What The Polls Say About Feb. 5.

For one thing, Barack Obama has gained millions of supporters across the country since Iowa, while Hillary Clinton has largely kept her support base in tact.

CBS News and CNN released new surveys showing what amounts to a tied race. CBS has the race tied at 41; CNN, which seemed to push its undecideds to express a preference, has Obama leading 49 to 46, at the edge of the margin of error.

Obama is doing better among men and has narrowed Hillary Clinton's edge among women. Though Clinton still leads identified Democrats, the lead is small, and Obama beats her among independents.

A huge caveat from the CBS poll: when the sample is reduced to those in Super Tuesday states, Clinton leads 49 to 31.

Among Republicans, John McCain has broken through that 35% ceiling. He leads Mitt Romney 46 to 23, a margin that's similar to CNN's, which shows McCain leading 44 to 29.

CNN found that Democrats believe that Hillary Clinton would be better at handling the economy and health care problems than Obama, though both would equally as adept handling illegal immigration. A majority of Democrats believe Obama would better handle Iraq than Clinton. The poll finds no difference among blacks and whites when asked whether Clinton understands the problems of African Americans -- 75% say yes -- but 46% of black Democrats, compared to 35% of white Democrats believe her campaign brought up race in an offensive manner.

By the way: 79% of Democrats would be very or somewhat satisfied if Clinton won the nomination, and 85% would be very to somewhat satisfied if Obama won the nomination. Among Republicans, 71% would be very to somewhat satisfied if McCain won the nomination (take that Rush!), while 62% would be v to s s if Romney prevailed.

65% of Democrats who support a candidate say they support that candidate strongly. For Republicans, the figure is 47%.

Hello Democrats: 52% believe that the US is making progress in Iraq.

Comments

"A huge caveat from the CBS poll: when the sample is reduced to those in Super Tuesday states, Clinton leads 49 to 31"

that is a huge caveat!
As matt Damon says, "how do you like them apples?"

Posted by Michael c. | February 4, 2008 9:15 AM

"A huge caveat from the CBS poll: when the sample is reduced to those in Super Tuesday states, Clinton leads 49 to 31."

I would say that that's a truly absurd caveat. That would mean Obama has a huge lead in the post-ST states and be losing hugely in the ones voting tomorrow. I would like to see someone justify how that could be. Small polling sample size and other error seems a far more likely explanation.

Posted by Chris O. | February 4, 2008 9:23 AM

The Super Tuesday sample amounts to about 200 respondents. The MOE must be off the charts.

Posted by Bryan | February 4, 2008 9:28 AM

MOE for 200 people should be around 7%. Even with that in I'm still guessing it's too far off, Obama's going to get way more than 38% of the vote tomorrow.

Posted by Chris O. | February 4, 2008 9:34 AM

While an aide to Sen. Barack Obama, who spoke at a town-hall meeting yesterday in Los Angeles, tried to explain away the altered policy changes, analysts excused him, noting the passage of time and less-liberal competition.Barack Obama, senatorial candidate 04, is very different from presidential candidate of 08.Videotapes of debates and speeches obtained by Washington Times shows Obama took positions during his Senate campaign on nearly a half-dozen issues ranging from the Cuba embargo to health care for illegal aliens that conflict with statements during his run for the White House. For example, in MSNBC's Oct. 30 presidential debate, Mr. Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare he opposed decriminalizing marijuana But as a U.S. Senate candidate, Mr. Obama told ILL college students January he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession. When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site, www.washingtontimes.com, yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use. What is
Senator Obama going to say to republicans when asked why he favors granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants as Obama has admitted twice in debates? About Obama's present position that undocumented workers will not be covered in his healthcare proposal, yet when he was running for the Senate he said that children of undocumented workers should get the same healthcare benefits that citizens get? when they begin to ask him about negotiating in unstructured summits with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain asks him why he said in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization and that his view of the Iraq war was not different from President Bush's? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain compares Obama's votes to fully fund the Iraq War in the Senate to Obama's rhetorical opposition to that war? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain questions Obama's claim to be "the most qualified person in America to conduct the foreign policy of the United States"? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain says that Obama is not one of the most qualified members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lead this country in today's dangerous world but instead one of the most absent? Senator Obama has not conducted a single policy hearing as chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee?

Posted by Obama filp flopper | February 4, 2008 9:42 AM

OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR LATINIOS!
Ms. Obama, VP Chicago Hosp, that charges minorities 6 times as much, isn’t cold hearted enough, she also caused hundreds to loose their 11.hr jobs, to be more efficient she said! In 05, elected to the BOD Westchester-based TreeHouse Foods, she received $12,000 and $33,000 from a subsidiaries, in Nov announced closing its La Junta, plant, that claimed the jobs of 153 workers, most of them Hispanic! Huge blow to a rural town jobs paid a starting wage of $11hr, Company pays top execs like MICHELLE OBAMA tens of millions a year while destroying middle-class America. Raises the question not only about corporate values but about Barrack Obama's own values. Specifically, while he bashes Wal-Mart, why does his wife, make $45,000 and up a year serving on the board of Chicago comp that pays her a very hefty amount of money while laying off mostly minority workers in economically deprived areas? No. 1 customer is Wal-Mart???

Posted by OBAMA LOOSES JOBS FOR LATINIOS! | February 4, 2008 9:43 AM

The Obama campaign has criticized Hillary Clinton's candidacy as another example of dynastic politics. But now that Obama is playing adopted son of the Kennedy clan, that argument falls apart. Kennedy mystique Is so much JUST hot air. Obama, new? Change? Going back to the Kennedy Camelot Era does not benefit anyone in 2008 - or could even survive with the media probes and questions that are asked today. The Kennedy's have been legally less desirable since JFK. Old Joe and his money?? Questions about his involvement in some of those early elections. All the affairs and nepotism in JFK's cabinet - at least one brother and brother-in-law. And their next generation has certainly made their share of questionable choices, charged with rapes, murders etc... Amazing Ted is shaking his finger at the Clintons! Caroline stayed away from the political arena because she didn't want to align herself and her children with this messy history. There is always going to be some revisionism with historical figures -- Earl Ofari Hutchinson did a killer deconstruction on the recent rewriting of Martin Luther King Jr's legacy -- especially those who have died, so, let's dispense with the niceties: John F. Kennedy did propose the landmark civil rights bill and that is most of his "legacy." Actually, the record was mediocre. Just some of the highlights: Opposed the 1957 Civil Rights Acts. Used this as a wedge issue against Nixon! to help capture the "solid South" in the 1960 election. Did absolutely nothing for civil rights in his first year of office. Encouraged, told or instructed Robert Kennedy to sic Adam Clayton Powell on Martin Luther King, threatening to expose an imaginary sexual scandal with Bayard Rustin, MLK's black gay top lieutenant, to prevent a march in Los Angeles. Opposed the 1963 March on Washington. Refused to deploy troops to protect the Freedom Riders. Ignored the Albany, Georgia bus station riot. So many more lost opportunities to choose from.... In the early 1960s, obviously, JFK's attention was diverted to Cuba, Berlin, Vietnam, and, increasingly, Marilyn Monroe and other actresses. If Kennedy capitulated to the blacks, the Southern white Democrats would revolt. If he did nothing--which he mostly did--the violence would continue and world attention would focus on the inept White House. The Kennedys had a horrible relationship with Congress, so, there wasn't much the president could on his. On the other hand, by sitting on his hands, the violence quotient increased, which is why he was forced to "propose" the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. Oh yeah, this probably helped endear his family to black voters in Chicago and New York City. There was an election in 1964 ... We’ve got too much work that needs to be done in this country to follow this route. Obama time is definitely ready or able to lead this great country.

Posted by Kennedy not a role model | February 4, 2008 9:44 AM

Marc, keep up the good work using statistically unsound ways to raise expectations for Hillary.

Posted by RKA | February 4, 2008 9:46 AM

Get out and vote, people! Please don't pass up an opportunity to do something real in an election for once.

Posted by Tim | February 4, 2008 9:49 AM

Morons who spell loses 'looses' should be banned from the interweb.

Posted by Bill | February 4, 2008 9:58 AM

.. and PS - take a quick look at what sorts of constructive posts Hillary's paid minions make at the 11th hour (I reference the typographical excrement above).

For the love of Holy Christ, who the FUCK wants people like that in the White House? The difference between them and Bush's parade of ghouls is nothing more than windowdressing.

Shame on her, and shame on the DNC for throwing so much institutional support behind her machine only because Obama threatens to put those spin-happy dickheads out of jobs.

Posted by Tim | February 4, 2008 10:03 AM

"Hello Democrats: 52% believe that the US is making progress in Iraq."

GOOD!

But that is the most candied nice way of looking at things. If you hit rock bottom, you HAVE to make progress.

The question, the most important one, is this:

Q: Looking back, did the United States President make the correct decision in waging war on Iraq?

THAT is the most important thing to discuss going forward. Because that answer will help guide what we do in future conflicts. LEARN from history, don't get swallowed by it.

Posted by Chris | February 4, 2008 10:03 AM

Nice to see that Team Billary's paid bloggers have been busy this morning spreading smears, distortions, and misrepresentations in the comments sections of sites all across the web. I have seen the same Hil-bot talking points on over a dozen sites this morning.

This kind of dirty, "Rovian" tactics is PRECISELY WHY WE NEED A CHANGE OF POLITICAL PROCESS NOT JUST A CHANGE OF POLICY.

The voting public is starting to wake up. To all the Hill supporters out there, how do you feel about supporting a candidate who is willing to "swift-boat" a fellow Dem and willing to make race an issue for political gain?

Don't buy Hillary's fake, pasted-on smile. Hillary is willing to use any tactic to get elected. Her lack of authenticity will make her very vulnerable in the fall.

If you don't want President McCain, vote Obama.

Posted by upper left | February 4, 2008 10:04 AM

On an analytical level, I always felt like Obama could pull this thing out. But seeing the polls swinging hard in his direction with just another 24 hours to go, I almost can't believe it. I'm holding my breath.

Posted by J.B. | February 4, 2008 10:11 AM

Obama supporters:

ban people who mistype from the internet? how decent of you.
Upper left and kindred souls: just because someone posts crazy hateful stuff does not make them a hillary supporter and just because they are a hillary supporter doesn't mean they are paid to blog: that is a pretty ridiculas set of assumptions. Obama is bragging about all his money AND yet it is hillary you accuse of using money to spread her message.
Upper left says billary, hil-bot, rovian, fake, pasted on smile, dirty and swift boat when she/he suggests that his candiate is on the highroad: no high road could include your name-calling content-free post.
Either side might win tomorrow so why don't you ignore the hateful nasty crazy stuff from both sides and rise up your own self.

Posted by Michael C. | February 4, 2008 10:25 AM

Obama supporters:

ban people who mistype from the internet? how decent of you.
Upper left and kindred souls: just because someone posts crazy hateful stuff does not make them a hillary supporter and just because they are a hillary supporter doesn't mean they are paid to blog: that is a pretty ridiculas set of assumptions. Obama is bragging about all his money AND yet it is hillary you accuse of using money to spread her message.
Upper left says billary, hil-bot, rovian, fake, pasted on smile, dirty and swift boat when she/he suggests that his candidate is on the highroad: no high road could include your name-calling content-free post.
Either side might win tomorrow so why don't you ignore the hateful nasty crazy stuff from both sides and rise up your own self.

Posted by Michael C. | February 4, 2008 10:26 AM

The Dumb Move of the Week goes to Talking Points Memo, where they decided to do an entire website overhaul starting Thursday--the day of the last DEM debate. Since then, the site has malfunctioned, user comments sections have been lost, people have been unable to comment, and an onerous new sign-up process has not even worked, for many.

Talk about timing.

Posted by Gregor | February 4, 2008 10:27 AM

49 to 31? hah! i guess chappaquiddick kennedy doesn't inspire that much confidence in women

prepare for a landslide, obamatards

Posted by jeanette | February 4, 2008 10:37 AM

So CBS has a tie between Hillary and Obama nationally, but Hillary ahead 49-31 in the Super Tuesday states? That's about 1/2 of the national population, right? Doesn't this look bizarre on its face? You have to explain it, man, or at least look into it.

Posted by Hal | February 4, 2008 10:54 AM

Paid Billary bloggers happy with the 49-31 number the Super Tue sample is about 200 people?

Posted by Yiannis | February 4, 2008 10:55 AM

jeanette: prepare your mouth for my member, biotch.

Posted by ken | February 4, 2008 11:15 AM

yiannis doesn't know how to do simple math. even given the 200 people sample, that gives a MoE of 7%. best case scenario for obama, clinton leads by 4 (that has just as large a probability, though, as the score being 56-24, margin of 32 points).

clinton's surging, and will overtake the male-dominated establishment's golden boy.

Posted by jeanette | February 4, 2008 11:17 AM

misogyny abounds, clearly. white progressive men just can't cope with a woman leader.

back into the kitchen with you, ken!

Posted by jeanette | February 4, 2008 11:20 AM

jeanette: do you have tats, tongue and nose piercings, and a flat top hair cut? thought so.

Posted by ken | February 4, 2008 11:20 AM

clinton's surging

And this is backed up by which poll? Certainly none that I've seen.

Posted by Sandy Brevard | February 4, 2008 11:24 AM

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

“HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by jacksmith | February 4, 2008 11:40 AM

I went to CBS site and looked at poll and it is full of good news for Hillary and full of bad news for Obama AND YET:

it is about 1500 people with about 550 democrats:
Spread across 50 states or even just the 22 states for Feb 5th this is a tiny sample: unless I totally misunderstand this aspect of it.

asking twenty people on the phone doesn't tell me how that state is going to vote

a shadow on my butt at noon might be as accurate as that and i am for Hillary.

Posted by Michael C. | February 4, 2008 11:42 AM

"Hello Democrats: 52% believe that the US is making progress in Iraq"

That Iraq is less of a disaster now than it was a year ago does not mean it's not a disaster now. It also does not mean the original invasion was at all justified. It also does not mean that continued occupation is a good thing.

Posted by mad6798j | February 4, 2008 4:55 PM