Polls: Registered Dems Still Prefer Clinton

A lot of presidential polls to digest today, as SUSA, Rasmussen and two other polling groups released new match-ups for a total of 8 states with some surprises and some expected results. The most interesting come from the pair of Southern states that the Obama campaign believes it can put in play:

• In North Carolina, SUSA finds surprising results: Hillary Clinton is leading McCain 49% to 43%, while Obama is trailing 51% to 43%. As usual, Clinton's advantage is derived from women (she leads McCain by 19% while Obama trails by 1%) and by registered Democrat, among whom her lead is 20% superior to Obama's.

• In Virginia, a VCU Commonwealth poll shows that McCain is leading both Democrats, 44% to 36% against Obama and 47% to 38% against Clinton. One puzzling internal is that Obama only gets a 41% to 36% in Northern Virginia, a region he will have to win by a much bigger margin to make the state competitive.

With all the talk of Obama putting the Carolinas and Virginia (some even add other Southern states to the list) in play, it is easy to forget that until February Clinton polled systematically better than Obama in the South and in non-Western red states. This was true in Kentucky, surely, but also in states like Virginia. It is still surprising to see Clinton poll that much better than her rival in North Carolina, a state in which Obama trounced Hillary and a state which his campaign is prompt to put on the competitive list. There is no question that a race in single-digit is already a victory for Democrats, since they had difficulty reaching that point in 2004 even with that Edwards on the ticket; the same is true in Virginia. But to prevail in one or both of these states Obama will have to improve his showing among registered Democrats: They should be his base, but he often has trouble solidifying it.

Another important poll that was just released is Rasmussen's latest from Florida:

• McCain leads Obama handily, 50% to 40% (this is actually a 5% improvement for Obama). But he trails Clinton 47% to 41%.
  

Rasmussen's poll from Ohio found a very similar set of results a few days ago, prompting me to write early musings on Obama's electoral map and the fact that he appears constantly weak in Ohio and Florida polls. Whatever the reason -- McCain looks to be stronger than most Republicans among elderly, Hispanics and possibly Jewish voters while Obama has possible weaknesses among these groups -- Florida does look like one of the states where Clinton could have fared better, as Rasmussen's poll suggest and as the latest Quinnipiac poll confirmed (Clinton beat McCain by 8% while Obama trailed by 1%). This means that Obama will rely on an alternative electoral map, one based on states in which he appears stronger than Clinton, for instance Colorado:

• The latest Rasmussen poll from Colorado finds Obama besting McCain 48% to 42% while McCain beats Clinton 47% to 44%.
  

Colorado's 9 electoral votes are even more within reach considering that the Democratic convention will be held in Denver. Kerry got surprisingly close in 2004, and Obama strongly appeals to the Western independents whose support is key to changing the state's allegiance. If Democrats carry the state this year, Colorado will have gone through a very rapid switch from reliably red to blue state within 3 election cycles. And in other polling news:

• Missouri is another red state that will be very hotly contested in the coming months, certainly more than Kerry went for it in 2004. SUSA finds Clinton faring a bit better, besting McCain 48% to 46% while Obama narrowly trails 48% to 45%.
• The differential between the two Democrats is mainly due to the registered Democrats vote, as Clinton gets 82% to Obama's 72%.

• In the day's least interesting poll, Deseret confirms that McCain has no reason to worry about Utah's electoral votes. He leads 65% to 20% against Clinton and 62% to 27% against Obama.

Finally, SUSA released two polls from blue states testing potential veepstakes. I am not particularly interested in the VP match-ups in that most of the names have very low name recognition and the test is mostly a measure of that. There seems to be little question that John Edwards and Mike Huckabee help their party's nominees the most, but that is also a reflection on the other tested names not being very well known. So I am here only providing the hard matchup numbers:

• In Pennsylvania, Obama is ahead of McCain 48% to 40%. View more VP match-ups here, as I will only say that it is interesting that the inclusion of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell does not help the Democratic ticket at all.

• In California, Obama leads McCain 49% to 41%. View the numbers with VP match-ups here.
  

The first margin is strong for Obama, though there is no question that he would rather lead by a larger percentage in California to ensure that he will not have to spend a single minute or a single dime defending the country's largest state, and one without which no Democrat can reach the White House. Finally, Democracy Corps released a national poll that shows both Democrats leading McCain by 2 percent.

Read more at Daniel Nichanian's blog, Campaign Diaries.

Comments

[DepartmentalAsset]

Jury is deliberating on Rezko. When there are convictions on multiple counts, Rezko will roll on Obama ala Abramoff.

