ARG Indiana Poll: Hillary 5 Points Ahead of Obama

American Research Group has released a new Indiana poll. Hillary leads Barack Obama, 50% to 45%. 5% are undecided.

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 51% to 43% among men (43% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 56% to 40%.

Clinton leads 55% to 39% among white voters (85% of likely Democratic primary voters). Obama leads 91% to 7% among African American voters (11% of likely Democratic primary voters).

Obama leads 55% to 41% among voters age 18 to 49 (51% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 59% to 35% among voters age 50 and older.

25% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 34% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

Where have we heard all this before? Everywhere.

< Obama's Latest on Gun Control | Rasmussen PA Poll: Hillary Better to Beat McCain >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just saw tape of Obama speaking (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by suisser on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:21:01 PM EST
    in Indiana at a gas station. He looked bored and was obviously just getting through the event as quickly as possible.  I wonder if he is eating his Wheaties?  Granted the pace of the primary would have killed me weeks ago but Hilary just gets more radiant and Obama seems to me fraying around the edges. Can he keep it up thru No Carolina and Indiana?

    Maybe he needs a smoke, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:31:12 PM EST
    ... is worried that lighting up might just blow up his entire campaign.

    I think he's annoyed (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:08 PM EST
    that he hasn't wrapped this up yet, and it's showing.

    I saw the same thing during the debate, when he was giving bullet points instead of explaining things in detail.  He just assumes everyone has heard him and knows what he's talking about, when the fact is that every time you speak in public to a new audience, you have to reintroduce yourself and make what you're saying seem fresh and interesting no matter how you are dying of absolute boredom inside.

    Public speaking 101


    Well, yeh, lighting up at a gas station (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:15:28 AM EST
    would blow up the town, not just his campaign. :-)

    I try ;-) (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by cymro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:40:52 AM EST
    Well Put (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mrwirez on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:44:36 AM EST
    Hahahaha. He can't qiut smoking....Like me he would gain twenty freaking pounds.

    1st Question Asked There....About Rev. Wright (none / 0) (#15)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:16:12 PM EST
    And then he really looked sour.

    for a long time now (none / 0) (#36)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:41:21 AM EST
    ...ever since I fell off the Obamawagon, I've noticed that Obama's nowhere near the great orator that media (and the fawning "Yes we can" video) make him out to be, especially off-the-cuff. His delivery is often fuzzy, halting, tentative. Hillary, on the other hand, is usually crisp and organized, if not soaring.

    Give him a speech to recite, and he does quite well. Otherwise, nope.

    Of course, maybe that's enough to get him by. It worked for Reagan.


    His skill (none / 0) (#39)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:11:03 AM EST
    is obviously in working the timing of a big crowd.  I thought his Wright speech was not good.  His use of his grandmother as well as throwing darts at Ferarro reduced the speech to political talk.  If it was political talk, then it wasn't on the money.  He never explained how he could choose someone with these beliefs as a mentor.

    If it was a race speech, then what was the petty stuff doing in it.

    But, I seemed alone in my criticism, and I am certainly not unbiased.

    I thought his talk on Reagan was so convoluted that I wanted to sit him down and discuss editing with him.  :)

    And I think his debate performances directly relate to his poor communication skills.  

    My opinion is that he has used a lot of words to cover up his opinions/positions and can't get out of the habit.  Straight talk and taking a stand would sharpen his message, but he seems reluctant to do that.


    I agree. He's a great mimic, but it only works (none / 0) (#47)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:50:08 PM EST
    if he has a speech in front of him or memorized from someone else. He can't speak off the cuff.  I believe he can't do this because he doesn't have any real beliefs.  Everything he's got is cribbed from others and he doesn't hesitate to change his positions (see Health Care 2003 versus Health care 2008 or energy policy 2005 vs. 2008) if it helps convince a particular audience to vote for him.

    His appeal rests on his ability to use soaring, meaningless language, but that's not carrying him anymore.  The facade is fraying and he knows it and it pisses him off. People are seeing the man behind the curtain and not the guy who, all his life, has gotten by on charm.


    Here comes (none / 0) (#1)
    by AnninCA on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:48:05 PM EST
    the Sun.

    Obama better just stick to campaigning and win a state here that matters, rather than argue about electability.

    Oh no, let him keep arguing and (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:56:51 PM EST
    let the voters make the case for Hillary. Heh.

    Two other polls came out today (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:49:08 PM EST
    that put Obama up 1 and 3 respectively.

    ARG is a bad pollster.

    On the other hand, the BEST pollster had Clinton up 16 about 10 days ago.

    Truthfully (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:20:15 PM EST
    who knows who is a good pollster anymore? SUSA was off in PA but Zogby who has been horribly wrong this entire season was right.

    Zogby made some fast sudden corrections (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andrys on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:32:44 PM EST
    They had Clinton by 3 in PA and then two days later, it went up to 6+ for another two days.  Suddenly it went to 10 on the last day.  Must have been Undecideds deciding.

    SUSA was around 9 for DAYS but went down to about 6 at the end.

    I look to SUSA during the longer period for (but they were definitely too high for awhile or Clinton's more negative tone in the last week may have changed their sampled folks) and then Zogby did a sudden upturn to the right number on the last day.

    She does best when just being mother earth with a shadow of the father looming.  But the constant commander-in-chief stuff and (don't hate me for saying this) the jabbing finger is too Bill-like and doesn't work as well.  When she talks about issues that matter to most, when she connects as a woman who really understands all this stuff and is eager to work to make things better, she really reaches people.

    I read that reaction all over, and I see the other drives many away who were with her.  I think the Real her comes across best.  Just more natural and people can relate to it better.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:44:50 AM EST
    I disagree about the commander in chief stuff. I think it makes people move away from Obama. The 3 am ad seemed to help her in both TX and OH. I think there is a large bloc of voters who are tired of ceding the national security issue to the GOP. I do agree on the finger wagging. Both she and Obama do it and it doesn't help either.

    Zolgby (none / 0) (#42)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:27:05 AM EST
    explain that the timing of the poll made a big difference, and they picked up on a huge shift.  Until their last poll, Catholic men were reluctant to back her and weren't sure they would vote.  That last day or 2, they decided to vote and broke for her.  So Zolgby saw huge movement.

    I personally thought her last ad was very good and not at all negative.  


    According to the analysis by SUSA (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:51:09 PM EST
    ARG was almost perfect in PA

    Just sayin'


    The best pollster is actually Suffolk U (none / 0) (#7)
    by diplomatic on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:56:55 PM EST
    "Poll of polls" = "dead heat" (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    per this report.  Sorry to repost but added this late to an earlier thread, and since we're doing a poll roundup here.  (This CNN composite includes ARG but others, too.)

    ARG (none / 0) (#31)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:01:12 AM EST
    got Texas and PA right.  They said 56% for Hillary in PA.

    In other words, this race could be anywhere (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:50:21 PM EST
    Selzer and Research 2000 show it tied, and SUSA's poll from a couple of weeks ago showed Hillary way ahead. I'll tend to lean on their latest, they they really didn't do such a great job with PA, at the end of the day.

    Yes and No (none / 0) (#8)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    No in that they missed, but they did stop Sat and could have been off by that or missed a break back to her.

    But to their credit they showed a pattern than would make sense for PA, unlike other pollsters who showed a manic-depressive pattern of swing.


    Well, yeah (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:06:49 PM EST
    ARG was especially erratic.

    I have to take credit for my Obama stuck at 45% criterion, though. He just barely broke it, even with all of that money spent.


    That's right. I remember you saying that. (none / 0) (#48)
    by derridog on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    When will SUSA release the next poll? (none / 0) (#4)
    by athyrio on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:53:57 PM EST

    My guess: Monday or Tuesday (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:54:35 PM EST
    I'm inclined to trust your guesses, (none / 0) (#13)
    by cymro on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:25:14 PM EST
    ... based on your previous posts here. I'll be looking forward to seeing that poll on Monday or Tuesday.

    I'm looking forward (none / 0) (#5)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 05:54:07 PM EST
    to the new SUSA Poll.  ARG tends to go all over the map whereas SUSA stands their ground and usually ends up being right on target.

    SUSA!  SUSA!  SUSA!  SUSA!  :-)

    (nice to see a lead for her, though)

    How much help is Evan Byah for her can he help (none / 0) (#16)
    by Salt on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:17:55 PM EST
    help bring in the State?

    Evan Bayh (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:23:01 PM EST
    I think it was Bayh with Hillary at an event just about 30 minutes ago in front of steelworkers in Indiana, Gary maybe?  If it was him, and I'm pretty sure it was, he's a big supporter and was really rah-rah'ing her and her campaign.

    One of the very good things HRC has done in her wins is use the local politicians and allies really, really effectively.  Strickland, Rendell, and now Bayh.  Let's hope Bayh is as effective as the others.


    Bayh is uncommitted (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:37:21 PM EST
    extremely powerful and well-respected.

    HuffPo had rumblings today about him jumping to Obama, but I don't see that happening.  He practically demanded a debate, and that's not at all what Obama wants.


    Bayh is not uncommitted (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by americanincanada on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:02:17 PM EST
    He endorsed Clinton months and months ago. He is a HUGE supporter and if Huffpo is saying he might jump they are blowing it out their...

    Bayh is a big HRC backer (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:19:15 AM EST
    and my Hoosier-born spouse and his relatives still there say that Bayh's backing is a big deal there.

    Bayh ain't gonna jump (4.50 / 2) (#20)
    by ccpup on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:41:14 PM EST
    no matter what fantasies HuffPo has.

    I believe he and Hillary have a good working relationship and she's had for awhile -- and continues to have -- his support for a win in Indiana.


    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Emma on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:42:04 PM EST
    It was definitely Evan Bayh at the Hillary event, I checked.  That's all I know for sure, and he sure sounded like he liked her.

    no way (none / 0) (#23)
    by nell on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:10:36 PM EST
    bayh is not jumping ship. he admires hillary a lot and he actually suspended his own bid early on bc of her. a lot of his campaign staff and donors went over to her. he is loyal and really thinks experience matters.

    Bayh has a really sharp mind (none / 0) (#32)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:29:15 AM EST
    Look at how he answers the sensitive question re our ability to "obliterate" Iran if they were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel.

    Survey USA's recap of PA (none / 0) (#26)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:04:23 PM EST
    Here shows ARG was quite respectable actually. Zogby managed to get respectable with their final poll where they had swung wildly from previous polls.

    She's (none / 0) (#27)
    by sas on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 11:05:48 PM EST
    gonna clean his clock in Indiana.  I'll say 10.

    It'd be good if she could get double digits. (none / 0) (#34)
    by cawaltz on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:56:56 AM EST
    It'd offset the fact that Obama is in all liklihood going to get NC by a bit. If it is close in Indiana but he blows out NC then he news will focus on NC.

    good point (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 08:58:18 AM EST
    It's going to be interesting to see if Hillary's stronger in both states than the polls have indicated. If so, she'll win IN by at least 5 and not lose NC by much.

    I still think that in the end, the Democratic leaders are going to hand the nomination to Obama. He has a structural advantage at this point (lovingly preserved by the DNC by disenfranchising MI and FL) so it wouldn't "look right" to give the nomination to Hillary. Plus, they think that running Obama is going to help the Dem brand among young people, and that's worth losing in November.

    But this is going to be a disaster, and at this point, I'm just pissed off enough to want Hillary to make it really, really evident that the party elders are screwing up--have done so since the primaries began and they clearly have attempted to stack the deck in Obama's favor. I know his supporters like to think of him as the anti-establishment candidate, but nothing is further from the truth. He's the DNC's preferred standard-bearer.

    After the primaries end, the DNC will push the super delegates to declare and push Obama over the top. Hillary will concede and attempt to keep her supporters on board for the Dems this fall. She'll succeed to an extent, but the party is going to hemorrhage working-class support. The Democrats will once again be the party of the "liberal elites," the ones who can't win elections.

    By the way, I said something like this at HuffPo this morning and was banned--which I've never been in my life. I've written "info" to ask why on earth I was banned when I didn't swear and didn't personally attack anyone--I just voiced an opinion contrary to that expressed by an Obamite who seemed to think the Democrats could function just fine without the "fat white drunks" in PA and Ohio. Had I said what I really thought, I could understand being banned. But I really did keep it civil. I wasn't banned for HOW I expressed my opinion but for my opinion. Pretty disturbing.

    So apparently all manner of Stalinist purges are commencing. I suggest all fed up Hillary supporters become Independents and send a strong message to the DNC.


    I understand (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:14:40 AM EST
    how you feel. I'll be leaving too if Obama is the nominee. Nominating him pretty much tells the rest of us that we're not wanted. He's alienating every demographic in the party except the AA's and the elite. Good luck winning an election when a large part of the base abandons the party along with independents who won't vote for him either. I figure he'll win the Dukakis states plus maybe CA and IL. Certainly that equals a landslide loss.

    yeah, I just don't know what people are thinking (none / 0) (#44)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:06:43 AM EST
    I just keep flashing back to 2006. About 18 months ago, we had an election in which the Dems took back the House and the Senate for the first time in a dozen years. And they got there largely thanks to appealing to Reagan dems with moderate "Blue dog" candidates.

    Locally, Jason Altmire defeated Rick Santorum's pal, Melissa Hart--who is getting set to try to get her old Congressional seat back from Altmire. That district is fairly affluent and was, for years, reliably Republican. I read today that Altmire is unwilling to commit to supporting Obama yet. I don't blame him. It's looking like supporting Obama is a way to give Melissa Hart an opportunity to swiftboat him as a fan of Obama who's a fan of Reverend Wright.

    The Democratic party stands to lose all that it gained in 06. I know there are arguments that because of the excitement he generates, Obama will do better for the party down-ticket. Maybe so. But I know of at least one local district, Altimire's, where that would not at all be the case. So I hope the party has lots of reliable data backing up that supposition if they're going to push House members to support Obama. Otherwise, the Dems will lose not only the White House but at least one house of Congress.


    He's (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:47:20 PM EST
    really put the reps in racially mixed districts here in GA in a pickle. The divide and conquer strategy has made it black vs white and what do you do? If you don't endorse Obama and blacks don't show up you lose. If you endorse Obama you will lose also because whites won't vote for you.

    yep--and that's a shame (none / 0) (#50)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:42:39 PM EST
    When I was an Obama-supporter last year, one of my fantasies was that he could actually win some Southern states by energizing the African American vote and giving white moderates in the South a strong candidate to vote for. (I'm from Alabama originally and still spend a lot of time visiting family there.)

    Imagine my horror right after New Hampshire when Jesse Jackson Jr started attacking Hillary as a white woman who didn't weep for the Katrina victims. And that was just the beginning.

    I knew right then what the strategy was and how stupid it was. Sure, they'd win Southern primaries, but they'd never, ever win Southern states in the general election. People talk about how Hillary would energize the GOP base? Obama's managed to make himself even more polarizing.


    CA (none / 0) (#45)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
    hinges a lot on So. Cal., which is dominated by Latino and has a huge Jewish vote.

    Need I say more?

    It's not in the bag for him.


    You're probably (none / 0) (#41)
    by AnninCA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:24:12 AM EST
    were voted off the island, as someone else said on here.  LOL*

    I had 100 fans and got banned.  Never broke the rules.  

    But after the site broke the Fowler story, I noticed a lot of pro-Hillary people were being banned.

    I presume they simply have made a decision to stop the excessive taunting.  I'm positive that it came my way from the other side, and I was pretty good at not biting.  Nonetheless, as a minority voice, if they have to separate the groups, it made sense it was the pro-Hillary supporters that have to go.

    Either that or it's just some odd moderators who are too emotional.


    ah! at least I'm in good company :) (none / 0) (#43)
    by kempis on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:58:38 AM EST
    I had no idea they'd given you the heave-ho, too. Your responses were always logically framed--and yet you had a crew of rabid Obamites following you around and nipping at your heels as though you were saying the MOST AWFUL things. :p

    Can't believe HuffPo banned you. But I do feel a little less insulted now that I know that someone over there is extreme enough to want to purge anyone who questions the Obama campaign's talking points.

    Ah well. This is a much nicer and less troll-infested community anyway, so all things considered, I'd rather be here. :)


    Just Runnin; Scared . . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by Doc Rock on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 06:00:24 PM EST
    Just runnin' scared each place I go
    So afraid that she might show
    Yeah, runnin' scared, what would I do
    If she came back and wanted me?

    to debate

    Would Evan Bayh (none / 0) (#52)
    by Mrwirez on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 10:43:07 PM EST
    make a good running mate for Hillary? He is a former Governor and now Senator from Indiana, which is probably a red state, but perhaps blue with Bayh? He seems like a good, MODERATE Dem from the heartland. Or did he do something dumb somewhere along the road ??

    IMHO, I am convinced a very liberal candidate will not win no matter what, not just Barack Obama. Not during a war or a recession.

    PA Dem