PPP NC Poll: Obama By 10

PPP's Final NC poll has Obama up 10, 53-43. The key data: Clinton wins whites 62-35 (61% of the vote). Obama win African Americans 84-11 (35% of the vote).

PPP has an interesting discussion about their turnout model:

Obviously how you choose to nail down that figure can have a pretty significant effect on your Presidential numbers when the electorate is so polarized along racial lines. We settled on 35%. We asked folks who were polled if they had voted early. Taking all of the respondents in our poll, if 40% of those who voted early were black then 35% of the population as a whole was.

In other words, they threw a dart. Keep this in mind when you hear about "scientific polling." That said, the poll feels right to me.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Suffolk Indiana Poll: Hillary Up By 6 | Ras WV Poll: Clinton By 29 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't believe it (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    because it does not jibe with my wishes.

    Clinton wins NC by 5%.

    I like your "poll" better! (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by nashville on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    KUSA -- (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:02:18 PM EST
    the only honest pollster in town!

    That's the spirit (none / 0) (#16)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:16:22 PM EST
    Kathy, I love your posts.

    I Do, Too (none / 0) (#23)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:25:14 PM EST
    Because there's no intellectual dishonesty.  I hate the results, so it's crap.  I love the results so it's fantastic.  Heh.

    Although I do think there's good news in this poll for Clinton, it helps re-adjust expectations, which I think have grown too rosy for her in NC.  She has a very slim chance to win and if she comes close or pulls it off, it should be seen as the gigantic accomplishment it will be.  Similarly, if she doesn't pull it off and Obama wins by 15 that shouldn't be seen as some huge defeat for her.  


    well... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:12:57 PM EST
    to give you better insight into KUSA polling, I'm also taking into account three factors that so-called legitimate (whatevah) pollsters either gloss over, discount or outright deny:

    1.  The Clinton brand is still incredibly celebrated among dems, and the more Obama seems to be struggling, the better things look for Clinton (ie: the "adult" to his naive child)

    2.  NC remembers Clinton saving them after Floyd and the subsequent flooding.  Katrina helps draw a stark contrast.

    3.  People lie to pollsters.  This last one is very important, and it's the reason I don't actually poll people for my polls.

    You're right. (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    Kathy's Kats should be on every pollster's A-list! :-)

    What about the PUSA Poll? (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by ccpup on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:46:19 PM EST
    Though not as well known as the KUSA Poll, all the dogs in the local dog run agree that my pups are very accurate with their predictions.  Now all I gotta do is wake 'em up long enough to see who they believe is gonna pull it out in IN and NC and we're good to go.  Operative phrase, of course, is "wake 'em up long enough".

    "It's a dog's life" was coined with my pups in mind, I swear.  :-)


    Until then, I'll continue to avidly follow KUSA.


    I Thought This PPP Poll Was Thought To Be (none / 0) (#119)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
    not that reliable?

    NC (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Mike in NYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:13:16 PM EST
    Anything less than a 12 point margin in NC signifies demographic weakness for BO.

    NC compared to PA (none / 0) (#101)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:11:22 PM EST
    Yeah, and anything less than a 12 point win for Clinton in Pennsylvania signified a weakness too. Right? Remember, she held a 20% lead for a long time there and won by 9%. As the primaries in significant states get closer so do the poll numbers.

    One prediction of which I am confident (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MarkL on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:17:48 PM EST
    is that regardless of the outcome, TL will be visited by hordes of OBFers to tell us that Hillary has lost---really lost---this time. In fact, if Hillary wins NC there will be even more of them.

    In at the kill? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:20:40 PM EST
    feels right to me, too, but... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Turkana on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    a) i haven't yet bought d & d dice, so i can't be sure.

    b) if those numbers are accurate, breaking with wright hurt obama among african americans.

    don't kid yourselves (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:23:03 PM EST
    a ten point loss in NC would be bad for her.  she's the one that's behind and needs to make a three point shot.  obama is running the four corners and if he hold's serve, he'll take the nomination.  hillary desperately needs to move now.   if she loses by ten, how can she really claim any momentum?  maybe she would have gained some whites along the way, but certainly not enough to win and probably not enough to convince the party that she's the obvious choice.  and the only way she convinces the party that she's the obvious choice is to turn someplace like north carolina around.  

    i think she'll lose by about 7 or so.  better 7 but losing would be pretty good, between 7-10 would be not good, and worse than 10 or so would be very bad for her.  

