February 5, 2008: Super Duper Tuesday

Crossposted from Polls etc thread:

_______________________________

A week ago, I posted an overview of polls on the Democratic primary races on Feb. 5.

Here's the overview table that I posted then again (the most recent poll for each state is at the bottom!)



Now it's time for an overview of polls that have appeared since then. New York and California will have to go in a post of their own, but here are last week's polls from all the other states:

ILLINOIS

Research 2000/KMOV/St Louis Post Dispatch, 1/21-24/2008

51% Obama
22% Clinton
15% Edwards

NEW JERSEY

Quinnipiac, 1/15-22/2008

49% Clinton
32% Obama
10% Edwards

MASSACHUSETTS

Survey USA, 1/22-23/2008

59% Clinton
22% Obama
11% Edwards

GEORGIA

Rasmussen, 1/22/2008

41% Obama
35% Clinton
13% Edwards

MISSOURI

Research 2000/KMOV/St Louis Post, 1/21-24/2008

44% Clinton
31% Obama
18% Edwards

Rasmussen, 1/24/2008

43% Clinton
28% Edwards
24% Obama

TENNESSEE

WSMV/Crawford Johnson, 1/19-21/2008

34% Clinton
20% Obama
16% Edwards

COLORADO

Mason-Dixon, 1/21-23/2008

34% Obama
32% Clinton
17% Edwards

ARIZONA

Cronkite/Eight, 1/17-20/2008

45% Clinton
24% Obama
9% Edwards

Rocky Mountain Poll, 1/20-24/2008

37% Clinton
27% Obama
15% Edwards

ALABAMA

Rasmussen, 1/23/2008

43% Clinton
28% Obama
16% Edwards

Crossposted from Polls etc thread:

_______________________________


There's some first polls that were conducted after the results in SC were known. Prepare yourself for having your feet planted firmly back on the ground: there's bad news from Oklahoma, mixed news from California, and bad news from Florida.

No bounce in Oklahoma

...when compared to a poll by the same pollster two weeks ago:

Survey USA, 1/27/2008

44% (-1) Clinton
27% (+2) Edwards
19% (n.c.) Obama

Enormous gender gap: Clinton here overwhelmingly gets the female vote, 58% to 19% and 18%, while she's in second place among men, who opt for Edwards over her by 36% to 29%.

Surprisingly, among age groups Clinton does best among young voters, of whom she gets 49%.

Obama gets 60% of the modest black vote, but only 14% of the white vote.

Obama does best among self-described liberals, a small group in Oklahoma, with 30%. Both he and Hillary do better the more liberal the voter is, while Edwards and Undecided do better the more conservative the voter is. Among the quarter of self-described conservatives in the sample, Edwards gets 33% to Hillary's 28%, Obama's 14% and 25% for Other/Undecided.

Clinton does well among the 38% of voters who cite the economy as the biggest priority, among the one in six who cite health care, and the small group who cites Social Security. Edwards does well among the small group who cite immigration. Obama does well among the one in six who cite Iraq and the small group who cites education.

When asked whether they had already made up their mind or could still change it, Hillary respondents turned out to be most firm in their choice, while Edwards' support is softest. You'd say that the smart Obama strategy would thus be to appeal to Edwards voters, but considering the political/demographic leanings of that group (white, male, older, conservative, more religious, pro-life and more likely to cite immigration or terrorism as priorities), that doesnt seem like the most promising road.

In short, if Obama's strategy is indeed to focus on the red, inland states while Hillary scoops up New York, New Jersey and perhaps California, this Oklahoma poll spells trouble (and trouble that I'm not particularly surprised about, obviously).

In fact, should the Edwards vote collapse in the wake of SC (no sign of that here yet, but it might still come), that looks like it would greatly benefit Hillary in a state like this.

Incremental change in California

Survey USA, 1/27/2008

49% (-1) Clinton
38% (+3) Obama
9% (-1) Edwards

Obama is catching up on Clinton, but is he doing so fast enough? In two weeks, the gap between them narrowed from 15% to 11%, but it's just a week until the elections.

Obama's primary problem here is that, although he is going up, Hillary is already close to snatching half the vote. This is the third poll in a row (after a Gallup poll on 1/23-26 and a CNN/LA Times poll on 1/23-27) that gives her 49%, which is considerably more than any earlier poll other than the two previous Survey USA ones had given her.

On the bright side, this Survey USA result of 38% for Obama is also better than any previous poll has polled him - so far his average this month had been 30.8%. So he is clearly going up, and if the goal is not to win the state outright but to snatch a large minority of delegates under a proportional or district-based allocation system, that's good news.

The crosstabs suggest some trouble though. Early voting is big; almost a quarter of respondents had already voted, and they'd gone to Hillary over Obama by 56% to 32%. There's simply fewer people left to be persuaded.

The gender gap is HUGE. Men actually prefer Obama over Clinton by 47% to 36%, while women go to Clinton 2:1 over Obama, by 60% to 30%.

Other patterns conform to earlier results: Obama does best among the young, Clinton among the old; Clinton does better among union members, Obama worse; Obama does well among Indies and cross-over voters, Clinton among Dems. The former only made up 13% of the sample, so this is one avenue that's still open to Obama: mobilise more independent voters, who are not allowed to vote in the Republican primaries this year.

In a race where Edwards plays a marginal role, conservative voters clearly go to Clinton over Obama (56% to 35%), suggesting again that in states where Edwards does still play a big role, like Oklahoma, he is taking away votes from her rather than him.

Numbers by race are interesting! They offer reassurance to those concerned, after SC, about Obama's ability to win white votes. In this CA poll, he actually almost ties Hillary among whites: it's 43% for Clinton, 41% for him. However, Clinton gets her large lead from two other groups: Hispanics (65% to 28% for Hill) and Asian-Americans (53% to 31% for Hill). Obama on the other hand leads among blacks, by 61% to 25%; judging on SC results there's some room for growth there still too.

What Obama could also still benefit from is the dynamics of relative turnout. This poll has 29% Hispanics, a striking 14% Asian-Americans, and 9% Blacks. If, as might be expected, turnout among Hispanics is low as it traditionally is and turnout among blacks is high the way it was in SC, he could make up a lot of ground with that alone.

Again, Hillary does well among the one in three voters citing the economy as their top concern - and I'm guessing that topic will only increase in priority. Obama does well among those citing Iraq, health care or education. Edwards does well among those citing the environment or immigration - probably reflecting his demographically split appeal to liberal activists on the one hand and conservative whites on the other.

Obama ties Hillary in the liberal Bay Area (42% each), but trails Hillary by 13-23% in the other regions.

Hillary making last-minute gains in Florida

<snipped, not a Feb 5 state>

I don't mean to be stepping on your toes, nimh, and I didn't really intend this to be an "all polls, all the time" type of thread, although state polls are certainly relevant here and I'm glad you're posting them. Rather, I heard on the radio this morning that Illinois has had record high levels of participation in early voting for the primary, and I couldn't think of an existing thread in this forum that was an appropriate place for that kind of news. I'm interested in hearing from people in the Feb. 5 Super Duper Tsunami Tuesday states who can report on what's happening "on the ground."

For instance, Illinois is simply not on the map for any of the Democratic presidential candidates. Obama is expected to win easily, so it's unlikely that Clinton or Edwards will spend any time or money here (Bill is in Chicago for a fundraiser, but not a public appearance). The hottest contests here, then, are for local offices, like Cook County state's attorney. Also, there's an interesting Democratic primary fight in the 3d congressional district, pitting incumbent Dan Lipinski against challenger Mark Perra. Lipinski, who was elected to succeed his father in 2004 under some ... shall we say "unusual" circumstances, has been criticized by the progressive blogatariat for his support of some of Bush's positions. It will be interesting to see how this race ends up -- probably more interesting than the Democratic presidential primary results in this state.

