4.24.2008

Thursday polls: Indiana is a rare toss-up

We have seen remarkably few polls from Indiana so far but Research 2000 sought to correct that anomaly today by releasing a survey from the Hoosier state:

  • Obama edges out Clinton 48% to 47%, a slight improvement from the previous R2000 poll that had Clinton leading by 3%.
  • In the general election, McCain beats both Democrats but by margins that are narrower than those Bush enjoyed in 2000 and 2004. He leads Obama 51% to 43% and Clinton 52% to 41%.
  • Update: Selzer & Co (which is I believe the same pollster that conducts the Des Moines Register poll) released another Indiana survey tonight, also showing Obama up within the margin of error, 41% to 38%.
  • And in truly stunning general election numbers, Obama leads McCain 49% to 41% while Clinton and McCain are tied at 46%.
There have been few states in which there has been genuine uncertainty as to who would win rather than suspense about the margin. Texas was certainly the last state in which we went into Election Day with no favorite, but even there Clinton had gone into it the campaign as a favorite. This is why the next two week promise to be so much fun: There will be an actual measure by which to judge candidates' performances rather than the always subjective metric of what losing margin constitutes a moral victory! That said, Clinton will need more than just a narrow victory, but this initial indecisiveness suggests she might have trouble getting there.

As for the general election, it would certainly be very impressive for the Democratic nominee to even put Indiana in play, as the state has not voted for a Democratic nominee since 1964. That said, the Selzer poll does look like an outlier; there have been other general election polls from Indiana and none suggests that McCain is in that much danger here. Not to mention that if McCain is in danger of losing Indiana come November he probably will be in even worse shape in neighboring Midwestern states such as Iowa and Ohio -- not that the Obama campaign necessarily thinks it has a good chance of winning the latter. In a memo it distributed today to superdelegates and that the Washington Post obtained, the campaign lists what states Obama will concentrate on, classifying them as "big states," "traditional battlegrounds" and "new states" (CO and VA, but also TX, ND and MT). This was meant to be a memo about electability, which explains the inclusion of TX, ND and MT as there have been some polls lately in which Obama has been strong but not Clinton. But much more shocking is that Florida and Ohio have just been left out of the memo!

Two other general election surveys were released over the past two days by Rasmussen:

  • In Minnesota, Obama crushes McCain 52% to 37%. Clinton is ahead by a much narrower 47% to 42%. This is a significant improvement for both Democrats; a month ago, Obama lead McCain by 4 and Clinton trailed by 1.
  • In Nevada, however, another crucial swing state that is near the top of the Democrats' pick-up list, McCain is leading both Democrats, 48% to 43% against Obama and 48% to 38% against Clinton -- a rare case in which there the proportion of undecided voters is much higher in Hillary's match-up.
  • Last month, both Democrats led McCain -- Obama by 4%, which was already a decline from the month before when Obama led by 12%.
Both of these states will be very disputed all the way to November. Minnesota is one of the blue states the GOP is assured of contesting; not only did it only narrowly reject Bush in 2004, but the GOP convention will be held in St. Paul this year and MN Governor Pawlenty is at the top of McCain's vice-presidential list. As for Nevada, Democrats know they must make inroads in the West if they want to survive the census reallocation that will have kicked in by the next presidential election. They have room to grow in the region and the Obama campaign clearly believes that the West (starting with Colorado) is fertile ground for the Illinois Senator.

Finally, Rasmussen also released a Senate poll from Minnesota:

  • It shows Senator Norm Coleman leading Al Franken 50% to 43%. This is a second month in a row the Republican is improving his position since trailing 49-46 in February. Last month, Coleman was leading by 2%, 48-46.
This is the first time Coleman is reaching 50% in a Rasmussen poll, the vulnerability threshold no incumbent wants to fall under. Note that Franken's trajectory is going downward just as he looks to be securing the DFL's nomination. This race is probably the purest Senate toss-up along with Alaska's Senate race, as all other races more or less clearly lean towards the incumbent or challenging party. With Democrats unable to make much of a move right now in Maine and Oregon, Franken could benefit from more DSCC attention.

Labels: , , , ,

20 Comments:

  • Re MN-Sen: I think Alaska will be a much better pickup opportunity.

