Puerto Rico Poll: Hillary Ahead by 13 Points

A new Puerto Rico poll has Hillary Clinton 13 points ahead of Barack Obama. The news article is in Spanish, but from my (admittedly not fluent) translation skills, it says:

The poll was done by Research & Reasearch.

Those polled identified themselves as Democrats. They endorsed Hillary by 50% and Obama by 37%. 13% were undecided.

For Francisco Domenech, a superdelegate supporting Hillary, the poll should not surprise anyone "because Hillary knows Puerto Rico and Puerto Rico knows Hillary".

An Obama backer says the result reflects the same tendency that has manifested elsewhere where Clinton always starts at the front due to the recognition factor and then recedes. He predicts that will happen in Puerto Rico as well.

The margin of error is 4.4%. Puerto Rico's primary is June 1.

< Obama Decides on Olympic Stance: Calls for Bush to Boycott Opening Ceremonies | Puerto Rico, Obama and Clinton >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The name recognition thing... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by OrangeFur on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:35:59 AM EST
    ... is a little old by now, isn't it? I mean, Obama has been campaigning for well over a year by now. Maybe Obama's blanket advertising will cause things to tighten, but that's not the same thing.

    Most people don't follow politics ... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:58:26 AM EST
    ... very closely, and that's why Obama does not have any name recognition. I would guess the vast majority of people in the US had never heard of Obama before the first primaries, if then. Even after that, Jay Leno was interviewing people on the street who did not know who he was.

    That's why Clinton has more name recognition. After all, what has Obama ever done that would make his name recognizable?


    Primary voters follow politics (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    People who vote in party primaries tend to be a little more in tune to what is going on.

    Jay Leno may have had to interview dozens to find the few nitwits he shows. He can still find people that do not know who the current president is too. Or who is buried in Grant's tomb.


    The "name recognition" thing (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by myiq2xu on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:28:40 AM EST
    was an issue before Super Tuesday.

    But by now everybody has heard of Obama.

    We've heard of him, but we still don't know who he is.


    That just doesn't fly anymore.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    ..he gets the rockstar treatment in the media and its very, very close to the election so he's got name recognition everywhere. Maybe people aren't paying much attention to whom they are going to vote for until their primaries come, but trust me, they know who the candidates are.

    I agree (none / 0) (#9)
    by miked on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:15:16 AM EST
    Yes, I think the name recognition thing is getting a little old. Obama's performance in the Democratic primary is making him one of the most recognizable people in the world. He is front page news in almost every country on Earth. When an American politician is represented in German parade floats, you have to conclude that he's pretty famous.

    I seriously doubt that there is anyone in Puerto Rico (over age 5 / not suffering from dementia) who doesn't know who Barack Obama is.


    From Spanish to English (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:42:18 AM EST

    Cabe destacar que Clinton logra su ventaja de 13 puntos porcentuales con sólo poco más de la mitad de los demócratas afirmando que definitivamente van a votar en la primaria del 1 de junio.

    It must be emphasized that Clinton achieves a 13 percent advantage with only a little more than half of the Democrats confirming that they will definitely vote in June 1 primary.

    more than half the democrats voting (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by TeresaInPa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:56:32 AM EST
    is  a much bigger percentage than in any of the caucus states that Obama won.  What was Iowa, one percent?

    should read: definitely vote in the June 1 primary (none / 0) (#5)
    by Prabhata on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:45:24 AM EST
    Shouldn't this number be HIGHER (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by maritza on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:06:02 AM EST
    if indeed Hillary wants to take the popular vote?

    13% is NOT enough.  It needs to be 20-30%.

    I agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:16:59 AM EST
    Seems low to me, frankly.

    For a blow out... (none / 0) (#36)
    by ajain on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:34:01 AM EST
    It isnt much.

    Puerto Rico was wise (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:27:13 AM EST
    to change the rules in middle of primary season from a caucus to a primary - to accommodate the expected large turnout and respect the "will of the people."

    Rules (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Gio on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM EST
    They did not change the rules, according to the DNC rules any state or US territory can choose to have a primary instead of caucus so that more people participate. However, they can't change the DATE unless it is approved by the DNC.

    NH & NV moved the date without penalty because the DNC approved, but MI & Fl did not.



    I meant - (none / 0) (#52)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    they changed from a caucus to primary - after the primaries had begun.

    in fairness, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:00:29 AM EST
    Even after that, Jay Leno was interviewing people on the street who did not know who he was.

    he's interviewed people on the street who didn't know who george washington was, or george bush, so i'm not sure what you can take from that.

    at this point though, if you've even just walked by a newstand, you should at least recognize his name.

    The poll in PR (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by emmy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 07:51:46 PM EST
    I don't understand this poll, since Puerto Ricans (I am one and live here in PR) are neither Republicans nor Democrats, since we cannot vote for President. However, the politicians do join a U.S. party, since that way they can go to the conventions. Anyone can vote in the upcoming primary, unless you have voted in the Republican primary (though I don't know how they would be able to tell - perhaps they'll have a list of about the 200 people that voted.)

    So that 13% is meaningless, I believe, by attempting to find people identifying themselves as Democrats. I plan to vote, and I plan to vote for Hillary. She is a brilliant woman who is totally on top of the issues.For those people claiming that she has 'lied', wow. For every misstatement of Hillary's, you can point out a whopper of Obama's (he didn't know Rezko, he hadn't heard the Rev. Wright's inflammatory remarks, etc.)And why would she purposely make up a lie about Bosnia, knowing full well that the media will fine-comb any statement so as to play gotcha? So in choosing between competence and inspiration, I'll choose competence any day.

    Thank you emmy! (none / 0) (#60)
    by Folkwolf101 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:24:16 PM EST
    I agree one hundred percent (100%) that the media has been letting Obama slide on everything.  With so many juicy faux pas and verbal blunders, and so many lies, including those in his biography and those on the campaign trail, to say nothing of his blatants thefts of Hillary's ideas on healthcare, economic plans, and foregin policy, it is a true wonder why the media is behaving as Obama's ever protective guradian parents: they will not let anything happen to him.  Not surprisingly, not one news outlet on cable, on online, or in mainstream broadcast, reported on the huge rally in NYC on Hillary's behalf.

    Aren't caucuses unfair? (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by PhillipS on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:01:16 PM EST
    With all this talk in the 'ether' about whether or not it will be "FAIR" if FL and MI are counted (and politically they've got to be)--and by the way it was SC, NH and IA who ALSO broke the rules--I've never seen that they had "permission" from the DNC.
    I'm wondering-If Obama is nominated--can we live with a Nominee that was essentially determined by the CAUCUS SYSTEM (and same day registration states). I mean, what could be LESS representational than that? Where anyone can show up, and the whole process is full of intimidation, mismanagement, confusion and chicanery??? Shouldn't we ask ourselves what's going on when a state like TEXAS has a record turnout of voters--ONE candidate (Clinton) wins handily in a legal, organized system--but the OTHER candidate (Obama) wins in the caucuses (and therefore gets the delegates??? I mean, doesn't that SMELL BAD TO YOU?
    And what about the rumor that "LOCAL"AA  OBAMA supporters were showing up in WI (the whitest place on earth) in interstate buses--and the blue haired ladies were afraid to challenge them & let them vote...IS ANYONE ELSE HEARING THIS STUFF?

    Why do we care? (3.00 / 1) (#49)
    by diogenes on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:12:57 PM EST
    Why do Puerto Rican residents who do not vote in national elections matter in choosing a presidential candidate?

    puerto rico poll (1.00 / 2) (#51)
    by elpana27 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:36:30 PM EST
    How anybody with a latin ancestry can even think to vote for Hillary is beyond me . Bill Clinton ignored latin america for 8 years . Hillary is viciously againts free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama . The Clintons doesn´t have a clue of what´s going on in a continent of over 450 million people , which is growing and creating better opportunities for its people .
    Wake up Puerto Ricans , you are extending bridges to latin america and doing well .Hillary has never cared about latin america , nor she will in the future . A vote for her is a wasted vote for Puerto Rico´s future.

    Latin ancestry (none / 0) (#56)
    by Gio on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 06:22:26 PM EST
    Who should we love,Obama or McCain? Just for your information,Senator Obama is against it too, so what's your point.  

    • Colombia- South America

    • Panama - Central America

    • Puerto Rico - Caribbean  

    puerto rico poll (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by elpana27 on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:38:35 PM EST
    How anybody with a latin ancestry can even think to vote for Hillary is beyond me . Bill Clinton ignored latin america for 8 years . Hillary is viciously againts free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama . The Clintons doesn´t have a clue of what´s going on in a continent of over 450 million people , which is growing and creating better opportunities for its people .
    Wake up Puerto Ricans , you are extending bridges to latin america and doing well .Hillary has never cared about latin america , nor she will in the future . A vote for her is a wasted vote for Puerto Rico´s future.

    Puerto Rico Poll (none / 0) (#55)
    by Pete Rosa on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:31:45 PM EST
    Hillary is viciously againts free trade agreements with Colombia and Panama

     So am I. The Problem with so called Free Trade is That the only winners are the Big Corporations. Both the American People an The Colombians or Panamanians will be LOSERS if either of them Get what You call Free Trade. So IMO She is Supportive of Latin America by Not Allowing Our People to be EXPLOITED for Corporate Gain. Having the Advantage of Being Both Puertoricano y Dominicano I can tell you that Cafta was Not a Boon for the Dominican Workers. Is There work? yes Are they paid fair wages? NO Are they Protected with Workers Rights? NO Are they provided Health Care? NO Are they subjected to Sweatshop Conditions? YES Are they subjected to long and Grueling Days? YES

     As for Bill Ignoring Latin America for 8 Years.
    You've got to be KIDDING.

     We do Know however that Barack Obama does NOT CARE ABOUT LATIN PEOPLE AT ALL either here in the US or anywhere else on the GLOBE. Wake up People He is a Follower of the BLACK SEPARATIST MOVEMENT
    That is what Trinity Church is All About That's why Wrights Comments have so much meaning. He was expressing exactly what he and his Congregation Feel. A Vote For Obama is much worse than a waste.


    Congratulations on breaking this news ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by cymro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 03:06:13 AM EST
    ... before pollster.com. Normally I expect to see new poll results posted there first, but it looks as if you have scooped them this time. Maybe your Spanish is not so bad, after all!

    All the same, I was hoping for a larger margin for Clinton in Puerto Rico. Maybe the experts at pollster.com will have something to say about this poll's reliability?

    Kudos! (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 05:56:33 AM EST
    And again with the large undecideds.  This race certainly has had a fair amount.  I have to think that because they historically break for Clinton that we need to count a chunk of them in her total number, but then I am a Clinton supporter so of course I think that!

    I had heard (none / 0) (#11)
    by bob h on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:14:05 AM EST
    that Puerto Rico is winner-take-all? Hopefully?

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 08:19:13 AM EST
    not allowed under the Democratic rules.

    The poll is interesting (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:27:08 AM EST
    but ultimately not significant. The vote in this election will happen through the political machines.

    Whoever they back will tell you the result imo.

    I believe that you are wrong about the backing by (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by TomLincoln on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 12:12:01 PM EST
    the political machines. Ultimately, neither the pro-statehood party nor the pro-Commonwealth party will use their machine to back Obama or Clinton.

    In the pro-statehood party's case, because the party president is a Republican, and while his running mate for Resident Commissioner (Pierluisi) is a Democrat backing Obama, many other party leaders back Clinton (including former Governors Rossello and Romero-Barcelo).

    In the case of the pro-commonwealth party, while the Governor backs Obama, and this was initially thought to be a big factor in favor of Obama, his current indictment has caused Obama campaign to distance himself from him (at least publicly), and many within the pro-Commonwealth party are advocating for the party members to not even participate in presidential primaries.


    what is the latest on the President? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Josey on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:29:15 AM EST
    wasn't he supporting Obama? has he been indicted, jailed, etc?

    The Governor (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:34:16 AM EST
    He is a spent force.

    The more significant issue is will the Statehood Party follow the lead of its Resident Commissioner candidate, Pierluisi, who endorsed Obama. the Gubernatorial candidate of the Statehood Party is a Republican.

    If Pierluisi's endorsement is merely perfunctory, then it means little. IF it means the Party machinery is behind Obama, which means Fortuno, the statehood Gubernatorial candidate has given it the green light, Obama will win Puerto Rico.


    so are we really saying (none / 0) (#17)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:42:11 AM EST
    that our last in the democratic party is actually basically decided by the Political Machine?

    no one else has a problem with this?

    I mean I don't even understand why our territories have a vote in the primary if they can't vote in the elections (PR needs to decide become a state or go independent, I think they want the best of both worlds).

    but now we are saying that a few big wigs can decide who will win there?

    so my caucus in the swing state of Minnesota is beneath THIS government chosen election in a place that won't even vote for the president?



    Marvelous. You think that a political machine (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    hasn't been behind Obama from the beginning?  Is your problem, then, with a political machine in Puerto Rico?  There is the Irish machine in the U.S. Senate (see Kerry, Kennedy, etc.) and from the beginning, he has had behind him the infamous machine whose workings are widely known as the "Chicago Way" (google that phrase and "Obama" to see more).

    Btw, do I understand you to say that you think territorial status is the "best of both worlds"?  Uh, no.  Look back to your own history in Minnesota, or in any state, and ask why yours and others so strived for statehood (and yours had to wait longer than many for interesting reasons having to do with anything but the best of what was going on in this country then).  

    Perhaps the phrase "taxation without representation" resonates from a certain revolution. . . .


    my point was (none / 0) (#31)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:26:39 AM EST
    that I was under the impression that PR doesn't WANT to be a state?

    or am I wrong? its been a while since I visited the issue.

    but if PR is calling to become a state, i support it and think they should have been made a state a long time ago


    Ah, well, on that we agree (none / 0) (#38)
    by Cream City on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:52:58 AM EST
    and as to whether PR wants to be a state, I read recently of a still-strong statehood movement there . . . but BTD is the far better source, of course, on this.

    Political Machine (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Gio on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:14:11 PM EST
    All it means is that endorsements from superdelegates or "influential" people matters to some extend like Senator Kennedy,Kerry, Richardson,Richardson,Casey,Rockefeller, McCaskill,Nelson,Dodd and others. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory like Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and many others around the world, and as such their government is a DEMOCRACY not a dictatorship. The system is exactly like in the U.S.- governor,mayors,senators etc.

    As a puertorican I'm a bit troubled by your comments, but I realize that you don't have all the facts so it would be unfair for me to judge you. I feel we deserve the right to participate in the process since we contribute to this country.Our parents,grandparents,sons and daughters,husbands,sisters,etc. have served in every branch of the Arm Services since WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and every other conflict in between. We pay taxes and are as proud as you are to be Americans.Until not long ago the military used to trained there and we have military bases throughout the island. We've been a possesion of the United States since shortly before the 20th century so as you can see we have deep connection with this country. As far as our status, it hasn't always been up to us.      


    That is what I am saying (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:48:54 AM EST
    I do not know what others are saying.

    about which? (none / 0) (#19)
    by TruthMatters on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:53:24 AM EST
    about Minnesota not being significant?

    or about how PR will work? because i have NO CLUE how PR politics work,

    I just know I was told I live in a insignificant state that doesn't even need a president because we did a caucus instead of a primary, (and yes I am still bitter about being called a latte drinking, prius driving, party activist.)


    try being called a (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    low-information, elderly, uneducated, blue collared woman.

    Who called you that? (none / 0) (#37)
    by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:41:50 AM EST
    Certainly not Obama's campaign.

    None of those labels (none / 0) (#39)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM EST
    has to be taken as a negative. You may not be any one of them, but if you were all of them, I don't consider that insulting.

    Ah, yes (none / 0) (#40)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:56:26 AM EST
    I'm sure Obama supporters who call Clinton supporters low-information, old, and not members of the creative class mean it as a compliment.

    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by BlacknBlue on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:13:27 AM EST
    The previous poster was referring to comments made by Mark Penn and various Clinton aides. "Obama supporters" you see on the internet do not really compare, imo.

    I was referencing what I wrote (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:01:54 AM EST
    I think that was clear. I have no comment on what you wrote.

    You can solve the bitterness problem (none / 0) (#44)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:22:17 AM EST
    quite easily.

    Make your next car a Prius and become a party activist!  Probably a good idea anyway.

    The latte thing is optional...I prefer a mocha, myself (the chocolate, ya know).


    Caucus vs Primary (none / 0) (#54)
    by Gio on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 04:50:34 PM EST
    Why do feel that your state is insignificant? The number of delegates is not determined by whether you have a caucus or primary; you still get the same number. However, the advantage of a primary is that more people have the opportunity to vote therefore,giving you a more accurate idea of "the will of the people." Caucuses are usually not good indicators of the "will" of state's population as a whole, because only a small % of the population participates.

    Are you saying a Republican.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ineedalife on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    could handpick the Democratic nominee?

    Why not... (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by madamab on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    they've already succeeded (so far) at disenfranchising two of our biggest states in our primary. :-p

    FALN, the gift that keeps on giving n/t (none / 0) (#22)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:01:12 AM EST

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Steve M on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:03:35 AM EST
    Such a high opinion you have of the people of Puerto Rico.

    I was thinking more of (none / 0) (#26)
    by 1jpb on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    the other side of that transaction.  

    Don't worry (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kathy on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    The opinion will rise significantly if O takes the win.

    i have no opinion of the people of (none / 0) (#32)
    by cpinva on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 10:26:49 AM EST
    PR at all, really, with one exception: why the heck can't they make up their minds what they want to be, a state or independent country? either is fine by me, i'll wish them well.

    wait, make that two exceptions! i envy them their weather and fine beaches. :)

    That question would require more than... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:22:57 AM EST
    ...one post to answer. And you've left off the people who want things to stay as they are. Problem is that even if the people all come to an overwhelming consensus, the decision would still not be theirs to make.

    Not unlike (4.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oldpro on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:27:54 AM EST
    the way the US splits into warring camps/factions.

    I've begun to think of the Dems, the Rs and the Independents as the Yes, No and Maybe parties.


    OT - What have you done that's hanging my browser? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Avedon on Thu Apr 10, 2008 at 11:07:06 AM EST
    I swear, it takes ages to fully load, and in the meantime it hangs the whole browser.

    Rise, Hillary, Rise (none / 0) (#59)
    by Folkwolf101 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 09:20:53 PM EST
    She will win Puerto Rico by double digits and probably most the other remaining states, with the exception of North Carolina.  Hopefully, this will get people to realize that if all the primaries and caucuses were to rebegin today (post-Rev Wright's comments, post-Obama's recent flipflops and lies), Clinton would win hands-down. Even with the media's Hillary-bashing, and the way the media seems to be Barack's guardian parents, continuously protecting him from his own mistakes.

    Meanwhile, something like a million woman march happened today in New York City. The women were supporters of Hillary and were showing signs with one focus: STOP THE MEDIA BIAS. It was great! For great pictures and narrative, go to:


    The hateful media language that NYC women were complaining about is at the following, the right side embedded video showing a young Hillary:


    The following link shows the latest pack of lies being distributed via email, probably from Obama's campagn staff. Factcheck did a nice job of showing the superiority of Hillary's legislation skills: