« Obama Running Ads In Ohio And Texas | Home | Hillary Pollster Mark Penn: Obama More Likely To Suffer Fate Of John Kerry Or Al Gore »

Polls Show Obama Set For More Wins Tomorrow

There's a clear consensus in the polling for tomorrow's Potomac Primary: Obama's got it made. Barring an upset/polling foul-up like the one we saw in New Hampshire, Obama seems set for comfortable victories in both Maryland and Virginia, and is heavily favored to win the majority-African-American District of Columbia. Here are the surveys from the last few days:

Maryland:

ARG: Obama 55%, Clinton 37% (Today)

Mason-Dixon: Obama 53%, Clinton 35% (Feb. 10)

Rasmussen: Obama 57%, Clinton 31% (Feb. 9)

SurveyUSA: Obama 52%, Clinton 33% (Feb. 8)


Virginia:

SurveyUSA: Obama 60%, Clinton 38% (Today)

ARG: Obama 56%, Clinton 38% (Today)

Mason-Dixon: Obama 53%, Clinton 37% (Feb. 10)

Rasmussen: Obama 55%, Clinton 37% (Feb. 9)


48 Comments

| Leave a comment

Word on the street is if Obama gets 70% or 75% (I can't remember which) in DC he will get ALL of their delegates. I haven't confirmed that, but it definitely a possibility for him to get that much of the vote, given he has nearly done that in all white states. Anyway, that would be a nice little delegate bump for him.

Yes, Obama must win! We need someone in office that is beautiful,
and gives a great speech( thanks to the Kennedy speech writers).
No doubt about Obama's good judgement and character, he only used cocaine and weed, not heroin. Beauty over substance any day.
Go Obama!!

user-pic

Go to his website and read his policy positions. And shut your mouth - you're drooling.

user-pic

If Hillary gets more than 15% of the votes, she gets some delegates. Otherwise not.

user-pic

More blowouts. And primaries at that.

Greg
You flipped that Feb. 11 AP-Ipsos poll. Obama leads Clinton 46 to 41.

user-pic
Barring an upset/polling foul-up like the one we saw in New Hampshire

Or the significant underestimate of Obama's win in South Carolina, or the totally off the wall predictions about California and Mass. in the Feb. 5 primary...these polls have been not great predictors of actual results...

And why do we care about national polls, anyway? MOre than half the country has voted, so what do those numbers tell us? Do polling firms only poll in states that haven't voted?

I think these are polls for specific primaries, not national polls.

I don't want to jinx it, but I think tomorrow is going to be huge for Barack.

user-pic

Polls only count when they're vast. Check out the trends in the Pollster poll to the right of this post. Obama will pass Hillary in a few days. He will stay ahead.

user-pic

In the end, it will come down to the superdelegates, and I'm sure they'll want some gauge of the mood of the nation.

I know we are kind of super saturated with polls, but what the hell is with the lack of polling for upcoming states? Why was the most current poll going into Maine last night from October of last year?? Why haven't we heard anything about Wisconsin or Texas or any of those? I know polls are pieces of garbage, but I feel kind of lost without them.

I believe there was an ARG poll in Wisconsin last week, showing a 9 point lead for Clinton.

Oscar the Grouch feels like you are his soulmate.

Greg:

The AP-Ipsos poll numbers (in the poll tracker) are incorrect. Obama leads Clinton 46-41 (you have it reversed).

If these poll numbers hold up, what's her argument going forward? She will have been beaten by landslides in EVERY contest since Super Tuesday. How do you spin that without losing complete credibility?

Pollster Dates N/Pop Clinton Edwards Gore Obama Undecided
AP-Ipsos 2/7-10/08 520 A 46 - - 41 5

Poll tracker is right

when the polls look too good, be prepare and must go out and vote tomorrow. MD, DC and VA, WE WANT CHANGE NOT JUST SWITCH!

Bulletin from the desk of:

Mark Poison Penn.

This recent string of victories by Senator Obama over Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proves that Senator Obama is becoming more and more likely to be the object of attacks by the Republicans in the General Election Campaign. Please let Hillary handles those attacks instead of Senator Obama. Hillary loves being attacked, and promises to keep the country in a constant state of internal division and strife. Vote against hope, and reconciliiation. Vote for Hillary the Great Divider.

Also, take a look at the top right. Today Obama has taken the lead in the national poll.

user-pic

Far more important to me than a single poll are the massively aggregated trends a little lower on the page from Pollster.com. Obama will pass Hillary in about a day or two. She will not catch up.

user-pic

I'm waiting for the SUSA poll, which has been much more reliable than any other firm. On the hand, Clinton rules apply here: If the sample size is less than 10,000, it doesn't count.

user-pic

what Liam said

user-pic

Hillary was saying last week that her recent losses to Obama were because Obama had outspent her on advertising. Ah, we get it. Obama OUTSPENT you. That crafty African-American. No wonder you lost. HE CHEATED BY SPENDING MORE THAN YOU. Next time, maybe he should coordinate his ad budget a little more fairly.

But today she's saying she lost because too many "activists" showed up to caucus. Ah, I get it AGAIN. ACTIVISTS! OF COURSE! Those are the people who are really excited about their candidate, right?

Hillary should get herself some of those.

user-pic

When he gets the nomination, it won't count because she already called bagsies.

user-pic

Virginia, in particular, has to count as an important state to win. It has always been the most sophisticated in the South, by every measure of culture. And it's winnable by the Democrats in the general election. The states that matter most aren't the ones Democrats are sure to win (e.g. New York), but the ones with tighter odds. And the states most representative of the rest of the country, among those, aren't the outliers like Florida (there's no other state resembling Florida!), or Ohio (whose situation vis-a-vis factories shut down is second only to Michigans). Most states are neither retirement havens nor totally on the skids. And its hard to sell hope to those who are close to passing from this world, or those who've already lost nearly everything. Virginia, on the other hand, far more resembles the greater part of America.

user-pic

Looks like Obama may pass Hillary for the very first time in the aggregated Pollster polls as early as tomorrow or Wednesday. I was thinking it wouldn't happen until next week. Wow. Things just couldn't be worse for the Clinton campaign these days.

user-pic

My new Dream Ticket (thanks to another TPM poster for suggesting it:

Barack Obama/Jim Webb. Would that be good or what?

That's what I've been hoping for too.

user-pic

Remember, when Obama was interviewed in Reno (the infamous Reagan Remarks interview), he also talked about what kind of VP he would choose. He said: Someone with a military background who knew his way round the Pentagon and DOD. Having Reagan's former Navy commander would seem a winner.

I don't care who the VP is as long as Edwards is the AG. Whoever brought that up is a genius - Edwards would be like RFK as AG - we could get the serious action we wanted from Edwards AND Obama's charisma.

I am an Obama supporter and I want Patrick Fitzgerald to be the AG. He know where a lot of the Bush Skeletons are buried,and he is also willing to take on the crooked bastards in both parties. I want someone who keeps our party from falling into the same corrupt practices that devoured the Republicans.

Absolutely, liam. I've been talking up the idea of Fitzgerald as A.G. for a while now, and find more and more merit to the idea. He's a straight-shooter, clean as a whistle, a Republican, and (most importantly) a prosecutor.

Hey, Addington, Yoo, Cheney, et. al.! Here's a Republican who's going to send yer asses to prison for crimes against humanity. One can hope, no?

Edwards for Sec. of H.H.S. or maybe the Interior.

user-pic

And Ahhnold as the head of the EPA.

Virginia, in particular, has to count as an important state to win. It has always been the most sophisticated in the South, by every measure of culture.

I suppose I really ought to contest that statement and get all huffy, but, unfortunately, even after twenty-odd years, I'm not sufficiently assimilated into the local culture to give a damn about NC's long-term thing about Virginia.

Now Duke, that's a whole other thing.

user-pic

Perfect. Unbeatable. 16 Years of good governance.

user-pic

hrebendorf said:
My new Dream Ticket (thanks to another TPM poster for suggesting it:
Barack Obama/Jim Webb. Would that be good or what?

Perfect. Unbeatable. 16 Years of good governance.

There is a parallel for Hillary in that like Rudy's Florida, Virginia is where she has to make it or face the abyss. A total shutout for February would be pretty hard to make up for in March when the big states come into play. And she must win VA convincingly, not just eke it out by 2 points.
So paradoxically for Hillary, she can diss Obama for winning small caucus states, but her satisfaction in doing that is outweighed by the perception that she is a loser.
And if Feb. is a bad month, some donors are going to have buyer's remorse. Her announcing of her $5 million loan was retroactive in that the loan happened in Jan. So clearly it was a ploy to gain sympathy with her supporters. But how often can she pull that trick? Will she put in another five? And will another $10 million be pouring in through cyberspace in four days?

I saw Hillery on the evening news being so dismissive about the Caucus results. She must have a tin political ear. Even the people who came to the caucuses to support her must feel abused by her statements. Hillary went into those states, starting in Iowa, and yesterday in Maine, and fought like hell to try and win them, and then she turns around and claims that they are meaningless. If she said that about my state, I would never vote for her again.

She is so caught up in her own spin machine that she has lost all contact with the big picture. That is why she keeps trying to win the caucuses and then claiming after she loses, that they are not worth anything. It also shows up in how she double dealt the Florida and Michigan events. She agreed to not compete in them, and then start demanding that she be allowed to have the delegates.

I always wondered why she stayed with such a truth shifter as Bill, but now I realize they are well matched, because when it comes to distortions and truth pretzeling, Hillary is the equal of Bill.

user-pic

First Hillary said that she lost because Obama spent more money on advertising. Well whose fault was THAT? Now she's claiming that she lost because the caucuses favor "activists". Activists. Let's see... these are people who are actively enthusiastic about the candidate they support, right? Isn't that the general idea in an election?

Hillary is totally losing. She knows it. She's making lame excuses for her poor performance when she should simply be bowing out gracefully.

Obama, as president, will put forth his health care plan and Hillary will fight for it in the Senate. They will be a great team. Hillary as the replacement for Harry Reid and Barack as president.

user-pic

I dunno. No one has perfected the art of playing the victim as well as Hillary and Bill Clinton.

user-pic

I dunno. Hillary went to D.C. today and offered them delicious pie in the sky, in the form of letting them vote. Maybe they'll fall for it. Or maybe not...

Yeah, that struck me as not just pandering, but truly absurd pandering.

Here's the thing: Getting Congressional representation for DC blatantly violates the Constitution. As such, it would require a Constitutional Amendment.

And the President has absolutely nothing to do with Constitutional Amendments.

They are the purview of Congress and the states.

If Clinton truly wants this, then she should use her position as a United States Senator to make it happen.

Hopefully, she'll do so when, in early 2009, she wakes up and finds that she is still a United States Senator.

I'm just curious, has she ever taken up the issue of DC representation in the Congress during her years in the Senate?

This is the best analysis I've seen of what to expect in the upcoming states (I hope this works):

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/9/13227/22519/239/453361

Unfortunately he hasn't done Texas/Ohio yet.

Don't you think that Bush and McCain will cook up some kind of terror alert a couple weeks before the November election. So picking Jim Webb on the ticket, two rockies would be played up swift boating GOP (you know whats). Although Jim Webb having a strong backround in the armed forces will help, you know how the other side can twist anything to look the way they want. What would a Joe Biden sound like for VP, he would be able to help a young president with little foreign affair experience. I think Jim Webb will be tops on the list to run in 2012,or 2016 depending on what happens after 4 years, or 8 years.

I've seen this somewhere else, but what about Obama/Richardson? I don't know Webb, Richardson, like Obama, is careful, intelligent, and somewhat less naive than Edwards. Richardson also has solid foreign policy experience, and he's thrown his hat in the ring already, so he's already been thinking about the White House.

Also, Richardson is Latino, no? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the generals would this not help get the Latino vote on board? I don't like the purely political nature of the question, but this could enter into someone's thinking.

My first comment...

I hate getting ahead of myself and thinking about a VP, but I suppose that is why I roam all these blogs. I love the idea of Webb, but for the same reason he is an attractive candidate - I think running 2 senators isn't the best idea, especially when there is no guarantee that we will retain his seat. I want him on the stage speaking in Denver though.

I think Richardson matches very well - keeps NM in play - brings in the Latino vote, and balances Obama on all aspects of experience. He is the only candidate I know to have served in all parts of government. I also think that Sebelius from Kansas makes a strong choice. Puts Kansas as a reachable get, as the daughter of popular Ohio governor John J Gilligan, she can only help there, brings in a woman with "executive experience" who is the same age as Hillary and should not only help with the woman vote, but would be also not too old to run in 8 years.


I came across some interesting demographics for Virginia, which were done by the FieldSurvey outfit about 5 days ago.

[url]http://www.wtvr.com/global/story.asp?s=7843593

[/url]- it's 28% African-American;

- 56% are women, and Obama WINS them 55-44%. If that comes true, it is huge for Obama.

- Among whites, he draws even with Hillary 49-49%. If that happens it would be historical as well.

Those figures with women and overall white voters are understood if you look at the Age breakdown of this survey.

- It shows a whopping 26% of the electorate is 18-34, and 31% are 31% is 35-49. Among these two groups Obama is creaming Hillary 68-31% and 64-34%, respectively. That kind of turnout amongst young voters would be unprecedented.

You have to consider that this survey was done almost 5 days ago, before Hillary even got into the state. But the numbers are interesting nonetheless.

I heard on the radio this morning that this was an unusual opportunity for DC voters to have a voice in the electoral process, since the DC/MD/VA primaries actually mean something. It's a bummer to see us missing from the discussion above (adds insult to the injury of not having congressional representation).

Anyway, DC has 38 delegates; 23 of these are superdelegates. For the allocation of the remaining 15, the city is split in two halves for the presidential primary; the winner in wards 1-5 gets 5 delegates; the winner in wards 6-8 gets 5, and the winner overall gets the remaining 5.

It used to be that anyone who abused illegal drugs
would never even be considered for the Presidency
because the highest standards(no pun intended) should be required by anyone who would seek the
position of the President of the United States of
America. The lower the standards become, the more likely the incompetence. The standards were lowered for Bush, and see what happened? Lowered
standards for a pretty face, pretty speech,
pretty lame. Haven't we heard the "I'm a uniter
not a divider" pitch before?

Leave a comment

Recommended Reader Posts

  • Unwritten...
    by stillidealistic
  • BABIES, RACCOONS AND HEALTH CARE
    by dickday
  • Two Dreamers, by Dorothea Lange
    by Rutabaga Ridgepole
  • Tsunami Wave: Will Wipe Out Republican Party
    by coonsey
  • OBVIOUSLY, YOU AREN'T A HUNTER.....
    by wvbiker
  • The Stupack Amendment played politics with women's lives and won.
    by J. Clarence
  • wooden projects
    by kubaser
  • holly colorado
    by blumun
  • boxes generator
    by boluwel
  • short stories
    by lumacer



  • Resources

    The Palin Effect

    GOP Map Of Sleaze

    Tire Swinging

    The Final Debate

    World of Sleaze

    All About Sarah

    The Presidential Debates: Round 2

    The Vice-Presidential Debates: Biden v. Palin

    Critic or Cheerleader The Definitive McCain Iraq Timeline

    The John McCain John Hagee Timeline

    Masthead

    Editor-in-Chief
    Josh Marshall

    Reporter-Bloggers
    Elana Schor
    Eric Kleefeld



    Subscribe to this blog's feed.

    Advertise Liberally
    Share
    Close Social Web Email

    "To" Email Address

    Your Name

    Your Email Address