« Zogby: Obama Leads In SC, Edwards Catching Up With Hillary For Second | Home | McCain Raises Over $7 Million This Month »
SurveyUSA: Hillary And Romney Way Ahead In Massachusetts
A new poll of Massachusetts by SurveyUSA shows that the endorsements of Sen. John Kerry and Gov. Deval Patrick haven't helped Barack Obama very much in this Super Tuesday state. Hillary Clinton has a huge lead with 59% support, followed by Barack Obama at 22% and John Edwards with 11%.
On the Republican side, Mitt Romney enjoys a healthy lead in his home state: Romney 50%, McCain 29%, Huckabee 7%, Giuliani 6%, and Paul 3%.
Advertisement
Damn. There goes my dream of Shooter McMittens losing his home state primary on Feb. 5.
January 25, 2008 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot believe Obama is down that much in MA. What the hell is going on?
January 25, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe it either. A State House News Poll from last week had Hillary ahead by just 12. The previous polls had similar numbers.
January 25, 2008 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm skeptical of the data. I think SurveyUSA has been off quite a bit, if memory serves correctly. But who knows, after NH I pretty much stopped trusting Democratic primary polls.
January 25, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a nice result for Hillary. If it holds up, and if the districts are split at similar levels, she'd walk away with roughly 68 of the delegates, to Obama's 25.
The key thing to keep an eye on, here and elsewhere, is Edwards' level of support. For Obama to have a decent shot at the nomination, Edwards has to stay above the 15% threshold in a majority of districts nationwide. That'll limit Hillary's take on February 5, and split her base of support. This poll has Edwards dangerously low; the last State House News Service poll (which TPM seems to have missed) put the support at 37-25-14. That'd be enough to net Edwards at least a few district-level delegates, because his support won't be evenly spread, and perhaps some statewide delegates, too.
To illustrate the difference in dramatic terms: If Hillary wins 65% of the vote, and Edwards wins 15%, then she walks away with 60 delegates. If he wins 14.9%, she'll walk with roughly 71. That's an eleven delegate difference, based on a handful of votes, and it translates across the board.
So all you Obama supporters out there, say kind things about the former Senator from North Carolina. He's your best hope for pulling off an upset.
January 25, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Survey USA has a well-known house effect that favors Clinton, but, still I'd be shocked if she didn't win big there.
There's nothing the voters of the P.R.M. love more a hyper-technocrat who thinks "competence" is the same thing as vision. That's what they think government is all about. And that's why they've given us such a stunning array of brilliantly visionary candidates over the last two decades. People like, say, Mitt Romney, John Kerry, Paul Tsongas, Mike Dukakis . . . get the picture?
I suspect its some kind of puritan overcompensation for their long-term flirtation with those wicked, wicked Kennedy boys.
To make matters worse, Deval Patrick made some bonehead mistakes during his first year and I don't think they've forgiven him for it. To the extent Obama and Patrick have been identified with each other, it isn't going to be helpful to Obama in the P.R.M.
January 25, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't need Edwards there; he needs Kennedy to endorse him and put his state organization at his disposal. That should do it and will probably happen sooner rather than later.
January 25, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
NCSteve:
Not so fast. Patrick retains a good approval rating among registered Democrats, even if the electorate as a whole has soured on him. The fact is, there have been no campaign ads on the air in Massachusetts (or at least none since the NH primary). Hillary enjoys a natural advantage in every state where her rivals haven't yet gone on the air. This race will tighten considerably once Edwards/Obama gear up their operations after Saturday. Hillary will win, but she won't win this big. And her margin among the delegates will be even smaller.
January 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone else noticed this trend with Hillary's numbers: whenever states are about to have an primary (and thus see the candidates more), Hillary's numbers begin to tank and Obama's begin to rise. Iowa, NH, SC, Nevada - all the same. Even when Hillary won, her numbers were declining (save for the blip in NH).
I think this shows that people just support Hillary because they think she's the best candidate and that she's inevitable, but once they get to know her, they realize they don't like her.
January 25, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Cynic,
From your lips to God's ears. That said, it is hard to be cheered by the sight of an essentially 60/20 Clinton lead. If this poll is accurate, that is going to be serious and significant drubbing for my guy.
January 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not making this up. See for yourself!
http://thepage.time.com/clinton-on-the-today-show/
That's right. Game. Set. Match.
January 25, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's just not enough time for Obama to introduce himself in person to the voters in each state now. Even with momentum from SC, she's going to take a delegate advantage after Feb. 5 that is going to be hard to catch in the remaining states, even though there is a bit more time for retail campaigning in them.
For all those calling for a national primary or even big regional primaries, THIS is the problem. Incumbents and candidates who are well known have a HUGE advantage.
One boost we can hope for is a John Edwards second place finish in SC, which would give us great "Clinton third again, is her campaign in trouble?" media coverage going into Feb. 5 and hopefully force voters to take a second look.
January 25, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe there's still time for John Kerry to un-endorse Barack Obama. ;-)
January 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cynic, like Greg said, your lips, God's ears, etc. But its only eleven days.
New York and New England are, and always have been, Hillary's stronghold. I suspect she's going do a little worse in New York than Obama will in Illinois, but, barring a Teddy Ex Machina, I'd be stunned if she didn't crack 50% there. I would think it is that its a hellishly expensive state to advertise in and Obama's going to have a lot of ground to cover, and a lot of TV time to buy, in a very short amount of time starting Saturday. Were I he, I don't know that I'd be emptying my piggy bank trying to win there. And, if I had to pick a coast to concentrate on, I'd go west rather than right. My suspicion, however, is that he'll spend most of his time in the middle of the country.
Dang, I find myself annoyed at all the armchair campaign consultants and here I go doing it myself.
January 25, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those numbers may reflect attitudes about Kerry from people who know him best. At this point, Kerry definitely needs Obama more than Obama needs Kerry.
January 25, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very perceptive, NCSteve. Every day, this blog reminds me more and more of Fantasy Football. And I don't mean just the readers. Everybody is doing it.
January 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to vote for Obama in CT, but it's probably a lost cause. Just not enough time for him to work MA and CT properly as he's done in the earlier states to get past the Clinton's entrenchments here.
January 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
well according to new polling data today:
Obama is only going to win south carolina by a small margin.... while hillary win lots of the huge states on feb.5 that matter.
January 25, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
i hope she get more delegate seats in south carolina then obama:)
January 25, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't doubt that some voters come to dislike Hillary after being exposed to her. That's only natural with any candidate. But since everyone's pulling theories out of their ass, I also think it's logical when you have an established candidate who's well known, and an unknown challenger comes along, the unknown's numbers will go up a certain amount as he campaigns. Why would anyone have preferred Obama before they knew anything about him? He's an attractive candidate, and as he campaigns he's going to win people over to his side. But reading all this as some sort of sign that Hillary's in a tailspin is just wishful thinking.
January 25, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink