Polls, Polls, Polls

CALIFORNIA (Field Poll)

Clinton: 36%
Obama: 34%

McClatchy-MSNBC state polls:

ARIZONA:
Clinton 43%
Obama: 41%

CALIFORNIA
Clinton: 47%
Obama: 43%

GEORGIA
Obama: 47%
Clinton: 41%

MISSOURI
Clinton: 47%
Obama: 43%

NEW JERSEY
Clinton 46%
Obama 39%

Zogby/Reuters: Clinton +1 in New Jersey, Georgia: Obama + 20, Missouri: Clinton +1, California: Obama: +4

ABC News / Wash Post national:

Clinton: 47%
Obama: 43%

Edwards supporters dividing evenly....Obama leads 2 to 1 among African Americans...he's up among men, independents and the very liberal.

Comments

Gallup/USAT NATIONWIDE:

Clinton 45%
Obama 44%

Posted by Yiannis | February 3, 2008 1:32 PM

And Gallup tracking, is now 46/44 C/O (which had a 7pt difference yesterday).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104110/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

Posted by evie | February 3, 2008 2:05 PM

Rasmussen just posted another California poll with Barack Obama leading Clinton, 45% to 44%.

Posted by Melanie | February 3, 2008 2:05 PM

And about those national polls ... Remember that they include the half of the country where Obama hasn't turned on his campaign.

It's very reasonable to think that a 5% Clinton national lead overstates her lead in Super Tuesday states.

Posted by Melanie | February 3, 2008 2:11 PM

Consider that polls are snapshots of yesterday's voting behavior. Obama is surging with two days to go. This is amazing.

Posted by Elinor | February 3, 2008 2:13 PM

Will California be the deciding factor on Tuesday? Amazing how those numbers have narrowed in the past week. Sign of Obama mojo?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 3, 2008 2:21 PM

In the McClatchy-MSNBC state polls it's Clinton 45 Obama 36 not 47-43 that you have written. But two problems with the polls for or against Clinton or Obama in California: It's not clear whether they have taken the mailed-in votes or early votes into account. Second, with a large percentage of the undecided, it's impossible to rely on polls. You may not even have the results in before Wedenesday morning as 700,000 more Democrats than 2004 have registered this time around or that's at least what the Secretary of State says now.

Posted by Josh | February 3, 2008 2:28 PM

Yes, we can.

Posted by Bill | February 3, 2008 2:32 PM

Push your leaners, field poll! Geez!!!

Posted by Paul | February 3, 2008 2:52 PM

When the votes are counted it won't be that close. You watch. I won't complain about polls since what they have done so far is to overrate Obama consistently, so the Clinton wins seem even more impressive as a result. That trend will continue February 5.

Posted by robert ethan | February 3, 2008 2:59 PM

Campaign Diaries has just completed a state-by-state look at Romney's viability post-Tuesday. His chances are very slim, but he could survive if he does well in Missouri, California and Georgia.

Posted by Daniel, NY | February 3, 2008 3:01 PM

Obama is pretty firmly entrenched as "the Black Candidate" at this point. That and the "Retro 60s Candidate".

It is laughable that the Obama campaign disses Clinton for "wanting to take the country back into the 90s" when their own platform lately has been dedicated to taking it back into the 60s. MLK, JFK, "smoking a few joints, a little blow when you can afford it..".

Crack was even resurrecting some Malcolm X phrases recently, and the Grateful Dead have reunited on his behalf. Maybe Obama wants to turn the clock back to 1963 to convince his "Dream Father" not to abandon the family and find a new American wife to eventually take back to Africa to share living accomodations with the family he created there before even coming to the U.S.

I can't think of any other good reason, can you?

Posted by robert ethan | February 3, 2008 3:08 PM

"I won't complain about polls since what they have done so far is to overrate Obama consistently, so the Clinton wins seem even more impressive as a result. That trend will continue February 5."

This is incorrect.

Obama actually outperformed his poll numbers in S.C. by a greater margin than Clinton did in her much more fabled N.H. win. Obama also outperformed his poll numbers in Iowa. Clinton has outperformed only in N.H.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 3, 2008 3:21 PM

The polls have overrated Obama consistently? You mean, like in South Carolina, where they showed Hillary closing to a couple of points in the final days ... before losing by 30?

As Atrios might say, "Smarter trolls, please."

Posted by Fred App | February 3, 2008 3:56 PM

A commenter above wondered whether and to what extent the "early or already voted" California votes have been factored into the recent California polls. I would like to know as well? Anybody? Also: I've been searching for some info about the percentages of women and men voters assumed by the various pollsters. Especially interesting would be the percentages assumed by Gallup, Rasmussen, and Pew. (From another blog, I discovered that the Washington Post assumed a breakdown of 52% female to 48% male in the national poll released today. And, yet, the Democratic primaries already held have shown the female percentage per state at 56% or 57% or even 58%.) Does anyone have any further information etc.? christinep

Posted by christinep | February 3, 2008 4:48 PM

Where is Dan Rather when you need him to say something like, "This race is tighter than a tick."

Posted by RaymondA | February 3, 2008 4:51 PM

No, no, no ... "Squeezed tighter than a tick in a gerbil's armpit."

Ya gotta get with it and go for the full on Rather.

Posted by Dirk | February 3, 2008 5:10 PM

Latest Rasmussen tracker has Hillary with 49% nationally, and an 11 point lead. That is about as well as she has done since Rasmussen started tracking over a year ago.

As the French say, "Plus ce changer, c'est plus la meme chose.".

Posted by robert ethan | February 3, 2008 5:16 PM

Crack was even resurrecting some Malcolm X phrases recently

Did you just call Obama "Crack"?

Posted by Tractarian | February 3, 2008 9:05 PM

That's "plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose." And I'm not sure how accurately that little epigram applies to this race. Only time will tell.

Anyway, the latest CBS/New York Times poll:
Clinton: 41%
Obama: 41%

Posted by Abby | February 3, 2008 9:58 PM

Wow the troll robert ethan really makes the rounds on the internet. At least change your name between sites so people think there is more than one ignorant, racist, lying bigot out there.

Posted by dave | February 3, 2008 11:59 PM

I certainly am not taking anything for granted here. There's too much early voting going on for too long a time, the polls have been cockeyed all year.

Just keep talking to friends, neighbors and assume that the Clintons still hold their 30 point lead nationally until you actually see it with your own eyes.

Setting expectations at impossible levels is not a good thing. Go out and work for it, as the Obamas like to say.

Vote hope, not fear. Bring 5 people along with you.

Posted by G Davis | February 4, 2008 1:02 AM

Dearest Robert Ethan & Chris Ford,

Sometimes I can't tell whether you guys are sincerely part of the anti-Obama camp, or if you're just providing a caricature of them. Your cynicism and bitterness are so rabid and frothy-at-the-mouth that it’s really difficult to take you guys seriously. Aside from that, I have to hand it the both of you: your shrewd Wikipedia-esque sociological and psychoanalytic insights are deafeningly stupid and helpfully entertaining – cheers.

And thank you.

Every so often through this primary, I question whether I’m following Obama too blindly, being too wrapped up in the wave, drinkin’ too much of that kool-aid (yes, Robert Ethan, that’s a very strongly laced-with-crack kool-aid). The most comforting thing in the world, when I’m dealing with such questions of doubt, is to see a bunch of steamy-headed losers like yourselves (that’s Robert Ethan & Chris Ford, just to be clear) on the other side of the table.

Matter of fact, I’m betting that you guys are closet Obama fanatics, and you’re just putting up the most absurd, repulsive, racially regressive, analytically embarrassing, and just laughable face on Why Not To Vote Obama. Good job guys, you’d have won me over if I wasn’t already committed. Keep up the good work.

Posted by aeli | February 4, 2008 11:21 AM

Chirs & Ethan, this might interest you:

The Obama camp has leaked some information that supports your Big Happy Negro Will Make It All Better and liberal guilt idea, and it’s big news. If Obama wins the Dem primary, deep-pocketed Obama financiers will apparently fund a substantial and costly program that they’re calling “Hey Guilty Cracka, How ‘Bout Some Culuh?”. Through this program, all white folk, after they have demonstrated the requisite feelings of guilt and ethnic whiteness, will be able to stop by their local dermatologist for a permanent skin pigment changing operation. Yes, you heard it here first: white people will be able to do away with their inner feelings of guilt by becoming black once and for all.

According to senior sources in the Obama campaign who spoke on condition of anonymity, the underlying impetus for “Hey Guilty Cracka, How ‘Bout Some Culuh?” is actually related to what will be Barack Obama’s first legislative initiative after securing the White House: Obama’s already popular “Puff Puff Pass: Yes We Can” program. Through this creative and unique vision, Americans will be encouraged to gather with their fellow countrymen every Sunday morning and, as they said back in the good old days, smoke some o’ dat reefer. Hey Guilty Cracka How ‘Bout Some Culuh and Puff Puff Pass: Yes We Can will work together to solve the epidemic of white guilt that has struck the nation in recent years.

Transforming mere social recreation into meaningful civic duty, Americans will be required to gather in groups of between 5 and 8 people, sit in a large circle, preferably in a natural park, and pass around joints (puff, puff, then pass, please) as they repeat the mantra ‘Yes We Can’. Obama’s policy advisors have been hinting that the federal government will supply these Sunday morning groups with ample amounts of White Widow, attempting to literally burn the evil whiteness into good vibes.

While fundamentalist evangelical groups had been expressing concern that Puff Puff Pass: Yes We Can will serve as a substitute for Sunday morning church services, Obama has personally reassured these groups that no such thing will occur. Instead, according a statement recently released by Team Obama, Puff Puff Pass Yes We Can will be required to gather at least one hour before scheduled local church services, thereby encouraging to people to transition from their Yes We Can mantras directly to their local church services. Furthermore, twinkies and devil dogs will be supplied to all churches courtesy of Uncle Sam (soon to be renamed Uncle Darnell), encouraging Puff Puff Pass Yes We Can participants to make it to church after their smoke-out.

In attempting to reassure potential skeptics, Obama referred to his own experiences, noting, “I always feel closer to Jah after smokin’ some cheeba”, adding, “in my days on the South side of Chicago, I grew particularly attached to indica sativa strands of God’s best herb”. When a news reporter seemed bothered at not being able to coin Obama’s response in any sort of three-word slogan, Obama calmed her by suggesting, “Get Me High”, which seemed to satisfy the irritable reporter.

Yes, Chris Ford & Robert Ethan, we are in for some scary times if Obama makes it to the White House....

Posted by aeli | February 4, 2008 11:27 AM