Another piece of interesting data to factor into your maps, Joe, is the individual state party rules for voting. For instance, in California, the Republican primary is a closed vote. To vote Republican you must have already been registered as republican on election day. The Democratic primary vote is an open vote. On election day you can walk up to the table and request a Democratic registration and ballot and vote.

If the Republican primary looks locked up for any one candidate, many are planning to cross over and request Democratic ballots to vote for the Democrat they want to run against.

No problem, and thank you!

Another implication of needing to be a registered Republican is the Independents. If they're registered Independent or just not registered Republican (and call themselves Independent), they can vote in the Democratic primary but not the Republican one.

And Obama seems to have the most to gain from Independents.

Plus, in terms of metrics to take into account, there's the thing shown in that NYT graph Joe posted at the beginning of the thread: that on the Republican side, many of the primaries are winner-takes-all!

And not the least ones, either: California, New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Missouri... Apparently, Illinois and Massachusetts are the only larger states that distribute delegates proportionally..

Considering that in many of these states, the outcome is likely to be narrow, that really scrambles the race. Someone can get well over 30% across a number of states and yet remain with few delegates...

Actually, I'm a little confused about that now. Because the table underneath the map says that of the above states, only NY, NJ and MO truly have a winner-take-all status, whereas in CA and GA, a lot of delegates will be distributed by district... so does that just mean that in each district the winner takes all?

That should still insert a lot of proportionality back into it.. at least for the frontrunners who can count on winning at least a share of the districts.. Anybody understand this better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_primary

Regarding Independets or Undeclared voters in California:

But that's exactly why so many of them like Obama! I think that's a specific difference from previous primaries.

I'm not at all expecting a victory in CA or anything, but that procedural quirk seems to benefit Obama, whether a little or a lot.

Nobody truly understands the delegate allocation process. It is a mystery wrapped in an enigma enclosed in an enormous clusterfark.

As Butrflynet pointed out in her link, the Democrats don't have any winner-take-all primaries. They're all proportional, with any candidate receiving 15% or more of the vote getting some delegates. The Republicans, in contrast, are all over the place. In the winner-take-all states, like New York, there are no district delegates. They're all awarded at the state level.* For a state-by-state summary, check here.


*EDIT: OK, that's wrong. There are some states that have winner-take-all contests at the state level AND at the congressional district level (South Carolina, for instance). California has both state and district delegates, and awards them on a winner-take-all basis. New York, in contrast, has only state delegates.

Where the Democratic candidates stand in the Super Duper Tuesday states, as of now (courtesy of TPM Election Central

I just took one of those online quizzes that shows you which candidate you actually prefer based on the issues. It showed that my choice should be John McCain. I was quite suprirsed as that was not what I expected.

Acknowledging the obvious limitations in accuracy for such things, if anybody else would like to try that, go HERE

Hey Foxfyre, try this one, I think it's better:

Electoral Compass USA - Which candidate fits best with you?

Couldn't get the issues portion to load. Maybe the site is down? I'll try later.

Latest state-by-state Super Duper Tuesday polls from CQ Politics:

California: Three polls tell three different stories. The prestigious Field Poll, a specialist on the state, says its Jan. 25 to Feb. 1 survey showed a tightening Democratic race with Clinton leading Obama 36 percent to 34 percent, well within the 4.5 percent margin of error. A McClatchy/MSNBC poll conducted Jan.30-Feb.1 shows Clinton leading Obama in this delegate-rich state by 45 percent to 36 percent, with a 5 point margin of error. Fifteen percent of voters said they might yet change their minds. Voters who cared most about "change" favored Obama 65 percent to 22 percent while those who valued experience most favored Clinton 92 percent to 2 percent. The economy was far ahead of all other issues concerning voters. Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby has Obama leading Clinton 45 percent to 41 percent with a 2.9 percent margin of error in a Jan. 31-Feb.2 poll.

On the Republican side, Field says McCain now leads Romney 32 percent to 24 percent with Huckabee at 13 percent. Two weeks ago, McCain's lead in the Field poll was 4 percent. McClatchy/MSNBC says McCain leads Romney 40 percent to 31 percent with Huckabee at 13 percent. A much higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats - 26 percent - said they might yet change their minds. As far as the issues most important to Republican voters, 25 percent cited the economy, 24 percent said national security or terrorism and 17 percent chose immigration.

New Jersey: Two conflicting polls on the Democratic race. Clinton leads Obama in this neighbor to her home state by 46 percent to 39 percent in this McClatchy/MSNBC poll conducted Jan. 30-Feb.1 Margin of error is 5 percent. Obama had a 3-to-1 margin over Clinton on voters most interested in change, while Clinton had an 86 percent to 3 percent lead on the experience factor (29 percent of the Democrats placed most importance on change, while 15 percent said experience was the key criterion). Democrats cited the economy as the top issue with 43 percent and Iraq second at 20 percent. But Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby says its Jan.31-Feb. 2 poll shows Clinton at 43 percent to 42 percent for Obama, with a 3.4 percent margin of error and 14 percent undecided.

On the GOP side, McCain has a 46 percent to 31 percent lead over Romney, with Huckabee at 5 percent, according to McClatchy/MSNBC. On issues, the economy was Number One at 30 percent with national security and terrorism at 20 percent. Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby says Romney is ahead of McCain 37 percent to 34 percent with Huckabee at 12 percent. The margin of error is 2.9 percent. Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby's poll has McCain besting Romney 54 percent to 23 percent with Huckabee at 6 percent.

Missouri: In this closely-watched competitive state, a MSNBC/MClatchy poll conducted Jan.30-Feb.1 has Clinton 47 percent to 41 percent over Obama with a 5 point margin of error. Clinton leads 52 percent to 35 percent among white voters while Obama out-polls her among black voters by 79 percent to 13 percent. Among Democrats who care most about change (22 percent of respondents), Obama leads 59 percent to 34 percent, while those who value experience the most (25 percent) favor Clinton by 84 percent to 8 percent. Democrats said the economy was the most important issue, at 46 percent, followed by health care at 23 percent and Iraq at 12 percent. A Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll conducted Jan. 31-Feb.2 has Clinton statistically tied with Obama 44 percent to 43 percent with a 3.4 percent margin of error.

On the GOP side, McClatchy/MSNBC says McCain leads with 37 percent followed by Huckabee at 27 percent and Romney at 24 percent. A quarter of Republican voters said they might yet change their minds. Voters who said leadership was their most important consideration chose McCain, 59 percent compared to mid-teen standings by Romney and Huckabee. Huckabee led McCain and Romney by about 2-to-1 among voters who said "shares my values" was the most important. Missouri Republicans presented a different picture on the issues front than most other states: one-quarter said moral and family issues was the most important, followed by the economy at 23 percent, terrorism at 23 percent and taxes and government spending at 13 percent.

Georgia: Obama has taken a commanding 52 percent to 37 percent lead over Clinton in this Feb. 2 Rasmussen Reports survey. His lead had been 6 points before his victory in South Carolina. The economy was the top issue for 51 percent of Democratic voters while Iraq stood at 18 percent. A McClatchy/MSNBC poll conducted Jan. 30-Feb. 1 has Obama ahead but by a smaller 47 percent to 41 percent margin, with a 5 point margin of error. This poll pretty much follows the trend of other states polls in showing Clinton ahead among white voters; Obama way ahead among black voters; Obama leading bigtime among those who prize "change" (22 percent) and Clinton with a big lead among those who value experience most (17 percent). But on the criterion that was chosen by most Georgia Democrats (31 percent) - "cares about the issues I care about" - Clinton led Obama 54 percent to 31 percent. Democrats chose economy as the most important issue at 44 percent with health care second at 24 percent. The Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Jan.31-Feb 2 poll has Obama beating Clinton 48 percent to 28 percent.

On the Republican side, this is one place where McCain is locked in a tight race. He leads with 31 percent to Romney's 29 percent and Huckabee's 28 percent, with a 4 point margin of error, according to Rasmussen. A significant chunk of likely voters say they might change their minds before stepping into the booth. The economy is the top issue for Republicans at 37 percent with immigration second at 18 percent. McClatchy/MSNBC also showed a tight race with McCain at 33 percent, Romney at 27 percent and Huckabee at 18 percent. A quarter of voters said they might still change their minds. The three were grouped together in the 20's among Republicans who said they would make their choice based on shared values, while McCain led Romney on the experience measure, 39 percent to 30 percent with Huckabee way behind at 13 percent. Terrorism was the number one issue among GOP voters at 28 percent, followed by the economy at 25 percent.

Arizona: Two polls suggest a tight Democratic race. In a Rasmussen Reports poll conducted, Jan. 31, Clinton leads Obama 46 percent to 41 percent, with a 4 point margin of error. Nearly a third of Democratic voters said they might yet change their mind, but that was 3 days ago. The economy was the top issue for 37 percent of Democrats and Iraq was the most important for 26 percent, followed by health care at 14 percent and immigration at 12 percent. A McClatchy/MSNBC poll shows Clinton ahead of Obama 43 percent to 41 percent, well within the 5 point margin of error. Thirteen percent were undecided. Clinton is thought to have the edge in most places among Hispanic, but here Obama was outrunning her 53 percent to 37 percent. Twenty-eight percent of Democrats said they would make their choice based on which candidate cared about the same issues they cared about, and among those, Clinton bested Obama 48 percent to 29 percent. Of those who valued change the most (21 percent) Obama was the clear winner as usual, and of the 16 percent who valued experience the most, Clinton was far and away the choice.

On the GOP side, McCain, in his home state, led Romney by a 43 percent to 34 percent, although Romney bested McCain among self-described conservatives, according to Rasmussen. Huckabee polled 9 percent. The economy was the top issue for 30 percent of Republicans followed closely by immigration at 26 percent, a much higher total than among Democrats. The Washington Post on Saturday had a story about how immigration has divided the state GOP with the result being a high level of animosity for McCain about his immigration positions.

New York:The Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll conducted Jan.31-Feb.2 has McCain ahead of Romney 49 percent to 23 percent with Huckabee at 8 percent.

Oklahoma: A Tulsa World/Sooner Poll conducted Jan. 27-30 has Clinton far ahead of Obama, but John Edwards was still in the race for two days of the survey. Clinton had 41 percent to Obama's 17 percent with Edwards in the mid-20s.

On the Republican side, McCain jumped into the lead with 40 percent compared to his 17 percent standing in this poll in December while Huckabee had 19 percent, down 10 points from December, and Romney 17 percent. Voters cited economy as the issue of most concern to them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story on the GOP side seems pretty simple: McCain has now established himself as the clear frontrunner, and it will take the intervention of some Mormon deity to resurrect Romney's faltering campaign. Huckabee is little more than a regional candidate now, concentrating on the southern states that vote on Feb. 5.

On the Democratic side, the real story is all of the undecideds. We've already learned (remember New Hampshire?) that late-deciders will screw up even the best polling, and it looks like there are bunches of those fence-sitters in the Feb. 5 primary states. For a poll to have Clinton leading Obama 36% to 34% in California suggests that there is a large segment of the electorate that is still up for grabs. It will be those voters who will decide the elections tomorrow.

Count me in the undeciders. Kentucky's primary is not until May and as far as I can tell; there are not even any polls for either democrat or republican primaries. Usually this state votes republican in the general election. (I just hope somebody beats McConnell but I doubt anybody does.)
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/kentucky.html

I am tempted to sit the primaries out but I don't know how that would affect the rest of the election candidates.

I think that Polls like the above distract from the crucial question. Will we as a nation finally expiate our guilt and face reality. Barack Obama is ten times smarter than Hillary. He is, most people are unaware, a former
President of the most prestigious post in all of University Law--namely, the head of the Harvard Law Review. Dozens of the most brilliant people in Law came from Harvard. That Barack Obama was chosen by these incredibly intelligent people to lead the Law Review is a testament to his ability to bring together diverse viewpoints.

America must forget about tearful Hilllary and vote for Obama!!!

Well, most of the candidates have a few prestigious credentials to their name as they climbed up the political ladder. But yes, you can't take the accomplishment away from Obama. He was the first black man to hold that position as well.

I ran across this piece written by one of Obama's former classmates at Harvard posted on Town Hall the other day, and I think the Obama supporters might enjoy it:

The Barack I Knew
By Carol Platt Liebau
Monday, March 5, 2007

There is something profoundly surreal about having known someone like Barack Obama, whose political career has seen a meteoric rise that is the stuff of political fairytales. To turn on the television and see a once-familiar face grown slightly more mature, hear the same vocal intonations and note many of same personal characteristics - now all presented as elements of a "rock star" persona - is a strange experience.

Of course, with public acclaim of the kind Obama now enjoys comes a host of hangers-on, many eager to claim some "special relationship" with a famous person. Certainly, Barack and I were hardly best friends; he was a year ahead of me at Harvard Law School (and six years older) when we met the summer that I became a newly-minted editor of the Harvard Law Review. But we did work together for some time, and he reached out to advise me when I became the first female Managing Editor in the Review's history.

Barack is a deeply committed liberal, and I am a proud conservative. Even so, he possesses five qualities that are genuinely praiseworthy -- political ideology aside:

He's intelligent. Clearly, his achievements reveal that Barack Obama possesses intellectual credentials that would impress even the snootiest resume snob. But (perhaps more importantly) he also possesses street smarts. As Hillary Clinton can testify, he knows how to throw a punch as well as how to take one. He is able to size up people accurately. What's more, he respects "real world" intelligence, a quality that's all-too-rare among those with stellar academic records - but one that's vital to someone in public life who must rely on the assistance of an extensive staff.

He's colorblind. When Barack became the first African-American President of The Harvard Law Review, it was big news. More radical black Review editors urged him not only to take controversial stands on a whole host of racial issues - they also pressured him to use his discretion to elevate black students to leadership positions within the organization. Barack declined to do so; though his choices were often left-wing (as, in fairness, was much of the Review's membership), they weren't race-conscious.

He's self-confident. Even at age 29, Barack Obama had the self-possession and confidence of a much older man - a quality that, at times, manifested itself in amusing ways. At law school, he had apparently been urged by several professors to call them by their first names - and it was a prerogative he wasn't shy about exercising, even in front of other students who hadn't received the same invitation. He projected an air of self-assurance amid controversy, and always radiated an unshakable air of confidence in himself and his decisions - qualities that are no doubt essential to making a run for the nation's highest office as a relatively untried first term senator.

He listens. Certainly, Barack is a liberal's liberal, and his leadership of The Harvard Law Review in many ways reflected that fact. But unlike many of his left-wing compatriots, he treated his ideological adversaries with respect on a personal level. Indeed, he always offered the small conservative contingent on the Review a hearing, even though his decision-making consistently showed that he hadn't ultimately been influenced by their arguments.

He has a sense of humor. In May of 2006, I encountered Barack in the hall of the Russell Senate Office Building, surrounded by a gaggle of advisors. To my surprise, he hailed me over, teasingly referencing a spectacularly fashion-backward pair of horn-rimmed glasses I had often worn during Review days. I complimented his speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and then, for some reason, felt it necessary to remind him that my praise was qualified by the fact that "of course I don't agree with any of your policies." With that, Barack simply threw back his head and laughed. Can anyone imagine Hillary Clinton, John Kerry or Howard Dean reacting that way?

No doubt it's a long, long road to The White House, even for politicians with significantly more experience than Illinois' junior senator. But many of the qualities that he manifested during our joint tenure on The Harvard Law Review help explain why so many enthusiastically contemplate the prospect that Barack Obama's journey to the Oval Office will be both a short and a successful one.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2007/03/05/the_barack_i_knew