home

How to Read Polls: Part X

By Big Tent Democrat

The Q poll is out and "shockingly," the pollster matches his punditry, Clinton by 6. Also Ras doubles Hillary lead, to 9.

On the flip, our usual poll analysis.

The Q poll has Obama doing much better than most other polls. The internals tell all:

White voters for Clinton 57 - 37 percent, compared to 56 - 38 percent last week; Black voters back Obama 86 - 8 percent, compared to 75 - 17 percent

60-40 with white voters is a terrific result for Obama. As well as he can do. This is, as I stated before, Obama's absolutely best possible result. A 5-6 point loss in Pennsylvania.

Doing our analysis, using SUSA turnout models (86% non black, 14% African American) and assuming white and other non-A-As break about the same I get this result:

Clinton 53, Obama 47. Will Obama get 40% of the white vote? that would be an amazingly good result for him next Tuesday. Q Poll says yes. I am very skeptical myself.

Ras buries his key findings:

Clinton leads by twenty-seven points among White Voters while Obama attracts 78% of the African-American vote.

I think Ras seems to predicting a 2-1 Clinton win with the white vote and an 85-15 win for Obama with A-As. For the sake of argument, I am going to make it 90-10 among A-As and 65-35 among non-A-As.

We do our SUSA math again and get:

Clinton 57, Obama 43. This seems realistic to me.

< How Would the Candidates Close Guantanamo? | Obama Launches New and Deceptive Lobbyist Ad Against Clinton >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Sounds reasonable for now, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    and of course, we have a week to see what will happen next in this campaign.

    I agree that Obama's numbers among white working-class voters have nowhere to go but down in PA.

    Well, on week from today (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM EST
    We will be voting. Too bad it was not right after Ohio. Ha. But, it will still be a Hillary win. These primaries need to be coordinated more and done in a max five month time period. I mentioned before, break up into 5 sections of the country. Choose straws for what month your state is within the 5 sections. Then have Super Tuesday every month. And enough with Iowa being first. Maybe a fair election cycle would cause less friction and give us a true person we actually want. No more causus, no more cross over, and no more state punishment.

    Parent
    why not just state your policy (1.00 / 2) (#9)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    up front and save some effort...

    Let it be known!  From now on any poll that does not have Hillary ahead by double digits is to be dismissed, marginalized through vague references to bias and/or  or re-interpreted...any poll that has Hillary in a substantial lead is the gospel!

    Note: Please disregard any previous mention here of how polls shouldn't be taken seriously or matter in general...that narrative was for when she was behind in most if not all polls.  Thank-you!

    You are way out of line here (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:16:33 AM EST
    BTD has been excruciatingly fair and consistent on this and just about everything else.

    Parent
    It's culture shock. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:39:43 AM EST
    Every time I go back to dkos I get it.  

    Parent
    What an idiot (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    You sound bitter... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:39:13 AM EST
    ...are you in a economically declining rural area? Sometimes people like you vent their frustrations by rejecting evidence-based political analysis. I understand. We all just want to help you.

    Parent
    Don't be such an elitist. (none / 0) (#20)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:41:16 AM EST
    SHAME ON YOU! (none / 0) (#22)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:46:31 AM EST
    ...I expect this from a nasty Republican, but you?!?

    Parent
    Stop being so partisan (none / 0) (#27)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    Really, come on. We here all try to be relatively fair, BTD is painfully fair, and you just have been bashing everyone and anything that doesn't seem to serve your candidate.

    Parent
    I don't mind much. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST
    This way I don't have to go to an Obama fansite in order to remember what Obamafans are like.  Keeps my pageviews right here.

    Parent
    It takes away (none / 0) (#42)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    From the generally high caliber of discussion (agreement or not, whichever candidate you back) that I personally enjoy about this site. Honestly I really like discussing things with people who don't agree, but in an intelligent manner.

    Parent
    I know. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:07:32 PM EST
    Just being snarky.

    There's just something about the level of self deception it reveals.  How can someone come to this site, read the posts and comments and then expect to make a positive impact on anyone by flailing about is beyond me.

    Parent

    I really need help (none / 0) (#45)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:19:26 PM EST
    I just can't even tell snark anymore. Sorry!

    Parent
    So long as you don't give me 1s (none / 0) (#46)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    I'll forgive you! :-)

    Nothing makes me check a commenter's history faster than getting tagged with a 1.  I really do try to behave myself!

    Parent

    I never rate down people (none / 0) (#47)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    Because I don't agree with them, only if they are chattering, doing campaign commercials, or just don't make sense.

    I wish everyone else would do the same.

    Parent

    At this point (none / 0) (#2)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:57:36 AM EST
    I guess it is just about who is nailing the turnout model, if we are expecting that demographics will not be changing from past states...personally, I thought Survey USA's turnout for African Americans was a bit low, which would reduce Clinton's margins significantly.

    New SUSA poll ... (none / 0) (#3)
    by cymro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:58:50 AM EST
    ... reported here has Clinton 54 Obama 40.

    On a local NBC station too. (none / 0) (#8)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:08:34 AM EST
    N/T

    Parent
    Thanks just posted on it (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:26:05 AM EST
    If she "only" wins by 6 (none / 0) (#4)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:01:29 AM EST
    the media will portray it as a devastaing loss and the end. They will go on and on how she once had a double digit lead. If she wins by 10+, the media will say so what? Obama is still ahead in "pledge" delegates which are (suddenly) morally superior to supers. In other words she loses in the media unless she has a HUGE win they cannot spin away and a surprise in NC.

    They will spin it no matter what (none / 0) (#11)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:15:04 AM EST
    if she takes it by 20, they'll say it's because of her negative campaigning against Obama by turning his "clingy" words back on him, when we all know he was speaking truth to power.

    The question is: how long can they ignore the voters before this backfires?  If she does really well in PA and IN, then there are going to be one or two reporters who break from the pack and start taking up her cause, and then the rest of the lemmings will start to follow.

    THe underdog is the best story.

    Parent

    Those playing by the Obama Roolz are so contorted (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:54:10 AM EST
    ... you'd think they were going after Nadia Comanece's record.

    Everything (and everyone) that's contributed to this "movement" simply can't keep doing so exponentially to keep this dud of a candidate afloat on his own promises.

    Yes, I know ... Bush ...

    But the deciding factor there was the formidable  goon squad that powered the Rethuggernaut modus operadi of squashing critics like bugs, intimidated wobbly partisans and thugged the media.

    Apart from Dems who might be overestimating the substance of all the vaunted new voters that Obama's (pseudo, IMO) movement will bring, Obama's supporters are mere trolls and pests in comparison.

    Also, a big chunk of his support that kept him in it is starting to shrink back, reconsider or, due to his alienating them outright, move away from him entirely.

    (When was the last time you saw news media run a clip of a rollicking, inspiring speech on a loop? Those clips were a big part of what was powering him forward in every (then)-upcoming primary and it created an advance stir. That power source has dried up completely; it's going to be negative advance for awhile and I don't think he can overcome that.)

    Parent

    Interesting analysis. (none / 0) (#36)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    Because I avoid commercial media, I am pretty clueless as to how things play out there.

    Parent
    *ding! (none / 0) (#30)
    by isaac on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:17:37 AM EST
    sorry:>>>The question is: how long can they ignore the voters before this backfires?

    if her momentum carries her through indiana (big) and she closes in nc (withing moe or slight win) can he really be called a frontrunner anymore?

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#5)
    by Same As It Ever Was on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    5-6 points is overly optimistic for Obama.  he would be doing very well to stay within 10.  I would agree that 12-15 seems like the likely range.  Much depends on AA turnout and 14% may be on the low side. Therein lies the only hope for Obama to narrow the margin.

    Well.. (none / 0) (#7)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    What I think the polls prove is that the race is no longer tightening.

    She has stoppped the bleeding. And now has also made a good electability argument.

    so (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:14:01 AM EST
    you're saying when she was bleeding red and behind substantially in polls all your screeching about how she was more electable was what....spin?  I have a new name for Talkleft! Let's call it TalkBothWays - 'cuz we want it both ways!

    Parent
    Being the change you want to see in politics (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    If you're an example of this, then Obama's claim to a brand new unifying kind of politics gets more fraudulent by the hour.

    What Team Obama has been doing to game the system, play supporters and opponents alike and blatantly harass people about routine criticism -- without provocation -- just about matches the dreck the current Uniter pulled to d0uche his way to power.

    Parent

    nah, (3.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:53:43 AM EST
    sen. clinton was always more electable than sen. obama, it was merely a matter of time before his campaign started to implode and the facade came tumbling down.

    good looks, charm and a smooth talk will get you only so far with most people, and i believe sen. obama has hit that wall. add to that all the self-inflicted wounds (rezko, wright, etc.) that have yet to be fully exploited by an opponent, but will be in the GE, and his lack of electability becomes painfully obvious, except to the "true believers".

    Parent

    One more and you are gone (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:34 AM EST
    Oh, dear, another one from Planet O (none / 0) (#31)
    by Camorrista on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:25:40 AM EST
    ...all your screeching...

    To judge by your comments, this seems to apply to you best of all.

    Good luck with your therapy.

    Parent

    Do you want to (none / 0) (#39)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:17:51 PM EST
    make a point about the candidate you support or the polling or do you just want to pick a fight? And if you don't like it here...

    Parent
    Periodically... (none / 0) (#41)
    by tree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:33:23 PM EST
    when he's feeling down, he goes on the attack.

    Parent
    Polls are a snap shot (none / 0) (#15)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    as the cliche goes.

    However, if any Democrat does not think that this dream primary will reveal lasting tears in the Democratic coalition, at this point they are dreaming.

    Democrats have long been known for their ability to hold circular firing squads, but this election is different:

    The former working class has nothing in common with the educated class that David Brooks among others celebrates. If you cannot do well in science, you won't get a Masters or higher degree. You won't be part of that elite sector, that most readers of Talk Left occupy, at least I do, that make a good wage with great benefits. (I say "former" because entry level jobs that pay a living wage will never come back, and with 30-40 per cent of jobs in the Service Sector being low end wages, there is a permanent overworked underclass.)

