Get yer polls, bets, numbers & pretty graphs! Elections 2008

In fact, here's a graph comparing the daily tracking poll numbers by Gallup and Rasmussen (personally I'd attach greater value to the Gallup ones, but it's always better to look at more than one pollster):





And since that might be a bit confusing, here's a graph tracking simply the Hillary lead over Obama in both polls since the Nevada caucuses:

Nice graphs!

Interesting point from Jonathan Raban -- we know this, but he pulls it together and states it in a convincing way:



http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2249501,00.html

(How do those bloggy people do it? Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan.) (I'm trying to indicate that I found the above article through the Daily Dish rather than through my own reading.)

According to that Survey USA poll that had the overall numbers at Clinton 54%, Obama 38%, Clinton had a 10-point lead in NYC, a 21-point lead upstate, and a 26-point lead in the NYC suburbs.

Daunting leads still, but 41% for Obama in NYC is a lot better than anyone could have thought a few months ago..

The poll also has another surreal gender gap, with Hillary leading by 37 among women and Obama leading by 12 among men.

In NY too, Hillary does especially well among those who cite the economy as priority (leading by 26) and those naming Social Security (+30), as well as doing slightly better than average among those mentioning health care (+17); while Obama does especially well among those citing Iraq (trailing by just 2), education (actually leading by 8), and immigration (leading by 3).

We had a good politics discussion at my book group recently -- nobody has really been following things that closely and they know I'm the wonk and they were asking me all kinds of questions. Whether they were already heading that way or I got them there (yes, I'm as insufferable IRL as I am here ;-)), most all of them were very pro-Obama by the end of it. One was listening and participating but I sensed some reticence and I asked if she was supporting Hillary. She laughed and looked embarrassed and then said yes, yes she was, and she knew it was a bad reason but... Hillary's getting her vote because she's a woman. Period. She wants to see a woman president. Nothing else is enough to make a dent.

Well, I can feel that. When my mother and her best friend entered local politics back in the early 70s, they were pretty much the first women, definitely the first confidently emancipated ones. It was still a starkly enough uphill struggle to be taken seriously and treated like equals by the local good old boys, only the men among their fellow New Lefters were there with them - most of the time.

She was part of what was then called "The Red Women", the womens organisation of the Labour Party. Organisations like that made big achievements in the 70s and 80s, but we still havent had a female PM, nor has any of the three biggest parties ever ran in national elections with a woman as leader. I dont know whom she would have supported from afar, Obama or Hillary, but I know that she would have been pleased as punch with the prospect of a woman as President of the USA - and a liberal-leaning one at that, no Merkel or Thatcher.

In Alabama, blacks and whites divided over Democratic choice

Rank-and-file black Democrats dissent from community leaders

According to a new poll in Alabama by Capital Survey Research Center, the polling arm of the Alabama Education Association, opinions in the state are in flux - but increasingly polarised along racial lines.

Full stories at:

• Black voters in Alabama drifting from Clinton's to Obama's camp
  
• Poll: Obama, McCain ahead in Alabama

"Overall, Obama now leads Clinton 40 percent to 35 percent, a dramatic increase for Obama, who in September trailed Clinton by 20 percentage points in the state."

Obama has "68 percent of the vote among likely black voters, up from 54 percent three weeks ago"; "Clinton's support among likely black voters has plummeted from a high in September of 41 percent to 16 percent".

But "among white Democrats, Clinton's white vote grew from 47 percent three weeks ago to 51 percent. Obama's white vote has stayed at about 17 percent."

Something disturbing about Obama getting two thirds of the black vote and just one sixth of the white vote; but we've seen it before. Those numbers are exactly the same as the last polling out was in South Carolina.

That does mean that electorally speaking, it could be very good news for Obama. I'm sure I saw somewhere that about half of the Democratic primary voters in Alabama are expected to be black, like in SC. Cant find it back though - only thing I can find is where the DKos link Cyclo gave says a quarter of the overall population is black.

Meanwhile, also like in South Carolina, there are interesting dynamics going on within the African-American community about the question who will get the vote. Looks like the rank-and-file are rapidly mobilising behind Obama -- against the advice of the black political and community leaders, many of whom support Hillary.



This kind of dynamics were a big deal in SC, where Hillary had a big grip on local councillors, reverends etc, whose recommendations long steered the vote; suddenly, this time, nobody listened to them. The WSJ (of all papers) had a must-read article about that. It's no longer available for free on the WSJ site, but you can read it in full on this conservative site.

I'm really curious what the ramifications of that will be on local politics and community relations, whether it will lead to a new generation taking the lead locally as well, etc.)

The bottom line appears to be pretty much what happened in SC:



But who knows? '"This is so complex; it's like swimming in the Gulf with an undertow, there are so many cross currents," said Gerald Johnson, director of Capital Survey Research Center, the polling arm of the Alabama Education Association. "It's truly historic."'

That article also has numbers for the Republican race by the way.

Big news: McCain has passed Huckabee. In Alabama. Huck is really going nowhere fast.

(It has McCain at 37, Huckabee at 28, and Romney at 19.)

ALABAMA - REPUBLICANS

Another poll shows McCain leading Huckabee in Alabama: Rasmussen has them at 38% and 30%. This of course should be Huckabee heartland.

Romney trails at 20%. Compared to a Rasmussen poll from a week earlier, McCain picked up 11 points, Huckabee 3 points, and Romney 5 points, as the pool of undecideds drains quickly. Unclear where the 8% of Giuliani voters in the last poll went, probably mostly to McCain.

Key reason why Huckabee is not ahead: he hasnt got even a majority of Evangelicals, with one in three going for McCain instead: "Among Evangelical Christians, Huckabee leads with 43% support. McCain earns the vote from 33% of Evangelicals while Romney gets 15%."

MISSOURI - REPUBLICANS

A new Survey USA poll shows a clean three-way split in Missouri: McCain gets 34%, Romney 30% and Huckabee 28%. And that in a winner-takes-all state!

Compared to two polls by other pollsters a week or two ago, each candidate has a record score, as the scarce Giuliani voters redistribute themselves and the pool of undecideds drains out. Compared to those two earlier polls, Romney wins most (+9-12 points), McCain wins a fair share ((+3-8), and Huckabee wins only modestly (+1-3). Note: Huckabee has called this a "must-win state", but it doesnt look like he'll be in luck. Instead, it looks like Romney might just have enough momentum to push past McCain - but then, thats what some <ahem> thought about Florida too. But the crosstabs do show that Mitt's voters are most determined, and McCain's support is "softest", with many saying they could still change their mind.

NEW YORK - REPUBLICANS

While in other states Romney seems to be the guy with the momentum, even if it might be too late to help catch up with McCain, and while in other states Romney seems to be picking up as many of Rudy's voters as McCain, neither is true for New York.

A new Survey USA poll (conducted Jan. 30-31) is the first one out without Giuliani - and Rudy did still command over 20% of the vote in recent polls. The result is that McCain gets 55% - 14 points more than he got in any poll so far. Romney gets 21% - just 2 points more than he got in any poll so far.

Compared to the last Survey USA poll back on Jan. 9-10 (ages ago..), when Giuliani still was ahead with 32%, McCain is up 26 points, Romney 14 points, and Huckabee is down 5.

McCain does best in the NYC suburbs (64%), while both Romney and Huckabee do best upstate (25% and 12% respectively).

NEW JERSEY - REPUBLICANS

A second poll appears about this state from after Giuliani dropped out, this one conducted by Survey USA. Like the concurrent Rasmussen poll, it has McCain far ahead. But unlike the Rasmussen poll, it also gives McCain the bulk of the momentum. In this poll, he leads Romney 48% to 25%. That puts McCain 19 points up from where he was in the three last polls out when Rudy was still in, and Romney just 11-16 points.

Romney actually eeks out a lead among self-described conservatives (40% to 38%), but trails by a whopping 39 points among moderates; and both groups make up about 4-in-10 Republican primary voters.

Nimh, I read an article the other day, can't remember if you posted it that sez:

As African Americans tend to be quite concentrated in their congressional districts, Obama's wins there tend to garner him districts which have more delegates. So in some ways this will help smooth out the advantage that Hillary has in leading the white vote.

Sound plausible? I dunno but I want to believe it lol

Cycloptichorn

ALABAMA - DEMOCRATS

Survey USA, 1/30-31/2008

47% Clinton
47% Obama

In the most recent poll out, Obama led by 5. But that poll had a high number of undecideds (25%), so its hard to make a direct comparison. Compared to that poll (which had Obama at 40 and Hillary at 35), both candidates gained - Hillary just gained more than Obama.

A Rasmussen poll from Jan. 23, on the other hand, had Hillary at 43% and Obama at 28%, so compared to that one, this poll shows a huge swing to Obama. Presumably mostly thanks to black voters coalescing behind him.

As for the crosstabs, Obama leads among men by 27 points; Hillary leads among women by 20 points.

Support among age groups is pretty evenly spread, with Obama at 51-57% and Hillary at 40-42% among all groups up to 65. But 65+ers go to Clinton 67% to 27%. Would be interesting to know what the breakdown by race was: is it that older African-Americans are sticking to Clinton?

Obama does better among white voters than in previous polls, getting 28%. But Hillary still leads him there by 37 points. Obama on the other hand gets black voters 72% to 23%.

Only 18% of respondents said they could still change their mind. In contrast with results in most states, here it's Clinton's voters who are more likely to say they could still change their mind.

40% of respondents said the economy was the top issue for them; among those, Hillary led as always, but by a modest 5 points. One in six mentioned health care, and there Hillary had a larger lead, of 13 points. One in seven said Iraq, and those Obama won by 16 points.

