« McCain Lobbyist May Release Her Own Statement Today | Home | Gallup: Hillary Up By One Point Nationally Over Obama »
SurveyUSA: Obama Runs Stronger Than Hillary Against McCain — In New York!
A new SurveyUSA poll should provide some more ammo for Barack Obama's argument that he's the more electable Democrat — he runs better against John McCain than Hillary Clinton does in her home state of New York:
Clinton (D) 52%, McCain (R) 41%
Obama (D) 57%, McCain (R) 36%
Both would win the state, but it doesn't help Hillary's reputation at all. It would appear that a net 5% of New Yorkers would vote for Obama over McCain, but would choose McCain over Hillary, their own junior senator.
Advertisement
Well, in one sense I am sure that this does not help Sen Clinton, but it seems to me that in a much more important sense it does not help Survey USA. I just find these results so enormously implausible that, while I am usually only too happy to point to head-to-head match-up polls as evidence in Obama's favor, I just do not find this one plausible enough to count it as a datum in my argument.
February 21, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Barack-ofeller Republicans
NY, like many NorthEastern states, still has a lot of liberal Republicans, and Independents who are fiscal conservatives but social progressives (or libertarians).
Hillary and Bill don't really appeal to these voters, especially the men. But I can definately see Barack getting a chunk of them that would be voting for McCain if the choice was Hillary. A chunk that could addup to 5% to of the electorate.
One of them is my own brother, who think Hillary is the epitomy of a 'big government' Democrat, and would rather see McCain than her - but who is currently supporting Obama.
February 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, this poll does not surprise me at all. Don't think of it as reflecting support for Clinton--think of it as reflecting support for McCain. The New York polls suggest high support for Hillary among democrats, but these figures key into the question of independents and moderate republicans. (They still exist, even in New York.) Very few independents who are inclined to vote for "Maverick McCain" would ever consider supporting Hillary. But they do consider supporting Obama. This tends to be true everywhere. I don't see why New York would be any different.
February 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given the Electoral College, along with the fact that NY is pretty much in the bag for both of them or any any other democrat, what's the point?
(btw, I'm an Obama supporter)
February 21, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
A worthy point, that. It is no trick to pick a nominee who can carry NY for us. The important point is to find one who can help us carry MO or CO or OH or PA or NM (etc).
February 21, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, why not focus on some *Other* races? There are going to be a lot of races this year, not just the presidency, and a lot of the news coming out these days about the primaries is pretty dull.
For example Lawrence Lessig has started an exploratory committee to run for congress.
February 21, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
People say there are government waste. Now you have a case of complete waste of money in the private sector. Can the damn money better spent else where than probing NY vote preference at thsi stage? If New York goes for McCain, is there any real hope for a Democrat to win the presidency? Who cares by how much each one wins New York? As long as he or she wins, this is winner take all for college electrol vote. The margin does not matter!!!
February 21, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the point is that the Clintons and their supporters have been arguing that because Obama didn't win "the big states" on Super Tuesday--like New York--he's not going to win them in the general. This has always been pretty stupid, but its nice to have evidence that refutes it.
And Survey USA has been one of the most accurate (as much as that says.)
February 21, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by anneeliz----well stated.
I cannot nail down an answer to this---while we are talking about polling and the waste in the private sector. My letter to Rasmussen gets no response---why are people being polled, who have already voted---unless they are not? Here is what i wrote.
When we check the daily tracking poll regarding the democratic presidential race, (today it says 46 for obama, and 41 for Hillary)---what does "Likely Democratic Primary Voters" mean?
Are you measuring Likely Democratic Primary Voters in the states which have not yet voted, or are you measuring Likely Democratic Primary Voters (including the dead certain voters who have already voted) in all 50 states?
I have asked 5 other people who follow your polls on a regular basis, and none of them know the answer.
February 21, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only valid point that I can think of making on what these NY Poll result reflect is:
This is another voter sampling piece of evidence that show that the National tipping point in Obama's favor has been reached.
The voters have made up their minds that they want Obama, and not Hillery, and New York voters are reflecting that sense of nation wide voters reaching a consenus.
February 21, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget that Obama votes were mysteriously disenfranchised in the NY primary.
February 21, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pollster's aggregates show Obama's lead widening:
http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
February 21, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls change daily. If you have time, screw the page up to the top left and find out the new Gallop figure. Would you please?
February 21, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care so much about individual polls, but I find these comprehensive aggregations compelling because they show the trend. And the trend, in Obama's case, is hockey stick. And in Hillary's case, the flat pond of ice he's skating over.
February 21, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
To echo del moi, an important issue that gets ignored in much of the discussion, especially by Mark Penn and his ilk, are the effects of the two candidates on the down-ticket races. What is the relative effect in blue, red and purple states of an Obama vs. Clinton candidacy? I do not have the answer, but would suspect that, especially in purple states, an enthused reponse to Obama vs. a luke-warm one to Clinton may net some Congressional seats.
February 21, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paraprof, Booman has an excellent post about this:
http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/2/18/162110/218
February 21, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eric Kleefeld says: It would appear that a net 5% of New Yorkers would vote for Obama over McCain, but would choose McCain over Hillary, their own junior senator.
How do you figure that NYers would vote for McCain over Clinton? The numbers are Clinton 52% to McCain 41%. Am I misreading something or did you mistype something, Eric?
But anyway, if Hillary wins the Dem nomination, there is absolutely no way New York will vote for McCain over her. Nope. Sorry. No way.
Bloomberg, maybe. McCain? Never.