Obama cannot win.

Clinton '08 to retake the White House.

[Indubio]

Polls today are irrelevant. The less attention paid to them the better.

[ariadne1]

maybe they should take a new poll today...

it wouldn't hurt to call the younger people on their cells, they don't use land lines.

oops, can't do that. well, i guess each progressive poll will get less and less relevant.

[jnm594]

Oh yes, Let us just dismiss all of her supporters outright. We don't need them or their votes to win because we know we are right. Let's just cast her and her millions and millions of votes out the window.

Then let's go on about how Obama cannot win because we already know what is going to happen in November. The fact that we already know what is going to happen makes me wonder why we even are having this discussion.

I thought the Democratic Party is the DEMOCRATIC party not the OBAMA party or the CLINTON party.

Do any of us know how this will play out. No
Do any of us know who the nominee will be. No but I have a good idea
Do any of us know who the VP will be. No
Do any of us know how the general election will play out. No

Before starting to spew vitrol please refer to the above where is says know. If you really know then there are a lot of little pills that might bring you back to reality because none if it has happened yet.

Can Obama dismiss Clinton with all of her supporters, That's his choice and it is her supporters choice how they respond and it goes back the same way.

Remember McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry? If you don't learn from history then you repeat it. I just want a Democratic POTUS.

[Gemma08]

If her supporters are anything like the candidate... its better NOT to have their support. These people deserve McCain for President.

I speak for the rest of the world in saying that if America is stupid racist and bigotted enough not to see what they have in Barack Obama, they deserve what they get in John McCain and a Bush III president.

We'll grab our popcorn and enjoy America self-destruct. Its not everyday you get to see the demise of an empire.

In the meantime, brush up on your Mandarin.

[Shenygirl1]

Please Gemma08,

Please tell all of us stupid Americans what it is that we don't see in Obama. I see an empty suit and meaningless rhetoric. Please let us know what it is that we are missing.

Also, please let all the Obama supporter know that those of us that are not impressed with Obama have not come to these conclusions because of his race. Does being an Obama supporter automatically qualify you to be a mind reader or have you all been watching too much MSNBC.

Thanks

[Buckywunder]

Rasmussen polls are generally considered to *not* be one of the more reliable polling firms. These may flag issues to review, but it is WAY too early to panic and WAY too late to change the nomination process because of such speculative minutae that really does not mean much.

[Dachozen1]

There is a very interesting article in Newsweek that expose these skewed numbers. The basis of the argument is that polls contained Clinton voters that said they'd go to McCain if their candidate didnt get the nomination. There are less Obama people with such a foolish stance. Therefore, Hillary wins because her supporters are resentful. This doesnt get enough coverage to me. Hillary has run a divisive and win by any means campaign. Barack has run his campaign with integrity and respect for Hillary. He has left her clean and didnt do anything to diminish her electibility. She has done everything to bring him and the whole party down. This is the most ironic part about Hillary supporters. They are either blind are she has tapped into a base of Americans that wouldve never voted Barack no matter what. You cannot justify not voting for someone that shares the same values and has been nothing short of a gentleman to Hillary.

[antoinekku919]

SO who are the people who don't like Hillary. And Why do they only poll the states she won, now the ones obama won

[zann]

Why the misleading headline?

Registered dems nationwides prefer Obama by 12 points (Gallup)

Polls taken within a few days of elections are reasonably predictive. Polls taken a month before are less predictive.

Polls taken 6 months before an election, before the primary is finished, before all the surprises and fights of the real campaign are simply NOT predictive.

RealClearPolitics has summaries of these hypothetical polls. Its true that in some battleground states, Clinton polls a few points better but there is absolutely no historical evidence that this predicts anything this far out, especially in a nation so hungry for change.

[barriosbabe]

There's a crunch at the gym where you have to get on the floor, on all four, bent forward, yanking down on a 100 pound weighted cable, praying to the machine if you will, twisting the cables for balance and then you force force force the crunch as you double yourself forward and squeeze your bowels in an effort to garner better results. Everybody there always laughs at the person because it looks so stupid and it is so stupid. It's convoluted, unnecessary it's a stretch for an untenable goal. Every day I watch somebody try and it sure reminds me of Hillary Clinton.

[Anonani]

So exactly who are the folks who have made Senator Obama the frontrunner?

[in4success]

the pollsters are part of the corporate machine. give me a break.

[Cooltruth]

That would sure explain a lot of things. Neocons are pulling for Hillary to win the nomination, too. Have they not heard that 'news' that Obama would be easier for McCain to beat? Or is it that there isn't enough difference between Hillary & McCain to quibble over? The 'establishment' prefers for it to be either Hillary or McCain for President! (scarey?)

[Shenygirl1]

Who are the people who are supporting Obama?. Neocons are and have been pulling for Obama since day one. Now that he is ahead, they have turned on him. Why has nobody noticed how Faux News has been flipflopping between the two candidates during this whole primary. It appears that they have accomplished their goal and divided the party. But, what I find most interesting, is that the Democrats are too stupid to figure it out and have fallen right into their trap. It is obvious that McCain will be our next president and the Clinton's are already being set up to take the fall for it.

[presto]

Lol. Shoot the messenger.

[blog4um]

If registered Dems prefer Clinton,
1. Why isn't she the frontrunner
2. Why aren't they contributing to her campaign (SHE'S IN DEBT)
3. Why didn't they give her better advise on how to win and manage a campaign
**feel free to add to the list yourself

[Pamela1961]

I think the press and media bias had a lot to do with the election. Never before have anchors been so opinionated be it positively or negatively towards a candidate. Plus there are so many bloggers even within news that some think the reporting is hard news, rather than opinion. Also Obama's signing on new voters, be it independent, college students or even republicans. I'm not sure how those new voters will turn out in November. Sometimes people get all hyped up and then lose enthusiasm. I also don't know how the polls were conducted as it seems that a lot of them turn out to be wrong. A poll is only as good as the questions asked and usually they need to be unbiased and not leading questions.

I guess we shall see how this all plays out.

[presto]

1. She is
2. They are
3. Mark Penn

[amy0206]

1. Denial isn't
2. just a river
3. in Egypt.

[GingerB]

1. She is not.
2. They are not.
3. Scapegoat.

[adzeman]

Interesting that she leads in a state she lost by 16. That kind of puts a big doubt on the poll doesn't it? Maybe the fact that Obama leads her nationally with dems by 12. And finally who gives a crap about Clinton in the polls. I dont want to see a poll about her until she re-ups for NY senator.

[DMSmith]

And...who gives a crap about what YOU want?

But, thanks for sharing just the same.

[InternationalObserver]

I don't get to vote in your elections, but as an international reader of HuffPo can I make the following observation:

Your process for deciding a candidate is CRAZY!

Instead of having one system for all, each state gets to choose how they select a candidate, and each electorate also gets to decide the way that selection is made. So you get some places running a ballot, others use a show of hands - and then you get the other places where you stand in a hall 'discussing (arguing!) with eachother until a consensus is reached (ie our side will keep haranging your side until after 4hours your side has gone home, and then we'll have a show of hands)

BUT THE MOST CRAZY THING OF ALL IS ...

That in some electorates you'll let independents or members of the other party also participate in the selection process! Would the Red Sox give the Yankees a say in who their Pitcher will be?

[adzeman]

Remember smartass, this is a country that opposes the metric system. That loves the death penalty. And most ashamedly elects actors, wrestlers, and lunatic fascists to office routinely.
With all that, why would we have a common sense election system?

[Pamela1961]

I totally agree with you, it's CRAZY! I would call it stupid too.

[HHarvey]

Yes, most of us think the electoral college and the way the system is run is CRAZY! But short of another civil war and the upheaval of our goverment I can't think of how to change it. Anyone with an idea? And by the way, as an "observer" what country do you reside in?

[bluevillage]

If registered Democrats support Clinton over Obama, why is the percentage of her supporters who say they'll vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee so high?

[bygollymissmolly]

And where is their financial support for "their" candidate?

[quest44]

Because their Republicans voting in the primary either as independents or Democrats for Hillary .
You notice when two Republican's were asked who they would rather McCain go up against on CNN one laughed and the other said Hillary !

These polls are all a bunch of BS .I for one hardly ever vote in these polls or even get them in my news emails. So you get a selective few people voting with a disportionate amount of Obama supporters to Hillary supporters asked and that is suppose to be how the country feels or a state. Right !

[KarlaElisa]

With Republicans crossing over to vote for Hillary because they know Obama is the stronger candidate, I find it difficult to believe these 'polls'. Hillary is no longer a contender.

[Pamela1961]

In those 11 states Obama won it was the independent and republicans who gave him the wins. A lot of republicans are chomping at the bit to get Obama elected as he is the least experienced and a lot of his dirty laundry hasn't been reported yet by the Press.