« McCain To Name Veep Czar Soon | Main | Fake Disagreements » Obama Leads By Six In Mississippi07 Mar 2008 12:30 pm 46 to 40...according to Insider Advantage. Check out these crosstabs... Clinton leads among independents, while Obama leads among Democrats and Republicans... Clinton leads among white folk and old folk and men; Obama leads among African Americans, everyone under 65, and women.
Comments (43)
Well, you read some columns wrong for starters. Obama leads among Dems, Clinton with Independents and Reps. Age 30-44 is essentially a draw. The numbers look completely screwball to me, but I've never been to Mississippi, so what do I know? 
Obama "meet the candidate" effect + more polls to give us a better description should have us talking about a 20 point lead soon. I lived in MS for about 9 months. He'll be a hit there, especially the lower half of the state. Unless she plays up the Muslim card again.
Don't the crosstabs state that Hillary leads among Dems, but Obama leads among Republicans and Independents?
Too many undecided African-Americans. And too few African-Americans. Outside of New York, Clinton's best performance was in Arkansas, where he got 75% of the vote. That's another 5% for Obama right there at least. And I'm convinced these polls are undercounting African-Americans; they accounted for 55% of the vote in Georgia and South Carolina, both states with far fewer African-Americans. IA has a history of dodgy polls. Anything less than 60-40 would be a shock.
I would urge Marc and the readers to check out this link to Andrew Sullivan regarding Clinton and what she will do to the party.
These numbers look bad. And go against past results. Obama wins women, while Clinton wins men? Clinton wins independents, while Obama gets Dems? I do not believe them.
"Well, you read some columns wrong for starters. Posted by Grunthos" Yup. ambinder needs to take the obama goggles off and wipe the dew outa his eyes. Also should be noted obama has made huge in roads with the Hispanic vote: obama 100%.
My lawyerly instincts tell me that Obama only winning African Americans with 66 percent of the vote would represent um ... a break in form. To say the least. Marc, why do you post disreputable polls? I know this one is provactive, but Insider Advantage has been proven to be so woefullly off (they had Clinton by 12 (!!!) in Iowa).
I don't put too much weight into this poll. Blacks are 55% of the sample in this poll and they only go 66-15% for Obama. Almost every other state has gone 80/90%-20/10% for Obama. Plus in 2000 and 2004, 70% of the democrats that voted for Gore/Kerry were black. Put a black candidate on the ballot, and you'll end up getting good turn out. Even if 65% of the vote is black and they go 9:1 for Obama that's 58%. Even if only 20% of everyone else votes for him that's 65% of the whole vote. I'd be VERY surprised if he gets less than that.
Those figures were sent by a Clinton supporter trying to convince people that she is doing well with un decided vote ,and thats wrong , we know proper figures , Who you fooling ?
Guess who won Texas and it wasn't Hillary?
Marc, you have been fooled!
Ann, Not only did Obama win Texas, but he picked 8 more delegates in California on Tuesday. That's twice Clinton's "huge" take on March 4. Sure'd be nice to see it reported.
WHY did Hillary Clinton, with her brains and Bill's mega-Rolodex of Democrats all over the country, NOT contest the caucuses? WHY did Hillary not even try to organize her supporters to attend and win the Idaho and Nebraska and all other caucuses? Even extreme hubris is not a workable explanation; wouldn’t the 'inevitable' candidate want to roll up big wins everywhere, to show her strength? Instead of running a campaign designed to achieve a big, clean victory, she has run a campaign so incompetently that the only win available to her now is an ugly, divisive, guaranteed-to-lead-to Democratic-loss-in-the-fall, split-the-Democratic-party-for-a-generation bloody win. Now, in the last couple of weeks, her strategy has become more obvious; she's running a campaign to elect McCain! Her below-the-belt comments praising McCain's experience over Obama's and her disingenuous answer to the question about Obama's faith on 60 minutes now make sense. A very smart woman like Hillary should have been able to give a straightforward answer to a simple question about whether Obama is a Muslim; but instead, she weasled on the question and then whined about her own difficulties. Hillary has been around long enough to know that respectable Democrats do not provide sound bites for the Republicans; it is fine to criticize Obama, but it is NOT acceptable to denigrate a Democrat in comparison to a Republican. Not amongst mature professionals, at least. The only reasonable explanation remaining is that Hillary is working to elect McCain. She's just not honest enough to join the Republican Party and work openly toward her goal. Hillary Clinton: Working for McCain's election since Day One!
Thanks, Kathy and Kevin. I needed that good news. Obama may not be running the campaign exactly as I want him to (i.e., stomping Hillary's guts out and feasting on the raw entrails), but, if the Party Elders let this play out and have some respect for the final pledged delegate count, he he should get the nomination without ever endorsing the Republican or having a "Shame on You, Hillary Clinton!" moment. Validating the non-negative style of campaigning would just be icing on the cake.
In addition to the other errors already pointed out, the male and female numbers don't add up to the total surveyed. The cross tabs show 412 people were surveyed with 132 males and 144 females which totals to 276. That means that there are 136 people who didn't identify a gender? I think they reported these results too quickly.
"Obama may not be running the campaign exactly as I want him to (i.e., stomping Hillary's guts out and feasting on the raw entrails)," We're watching the NY Giants play the Patriots in the Super Bowl. A simple win is enough for me.
Not only have IA's polls been generally unreliable, but their cross-tabs frequently have these basic problems with failing to add up correctly. I think they once provided the people at pollster.com with an attempted explanation, but as I recall nobody could make much sense out of it, and it certainly made it nearly impossible to figure out how to interpret their numbers.
Helter: Good analogy, and one I believe camp hillary made long before you did. This is in fact the Giants/Patriots Superbowl - only you have it backwards. Obama is the Patriots (which is ironic...) - he was clearly the favorite going into this, has a ton of bandwagon fans that aren't even from Hawaii, is swooned over by the media, and had a winning streak everyone thought would never end. Hillary, on the other hand, is the Giants. A team no one believed in, that had lost a lot of regular season games, but had a great defensive line. She's scrappy, does whatever it takes to get a win. here's the twist: the superbowl was last tuesday and the giants (i.e. Clinton) shocked the world! The rest of this primary season will play out as I suspected. Already in this mississipi poll you see Obama with a paltry lead that will surely diminish into yet another loss for him tomorrow night. This race is over. Automatic delegates know this. Hillary '08!
Obama will be in Mississippi on Monday. I don´t think that is enough to really run up the score given the campaigns general lack of focus right now... Delegate prediction: 19-14 CD1 3-2 With a greater effort Obama could net 2 delegates in CD 2 and win PLEOs 3-1 (62.5%). I feel he´s leaving a few delegates on the table... In fact, enough Republicans voting for Clinton could possibly flip a 5-delegate CD the other way. A net of just 3 delegates for Obama in MS? I think that would be construed as a Clinton victory.
But even if a net three for Obama would beat Clinton's expectations for MS, the hole is still getting deeper. Being in a sinking ship and noticing that the water isn't leaking in quite as quickly as it way before is certainly an improvement, but the family yacht is still sinking. Hillary's last chance to make up ground among the pledged delegates was on Tuesday, but instead of making an impact, she barely broken even for the day, and essentially prematurely shot her wad on what was supposed to be a dry run. Now she has a mess on her hands, and the few remaining states isn't going to change that.
Hillary's last chance to make up ground among the pledged delegates was on Tuesday... Nonsense. South Dakota, Puerto Rico, North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia and, um, Pennsylvannia, are all in the future. And at any rate, since she knows that Obama, too, will need superdelagates to to secure a majority, her goal is not merely to gain pledged delegates. Her goal is also to convince superdelegates they can't give their votes to a bound to fail candidate like Obama. Her goal is to win the media coverage wars. Her goal is raise doubts about Obama, and to encourage a fuller vetting process. Her goal, in short, is to win.
Maximom, the, ummmm, sheer impossibility of Hillary regaining significant lost ground the few contests remaining has been explained elsewhere numerous times, and I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you. Nor will I waste my time explaining the dangers -- with respect to both the general election and the long-term strength of the Democratic Party -- of any conceivable path to the nomination for Hillary. Her goal is indeed to win, but the only open question at this point is, how much damage will she do before she accepts the futility of her quest?
they can't give their votes to a bound to fail candidate Maximom: You mean like like the Clintons? Thanks for the recycling of the Clinton campaign's talking points, btw. Original thought not your strong suit? Nice name; Maximom. Brings to mind one of those grating helicopter parents I see at my son's school. Gotta love 'em.
Maximom, the, ummmm, sheer impossibility of Hillary regaining significant lost ground the few contests remaining has been explained elsewhere numerous times, and I won't waste my time trying to explain it to you. I wish you would. Because I have no idea why you think it's impossible for Clinton to narrow Obama's pledged delegate lead significantly, especially if Michigan and Florida revote. Nor will I waste my time explaining the dangers -- with respect to both the general election and the long-term strength of the Democratic Party -- of any conceivable path to the nomination for Hillary. There are dangers for both candidates. Nice name; Maximom. Brings to mind one of those grating helicopter parents I see at my son's school. Um, okay. And your name reminds me of Pearl Jam.
Is a Maximom like a Soccermom but on the juice? You realize you're supporting a losing cause, right?
"I wish you would. Because I have no idea why you think it's impossible for Clinton to narrow Obama's pledged delegate lead significantly, especially if Michigan and Florida revote." Sigh. I tried posting a comment with all the links you need, but it overwhelmed the spam-guard. So just go here: http://www.ghostinthemachine.net/005470.html From there, read the Newsweek and Daily Kos article. Then, if you're still unconvinced, play with the Slate delegate counter that's also linked therein.
especially if Michigan and Florida revote See also: Nor will I waste my time explaining the dangers -- with respect to both the general election and the long-term strength of the Democratic Party -- of any conceivable path to the nomination for Hillary. I leave further analysis as an exercise to the reader. There's no way I won't vote for the Democratic nominee; the Supreme Court is too important. But I will hold my nose if I vote for Hillary, which is something I never had to do the two times I voted for her in New York. So it's not like I'm a Clinton hater or anything. I'm just calling it as
From there, read the Newsweek and Daily Kos article. Then, if you're still unconvinced, play with the Slate delegate counter that's also linked therein. I've looked at all the relevant data numerous times. I think it's entirely possible that Clinton could reduce the pledged delegate gap to well under 100. If Florida and Michigan revote, that number could approach 50. And I fully expect Hillary to widen her already non-trivial popular vote lead before all is said and done. She will be the next president.
You obviously haven't been reading very closely. So you were asking rhetorically, then? Well, thanks for wasting my time. Also, Hillary Clinton doesn't have a popular vote lead. The number you're citing [a] doesn't include caucuses and [b] includes FL and MI (but doesn't include "uncommitted" voters for Obama.) In other words, it's a completely juked stat that noone takes seriously. News flash: The primary race is over, and Barack Obama is our nominee. Even notwithstanding the fact that a 50-delegate lead is still a lead the supers won't overturn, show me a realistic assessment of the upcoming votes that gets her even that close. It's strange how the meme is that Obama voters have "drunk the Koolaid," but then once you bring up the cold, hard numbers in this race, Clinton folk start spinning bizarre and unrealistic fantasies. IT'S OVER.
Maximom...Hillary may well be the Democratic nominee, given the fact that Obama seems to have completely given up and isn't even spending the weekend campaigning, but she will never be the president. If Hillary Clinton is our nominee, say hello to President McCain.
Obama is in Wyoming. Anyway, a FL and MI revote will result in a slight Obama win in Michigan and a 20 delegate pickup at most in Florida. That won't make a dent. Add in NC, IN (Obama already up 15 there and Illinois is nearby), SD, MT, WY and MS and Clinton has to win PA, WV and KY by about 80% of the vote. Not going to happen. So she's going to lie and whine to weaken Obama and hope the superdelegates back her on some bizarre premise.
And I fully expect Hillary to widen her already non-trivial popular vote lead Again with the misinformation. What gives? Maybe you'd better check your figures again. Senator Obama currently has over a 600k lead in the popular vote as well. Of course you're counting Michigan and Florida's votes. As you know, neither has been ratified by the DNC and neither will be - despite your and your candidate's protestations. The rulz is da rulz. Here's a hint for you, Soccermom: obvious twisting, spinning, and spreading of misinformation do nothing to convince others of your points. Maybe you can get away with that with your kids or pussywhipped husband, but not around here.
I'm still trying to figure out how the 3 people in the Race/Other column could cause those percentages. Whatever. "Clinton leads among white folk and old folk and men"
Maybe you'd better check your figures again. Senator Obama currently has over a 600k lead in the popular vote as well. No. Last time I checked he was down by about 100,000 votes. My guess is after Wyoming her lead will be reduced down to around 90,000. As you know, neither has been ratified by the DNC and neither will be - despite your and your candidate's protestations. We were referring to the popular vote, not pledged delegates. The refusal of the DNC to seat the delegates from those two states hardly changes the fact that the popular vote is generated by real live voters, and certainly won't prevent Senator Clinton from using her popular vote majority as part of a strong moral argument to the superdelegates that both she and Obama need to win.
News flash: The primary race is over, and Barack Obama is our nominee. Oh please. If that were true you Obamabots wouldn't be spending hours on weblogs spinning your silly little talking points. He's in a dog fight, and surely realizes that even if his clueless zombies don't yet. Hillary will win Indiana, West Virgina, Puerto Rico, Pennsylvannia, Michigan and Florida. The momentum she'll continue to generate -- and the continued flubs and missteps Obama is bound to keep making as Hillary makes smart attacks -- will very likely help her to take South Dakota and North Carolina, as well. Winning, say, twelve out of the last sixteen contests, jumping out to a sizable lead in the popular vote, and continuing to demonstrate greater toughness and tenacity, will convince most superdelegates that Senator Clinton is the party's best bet for this critical November election. This is especially true in light of Senator Clinton's great magnanimity in allowing Obama to be her running mate. And even more so as the nation's economy descends into a nasty recession. By the way, whatever happened to the fifty superdelegate surprise?
No. Last time I checked he was down by about 100,000 votes." Wrong. Clinton is down 600,000. The numbers are here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html You seem to be using the number including MI and FL, which isn't going to hunt. Regarding the 50+ superdelegates, Obama shot that story down the same afternoon it was brought up. See the Hotlineblog at National Journal (More than one link, and the spam-guard kicks in around here.) As for the rest of your argument, it's more of the usual wishful thinking variety. I encourage you to go back to the link I gave above, and reacquaint yourself with the math. The supers are not going to overturn the pledged delegate leader, end of story. In fact, most of them -- including big names like Pelosi, Biden, and Richardson -- have gone out of their way to state the opposite, that they'll ratify the pledged delegate leader.
No. Last time I checked he was down by about 100,000 votes. Another vapid comment by a know nothing Soccermom. Stick to baking cakes and running your kids to their piano lessons. Chuck Todd says Mr. Obama is 600k up, I believe him. You, not so much. Monster will never, and I mean NEVER, get the delegates and results counted from Florida and Michigan baring a re-do. You're simply delusional if you think otherwise.
Oh please. If that were true you Obamabots wouldn't be spending hours on weblogs spinning your silly little talking points. He's in a dog fight, and surely realizes that even if his clueless zombies don't yet. LOL, I'm not a spiritual man, but I think there's something in some holy book somewhere that addresses this. Something about throwing stones. By the way, whatever happened to the fifty superdelegate surprise? By the way, whatever happened to that $130 million? Just how many donuts and party platters did she buy?
Monster will never, and I mean NEVER, get the delegates and results counted from Florida and Michigan baring a re-do. You're simply delusional if you think otherwise. I don't have to "think otherwise" because it is becoming obvious Florida and Michigan will vote again. Probably in June. Two solid victories in yet another couple of the large, heterogeneous states that Obama can't seem to win will be a nice way to cap off Senator Clinton's victorious march to the nomination. Wrong. Clinton is down 600,000...You seem to be using the number including MI and FL, which isn't going to hunt. Of course I'm counting Michigan and Florida. The fact that the DNC won't seat their delegations doesn't change the fact that they're real, live voters who actually trudged out to the polls. Indeed, they're sufficiently real to prompt the party to sanction revotes, lest their hurt feelings aid McCain in the fall. By the way, whatever happened to that $130 million? She's spent it. And millions more continue to flow into her coffers. Running a successful campaign costs many millions. But I notice you didn't answer my question. Funny, that. I'm not a spiritual man, but I think there's something in some holy book somewhere that addresses this. Something about throwing stones. There's no valid charge of hypocrisy here. It's the Obamabots who keep saying the race is over. Supporters of Senator Clinton say it's anything but.
Supporters of Senator Clinton say it's anything but. Perhaps that's why they're derided as delusional fools. Nice pivot on Florida and Michigan. First you were insisting that the prior "elections" should count, now you seem to be talking about re-do's. Did you simply give up on your initial pipe dream? You don't come across as particularly bright. Perhaps the Taylor Marsh blog would be more your speed.
Don't worry, I'm not a republican who came here to laught at your intra-party fight. I am a republican. I am laughing. But, I find Barack Obama to be interesting, so I read the blog. Are you all finally getting enough of Clinton supporters? You know I think we all understand Clinton, even the Clinton supporter probably does... we all know she's a monster, some love her for it, some don't. What's funny is this Clinton supporter coming in here and arguing about the numbers, when all the intelligent people here exactly understand the numbers...as if her bullying or something is going to sway an opinion. Maximom, what, you have 2 days in politics? C'mon. They hold elections in Russia where there is not much of a campaign...the rest of the world doesn't give it much regard. They had live voters in Fl. They had live voters stay home in Fl. too. There was a large turnout because of property tax initiatives on the ballots...but Obama supporters, who tend to be young, and younger people are less likely to be home owners than older people...didn't have much reason to turn out, since the election wasn't going to count for delegates. Even as a republican...I have to tell you, since Hillary publicly agreed that both MI and FL wouldn't count, and she wouldn't campaign there, and there was no campaign there.... obviously that isn't a real election, like the one we expect in the United States. So either they won't count...or they'll revote. No other solution really. As you math experts point out, it looks like Obama has won...although its possible Hillary could steal it. It won't bother her supporters any, she'll be a hero for doing it.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
It should be noted that ARG has a much wider lead - 58 - 34 and that Obama leads among independents
Posted by Dan | March 7, 2008 12:40 PM