Obama Leading But Losing Ground In Latest Polls
The number of polls released yesterday was overwhelming. Quinnipiac showed tight races in Ohio and Florida, while Obama led in Pennsylvania and in CNN’s national poll. In other presidential polling, we got some more narrow results:
- For the fourth consecutive day, Obama lost ground in Gallup’s tracking poll. Up 9% on Sunday, he now gets 45% to McCain’s 44% -- the narrowest the race has been for more than 10 days, or before Obama embarked on his trip.
- Another national poll, by Pew, has Obama leading by 5%, 50% to 45%. In June, Obama led by 8%. 48% said they learned something about Obama’s foreign policy as a result of the trip, versus 52%.
- In Rasmussen’s poll from Montana, McCain gets 45% to Obama’s 44% -- and the two are tied at 47% when leaners are included. Three weeks ago, Obama was ahead by 5% -- but that was seen as a truly shocking result. McCain’s favorability rating is slightly better.
- In Insider Advantage poll from Georgia, the race remains surprisingly close, with McCain ahead 45% to 41% with 3% for Bob Barr.
- In two Kentucky polls, McCain remains ahead - albeit by varying margins. For Rasmussen, he is up 49% to 39% (down from a 15% lead) but Obama’s unfavorability rating is 50%, compared to 35% for McCain’s. In Research 2000’s poll, McCain leads 56% to 35%.
- A Texas poll released by Rasmussen, meanwhile, finds McCain holding on to a 9% lead, 50% to 41%. With leaners, the race narrows to a 52% to 44% margin.
- In California, Obama is ahead 50% to 35% in a PPIC survey.
- Finally, an Idaho poll released by Research 2000 has McCain leading 53% to 37%. Four years ago, Bush won here by 39%.
Among these state surveys, the Montana poll is certainly the most interesting, but it is a shame that Rasmussen is the only institute that is releasing polls from this state, making it hard to confirm the state’s tightness. McCain might have gained 6% in the past 3 weeks here, but we are not used enough to seeing Montana be this competitive that a tie can in any way be regarded as a disappointing showing for Obama. The Illinois Senator has been running ads in this state and visited it already, and it seems like he succeeded in putting it in play. In fact, the Idaho poll confirms how much of a shift we are observing in the Mountain West.
The other polls come from states that we have long known are less competitive, with Texas and Georgia two states in which McCain’s leads are often much smaller than they ought to be but in which it would take much too great an investment by Obama to truly move the numbers. The Illinois Senator has been spending in Georgia, but other polls have shown larger leads for McCain.
Meanwhile, a number of down-the-ballot polls were released during the day:
- The most entertaining came from Alaska, where Rasmussen polled three possible match-ups in the day after Ted Stevens’s indictment. If the Senator wins his primary and stays in the race, he is trailing Mark Begich 50% to 37%. Stevens’s favorability rating remains positive, at 50% to 46%. Begich would beat real estate developer David Cuddy 50% to 35% and he leads against unknown but wealthy businessman Vic Vickers 55% to 22%.
- In Idaho’s Senate race, Research 2000’s poll finds a surprisingly narrow race, with Lieutenant Governor Risch leading former Rep. LaRocco 42% to 32%, with 5% to independent candidate Rex Rammell.
- In Kentucky’s Senate race, two similar results: Rasmussen found McConnell leading 50% to 38% (up from 48% to 41% lead last month) and Research 2000 showed McConnell leading 49% to 38%, compared to 12% lead last month.
- Finally, two interesting independent House polls from SUSA. In IN-09, Rep. Hill is leading 49% to 42% in the third match-up between the Democrat and Mike Sodrel.
- In WA-08, SUSA finds Republican Rep. Reichert with a 50% to 44% lead against his opponent Darcy Burner, in another rematch from 2006. (No surprises in WA-02, where Democratic Rep. Larsen has a huge lead in a race no one is following.)
The reason the Alaska Senate race is in such a chaotic race is that we don’t know who will be running against Mark Begich. If it is any of the three people polled by Rasmussen here, it would mean that (1) Stevens lost the primary to Cuddy or Vickens or that (2) he won the primary and then insisted to stay on the ballot. Under either of these scenarios, it is nearly certain that Alaska would join New Mexico and Virginia as three Senates Democrats are likely to pick-up. The GOP’s hope in this seat is for Stevens to win the primary and then withdraw from the race - allowing for a stronger Republican to try his luck. Until we get a better idea of whether this is a possible scenario, Rasmussen’s poll is not enough to conclude Begich is the clear favorite.