In general it seems that the economy keeps becoming more important and Iraq less important, which could have a marginal influence favouring Hillary if the race lasts long beyond Super Tuesday.

7% of respondents each listed Social Security and education as top issues. Hillary ruled among the former (+17), but the latter went almost unanimously for Obama (+68).

NEW JERSEY - DEMOCRATS

Survey USA, 1/30-31/2008

51% Clinton
39% Obama

The result basically replicates the result of the Rasmussen poll that was conducted concurrently, which had Clinton at 49 and Obama at 37. Confirms the impression that the 10% Edwards supportes broke fully towards Obama here, but with Hillary at the 50% mark she can be sure of victory anyway.

NJ men prefer Obama 50% to 40%, but women go for Hillary by a stunning 2:1 margin, 60% to 31%. Obama again does best among 35-49 year olds, among whom he leads by 4, while Hillary's numbers actually pick up a bit again among young voters, among whom she leads by 7.

In NJ, Obama gets a disappointing 29% of white voters. But contrary to patterns in other states, he actually does better among Hispanics, among whom he gets 36% (to 47% for Clinton, and a high 17% undecided). He gets 70% of black votes, and those make up a fifth to a quarter of the electorate here.

As in many other states, there isnt really much of an ideological divide in their appeal. Hillary, oddly but in line with polls from several other states, easily beats Obama among both liberals and conservatives, but is roughly tied with him among moderates.

Here, as in most other states, Clinton voters are more likely to say their mind is made up. That is partly a function of her support being stable while he is going up in the polls, though. With a higher share of people who only just came to his camp, of course Obama's support would seem "softer".

37% say the economy is the top issue, and Hillary leads among them by a comfortable 20 points. Meanwhile, one in five each mention health care and Iraq. As always Obama does well among the Iraq ones, leading by 5. Health care is a flip issue apparently, because in some states this is a strong suit for Hillary, in others for Obama. In this NJ poll, it's Obama who does relatively well among voters naming it as top issue, trailing Hillary by only 2.

MISSOURI - DEMOCRATS

Survey USA, 1/30-31/2008

48% Clinton
44% Obama

Worth a special mention because I called Missouri one of the three states to keep an eye on if you wanted to know which way Edwards voters would go; he got 18% and 28% in this state in two previous polls just a week or two ago.

Well, it looks like his voters broke towards Obama 3:1 or better. Hillary, who had polled 43-44% in the previous polls, gets a few points extra. But Obama polled just 24% and 31% in the previous polls, so, even if we cant do an apples-to-apples comparison, i seems like he made double digit gains.

Re the crosstabs, we have the usual gender gap (Obama leads among men by 18, Hillary leads among women by 22), and in this state the old-fashioned correlation with age holds up. The younger the voters, the more they're likely to go for Obama (who leads by 30 points among the 18-34 year olds), the older they are the more apt to go to Clinton (who leads by 29 points among those aged 65+).

Obama gets a very decent 38% of the white vote in this almost-Southern state, and a whopping 76% of the black vote; so among both he does better than he's been doing so far in the Deep South.

There's again no pattern to support by ideology; in fact, the picture here is the opposite of that in NJ. Obama is even with Clinton among both conservatives and liberals, but trails among moderates.

There's strong regional variation in this state, with Hillary doing better in rural areas (she leads by 30 points in the Ozarks) and Obama doing better in the cities (he leads by 7 in greater Kansas City and 2 in St Louis).

Toldja Edwards' supporters weren't voting Clinton!

Woohoo


Cycloptichorn

Good stuff, nimh, thanks.

Clinton is losing more support from women than from men:



http://www.gallup.com/poll/104104/Hillary-Clintons-Gender-Advantage-Over-Obama-Narrows.aspx

I really think Bill Clinton hurt her a lot in the NH-SC stretch. It's not very feminist to win because your husband gets you there.

Forgot the graph that goes with that:

First bad news in a while:



Maybe not so fast re: Edwards voters in general, Cycloptichorn. (Edwards down four points, Hillary up four points.)

Could be some other reason too though.

We'll just have to wait and see.

I always wonder how much daily variation plays into this. It's worked well for Obama this week, so I can't complain much if Hillary gets a swing too.

Probably had a hard time getting ahold of Obama folks, they were all at rallies at the time...

Cycloptichorn

Heh...!

Over on soz's Obama '08 thread, O'Bill related how someone he knew, a liberal Dem, said he would vote for McCain over Clinton if Obama doesn't get the nomination.
I am hearing the same thing from folks I listen to here in Virginia. Obviously it is not a legitimate sampling, but the theme seems to be that she is abrasvie and power hungry. Her husband's contribution turned out to be damaging. And the Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton notion isn't sitting well with the people who want "change."
Have yall seen any polls recently that asked about "negative perceptions" of each candidate?

Here's a slew of 'em:

http://www.pollingreport.com/C2.htm#Hillary

Not very sensitive though. Big gaps, time-wise.

Obama's:

http://www.pollingreport.com/l-o.htm#Obama