2.22.2008

SUSA releases wave of competitive general election polls

SUSA released 8 general election polls today, getting it to a total of twelve within 3 days. First, they had shown Iowa and Virginia to be competitive, with Obama looking strong in the former and competitive in the latter, and Clinton struggling in both. In Kansas and New York, SUSA also found Obama running stronger than Clinton (surprisingly in New York), with McCain trailing both candidates in NY and leading them in KS.

Today's wave of polls offers a more complex picture of competitiveness and electability, with McCain competitive in unlikely places (Massachusetts, particularly against Obama for the second poll in a row) and struggling in others, and with Clinton pulling in stronger numbers than her rival more than we have been used to in recent weeks.

As you will see while going through these numbers, both Clinton and Obama have very clear groups among which they are stronger: Clinton outperforms Obama among women and Democrats; Obama among men, blacks and independents. And while one might think that it is more important for the nominee to appeal to independents than to Democrats, to whites than to black in order to win the swing states, that cannot get the Democratic Party very far: The base needs to be secured (and motivated). In Ohio, for example, Obama is stronger than Clinton among independents; but he is so much weaker among registered Dems than Clinton outperforms overall. The same is true in reverse for Clinton's relative weakness among black voters.

Democratic and African-American votes are usually taken for granted by the party's nominee, but it should not just be assumed that Obama and Clinton will post strong numbers come November. After all, John McCain's main asset is that he appeals to Democrats, after all; and while black voters are unlikely to go to McCain they could choose to not turn out, which could prove a very big problem. In other words, either Obama and Clinton would have a lot of work to do to secure the Democratic base, and McCain is well positioned to take advantage of their weaknesses.

And with that, let's look at the numbers:

  • In Ohio, Clinton leads McCain 52% to 42%, while Obama is up 47% to 44%. The difference comes entirely from registered Democrats, which go 85-10 for Clinton but only 71-21 for Obama. Among independents, in fact, Obama is stronger even here, leading 50% to 36% versus 48% to 40% for Clinton.

  • In Missouri, both Democrats are ahead: 51% to 44% for Clinton, 49% to 43% for Obama.

  • In New Mexico, Clinton leads 50% to 45% and Obama does much better, 55% to 40%. This is due both to the male vote (Clinton is tied, Obama leads by 15) and to independents (Obama leads by 5, Clinton trails by 12).

  • The numbers are almost the same in Minnesota, where Clinton leads 49% to 45% but Obama crushes McCain 55% to 40%. Obama runs 20% better among men, and he also does much better among independents.

  • Oregon is another state in which Obama runs stronger, edging out McCain 48% to 47% while Clinton trails 49% to 41%. This is entirely due to the independent vote, which Obama wins 52% to 41% and Clinton trails 54% to 33%.

  • The most surprising numbers come perhaps from Massachusetts, one of the country's bluest state in which McCain is very competitive, trailing 52% to 43% against Clinton and only 48% to 46% against Obama. In the last SUSA poll, McCain actually had a small lead against Obama, whose weakness is due to the female vote (+11 instead of +32 for Clinton).
  • In California, neither Democrat has any trouble dismissing McCain: 58% to 35% for Hillary, 61% to 34% for Obama. The gender difference is astonishing: Clinton gets +39 among women and +6 among men; Obama gets +25 among men and +9 among women.
  • Finally, in Alabama, McCain easily beats both Clinton (57% to 37%) and Obama (58% to 34%). Obama performs much better among blacks (87% against 69% for Clinton) but much weaker among whites (17% versus 26% for Clinton), in one of the only instances of such a racial divide.
Other than Massachusetts, there are no huge surprises in this group of polls, and we can expect the states we are used to thinking as tight to remain so in the coming months, including Ohio. If anything, the Democrats should be really happy about Missouri, a fairly large state in which they have been consistently competitive and which looks ripe for pick-up. The Democratic nominee can certainly hope to reach a majority by winning not a big Bush state like Florida and Ohio but putting together smaller ones, with Missouri and Virginia the obvious suspects at this point (as well as IA and NM, of course, but it is hard to think of those as red).

Labels: , , , , , , ,

15 Comments:

  • so Obama is strong in Iowa (7 ev) and Oregon (7 ev), and weak in MA (12 ev) and OH (20 ev) ? The electoral vote math doesn't look good.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 09:45  

  • nominating Hillary is already guaranteed to bag Arkansas (6ev). Then all she needs to ONE single state with at least 13 : OH, FL, or VA. Can Obama guarantee a new state he can win?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 09:59  

  • "Can Obama guarantee a new state he can win?"

    New Mexico. While he is above the margin of error in Missouri and he holds Minnesota with ease while Clinton would lose Oregon. Clinton does better in Ohio and Massachusetts.

    Overall, there's not a lot of difference in electability between the two.

    Of the states polled here Clinton does better in...

    Ohio (20)
    Massachusetts (12)

    for a total of 32

    Obama does better in...

    New Mexico (5)
    Oregon (7)
    Minnesota (10)

    for a total of 22. However, he keeps Oregon while Clinton doesn't win any that Obama can't also win.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 11:03  

  • Superdelagates better look at these polls!!!!!! Obama CANNOT win in the gerenarl election against McCain. Hillary can at least neutralize McCain's strengths in a gerneral election with women, whites and blacks. When a white man is in the race against Obama, Obama will lose some of his male support in favor of McCain. I have been saying this for months! Moreover, the more we learn about Obama and his cult like supporters, the more people are turned off by him...especially Hillary supporters....who he will need in the general election.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 11:05  

  • "Superdelagates better look at these polls!!!!!! Obama CANNOT win in the gerenarl election against McCain."

    You might want to read these polls before you make that claim...

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_presidential_race_state_by_state_snapshot

    Obama does better in Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 11:35  

  • C.S.Strowbridge,

    Rasmussen polls as well as many other polls & the media are VERY biased in favor of Obama!!!

    Again....Obama cannot win a general election because many of the independents & republicans who voted for him in open primary states will turn to McCain in the general election.

    They are setting Obama up. I hear this from several republicans because they don't want to run against Clinton.

    Let's not also forget about that dirty little word called "RACISM." When people go into the voting booth, Obama will lose to McCain!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 12:18  

  • There is no way Obama is going to win Missouri and lose in Mass. in the GE. This election is too far away for these polls to be taken too literally.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 13:05  

  • Anonymous - if there was wide spread racism then Obama would not be beating a white women (especially as the majority of Democratic primary voters are women). Also have you heard of sexism - McCain could benefit from that against Clinton so we will see.

    Obama helps bring new states in play such as VA, CO and Missouri.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 13:48  

  • "Rasmussen polls as well as many other polls & the media are VERY biased in favor of Obama!!! "

    Oh for Christ sake... Or maybe you are biased against Obama.

    The polls show Obama is just as electable, or slightly more than Clinton is...

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

    If you want to ignore all evidence that contradicts your already decided view of the world, be my guest. But don't expect to convert many people by doing that.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 14:11  

  • stone621 said...
    "There is no way Obama is going to win Missouri and lose in Mass. in the GE. This election is too far away for these polls to be taken too literally."

    I would consider that an outlier unless backed up by other polls. It's just too out there to matter.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 14:13  

  • a democrat will carry ma by a large margin. it is so certain that mccain will not spend a single precious penny there (though i wish he would:)

    these polls are fun but not really helpful. the numbers are close, but the number one piece of info for democratic voters is not decided yet: OUR NOMINEE!

    in the end, either clinton or obama will carry democrats by at lease 90%. what intrigues me about obama is turnout - a number no poll except the one on election day will answer. what if you raised the number of african americans voting on election day by 5 or 10% in oh, va, pa, fl, and mo?

    imagine it! a group of voters that vote 9-1 for democrats but don't vote in high percentages just got enlarged by a bunch. we could win every one of those states. clinton would carry blacks 9-1 as democrats always do, but she would not expand the number.

    clinton could expand turnout, too, with a group of voters. but her demographic strengths don't suggest it. senior women are perhaps the most reliable voters in the country (thanks mom! you rule).

    By Blogger st paul sage, At 23 February, 2008 15:39  

  • "while Clinton doesn't win any that Obama can't also win." sorry, Arkansas is guaranteed for Clinton and near impossible for Obama. However, Dems already carry IL, and Republicans already carry AZ, so neither Obama or McCain will bring in an extra state due to "home-turf". Also, Florida has a *very* good chance for Hillary due to NewYork-originating retirees flocking to Florida. That's 33 electoral votes right there. Even if she loses either WI or OR, she's still above 270.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 23 February, 2008 18:53  

  • Me: "while Clinton doesn't win any that Obama can't also win."

    Anon: "sorry, Arkansas is guaranteed for Clinton and near impossible for Obama."

    I was talking about these polls.

    While Clinton would flip Arkansas, she would lose Oregon, which is a net lose of 1.

    She could take Florida, but it is not likely. Looking at numerous polls, Ohio's numbers are mixed; neither Obama nor Clinton are guaranteed to pick them up, nor is one much more likely to win than the other.

    According to Rasmussen, Obama is clearly better than Clinton in...

    Colorado (9)
    Iowa (7)
    Michigan (17)
    Nevada (5)
    New Hampshire (4)
    New Mexico (5)
    Oregon (7)
    Pennsylvania (21)
    Virginia (13)

    Which equals 88 compared to 65 for Clinton, if you include Ohio.

    Are really, only 6 of those are from states she could win and Obama would not. (Neither will win Florida and both are competitive Ohio while both will win Mass.) For Obama that number is 45.

    Looking at these numbers, Obama is more electable.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 24 February, 2008 07:51  

  • By Anonymous Anonymous, At 29 February, 2008 22:23  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:01  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home