February 21, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are misreading. Mr Kleefeld did not claim that NY as a whole would elect McCain over Clinton. He wrote that there exists 5% of New Yorkers who would choose Obama over McCain, but McCain over Clinton. That is what the polls says. 57% would vote for Obama over McCain while 52% would vote for Clinton over McCain, and 57-52=5.
Mind you, I still find the poll results too implausible to credit, but no one can dispute that Mr Kleefeld's description of the results (at least in the portion that you quoted) is accurate as far as it goes.
February 21, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Er, that is what the poll says, not "that is what the polls says." Sorry about that.
February 21, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be misreading, but I think Kleefeld is intentionally misleading.
Yes, there's lots of support for Obama in NY, especially in NYC, just as there was support for Nader in 2000. But New Yorkers learned their bitter lesson in 2000, and if the chips ultimately fell to Hillary instead of Barack for the nomination in '08, NYers would enthusiastically voter for her. No matter who the Dem nominee is, NYC will carry the state. And whatever disgruntled Republicans exist in NY State know they will be buried in a Democratic landslide in November.
I'm assuming Kleefeld lives in NYC and knows all this. He's just throwing you guys a ridiculous bone.
And, btw, DirkVA, no one cares what the conservative Financial Times has to say.
February 21, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
ET TU, FINCANCIAL TIMES?
____________________
CLINTON MUST STEP ASIDE TODAY TO WIN TOMORROW
By Stephen Graubard Published: February 21 2008 02:00 | Last updated: February 21 2008 02:00
The time has come for Hillary Clinton to make a historic announcement, certain to dismay her friends and confound her enemies, demonstrating her undeniable strengths - intelligence, ambition and resolve. Following on her massive Wisconsin primary defeat, she ought to surprise the nation and the world by announcing her decision not to contest Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania, accepting Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee in opposition to John McCain.
Though she has been intermittently hostile in her comments on Mr Obama, it should be possible for her to say that she will do whatever she can to prevent a Republican victory in November. She needs to represent her withdrawal not as a personal sacrifice, but as a refusal to play the Republican game that could lead to a McCain victory and the elevation of justices to the US Supreme Court hostile to her most cherished values. The time has come to say that Republican rule, as exemplified by the Bush administration and McCain pledges, offer prospects too dangerous to contemplate.
This article can be found at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d7f13506-e03c-11dc-b0d7-0000779fd2ac,noOfParas=2,emailFormat=plainText,storyType=ultralight,dwp_uuid=ebe33f66-57aa-11dc-8c65-0000779fd2ac,print=no,_i_email=y.html
February 21, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time, in other words, to do a Mitt Romney? Maybe, maybe not. It is an open question to my mind whether she would help or hurt her chances at a future run if she dropped out before exhausting every option for victory in the nomination race.
February 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Greg. I don't think she should drop out before O and T--if that's the firewall, that's the firewall. I do think she should run a very classy, issues-based campaign that shows people why they are wrong about her, rather than the one she is planning which will show them they are right. I don't think she's going to win this thing by making herself into an assassin, nor is she going to help herself in the future.
Strangely, though, the campaign does not care what I think.
February 21, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just posted this over at my site (http://www.ghostinthemachine.net) and in the Gallup thread, but since it includes the NY results above, here are the recent state polling numbers, collated:
In ten of fourteen states recently looked at by Rasmussen or Survey USA, Obama beats McCain while McCain beats (or, in one case, ties) Clinton:
Colorado: Obama beats McCain by 7 (46%-39%), McCain beats Clinton by 14 (49%-35%).
Iowa: Obama beats McCain by 10 (51%-41%), McCain beats Clinton by 11 (52%-41%).
Michigan: Obama beats McCain by 8 (47%-39%), McCain and Clinton are tied (44%).
Minnesota: Obama beats McCain by 15 (53%-38%), McCain beats Clinton by 5 (47%-42%).
Nevada: Obama beats McCain by 12 (50%-38%), McCain beats Clinton by 9 (49%-40%).
New Hampshire: Obama beats McCain by 13 (49%-36%), McCain beats Clinton by 2 (43%-41%).
Oregon: Obama beats McCain by 9 (49%-40%), McCain beats Clinton by 3 (45%-42%).
Pennsylvania: Obama beats McCain by 10 (49%-39%), McCain beats Clinton by 2 (44%-42%).
Virginia: Obama beats McCain by 6 (51%-45%), McCain beats Clinton by 3 (48%-45%).
Wisconsin: Obama beats McCain by 10 (52%-42%), McCain beats Clinton by 7 (49%-42%).
In total, that's a 100-electoral vote swing.
Of the other four states looked at:
Missouri (11 electoral votes) is a statistical tie. McCain beats Clinton by 1 (43%-42%), McCain beats Obama by 2 (42%-40%).
Kansas (6 electoral votes) is a McCain win, but is significantly closer if Obama is the nominee. (McCain beats Obama by 6 (50%-44%), McCain beats Clinton by 24 (59%-34%).
New York (31 electoral votes) is a Dem win, but by significantly more if Obama is the nominee. Obama beats McCain by 21 (57%-36%), Clinton beats McCain by 11 (52%-41%).
And Florida (27 electoral votes) is a McCain win, and the only examined state thus far where Clinton outpolls Obama by a significant margin. (McCain beats Clinton by 6 (49%-43%), McCain beats Obama by 16% (53%-37%). This seems partly due to fallout from the delegate fiasco (only 55% of Dems say they'll vote for Obama in the general), and -- like all of them, of course -- is likely to change significantly closer to the election.
February 21, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink