« Obama Campaign Memo: He's The Guy Who Can Win Indys And Beat McCain | Home | Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) Endorses Obama »
Poll: Obama Up By 20 In Virginia Primary
The new SurveyUSA poll of Virginia gives Barack Obama a huge lead in this Potomac Primary state, with 59% to Hillary Clinton's 39%. There are 83 delegates at stake in Virginia, plus 70 in Maryland and 15 in the District of Columbia this Tuesday — and at least from this vantage point, Obama seems well-positioned for all three contests.
The demographic breakdown: The two are tied among white voters at 49%-49%, Obama leads among African-Americans 87%-12%, Hillary has Hispanics 60%-39%, and the two are in a dead heat in the "Other" category. This would seem to follow the national trends, albeit with a possible slight up-tick for Obama with both whites and Latinos.
Advertisement















I'm tired of these polls. They're always wrong!
February 8, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree you can't trust polls, but at least it's not Zogby. As an Obama supporter it still makes me happy.
February 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. The polls have been incredibly suspect, but I'm encouraged by this. Survey USA has been the most correct pollster during these primaries.
February 8, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, sort of. SUSA only had Obama up by 15% in SC on the eve of the election, and predicted Clinton ahead by 11% in MO. Granted, they got CA right on the money, but that is not to say that they have always been so good. I like to think that we are 20% ahead in VA, but I will believe it when I see it.
February 8, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like anyone trusts polling these days. I'll just say the race is a toss up at this point.
February 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like anyone trusts polling these days. I'll just say the race is a toss up at this point.
February 8, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
SUSA nailed California, so hopefully they're just as accurate here in the Commonwealth...
February 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe they got Missouri WAY wrong.
February 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I want to know is this:
Obama vs. McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
Clinton vs. McCain in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida
What else matters?
Obama could beat McCain 60% to 40% nationally, and still lose the election. How does Obama do where it really matters??
February 8, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What else matters?"
How about Colorado, New Mexico, Missouri, and Iowa?
"Obama could beat McCain 60% to 40% nationally, , and still lose the election."
Not very likely.
February 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sentiments exactly. I would love to see a series of head to head match-ups in all of the swing states. Those would be much more informative than these nationwide match-ups.
February 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the campaign ends up going all the way to PA, then hopefully that will translate into a huge advantage there.
February 8, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Confirmed. Their last Missouri poll had Clinton (53) Obama (43). Stay away from polls.
February 8, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama won the Virginia vote by his spread in the polls there, what would the delegate count look like, assuming that the rest of the Potomac states split even? Big ifs, I know.
Generally speaking, all the talk is that this is going to come down to the wire, maybe Puerto Rico or a brokered convention. Is the delegate count predicted to be so close because of predictions like Virginia, where the outcome might be like Illinois, or New York; each candidate winning particular states handily, and balancing the others victories? Or is the conventional wisdom that most states will be pretty much splitting the delegates down the middle?
It was my understanding that the conventional analyst wisdom was that most of the states, save from some obvious exceptions i.e. LA, were going to split their delegates down the middle. If that is the conventional wisdom, large, isolated splits will turn out to be the most important factors in the primary season.
February 8, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love how the media (who cannot see beyond identity politics) & irrational Hilary backers (who feel her years supporting Bill through infidelity makes her due the presidency) keep raising the bar and minimizing the movement that supports Sen. Obama.
First it was was, "Well, he is only winning cuz of Blacks."
Then it was, "He is only winning cuz of Blacks and young people."
Then it was, "He is only winning cuzzing of Blacks, young people, and higher income educated Whites."
Now its, "He is only winning cuz of Blacks, young people, higher income Whites, and in caucases"
Soon they won't have a constitency except divorced White women between 40-45years old, making 25-40k a year. You cant win an election like that.
I don't know whether this is because he is African American, relatively young, or because they had assumes for the last 6 years she would run unopposed. Whatever the reason it is becoming tiresome.
I wonder what will be the excuse when he wins Nebreaska with its lower income, mainly White population and its primary election. I'm sure it will be something.
February 8, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another poll shows Obama down 50-41 in Wisconsin. Obama's set himself up to where he really needs to run the table for the rest of the month. Even a loss in Wisconsin could be a big blow.
February 8, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually that poll has him UP 51-40 (ARG).
February 8, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected. That's Clinton up by 9.