    Momentum claims (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:26:01 PM EST
    Well, let's put it this way. If Clinton wins Indiana by 10, West Virginia by 30, Kentucky by 35 and upsets Obama in Oregon, I think Obama is in serious trouble.

    Given the demographics that have been constant for a while now, this is not a pipe dream.

     I think Oregon decides the nominee personally.


    yet, imo michigan and florida (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by sancho on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    have at this point decided the election. i really want to know how that happened and who pushed to get them off of the map and who caved and why. arguably, hillary's the nominee by now, otherwise. which, if true, would mean that the first major party african-american candidate nominee for president would have gotten the nomination through voter disenfranchisement. this is the end of the Civil Rights movement? how ironic is that?

    No they haven't (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by CST on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    Even if you include Florida and Michigan, it is still a very close race.  No one has won yet - by any measure.

    There is no way to know this. (5.00 / 0) (#78)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:44:58 PM EST
    Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in MI. And, neither candidate even campaigned in either state.

    Had the DNC acted responsibly and simply halved the delegates to be seated at the convention, who knows how far ahead HRC would be?


    Now I am confused (none / 0) (#82)
    by CST on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:47:36 PM EST
    I am saying, even if you include the vote that was done, it is still pretty close.

    There are only so many delegates at stake in those states... it wouldn't be a complete game changer at this point, it would benefit her to be sure, but the race wouldn't be over by any means.


    I know what you're saying. (5.00 / 0) (#86)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:54:05 PM EST
    It's very, very close, and because there is no clear delegate winner right now, the SD's will have to decide. One factor on which they will decide will be the popular vote count.

    Now, there is such a dispute about this count because of what happened in FL and MI. The DNC - and many Obamans - like to pretend those millions of people never voted. That is not acceptable. If they do count the votes, they tend to give all the Uncommitted votes to Obama. That, also, is not acceptable, since we have no way of knowing for whom they actually voted.

    Since no one really knows how many votes Obama got in MI, and since neither candidate campaigned in either MI or FL, who knows what the popular vote count would be had the matter of the date changes been settled before the primary?

    That's why I'm so angry at the DNC and why I think nominating Obama without settling FL and MI is absolutely ridiculous. I agree that the magic number, if there is one, should now be 2209, not 2025.


    Gotcha (none / 0) (#94)
    by CST on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    I would personally want whatever candidate that wins to win regardless of how or if Michigan/Florida are counted.  Not because I don't think they should be counted, just because any solution that relies on counting or not counting Florida/Michigan to win is going to be suspect with some group of voters and hurt the party in November.  I am also pissed off at the DNC, I think they really blew this one big time.

    It is impossible to re-run the race (none / 0) (#95)
    by ineedalife on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:03:51 PM EST
    but most likely, even with half delegates, if FL and MI had "counted" when they voted the psychological dynamic and media narrative of the entire race would have been different.

    Would Obama been able to survive Super Tuesday? Who knows?

    Would Obama been able to run up the score in his 11-0 run? Would he have had an 11-0 run? Who knows.

    How would the fund-raising dynamic been changed? Who knows?

    The only thing we know is that it would have been different.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#97)
    by CST on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    Would he have won Michigan?

    I think he would've had a pretty good shot, or at least could've come close. I think he really screwed up on the re-vote here, since I think he had a good shot of winning if not significantly narrowing the gap.  Especially if he had pushed for re-votes.  This was probably my biggest dissapointment with his campaign.


    Exceedlying different! (none / 0) (#98)
    by alexei on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:08:00 PM EST
    My analysis is that Obama would not have been able to survive Super Tuesday (at least not as a serious candidate, ala Huckabee).  That is why Brazile pushed for the death penalty for those two states instead of jail time for half their delegates.

    That's why there needed to be a vote (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:10:25 PM EST
    So we don't have to rely on the "analysis"  of people like us - who really have no idea.

    Didn't mean to hit a nerve. (none / 0) (#118)
    by alexei on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    But as all hypotheticals, you never "know" unless it happens.  Obviously, I was outlining what I thought could be a reasonable scenario; I was not stating that this was the only outcome, just my reasoned opinion (thus, the term "analysis").  I will refrain from using that term in the future, since it seems to have some connotations that I did not mean to give.

    I do however take exception to "people like us who really have no idea".  You have no idea who I am or what experience I have.   That said, obviously, there are a number of "answers" to the question and I just posited my theory.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#120)
    by CST on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    I was kinda joking, I wasn't offended and didn't mean to offend.  I was just making the point that even thoughtful analysis is often wrong, as we have been shown over and over again in this campaign.

    Also by "people like us" I really mean no one, regardless of experience or knowledge, can have any idea who would win Michigan in a real vote.  I wasn't assuming anything about you, other than the fact that you haven't seen the results of a true Michigan vote.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    The Obama supporters who keep harping on pledged delegates do not get this point, or they simply refuse to acknowledge it. Obama is only ahead because Florida and Michigan are being counted out of the equation. That's millions of voters! How can that be okay with them? (I know, I know. They are not progressives, they're Obamans.)

    I blame the DNC for caving to Donna Brazile and her ilk. The 50% solution would have been a perfect punishment and within the DNC Rules. 50% of the delegates would have been seated from each state, but the popular votes would all have been counted. Sounds good to me, but not to the DNC, apparently.


    You mean Harold Ickes and his ilk? (1.00 / 0) (#90)
    by jimotto on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    I do agree with you that the DNC screwed the pooch.    Docking the states 50% of their delegates would and letting the campaign go on would have had the desired effect of deterrence without causing the minefield we're stuck in now.  But lets remember Clinton supporters were well represented amoungst the imbeciles on the DNC who brought us this mess.  

    Old argument (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:10:07 PM EST
    Doesn't matter that Ickes was for it before he was against it - the thing is Hillary's argument is the RIGHT one.  Obama has no credible argument here, except his lackeys at the DNC are setting their own narrative.

    I was watching Axmen (4.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    this week. Man are they in trouble this year.  All the logging firms are feeling the construction pinch, and they expect to be in trouble until 2011.  They laid off workers because they couldn't affod to keep going in one crew.  Another crew were undone when some high cost rope was stolen by hunters.  The profit margin they opperate under must be small.

    I wonder how the gas back and forth will affect the vote?  They seems to be energy guzzlers.


    Turkana gets a front row seat (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:28:27 PM EST
    I think Obama will be in trouble... (none / 0) (#27)
    by sweetthings on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    When we see the first Super defect from his camp to Hillary.

    Any chance we'll see that tomorrow?


    Won;t happen (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:31:05 PM EST
    unless the scenario I describe happens. The REAL question is will SDs hold until then,

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:42:24 PM EST
    right, BTD.  This election is in their hands.

    And all of these elections are nothing more than "electability arguments" at this point.

    So traditional Democrats, such as myself, may well have to concede.

    I say, still, that puts us into play in the Fall.  I think only the hard-core social liberals will stick with him, and that's not a big percentage.

    This is the year that "change" was demanded.  It may actually prevail.

    But then, the supporters must accept the consequences of their own demands.

    That means.....change.

    And that means......don't count on traditional Dems.

    Traditional Dems got trashed.  OK.  We can lose.

    But don't put those votes in your "Dem" bucket, either.

    After this is over is when the "new" and "improved" Dem party will have to prove their stuff.

    Win the Fall.  Step into the roles traditional Dems have played all over America.  Work the precincts, answer the phones, get out the message.

    But I think this new generation will find the task a lot more challenging than they realized.  This means work for candidates down the ticket, work for people not so popular or "sexy," and above all......work for someone beyond the president, who doesn't have as much power as people imagine.

    So we'll see.  But I do think it's a generational fight.

    Not about race.  Not about gender.

    It is about generations.


    There are plenty of young people for Hillary! (none / 0) (#106)
    by jfung79 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:26:52 PM EST
    And I'm one of them!  

    Can Hillary break 70% of the white vote (4.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:32:05 PM EST
    in NC?  I think that's the over/under.

    That seems unlikely to me (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:34:52 PM EST
    i agree with this... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:47:01 PM EST
    but my personal observations have led me to believe that hillary is doing very well with the mccain vote around the state.  that is, the many democrats and indys that vote in democratic primaries but will usually vote for the gop candidate in november.  

    i got the feeling that in early states, that trend was the other way around.  there is some feeling around here that the more these anti clinton "democrats" have seen hillary, the more they have warmed to the idea of voting for her in conjunction with the obama-wright mess.  

    things have been moving very fast toward hillary in recent weeks in NC and i do expect many of the late deciders to break her way.  i'll stick with my 7 point prediction for now, but i wouldn't be terribly shocked to see it end within five.  of course, an enormous AA turnout could really throw that number off.


    She'd need Mississippi numbers (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    in other words, indy whites and a defection of the lattes.

    Yes, I think she can (none / 0) (#110)
    by stefystef on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    Only because Bill has been dazzling them in the small town in NC.  I think Indies and conservatives will go for Hillary over Obama.

    Agree, plus I really think that the gas tax... (none / 0) (#121)
    by alexei on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:22:20 PM EST
    holiday is a real winner!  Voters can really relate to this and actually see a concrete difference between the candidates in an issue that effects them  where it hurts.  Clinton cares about us and will fight for us, Obama is out of touch and elitist (you know, like those economists).  You really have to admire Hillary's political skills and intuition.  I have said this before, this is a great political maneuver.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    with you.

    She may hobble in, but it will be losing if there's not a game-changer soon.


    the game has already changed... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:19:01 PM EST
    when people stop talking about Obama's inevitability, and start talking about his "holding on" to win, the game has changed.

    It started changing when the Obama supporters suddenly abandoned the "he's the popular vote leader' argument in the face of the fact that Clinton will wind up with more votes than Obama at the end of the primary season.  Obama supporters are now stuck with the specious "most delegates" argument, as if delegates = popular support, and the extremely politically stupid "we'll alienate black voters' argument.

    I think that SDs are slowly coming to the realization that Obama has shot himself in the foot -- especially with the "alienating" argument, because acceding to that argument will send the message to Clinton supporters that "the Democratic Party doesn't care if it alienates YOU."


    Not quite (none / 0) (#59)
    by CST on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:23:45 PM EST
    Clinton MAY end up the popular vote winner, it isn't a given, he still has a good shot.

    That's why we are still voting.


    Oh, we've been getting that message (none / 0) (#66)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    for quite some time now.

    No, Obama does not want our votes. We are low-information, female, racist, uneducated, gun-toting Bible thumpers. Oh, and bitter and clinging. With no dignity.

    And Obama supporters wonder why HRC's voters are angry.


    The delegate count (none / 0) (#117)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    massively inflates Obama's popular support. In some cases it actually compounded the problem.  The results in the caucuses and the lopsided del counts encouraged a lot of hype that lead to othger wins in other states--if a few issues had been aired before, he'd never have got that far.

    All I know is (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:13:33 PM EST
    SUSA usually comes within 2 percentage points, it seems, high or low. I believe they predicted an 8-point win for HRC in PA.

    So, I'm going with SUSA with a 2-point possible swing in either direction.

    HRC in Indiana - 10 or 14 point win
    Obama in NC - 7 or 3 point win

    It's gonna be close in NC, not so much in IN. IMHO.

    Actually (none / 0) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:19:27 PM EST
    SUSA predicted a 6 point win in PA so they weren't quite as good as they normally are.

    But their last poll quit polling early... (none / 0) (#62)
    by alexei on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:27:11 PM EST
    on Passover weekend.  So, that poll was not up to their usual standards and could have been why they were off.

    True. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:38:00 PM EST

    I guess (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:00:41 PM EST
    we'll just have to wait and see. Of course, it's telling the same demographic story that IN is. Obama's obviously somewhat concerned about black turnout though if he's going to Durham and Fayetteville today.

    Obama can go to Durham all he wants... (none / 0) (#10)
    by stefystef on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:12:48 PM EST
    my family has already voted for Hillary.  AA in NC don't have the same hostilities towards the Clinton as the media would like you to think.

    If Hillary doesn't win, she will get very close to Obama and really crush his "momentum".  


    For newcomers (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:04:18 PM EST
    Off topic comments are deleted at this site.

    I repeat (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    Off topic comments are deleted at this web site.

    SUSA knows the one true way (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:05:57 PM EST

    We weight the overall universe of Texas adults to U.S. census, and let the sub-groups fall where they may.

    I eagerly await their last poll.

    I think that has been proven now (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    Fyi, a good local demographic analysis (none / 0) (#13)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:15:02 PM EST
    from the Charlotte Observer, BTD, noting significance of recent population growth in NC, as small towns and burbs begin to counterbalance big urban areas.

    Still waiting for an apology (none / 0) (#32)
    by Relentless99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:40:47 PM EST
    to indy33 for claiming that there wasnt several race-baiting comments on your Rev. Wright thread including a post from PssttCmere08 that called Obama an "Oreo Cookie". Of course you quickly erased the comment after I brought it up yet left your post lying about indy33. Jeralyn then comes in and says that all of indy33s comments are attacks when Indy has  constantly praised her for her stand against the death penalty and other non- horse race issues. Its pretty lonely in those threads because all anyone wants to do is bash Obama. They could care less about the progressive agenda. Indy never insulted anyone personally, he did question  peoples points of view at times but what is politics about? You allow people to attack Obama and his followers without mercy yet when someone challenges you or the CW of this site and its commenters they get deleted. You constantly attack the netroots yet you have adopted the same behaviors as those you criticize. Sounds like someones campaign to me! I am Indy33 and I approve this message! (that will soon be deleted w/o discussion or an answer) I promise to never come back if I could get at least an explanation as to how my comments are outrageous and must be stopped as compared to the "cultist" "kool-aid", "oreo-cookie" variety.

    So you promise to never come back (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:46:12 PM EST
    if they agree to your terms? How generous!

    Just an explanation (none / 0) (#43)
    by Relentless99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    I just dont see any pattern to who gets banned and what that takes. I know that its their site and their rules so maybe thats all I will get and I will accept that but I just dont get why you wouldnt want diverse opinions on your site. I did question the validity of posts about Obama as a father or how his church helped him find his blackness(twisted and seen as a bad thing by BTD) and how it made me uncomfortable that liberals are pushing these issues. I guess that this is out of bounds. I got all kinds of flak and was eventually banned yet someone calling Obama an "oreo cookie" was not even addressed at all other than sneakily deleting the post after I mentioned it and saying it never existed. It was reading this post that set me off and that context was never mentioned.

    You were banned yesterday Indy33 (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    for attacking Jeralyn, me and this site.

    And you will be banned again today along with your sidekick (sockpuppet) newdeal.


    ah see (none / 0) (#115)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    no corner of the net can be left over left.

    I Am Pretty Sure I Did Not Call Him An "oreo (1.00 / 0) (#105)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:24:39 PM EST
    cookie".  I said in the vernacular they might refer to obama as one; and if I hurt your feelings, well then sorry.

    Cultists? Kool-Aid Drinkers? You're Upset? (none / 0) (#38)
    by bslev22 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:57:49 PM EST
    Really and truly?  I make no apologies even though I really don't have to because I don't ordinarily use those terms.  Calling Obama an "oreo-cookie" is off-base.  I assume you don't presume that most of the posters here, or just about all of them, would ever use or endorse such language.  Presuming that Jeralyn or BTD would approve of such language is just nonsense, and I think you know that.  So I think you're trying to make hay.

    I'm more intrigued by your assertion that folks supporting Hillary don't support a "progressive agenda".  Tell me, what is the progressive agenda that Obama supports that Hillary rejects.

    Now that would be a productive discussion.  I submit that Senator Obama has no "progressive" agenda that is in any way profound, and certainly not unique. I do not believe that his support is based in anyway, shape or form by a unique or profound progressive agenda, other than the fact that he made a speech in '03 opposing the war (or something like that).  Penny for your thoughts.


    Once again (none / 0) (#50)
    by Relentless99 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:10:12 PM EST
    my words get twisted. Compare the amount of comments on posts that talk about the Death Penalty to the amount of posts on the horse-race and Obamas negatives, was all I was saying. I agree that neither candidate really embodies a true "progressive" agenda or they would agree with me and Jeralyn that the death penalty must be abolished. I have listed several times the things I DISAGREE with Obama on but I still get called a cultist, kool-aid drinker! Jeralyn claimed I have done nothing but attack on this site and that is simply not true. I had many comments praising BTD and Jeralyn for other issues besides the primary including the death penalty and torture. There are a million issues  Im sure we agree on.

    I come from the UK (none / 0) (#116)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:53:04 PM EST
    We do not have the Death Penalty.  We also have a version of UHC called the NHS.  I'm staunchly Labour.  

    Obama ain't for me. He shouldn't be for you. He's a con.


    What progressive agenda? (none / 0) (#39)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    So far, I'm seeing mostly that it's personality-driven and hate Hillary.

    What else?


    Oy (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:53:16 PM EST
    Indy33, you do not even know how to troll well.

    you and your twin relentless will be banned now.


    how long before new poster (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:54:56 PM EST
    indlentless turns up?

    prediction for NC (none / 0) (#12)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:13:49 PM EST
    Obama by 7-10%.

    heh. That's a margin of error to live by.

    A win is a win. If clinton doesn't win NC (4.50 / 2) (#15)
    by MarkL on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:16:14 PM EST
    it will be difficult for her, IMO---unless she really clobbers Obama in IN.

    A win is a win. If clinton doesn't win NC (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mike in NYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:38:13 PM EST
    She won't, because of the AA vote, and she doesn't have to. All she has to do is keep BO's margin to single digits.

    If she combines that with a win, however small, in IN, the dynamics of this race will change quickly.


    I would go so far as to say (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:15:51 PM EST
    5-15. All about the indy whites.

    More polls (none / 0) (#20)
    by Sunshine on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:22:39 PM EST
    There's 3 polls dated 5/4 -PPP 10.0  -Zogby 8.0  -Inside advantage  3.0  
    I pick the last one.....

    Insider Advantage stinks (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    Sounds right (none / 0) (#37)
    by nell on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST
    to me too...

    When I was in IN this weekend, there seemed to be a lot of growing enthusiasm among volunteers that maybe, just maybe Hillary could take NC driven by the media saying this race was much tighter than expected. Demographically, I just do not see how it happens. I think these paragraphs by Marc Ambinder provide good perspective:

    The Black Vote In North Carolina
    05 May 2008 08:54 am

    Insider Advantage's latest survey projects that black voters will comprise 35% of all who turnout on Tuesday, which seems a little low, but may well be in the ballpark of the reasonable. Obama leads Clinton by four points, with Clinton taking nearly 60% of the white vote and nearly doubling her usual percentage of the black vote (17%). The (relatively) small lead for Obama here is directly related to Clinton's performance among black voters. Mason Dixon's most recent poll, for example, have Obama an eight point lead overall having taken 87% of the black vote in an assumed electorate where blacks make up around 40% of the total. Mason Dixon, like virtually every recent survey, real or robotic, gives Clinton about 60% of the white vote. Most NC polls peg black turnout as being between 32 and 34% of the electorate.

    This real cool spreadsheet helps make the point. Let's be generous and give Clinton 17% of the black vote and 63% of the white vote. Let's then assume that black voters make up 35% of the electorate. Obama wins by 8 points. What's a scenario where Clinton wins? Let's award her 65% of the white vote and 18 percent of the black vote, and let's assume that black turnout dips to about 29% of the electorate. Clinton wins here by a half a point.


    Keeping the loss in single digits and winning by as big of a margin as possible in Indiana is what is important for her.

    Clinton in NC (none / 0) (#111)
    by Mike in NYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:42:50 PM EST
    "Keeping the loss in single digits and winning by as big of a margin as possible in Indiana is what is important for her."

    That's exactly it, and a lot of people (BO supporters, mostly) are still talking about how she has to win NC. She can't, and she doesn't have to.

    The primaries don't occur in isolation, and if NC sees the kind of demographic shift that would lower BO's margins to single digits, we'll see a similar phenomenon in IN, too.


    PPP didn't do very well in PA (none / 0) (#40)
    by dianem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 12:59:23 PM EST
    According to this site, which I found by clicking a link on SUSA's web site, PPP was one of the worst predictor's for the PA primary. The site doesn't say in which direction they erred.

    And they acknowledged this (none / 0) (#44)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:02:10 PM EST
    and modified their turnout models accordingly.

    According (none / 0) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:04:48 PM EST
    to the polling report card, PPP has an average of being off by 7 pts. The same accuracy rate as insider advantage. I guess you can say that neither poll is very good.

    True (none / 0) (#68)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    But NC is PPP's home state.  So, in theory, it should have more experience polling there.

    PPP (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:41:34 PM EST
    doesn't have much of a record to go on. IA has a history of doing a good job of polling the south. However, I'm with BTD, the polls all have different spreads and it's a crap shoot right now in NC.

    The key (none / 0) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    to all this might not be the AA vote so much as that white rural vote. It's hard to tell right now but if Hillary gets high turnout in the rural areas she could make it close or even pull off a squeaker.

    this is correct (none / 0) (#45)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:03:14 PM EST
    we're hearing about obama's 33% black turnout, but this could get turned on its head if that rural white turnout is greater than predicted.  i think it is more about getting these people to the polls rather than changing minds.  i'm thinking previously you had plenty that wouldn't vote or might have been split between the two.  as of now, most of this voting block has moved toward hillary but has it moved enough to get them all out to the polls?  we'll see.

    The rural turn out (none / 0) (#60)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:26:37 PM EST
    is going to be on par with the evangelical turn-out that gave Bush his surprising upset over Kerry.  Remember how hopeful we all were that election day, and certain we were that Kerry would win?  The stealth evangelicals cut us off at the knees, just as I think the stealth rural voter, the dem returning back to the fold, will cut off Obama at the knees.

    My sweet friend Andgarden aside, the things that matter to rural voters the nation over (not just in the south) are fairly simple: respect, loyalty, honor, regional pride.  Obama has gone up and down NC disrespecting Clinton.  Both HRC and WJC saved not just NC-ers during Floyd, but helped raise the middle class-something that Obama flatly refuses to acknowledge.  There is a certain honor in showing that you are willing to work hard for the country--and Obama isn't looking like such a hard worker lately, or for that matter, very patriotic.  And, finally, the Clintons are seen as southern, and that goes a long way in southern states, who are often cruelly misunderstood and maligned by the rest of the country.  (like their poo don't stink, to paraphrase Carville).

    To summarize, I think that Clinton's populist message is very much like the old Clinton's populist message: we are not just with you, we are of you, and we are all going to get out of this mess together.


    hurricane floyd? (none / 0) (#70)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:38:30 PM EST
    i'm not sure how much hurricane floyd will factor in here.  in part because a lot of the people affected were blacks.   also in part because the rest are rural folks that are republicans or would be democrats considered part of hillary's rural white base anyway.

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:46:46 PM EST
    aa's have a soft spot for Clinton because of all he did for them during Floyd.  A lot of farmers were completely devastated by flooding-they've trended republican for some time now, but they're open to persuasion considering what a debacle it's been under Bush.  Clinton is offering real solutions.  They like that.

    I think she's going to get a stronger aa turnout (or, conversely, split loyalty will depress Obama's aa turnout) and folks who have voted republican in the last few elections will come back into the party.

    Neither one of these groups, by the way, is likely to go out on their local street corner and sing out their feelings.


    i'm skeptical (none / 0) (#108)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    but we'll see

    A ten point win in NC (none / 0) (#42)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    will keep the superdelegates flooding to Obama (6 more today per Oreo diary at Kos), as Obama will be on pace to win the pledged delegate majority on May 20.  

    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    for reminding me that we're going to get President McCain in Nov.

    Obama is ahead of McCain (none / 0) (#53)
    by lilybart on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:15:57 PM EST
    in national polling I believe and when people see the ugly past standing next to the future, the DEMS win.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:17:50 PM EST
    is why I think Obama will lose. He doesn't give people a reason to vote for him. He just wants people to vote against McCain. That was some of what Kerry tried to do in 2004. McCain is a much better candidate than Bush ever was.

    He may not give YOU (none / 0) (#87)
    by lilybart on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:54:30 PM EST
     a good enough reason, but it is not true to say he is only running against McCain.

    Speak for yourself (none / 0) (#102)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:14:13 PM EST
    I voted for Obama because I like Obama and where he stands on the issues. I didn't [and won't] vote against someone. At least not this election.

    Obama is behind McCain, but Clinton ties (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:36:21 PM EST
    per the Gallup tracking poll today and for some time.  I see others with similar results (but which I trust less; I like tracking polls for trends rather than single-day snapshots in time).

    Which national polls are you citing?


    You are right (none / 0) (#84)
    by lilybart on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    but I don't consider national polls at this point to be meaningful unless they were WIDE margins.

    People really haven't seen the two nominees together yet. Until then, anything could happen but I cannot believe McCain could beat either candidate of ours.


    I could not believe (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:01:41 PM EST
    that anyone with two brain cells to rub together would vote for Bush in 2004 after four years of his utterly inept/criminal rule.

    That didn't work out all that well for me.


    I agree. Glad you see it that way (none / 0) (#122)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    and will just leave the silly polls alone from now on.

    Oh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:18:19 PM EST
    and 1/2 of the electorate thinks that McCain will be change from Bush.

    if Obama is rolling out six SDs (5.00 / 7) (#61)
    by p lukasiak on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    today, it means that Axelrod sees very bad news coming tomorrow.

    If Axelrod was expected good news (or news good enough to spin as 'good'), he'd have waited to roll out those six after NC and IN, and take advantage of the idea that Obama has "momentum" coming out of Tuesday.  

    Rolling out six today reeks of desperation -- an effort to slow down Clinton's momentum and change the subject.


    Are these really new sd's (none / 0) (#63)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:29:11 PM EST
    or ones that everyone knew were already in the bag for O, but hadn't been officially declared?

    Half and half (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    the three from IL were in the bag as of last week, but make it official today, the other three are new.

    Uh huh. That Obama game again -- (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:40:07 PM EST
    so it's really three more SD's not already counted, depending upon which count, of course -- as none is any sort of official count.  And I saw a story that there is change in Guam, where Obama lost one super-delegate he thought he had there.  But don't look for that to be calibrated into the nonofficial delegate counts anytime soon.  We never will see a count upon which we can count until the convention votes, I suspect.

    The three from IL weren't counted (none / 0) (#79)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:45:22 PM EST
    So by the end of today, Obama will be within 15 SD's.

    Goes both ways (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:06:45 PM EST
    SDs can break to Clinton as well.  You know, if they want to win.

    And thanks for the one rating earlier.  I tend to forget who the trolls are, so it's nice when you help out.


    Within 15 of tieing it up -- a long way to go (nt) (none / 0) (#123)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:31:30 PM EST
    Though (none / 0) (#77)
    by HeadScratcher on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:43:41 PM EST
    If Clinton wins by 10% in Indiana and Obama wins in NC by, say 4%, then the delegates will be close to being even since NC has more. So that's kind of a stalemate and then on to KY and WV where it is widely known that Clinton kills Obama. That's why BTD is right about Oregon!

    Personally, I think Clinton wins IN by 10. Look at a Map and you'll notice that moving west from New Jersey, Clinton has won by 10 in NJ, PA, and OH. Next stop, Indiana.

    Though (none / 0) (#113)
    by Mike in NYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    "If Clinton wins by 10% in Indiana and Obama wins in NC by, say 4%, then the delegates will be close to being even since NC has more."

    If the primaries end up like that, which I doubt, it would be all over for BO. The demographic shift would be huge.

    I see a final NC margin of 6-8 for BO, and the IN race closer, with HRC winning there. This scenario is still a big boost for Clinton, since it would change the dynamics of the race.


    It's Indy33 (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 01:53:58 PM EST
    who was banned yesterday.

    RCP Avg (none / 0) (#103)
    by Rashomon66 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:18:57 PM EST
    Real Clear Politics takes all the major polls and comes up with a percentage total.
    Clinton leads Obama by 5.8% in Indiana
    Obama leads Clinton by 7.0% in North Carolina

    RCP Avg (none / 0) (#114)
    by Mike in NYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:51:24 PM EST
    "Clinton leads Obama by 5.8% in Indiana
    Obama leads Clinton by 7.0% in North Carolina"

    Both of those are great news for HRC.


    How the math works will matter in NC (none / 0) (#104)
    by wurman on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:21:45 PM EST
    Sen. Obama has some congressional districts, CD 1 & 13, where he may take 65 or 70 percent of the vote.  They have 6 & 7 delegates, respectively.  For 12, if he wins 64.3%, he will capture 5 delegates & Sen. Clinton will get 2.  If he can boost the vote to 78.6%, Sen. Obama would earn 6 delegates.  In 1, 58.25% gets 4; 75% gets 5 delegates.  Although the 70 & 80 percent numbers are unrealistic, see here.

    At the statewide level, there are 26 at-large & 12 PLEOs (pledged).  If Sen. Obama gets 55% statewide, he has 21 delegates.  At 53%, he only gets 20 delegates.

    If Sen. Clinton can peel away a couple of percentage points statewide & then actually win some of the rural districts, the delegate count may come out almost even across the state, as in 60 Obama & 55 Clinton.  So the difference between a 55-45 percent Obama win, compared to a 52-48 Obama win is huge gain to Sen. Clinton.  And either way on a sort of 51 - 49 split would probably de-rail the Obama campaign.

    And, furthermore . . . Big Dog's working the backwoods like a first-time campaign volunteer.

    big dog is out (none / 0) (#107)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:29:15 PM EST
    i went out of my way to check out a rally last night in the backwoods in a small high school gym with only 700 or so people there.  despite being the last stop and it not being an overly big crowd, he put in over an hour and had the folks cheering.  

    lots of older women there.  lots of em.


    I do not go by traditional polls (none / 0) (#112)
    by FLVoter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    I like to go by what I call the "Chatter Poll."  That is the more Pro-Obama "chatter" in the MSM and Camp Obama the worst Sen. Obama will do.  From the activity that I saw over the weekend and in the past week I would say that Sen. Obama is in trouble.  My "Chatter Poll" prediction is Sen. Clinton by 8 to 10 in IN and Sen Obama by 5 to 7 in NC. I was going to go with 10 in NC except for the need to do the friendly Meet the Press on Sunday and campaign in NC today.  That raised the Sen. Obama worry scale by at least 3 points, thus reducing his win in NC by 3.  I will be anxiously await the results on Tuesday to see is my "Chatter Poll" is accurate.