    Women split between older women and younger women demographically, with older women angry and younger women complacent.

    African American voters have no place to go but the Democratic party. But they can stay home.

    Suburban and ex-urban voters, by definition are not the small town hunters and gatherers who hate Obama only because he is a snob who doesn't like God, cheap whiskey, and hunting ducks. Really, that is the only reason they don't like Hussein Obama.

    The much-admired Reagan Democrats are smart: that is why they voted for Reagan who did so much for them.

    The Dream Ticket Talk is an opium dream. You Hillary people hate Obama as much as we former Clinton supporters hate them.

    John McCain?  THAT John McCain? yep.

    Edwards should have stayed in the race.

    Too bad the Unity candidate (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    hasn't united the split in the Party. Instead, he has attempted to exploit it for his own political gain.

    Parent
    and most Obama suporters believe (none / 0) (#21)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:43:19 AM EST
    that Hillary Clinton has been exploiting divisions in the party for her own gain,  and has been airing John McCain ad's in PA.

    Let's call it a draw,  or even better go to the judges, AKA superdelegates, AKA automatic delegates for a decision.

    Parent

    I agree that they believe it (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:53:03 AM EST
    but that doesn't make it factually accurate.

    They also believe he will unite the party, when he hasn't. (IACF.)

    They also believe that what he said in SF was true. (IACF for holding a gun to his head and making him say it.)

    They also believe that HRC supporters are idiots for not seeing his awesomeness. (IACF for duping us into thinking she is not the devil.)

    No, I will not call it a draw. I am willing to agree to disagree, though.


    Parent

    I think that's the best we are going to get. (none / 0) (#26)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:55:29 AM EST
    I do think there is potential for the recent Clinton-McCain double act attacking Obama could rebound big-time against Hillary with the Superdelegates though.  

    Parent
    Why? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:02:32 AM EST
    Two people attack him on his error the same way. What does that say to you? The error was bad, and can be exploited by the republicans.

    Parent
    Or it might say to Superdelegates (none / 0) (#33)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:31:15 AM EST
    that the longer the race goes on,  they will have Hillary Clinton and John McCain both airing negative ad's aimed at Obama.

    McCain has basically said that he has instructed his campaign to give Hillary a free ride for the time being.  Whether you see McCain's strategy as being that he is targetting his likely opponent,  or whether he wants to try to knock Obama out as he thinks he has a better chance against Clinton,  either way, I don't think Superdelegates will see it as being good for the party.

    Parent

    neither Obama nor (none / 0) (#37)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:05:18 PM EST
    Hillary can unite the Democratic Party. Believe me: I voted for Bill and Hillary twice each, thought I was for her presidential bid, and now I cannot stand them.

    Hillary had to drive up Obama's negatives, which she did. But when John Fund of the Wall Street Journal and George Will agree with you that Hillary and McCain are authentic and Obam is an elitist, you should see that the tearing down of Obama, like the tearing down of Hillary, comes with a cost.

    This is the year of the 1968 re-play, with older women and whoever The Clinton's have left in their coalition vs. whoever else feels that "It is time for them--The Clinton's--to go."

    I will admit that I have gone from voting for each twice to despising them.

    And don't blame Kool Aid or Obama, either. I cared very little about Obama and still hope the convention gets deadlocked and Gore or Wesley Clark gets nominated.

    Parent

    So (none / 0) (#40)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:28:55 PM EST
    you think the votes of millions of people should be ignored and the delegates should choose two men that haven't been on a single ticket and haven't gotten a vote? Not my idea of Democracy.

    And how can you base your opinion of anyone on what John Fund and George Will say?

    Somerby over at the Daily Howler thinks that George Will makes some excellent points. Just cause you don't like the messenger doesn't mean you shouldn't read and try to understand the message.

    Karl Rove even made some excellent points on Hannity last night. Do I like Rove? Not at all. I believe him to be a traitor that should be inhabiting a cell at Guantanamo. But he's a political hit man and learning from him is just smart politics. Just file it under knowing the enemy and getting some indication of what direction the attacks would come from in a GE.

    Parent

    how could Hillary be airing John McCain's ads? (none / 0) (#29)
    by derridog on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:05:57 AM EST
    That doesn't even make any sense.

    Parent
    i.e. she is airing negative (none / 0) (#38)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:09:15 PM EST
    anti Obama ad's in PA that could have been shot and scripted by Karl Rove.  You could air the same ad and put John McCain approved this message on the end and not know it was a Democratic ad.

    Parent
    How dare she (none / 0) (#43)
    by nellre on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:53:34 PM EST
    She should be doing everything in her power to help Obama win... just as Obama is airing ads that encourage folks to vote for HRC.

    Parent
    hillary/obama (none / 0) (#32)
    by isaac on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:26:54 AM EST
    the only solution