February 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama is up by 20 points in Virginia because he's successfully parlayed playing the race card (Hillary dissed MLK) into a monolithic 87% support from blacks (as opposed to 63% support before his campaign's thinly-veiled allegations against the Clintons).
Meanwhile, Hillary is up 9 points in Wisconsin, a swing state that Democrats could actually win in November.
Sound of crickets chirping.
So, Obama continues to pile up the delegates from unwinnable states with large black populations and solid-Republican states with large groups of Hillary-haters, while Hillary continues to get more votes in large Blue states and swing states.
Oh yeah, that's a more electable candidate, baby!
February 8, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted this on another topic, but it remains apt here. And I will continue to post it every time a Hillbot does something that has no logic. Learn how to present a proper argument, and I'll stop.
Straw man:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
February 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted this on another topic, but it remains apt here. And I will continue to post it every time a Hillbot does something that has no logic. Learn how to present a proper argument, and I'll stop.
Straw man:
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute and attribute that position to the opponent. Often, the straw man is set up to deliberately overstate the opponent's position. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.
February 8, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
More of this "Obama is the Black Candidate" crap from a Hillbot. You should be ashamed of yourself.
February 8, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virginia isn't a swing state?
February 8, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls are crap. All they've done to date is set ridiculously high expectations for Obama. Look at Obama's spreadsheet again -- they don't expect any blowouts, and they expect to lose Maine.
On another note -- when is this site going to finally stabilize? I know you know it, but you guys really blew this upgrade and the timing was horrible. A week later, and only 1 of 2 of my comments ever make it over. And I'm repeatedly logged out.
February 8, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
colonpowwow - could win Wisconsin? We did win it in 2004. Colorado, Missouri, Iowa? Not so much.
February 8, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
silly josh, virginia only has one dem US senator and one dem governor (who's endorsed obama, btw). the dems could never win there. besides, obama is only tied with hillary for the white vote -- talk about a fringe candidate. it was only his "brothers and sisters" that won it for him in iowa, north dakota and kansas. wait a minute, it was the pointy-headed northeastern elitists that won it for him in iowa, north dakota and kansas. wait a minute...
February 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virginia is no longer a red state.
Virginia has a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Senator, a Democratic State Senate, and will almost certainly elect another Democratic Senator this fall.
Both Senators + State Senate + Governor means that Virginia may not even be purple, it's more blue the red. If things keep going the way they are currently, the Virginia State House will be Democratically controlled in the next election.
If the State House falls to the Democrats, Virginia will have moved from Red, straight through purple to solid Blue in all of 4 years.
Thanks W!
February 8, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama is up by 20 points in Virginia because he's successfully parlayed playing the race card (Hillary dissed MLK) into a monolithic 87% support from blacks (as opposed to 63% support before his campaign's thinly-veiled allegations against the Clintons).
Give it up already. It was the Clintons who decided to paint Obama as the "Black Candidate" in hopes that it would marginalize him with white voters. It backfired. Enough.
February 8, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colonpw
So, you think if Obama gets the nomination he's not going to carry New York, New Jersey, California, Illinois? What poll do you base that on?
February 8, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virginia is no longer a Red State
Virginia has a Democratic Governor, a Democratic Senator, A Democratically controlled State Senate, and with John Warner retiring from the US Senate this fall, his replacement will almost certainly be Democrat Mark Warner (no relation).
Governor + Both Senators + State Senate means that Virginia is definitely no longer a Red State.
And if the Virginia State House goes to the Democratic next year, Virginia will have moved from Red, right through purple and all the way to Solid Blue in all of 4 years.
Thanks W!
February 8, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll trust this poll over any Zogby "poll." He made CA seem like a surprise win for Clinton, and the media bought it hook, line, and sinker.. Other pollsters were much closer.
It comes as no surprise that Zogby won't release his sampling either.. F'n hack.
February 8, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
M Stevens - that is truly cause for celebration! I hope the trend continues.
February 8, 2008 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll bet Obama takes Wisconsin by 10+ points. Chicago sprawls into Wisconsin, so he has those roots. Iirc, Milwaukee has a large black population, and he should do really well with all the students at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.
The only Big 10 state I can see Obama losing are Indiana and Pennsylvania.. If they hold the Michigan elections again, I'll think he'll take that, if his name's actually on the ballot.
February 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My name is CT Voter, and I'm a recovering poll addict....
I admit it. I can't ignore the polls, no matter how those polls have disappointed me...and judging by the posters on political sites, I have a lot of company.
Question to anyone: why do we still care about the Gallup national tracking poll, when some 26 states (two of the three most heavily populated) have already voted? Huh? Because we're all addicts. Admit it. No other explanation.
That being said, boy, those numbers look good for Obama, don't they??
February 8, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I invite any Hillary supporter to make a case for her electability. To everyone else, it appears she is going for a 50%+1 strategy involving winning the Blue States and "just enough" of the Purple to win. It isn't impossible, at least in theory, but it is the same theory that the last two elections were fought on and we know how well that turned out for us Dems. So, not only is it a high risk strategy, it also failed our side twice now.
How a Democratic candidate does in the Blue States in the primaries is irrelevant---they are STILL going to be Blue in November. The crux of the matter is how a candidate does in Purple and Red States. As a group, Democratic voters in Purple and Red States are relatively more conservative than those in Blue States. Thus, how a candidate does in a primary in one of these states is an indicator of general election potential. It isn't conclusive, but it is pretty much the only evidence we have to look at.
Hillary has some good things going for her, like the health care issue. However, it is clear that as long as her strategy in the fall is going to be 50%+1, the electability issue has to fall in Obama's favor. Now, maybe a Hillary supporter sees a different strategy for the fall, but please share it with the rest of us.
I think we all know what usually happens when you try and fight the last war during a current war.
February 8, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad this is SurveyUSA, and I'm glad it shows Obama up, but I can't take much delight in anything any poll says at this point.
February 8, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know it takes a while for posts to arrive, but nearly 20 minutes after my invitation, all I hear are crickets.
February 8, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh that's right. Not logical.
Obama can win all the blue and purple states that Hillary has ACTUALLY won, but Hillary can't possibly win all the blue and purple states that Obama has won.
Oh, and Arkansas and Ohio.
But that's just a likely scenario for electing President Hillary Clinton. Candidate Obama is just obviously more electable than that. So pay no attention to the candidate who's actually beating him in the big blue states right now earlier this week.
Got it.
February 8, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama wins the nomination, the general election will be over by the time he finishes his acceptance speech at the national convention.
Obama has plenty of ideas, and plenty of "substance". But he's a smart guy and knows that talking ad nauseum about policies is not the way to energize an electorate. This isn't about policy.
Call it empty rhetoric. Call it a cult. Call it whatever you want. The basic fact is that he has the ability, as all great leaders have, to rally the people to a common cause. Republicans are not immune to this.
He knows and they know, what this country needs now more than anything is leadership.
February 8, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's right. I'm the one that's logically impaired. How silly of me. Of course, Obama can win all the blue and purple states where Hillary beat him already.
But wait, couldn't Hillary win the few blue and purple states that Obama has actually won? And what about Arkansas and Ohio this time? NOT LOGICAL NOT LOGICAL!
Oops. Sorry. Pay no attention to the candidate who has actually already beaten him in most of the larger and winnable states on Tuesday and who still holds the lead in the national polling today.
Got it.
February 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
So instead of using a straw man, you decide to post incoherent mishmash? Interesting gambit.
February 8, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So instead of posting a straw man, you decide to post incoherent mishmash? Interesting gambit, you charmer, you.
February 8, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think will happen in the General if Obama gets the nod and McCain teams up with Condi?
February 8, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know I'm late to this thread, but I was counting on TPM Election Central to have poll results for the other two primaries on Tuesday, Maryland and D.C.
Has anyone heard any poll numbers for either Maryland or D.C.? I realize the Governor of Maryland endorsed Clinton and the Mayor of D.C. endorsed Obama, but I haven't seen any poll results.
February 8, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a friend in DC and his sense is that the district is heavily favoring Obama.
February 8, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your lips to God's ears, dear MMASONM, but surely you can see that "I have a friend in..." is not a very convincing lead in to a prediction. ;-)
February 8, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has anyone been following the intrade markets. Since super Tuesday, Obama has basically flipped the market. It was a solid 60/40 for Hillary or more on most days except right after IA. Now its 60/40 Obama. Very interesting as his showing on Tuesday didn't have near the impact on the media as his showing in IA. After IA and with the bogus poll numbers from NH, pundits thought it was all over for Hillary. No one is saying that this week, but the intrades have flipped anyway.
As an aside, anyone who has been following my posts knows I don't like Obama or most of his netroots suppoerters. You might think I like Hillary, but that's not true, either. Wes Clark or Al Gore would have been my choices. I just don't like Obama. He rubs me the wrong way. However, I had a conversation last night that has gotten me thinking. I was speaking to woman about my age (40-something). She had never voted in her life till 2004, which she did because she hated W so much. (Too bad such folks didn't wake up in 2000 when it would have been easier to stop him, but better late than never.) Now she has really become politicized and it all because of Obama. I hear this same kind of talk from the kids at the local cafes all over town. (Its an art school college town, so folks are pretty light on intellect and heavy on passion, IMO.)
