« It's Official: John And Elizabeth Edwards Will Not Endorse In Prez Race | Home | Clinton Only About 15 Super-Dels Ahead »

AP/Ipsos: Hillary Takes Seven-Point National Lead Over Obama, Both Beat McCain

While most polls have shown Barack Obama withstanding the latest Jeremiah Wright controversy, the new AP/Ipsos poll shows Hillary Clinton now taking a strong national lead.

The numbers, compared to last week's poll:

Clinton 47% (+4)
Obama 40% (-6)

Sample size: 514 Democrats and Democratic-leaners.
Margin of error: ± 4.3%

This poll still has some good news for Obama, though: He and Hillary Clinton are both defeating John McCain by similar margins, so Hillary won't be able to take an electability argument away from this:

Obama (D) 46% (+0)
McCain (R) 42% (-2)

Clinton (D) 47% (-3)
McCain (R) 42% (+1)

Sample size: 1,000 adults, weighted for region, age and gender.
Margin of error: ±3.1%


63 Comments

| Leave a comment

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Hillary actually lost ground against McCain while Obama gained.

Obama is toast.

Clinton was down by the same margin last week.
Was she toast then ?

exactly. he's a goner tomorrow.

here's to clinton and on to HER democratic nomination!

Your mother is a "goner" - he has the nomination locked up already.

How does it feel to see it all slipping away, goatlove?!

AP/Ipsos is a very old-school poll that bases its methodology largely on previous campaign's voting habits, so I'm not particularly concerned about these results... especially considering the sample size for a national poll, which is really almost shockingly low.

There's a reason why their second poll was more favorable to Obama than their first. Larger sampling size... and a smaller margin of error.

Why is this one against the other national tracking polls? Is there a problem in any of the polls' sampling?

gotalife,

If you do actually have a life, why do you spend such a significant portion of it trolling on this board? Just curious.

not to make you blow your fuse (don't want you to have to go get emergency reprogramming), but being pro-clinton isn't trolling.

so bugger off if you don't like it.

Gotalife is the definition of a troll. Never any substance, just the same Hillary talking points over and over again. Any time there is something with more substance, it's copied and pasted from somewhere else. And anyway, saying "Obama is toast" isnt pro-Clinton, it's anti-Obama.

So no, being a Hillary supporter is not being a troll. There are some Hillary supporters on the board I like, kensdad being one, as well as others.

National poll = absolutely meaningless

This poll includes a week's worth of data (4/30-5/4) so a lot of post-Wright voters in there. Anything before 5/3 is going to be unfavorable to Obama.

Welcome to Talking Points Clinton.

Clinton supporters unite to crush mcwar on this blog.

user-pic

(Plane pulls to a stop)
Dr. Rumack opens cockpit door: "I just want to tell you both: Good luck. We're all counting on you."

user-pic

That was, of course, a reply to Gotalife, above, who will still be telling us Obama's toast long after he wins the election in November.

Eric, your first line should say:

"Most polls show Obama doing well, but I managed to find one that doesn't, so I 'm going to write about it instead of all of the other ones."
user-pic

Oh, that was good! You missed some of us getting scolded this morning by Greg for complaining about his posts (well, the lack of Obama posts). It was an interesting discussion, to say the least! ;)

So were was the discussion?

user-pic

From an Obama supporter, give it a rest. Honestly.

Obama goes down 10 points against Clinton, while at the same time she loses 4 points against McCain, who to complete the circle loses 2 points to Obama. Rock, paper, scissors anyone?

I don't buy it.

I'm starting to believe the TPMec pro-Hillary bias theory. A late post on the eve of a primary on an outlier poll, but nothing on the anti-choicers robocalling for chaos? Nothing on Hillary's lies about Bill's income? Especially considering the fact that Magnequench has been a big story in the election, I think it would warrant coverage that the Clinton's have been hiding income from Chinese government owned corporations. Has this been properly "vetted"?

"Another Texas Democratic superdelegate has decided to endorse Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the party's presidential primary."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D90FO6EG0.html

Wasnt that announced two days ago ?

you're pathetic, this is Friday's news.

look around, you might find Clinton's half delegate of the day somewhere, before it becomes old news as well.

user-pic

It's funny. The larger sample in the head-to-head against BigMac show that Hillary is losing ground from previous polls. My guess is that the larger sample is more representative of the population compared to the smaller population of Dem-only or Dem-leaning voters.

my bum bum hurts.

Did John McCain really call his wife a "cunt" in public.

I just heard about this today.

It could not possibly be true or the main stream news media would have saturation coverage wouldn't they.

But then again they do not cover Hagee.

Does anyone have any news on this breaking story?

Huhhhuhh... this thread rocks...

Three reporters confirm this story but required anonimity, but he did supposedly call her a trollop and followed that with "you cunt". Understand that the McCain's have enormous influence with the Arizona Republic Newspaper and I think the reporters were from Arizona, so I suspect careers were worried over. This was said as she was teasing him about his balding head. Also, no, I suspect the media will never say squat about McCain. Now, if this were reported in the same fashion about Obama, it would be headline news for weeks, anonymous reporters or not. Very double standard.

a) not to be a prude, but can you at least asterisk out a couple of letters from the word? It is pretty offensive.

b) that said, yes he did. It has been corroborated. Nice guy huh? No he doesn't have a temper problem...

You know, you are totally right, it is SO offensive. And we should asterisk the word, and yet, the MSM is silent.

user-pic

I just had a great idea for Hillary's campaign song: Road to Nowhere by the Talking Heads.

I still think that "Wiskey Girl" would not be all that bad...maybe we could get Bill to sing a version.

OUT-LI-ER.

Pig out.

You mean OUT LIE R...

Otherwise nailed it, as Big Brown puts down the hammer that went right past AP-Ipsos.

hillary clinton against mccain good...strong and figther..NOT B.O..B.O CANT DO ANYTHING ..ALL HE DID JUST EAT... USE PEOPLE money to eat... not his own money

Try a little civility. Pretty ugly world these days without this kind of shite.

I don't know. Maybe we should investigate BO's tendency to "USE PEOPLE money to eat." As I understand it, gas prices would be lower if he would stop "JUST EAT."

I'm not even sure what this post is trying to say.

HILLMENTUM™?

user-pic

Fire.........BAD!!!!!!!!!!

Obama eat. Hillary eat. Obama tell truth. Hillary lie. Hillary make world go boom boom. Hillary bad. Obama like soup. Soup good.

Wow, Obama is spending a mint. I live in Chicago and he had his 2 minute IN message on at least 3 times on ABC tonight, once on the evening news and twice during the late news. He also is showing several of his other commercials. I haven't been watching network programming much lately so I don't know if this is typical or just today. Either way, it is an expensive market. Glad to see my $ going to work.
BTW - Obama needs 4,000 more new donors to make the 1.5Million mark. If you haven't donated, go make a $5 contribution and join the movement.

I realize that this is a little off thread, but in thinking a bit more about Hillary's "obliterate Iran" comments...I wonder if she has considered this...if we nuke Iran, just how many years will it take to get at their then-glowing oil? If we think $120 a barrel for oil is high, can you imagine what it would be then? Don't they ever think before spouting off on these idiotic proposals? (No offense intended to Idiotic)

Okay, so maybe the last comment above should have been, (NO OFFENSE INTENDED TO IDOTIC!!!)

Take two...make it 'IDIOTIC." I think I am catching my students' spelling-challenged status. Too many papers in one day... ;-/

Okee,

I didn't mean to suggest that being Pro-Clinton defines a poster as a troll. That said, the quality of Gotalife's standard arguements are astonishingly weak. If you can't bring anything else to the game but schoolyard trash talk, you are a troll.

Have a nice evening.

Last Zogby polls are up.

Obama pulls ahead in NC 51-37. This is a 6 pt swing from yesterday, meaning Obama had a really good polling day today. IN he is still up 45-43. According to Zogby this includes a boffo 47-41% Monday.

It looks like late breakers are breaking for Obama.

As long as Obama wins NC, the reality is it doesn't much matter what else happens. BUT, I would love it if both NC& IN both reject her ridiculous gas-tax garbage. It will restore a lot of my faith in my fellow Americans.

