Tuesday polls: Should we paint New York purple?

The six-week lull is over, and it's Election Day! The afternoon and evening coverage will be heavy with Pennsylvania analysis, of course, so let us start with the day's polls -- many of which are not Pennsylvania related.

  • Zogby released his last tracking poll from Pennsylvania, finding Hillary Clinton jumping to a 10% lead, 51% to 41%. There is a clear trendline in favor of Hillary in the final days, as her lead moves from three to six to ten points.
  • Zogby confirms which group holds the key to today's election: white men, particularly Catholics.
  • Insider Advantage, meanwhile, also released its second poll in two days and finds Clinton's lead at 7%, 49% to 42%. Yesterday's survey showed a 10% lead.
The expectations have been set by the wave of polls released yesterday, all but one showing Clinton in the lead with anywhere from low single-digits to low double-digits. If Clinton stays in that range, this is likely to be a disappointing night for her; if she goes beyond it and wins by solid double-digits, we are in this race for the long haul.

Naturally, as early as tomorrow morning we will be on to the May 6th primaries and things are not going very well for Hillary there either, with the North Carolina contest increasingly looking like it could sink her:

  • PPP's latest poll released yesterday shows Obama opening a 25% lead against Clinton, 57% to 32%.
  • Note that PPP is the only institute that has shown Obama leading in Pennsylvania -- and has done so consistently. Depending on today's results, we will know if their turnout model is good or if it has flaws.
There is no doubt that Clinton cannot survive May 6th if she suffers such a loss, whatever happens in Indiana. First, it would only deepen her delegate predicament; second, it would be a terrible symbolic blow in one of the country's biggest states; third, such a large Obama victory would undoubtedly be accompanied by his progressing among the groups Clinton wants to show he is weak in. Naturally, if Hillary posts a very strong victory today it could help her down the line (not that we have seen momentum carry the candidates to further victories this cycle).

Finally, a wave of general election polls:

  • In New York, first, Siena University paints a very worrisome picture for Democrats as McCain is extremely competitive against both Hillary Clinton (46% to 42%) and Barack Obama (45% to 40%). The favorability ratings are also remarkable, with Clinton only standing at 48-46 in her home state, behind both McCain (54-35) and Obama (54-34).
  • Rasmussen confirms that Democrats have no chance in Arizona, McCain's home state, despite its having been a swing state in past elections. The Republican beats Clinton 60% to 32% and Obama 57% to 37%. Note that there are competitive House races in Arizona (AZ-01 and possibly AZ-05 and AZ-08) in which McCain's strength could help the GOPers.
  • Finally, a national poll by USA Today/Gallup (this is not the tracking poll) shows both Democrats posting a narrow lead over McCain. Clinton leads 50% to 44% and Obama is ahead 47% to 44%.
There have been enough New York polls showing a tight race at this point that Democrats should start getting worried; the Marist poll two weeks ago showed Obama actually trailing McCain; both Quinnipiac and SUSA's last week showed Obama held in single-digits (though Clinton was in double-digits). Despite the Siena poll's assertion that Clinton is as weak as Obama in a match-up, the Illinois Senator typically has more trouble in past polls.

It would be a catastrophe for Democrats to have to spend any money or time in one of the country's most expensive media markets in order to defend one of the states that has been the most reliably Democratic in past cycles. In fact, the New York Republican Party is slowly but surely dying -- but it would be a great blessing for them if McCain's coattails were unexpectedly strong enough to save their majority in the state Senate.

It is still unlikely that New York becomes competitive -- but we will have to keep an eye on the polls. After all, at the heart of McCain's general election strength is his appeal to independents and moderate Democrats.

Labels: , , ,


  • I subscribed to the originally CLinton argument that victories in red states do not matter much. So Obama winning by 20% or so in NC wouldn`t count for much. But since Clinton won in TX (popular vote) and touts how important that was on March 4th. I now go along with the idea that all states matter.

    A 20% victory in NC would easily wipe out any gains Clinton has froma 10% win in PA - both delegates and popular vote. NC is 3/4th the size of PA and assuming equal turnout would only need 13% win to equal her 10% win. We will see what happens.

    She may want to continue but her destiny is out of her hands if the superdelegates break for Obama after May 6th.

    I also hear her whine about Obama spending money and hence why her lead shrunk from 20% to 10%. What will she do in November if she loses the election to McCain. Will she say it doesn`t count because she was outspent!!
    The amazing thing is that she was out fundraised by a novice on the national scene. She has an ex-president to help raise money and yet she is $$$$ behind.

    By Anonymous Tom, At 22 April, 2008 12:05  

  • One thing I hear from Clinton supporters on here - especially the rabid anonymous ones is that Obama is not electabile in key democratic states. Although the polling data shows both Dems as being pretty similar on a national scene.

    How do they look at the NY polling data Taniel posted. If she cannot even win strongly her "home" state then she is in trouble.

    By Anonymous Mike, At 22 April, 2008 12:09  

  • Wow I guess the lessons weren't learned. The whiny Obamabots continue with their rabid Hillary hating. This is why Obama should not be the nominee and if he is, he'll lose the GE. The Obama base is the nastiest group of sore winners I've ever seen. NY doesn't like weak leaders. Now that Hillary is taking Barack to task, you'll see her numbers climb. She's won statewide office here twice quite handily. It's Obama that will lose here decisively. He's perceived in NY as weak. In fact, he's perceived everywhere as weak.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 22 April, 2008 12:21  

  • Funny that the GE poll shows McCain at 44% against both. You'd think there'd be a difference. I guess Obama's sinking without counting Hillary crossovers. Now that she's stopped pulling her punches, we'll see if Barack can really stand up or whether he folds like he did in every debate.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 22 April, 2008 12:41  

  • I have a strong feeling that people will be having strong passions about this race until the Democratic nomination ends.. which will be a relief.

    On New York, I think that McCain's competivness is SOLEY based on the Democrats still being a competive primary while he has no such problem in his own primary. Unless theres a extremely bitter brokered convention I'd bet you $200 Taniel that the closest McCain could get in New York is an 8% loss. He definitly has a chance in New Jersey because they hate thier politicans and most of them are Democrats at the momoment, but it is improbable that McCain would even start making Dems sweat in New York once they have unified around a nominee (unless its a nasty brokered convention like I said).

    By Anonymous jaxx raxor, At 22 April, 2008 14:17  

  • Obama is truly hated in NY. His sermon like cadences rub New Yorkers the wrong way. You can count NY as red if Obama is nominated. The Latin Kings and MS13 love him though.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 22 April, 2008 14:33  

  • Yes Clinton did win statewide twice - against weak opponents. Name either of them!

    You cannot dismiss every fact about Hillary you do not like as nasty Obambots. As Hillary says if you cannot stand the heat (i.e. nastiness) then get out the kitchen.

    By Anonymous Tom, At 22 April, 2008 15:03  

  • I'm pretty confident that Hillary will close the 94,005 vote gap and carry PA. If Obama can muster up a winning turnout though, it would go a long way to proving his viability. I'm glad Dean committed to seating both Fl. and Mich. this morning. It puts pressure on Edwards to make a choice.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 22 April, 2008 15:03  

  • Fazio comes to mind. Rudy quit and the facts aren't nasty you are. I'm glad you agree that Barack should fold up his tent and go home. Truman was right. You can't take the heat. You whine like a baby when you get back what you give. Every day you shovel it out but you can't take it without crying.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 22 April, 2008 15:10  

  • Anon of 15:10 and 15:35.

    The Clinton campaign earlier this year said Obama and his supporters were weak and naive. Now the charge is that we are nasty (gross generalisation). You cannot have it both ways - either we are weak or we are strong and fight back (like the Clintons).

    Pick a side, we are at war!

    By Anonymous Tom, At 22 April, 2008 15:57  

  • I still doubt NY will be less than a 10% win for either Dem against McCain. One factor in keeping the state competitive is the Spitzer/Paterson brouhaha.

    Once the war and economy become prime in voters' mind, McCain will lose ground. I think most of the undecideds are Democrats who may be attracted to McCain now. But Obama or Clinton won't match Kerry's 26% margin in 2004.

    By Anonymous mikeel, At 22 April, 2008 16:52  

  • Nastiness of your posting is a sign of your weakness. Name calling is a sure sign of a weak argument. Dean has taken sides with Hillary now and the voters will ultimately decide this. All the voters. BTW, fighting like a little girl is not really a good thing for your side. We have a gay cheerleader as president now. Hissy fits make Barack look so weak. Go read what your paid blogging staff is posting on the CNN ticker. It's embarrassing.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 22 April, 2008 17:30  

  • "It would be a catastrophe for Democrats to have to spend any money or time in one of the country's most expensive media markets in order to defend one of the states that has been the most reliably Democratic in past cycles."

    It would also be a disaster for the Republicans to spend million in New York only to lose. They don't have the money to blow in states like New York or California.

    By Anonymous C.S.Strowbridge, At 22 April, 2008 18:21  

  • Nastiness of your posting is a sign of your weakness. Name calling is a sure sign of a weak argument.... BTW, fighting like a little girl...

    Pot to kettle ...

    By Blogger dsimon, At 22 April, 2008 19:26  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home