Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, MA: +37%, MO +13%,

More Feb. 5 state polls coming in in rapid fashion.  Let's try to dissect them and, with 10 days to go for the 22+ state extravaganza, let's use these polls as starting points to see movement until Feb. 5:

CALIFORNIA

Let's start off with California, the biggest prize of them all.  

The PPIC poll shows a 15% Clinton edge in the state.

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/ S_108MBS.pdf

Likely voters

Clinton 43%
Obama 28%
Edwards 11%

Findings:

Amongst self-professed liberals:

Clinton 41%
Obama 27%
Edwards 12%

Gender gap:

Amongst women:

Clinton 48%
Obama 26%
Edwards 8%

Amongst men:

Clinton 35%
Obama 30%
Edwards 15%

Hillary continues to do well in California.  Edwards has not gained traction as of yet.  According to this Obama and Clinton are right on the cusp of important thresholds (the 30% and 45% thresholds.)  If, as it looks, Clinton wins California, it will be interesting to see who can reach the thresholds to gain extra delegates.

GOP:

McCain 29%
Romney 17%
Giuliani 10%
Huckabee 10%

If this holds, McCain will get a major leg up on the competition with a California delegate boost.  

MISSOURI

2 polls out today for Missouri.

Rasmussen - Missouri:


Clinton 43%
Obama 24%
Edwards 18%
Not sure 5%


Hillary Clinton enjoys a nineteen percentage point lead over Barack Obama in Missouri's Democratic Presidential Primary. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of the state shows Clinton earning 43% of the vote while Obama attracts 24%. John Edwards trails Obama by six points and is supported by 18% of the state's Likely Democratic Presidential Primary Voters.

Gender gap:

Clinton leads by 28-percentage points among women but just seven points among men.

Good favorability ratings for Hillary:


The former First Lady is viewed favorably by 82% of those likely to vote. Obama earns positive reviews from 69%.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Missouri's Democratic Primary Voters believe Clinton is at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. That figure includes 51% who believe she is Very Likely to defeat a Republican challenger in November. Seventy-six percent (76%) believe that Obama would be at least somewhat likely to emerge victorious in the general election.

Most important issues to Democrats:


In Missouri, 89% of Democratic Primary Voters consider the economy to be a Very Important issue. Eighty-five percent (85%) say the same about Health Care while 71% see Government Ethics and Corruption as that high a priority. Sixty-one percent (61%) see the War in Iraq as that important.

This finding confirms two other polls we have seen recently.  As for the most important issues, Democrats have shifted away from Iraq somewhat:

1. Economy

  1. Health Care
  2. Change in government
  3. Iraq

Clinton looks very formidable in Missouri, despite McCaskill throwing her support behind Obama.

Research 2000 - Missouri

http://research2000.us/

Clinton 44%, Obama 31%, Edwards 18%

Note:  The R-2000 site does not have the poll available at this point to look at internals.  They probably just reported the horserace numbers so far.  I will update when I get my hands on the pdf.

MASSACHUSETTS

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollRepo rt.aspx?g=b8837d05-481b-4f85-b88b-21427a 447690


Clinton 59%
Obama 22%
Edwards 11%
Undecided 6%

Somewhat of a gender gap:

Men: Hillary 48%, Obama 25%, Edwards 15%

Women: Hillary 66%, Obama 20%, Edwards 8%

ILLINOIS

A new IL poll shows Obama leading by 29% in his home state:

Research 2000 Obama 51, Clinton 22, Edwards 15

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/il/illinois_democratic_pr imary-351.html

No link to the actual data is given

ALABAMA

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_conte nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/alabama/alabama_democratic _presidential_primary


Hillary Clinton 43%
Barack Obama 28%
John Edwards 16%

While the nation is focused on the upcoming Democratic Primary in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama by fifteen percentage points in Alabama's Democratic Presidential Primary.

It's Clinton 43% Obama 28% and John Edwards a distant third at 16%.

A bit of a surprise, since Alabama was said to be one of the few Feb. 5 states Obama was supposed to have an advantage over Clinton in.  If these numbers are correct, that may not be the case.


In patterns that have become familiar in the Democratic campaign, Clinton does much better in Alabama among women and white voters while Obama does better among men and African-Americans (see national data).

In Alabama, Clinton leads by nineteen points among women and just seven points among men. She trails among African-Americans by a two-to-one margin but leads 58% to 9% among white voters (Edwards picks up 24% of the white vote).

An obvious gender gap, and also a racial divergence notiecable here.  



Among Likely Democratic Primary Voters, Clinton is viewed favorably by 76%, Edwards by 66%, and Obama by 62%.

There is a strong favorability gap here with Obama only showing a 62% favorability to Hillary's 76%.  That is bad news for Obama, as he must be seen more favorably by voters in AL than Hillary to catch her.  


Eighty-one percent (81%) believe that Clinton would be at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. That figure includes 48% who say that Clinton is Very Likely to win in November.

Sixty-one percent (61%) say Obama is at least somewhat likely to win if nominated. Twenty-nine percent (29%) believe he would be Very Likely to win.

Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Alabama's Likely Democratic Primary voters say that the economy is a Very Important voting issue. Eighty-six percent (86%) say the same about Health Care. Government ethics and corruption is Very Important to 72% while 65% say the same about Iraq.

Note:  I think the approval ratings gap between Clinton and Obama in both Rasmussen polls, the one in Missouri and the one on Alabama, with Missouri showing Clinton at 82% and Obama at 69% and Alabama showing Clinton at 76% and Obama at 62% suggests that there may be a backlash against Obama in both of these states.  It remains to be seen how the respective approval ratings for Clinton and Obama are in other states to get a feel for how Feb. 5 states feel about the Obama vs. Clinton fighting.  In those two states at lest, according to these numbers, Obama may be getting the brunt of the blame for the brouhaha.  



Display:


Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

Given the volume of states, Clinton's support likely roughly coincides with her support in the national polling.  With that being the case, it was interesting to see her support collapse from an 11 point lead yesterday to a 3 point lead today in the rasmussen daily tracking poll.  A shift that could well be accelerated by today's results.  Next couple of weeks will be very interesting.


by davey jones on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:14:37 PM EST

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

All these numbers will change after the rout in South Carolina tonight.


by rapcetera on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:18:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

We'll see.


by arkansasdemocrat on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:50:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

Those numbers change tomorrow.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:25:03 PM EST

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

haha...
How bout you post some of the polls coming out of tonight about SC.
Obama wins white vote under 30 by 20 points.
Obama wins AA vote by 60 points.
Obama wins college educated vote.
The coalition is coming together beautifully.

by joachim on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

Good for him, he won SC. However, he won 24% total of White Vote. If I were you, I would stop gloating.  This is not good news for Obama


by lonnette33 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:36:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

"Good for him, he won SC. However, he won 24% total of White Vote. If I were you, I would stop gloating.  This is not good news for Obama"

Interesting.  So you apparently believe that white people will be voting in lock-step along racial lines.  Funny, isn't that what the Clinton backers have been criticizing AA's for?  

Given your apparent belief, I understand why the Clinton campaign has gone to such lengths to make race a key issue.  But frankly, I give white people more credit than you do.  They certainly figured it out in Iowa.  And came within 3 points of figuring it out in NH.  And they'll figure it out again.


by davey jones on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:40:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

OK. Let's wait and see how FL turns out. IF Obama gets that same percentage of the White vote, then he is indeed toast. Further, unless Obama can do better with Hispanics, he's toast. Unfortunately, for you that is a fact.


by lonnette33 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:50:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

oh whatever!! LOL!!!!!


by rapcetera on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

Sorry but that's the losing coalition we've had for years. It reinforces the fact that Obama won't win in most of the Feb 5th states if those are the only demographics he attracts.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

BLOWOUT  !!!!!!!!!!!


by marketingman on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:50:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

SC is a different subject.  This is about Feb. 5, which is in 10 days.  Clinton conceded the state early on, barely campaigned there, spent very little money.  

Enjoy.  Let's see if it helps.  I bet that it won't.  


by georgep on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

Nice spin

This is a blow out and the Clinton campaign did not expect this magnitude of victory from Obama.

MSNBC is projecting a 26pt win for Obama OVER cLINTON.

tHE NEWS COVERAGE OF THIS IS HUGE.

A month ago the Clinton campaign thought that they could win SC.


by BDM on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:38:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Feb. 5 state polls: Hill: CA +15%, MO +19%, (none / 0)

Whatever.  We'll see how it plays out, but I don't see any change and a huge Feb. 5 for Clinton.  Why would I care if you disagree?  You are free to do so.  


by georgep on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:40:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

take the same vote nationally (none / 0)

hillary wins easily.

The plan is right on schedule.

The real war is in the media.

Bring it on.


by yellowdem1129 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:26:02 PM EST

Re: take the same vote nationally (2.00 / 1)

I might be wrong, but didn't you predict a Clinton win tonight?  I don't know if I'd trust your predictions.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:30:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

In a few days, you're going to see a large shift in all of them.


by Drummond on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:55:12 PM EST

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Based on SC?   No way.  


by georgep on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:57:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Not based on "SC."  Based on the hunger for transcendence, transformation, and everything else the SC win represents.


by Drummond on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:52:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Nope, IA didn't help Obama in MI, NV or NH. He's not going to win FL and his demographic support isn't broad enough to win in a majority of the super tuesday states.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

You see, but you don't comprehend.


by Drummond on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Look at the underlying numbers. They aren't good for Obama. He can't do retail politics in the super tuesday states. He's running an ad here in Ga but it's horrible. He doesn't even mention that he's a Democrat in the ad. How are you going to transform anything when you are playing right into the GOP's hands?


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 10:01:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

I'm looking at the numbers.

First of all, he got more votes than all the 2004 Democratic Party contenders combined.

He won at every age group.

He won with women.

He took a quarter of the white vote against two prominent white candidates in a deep southern state in which his skin color had been made an issue.

And now big time endorsements are starting to pile up.

Yeah, we in Obamaville are feeling pretty good.


by Drummond on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:23:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

You aren't breaking it out by race when you are making those statements. When you have 155,000 additional black voters show up and they are the majority of the voters he's going to win in every classification. You have to be more specific to get the picture. On super tuesday, the only place those demographics work is in GA and IL.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

But outside of South Carolina he's been competitive for white votes.  Jackson wasn't.  White voters are more effected by the "inevitability" theme, and that ship has sailed.

This will probably be his worst performance with white voters.


by Drummond on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:18:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Jesse Jackson won lily white VT and MI so yes he was competetive for the white vote.

White voters are more affected by "inevitability"? I doubt that.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 07:49:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Vermont is arguably the most left wing state in the country.  


by Drummond on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 10:59:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Losing 75% of the white vote and getting 80% of black vote only makes it look more like a racial thing. That's not a "diverse coaltion". Pure spin.


No longer a Democrat, now proudly an independent voter!
by Ga6thDem on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:36:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Drummond, you care to put $100 on that, payable to the Democratic presidential campaign of winner's choice?  I've read your posts and your enthusiasm is laudable but I think your feel for elections is naive and I'm willing to put up some bucks to back it up.


by InigoMontoya on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 09:59:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Truth to tell, I still give Clinton the edge based on her "infrastructure" and the ridiculously large super tuesday.

But since I'd probably make that donation anyway to defeat McCain or Romney, you're on.


by Drummond on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 11:27:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: These polls are yesterday's news (none / 0)

Okay.  Metric?  Polls are arguable.  Do you just want to make it based on Super Tuesday results?

And how do you want to do it:  number of contests or delegates?

I'm open to proposals.


by InigoMontoya on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:03:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

mccain and romney have a dispute (none / 0)

romney says mccain is lying.  
BUT IS HE A RACIST?

If it were obama as the target. Yup.


by yellowdem1129 on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 07:58:50 PM EST

Clinton should fly into FL after the polls close (none / 0)

... so she can'tbe assused of breaking the pledge and give a victory speech after her FL win.

Score HUGE media.   Steal Obama's thunder.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:07:30 PM EST

Major game change (none / 0)

IA, NH, NV, and SC ... states all candidats all visited over a dozen times and had assembled at least some sort of sizable operation in by mid summer.   All small states where candidates could retail in churches and diners, and where a big rally in a small city might bring in a attendence that registered the equiv of 10 or 20% of the population of that burg.

Those days are gone.

This hurts Obama the most because  he has the most ground to gain in the big states and because Bill can get on tv whenever he wants, Michelle can't.  Furthermore, Obama doesn't have time to park Michelle with church groups for days and weeks.


by dpANDREWS on Sat Jan 26, 2008 at 08:54:59 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.