home

Rasmussen to Stop Polling Hillary in Daily Tracking Poll

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:51:38 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Rasmussen polling says Hillary can't win, they are going to stop polling her and poll only Obama and McCain.

With this in mind, Rasmussen Reports will soon end our daily tracking of the Democratic race and focus exclusively on the general election competition between Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Barring something totally unforeseen, that is the choice American voters will have before them in November. While we have not firmly decided upon a final day for tracking the Democratic race, it is coming soon.

Today's Numbers: Hillary 48% to McCain 43%. Obama 47% to McCain 44%.

West VA: Hillary 56, Obama 27.

Gallup Daily: "Obama not pulling away yet". Dates polled, May 6 to May 8, 2/3 of whom were polled after Tuesday's election results were known. Obama 48, Hillary 46.

Gallup says "Obama remains in a statistical dead heat with Clinton for the 16th consecutive day."

< More On Psycho Ex-Girlfriends | Friday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rasmussen to Stop Polling Hillary in Daily Tracking Poll | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Good. (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by lyzurgyk on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:53:47 PM EST
    He'll be doing Democrats a favor.  

    Obama (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:57:28 PM EST
    still can't put it away can he?

    There was an article on yahoo talking about "hillary democrats" and how McCain is really going to go after them if Obama is the nominee. Mudcat Saunder said that Obama has a problem because he is "too big city". It seems that since Obama is not contesting either WV or KY that he is willing to write those voters off now and in the general election.

    Is he seriously not contesting? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:54 PM EST
    Is that to save money? Is he broke? Does he need to save money to pay off all the SuperDs?

    Or is going to justify the blowouts by saying he didn't try? Down to the 46-state strategy now.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Dave B on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:24:09 PM EST

    Or is going to justify the blowouts by saying he didn't try? Down to the 46-state strategy now.

    That was my first impression...



    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:10:36 PM EST
    I happened to catch some news today (I am off all msm, but I was flipping channels) and the meme has already started that of course Hillary's going to win WV (bunch of gun-toting hillbillies anyway, so who cares about them -- although I thought WV was supposed to be a battle ground this year -- silly me), Obama isn't campaigning there because he is already focused on the GE (as he has already "won") and, basically, even if Hillary wins WV, KY, PR, MN, SD & OR she still will not be the nominee. The full court press to ignore Hillary is on until she just fades away (like what happened with Edwards). Guess the msm is as bored with the primary story they created of "the first woman v. the first aa" as Obama is, and can't wait to feed him to the lions.

    Parent
    I think they want him to win. I think he's the (none / 0) (#55)
    by derridog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    corporate/mob-linked trojan horse. They realized the Dems were going to win this year, and they didn't want the Clintons in there who might do something about their power. So they intend to install their guy and they control the spin and will make it sound like it's all done in the name of democracy.

    Obama says whatever he needs to say.  He changes his story whenever convenient.   He is a total fraud.  But he's charismatic and, of course, can use identity politics to discredit his critics. Yet he will abandon the progressive agenda once he wins. He's never really stood up for or accomplished anything-except for voting for (for instance) giving the oil companies a huge tax break in 2005 (and then accusing Clinton and McCain of being in the pockets of the oil cos. in 2008, even though they both voted against that bill.  He was for universal one payer health insurance when he was running for the U.S. Senate (see video on YouTube) before he was against it and before he ran "Harry and Louise" ads that were identical ( including the clothing of the actors) to the ads used by Big Pharm to kill HIillary's universal health care plan in the 90s.  He  wanted to discredit Hillary's new plan which requires mandates, which the insurance companies hate. The Wall Street Journal  (Monday May 5, 2008 front page) has an article titled "Obama Says Teamsters Need Less Oversight."  This article explains why the Teamsters are backing him. He wants to do away with an independent review board "set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union." Then there's his support for Blackwater. Says he sees no reason to oppose them and his support for Supreme Court Justice Roberts, seeing no problem with him and not wanting to keep Supreme Court Justices off the court simply for "ideological reasons."  He only voted no on Roberts because his political advisor told him it wouldn't fly in the Dem. Primary (this was on Obama's own website).

    I will vote for McCain rather than this fraud. If I'm going to have a Republican in the White House, I'd rather have a real one than one pretending to be a Democrat, whose policies (solving the "social security crisis" anyone?) are no different from those of GW Bush.   Our party is being taken over and, if this happens, then Nader is right. There will truly be no difference between the corporate owned parties and all third parties and progressive policies will be shut out.

    How anyone can delude themselves that this guy is a progressive is beyond me.

    When the corporate media blatantly takes sides, you can rest assured that the public interest is not what they care about.

    Parent

    No. He wants to discredit Hillary's big wins (none / 0) (#54)
    by derridog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:07:21 AM EST
    by stating that he didn't campaign in the states, therefore they are meaningless. This is the same strategy he used in Michigan when he took his name off the ballot. If he is going to lose, he wants to make sure it "doesn't count."

    I used to live next door to a little boy who had a basketball hoop attached to his garage.   I would sit on a wall and watch him throw shots.  Every time he would miss one, he would say "that doesn't count" and start over.

    Parent

    This is interesting (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Coldblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:05:01 PM EST
    The MSM is all about Hillary needing to drop out, and here is a supposedly 'unbiased' (GOP) public pollster deciding that the nomination is over.

    Excuse me while I take a ride on the turnip truck.

    They've accomplished their goal (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by dianem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:30:21 PM EST
    Clinton is not going to win the Democratic nomination. Now, it's just a matter of time until we get to watch McCain being sworn in.

    Parent
    you're too easily cowed (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:30:47 AM EST
    Haven't we learned to stop listening to the Village's advice by now?  If we quit at this point, then your comment will certainly be true.  There is not going to be a nominee until every delegate commits at the convention, or until Hillary drops out.  Wait for that time to be saying "Obama is going to be the nominee" because you help create a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy.  There's a fine line between realism and fatalism.  This is one of the many things that is incredible about Hillary (and Bill) - ANY other candidate would have dropped out long ago.

    Parent
    I'm a realist (none / 0) (#58)
    by dianem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM EST
    The establishment has lined up behind Obama. Clinton did an amazing job. She came closer to pulling off a win than I expected her to. Obama has run the dirtiest campaign in recent Democratic history. It's very hard to win against that kind of politics. Look at how often Dems have been beaten by inferior right-wing politicians. I think she would be able to win the Presidency if she could get there - but the establishment has rejected the "electability" argument in favor of the "new Democratic voters" argument. I value Clinton's fight, and respect her all the more for staying in. But I don't think she has a reasonable chance of winning, barring a complete implosion by Obama.

    Parent
    I mnever cared about nat'l tracking polls (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:13:59 PM EST
    and think Ras is a crappy pollster.

    so it changes nothing for me.

    But Rasmussen also said (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:24:27 PM EST
    OK, there were contrary views on Clinton as VP.  Tonight I heard on teevee, 'no way, Kennedy et al will never allow it' 'no, Obama ran against Clinton' (to which Lou Dobbs went on to praise the Clinton Presidency  and how the Dem party was slipping it's moorings), to 'consider what Clinton brings-her constituents'

    Now my point is.... Rasmussen said the weren't going to poll her, and when asked about the VP? 'if she wants it, it's hers'

    I will take anyone speaking about Clinton as VP as that is the only way I would vote for Obama.

    Parent

    I sincerely hope (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by seeker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:46:48 PM EST
    she does not even consider it.  If Obama wins, she would be at his mercy.  If he loses, she would have worked her heart out for a jerk.  

    In the Senate, she has independence, a chance to tackle issues she cares about, the strong prospect of increasing power and some security.

    Parent

    i'd like her to challenge reid. hehehe! (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:01:09 PM EST
    she could get ole nancy straightened out for us. big smile!

    Parent
    She needs about 200 out of 260... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:34:44 PM EST
    ...remaining superdelegates, even with an optimal outcome in the remaining 6 contests, and with getting "full credit" for FL/MI(and those superdels).
    On top of all that, with Obama likely to pick up another 60 SDs by May 20th(based on him picking up 9 today, and a likely continuation of that pace next week), he can literally preclude any possibility of her becoming the nominee, just by picking up about 5  endorsements per weekday between now and June 3.  

    So, yeah, "implausible" is probably an accurate characterization of her chances at this point.

    That's true only if they still feel that way in (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Teresa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:38:22 PM EST
    August. A lot can change by then. I don't expect them to change their minds, but they can.

    Parent
    Well, to both of you - did you read what I said? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Teresa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:31:18 PM EST
    I don't expect it to happen but they can change their minds. Several did this week from Clinton to Obama.

    Parent
    Just a note on "markets" as indicators (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by seeker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:36:17 PM EST
    of future events.  There has been some empirical work suggesting that "markets" are not especially good at predictions.  They are good at capturing the conventional wisdom as it changes.  If you check the Iowa mkt. just for this election, you will find a remarkable correllation between "turning points" in the campaign and quick but later changes in the "value" of each candidate.

    You will also find that neither McCain nor Obama was "valued" especially highly a year ago.

    Parent

    The value (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:05 AM EST
    of attempts to predict the future is jack.

    Parent
    You mean like the $ I've donated to her? (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:45:38 AM EST
    right now I'm already maxed out for the primary at $2300, and my last few donations are going to the GE fund. That's "betting" real money on her -- and I plan to keep doing it weekly with whatever money I can spare until I reach the GE max. And that doesn't even include the time I've been giving her phone banking (and for the record, I consider my time even more valuable than my $).

    Parent
    I'm sorry... (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:46:48 PM EST
    ...but the notion that the superdelegates could get away with switching, two months after publicly endorsing the pledged delegate winner, without massive and disastrous repercussions for the Dems going way beyond simply one election--that's not rational, and it's not gonna happen.  
    Let's just say the negative consequences of that would likely dwarf the "disenfranchisement" of Florida and Michigan.  

    Parent
    I think you're exaggerating (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:50:39 AM EST
    the danger in this.  Compare it to the selection of Hubert Humphrey.  Hillary's case is much better as she is supported by more of the party than Obama and she will have a popular vote lead (or at least be close) by the time all is said and done.

    And I think you're underestimating the potential for Clinton to emerge more energized than ever even after a credentials committee fight or superdelegate switching.

    I would presume that the Obama supporters would all fall in line, as they have told us that we MUST do this for the sake of defeating McCain, and Stoller et. al. are just dying to be led with a nod of the head (/snark).

    And I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the GOP is going to tie him to Ayers, who planted bombs in the 60's and has a big picture of himself stomping on the American flag.  I don't judge Obama by association alone but a lot of people will.  I'd hate to see this hit the airwaves right after Obama wins the nomination.  I say it's our party, and if we don't want to see it ruined we take this fight all the way.

    Parent

    and if that's true (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:55:24 AM EST
    what are the consequences going to be if Obama successfully gets Michigan and Florida excluded?  The consequences for not bothering to show up in certain upcoming primaries?

    Parent
    It will only take one big scandal ... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by dwmorris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:17:06 AM EST
    to start moving super delegates to Clinton. The negative consequences argument is a red herring.

    Parent
    And I'M sorry (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Evie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:40:51 AM EST
    but the notion that the Dems can just ignore Florida and Michigan will have far more damaging and massive repercussions than just ensuring Obama's certain defeat. For a party that calls itself "Democratic" to ignore more than 2 million voters is a disgrace.

    Let's just say that the GOP will start using the DNC's "rules" as a campaign tactic. Not just in this election year, but going forward.

    Parent

    Another problem (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:52:28 PM EST
    With MI & FL and their disenfranchisement is that it has ticked off a lot of people not only in those states but across the country.  I'm in CA and the whole thing makes me queasy.  Obama's complicity makes it unacceptable, to put it mildly.

    Parent
    Well, let's send money to Clinton. That's the one (none / 0) (#56)
    by derridog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:38:21 AM EST
    vote that impresses the MSM.   We need to stand up for her as long as she can manage to stay in.  I intend to put my money where my mouth is. Hope others will join me.

    Parent
    Bowers said 41.4% (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:49:25 PM EST
    Your numbers do not jibe with that.

    Indeed, Since Obama leads by 166 or so, they do not jibe with much of anything.

    Parent

    41.$% for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:51:13 PM EST
    58.6% for Clinton.

    Parent
    BTD, what are these numbers (none / 0) (#22)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:10:55 PM EST
    and percentages?

    Parent
    Clinton's count... (1.00 / 1) (#21)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:05:36 PM EST
    ...per Demconwatch, including her MI/FL pledged and supers, is 1890.

    There are 217 pledged delegates remaining, and if she has a very good run, she picks up about 125.

    That puts her at 2015.

    She needs another 194 of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates.  There are 289 remaining, but some of them are add-on delegates who will go to Obama(roughly 30).  Additionally, it is highly likely that Obama will pick up more endorsements between now and June 3rd, which further reduces the size of the uncommitted "pool".  If he picks up just  70 additional superdelegate endorsements before May 31st(about 5 per weekday), it will be impossible for her to win, because there aren't enough delegates remaining on the table for her to do it.

    Parent

    And it pigs had wings (none / 0) (#33)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:17:46 PM EST
    they might fly.  Watch out below  :-)

    Sorry but these are worthless assumptions.


    Parent

    It's not an "assumption"... (none / 0) (#35)
    by mike in dc on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:26:37 PM EST
    ...to state that the proportion of uncommitted SDs she needs is prohibitively high, even in her most favorable plausible scenarios.

    Basically, all of the people who say her chances are less than 10 percent are right.

    Parent

    but a 10% chance is not 0% (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by angie on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:48:04 AM EST
    which is what the Obama camp & the msm would lead everyone to believe, now is it?

    Parent
    What A Surprise (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by BDB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:35:25 PM EST
    A Republican pollster trying to rush to push Clinton out.  Hmm, I wonder why?  It couldn't be because she's polling better against McCain (albeit slightly) could it?

    oh, it couldn't be - because (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by dotcommodity on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:38:35 AM EST
    then this might be the last electoral vote  map you would see, because it includes polling data from Rasmussen state by state that shows only Clinton has been clobbering McCain 291 to 232 since PA in GE electoral votes, while Obama has been trailing, ...

    Parent
    Make your case to Rasmussen! (none / 0) (#39)
    by itsadryheat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:48:40 AM EST
    Tell Rasmussen what you think of their plan.  I just did and it was really fun.  Give them all the reasons it's not a good idea.

    Here's  their phone and email addess.
    Maybe we can change their minds if we pitch in.

    Phone: 732-776-9777

    Email: info@rasmussenreports.com

    Parent

    Media Circus (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Chesserct on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:26:10 PM EST
    This news seems to fall in with the big media push over the last two days to paint the contest as being over. Why the big hurry? Could it be that it looks like Obama will only win 2-3 of the last 10 or so primaries, and that he does not want to look like he is limping across the finish line? And that he could claim that he lost the final few primaries by large margins because he did not realy try to contest them because he had already wrapped up the nomination? IMHO, this appears to be about hiding how damaged Obama now is.

    Depress The Vote In Remaining Primaries n/t (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:36:08 PM EST


    Parent
    election night (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by tedsim on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:56:13 PM EST
    this incredebal bias press probably won,t even cover tuesday night cnn msnbc and just give end results.As much as i dislike fox news they will probable show it. What do you think?

    CNN has promo's for it so I guess they are (none / 0) (#32)
    by Teresa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST
    covering it at least for a little while. It should be an early call so I'd say they may not have hours of coverage as they normally do.

    Parent
    Tell CNN what you think! (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by itsadryheat on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:55 AM EST
    Click to speak to CNN

    Parent
    I think its (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by onemanrules on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:58:08 PM EST
    kind of cruel to tell Clinton supporters that there is still legitimate hope for her. Her doing better by 1 point against McCain isn't going to change anything. Maybe is she was winning by 10 and Obama was losing by 10. Also I don't believe Wolfson would be looking at book deals if he thought she had a real chance. If she had real hope her endorsers and sd's wouldn't be jumping ship like this.

    Dont tell them that (1.80 / 5) (#31)
    by Raheem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:14:56 PM EST
    They dont want to hear that Hillary is done... and that she is doing more divisive damage by saying white people will vote for her...

    Rasmussen is right here... and the media have moved on... Hillary should just run a Huckabee-style campaign and go out with dignity...

    Parent

    If Obama's already won (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Iris on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:59:57 AM EST
    then his supporters have nothing to worry about, right?

    Parent
    Touche'. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Mark Woods on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:20:25 AM EST


    Parent
    Who said im worried? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Raheem on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:40:22 AM EST
    Im not... my worry is about the her destroying her legacy now...

    Parent
    Why are you worried about that? (none / 0) (#61)
    by IzikLA on Sat May 10, 2008 at 07:02:49 PM EST
    I have absolute faith that she knows what she is doing.  Not that anyone has noticed on the blogs or in the media but since May 6 Hillary Clinton has not attacked Obama once.  She has made the case for her electability and attacked John McCain.  If she loses the nomination she will do it gracefully because the Clinton's have a legacy and they won't want to destroy.

    That said, they will not be pressured by the media or cowed by the Obama campaign or his supporters because they know in their heart of hearts that history will support them and their motivations.

    Parent

    I know. Why doesn't Obama just go home to Illinois (none / 0) (#57)
    by derridog on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:39:47 AM EST
    or take a little vacation? What's he doing in Oregon?

    Parent
    I keep wondering (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by eleanora on Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:25:15 PM EST
    why they're so determined to push her out. I feel like I'm being sold, but I can't figure out just what I'm supposed to be buying.

    Saw a great commercial earlier tonight with some young adults and hip upper class older people talking about how we can all change the world. And I was kind of impressed, thinking Obama was at least varying his tune a little. Turned out to be a McDonald's commerical for a chicken biscuit sandwich for breakfast.

    You could have inserted "Vote Obama for President" at the end and not changed the opening at all, sounded exactly like his normal message. He's running the most content-free campaign ever.

    no fret over the polls (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by ADC406 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:03:17 AM EST
    OK, almost 1 million registered voters in WV and this comes out.  http://www.slate.com/id/2175496/

    43 lead in WV.  If that's the case , that means she will knock down half of the popular votes in WV and with KY with a 36 lead with 1.65 million register voters will blow him out of the waters with popular vote.  I think we can count on PR.  The gov. is much hated in PR and he endorsed Obama.  NewYorker PR ties is another plus for her.  Bill Clinton won SD in 1992 , so hmmn....

    "Jericho/lyn or Big Tent/Billary Vessel" (1.00 / 3) (#50)
    by rkcdvd on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:00:49 AM EST
    ...how much more? I know you depend on a certain amount of traffic, but please, give all Repubs some hope!  We cannot believe in change b/c it is abstract and ambiguous and non-empirical...according to your vast research! Plz give us Fla and MI and all those voters that didn't vote for a candidate b/c they didn't think it would count...oh, those disenfranchised, realistic, rule-following, illusionary voters!
    Soooo sorry!
    All those voters that didn't vote in the previous eventual primaries eventually did what they intended to do-vote Refurblican!
    Go McClinton!

    ...and i don't care if you censor/delete/clean/wash/ my comments, McSame would do the same!

    So What....Rasmussen Is Not The End All Be (none / 0) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:53:52 PM EST
    All of polling....and isn't it basically a republican site?  I am sure we won't have a problem finding enough polls on Hillary.  And, they will probably find out down the road they made a huge mistake.

    wouldn't it just be something (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Lil on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:59:26 PM EST
    if she just pulled this off. Like to see lots of folks eat some crow...or is that humble pie?

    Parent
    Sour grapes (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by cannondaddy on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:11:28 AM EST


    Parent
    If Rassmussen says it, it mus be true (none / 0) (#7)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:12:20 PM EST
    oh, wait . . .

    It was a joke (none / 0) (#53)
    by Mrwirez on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:59:34 AM EST
    Lighten up people...

    MCM pays for most large scale polling -- (none / 0) (#59)
    by jawbone on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    and the MCM doesn't commssion polls on questions it doesn't want the public to answer or know about.

    Such as nto polling about how Americans wants to impeach Bush and Cheney....

    Did not fit the narrative, so it was ignored and deep sixed.

    Oh, check THIS out, (none / 0) (#63)
    by caseynm on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:37 PM EST
    I have made three other posts today.
    THIS one gets posted, the others pointing out that Armando is citing NOVAK as a primary source don't get posted.

    Rasmussen to Stop Polling Hillary in Daily Tracking Poll | 60 comments (60 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment