Insider Advantage Poll: Hillary Takes Lead in N.C.

Update: The new Mason Dixon North Carolina poll has Obama up by 7 with a 5 point margin of error.

Where there is no competition is race. Eighty-seven percent of African Americans plan to vote for Obama, while 62 percent of whites said they will vote for Clinton. There has been very little evidence suggesting either candidate can cut into those numbers before Tuesday.

The poll found Obama does better on the war in Iraq but Hillary does better on the economy.


A new Insider Advantage North Carolina poll of likely Democratic primary voters is out tonight. Hillary Clinton has pulled into the lead over Barack Obama.

  • Hillary Clinton: 44%
  • Barack Obama: 42%
  • Undecided: 14%

IA says the shift comes from white voters over age 45. It also says Rev. Wright is a factor:


However, this poll is clearly an indication of reaction to the latest statements by his former pastor; and it forces Sen. Obama to split resources between Indiana and North Carolina.

“If this white vote shift does not erode, given that North Carolina’s white Democratic voters are primarily in the Research Triangle, where education and personal finances are in the top tier for the nation, then I would say this suggests a major shift in all future primaries towards Clinton,” said Towery.

The actual poll results are here. (pdf)

Update: The poll was announced on Hannity and Colmes. Both the Insider Advantage and the Rasmussen pollster was on. The IA poll may have underestimated the African American vote. The IA pollster said Rev. Wright may cause Obama problems, but ultimately Obama should win NC but not by much.

The Rasmussen pollster said voters may doubt the sincerity of Obama's repudiation of Wright, thinking he did it for political reasons. The IA pollster said white voters have a problem with Wright's recent statement that he'll be back with Obama once Obama's in the White House.

< Boston Legal: Suing Dems Over Pledged Delegates | CBS/NYTimes Poll: Something for Both Candidates >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't believe this poll for a couple of reasons (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:54:06 PM EST
    The AA percentage of the overall electorate is a) too low, and b) not as strong as it should be for Obama.

    I don't think it's credible at all, but we shall see.

    Have a beer and a shot, man.. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:55:48 PM EST
    cheer up!

    Sorry, but I think this is bad for Hillary (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:57:34 PM EST
    it changes the expectations for her to make a "win" on Tuesday more difficult to attain.

    I Hope Not (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:00:45 PM EST
    That NC is even close in the polls should be worrisome for Obama.  He should be able to focus on Indiana and he's not going to be able to.

    I still expect him to win by double digits.


    That's a good point; however, many (none / 0) (#13)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:03:51 PM EST
    polls are showing trouble for Obama in NC.
    The voters are moving her way.

    I have a feeling things are starting to unravel (none / 0) (#15)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:04:32 PM EST
    for Obama among the white educated class.  We'll see...

    If the Lattes in the research triangle (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    desert him, he's going to have a bad night.

    Did you say something about that (none / 0) (#28)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:10:36 PM EST
    (research triangle support eroding) in the SUSA poll?

    NC white democratic vote strengh (none / 0) (#30)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:13:07 PM EST
    is not in raleigh that is just wrong. it's rural western and particularly eastern NC and turnout is huge in both areas

    I Agree (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:59:28 PM EST
    The turnout seems wrong for AAs, much too low.   They also have a 53-46 gender split, which seems too low.  Women have made up at least 55% of the vote in most states.

    It's interesting in that it hints Obama's AA support might be weakening, but I don't trust the sample size or that it will hold until Tuesday.  I'll believe he's losing some AAs when I see it from actual voters.  Although if Clinton could win even 20% of the black vote, that would be potentially huge for her.  Still, I won't believe it until I see it.


    I doubt any pro-Clinton effect. . . (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:01:25 PM EST
    from the Wright controversy in the African American community will show up in a significant increase in her percentage of the black vote -- that ship has sailed.

    It might, however, cause some black voters to not make it to the polls on election day, lowering the proportion of black to white voters overall.


    I Tend To Agree (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:03:08 PM EST
    Although Clinton seems to be working harder for the AA vote in NC than she has in other states.  She carried almost 20% in SC.  

    But, you're right, I don't expect her to get more than 10%.  


    More than 10% of the AA vote (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by stefystef on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:33:15 AM EST
    I believe that she will get more than 10% of the AA vote.
    My family is from North Carolina (I'm African American) and I talked to several family members.

    They like Hillary and in fact a couple have already voted for Hillary in early voting.  They told me that many other AA feel the same way, but don't say much because Obama followers are so aggressive and really try to use race guilt to make people vote for Obama.

    Hillary is going to do much better in NC than people think.  If Obama doesn't blow her out in NC, he's in alot of trouble.  The following primaries will be tough for Obama to break through.

    Hillary '08!!!


    Thank you for the insight from the (none / 0) (#99)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:10:21 AM EST
    field of play.

    There is the Maya Angelou commercial (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:05:16 PM EST
    But I don't think that can do more than shave off a few votes here and there and create some good will for later--which she'll need if she pulls this off.

    This one is Obama by 10 or I'll eat my hat.


    I can't help but wonder (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Lena on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:54:19 PM EST
    whether the Maya Angelou commercials are actually targeting the latte liberals.

    Possibly (none / 0) (#74)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    reducing white guilt could be a factor. I believe that was the main purpose of the Michael Nutter ads.

    It probably is, but it will (none / 0) (#116)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:10:16 AM EST
    also affect AA women who are on the fence between Obama and Hillary. And there are a lot more of them than you might think.

    I wondered about Maya Angelou (none / 0) (#24)
    by Lil on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:08:31 PM EST
    and her effect. I love her and believe she is a credible voice. Is it naive to think she would have some impact?

    Can we have a grudge match? (none / 0) (#67)
    by blogtopus on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:44:50 PM EST
    Oprah vs. Maya?

    HA! That's not a fair fight (none / 0) (#97)
    by angie on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:57:52 AM EST
    Maya wins hands down.

    The guys from IA (none / 0) (#14)
    by tnjen on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:04:32 PM EST
    ...actually mentioned that the AA vote doesn't solidify in their polling until later on. They cautioned that the AA vote would go up around Obama as it does later on in their polling process and said that the real change to look at wasn't so much the overall percentages/outcome but the change among indies and white voters in comparison to their previous polls.

    All Kinds Of Wacky Things In That Poll (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:17 PM EST
    I'm also skeptical about the Latinos going to Obama by 30%. It goes against demographic trends. High percent of undecided voters.

    I'm not going to get excited about this poll. It doesn't look real credible.


    Latino numbers in that poll. . . (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:08:14 PM EST
    are irrelevant because of sample size.  Five respondents could skew the entire thing.

    Thanks For Pointing That Out (none / 0) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:14:07 PM EST
    My bad. I didn't look at the sample size of that particular demographic.

    In particular (none / 0) (#100)
    by IVR Polls on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:13:09 AM EST
    Over half the Latinos in the sample are 18-29 and all are under 65. I'd ignore the Latino numbers in this poll.

    You are underestimating white turnout (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:11:15 PM EST
    AND 1.3 million independents which are overwhelmingly white

    That number is way out of line for (none / 0) (#61)
    by kateNC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:41:17 PM EST
    The number of independents in NC. Where did you get it if I may ask?

    NC Board of Elections Website (none / 0) (#77)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:08:40 AM EST
    on the main page

    Here are the numbers (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:18:44 AM EST
    Democratic: 2,624,901  Republican: 1,933,643  Unaffiliated: 1,242,932  Total: 5,801,476

    Hillary has a chance to win if she can increase white turnout


    Thanks (none / 0) (#83)
    by kateNC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:39:29 AM EST
    I guess I hadn't realized how many new Independents had registered, although I should have. My bad.

    In addition, (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Makarov on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:21:14 PM EST
    Obama has consistently out-performed polls in states with heavy black concentration (those with > 20% representation) to the best of my recollection. It started with SC, and it really didn't stop. I think he should win NC by 15.  The media will probably go with the 10% average.

    Anything lower than a 10% Obama win will be Hillary out-performing my expectations, and doing it with better margins amongst whites than she got in the last 3 big contests (TX, OH, and PA).  It's possible, but highly improbable in my view.

    I'd love a Hillary win in NC, but I'm keeping my expectations measured.


    Yes, but he's had a very bad week (none / 0) (#58)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:38:14 PM EST
    and I would think that older AAs are feeling pretty whip-sawed by the back and forth with Wright.  I've been wondering how Wright's act and Obama's association with it has been going down with older, more personally conservative black voters.  Some of those older women just might, in fact, turn around and vote for Hillary.  But I would bet that turn-out would be slightly down because of it.

    Obama will win NC and not by a terribly (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by tigercourse on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:59:00 PM EST
    small percentage. The AA vote is just too large for Clinton to pull it off. But his consistent drop in NC polls does suggest that Obama has had a really bad couple of weeks. He should have buried Wright (and Ayers) a year ago. This should have been obvious. I hope he figure out a way of dealing with this in the general election. I won't be holding my breath.

    A win is hard for Clinton, but it may be close (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by thomphool on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:36:07 PM EST
    North Carolina is 22% African American.  The big question really is turnout among bases here.  VA, which has a population which is 19% African American saw them make up 30% of the primary electorate (1.6X their make up of the population).  South Carolina, which is 29% saw African Americans make up 55% of the electorate (1.9x).  If the turn out is along the lines of SC, then yes, it won't be close at all-- African Americans would make up 42% of the electorate, and if Obama performs as well as he has among African Americans in other states, even if Clinton won 70% of the non-African American vote, it would be a 10 point win for Obama.  Her winning only 65% of the non African American vote would turn into a 16 point victory for Obama.  
    I don't think anyone is predicting that level of African American turnout, though.  33-35%, based on previous voting patterns seems very reasonable, and at that level, Obama holding 90% of the African American vote, and Clinton winning 65% of the non African-American vote makes it a 6 point race. If Clinton pulled off 70% of the non-African American vote (and I think that's a huge if), she would win, even if Obama saw no erosion in his support among African Americans.

