Rasmussen has new surveys out in Missouri and Georgia, two states that have been somewhat underpolled.
In Missouri, John McCain leads Barack Obama by 6 points and Hillary Clinton by 2. These numbers are actually an improvement for both Democrats from Rasmussen's previous poll of the state. Nevertheless, Missouri certainly looks to us like a stronger state for Barack Obama than for Hillary Clinton Hillary Clinton than for Barack Obama, as there are enough of those Appalachian voters in the Southeast portion of the state to take a couple of points off Barack Obama's margin. What's interesting is that you won't hear the Clinton campaign talk much about Missouri, because it somewhat defies the connection between performance in the general election and in the primaries. That is, by trumpeting their superior polling in Missouri, the Clinton campaign would open up the door for Obama to point out that he's polled stronger in states like Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico, in spite of losing (or not competing in) those primaries.
In Georgia, John McCain leads Obama by 14 points and Clinton by 11. Our regression model insists that Barack Obama should be able to do somewhat better than this in Georgia. It's a very young state, and it has higher education levels and more of a white professional class than other states in its region. But so far, those results have not shown up in the polling.
Also, in Texas, a Research 2000 poll conducted on behalf of Daily Kos has John McCain leading Barack Obama by 13 and Hillary Clinton by 15. Overall, it's not a particularly good polling day for the Democrats in the Southern states.
Finally, I'd like to thank Mark Blumenthal of the National Journal and Pollster.com and Meteor Blades at Daily Kos for their kind words today.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Today's Polls, 5/8
-- Nate at 6:32 PM
Labels: georgia, missouri, texas, today's polls
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments
What's interesting is that you won't hear the Clinton campaign talk much about Missouri, because it somewhat defies the connection between performance in the general election and in the primaries. That is, by trumpeting their superior polling in Missouri, the Clinton campaign would open up the door for Obama to point out that he's polled stronger in states like Michigan, Nevada and New Mexico, in spite of losing (or not competing in) those primaries.
I went down your list and noticed three other states (besides MO) where Clinton does better than Obama in a state Obama won: AL, LA, MS
I also noticed nine states where Obama does better than Clinton in a state Clinton won: AZ, CA, IN, MI, NH, NJ, NM, NV, TX
No wonder Clinton doesn't want to bring up the Missouri argument!
You did a great job predicting NC.
Missouri has gone with every winner since 1960 and I don't see how Obama would carry it against McCain.
So how do we nominate poblano for a Pulitzer? ;)
So Obama is trending downward slightly. Yes, McCain with his silly health care plan is really a strong candidate still.
An interesting divergence between Rasmussen and Research 2000. They show nearly identical numbers for the Senate race (Cornyn up by four), but are divergent on the presidential race. Maybe something to look at. Is the Latino vote the difference in the results?
That tool Dick Bennet of ARG is again dedicating a bunch of space on ARG's web site dissing FiveThirtyEight.com. Once again ignoring the fact that Poblano's predictions were much closer to ARG's with regards to the margins. This is literally the first thing one sees on americanresearchgroup.com. What is his problem?
Obviously I meant to say "Poblano's predictions were much closer THAN ARG's"
Obama will get more than Rasmussen's predicted 39% of the vote in the general election in Georgia.
McCain ran very softly in the primary here -- there was basically a three-way split between McCain, Romney and Huckabee. The fiscal conservatives have doubts about McCain, and so do the evangelicals.
In the primary voting in Georgia, btw, Obama got 704,247 votes, Clnton got 330,026, Huckabee 326,874, McCain 304,751, and Romney 290,707. So Obama got about 35% of the total primary vote.
Also, in 2004, African Americans made up 25% of the voters in the general election in Georgia (with almost 90% voting for Kerry). It would seem a very very fair guess that the total number of black voters would be closer to 30% with Obama as the nominee. Obama would likely get more than 90% of that vote. That's 27% of the total vote in the state right there. Of the remaining 73%, Obama would likely get at least 25%. That puts him close to 45%.
A slightly higher black turnout, or a slightly better than expected performance among whites and/or Latinos, and Georgia is suddenly very competitive.
The wild card is Bob Barr, a Georgia native. If he is in the race and drains any votes from McCain at all, then Georgia could truly be a tossup.
Do you think that Rev. Wright pull his numbers down or anything?
Hey Poblano,
I'm curious as to whether Clinton really does better among "hard-working" Americans. I was under the impression that Obama outperforms among those with jobs, and Clinton's base consists of retirees. Is this consistent with your analysis?
I live in Georgia. The turnout for the primaries was the highest ever. People here will not vote for an inexperienced candidate who is considered to have the highest liberal voting record in the country. Georgians are conservative on economics,national defense and social issues. Georgians won't vote for McCain but they'll be motivated to vote against Obama. Obama doesn't have a chance.
Post a Comment