Obama supporters: If this poll is accurate, this is terrific news. Who cares what the national polls say re HRC vs. Obama? Obama's effectively got the nomination. Issue is how he will do against McCain. And even if Dem nomination were not settled, this poll undercuts HRC's only argument - that Obama is unelectable.

I'm no pollster, but I noticed a perhaps interesting thing when comparing this poll with their previous one.

1) The poll a week ago (Obama +3) contained 46% dems (or lean dems) and 35% repubs (or lean repubs). 21% were liberal or somewhat liberal, 41% were conservative or somewhat conservative.

2) The poll today (Clinton +7) contained 51% dems (or lean dems) and 32% repubs (or lean repubs). 21% again liberal, but 44% conservative.

So not only did they poll a larger sample of conservatives this week (+3), but they also expanded the % of the total sample that they included in the Clinton-Obama matchup (+5). Looks to me like the poll is less about what actual Dems think, and more about conservative voters (who perhaps like Clinton--maybe gas tax effect?) starting to identify as Dems. Such an effect might be interesting when looking toward the general election, but probably not so much when assessing what actual Dems think of their two candidates (51% of the country are certainly not Dems, yet--or probably ever). You could figure more of this out with the actual crosstabs, to see what the "true" Dems who vote stated as their primary preference.

So many bright people at TPM are spoiled by those bad apples who seem to feel a weird need to find blame in everything Hillary does. If you serious about Obama, please stop it.

I sincerely want reasons to support Obama but rarely find it here. I shake my head, thinking there's no there there.

I think I could do a better job than many of you--and I voted for Hillary. How about this: Obama advocates diplomacy in an unprecedented way. We must give up our proclivity to make war or we will never have time or space to deal with our relationship with the planet or with the other inhabitants.Obama has said it clearly that he WILL talk with nations that with whom with disagree. No other candidates will. That is the difference that matters. We must cut defense spending and we must redirect our priorities...

But NO. With many here it's just I hate Hillary, she ought to die. And the trip about Wright, many of you thought he was great at first, but turned when he spoke candidly in a forum that wasn't the church. BUT He was RIGHT about most things, and was certainly entitled to speak wherever he wished. I have seen so few Obama supporters, who ought to know better, encourage their candidate to do better. For myself, I have written on many blogs and directly to Hillary's campaign when I thought she was in error. I think Obama is better on foreign policy and have told her staff and on many blogs the same thing. So why can't you say that Hillary is better on health care. Why can't you say to Obama, we support you, but if you really want it, you have to move left on Health care. Let's all quit the crap and move the country left.

But if you respond with more anti-troll crap--something I'm not--you will force me to think that Baudrillard was right about you, at least.

I know that being so beaten down by the Republicans that we all feel like exiles in our own land. We thirst for home: but as Aeschylus warns in his Orestia:

Exiles feel on empty dreams of hope. Believe me, I should know.

I'm not slamming you as a troll but one thing I would say is the relentless and superior lecturing of Obama supporters is tiring. We are actually adults (I'm 39, a lawyer, a white woman). For one thing, the starting point seems always to be that there is no such thing as good faith support of Obama -- every vote for Obama is taken as simply a childish and vindicative vote against Hillary. To the extent that people concede that someone might actually support Obama, it's the messiah meme or the "empty hope" jab you use.

I think I get what he's talking about and I don't think it's empty. I also do not think he's Christ. I think he can be a president like FDR or Reagan who used the bludgeon of tremendous popular support to take smart actions that get us past the ridiculous red/blue, right/left divide that serves only pols and the party apparatus. It's not a matter of "let's all get along." He's saying that most people in this country want roughly the same things from government (70% support both healthcare and getting out of Iraq). A president who can harness popular support can go to Congress and have real power. The lovely thing about it to me is that it requires that he maintain trust with people because he has to maintain support. He can't rely, as Bush did for so long and, frankly as Bill Clinton did, on getting protection from their "team" based just on the D or R label. He's got to sell us on what he's offering or his whole plan falls apart. That's why he says people need to stay engaged and to pay attention -- because, as it should be, we're the check.

Last point, for me, this isn't about moving the country to the left. (Not to offend but to me, that sounds so hollow.) I want good, honest, smart, responsive government. If you are going to require a left litmus test, I'm thinking O will never be your choice because, like you've seen, I don't think it's really what he's about.

a few typos--so
with special apologies to Aeschylus
the last should read:

Exiles Feed on empty dreams of hope.

So many bright people at TPM are spoiled by those bad apples who seem to feel a weird need to find blame in everything Hillary does. If you're serious about Obama, please stop it.

I sincerely want reasons to support Obama but rarely find it here. I shake my head, thinking there's no there there.

I think I could do a better job than many of you--and I voted for Hillary. How about this: Obama advocates diplomacy in an unprecedented way. We must give up our proclivity to make war or we will never have time or space to deal with our relationship with the planet or with the other inhabitants.Obama has said it clearly that he WILL talk with nations with whom we disagree. No other candidates will. That is the difference that matters. We must cut defense spending and we must redirect our priorities...

But NO. With many here it's just I hate Hillary, she ought to die. And the trip about Wright, many of you thought he was great at first, but turned when he spoke candidly in a forum that wasn't the church. BUT He was RIGHT about most things, and was certainly entitled to speak wherever he wished. I have seen so few Obama supporters, who ought to know better, encourage their candidate to do better. For myself, I have written on many blogs and directly to Hillary's campaign when I thought she was in error. I think Obama is better on foreign policy and have told her staff and on many blogs the same thing. So why can't you say that Hillary is better on health care. Why can't you say to Obama, we support you, but if you really want it, you have to move left on Health care. Let's all quit the crap and move the country left.

But if you respond with more anti-troll crap--something I'm not--you will force me to think that Baudrillard was right about you, at least.

I know that being so beaten down by the Republicans that we all feel like exiles in our own land. We thirst for home: but as Aeschylus warns in his Orestia:

Exiles feed on empty dreams of hope. Believe me, I should know.

A more appropriate headline might be:

"Yet another poll shows Senators Obama and Clinton tied within margin of error nationally."

A good sub-head might be:

"Not that national polls matter, since votes occur state by state, and most states have already voted."

user-pic

a few modest facts:

user-pic

a few modest facts:

some of you fools blather on about Tuskegee. Well, let me set you straight. 400 guys. sixty some years ago. who were not likely to receive effective treatment anyway. so what the fuck is the big deal? Compared to the Holocaust, the famine/genocide in Ukraine, mass murder in Cambodia, etc etc etc, African-Americans have not suffered much at all, certainly not a tenth as you might think based on their whining. And to twist the facts of Tuskegee into some hysterical "basis"for asserting the Maerican government invents diseases to kill black people is just repugnant. Repugnant.

a few more modest facts:

You are a racist douchebag, trolling in comment sections with incoherent screeds that would make David Duke proud - you are so pathetically scared and threatened by an impending Obama presidency, that you have been reduced to spewing ham-fistedly clumsy racial flame stoking. You are a prime example why siblings should never marry - a proverbial geriatric pair of boobs that probably masturbates to Mein Kampf or a Sean Hannity broadcast. Ludmila, the comment section laughing stick.

"laughing stock"

user-pic

I have never been asked in a poll so decided to participate in Larry Kings poll last night.
Here are the results :

Obama 71% 17365
Clinton 29% 7048
Total Votes: 24413

This is not a scientific poll

I hope this is a good sign ! :)

Bonnie

FYI - the AP/IPSOS poll sampled 1,000 "adults," rather than likely voters or even registered voters. Polls of adults are notoriously inaccurate because of the significant difference between the preferences expressed by all adults and those expressed by the sub-set of adults that actually show up at the voting booth and cast a ballot. I realize political junkies are always hungry for more information, but polls of adults shed essentially no light on the horserace. In fact, since the adult population at large tends to skew more democratic than the voting population, relying on these polls can lead to heartbreak down the road.

dear cororal greg and eric cleefelt, keep up the good work. your goddess will repay your efforts with insults shortly. ask your cohort paul krugman.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address