    As BTD has always said, demography is destiny in this race.  Demographically, and for that matter culturally, NC has always set up as the one of the best southern states for Clinton.  For Obama to post a big win in NC he has to a)turn out the African American vote in huge numbers b) hope to keep his margin high in the Research triangle region, and c) hope that he doesn't lose any support from African Americans.  Winning African American by only 80-20 would be absolutely devastating for his chances to win the state big. If that were to happen, he would need to hold 35% of the non-African American vote to squeak out a small small win.  

    Make no mistake, Obama is a favorite in North Carolina, but any momentum towards Clinton in the state could make it closer than many people think it is.


    Independents and Republicans (none / 0) (#95)
    by stefystef on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:36:11 AM EST
    who switch parties are going to vote for Hillary.
    The undecideds are going to move over to Hillary.

    If Hillary doesn't win, it will be very close, which is NOT good for Obama.


    Looking back to 2004 (none / 0) (#108)
    by jimotto on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:26:35 AM EST
    Easley won the general by 13 pts, taking 87% of the black vote (26% of total) and 43% of the white vote.  Breaking down democratic voters, blacks accounted for 43% of the vote.  

    Right now, blacks make up 38% of registered dems (2.7 million total) and 10% of unaffiliated voters (1.2 million total), which indicates that they make up 31% of voters eligible for the Dem primary.  So when you see numbers in the low 30% from the pollsters, they are assuming that turnout will be in proportion to total potential voters.

    However, so far in early voting black turnout has been reported to be 38%, indicating that they are turning out more in proportion to the makeup of registered dems than total potential voters.

    At any rate, if Hillary can get 20% of the black vote NC will be close.  If she gets less than 15% we're looking at a 10 pt win for Obama.


    Clinton Getting 15% of Black vote= single digits (none / 0) (#114)
    by thomphool on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:16:18 AM EST
    Assume 38% of electorate is black (note: That number is probably high.  In Texas, we saw heavily black precincts turning out in higher numbers than they ended up turning out when all votes were in).

    Assume Obama gets 85% of African American Vote
    Assume Clinton gets 65% of the non-African American vote (which, is slightly less than SUSA has it at, and in the ball park with what she got in PA).

    That makes the race 56-44.

    Three numbers are going to influence this race. The % of the electorate that African Americans make up is an open question.  If they're 35%+, Obama will win, and probably by a decent margin.  If they're 33% or under, Clinton has a chance.  Secondly, how Clinton performs with college educated whites.  She won that vote (barely) in PA.  If she repeats that or extends her margin, it will push her vote among Whites into the high 60s instead of the low 60s, and if she gets, say 68% of the non-African American vote, it will certainly be single digits.  In the numbers that have been released, the biggest movement towards Clinton has been in the research triangle area, (see SUSA's week on week numbers).  Third, Obama's % of African American vote will be a factor.  There is nothing really to indicate any erosion, but Obama winning only 85% of the African American vote not only would mean a single digit race- it would mean a possible Clinton win.  

    We don't know the answer to those three factors, and no poll between now and election day will allow us to pinpoint where those numbers will fall.  Small margins here do make a big difference.  All this is to say though, that if Clinton performs as well as she has among non-African Americans in states from March 4th and beyond, the race can be in the single digits.  If any momentum swings her way, and she performs even slightly better among these groups, it could be very very close.


    Unbelievable on its face. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:59:32 PM EST
    The poll shows Obama getting 64% of the black vote, and the black vote making up 25% of the total vote.  In fact, it's projected that African Americans will make up at least one third of the Democratic primary electorate.  Obama is unlikely to get less than 80 to 85% of the African American vote (probably more).

    The numbers just aren't realistic.

    FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by magster on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:02 PM EST
    some diarist said early voting numbers had A-A participation so far at 38%.

    Well, is it possible that the business with (none / 0) (#17)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:05:12 PM EST
    Wright is making AA voters less likely to vote?

    It's possible. . . (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:10:34 PM EST
    but the 25% number is determined by the polling outfit based on their turnout projections, not on any observed drop-off in the African American vote (and they're suggesting a pretty big dropoff).

    In other words (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:14:06 PM EST
    they're cooking the books like Zogby.

    Or Else Expect A Bunch Of Cross-Over Voters (none / 0) (#38)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:18:49 PM EST
    diluting the AA turnout.

    I still think AAs will be at least 30%, probably closer to 35%, and could go as high as 40%.  And Obama will win at least 85% of them.
    Which means unless his white vote collapses, he wins by at least 10%.

    I won't believe otherwise until I see it on Tuesday.


    Gov. Easeley says (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by kateNC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:44:59 PM EST
    He expects 30-38% African-American voter turnout.

    Demographics kill Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by ig on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:21:21 AM EST
    Assuming for AA votes its 90-10 for Obama
    and other votes its 40-60 for Obama

    If the turnout is 30% AA, then Obama wins 55-45
    35% AA, then Obama wins 57.5-42.5
    40% AA, then Obama wins 60-40


    The McKinney Effect (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:22:04 PM EST
    white Republicans decide to vote in the only interesting race and totally FUBAR the result.

    Yeah, it's possible.


    Especially Since (none / 0) (#48)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:26:59 PM EST
    A lot of Republicans aren't happy with Bush or McCain and may be considering crossing over in November.  Might as well have some say in who McCain's opponent is going to be, keep your options open.  It's what I would do if the Democratic party nomination was wrapped up and the Republican wasn't.  I wouldn't try to FUBAR it, I'd vote for the least scary Republican to try to protect myself in case of a November loss.  

    Interesting (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:29:31 PM EST
    because my strategy would probably be to vote for the crazy, least electable, Republican. We'd cancel one-another's vote.

    I've Watched Too Many Crazy, Unelectable GOPers (none / 0) (#63)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:43:09 PM EST
    Be sworn in.  Case in point, George W. Bush.  

    Since I believe you can never overestimate the Democrats' ability to lose an election, I'm all about damage control.  


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:44:29 PM EST
    it's a judgement call, and probably why most people from the other party don't actually meddle.

    Well, the all cook the books (none / 0) (#39)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:19:21 PM EST
    in that sense.  The lady (her name escapes me) at the DeMoines Register was roundly criticized for her novel turnout model in Iowa which led to much higher Obama prediction than anyone else -- until it turned out to be completely accurate.

    I'm willing to bet that isn't the case in this instance, however.


    Selzer (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:23:49 PM EST
    As I recall, she predicted way more independents than actually turned out, but she nevertheless called the result. My personal opinion is that media coverage of her auguring threw the result to Obama.

    I guess we'll never know.


    I know you love to gently chide me here, andgarden (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jim J on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:05:55 AM EST
    So I'll give you some more ammunition: Something fishy always happens in Iowa, and usually to the benefit of the Dem old guard, who as we know would always rather lose with their candidate than win with an "unacceptable" one.

    You mention the Selzer thing this year, which I still think smelled bad. Like you I also noticed the media trying to turn that poll into a self-fulfilling prophecy, often desperately so. That they succeeded only makes me more suspicious, of course.

    I still think 2004 smells funny. I'm no Dean fan, but Kerry's rise from two percent to running away with the thing in about two weeks has never set right with me.

    Fire away, andgarden. I can take it.


    Nothing to fire (none / 0) (#101)
    by andgarden on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:05:27 AM EST
    It's an interesting observation.

    Hmm...ya think (none / 0) (#53)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:35:41 PM EST
    I think people did not like him throwing the Reverend under the bus.  Just wait and see.  I tell you, this may have worked for white America, but it will not play well among religious based AA community.  

    Unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:43:55 PM EST
    everything I've heard/read from black commentators with genuine involvement in the black community in the last 24 hours, radio talk show hosts, preachers, politicians and the like, says black voters have decided Wright deserved it because he dissed Obama by calling him a politician.  When it comes down to loyalty to a preacher they never heard of versus loyalty to Obama, Obama certainly wins.  Wright's, um, uniqute style is not all that prevalent in black churches, either, so it's not like Obama denounced a type of black leader everybody feels is part of their own lives and churches.

    Well, Obama IS a politician..isn't he? (none / 0) (#117)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    And the Rev. Wright's preaching style is very much prevalent in the black churches, his content is not. And completely disowning a man who has been part and parcel of your life for 20 years didn't go down well in the black community in my area. It's not that Obama disowned the Reverend's ideas that didn't sit well, it was Obama's claim that he had never been close to him or been mentored, etc. by him. Especially since those things had been emphasized to a great degree in his previous campaigns and in his books. So the view is that either he lied about being an integral part of the black community and the church, or he lied about his real relationship with Rev. Wright. Either one is not seen as a good position for him to be in. Or as an incentive to vote for him. If he can't stand up for his friends, why would he stand up for the voters? Anyone who can read will read Obama's books and realize he is lying through his teeth about his relationship with the Reverend. If he is lying about that, what else is he lying about? That is the question down here.

    that's my opinion. Obama has completely (none / 0) (#59)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:38:49 PM EST
    contradicted himself.

    The black commentators I have heard (none / 0) (#103)
    by independent voter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:20:33 AM EST
    seem to think Wright asked for this by saying being against him was the same as being against the black church. In other words, Wright does not speak for the black church, it is not some monolithic entity. Wright has been speaking for TUCC of Chicago. He overreached and turned off black parishoners.

    I don't know... I think its possible (none / 0) (#25)
    by Exeter on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:08:42 PM EST
    I agree this poll is a little out of whack, but SUSA had it 49-44 and that was before the latest Wright stuff and before the usual weekend-before Obama dip in support.

    It's going to be a long weekend (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:09:45 PM EST
    before we get their last polls.

    Well, according to my calculator (none / 0) (#31)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:13:54 PM EST
    85% of 33 is 28.05. So, if Obama gets 85% of one third of the total vote, he will get about 28% of the vote. This doesn't seem like a winning percentage to me. Yes, he will get some of the white vote too. But to get from 28% to 51% will take a lot of white votes. How do you figure he is going to get them? And do correct my calculation method if needed. I am not at all cognizant of the workings of polls. I was just using the numbers from your comment. :)

    Not that Hard (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:23:15 PM EST
    He got about 40% in PA.  So if that holds .4 x .67 =  .268.  Add 28.05 to 26.80 and you get 54.85.  Thus, a 10% win.  

    It's very difficult for Hillary to get into single digits.  She gets there if AA vote turns out to be less (like 25%), if her share of the white vote approaches 70% or if she can peel off a significant number of AA voters (total 15-25%).  Each of these is unlikely, IMO.

    Which is why I agree with andgarden that it's going to be very hard for her to get it under 10.


    I don't believe BO will hit 40 percent white vote (none / 0) (#82)
    by Prabhata on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:34:52 AM EST
    Not in NC after Wright and PA.  I think BO will be in the low 30s because of the independents and Republicans that she's attracting. That gives him around 50 percent of the total vote.  Unless she can take away more of the AA vote, NC will go to BO. "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future."- Niels Bohr.

    I think (none / 0) (#106)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:13:54 AM EST
    NC whites will come out in fewer numbers for him than PA whites.

    Taking that further. . . (none / 0) (#46)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:24:13 PM EST
    he needs another 22% of the vote to win.  To get that he needs only 1/3rd of the rest of the vote -- that is, he can lose the rest of the electorate by 66% to 33% and still win the state.  That bad an outcome isn't likely (although in light of Wright and the recent SUSA poll, it's within the realm of possiblity).

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:31:09 PM EST
    If AAs are 30% of the vote and he gets 90%, then Clinton basically needs 70% of the non-AA vote to win.  Given the number of universities and the number of so-called latte liberals, it's going to be very hard for her to get to 70% of the white vote, IMO.

    This state is built for an Obama double digit win.  Anything less is very bad for him because anything less means he's either gotten creamed with the non-AA vote or has lost some AA support (either through lack of turnout or losing them to Clinton).  Personally, I don't see it happening.  I can see her now losing by less than 15, but I don't see her losing by less than 10 and I definitely don't see her winning.  


    Thus ends today's lesson in Racial redistricting (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:27:36 PM EST
    Now you know why Democrats in the South LOVE 40% black districts. And when Democrats draw the lines, they get them.

    She rocked on "O'Reilly Factor," too! (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Universal on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:15:00 PM EST
    It was great to see Hillary hit it out of the park on "The O'Reilly Factor" tonight! See for yourself [It's underneath the Barack Obama/Wright video at the top of the page]:


    Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal"

    Congratulations to the TL kid, Jeralyn!


    More on why IA sucks (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:37:03 PM EST

    Remember this or ahem, Mississippi?

    Junk, junk, junk.

    I'd love to believe this (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dianem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM EST
    ...but it's too soon, and too little. If other polls show this trend, that would be a very good thing. I'm happy to report that my fairly apolitical husband was the one who initiated the Clinton donation today. I don't know why. I don't talk about politics to him much - it upsets him. He doesn't feel any more positive about the election than I do, but he says that we have to give Clinton whatever chance we can. I only wish I could give more.

    Bill Clinton said it. If Clinton wins North Crolina, whe will be the nominee. I believe him. But ... that's a big hurdle. It also doesn't mean that there is no way for her to be the nominee if she doesn't win NC. We'll see.

    I predict (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by boredmpa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:42:56 PM EST
    A 5-6 percent increase in AA women voting for hillary.  Polls show increasing concern that Obama cannot win the GE, so we will see a decrease in general support for Obama and more women supporting hillary.  He burnt some bridges, and there is a historic candidate that can win.

    Mason Dixon shows Obama up by 7 (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MarkL on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:46:19 PM EST
    They're worried at MyObamaDD

    A local TV station says Wright is dragging Obama down.

    No crosstabs, but (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:49:52 PM EST
    they do say this:

    Where there is no competition is race. Eighty-seven percent of African Americans plan to vote for Obama, while 62 percent of whites said they will vote for Clinton. There has been very little evidence suggesting either candidate can cut into those numbers before Tuesday.

    The race numbers seem more right to me, and this poll is in complete agreement with Survey USA. I believe it, but we shall see.


    In the FWIW department (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:49:23 AM EST
    Hillary was down 15 on the 3/27 Insider Advantage poll.  I don't have crosstabs, but I have a


    Early voting (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by maritza on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:13:15 AM EST
    Obama has a HUGE advantage in early voting right now and I don't think these polls really look at that.

    Just as the PPO poll showing Obama winning Pennsylvania was an outlier, I think the IA advantage poll for North Carolina is also an outlier because the AA turn out is really low.  Even Easley said that the AA turn out will be 8% higher than usual.

    north carolina (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by snucky on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:04:55 AM EST
    my hope is to come within single digits in north carolina for hillary is not outright win it.

    Well I think (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by facta non verba on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:27:41 AM EST
    several things are moving against Obama. Some AAs are upset that he disavowed Wright, will they stay home or vote for Hillary? How many is this number anyway? More serious is that according toa NBC/WSJ poll, Obama since Pennsylania has seen

    • 28 point drop among women over 65
    • 26 point drop among suburban women
    • 33 point drop among rural voters

    These numbers are for the US as a whole not specific to NC or IN, still I think that second number is the key one. Those were people who voted for him in Wisconsin. This could make NC close and perhaps Clinton can eke out a narrow margin. The numbers are moving in her direction though Chuck Todd it was more a factor of Obama tanking rather Clinton surging.

