home

SUSA NC Poll: Obama By 5

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:36:04 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The final SUSA NC poll is out, Obama by 5, 50-45.

The crosstabs. Key findings - Clinton wins whites 62-32 (64% of the vote). Obama wins African Americans 85-12 (32% of the vote).

From the ABC story:

According to SurveyUSA's 8th and final tracking poll, conducted exclusively for ABC11 Eyewitness News, on the final day of the fiercely fought campaign, Senator Barack Obama holds on with 50% of the vote to Senator Hillary Clinton's 45% of those polled.

. . . In Charlotte and Western NC, there is the slightest momentum for Clinton. In the Research Triangle, in Southern NC and in Coastal NC, there is slight offsetting momentum to Obama. The net is a wash. If Obama wins, it will be entirely from the 19% of voters who describe themselves as liberal. Clinton leads by 9 among conservatives and leads by 8 among moderates.

. . . 1 in 4 of SurveyUSA's likely voters say they have already voted. Among those who say they have already voted, Obama leads by 16 points. Among those who say they will vote on Primary Day, Obama and Clinton are effectively tied.

< NC: An Obama Win May Gain Him Few Delegates | Obama Launches Attack Ad on Hillary >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA NC Poll: Obama By 5 | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    A win of under 5% (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    I can't believe it, but if I'd believe anyone its SUSA. So if its IN +10 C and Obama <5 NC its gonna be a bad night for the Obama campaign.

    If Hillary were somehow (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by DCDemocrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    to win both North Carolina and Indiana, the Obama people would call on her the next day to drop out of the race.  It's just their way.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    they will once again try to break the momentum by hyping a superdelegate that they already had.

    [ Parent ]
    The Magical Unity Candidate (none / 0) (#30)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:52 PM EST
    would never do that.

    That's politics as usual!

    /sips more Kool-Aid

    [ Parent ]

    Is Ronald McDonald Really A Super D? :) (none / 0) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:08:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No, they'd be blaming her (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:48:58 PM EST
    for his losses.

    She should have done something to fix the Wright damage, you know.

    IACF covers it all!

    [ Parent ]

    I'm surprised they're not doing it tonight. (none / 0) (#161)
    by derridog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:27:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes It Will Be (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:47:23 PM EST
    I will believe a <5% win for him (or a Clinton victory) when I see it, but if that happens, then the nastiness we've seen since Pennsylvania coming from some Obama fans is going to get even worse.  Although once you've smeared the son of civil rights workers as racist by dubbing video that has him say something he never said, it's hard to see how it gets nastier.  But it will.  

    [ Parent ]
    CNN pushing the "SDs must not overturn... (none / 0) (#121)
    by NotThatStupid on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:16:45 PM EST
    ... the will of the people" spiel hard tonight, with heavy-hitter Jesse Jackson the big gun.

    You know Senator Obama's camp is nervous about NC when they're reduced to the same old rhetoric, but what about the will of the MI and FL voters? I guess they don't count.

    (By the way: why doesn't anyone ever call BS on Obama when he or one of his surrogates says "... we're ahead in this metric, this metric and in number of states."

    Number of states?

    Since when has number of states meant anything? That doesn't even matter in the Electoral College.)

    [ Parent ]

    The delegates (none / 0) (#135)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:46:49 PM EST
    don't exactly match the popular vote totals they reflect geographic breakdowns.  Not that the rules should be changed, but it's certainly true that it's impossible to see much of a difference between Obama and Clinton in the actual vote tally.  It is 50/50 and teh geography that Obama exploited to get a lead in dels means nothing in terms of the race we have to run to win the WH.

    [ Parent ]
    call me crazy (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:37:30 PM EST
    but it sounds like Texas a little bit there.
    yeah, TX with no faux caucus (fauxus?) (none / 0) (#7)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    to save face.

    I found this wording rather interesting, though:

    Senator Barack Obama holds on with 50% of the vote to Senator Hillary Clinton's 45% of those polled

    Obama gets the vote, Clinton gets "those polled."

    Wonder if that's on purpose.

    (and I still think KUSA calls it right: Clinton by 3-4%)

    [ Parent ]

    fauxus (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    must . . . not . . . respond . . .

    [ Parent ]
    did you see the headline @ the link (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    Obama clings to small lead over Clinton

    [ Parent ]
    Do you suppose (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:57 PM EST
    he's bitter?

    [ Parent ]
    ROFL (none / 0) (#23)
    by Steve M on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:48:46 PM EST
    !!!!!!!

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't Clinton By 9 for Conservs & By 8 For (none / 0) (#68)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:10:37 PM EST
    moderates a little low?

    [ Parent ]
    Not to me (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    I think Obama is a lot more conservative than she is.  I would expect him to get more of their votes.

    [ Parent ]
    Not with his friends (none / 0) (#97)
    by dissenter on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST
    He might actually be more conservative but he looks like a left wing nut with Wright, Ayers, etc

    [ Parent ]
    he's an independence party impostor. (none / 0) (#170)
    by kangeroo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:17:44 PM EST
    seriously, it explains it all.  some think he's too conservative, other's too liberal--so they end up cancelling each other out and everybody just shrugs.  the only way to reconcile all of his contradictions is to see him for what he is:  an independence party opportunist using the dem party for his ambitious ride.

    [ Parent ]
    45% (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:41:18 PM EST
    That's the best Clinton has ever polled in NC, I believe.  So she's topped her previous ceiling.  The problem is that it's a ceiling that still will have her losing by 10% if she can't pick up the undecideds.

    My hypothesis that this is a reverse PA (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:44:44 PM EST
    stands for now. But if Hillary picks up the undecideds, this will be a long night. . .

    [ Parent ]
    I Tend To Agree (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:05 PM EST
    Although I think the fact NC is an open primary makes it more difficult to predict turnout.  Still I'll be pleasantly shocked if Clinton loses by less than 10 and positively astounded, albeit in a good way, if she wins.

    If she wins, as unlikely as that is, I think she's the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    I'll be looking to see if white indys decide to pull a dem ballot tomorrow.

    [ Parent ]
    And To Think (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    There was a time when independents crossing over was supposed to be a good sign for Obama.  My how the WORM has turned.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes and the Clinton campaign knows that (none / 0) (#109)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:50:57 PM EST
    I think they will give it their best shot to try to win and I like the Clintons' chances when they want to win badly.

    [ Parent ]
    undecideds+ (none / 0) (#144)
    by isaac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:28:48 PM EST
    gantt factor=hillary win

    [ Parent ]
    she has been doing (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:46:57 PM EST
    a pretty good job of picking them up

    [ Parent ]
    The Oracle has spoken ! (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    Let us now sacrifice the entrails to the gods.  

    Stellaaa, did you see this (none / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    on CA Super-Ds?

    LA TIMES

    I love the quote from the CA NAACP Super-D.

    [ Parent ]

    sigh (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by boredmpa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:42:30 PM EST
    I wonder when they mailed their ballots? A month ago? I really wish he hadn't gotten such a free ride from January-March

    not surprising one bit (none / 0) (#16)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:46:11 PM EST
    that the early votes are in for obama.  remember, obama is the rock star in this race who's supporters are in your face.  stickers, signs, t shirts, and certainly early voting all qualify.

    it still remains to be seen what that quiet rural turnout will be.  i'm guessing this poll will be pretty close to the final margin though.

    [ Parent ]

    A lot of those (none / 0) (#31)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    were the younger voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Deadline was just after the recent Wright (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:14:28 PM EST
    debacle a la Obama, so most probably went in before that.  Sometimes, there must be buyers' remorse even before election day!  This is why I wait to cast my ballot by marching proudly into the polls -- and since my great-grandmothers couldn't do so.

    [ Parent ]
    In NC the deadline for (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by kateNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:25:15 PM EST
    Early voting was Saturday.

    My brother, who is 68 and never voted, and I are off to vote for Hillary in the morning.

    [ Parent ]

    lol!~ Love the headline @ SUSA . . . . (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:43:35 PM EST
    "Poll: Obama clings to small lead over Clinton"

    Bitterly! (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    LOL - I missed it! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    That's the kind of headline Clinton used to get (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:59:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    an excellent point (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:06:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ha (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:45:14 PM EST
    think its because of Washington?


    [ Parent ]
    Oops! not a SUSA site! still like it though :) (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:46:24 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:52:36 PM EST
    No knock-out punch in NC, for sure.  And a lot of questions for Obama.

    This shouldn't be this close, given the demographics.

    nothing is for sure (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    I wouldn't trust the Democratic "leaders" and superdelegates not to make any result a knockout punch for Clinton.  Hillary could conceivable win both states on Tuesday and the superdelegates could flood to Obama anyway if that's what the script calls for.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, well.... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:05:27 PM EST
    I'm more optimistic.  I think a lot of them are waiting.

    But the fact is that he has a problem if he's this close in this state.  This was his to lose.

    And if she's actually within 5 points, she could pull off a real upset here.  5 and below?  She's got the talk going her way, for sure.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm just very reluctant to ever count chickens (none / 0) (#80)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:20:25 PM EST
    before they hatch :)  I think you have reason to feel optimistic.  I will say that Hillary does seem to be sharp and full of energy lately.  I hope she works her "clutch" magic just one more time.  Tommorrow is for all the marbles, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with Carville (none / 0) (#91)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:32:57 PM EST
    SDs and a few headlines will get you a latte in Washington.  :)

    Birds who jump can always jump back.

    She just needs to shock the system.

    Close is pretty darn shocking.

    [ Parent ]

    NYT article today says she offered (none / 0) (#141)
    by oculus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:20:39 PM EST
    to debate Obama on the back of an open-bed p/u truck.  

    [ Parent ]
    She did (none / 0) (#148)
    by lilburro on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:38:46 PM EST
    I heard her say it in NC.  It was in good fun.

    [ Parent ]
    for all the neg. talk about Hillary she's (none / 0) (#84)
    by thereyougo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:25:59 PM EST
    impressed alot of people on the stump. She actually is having a great time campaigning, and Bill is too.

    Gosh what wonderful public servants. and they raised a nice kid too in Chelsea.

    [ Parent ]

    Clinton by 7 votes in North Carolina (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    It's only fitting that we get that result.

    GUAMENTUM!!! (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    Okay, this'll be interesting: NC dems were smeared with Wright/Obama split screens.  I would like to see if local polling reflects a dip (KUSA only does national and only when it favors Clinton), and how the election turns based on those ads.

    This is the downticket argument: how much will Wright's association bring them down?

    [ Parent ]

    Frankly (none / 0) (#67)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    downticket problems are quickly becoming the problem of those many bloggers and people who prefer that the traditional Dems go away.  LOL*

    Let's see how THEY fare.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Of theSD's (none / 0) (#76)
    by cmugirl on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:16:23 PM EST
    who have publicly announced for Obama - who's up for re-election in the fall?  (Especially those with the  mantra WWTSBQ?)  Methinks they could have some trouble too....

    [ Parent ]
    No sure (none / 0) (#95)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    I checked my SD close to me, but it turns out she represents one of the 3 counties that did, in fact, vote for Obama.

    But I'm definitely going to pay attention.

    [ Parent ]

    All of the US Representatives who (none / 0) (#127)
    by kateNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    Declared for Obama are up. But let's not go overboard.

    The Democrats have to not just get elected but must govern. Almost all of the NC Democratic representatives are good guys and should be reelected.

    [ Parent ]

    Ask KUSA how hard we can hit those 527s back (none / 0) (#165)
    by lookoverthere on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:50:37 PM EST
    I hate this split-screen smear crap. Hate it.

    I have a post-production studio and I'm ready to do a little smearing myself. That sounds kinda gross. But I have had it with being all principled and high road. If me and my neighbors and my country aren't worth getting dirty for, then what is the point?

    I'm thinking the GOP needs to learn the sanitation engineers' meaning of the word, "Blackwater."

    [ Parent ]

    KUSA says: (none / 0) (#171)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:57:48 PM EST
    hit 'em hard, hit 'em fast and hit 'em low!

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary will win NC. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by vicsan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:14:26 PM EST
    If there's just a 5% difference. It's in the bag for her. :) I'm an optimist. Bill's been working his behind off in small-town NC. They love him for just showing up in their towns. They will vote overwhelmingly for Hillary. She will win.

    I've stocked up on the Rolling Rock. It's going to be a nerve-wracking night.

    Are you sure you're not for Obama? (none / 0) (#83)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:25:23 PM EST
    I find it hard to believe that any Clinton supporter would feel that good about her chances in North Carolina.  All the small towns in the world won't make a difference as long as Obama also underperforms in the cities and at least by a few % among African Americans.


    [ Parent ]
    Hillary supporter (none / 0) (#89)
    by vicsan on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST
    to the end...which should be soon. I'll give Obama until Oregon, WV and KY. Then he can drop out.:)

    Even if she loses by that 5% (which she won't), it will be a HUGE victory for her because he was suppose to win BIG there.

    She's also going to beat him in his neighboring state of Indiana. He was expected to walk away with that state.

    Hillary will win NC though.

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST
    you are wrong here. Many elections have been lost in NC because of rural areas. Just getting the triangle and the cities has caused many a candidate to lose in a squeaker. I'm not saying Hillary is going to win, only that your logic on this point isn't totally correct.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok I'll take your word for it (none / 0) (#154)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:46:47 PM EST
    I hope you're right.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd love to believe that but (none / 0) (#85)
    by lisadawn82 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:26:29 PM EST
    Early voting is 16% in favor of Obama.  I'd love a win but a 7 point loss or so is probably what it'll be.  Sigh.

    [ Parent ]
    GROUP HUG FOR HILLARY!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Angel on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    It worked for Pennsylvania, so let's keep the magic going for her in North Carolina and Indiana.

    yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by jedimom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:33:57 PM EST
    light a candle for Hillary at 900pm ET and send good vibes out for her

    sounds like NC will be a squeaker after all

    [ Parent ]

    Looking at the crosstabs (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:45:22 PM EST
    They show Obama carrying the female vote.  Yes, I know African American women are a big factor.  But still, if Obama carries the female vote then yes, he will win North Carolina.

    For Hillary's sake, I have a strange feeling that Independent and Republican women are going to turn out for her in North Carolina.

    turnout (none / 0) (#125)
    by Double Standard on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:28:31 PM EST
    interesting the gender split is only 52 female, 48 male...so if they are underestimating black turnout (and the 32% indicates they may be doing), I think the gender split makes up for that.

    [ Parent ]
    I think that Clinton has a greater chance to tie (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by DeborahNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:58:09 PM EST
    or maybe eek out a slight win in North Carolina than most people are predicting. Bill Clinton is still very popular here and is greeted like a rock star. Reading the local news reports about Bill has been interesting and amusing. Actually, some people have fainted from the excitement he generated.

    These reports include quotes from some people stating that they were changing their votes from Obama to Clinton after hearing Bill speak. In those settings, their is no politician today who is better than he is. He oozes down-home charm. The tide is turning in this state. How much? I don't know.

    BTW, I'm not surprised by the 16% Obama lead in the "already voted category." I suspect that some of those voters are college kids who registered in Orange, Wake, etc. counties and voted before they left the area. Obama had a huge following at UNC-Chapel Hill.

    Hillary's getting flak for (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by mg7505 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:00:37 PM EST
    winning conservatives, but that was a huge argument for Obama back when he was winning them. This seems to be a contradiction, but let's consult the Obama Rules ... never mind everything's ok.

    You don't get it (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Just another person on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    When Obama wins the conservatives, he's "uniting." When Hillary wins the conservatives, she's "pandering" or "selling out."

    Ever since I got my Obama rule book, this all makes so much more sense.

    [ Parent ]

    I just got my copy of the Obama Rules (none / 0) (#174)
    by mg7505 on Sun May 11, 2008 at 10:04:20 PM EST
    in the mail, and you are right :)

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder (none / 0) (#9)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    what the undecided figure is?

    I find it very telling that early voters (pre-Wrightapalooza) voted for Obama by 16%, whereas those who haven't voted yet are evenly split.

    The Wright effect rears its head, even in a state where the demographics were incredibly favorable to Obama.

    He's not looking remotely electable in November.

    That would pretty much have to be. . . (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:45:37 PM EST
    5.

    [ Parent ]
    Duh! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    Me no gud at teh maths. ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Greetings madamab (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    I would be cheered by this poll, if I wasn't  convinced that the SDs are determined to march,
    lemminglike, over a cliff with Obama. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Heh. (none / 0) (#38)
    by madamab on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    We'll see, won't we? The Clinton camp appears to have fastened on BTD's magic number of 2209. So much for "he only needs one more delegate" spinning.

    I do think some narrative-changing will be happening after tomorrow.

    Meanwhile, a shot and a beer will help me get through tomorrow night's cliffhanger!

    [ Parent ]

    Wish I could join you (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    But I had to quit drinking almost 25 years ago.
    I will be the one drinking Diet Cokes and bouncing off the walls in an over-caffeinated frenzy. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Undecideds are 1.7% (none / 0) (#146)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:32:59 PM EST
    ... with "Other" (mostly Edwards?) at 3.2%
    P.U.M.A.
    [ Parent ]
    A lot of the early voting occurred (none / 0) (#45)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:58:20 PM EST
    at the height of the Wright story.  From what I remember, 120,000 as of 4/29, and just shy of 400,000 early voters now.

    [ Parent ]
    Looking at early voting (none / 0) (#49)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:59:38 PM EST
    is like looking at unweighted exit polls before the polls even close. Not useful for anyone who actually wants to know anything.

    [ Parent ]
    I found this interesting (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    Among those who say they will vote on Primary Day, Obama and Clinton are effectively tied.
    damn those early birds (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Obama's trends in tracking polls (none / 0) (#25)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    have turned around, and (my opinion) the gas tax pandering is a more of a negative for Clinton than appears in the polls.  The Wright story hit about four days too early for Clinton, and he'll have fully recovered by voting time tomorrow.

    Turned around? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nycstray on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:51 PM EST
    he's losing voters in NC and getting beat in IN, how's that turning around?

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#55)
    by Nadai on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:01:31 PM EST
    it's like turning the corner in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]
    *wiping my puter* (none / 0) (#157)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:05:02 PM EST
    off.  Good one.

    [ Parent ]
    heh (none / 0) (#164)
    by jedimom on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM EST
    soda spew on aisle 5

    LOL

    [ Parent ]

    The good thing about Wright (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Kathy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:03:09 PM EST
    is that he has a back-up man in the new pastor.

    Of course, the New Big Thing is going to be Ayers, who is even more damaging than Wright, in my opinion, because he can't be dismissed as a crazy uncle, and he isn't tainted with issues of race.

    Somewhere, someone (probably several someones) is digging into Obama's "former employer," the "unrepentant terrorist," and gleefully chuckling at Obama's stupidity in this toxic association.

    There are all sorts of opportunities to tie Ayers' anti-American rhetoric into Bin Laden's hateful anti-American crap.  Those sorts of scripts are already making the rounds among my military family members.  (the government doesn't tend to frown on forwarding personal emails that bash dems...)

    [ Parent ]

    The bombing victim (none / 0) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:15:43 PM EST
    Well, have you seen that video?  Pretty compelling.  Describes how as a kid his house got bombed and Ayers wife took credit.  Makes ya think.  

    [ Parent ]
    His tv interview, his op-ed piece (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:34:10 PM EST
    are the makings of a general-election disaster, if Obama is the nominee.  The guy's father was a fine judge whose family was targeted by the Ayers group just because he was assigned to -- wait for it -- a  Black Panthers case.  

    And the guy himself is now a respected lawyer, too.  And he still is as angry as can be about his family's home being bombed while they slept, about the next year and a half of hell they endured -- and he can recite Ayers' "just words" since, word by word.

    [ Parent ]

    Ayers is next up, (none / 0) (#90)
    by magisterludi on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:31:12 PM EST
    according to a CSM reporter on Washington Journal this past weekend. The GOP put the word out to the press.

    [ Parent ]
    Fan-tastic (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    You know it's not going to be Obama's relationship with Ayers that hurts democrats, it's going to be all the liberal elites defending that relationship by telling us what a terrific person Ayers is.  I can hardly wait to listen to odes about how wonderful and smart and erudite Bill Ayers is.  

    Sometimes the "creative class" is Obama's worst enemy.  

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#107)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:47:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This Is Why Democrats Lose Election (none / 0) (#129)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:35:16 PM EST
    From an opinion piece in the WSJ by Elizabeth Wurtzel:

    In a way, the public is saying that we don't want the country erupting into a divisiveness akin to what created the '60s scene, the atmosphere of the Weather Underground. Even Jeremiah Wright, an embarrassing pastor who would probably have brought down a less-deft political prestidigitator, will not do in Barack Obama. The Reverend rants and raves. It's a mess. But Mr. Obama's campaign will carry on.

    As for Mr. Obama's friends, the Weathercouple: By all accounts, Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers are unfathomably charming, brilliant and comely people, absolutely irresistible. Everybody who meets them is taken and forgets what they should know.

    Mr. Obama expects us all to understand this, because we understand everything else. He is doing something most unusual: He's acting as if the American people are thinking with their brains. He's giving all of us a lot of credit. Could it be that we deserve it?

    Emphasis mine.  

    I bet the Wall Street Journal was only too happy to print this piece.  

    [ Parent ]

    The GOP is probably happy about it (none / 0) (#137)
    by RalphB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    one more nail in the proverbial coffin


    [ Parent ]
    Creative class my eye. (none / 0) (#140)
    by oculus on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:18:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    WSJ letter in reply to that oped (none / 0) (#143)
    by RalphB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:26:57 PM EST
    from someone in law enforcement who is not an Ayers admirer.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    My goodness... (none / 0) (#150)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:45:06 PM EST
    Will they ever stop with the "if only people were smarter, they'd all be voting for Obama?"

    Do they have no idea at all how insulting that is?

    [ Parent ]

    You can do a search on DKos (none / 0) (#108)
    by Salo on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:47:38 PM EST
    and you will find many many apologists for Ayers.  

    O'Reilly will find every last quote.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes they will be! (none / 0) (#128)
    by RalphB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    but some of them have been this entire campaign.  

    I've got my own feelings about Ayers, but they are not for public consumption.  Certainly not here on a moderated blog.  :-)


    [ Parent ]

    I just watched the interview (none / 0) (#155)
    by DJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:01:58 PM EST
    with the man whose home was bombed by Ayers wife in 1970.  It's going to be really bad.  It will make Wright look like a fluff piece.  This was out two weeks after Pennsylvania.  Why is the MSM keeping it quiet.  Is it to keep the ratings up during the GE?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, there's also an article in the WSJ (none / 0) (#166)
    by derridog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:53:33 PM EST
    today, May 5, on the front page, about Obama  getting the teamsters' support by telling them that he supported ending "federal oversight imposed to root out corruption."  The independent review board was set up in 1992 to "eliminate mob influence in the union."  This is a "top priority for (Teamsters' President, Jimmy) Hoffa."

    You all need to read more about Obama, Rezko, Hoffa, etc.  This stuff is much worse, in my view, than his association with Wright or with Ayers.   I don't know how to judge some of the things I've read, which are very inflammatory, but it seems that Obama was an active member of a very corrupt group in Chicago. The circumstantial evidence, at the very least, is pretty compelling. Rezko IS on trial for fraud and bribing public officials.  Rezko DID help Obama buy his house and Obama appointed members on boards, including one that dealt with people's pensions, when Rezko was trying to get people on it whom he could bribe.  Just read the trial transcripts, if nothing else.

    I'm sure that Ayers will be a more emotional way for the Rethugs to target Obama, but the corruption stuff makes me worry more about him actually becoming President.

    [ Parent ]

    Rezko story (none / 0) (#167)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:57:54 PM EST
    never did get much play, but it's because there's no direct connection in the payoff area.

    The links are really buried and hard to track.

    [ Parent ]

    Read this one: (none / 0) (#168)
    by derridog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:17:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry. I can't do the link. I'll try again. (none / 0) (#169)
    by derridog on Mon May 05, 2008 at 08:17:35 PM EST
    http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/04/follow-money-pringle-obama-and-subplots.html

    [ Parent ]
    there is a picture (none / 0) (#145)
    by isaac on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:31:28 PM EST
    of ayers stomping on an american flag.  this guy has got be a stalking horse candidate for mccain.  i cant beliieve they would be that stupid for this candidacy not to be a setup

    [ Parent ]
    a caricature of every liberal stereotype (none / 0) (#149)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:43:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    National tracking polls? (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    Meaningless for these purposes.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#32)
    by kmblue on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    and I'm winning the lottery tomorrow. ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Don't agree (none / 0) (#33)
    by Marvin42 on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    I think Sen Obama hit his bottom with the Wright, but I have this feeling he is staying there (at least until tomorrow).

    Also one factor: how accurate are these polls? Are there any hidden effects that will show tomorrow?

    We'll see soon enough.

    [ Parent ]

    not so sure (none / 0) (#39)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:53:07 PM EST
    we have found the bottom yet.
    I dont think that will happen unless and until he is officially the nominee.
    but I agree that if the polls underestimate anything it will be Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Why not just use the NC polls (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    for your argument in this thread.

    We need the SUSA crosstabs.

    [ Parent ]

    The crosstabs (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:09:20 PM EST
    are here.

    [ Parent ]
    If I read correctly (none / 0) (#77)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    are they saying that A-A turnout will be 32%?  If so, that seems low given how many A-A's have participated in early voting.

    [ Parent ]
    I have learned to trust SUSA (none / 0) (#78)
    by andgarden on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    not to cook those numbers by making assumptions like that. I have done so in the past and been wrong. SUSA is usually right. They don't cook the books, they just report what they find.

    And projecting what's happened in early voting into the future just seems like really poor methodology.

    [ Parent ]

    It would be 4% above (none / 0) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:32:58 PM EST
    their 2004 participation.

    This 3 point difference is pretty crucial. It explains the 5 point difference between PPP and SUSA.

    [ Parent ]

    wrong (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldnorthstate on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:54:51 PM EST
    the "pandering" is well appreciated by the people whose votes hillary is seeking.

    and those same people that have had questions set in regarding wright and obama will not just go away over night.  that damage is in place with the would be hillary voters and it is hurting obama badly.  maybe it isn't turning that many from obama to clinton, but it sure might be getting undecides to vote for hillary or even get people out of their chairs to vote that might not have before this came down.

    [ Parent ]

    not fully recovered (none / 0) (#51)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:00:36 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Magster, you're like a machine! (none / 0) (#63)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:06:53 PM EST
    What's your basis for assuming the gas tax solution (oh I can do it too!) is more of a negative than appears in polls?  Did you get your hands on a dart board of your own?

    Wright hit 4 days too early?  Didn't the tapes first show up about a month ago?  Fully recovered?  So that means he will get about 45% of the white vote then?  That's what fully recovered would mean.

    [ Parent ]

    CBS poll (none / 0) (#82)
    by magster on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:24:33 PM EST
    said that more people thought it was a bad idea than a good idea, and an overwhelming number (70%) thought it was just a political ploy as opposed to an idea based on a genuine concern for Americans.

    That and her sidestip to Stephanopolis' question on whether any economist endorsed her plan.

    [ Parent ]

    so you are predicting Obama wins back whites (none / 0) (#126)
    by diplomatic on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:31:31 PM EST
    That would mean fully recovered.

    [ Parent ]
    The public... (none / 0) (#152)
    by OrangeFur on Mon May 05, 2008 at 06:46:09 PM EST
    ... generally believes that politicians do just about everything for political gain.

    It doesn't mean that they don't approve of it.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (none / 0) (#156)
    by AnninCA on Mon May 05, 2008 at 07:03:33 PM EST
    and low trust numbers don't mean much, either, in my opinion...same reason.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, one can dream (none / 0) (#119)
    by goldberry on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:04:37 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This has nothing to do (none / 0) (#130)
    by kateNC on Mon May 05, 2008 at 05:36:53 PM EST
    With rationality and everything to do with getting even with the oil companies. Voters know perfectly well this is a pander and they say, "You go, girl!"

    [ Parent ]
    Math please (none / 0) (#40)
    by NYMARJ on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:54:50 PM EST
    My math is sooooo bad -   Let's say the percentage holds and 1 in 4 voters have already voted and Obama is 16% ahead and they are tied for the rest, how does that become he wins by only 5%.  

    Math. (none / 0) (#47)
    by sweetthings on Mon May 05, 2008 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    Let's say 100 people have already voted. That means 58 people voted for Obama, 42 for Clinton. (so far)

    300 people will vote tomorrow. 150 will vote for Obama, 150 for Clinton.

    Obama will end up with 208 votes, Hillary with 192. Obama wins with 52% of the vote. In this example, he only wins by 4%...but of course this is highly simplified.

    [ Parent ]

    Here's How (none / 0) (#52)
    by BDB on Mon May 05, 2008 at 04:00:57 PM EST
    A sixteen point lead would be 58-42.  So .58 x .25 = 14.5%.  Now .50 of the remaining .70% (5% is undecided) = 35%.  35+ 14.5 = 49.5 or 50 for Obama.

    For Clinton, you get .42 x .25 = .105.  Or 10.5%, add that to 35% and you get 45.5%, which could be rounded to 46, but - if it's not a perfect 50-50 split of current voters, could easily drop down so as to be rounded to 45%.

    &