U.S. Election Polls

[jdobbin]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/17/pol...rats/index.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead over Sen. Barack Obama, her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, is growing among African-American voters who are registered Democrats, and particularly among black women, a poll said Wednesday.

Sen. Hillary Clinton is the top choice of African-American Democrats, a new poll suggests.

Among black registered Democrats overall, Clinton had a 57 percent to 33 percent lead over Obama.

That's up from 53 percent for Clinton and 36 percent for Obama in a poll carried out in April.

The 26-point difference between black women and men underscores the fact that the nation's vote is divided not only by race, but also by gender, said CNN political analyst Bill Schneider. "Black women don't just vote their black identity," he said. "They also vote their identity as women."

Among white registered Democrats, Clinton drew 49 percent support, versus 18 percent for Obama and 17 percent for former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the latest poll found.

The question had a sampling error of plus-or-minus 6.5 percentage points.

The former first lady's strongest support among blacks came from black women, 68 percent of whom identified her as their likely choice, versus 25 percent who cited Obama, the senator from Illinois who is African-American.

It looks like Clinton is winning the black female vote.

[guyser]

Just wait until Oprah is his rumoured running mate.

[Guest American Woman]

I wonder where Edwards would figure in? Right now he'd get my vote.

But I was just reading about Hilary.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that immigrants living in the U.S. illegally would not be covered by her proposed universal health care plan.

The New York senator said she supports basic health services for illegal immigrants, including hospitalization and treatment of acute conditions. But she said the magnitude of the nation's health care challenge means her universal coverage proposal would not cover the 12 million people living in the country illegally.

LInk

It's kind of weird that covering/not covering illegals would even be an issue. If they're illegal and they come in for healthcare, why aren't they just sent out of the country? Course that's a whole different topic ...

[jdobbin]

I wonder where Edwards would figure in? Right now he'd get my vote.

Cabinet position? Running mate?

[Guest American Woman]

Cabinet position? Running mate?

I meant where he'd fit in the polls. How much support he's getting. He'd be my choice for candidate, but maybe he could be a running mate too. I think he's too strong to be a running mate, though.

[Shakeyhands]

fast forward to 08... Clinton/Obama crush Guiliani/McCain... there's the call.

[Higgly]

Don Newman of the CBC just had Henry Champ, the CBC's Chief US Political reporter on and Champ thinks it will be Clinton verus Giuliani. The interesting thing about Giuliani, according to Champ, is that he has abandonned the religious fundamentalist right wing that Bush drew so much support on and yet is winning strong support from Republicans country-wide.

Might be an interesting race.

I don't know about anybody else but these gender-related comments about Clinton are getting pretty old.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Higgly

[jbg]

I see it being Clinton v. Giuliani, with Giuliani winning.

[jdobbin]

I see it being Clinton v. Giuliani, with Giuliani winning.

I think you will see some on the religious right support a third party alternative before supporting Guiliani.

[jbg]

I think you will see some on the religious right support a third party alternative before supporting Guiliani.

In the US third parties are the talk of the town for a while. Come October their money and support dwindles fast.

[jdobbin]

In the US third parties are the talk of the town for a while. Come October their money and support dwindles fast.

It was enough to let a Clinton win in one election.

[jdobbin]

Huckabee continues to rise in the polls.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2...s_huckabee.html

Mike Huckabee is learning what a target feels like.

A day after a Washington Post poll of Iowa voters found him in a statistical tie for the lead with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Huckabee's critics have turned aggressive.

The Web site factcheck.org published a blistering critique of his fiscal record, saying he regularly "misrepresents" his actions as governor of Arkansas.

"He frequently says he cut taxes "almost 94 times" but leaves out the 21 taxes raised during his tenure," the Web site found. "In the end, he presided over a net tax increase."

The analysis found that Huckabee was misleading the public by saying a tax hike took place after a voter referendum. ("The tax was enacted before a referendum vote on highway repairs," the site found.)

They also concluded that he referred to a "fee" on nursing homes, when "he himself had called it the 'bed tax.'"

Those are the messages that his opponents--particularly Romney and former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson--are eager to see publicized. Romney has staked his campaign on a victory in Iowa, where he's been leading for months. And Thompson's flagging campaign sees Huckabee in the way of a surprise in the state.

Yikes. I guess you are an open target when you start to rise like he has in the polls.

I always thought Huckabee would connect with Republicans as more people got to know him. Looks like elements of his own party want to torpedo that idea though.

The poll:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112002497.html

The poll found that overall, 28 percent of likely GOP caucus-goers support Romney, while 24 percent support Huckabee. Thompson ran third in the poll at 15 percent, with Giuliani at about the same level, with 13 percent. McCain, whose Iowa campaign appeared to derail earlier this year over his stance on immigration, had 6 percent and was tied with Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), who rose from 2 percent in July.

Edited November 22, 2007 by jdobbin

[jbg]

Iowa and New Hampshire do not equal the US. The media compares against expectations, and does not really credit actual results.

Despite the rhetoric addressed to "the people of New Hampshire" after the primary, and through Election Day, Presidential candidates won't keep trooping around New Hampshire; they'll concentrate on bigger fish.

[jdobbin]

Latest Zogby poll.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...80716?hub=World

When respondents were asked who they would vote for if only given the choice between Obama, McCain and "someone else," most said they would support the Democratic candidate:

* Obama: 47 per cent

* McCain: 40.3 per cent

* Other: 2.9 per cent

* Undecided: 9.8 per cent

However, when the same question was repeated with the names of Nader and Barr added, McCain lost support.

* Obama: 46.3 per cent

* McCain: 36.3 per cent

* Nader: 3.3 per cent

* Barr: 3.4 per cent

* Other: 1.1 per cent

* Undecided: 9.6 per cent

Looks like McCain is a winner all the way.

[Shady]

Polls are absolutely meaningless until September. Please, nobody post a poll until then. Thanks.

[August1991]

Polls are absolutely meaningless until September. Please, nobody post a poll until then. Thanks.

While I agree with your first sentence Shady, I suggest you lighten up. Where's the fun in only discussing stuff that matters?

Latest Zogby poll.

...

Looks like McCain is a winner all the way.

I saw that report Dobbin and I had a different take.

First, the seven point lead is less than what some other polls have given.

Second, the result that Nader draws more from McCain than Obama tells me that the poll is screwy. (see Shady above.)

Third,

will answer a poll one way but then she won't vote. (Obama girl didn't vote in the NY primary.)

Fourth, what do they call it in the US? (In Quebec, polls consistently underestimate the federalist/Liberal vote.) (Google search later: Bradley Effect.)

Fifth, US inflation and unemployment are up. GDP is stagnant, verging on recession. The US military is involved in a foreign war. A whack of boomers are thinking of retirement and house prices and the stock market are down. This is not a time to be a candidate for the incumbent party.

All things considered, the 2008 presidential election is for the Democrats to lose.

Edited July 16, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Polls are absolutely meaningless until September. Please, nobody post a poll until then. Thanks.

Because then no one would be able to tell you "told you so."

[jbg]

All things considered, the 2008 presidential election is for the Democrats to lose.

Given the headlines about Sallie Mae, Freddie Mac, Indymac (and who knows what other "Macs") and Bear Sterns the Democrats should be running away with the election. Given the "Bradley effect" discussed above, which given this race's exposure will be magnified, I would not sleep that well if I were Obama.

[Argus]

del

Edited July 17, 2008 by Argus

[August1991]

Republican presidential candidate John McCain moved from being behind by 6 points among "likely" voters a month ago to a 4-point lead over Democrat Barack Obama among that group in the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. McCain still trails slightly among the broader universe of "registered" voters. By both measures, the race is tight.

The Friday-Sunday poll, mostly conducted as Obama was returning from his much-publicized overseas trip and released just this hour, shows McCain now ahead 49%-45% among voters that Gallup believes are most likely to go to the polls in November. In late June, he was behind among likely voters, 50%-44%.

Among registered voters, McCain still trails Obama, but by less. He is behind by 3 percentage points in the new poll (47%-44%) vs. a 6-point disadvantage (48%-42%) in late June.

USA Today

This Gallup poll tries to measure those who will vote.

Here's an Electoral Map predictor site.

Edited July 30, 2008 by August1991

[August1991]

In a sharp turnaround, Republican John McCain has opened a 5-point lead on Democrat Barack Obama in the U.S. presidential race and is seen as a stronger manager of the economy, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

McCain leads Obama among likely U.S. voters by 46 percent to 41 percent, wiping out Obama's solid 7-point advantage in July and taking his first lead in the monthly Reuters/Zogby poll.

The reversal follows a month of attacks by McCain, who has questioned Obama's experience, criticized his opposition to most new offshore oil drilling and mocked his overseas trip.

The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday as Obama wrapped up a weeklong vacation in Hawaii that ceded the political spotlight to McCain, who seized on Russia's invasion of Georgia to emphasize his foreign policy views.

"There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right now," pollster John Zogby said. "This is a significant ebb for Obama."

McCain now has a 9-point edge, 49 percent to 40 percent, over Obama on the critical question of who would be the best manager of the economy -- an issue nearly half of voters said was their top concern in the November 4 presidential election.

Reuters

I wouldn't call this a "sharp turnaround" (except in the Obama-blinded MSM) but rather part of an obvious trend.

And there are still two conventions to come and a campaign. As they say, the game's not over until the Electoral College meets.

[August1991]

Here's an Electoral Map predictor site.

At present, this site gives NM to Obama. It also makes Virginia "exactly tied", Maine "strongly Dem" and Iowa "weak Dem".

Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

----

The bottom line in a Presdiential election is where to get the Electoral Votes. Looking through the map, and the votes, I just don't see how Obama can win. Even if he wins California and New York (and I'm not certain that he can carry both), I just don't see where he can get the Electoral votes.

Am I wrong?

[jdobbin]

Am I wrong?

If McCain picks a pro-choice VP, we might seen some changes.

A few weeks is a lifetime in politics.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The bottom line in a Presdiential election is where to get the Electoral Votes. Looking through the map, and the votes, I just don't see how Obama can win. Even if he wins California and New York (and I'm not certain that he can carry both), I just don't see where he can get the Electoral votes.

Am I wrong?

Not wrong, but Obama can nail down NY and CA by picking Hillary as veep. Then it's just a blues states - red states game....again.

[jbg]

USA Today

This Gallup poll tries to measure those who will vote.

Here's an Electoral Map predictor site.

That "map" sure blew it in 2004; predicted a big Kerry win.