    I should have added that (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by facta non verba on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:32:35 AM EST
    Clinton has a new a featuring Maya Angelou running in North Carolina. If you haven't seen it, here it is

    Maya Angelou Ad in North Carolina

    Everything's Coming Up Roses (none / 0) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:50:33 PM EST
    ...and let's see those numbers climb!

    OT...any complete video of Hillary (none / 0) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:53:01 PM EST
    on O'Reily anywhere?  

    Can't help you there, but the second part of (none / 0) (#47)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:26:44 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton's interview with O'Reilly will be broadcast tomorrow.

    Have only seen it (none / 0) (#81)
    by jen on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:22:04 AM EST
    in 2 parts -- at No Quarter.

    Hard to believe (none / 0) (#5)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:56:02 PM EST
    We shall see.

    GO BABY GO!!!! (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:04:46 PM EST
    YEAH!! This is so great!!  I am so excited!! I just love a good horse race..I really do. And I especially love it when a mare beats the colts. And so does she. IIRC she was at the Belmont when Rags to Riches beat Curlin in the Belmont. I wish we could post pics on here because the one of her looking him in the eye and staring him down while outrunning him is great. Reminds me of Hillary, she won't quit either and she has that Thoroughbred heart too. The Thoroughbred heart is what keeps them going when they have nothing left, it's what gives a tired racer that extra umph to get up there and try just one more time, keep running hard for just one more furlong. It's what Hillary has, the Thoroughbred heart. Go Baby Go!!!

    Disclosure: "Go Baby Go" is the slogan for the National Thoroughbred Racing Association which promotes Thoroughbred racing. It is NOT a sexist remark. It is what racing fans yell to the horses as they are running..well, to the horse they bet on anyway..LOL

    Ummm, thoroughbreds (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:09:44 AM EST
    are also crazy and panic at a soft breeze.  Can we make her a thoroughbred/quarter horse cross or something?

    I live in FL, and have nine Thoroughbreds (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:12:06 AM EST
    They are not crazy and don't panic even during a hurricane. They are also very curious, and my alpha mare, a grand-daughter of Secretariat, can hammer any threat to the herd right into the ground. Even my two three year old stallions over the fence are scared of her..LOL Only people who can't handle them are scared of Thoroughbreds. They are smart and will get the upper hand if they realize you are scared of them. And they have a wicked sense of humor. I have barn cats. One used to sit on the fence post above one of the feed tubs. The horse got tired of having the cat there, picked him up by the tail and dumped him in the water tub. Then he went back to eating. The cat found another post to sit on. Heh.

    Oh, I can handle them (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:33:00 AM EST
    (or I used to in my riding days!), I just had a revelation the first time I rode a polo pony, who responded immediately to whatever I asked for, even though he'd never met me before in his life.

    Thoroughbreds are magnificent.  Just wouldn't really want to ride one on a hunt!  Like everything else, though, they're all different, and perhaps I just encountered more than my share of too easily distractable ones.


    Yeah...I don't trust the numbers... (none / 0) (#22)
    by white n az on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:06:57 PM EST
    Clinton 20% of the black vote
    13.6% undecided
    Obama decisively winning Hispanic vote

    doesn't make sense

    Hispanic vote for Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by stefystef on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:48:27 AM EST
    No way, wishful thinking on the part of the Obama camp.

    Hillary will win the Hispanic and Native American vote.  


    Rigged poll (none / 0) (#40)
    by ig on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:20:31 PM EST
    AA under represented at 25%, and will vote 90-10 Obama.

    >10% Obama wins
    <10% Hillary wins


    Hispanic Vote = 5 people (none / 0) (#65)
    by BDB on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:44:02 PM EST
    Who can tell with that sample size?

    women vote? (none / 0) (#35)
    by zebedee on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:16:32 PM EST
    I also distrust this poll, partly because I'm not sure how credible IA are but also what everyone's already mentioned about AA vote. Bust isn't women vote % lower than to be expected which might partly offset that?

    what I'm hearing from NC (none / 0) (#36)
    by Josey on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:16:54 PM EST
    military personnel and families supporting Obama are very upset with Wright, a Marine, bashing America.

    And what really does that have to do (none / 0) (#104)
    by independent voter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:27:59 AM EST
    with Obama? It's so ridiculous, let's have him answer for everything anyone he has ever been associated with says. That seems fair, and more to the point, what we all should realy be worried about this election. Who cares about health care, the Iraq war, the economy, education, VA benefits??? I am much more concerned about what someone in the candidate's life had to say about a particular subject.
    The media is driving this crap and all of us are playing into it. We are all sheep

    judgement (none / 0) (#107)
    by sas on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:18:07 AM EST
    judgement, judgement

    remember he said he had good judgement, and she did not


    That argument has been beaten to death (none / 0) (#111)
    by ChrisO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    as I'm sure you well know. We're not talking about "anyone he has ever been associated with." It's just plain dishonest to frame it that way. Wright has been an integral part of Obama's life for 20 years. More importantly, he has had a tremendous effect on Obama's world view, at least according to Obama.

    But for me and many others, it's not a matter of holding Obama accountable for what Wright says. It's a matter of what we can see from the way Obama has handled this issue. If Obama's not the nominee, he can take baths with Wright for all I care. But if he's representing the party in the fall, we all have a right to evaluate the terrible job he has done with this issue. First, he beats Hillary over the head with his "old politics" cudgel, then reveals himself to be exactly the same. In may ways that's just politics, though, and it's hard to argue with when Hillary has showed herself to be perfectly capable of playing hardball. It's more an issue with Obama's supporters, who continue to portray Obama in glowing terms that he just doesn't deserve.

    But after the last two Presidential elections, we are perfectly within our rights to look at a candidate from the perspective of "will he blow it?" Obama has made severe missteps all along the way, and continues to. I truly believe that he has shown himself to be just not ready yet. I was very heartened after seeing his speech at the 2004 convention. He looked really promising, but he's trying to jump the line without the requisite experience, and it's showing. His supporters keep saying that he must be the better campaigner because he's leading. But the fact is that he piled up his lead in a single 10-day period. They're his votes, and I wouldn't argue that they're illegitimate. But there's no question he was fortunate that a bunch of elections were held in a very short time frame, when the media coverage of Hillary was all focused on when she would drop out.

    Obama supporters like to crow about the terrible job Hillary's campaign has done. Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that they have done a superb job of absorbing some serious body blows and not only kept her in the race, but are still winning huge in important primaries. There's no question her campaign made some serious missteps. But I think when all is said and done, the Clinton campaign will be looked at as much for how they righted the ship and possibly won the nomination. And Hillary's toughness has transformed me from a lukewarm to an enthusiastic supporter. I've gone through many periods of despair, when I figured it was all over, and I continue to be amazed at her ability to keep fighting. I don't know why that's seen as such a bad trait in a candidate.

    And can we please stop the whining from Obama supporters about how we're not talking about the "important issues?" Why would this be the first campaign to be based entirely on "issues"? These sideshows are always part of a campaign, and how they are dealt with is one of the true tests of a candidate, like it or not.

    The problem for Obama is that it always rings hollow when the candidate who's being attacked starts to call for a focus on the issues. When the Clinton campaign was being accused of racism, and Obama supporters were throwing every nasty accusation at her, that would have been a good time for Obama to say "that's not what this campaign is about." But they were perfectly happy to keep beating the drum with "as far as I know" and baseless acusations about leaking the photo to Drudge. So pouting now about the unseriousness of the campaign just makes them look like amateurs.


    A great many of the AA population in NC (none / 0) (#118)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    are ex-military or in the military. That is why it matters. You seem to forget that African Americans are also a part of other voting blocs, like military, women, and over 65. They might actually vote with one of those blocs rather than voting for someone just because he is black. Some people actually think that who you hang out with says a lot about who you are. And so does how you treat your friends. It says a lot about character, which is important in a President.

    Tonight, it's great news! (none / 0) (#37)
    by Chimster on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM EST
    Tomorrow, we'll see if it still stands up. This may be a fluke poll, but it sure is sweet to look at tonight.

    I speak for Kathy (none / 0) (#42)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:21:21 PM EST
    Since she is not here, she and I will listen to any poll that is on our candidates side.  And based on this primary, that is as good as reading tea leaves, rabbit feet, evil eye hands, etc.  So, I will sleep in complete ignorant bliss.  

    Dunno (none / 0) (#55)
    by Radix on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:36:23 PM EST
    SUSA has Obama at a 5% win over Hilary, with a 3.7% plus or minus. My read is that SUSA is predicting an Obama win of anywhere from 1-9%, rounding up. This could show a win for Obama of less than 5%. My take anyway.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Number of African-American voters (none / 0) (#56)
    by kateNC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:36:54 PM EST
    Gov. Easeley said on Charlie Rose tonight that there would be many more African-American voters than usual in NC, perhaps as many as 8%.  He also said that while we usually have 450K voters in a presidential election, this year we'll probably have as many as 1.5 million. So, polls might be suspect.

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#70)
    by kateNC on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:49:44 PM EST
    I meant 8% more African-American voters than usual.

    I got that :) (none / 0) (#76)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:00:04 AM EST
    I think the demographics (none / 0) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:59:14 PM EST
    are 22% AA for the state.  I would expect more than 30% based on polls etc.  At least 33% (so 11 pts higher), some are estimating 37-40 which seems on the high end to me.  Nice to hear the 1.5.  Last estimate was 1.2.

    Remember not an open primary. (none / 0) (#112)
    by jimotto on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    Blacks make up 38% of registered Dems, and 10% of unaffiliated, for 31% of eligible voters overall.  I heard a report that so far blacks have made up 38% of early voters.  If this is 38% of total early voting, numbers in the 40s are likely.

    Additionally, so far at least 275,000 votes cast, including over 50,000 yesterday.  We'll likely hit 400,000 early voters, 1.5 million total voters seems low.


    on the other hand, (none / 0) (#72)
    by english teacher on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 11:50:38 PM EST
    perhaps it is not unreasonable to hope that 30% of african american voters in north carolina have recognized the problem of turning over the huge mess bush has created to someone with so little experience, when clinton is available to do the job instead?  maybe the guy is not ready to have all the hopes and aspirations incumbent upon the first african american president?  what would it mean if he can't deliver, or is destroyed by the media like bill was?  perhaps that 30% number for hillary approaches what she should have had all along if the media had not played the race card, and had obama not naively gone along with them.  i hope she makes inroads into obama's african american support by earning it on the issues and policy.  frankly, i think that would be a good thing for america not because i dislike obama but because hillary is simply much more ready for the task at hand.  in eight years, wright will be old news; obama repudiated him yesterday.  and in eight years, the country will be in much better shape.  it's not unreasonable to think thirty percent of african american voters in north carolina have come around to thinking that.  even though they haven't yet.  at any rate, we shall see.  

    Is it true (none / 0) (#80)
    by g8grl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:21:32 AM EST
    That Wright came out with a recent statement that once Obama is in the White House he'll be back with Obama?  If so, WOW.  Wright is really pushing the idea that Obama is a liar and will say anything to get to win.  Is he really saying that this public denounciation is all a show?  Why would he be saying that now?

    It's true (none / 0) (#84)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:53:49 AM EST
    "I said to Barack Obama last year, `If you get elected, November the 5th I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people,' Wright said.

    Are you misunderstanding Wright? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by jfung79 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:53:31 AM EST
    It sounds to me like that quote actually means Wright would be attacking Obama even harder if Obama is elected, because Obama would be in power and suppressing people as the leader of the US government.

    As for the polls, great news for Hillary, I hope the trend continues through next Tuesday!


    your assessment is correct (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:18:47 AM EST
    Wright will be coming after Obama holding him accountable. I think he's already doing that by telling everyone he's just a pol, like Wright's a pastor.

    Um... how could I be misunderstanding (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:10:52 AM EST
    anything? All I did was provide the quote. Wright's own words. No interpretation, no comment, no WWRM.

    It's simple (none / 0) (#113)
    by ChrisO on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:51:24 AM EST
    The commenter asked "is it true that Wright will be back with Obama?" and you titled your post "It's true." I wouldn't call that just posting a quote with no interpretation.

    Yes, the question was: (none / 0) (#119)
    by echinopsia on Thu May 01, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM EST
    Is it true ...That Wright came out with a recent statement that once Obama is in the White House he'll be back with Obama?

    And my answer was "yes it's true" that Wright made a statement, with the quote. No, I don't call that interpretation, but I guess I could see how someone who is hypersensitive to the subject might, if he held his mouth right and squinted real hard.

    You got some nefarious meaning out of "yes it's true" Wright made a statement? Do tell.


    I never said anything was nefarious (none / 0) (#120)
    by ChrisO on Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:09:46 AM EST
    The question was "Did Wright say he'd be back with Obama?" You said "Yes, it's true." But Wright didn't say that, so you weren't simply passing along information you were characterizing Wright's statement inaccurately. It's not a big deal to me, I'm simply responding because you continue to obfuscate the issue.

    Look at what I wrote, not what you want to see (none / 0) (#122)
    by echinopsia on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:40:55 PM EST
    The question was:
    Is it true ...That Wright came out with a recent statement

    OK? Get the f*ck over yourself, I am obfuscating nothing.


    Don't be ridiculous (none / 0) (#123)
    by ChrisO on Sat May 03, 2008 at 12:27:42 PM EST
    The question wasn't whether it was true that Wright came out with a statement. Wright has come out with a bunch of statements. You creatively truncated the question, and left out the subject of the statement:  "...he'll be back with Obama" To pretend that the question was about whether Wright put out a statement, the contents of which are irrelevant, is just stupid. Wright didn't say he'll be "back with" Obama, he said he told Obama "I'm coming after you," which has an entirely different meaning. So saying "it's true" is completely inaccurate.

    Give it a rest (none / 0) (#124)
    by echinopsia on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:29:18 PM EST
    I know what question I was answering. You don't.

    Glad to see all these polls (none / 0) (#88)
    by maritza on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:04:21 AM EST
    showing that North Carolina is tight. This will REALLY lower the expectation game.

    Thus when Obama wins it by double digits, it will be good for him.

    After reading around all morning (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:45:24 AM EST
    it is beginning to appear that the GOP attack ads against those running down ticket who endorsed Obama are making a very large dent in the attitudes of state's democrats.

    CNN's poll of polls today has Obama only (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:42:36 AM EST
    leading Clinton nationally by 1% and mentions that some of the polling is overlapping before and after Rev Wright's preformances.  You have to scroll down the ticker to see the story.

    Obama's lead is now down to 1 point over Clinton nationwide, 45 percent to 44 percent, in CNN's "poll of polls." That margin is down 3 points from another CNN poll of polls conducted two days ago. In that analysis, Obama led Clinton 47 percent to 43 percent. The margin is also considerably lower than an April 18 poll of polls that showed Obama with an 11 point lead.

    The poll of polls consists of three newly released national polls from Fox News/Opinion Dynamics, Gallup, and Newsweek. There is no margin of error on the poll of polls.

    Both the Fox News poll and the Gallup poll were conducted partially after Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made a fresh round of controversial comments earlier this week.

    why so small? (none / 0) (#121)
    by DJT62 on Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:25:44 AM EST
    Isn't 571 people a bit small for a poll in NC?