*Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek poll

According to a brand new NEWSWEEK poll, Obama is pulling away....big time.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/132721

Despite her campaign's relentless attacks on Barack Obama's qualifications and electability, Hillary Clinton has lost a lot of ground with Democratic voters nationwide going into Tuesday's critical primary in Pennsylvania, a new NEWSWEEK poll shows.

The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide. The previous Newsweek poll, conducted in March after Clinton's big primary wins in Ohio and Texas, showed the two Democrats locked in a statistical tie (45 percent for Obama to 44 percent for Clinton). The new poll puts Obama ahead among women as well as men, and voters aged 60 and older as well as younger voters. (For the complete poll data, click here).

One of the more devastating results for Clinton was that a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy. According to the poll, just four in 10 (41 percent) registered voters view the New York senator as honest and trustworthy, while 51 percent think the opposite. This compares with solid majorities of voters who see Obama and McCain as honest and trustworthy (both polled 61 percent).

The results suggest that Clinton was damaged more by being caught in a tall tale about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire than Obama has been by his recent controversies, including the firestorm of criticism provoked by the Illinois senator's remarks that blue-collar voters "cling" to religion, guns and other issues because of their bitterness. In addition, over half (53 percent) of voters say they believe Obama shares their values, more than those who say the same thing about Clinton (47 percent) or McCain (45 percent).

Even so, the poll indicates that both Obama and Clinton have been harmed by the fierce attacks they have aimed at each other. While Obama has a 57 percent favorable rating among all voters in the latest survey, that represents a 4 percent drop from March, and his unfavorable rating has jumped from 28 percent to 36 percent. Clinton is viewed favorably by just 49 percent, compared to 56 percent in March, while 47 percent view her as unfavorable, compared to 40 percent in the previous poll. Even so, the unopposed McCain has also suffered a setback: his favorable rating has dipped to 52 percent from 55 percent, while his unfavorable rating has increased to 42 percent from 35 percent.

It is not clear to what extent Wednesday night's debate in Philadelphia affected the overall results. Clinton, aided by debate moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos of ABC, kept Obama mostly on the defensive over his associations with Pastor Jeremiah Wright and Chicago professor William Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground who served on a community board with Obama and once hosted a campaign event for the candidate at his home. Obama was also questioned about his decision not to wear a flag lapel pin. Stacy DiAngelo of Princeton Survey Research Associates, which did the April 16-17 polling, says that of the registered voters who were surveyed 517 were interviewed after the debate and 692 before. She added that the views of those surveyed remained largely constant.

But Obama appears to have the momentum on nearly every front, both among Democrats and general voters nationwide. Clinton's prospects for snatching the nomination from the Democratic front runner at this point depend mainly on her ability to persuade uncommitted "superdelegates"--those who are not bound by particular primary results--that she is more likely to defeat John McCain. But by a large margin (55 percent to 33 percent) Democratic voters now say Obama--not Clinton--is the candidate they believe is more likely to defeat McCain in November. In the March poll Obama's advantage was much smaller (44 percent to 38 percent).

The poll pointed up a trouble sign for McCain as well, which is that no one's forgotten how old he is. While voters have mixed opinions about whether Obama's race will do more to help or hurt his chances of being elected president (20 percent vs. 22 percent, respectively), and Clinton's gender is only somewhat more likely to be seen as a hindrance than a help (27 percent vs. 20 percent), McCain's age may be the biggest vulnerability of all in the eyes of the voters. Nearly four in 10 (36 percent) think the Arizona senator's age--at 71, he would be the oldest president ever to assume office for the first time--will hurt his chances of winning.

From Guns: Well, it is looking better and better for Barack.  Hillary, i hope you and your supporters come back in the fold.  We all respect you, wheter or not some of us are ill-mannered at times.



Display:


What took so long... (2.00 / 2)

for somoen to trumpet this ?


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:14:01 PM EST

why is it called a survey? (2.00 / 1)

why 1200 voters from fifty states? How many is that per state??  Just seems strange, like a push survey maybe? Does Newsweek call it a poll? Do they give the questions?  What's the margin of error?  Seems like too small a sample for the entire country.  


what a relief
by anna shane on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:06:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: why is it called a survey? (none / 0)

why 1200 voters from fifty states? How many is that per state??

24

Glad to help.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:18:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Read it and weep, MyDD diehards. 20 points! (2.00 / 0)

"Despite her campaign's relentless attacks on Barack Obama's qualifications and electability, Hillary Clinton has lost a lot of ground with Democratic voters nationwide going into Tuesday's critical primary in Pennsylvania, a new NEWSWEEK poll shows.

The survey of 1,209 registered voters found that Obama now leads Clinton by nearly 20 points, or 54 percent to 35 percent, among registered Democrats and those who lean Democratic nationwide"


by ReillyDiefenbach on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:36:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 2)

LOL For some reason, I think this one may qualify as an "outlier". I don't think a canidiate who's down 20 nationally wouldn't win the plurality of the remaining primaries, which Clinton is poised to do.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:14:11 PM EST

Re: *Breaking*: (1.50 / 6)

so the 40 or so previous contests don't count?


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:15:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (1.66 / 3)

I never said that. I just think it's logical that if she was trailing by nearly 20 points, she probably wouldn't be poised to win a majority of the remaining primaries. PS--I TR'ed you because of your signature. It's trashy and if you want to purport that kind of shit on here, you can head to Kos.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:18:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 1)

And she isn't. Not even close!


by kitebro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 1)

"You can head to Kos"
It is amazing how bullshit like that bothers me no matter how many times I read it.

As for who wins what states - clearly this is not based on national support but support in each individual state (duh). Different states have different demographics. Obama was favored with the February races after the 5th, and Clinton is favored now (though that favor keeps dropping)


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:26:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 1)

I actually hadn't even noticed that. I thought the rating was for the comment.

The sig is juvenile, but there's also several equally annoying pro-Clinton sigs around here. I'd be glad if there was a uniform standard for them, but it never seems to work out that way.

Angry Mouse did a good job of getting folks to drop anti-candidate sigs, but in the month or so since her diary, several have re-surfaced.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:37:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 0)

No, you TRed them because they were pro-Obama.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:44:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 2)

"Vote for me or I kill the children" is not pro-Obama, it's pro sexism and mysogyny.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 0)

What are you talking about?  It has nothing to do with sexism at all.  It's a hyperbolic point about her 3 am ad.  Type that phrase into google and you'll see that every one is a reference to how that ad is so much like the Johnson "Daisy" ad from 1964.  I don't agree that it's like that at all, but plenty of people do.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:52:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

I don't see it that way; perhaps it is but my intial impression is that it wasn't. I have a belief about what I think it's targeting, and it's Clinton's image as a some type of cold hearted politically manipulating person. Perhaps the other poster could clarify that for us? I don't think there's a need or a want for that type of language to be included in the debate.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:59:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 0)

I agree that it doesn't help the tenor of things.  But jumping on everything as potentially sexist or misogynist doesn't help either.  And yes, Obama supporters are guilty of doing the same with crying "racism."  The problem is that this type of crying wolf on both sides obscures the real acts of racism and sexism.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

By the way, it's not "I" kill the children.  At least get the quote right.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:53:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 0)

uprated. not TR-worthy.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:20:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 1)

Vote for me or the children will die is not TR worthy? I guess maybe I'll put something in my sig line about Obama picking cotton and see how you feel about that.


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:25:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 1)

For crying out loud, it is supposed to be funny. And it is not sexist, racist, or otherwise overtly offensive. It is mere hyperbole that happens to be in bad taste.

And what, you're going to TR every comment this person ever posts because of their sig?


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It is not funny.. (2.00 / 1)


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:33:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is not funny.. (none / 0)

I didn't say it was, but that is clearly the intention.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:49:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

In short, yes. It's not hilarious, or funny, whatsoever, and yes, I consider it sexist, as it links back to a contemporary sexist stereotype of Hillary as a "mean" woman, cold, or a more popular b***ch. I will continue to TR this poster on every post that he makes because the signature line needs to be changed. I thought this was a place for "progressives"?


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:39:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 0)

Look, I don't like it, and he/she should get rid of it, but let's not make more of it than it is. But accusing someone of fear-mongering isn't sexist or misogynist. (And no, I'm not agreeing that she's fear-mongering, I'm only trying to explain.)

TRing every single post is not the best way to handle this.


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 0)

So Hillary is supposed to be "tough" and a "fighter" but if someone implies she is "mean" they are misogynistic? Guess what! If you haven't figured it out already, virtually any phrase can be distorted and interpreted as sexist, racist, or some other horrible offense. This website can be exhibit A.
But does that mean it is in everyone's best interest to resort to those interpretations immediately? If we are all supposed to be progressive, shouldn't we give each other the benefit of the doubt?
www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 1)

The signature is a bit over the top and probably meant to provoke anger and outrage (so I can SORT of understand your troll rating).

But your comment here is really quite paranoid. You're projecting your worst fears about Obama supporters on this one poster. Some politicians are mean and calculating.. It's not a gender thing...

This is a place for progressives, and "Vote for me or the children will die - HRC" may be over the top, but it's actually an attack FROM THE LEFT. The poster is referring to Hillary's tendency to try to use Obama's shorter term in office and "lack of experience" to scare people into thinking he's not ready to face national crises "at 3am"

Maybe I'm misreading that advertisement, but it seems pretty obvious that it was meant to imply that Obama was not ready to protect your child "at 3am" when some tough decision needs to be made.


by Democratic Unity on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:48:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 0)

I see it as a hyperbolic comment on her 3 am ad.  The ad implied that only Hillary will keep you (and your children) safe.  That sig is clearly a reference back to Lyndon Johnson's Daisy ad in 1964.     Hillary's ad is obviously nowhere near that bad, but it's a hyperbolic attempt at making a point.

And there are tons of websites that come up as google results for the phrase, so this poster didn't just "make it up."  

If you want to use an analogous sig, you would need to take a similarly hyperbolic look at one of Obama's ads or comments.  It's the equivalent of using "People like religion because they are poor."  I don't think that would get much of a reaction from pro-Obama people, but maybe I'm wrong.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

sounds like you just got yerself a parttime job! congrats!


by SeanF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:53:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

oops...responded to the wrong comment.

Here's the response:
http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/4/18/1 71157/991/35#35


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

I think it' a fair synopsis of the 3 am ad.


"I am standing with Barack Obama to say, `Yes, we can!'" Hillary Clinton 6/7/08
by feliks on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

Good snark! Imagine how delusional  someone would have to be to buy that? Thanks for the laugh!


by kitebro on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

Yeah... I love Obama, but this has Outlier written all over it.  


http://www.imvotingrepublican.com/ McCain Sucks!
by yitbos96bb on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:02:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 2)

PS--Newsweek has been in the bag for Obama this entire cycle, and considering thier questionable use of "Clinton, aided by..." in the article itself, I refuse to buy this poll. If you look at the other regular national trackers, Gallup has Obama in the MOE against Clinton and Rasumussen has him +5. I think that if he was actually leading by 19, those polls would have seen some upward movement for Barack.

So, in conclusion, please stop the poll cherry-picking. There's no way Obama is "pulling away big time" by 20 points nationally. Thanks for the fun though :)


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:17:14 PM EST

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 2)

Not necessarily. Did you see their last poll result? It had them within 1.

This is the first full-on national poll conducted after the debate. And it showed what looks a complete backlash against Hillary Clinton. The Rasmussen poll in PA showed the same thing.


by elrod on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

Right now, compared with any other national tracking poll, it is an outlier, plus, Newsweek has been consistently off on the contests they have polled. If you want to take this one as gospel, I guess we can take ARG's Hillary +20 in PA as gospel as well?


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 1)

Typical Clintonista response,  the media is biased, the media is sexist, they treat Hillary unfairly. Why do you guys do nothing but whine???


by venician on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:31:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (2.00 / 2)

So, because Newsweek is "in the bag" for Obama they are tampering with poll results to make him look good?

The point of this poll is not to cherry pick, but to follow a trend of the SAME poll over time, using the same methodology.

Take it for what's it worth, but don't attack it as biased or cherry-picking unless you have something to back up those accusations.


www.thingsyoungerthanmccain.com
by LandStander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: (none / 0)

Despite how much I disagree with your interpretation of the above commenter's signature, I agree with you here.  Until this poll is backed up by others, I don't believe it.  And I agree that the line about "aided by" was silly and obvious.  

If another new poll comes out and has him back to up 5-10, this poll will be worthless.  But if more polls show him up by a lot, it will say something.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:57:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (2.00 / 0)

Why does Obama always do better in the multi-day national polls?  It seems like everytime there is an Wa/Po, CBS/NYT, AP, or Newsweek-MSNBC, large sample poll Obama significantly outperforms the tracking polls.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:18:48 PM EST

Fair use, etc. (2.00 / 1)

Guns,

I would place in blockquotes those part of your diary that excerpted from the Newsweek article. Also, you may want to reduce the amount of material excerpted from the article, in order to comply with fair use restrictions. It looks like you may be pushing the limits of permissible use.

Otherwise, thanks for the diary.


by DPW on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:19:00 PM EST

Re: Fair use, etc. (none / 0)

how do you use block quotes...I have tried and failed in the past... How to do it?


by a gunslinger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fair use, etc. (2.00 / 1)

I had trouble with this for a long time too.

You write:

!blockquote! and the beginning and !/blockquote! at the end.

But use "<" and ">" instead of !

(couldn't use it in the example or it woulda placed it in blockquotes)


by the mollusk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:30:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fair use, etc. (2.00 / 0)

Thanks!  The "!" is what messed me up.


by a gunslinger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:37:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fair use, etc. (none / 0)

<bl0ckquote> text </bl0ckquote>

replace the 0 with an o


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:30:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Fair use, etc. (2.00 / 0)

I think your explanation was much more elegant than mine.


by the mollusk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:53:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Look. I'm an Obama supporter but (2.00 / 1)

that seems insane.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:19:01 PM EST

i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (2.00 / 1)

and Newsweek polls consistently off. For instance, while many polls were showing HRC and BO tied with McCain, Newsweeks always shows them winning by big margins..


DEMOCRATIC 08!
by rigsoHC on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:20:04 PM EST

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (2.00 / 1)

Also does not make much sense considering they still come up with a head to head vs. McCain of:

Obama 48 - McCain 44
Clinton 47 - McCain 43

I haven't read the analysis but hardly seems like Clinton could be down by 20 among Dems and still have numbers like this from the same polling agency!!!  Craziness...


by mikes101 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (2.00 / 1)

Before an Obama supporter attacks me - OK - I understand it is theoretically possible, given that these are different match-ups, but still seems pretty far-fetched...


by mikes101 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (2.00 / 1)

Not necessarily.  It means that democrats widely PREFER Obama, but would vote for Hillary too, should she alter the laws of physics as we know them.


by a gunslinger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:25:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (2.00 / 2)

An interesting analysis given that self described Democrats have favored Clinton in almost every state this primary season. Like I said, if you want to play with outliers, I'll take Clinton +20 in PA, within 1 in NC, and up 16 in Indiana. Do you really want to go there?


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (none / 0)

actually, all this poll does is define what an outlier is. So the next poll that shows Obama up 15...won't be the outlier!

I think some overton guy wrote something about a window....
=)


by SeanF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:57:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (none / 0)

LOL Good luck getting another result like that. Too much time with the kool-aid today?


Hillary supporter for Barack Obama in 2008
by zcflint05 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:00:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (none / 0)

when the next poll comes out showing obama up more than 10, i will say it's a legitimate trend. For now....who knows. But there's always gotta be the first one, ya know.

p.s. i like cherry!


by SeanF on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:07:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (none / 0)

aw... a cool aid joke.

calling people cultists never gets old does it.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i dont buy it, very off with Gallup/Ras (2.00 / 0)

He Always performs better in mult-day large sample polls than the tracking polls.  I'm not sure why.


Bring Back MyDD - Just say No to Rec'ing Candidate Diaries.
by CardBoard on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (none / 0)

wow. twisted. no question she's gone into more than one war-zone to work actively for peace. he hasn't EVER. yet he get's the slide on assciating with a domestic terrorist, a lobbyist-briber Rezko, and worst of all a hyperventilating pastor for 20+ years - he gets a slide with the lame excuse he didn't know on all counts?!!!!

really twisted. and nothing to trumpet for BO supporters unless the ends are all that justify any means. great ethics in that campaign.


by swissffun on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:24:13 PM EST

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (2.00 / 0)

According to this poll, 54% of Democratic primary voters still think Obama is the better candidate.

In the college football world, that's where we just say "scoreboard".

(Disclaimer:  I don't believe that Obama is up by 19 percentage points for a minute - but I do believe that he holds a significant lead)


UNITY!
by The Great Gatsby on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (none / 0)

19 seems a bit much nationally.  BUT he clearly has the momentum on his side, and may be benfitting from a backlash courtesy of the dogpile in PA.


by a gunslinger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:40:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (2.00 / 0)

Teflon. It'll be great for the GE.


by Becky G on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (2.00 / 0)

I think this shows that the people polled just care a lot more about what the candidate themself says and does vs. what people around them say or do.


by ProgressiveDL on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (none / 0)

give us a break please!


by darlene25 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:26:36 PM EST

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (none / 0)

You know there is an important point in quite a few of these polls that people are overlooking , a clear majority of democratic voters are saying the super delegates should ignore the winner of the pledged delegates and go with some other metric.

In some polls I have seen some wanting the SD's to follow popular vote others choose who would be the best president.

Thats good news for the Clinton camp.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:33:40 PM EST

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (2.00 / 0)

Sure...IF the SD's ALSO overlook polls like this one, overlook which candidate is most benefitting their downticket races, and which candidate is actually FUNDING other races.

Then, I'd say...sure that's great news for Hillary.


by a gunslinger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:38:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (none / 0)

Look head to head polls fluctuate up and down , if Clinton has a big win , I would bet the head to head poll would tighten.

Even in this poll , the voters are saying ignore the pledged delegate leader.

Did you read that ?

Thats bad news for Obama.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (2.00 / 0)

yeah I read it (shrugs).  If that were the only factor that Superdelegates THEMSELVES were going to use, it might have more weight...but as I list above, Lori... the polls, the downticket races, and their own funds for their OWN races...also will play a role in determining their support, as well as whom they beleive is the potentially stronger Pres.


by a gunslinger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:46:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (2.00 / 0)

People also want to get rid of the electoral college and vote directly but it ain't gonna happen. The primary is a delegate race.  Either way is OK, though for Obama.


by Becky G on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:51:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If not now, when? (2.00 / 1)

This is an outlier, but, all the trends do show, she seems to suffer more from going negative then he does by getting relentlessly mashed by the press and Hillary surrogates.

This is too large a number, but I think it trends this way, then when she wins PA, she will slide back to within about 5-7, then after he wins NC big he will jump back to double digits, etc....

Point to all the Hillary fans is, WHEN does she take the lead back in national polls?

If not after PA, then when?

How does the fact he will be ahead in the national polls FOR MONTHS going to play to the Supers?

What this reflects is, while slamming on Bitter-gate is going to win her a few points in whiter-then-white PA (or as Carville used to call it, Alabama North), it is hurting her in CA, in WA, places NOT in the rust belt and more urbane (or, wink, ELITIST!)


On Nov 4th, Barack Obama officially ends the Southern Strategy....
by WashStateBlue on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:39:32 PM EST

Re: If not now, when? (none / 0)

She already took the lead in last night's Gallup polling - the overall 4 day average is still in his favor, so we'll see if last night's numbers are just noise, or if people really didn't think he did well in that debate...


by mikes101 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If not now, when? (none / 0)

todays gallup has Obama back up, btw.


by a gunslinger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:47:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If not now, when? (none / 0)

...by 4 that is.


by a gunslinger on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is the reason she can't win (none / 0)

On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case.

WHat the hell does that even mean?


by highgrade on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:53:37 PM EST

Gallup disagrees (2.00 / 1)

"In Thursday night's interviewing, Clinton received a greater share of national Democratic support than Obama, the first time she has done so in an individual night's interviewing since April 3."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106630/Gallul p-Daily-Clinton-Moves-Within-Points-Obam a.aspx


by TxKat on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 05:54:53 PM EST

Forget the 19% look at the real issue. (2.00 / 0)

I'm really suprised no one discussed the underlying problem for Clinton.  Honest/Dishonest again in this poll.  I don't think the 19% is correct but the hones/dishonest numbers are line with other polls.  It's just going to be very hard to win with 55-60% dishonest negatives.  


"The best way to show that a stick is crooked is not by arguing about it or spending time denouncing it, but to lay a straight stick alongside it" -DL Moody
by nextgen on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 06:14:19 PM EST

Re: Forget the 19% look at the real issue. (none / 0)

Actually honestly doesn't necessarily help. How many times have I heard that Jimmy Carter was honest but was a terrible president. Also, it means that people really believe he was being truthful when he trashed blue collar voters.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:14:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

finally waking up (2.00 / 1)

hopefully this is a sign that this hideous campaign run by the Clintons will end Tuesday. and good riddance.

can you say "primary challenger."


the time to rise has been engaged.
by catchaz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:45:30 PM EST

Re: *Breaking*: Brand New Post Debate Newsweek po (none / 0)

gallup has them like 3 or 4 points apart in the nationals.

even MSNBC commentators couldn't bring themselves to "trust" the newsweek poll.  


by colebiancardi on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:21:44 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.