The Kentucky and Idaho Senate races are to second-to-third tier races that the DSCC might be hoping to put in play if it hits the jackpot. The former contest has been heated, with McConnell going on air early with negative ads related to energy issues. As a result, it is hardly surprising to see him take his first consistent double-digit lead. Given how large McConnell’s war chest is (more than $9 million), Lunsford will be vulnerable to such attacks throughout the campaign. The Idaho race is less engaged but a number of Republicans are grumbling that Risch is not running a strong enough campaign; it will take much more than that for LaRocco to get close to scoring a huge upset.
Finally, both IN-09 and WA-08 will featured tight races if only because of the intensity of the previous elections. This is the third consecutive match-up between Hill and Sodrel, with the Democrat having won 2 out of 3. Reichert survived 2006 by only two percentage points. Both incumbents are flirting with the 50% line and are thus clearly endangered, but such leads are more impressive in polls of rematches in which the challenger is already somewhat known.
Read more at Daniel Nichanian's blog, Campaign Diaries.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Obama is incredibly popular in the latino community. And, he has worked consistently to get unregistered Latino voters in the South—630,000 unregistered in Florida, 84,000 in North Carolina and 70,000 in Virginia.
His campaign has also targeted the 236,000 unregistered 18- to 24-year-olds in Florida, and, the 227,000 unregistered 18- to 24-year-olds in Georgia.
Plus, he has made eye-popping inroads in Georgia, with its 600,000 unregistered black voters.
So again, I'm not worried.
Obama will be fine.
In fact, most state polls in the country show him in the lead. He is solid in BABY BLUE states, and is quite competitive in RUBY RED states. But his community organizing prowess (which includes phone banking, texting (cell phones), e-mailing, and and good ole fashion knocking on doors) is winning the hearts and minds on the ground. John McCain doesn't have anything comparable.
I agree that Obama needs to hit McCain a little harder this week for his lies and distortions.
But I can't help feeling that many are underestimating him, the way many underestimated him during th primaries. The DNC Convention isn't here. The three debates haven't happened yet. So the numbers above are incredibly premature.
Show me these numbers in mid October and then I would be concerned. Right now, its very misleading. Obama is leading this race, especially when you factor in all of the "non-land line" voters who use cell phones - and who consist solid Obama constituencies: the working poor, young people (18-35), african-americans, asian-americans, native-americans, and latinos. Factor in the millions of "cell phone users" who have received texts from Obama for well over a year and you can see that Obama is well ahead of McCain and better positioned to win this election with a well-put together coalition of voters.
RIght now, I am not worrried about the polls, because the reality on the ground points to a comfortable Obama victory.
BO can't win...too much fluff and no substance.
Lincoln never met Karl Rove.
Mogamboguru I dont' care if the president is "classy." Usually classless people use that word. I care that he is smart and knows the ins and outs of getting things done.
18,000,000 of us thought Hillary was the brilliant workhorse we needed. A great many of us are still waiting for the proof and are holding on to our donations.
It's getting interesting. I had to laugh when Obama's campaign sent me a "please donate" letter and offered to enter my name into a contest to win "back stage" passes to the Denver rally. Obama is not a rock star and I am not a groupie. GET REAL with this presidential race. There are problems that need brilliant creative solutions. You got the ball... lets see if you can actually run with it.
This week, Hillary's campaign offered me dinner with the candidate.
And I'm a married man!
She learned that from Obama.....
BTW, today is 0bama's birthday; did you send him a gift?
No wonder Obama isn't taking charge of the electorate. His campaign gurus insist on taking the high road, while his opponent is gaining speed on the low-road. This is American politics, not a doctoral dissertation.
Just as the Democrats have been spineless in Congress, they are spineless on the campaign trail. Any schoolyard bully can send them crying home to mommy.
Worse, all throughout the primaries, Obama kept repeating that Hillary Clinton would do anything to win the election. Now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, he flip-flops on wiretapping and now he is flipf-lopping on offshore drilling. WHO will say anything to be elected? Excuse me!!!!
The cult of Obama needs to spend less time reading its own pamphlets and more time taking charge of the campaign narrative -- and MEANING IT!!
"This is American politics, not a doctoral dissertation. "
His whole message is about change - American politics NEED TO BE CHANGED.
Not sure why that's so difficult for people to figure out.
What's gotten us to where we are at this point - obviously hasn't worked out so well. Yes, the Repubes might have "won"....b
I like the motto....t
Even if the sleeze is working , Obama is doing the right thing. He should pretty much hold his fire until the last month or 6 weeks before letting loose with his entire salvo. If he strikes now then the republicans have 3 months to come up with come backs. If he gathers his ammunition (which is puhlenty) right before the election .. there's more chance that they'll be caught flat flooted and flounder before their responces can make any difference.
I am going to assume that what's reported here about the polling is more or less accurate, and I am not surprised.
The Democratic primary voters took the bait. Now they see the old switcheroo happening, and many are having second thoughts. As Obama hedges his bets, flip flops on important issues of principle, or as the MSM likes to put it, "moves to the center," he looks less and less like the "change" trumpeted by the wishful thinkers and more and more like business as usual.
What else would you expect from a Chicago political machine candidate?
teh dem VOLUNTEERS are slowing up unTil the convention adn teh GOP IS LAYING THE PROPAGANDA ON THICK.
THINGS WILL COME BACK AROUND.
HAS BUSH WORKed on the AT PAY AS YOU GO plAn fro the OIL WARS YET?
With America on the move so much of the time, physicaly, mentally and socially, I think that the polls
CAN NO LONGER BE AN ACCURATE READ on what is going on (at least, that's what I am hoping).
I suspect polling is obsolete and useless as a gauge in this election.
Of course, we won't know for sure until November.
It isn't really surprising. Democrats had better learn that to win, they need to crawl into the gutter with the Republicans. The Swift-boating of Obama is afoot and the Obama campaign wants to take the high road. If the Obama campaign won't do it, then MoveOn and some other progressive organizations need to do it quick. McCain needs to be attacked on his age and his waffling. Those are two good starts. He can't complain about pictures of himself with the Cryptkeeper when he's smearing Obama with Hilton and Spears.
The Republicans have never underestimated the ignorance of the American voter.
In stark contrast, it's difficult for Democrats to be so callous - it's just not in their nature.
Taking the high road means being out of view of the mud-drenched voter.
I'm not sure that rolling around in the pig sty for votes is worth the effort.
I believe that staying on message and taking the time to explain your views will eventually pay dividends. Dumbing down the population may win elections these days, but it loses a Country.
The reason Obama has not opened up a bigger lead is that he is reaching the ceiling of his "new politics".
He's going to have to get aggressive on economic issues. He can do that without throwing mud or engaging in character attack if that's what he feels.
The American people want someone who will fight on their behalf. McCain's policies won't work, but many American people hoping for an easy solution will find them attractive or want to believe in them.
In 1992, Clinton went on and on about the Republican's "failed economic theory". It really failed again when Bush tried it.
Obama needs to show the courage to take on the failed conservative policies which Bush and McCain both stand for. The something-
Obama's already winning the minority of Americans who wants to "come together" and heal divisions. Now if he wants to rise higher in the polls he needs to appeal to those people who are hurting economically and who want someone to fight on their behalf and take on the powerful bad guys.
It's a tightrope between preaching unity and practicing combat, but the best politicians are well-equipped to walk it.
The title of the piece is a bit misleading. There's nothing too surprising in the results from the states that were highlighted here. In fact, considering how red some of those states are, I'd say Obama is doing quite well, for the middle of the summer. The only thing his camp really needs to do is to force McCain to defend in places that usually slam dunks. That's happening. Of the states listed, Ohio is the only one that matters and it's way to early for the results to be meaningful. Florida would be a gift, but I think Obama can win without it.
National polls are not very instructive about the outcome of the election. The presidential selection will be made from state-by-state results and the cumulative Electoral College votes. RealClearPolitics' EC map shows if anything, Obama is increasing his EC votes. The July polls for individual states show this as well, even though RCP is still using some earlier polls in its averages.
http://www
and when "leaners" are considered,
http://www
Of course any poll at this early stage is mostly meaningless.
What we are beginning to see is that negative campaigning, at least initially, does work. I'm not talking about the relatively mild stuff that went on in the primaries. I'm talking about the real down-and-dirty that's only just begun.
You really have to give the GOP credit for being the shrewdest SOBs on the block. Define the other guy. Do it early. Do it often. Facts? We don't need no stinkin' facts. Platform? It's what we use to stand on to shout the loudest.
The hope is that there's been a miscalculation. That it's too early to be flinging out so much garbage and that, by the time the fall rolls around, people will be tired of the bull crap and those that are peddling it. That's the problem with New Politics. It only works when Old Politics doesn't any more. My guess is that we're in for a long bumpy ride that will have us yearning for the good old days of '00 and '04.
I am sorry, but I strongly have to disagree with you, Sir.
In the shape of things to come, national polls mean NOTHING.
ALL that counts, are projections of the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
Please see: http://www
As well as: http://www
According to THESE stats, BO is ahead of McC about as far as any contender for US-presidency has ever been of his competitor.
We are talking here a 68.3 percent versus 31.7 percent lead in favor of BO in the probability to win, according to www.fiveth
Do you get that? BO's chances to win over McC are better than 2 : 1!
So, please let's all exhale now and return back relieved, yet ever-so-determined to our gladly self-imposed duty: Helping BO to win.
Yes, we can!
Could be, but from what I am hearing "around the water cooler", support is slipping. This morning, the discussion was centered on what happened in Congress yesterday. And right or not, Democrats are becoming branded as the party that will not seriously address the energy crisis. The "fill you tires with air" comment keeps coming up and it has become a joke. When pocket books are depleted, the average Joe starts asking why. And impressions that are derived from a Congress heading home to their mansions as Americans suck it up are not the kind of impression we need. Not convinced the confidence is warranted, but we'll see.
That is one pro-O site that's using sports projections. Sorry, but it doesn't have any weight. Every time fivethirtyeight would project O up in a state, HRC would win it. They also use old polls to turn states blue, i.e. ohio where Mc Cain is now ahead and it's still a blue state. O is also down in CO, NM and MI. They are all solid blue according to their map. You can't keep clinging to fivethirtyeight.
These polls are moving so much because people are constantly trying to figure out which of these two guys is the lesser of two evils. NOt everyone of course but there is quite a few voters that just cant make up their mind, not because these candidates are so great, but because there soo horrible. So
I am torn, do I vote for Obama, who I dont think is really the change that he claims, and the
change he is going to bring might be for the worse. He is sooo arrogent too. Bush was very arrogent. I think weve learned our lesson for voting for someone who wont admit when they are
wrong. Stay the course is a scary Motto. I dont want that any
more. Obama is a bit scary. OH, did you see the video of Obama losing his temper., I had never saw that before. They have that video of http://www
Instead we got a much more confused and cranky McCain. Did you seem him knock the stuff off the shelf in the grocery store., Or him blowing up on the reporter. His Campaign has
become a punch line. You can see both mentioned train wrecks at http://www
BO shows no arrogance, whatsoever. This man is just smart and classy! Don't you want your next president to be smarter, as well as classier, than "Joe Average"?
I would, if I were you.
Bush's arrogance is born of ignorance and a lack of intellectual curiosity. Obama isn't arrogant. He's confident in who he is and what he knows. Why do people have such a problem with that? Have folks become so comfortable with this dumped-down world that we want everyone to embrace the same ethos so that they don't have to feel bad about themselves for having done so?
McCain is a walking advertisement for the entire anger management industry. Are you aware of what he called his wife in front of reporters? Are you are aware that he has cursed at other Senators--in the Senate building? On the other hand, Obama is so even tempered I can't even figure out how he does it, especially considering some of the kinds of attacks against him.
As for change, you know the old saying--the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and to expect different results. McCain is Bush redux. We can't afford four to eight more years of what we've been doing in this country.
Listen--you sound sincere. I question, however, whether you've actually done an honest and complete assessment of these two men. If you do, then I'm sure you're eventually realize that Obama is more than just the lesser of two evils. He's the right person for this moment in history. Take your time deciding, do the assessment and let reason be your guide.
Well said....th
for every idiotic post I read that says Obama is too this, Obama is not enough that...his polls are up, his polls are down, I come across a voice of reason such as yours and I get that little spark back that I know there is hope for America after all.
Thank you!
You should pick a better sight to get your infromation from, and consider the source, I'm i know a lot about Obama's positions and some of that stuff on that sight is incorrect
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
