for issues, not individuals. It's good to know that you're not a democrat and as such cannot vote anyway. (Unless you're in a state with open primaries and there's something to say about that.) I hope that that's an indication that you're not voting against something instead of for something. Both Hillary and Barack are promoting a new direction in governance. Voting against either of them is morally reprehensible. I guess Nader will be your out.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 18:50  

  • I sure am looking forward to having Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic nominee.

    Why you ask?

    Well, because we get to be reminded of all of Bill's infidelities, and may be we get to see a few more of Bill's sexual harassment victims paraded out. We get to see the Monica Lewinsky embrace over and over again. And we get to experience the oldies but goodies of Linda Tripp and Ken Star, Whitewater and Travelgate, Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, Vince Foster and the infamous blue dress. And who can forget those riveting impeachment hearings.

    We'll get to hear more about questionable fundraising-- maybe the Clintons will sell sleep over nights in the White House again. Maybe we'll get to hear more of Bill's endoresment of the Kazahkstan Presidential strongman which eventually netted Bill $34 million in his foundation. I know I'm missing a whole bunch of fun and intriguing facts, but don't worry, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck, Fox News, and all of our other "friends" on the right will be there to remind us over and over again.

    But seriously, I don't know why Bill Clinton is a beloved figure in the Democratic Party. He is responsible for the backlash that gave us Bush in 2000. He did so much damage with his personal behavior that it is primarily his fault that the Democrats lost control of both the House and Senate. Sure, the economy was good, but that was more Silicon Valley than anything else. And it actually started going south before he left office.

    So my question is-- why does anyone think it is going be any different?

    Bill and Hillary Clinton's behavior is unconscionable. The Clinton's don't have the country's best interest in mind; they don't care what is best for the Democratic Party; they care about what is best for the Clintons. They are Karl Rove in Democratic clothing. Look at their recent behavior. They are masters of manipulation, skilled in the arts of distortion and deception. Bill Clinton has perfected the lower lip bite - "I feel your pain" - empathy ploy and don't kid yourself-- he and his wife planned the tear up in New Hampshire. Since it seemed to work, we'll probably see more of it. And if you call them on it then you are ganging up and it's the "politics of personal destruction".

    People, listen up! This is only going to get worse. They use to hold the title of the most divisive forces in American politics. I would put them second behind Bush for now, but stay tuned; they will reclaim the title if they continue on their present course.

    Why do you think all the Republicans focus on her? Because they want her to be the nominee. Half of the country will not vote for her! And after the Clinton's unconscionable, shameless behavior, can you blame them?!

    If you want the country to stay in Iraq for 100 years and continue the disastrous policies of the Bush Administration, then make the Clintons the Democratic nominee because the Republican will win in November. Oh, and as an added "bonus", if you want to give the Republicans a chance to take back the House and Senate, make the Clintons the nominee because turn out on the Republican side will surge. Making the Clintons the nominee will be the best thing for the Republican Party.

    Folks, it doesn't have to be that way.

    Vote for someone who can build a broad coalition to solve some of our nations most pressing problems. Vote for someone who has demonstrated the right kind of experience and judgement. Someone who is intelligent, who inspires, who builds up as opposed to tears down.

    Vote for Barack Obama!

    Instead of listening to the deception and distortion put out by the Clinton machine, examine his record and his positions at the source, www.barackobama.com Or read his book The Audacity of Hope.

    It would be truly tragic for our country if we go "Back to the Future" with a third Clinton administration and continue 4 more years of gridlock, infighting, partisan bickering, and politics of personal destruction. Nothing will get accomplished for another four years, but I guess we can always look at the bright side; we might finally find out what the meaning of the word "is" is.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 20:16  

  • 65% approval rating,nasdaq at 5000,dow at 14000,22,000,000 new jobs, affordable housing,the moral authority of the world, against what? A guy screwing an intern? The Lincoln bedroom now is reserved for the Bin Ladens. A new Clinton administration could have some serious sexual debauchery and it wouldn't matter because the republicans won't exist as a party anymore. Check their status lately? Under 25% of the voters. I think we all want our country back now and if it takes a Clinton or an Obama or both, we don't care about those trivialities. I'm sure Barack has a few stories or that's what he says. He is good friends with the Clintons, so you know he can party with the best of them. That coalition building crap is just for suckers. Wake up and realize it's back to the future at full throttle. This time as a super majority. The NSA has enough now to expose all the Larry Craigs and Ted Haggards. The Log Cabins are going to rule the red party big time.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 22:16  

  • You Clinton haters don't seem to get it. The Clintons thrive on your hatred and eat it up like rocket fuel. That's what makes them so popular. Hillary is laughing in your face as you get more and more frustrated. It's you guys that will make her president! I don't care which democrat gets in, it's going to be great either way and the only losers are the anti-Clintons, the Dobsons,Murdoch,etc. I've been HELPING Obama by cutting him down! Somebody has to do it. We can't just let you people hand it to Hillary. Our economy needs that campaign cash.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 01 February, 2008 22:40  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home