    Iy's interesting that Coleman gained as both Clinton and Obama gained in Minnesota.

    Also a Selzer poll came out
    with Obama leading Clinton 41-38, with the usual splits. But what was more striking is that Obam leads McCain 49-41 with Clintion-McCain a tie at 46% each.

    Another outlier?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 00:02  

  • Well, looks like I will have a lot to say!

    It looks Indiana is going to be a pure tossup. If Obama wins the state and wins NC with double digits then there will be pressure for Clinton to drop out as the contests after those are nearly impossible for her to win the PDs and improbable to win the popular vote (not counting FL and MI). Although I feel that she will just continue on until after SD and MT vote.

    Obama's strategy memo almost makes sense. Obama only needs 2 of the big swing 4 because he could make a 3rd one up if he won NC and VA, (with some western states like NM, CO, and Nevada (NV?) as insurance). I understand him writing off Florida thx to the delegate problem being to damaging to him but I don't think it's as wise to write off Ohio off, epecially since he will have so much extra money to spend.

    On the MN Senate Race, I read somewhere about some controvery about a company Franken owns which is getting fined or something like that, that's probably hurting him in this poll. I also think that Coleman is getting more aggressive in attacking Franken now that he knows who his Democratic opponet will be. It's kinda suprising.. I bet if the DFL had an politically experienced canidadate running instead of a comedian, Coleman would be trailing instead of leading.

    In terms of DSCC attention, I don't think that they are going to help Franken at the moment because he is still within single digits in polling and Franken isn't excactly having trouble fundraising. In addition, the Senate Races are still in thier early races, probably not worth it spend money now and move Franken numbers if Coleman gets to time to reverse them back into his favor. I think that once we are in August, the DSCC will probably spend money to see if Maine and Oregean can be moved with support, if not then they will probably start giving some support to Franken

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 00:11  

  • Does anyone else see the real problem for Clinton in Indiana being tv expenses? We assume both campaigns will buy lots of GRPs in Indy, Terre Haute, Evansville and Fort Wayne. But to really compete you have to also buy time in Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati and Dayton, which are much more expensive. My guess is that benefits Obama.

    By Blogger Bearcat Ben, At 25 April, 2008 00:13  

  • Yeah mikeel I agree the Alaska race is probably a better pick up oppurtnity for dems, especially sense Alaska GOPs are still fully supporting Stevens despite the ongoing FBI raid hurting him in GE polls dramatically. However, Alaska is still a strong GOP state and its possible if Stevens is indited the GOP will either kick him or primary him (probably with someone from Gov. Palin's adminstration seeing how popular she is) if that happens then Alaska would be weaker than MN in terms of pick up ability. The MN race is more likly to be stable than Alaska

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 00:14  

  • Bg, the fundraising haul that Clinton got will certainly help her in getting T.V. airwaves. I don't know if she will brodcast in the Chicago areas where Obama is likely to be strong. With polls showing the Indiana to be a nail biter at least as of today, she will probably focus more on locking down her own base rather than expanding into Obamas in Indiana.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 00:17  

  • JaxxRaxor, most of the 1st paragraph at 00:11 could have been written over a month ago.What this past month plus has been is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,Signifying nothing"(Shakespeare). (Of course the tale being that HRC has a chance to overtake Obama.)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 05:39  

  • the fact that the Selzer poll shows Obama leading McCain by 8% in the very Red state of Indiana already makes me question their data. IN is not a state that has enough black voters to change the dynamic THAT drastically.

    if ANY Dem can lead Indiana by 8%, they should be win the general election with a 350+ electoral-vote landslide.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 07:50  

  • that "electability" memo is a HUGE joke. They leave out the 47 electoral votes of Ohio and Florida (1/6th along the path to 270), and has been 2 of the 3 largest battleground states of 2000 and 2004 (PA/OH/FL). But at the same time, they have to include those teenie-tiny states of Montana and North-Dakota as a repacement.

    So their definition of "changing the map" is subtracting out the big slices of the pizza like OH and FL, and pretending that all the extra cheese sprinkling on top like NM/IA/CO will make the pizza just as massive.

    And then they have ridiculous notions that NC is somehow a "traditional battleground" ?? (since when? the world war days?)

    finally, they forgot to add in his weakness in MA.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 08:02  

  • I do not see the obsession with Florida. Yes it was vital in 2000 (only because Gore didn`t win his home state of TN or even NH). FL was much more solidly Republican in 2004. We shoudn`t fight old battles, but look where the opportunities actually are. CO, VA, IA are much more promising than FL and combined are more EV's than FL.
    I agree OH should be included, especially since Obama does well in MI and PA in GE polls. But FL can easily be forgotten - Kerry would have won without FL if he had won OH.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 08:22  

  • Good Morning Everyone!

    Anon 7:50
    I'm also a little skeptical about the poll showing Obama leading. Indiana is a western state but it is much more of a Republican brand like UT and WY so I definitely doubt that Obama could win, much less win by that big of a margin.

    Anon 8:02 On the electability argument, I think that he didn't include PA because he's probbaly assuming that he will win that state. I do think that he has to write off florida because he has no organization in the state and Florida voters blame him for not allowing Florida delegates to be seated. I think that Obama only needs to win 2 of the big 4, he CAN make it up with wins in medium and smaller starts like NM/IA/CO/NC/VA/ND etc. So in a sense the pizza will not be bigger than in previous years or compared to Clinton, mainly of a different flavor.

    And on MA, yes he does have weaknesses in that state but I seriously doubt that MA, (as well as NY and CA, which also show dem weaknesses) will go for McCain or even be competive. Hillary supporters may abandon Obama in swing states and in GOP leaning states, but Dem establishment in these states will work hard for Obama and he will likely carry them comfortably. If it's October and McCain is still competive in CA, MA and NY then a GOP landslide is in the making.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 08:24  

  • I'm real glad that you people see Obama's strategy producing a McCain landslide. I guess that's what you campaign is all about, preventing the strongest candidate from getting nominated to ensure republican victory.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 08:32  

  • I have worked the numbers for both Clinton and Obama for the last 9 races on my blog.

    Facit: because Clinton did not win PA with 65%, she must now score 69.25% in the last 9 races in order to surpass Obama by 1 PD at the end of the day.

    However, the chances are much strong that Obama will win NC 61%-39% over Clinton, which translates to 70 delegates for him and 45 for her - a 25 delegate spread which completely obliterates the 12 PD margin she picked up in PA. So, even if he narrowly loses IN, he will still have increased his PD lead over Clinton after May 6.

    After May 6, there will only 189 PDs left to win. And I am sure that Obama will be at at least +168 (where he was BEFORE PA) after May 6, more likely he will be at +179 or +180.

    GAME OVER.

    By Blogger Statistikhengst, At 25 April, 2008 09:54  

  • 5:39- That's a pretty lame quote. It's starting to resemble Barack's rhetoric lately.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 11:14  

  • anon 11:14- yea that Shakespeare was a real dunce. Let's elevate to Hillary humor! Pull my finger--.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 16:32  

  • anon 11:14, Perhaps you'll like this quote better as it definitely applies to Hillary. "As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."H.L. Mencken

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 25 April, 2008 16:50  

  • 16:50 You are stupid aren't you? The current occupant holds that title. Hillary has a far greater IQ than you and even though it is only slightly above Barack's you'd have to put him down even further by making such idiotic assertions. The "elite intelligensia" backs Clinton not Barack. Barack has the "bigot brigade" and the psuedo-intellectuals that can't help insulting the masses that they'd need to succeed. You obviously belong to the latter as you seem to think that applying some else's comments are appropriate. You should have stuck to using your own words. I doubt you could.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 26 April, 2008 09:12  

  • Amazing that it is alway the "anonymous" posters who love to hurl insults and be generally obnoxious.

    Have at least enough balls to put your email address out there. Otherwise, stay on the porch!

    By Blogger Statistikhengst, At 26 April, 2008 16:35  

  • Dear Anon. 09;12 I'm having lots of fun yanking your chain.And by the way check every poll out there and you'll find that the higher the education the more likely they vote Obama. So much for the "intelligensia" being behind Hillary.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 27 April, 2008 12:48  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:37  

  • By Blogger oakleyses, At 15 November, 2015 22:39  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home