That added to the recent polls that show Obama standing a much better chance against McCain than Hillary does give me pause. I still don't think Obama would be a very good president. He doesn't impress me when he is asked off the cuff questions about policy, but that could be offset with a good team around him. However, after I heard that McCain has promised to try to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, I realized that he is just an empty old suit and we would indeed be much better off with Barack than him. So I am gonna watch things closely. The thing about the polls is that they have been way off in predicting the votes of white people in actual primaries (as compared to caucuses or black-dem-majority states). So, I don't necessarily trust polls that show him winning GE matchups. In any event, my state has voted and we voted for him. Point is there is no doubt who I would vote for in the fall if he was on the ballot.
February 8, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
From your lips to God's ears, dear MMASONM, but surely you can see that "I have a friend in..." is not a very convincing lead in to a prediction. ;-)
Given the lack of poll data, I just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.
February 8, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really could care less about polls. They have been so wrong. They should be banned because of the misconceptions they give people. Let's see what happens Tuesday. That's the only poll that matters. People see this crap and then they think that they don't have to vote. No more polls.
February 8, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even more surprising that Maryland was not surveyed yet, given its 70 delegates.
But, hey, I'm not worried. One of the stars of "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" was going to campaign for Obama today at Towson University.
February 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
If u care to read good analysis, rather than making mindless stupid comments all the time, READ this article on msnbc.com.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23058132/
February 8, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't trust these polls unless u want to delude urself. Do ur own math:
Do u know who is going to give a final hard kick on Barack Hussien's behind? It is Latinos from TX. They constitute 30% of TX voters against 10% black. Even if they vote 7-3 for Hillary, she will win enough delegates to keep her ahead in the count even if rest of the states Obama is ahead.
Obama has been winning in states like ID, UT, IA that Dems in their wildest dreams will not win. So it is useless in the real election anyway.
February 8, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
ThompsonLives says:
"So instead of posting a straw man, you decide to post incoherent mishmash? Interesting gambit, you charmer, you."
Not as "interesting" a gambit as mindlessly squaking "It's a strawman argument" and speaking to a post by calling it "incoherent mishmash."
That's really well thought out.
If you actually don't understand the point of someone's post, try r e a d i n g i t r e a l s l o w.
Maybe that'll help.
February 8, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Colonpowow, one of the problems with your argument it seems to me (and with these kind of electability arguments in general) is that you're treating electability as if it's some God-given quality, rather than something the candidates actually have a great deal of control over. But on the contrary, how electable a candidate is has a lot to do with what kind of campaign they run. Who has run a better campaign, Clinton or Obama?
Even if you're a Clinton supporter, I don't quite see how you can say she's run a better campaign. She started out the clear favorite...she was more than twenty points ahead nationally over the summer, wasn't she? She has a huge advantage in fundraising and in party support (as we can see with her superdelegate advantage.) She had massive name recognition. And the Clintons are beloved by large numbers of voters, including important democratic constituencies (blacks, women, etc.)
Obama's managed to catch and, I think, pass her because he's run a much, much better campaign. He's out-organized her, out-hustled her, out-fundraised her, and pretty much beaten her at every turn. He's not only thumped her in a bunch of rural states and southern states, but fought her to a draw in her areas of strength (New Hampshire, New Jersey, Connecticut), and kept it close in places where he was supposed to have no chance (California). He hasn't won, and he may not win given her remaining institutional support. But he's run a remarkable campaign. Yes, he's done it in part by setting up strong organizations in some traditionally Republican areas. But that's all to the good come November, especially for downticket races.
It seems to me that if you want to beat the Republicans, it would be better to go with a candidate that has overcome enormous odds through smart and fierce campaigning rather than go with the candidate who had it made but almost bungled it through lack of imagination and general complacency.
I suspect you'll just say, "yes, but he couldn't win California, and that's all that matters!" There's no hope for it, I guess -- but think about how insulting that is to all of the people (and there are a number of them) who live in flyover country, or the South. Democrats have been essentially telling all of those folks for many, many years that they don't matter, and that the party doesn't care about them. One of Obama's messages is that the Democratic party needs to stop it with that crap if it wants to govern the country effectively. I think he's right there, too.
February 8, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink