home

SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 2-1

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:14:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

For a candidate who has sewn up the nomination, Barack Obama sure does badly in some state polls. SUSA Kentucky poll:

Clinton 58
Obama 29

Obama wins 4 out of 5 African American voters. Clinton leads among whites 62-23. 90% of the Dem voters in Kentucky are white. Kentucky's primary is May 20.

< New MI Plan Floated: Not A Revote | The Truth Hurts >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 2-1 | 76 comments (76 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by americanincanada on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:19:54 PM EST
    I find it interesting and encouraging that Clinton leads in all parts of the state including 4 to 1 in Eastern KY. She is beating Obama by 20 points among men, and is leading Obama by 37 points among women.

    But, but, but (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:20:24 PM EST
    They haven't had a chance to get to know him yet!  ;)

    4% undecided isn't a lot of wiggle room.

    Well, as Mr. Hope likes to say, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by vicsan on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:20:32 PM EST
    "Once they get to know me, they love me." Once he campaigns there, I'm sure all those voters will flock to him. He has a month and a half to CHARM them.

    sarcasm

    Those are some AWESOME numbers for Hillary! Thanks for posting the poll. It cheered me up a bit after seeing the new Gallup poll today.:(

    But (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by ineedalife on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:15:28 PM EST
    Obama hasn't had the chance to outspend Hillary 4:1 there yet. Don't you know an election isn't fair until every dollar has had it's chance to speak? Didn't we learn that lesson in Florida?

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#76)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:42:42 AM EST
    How terrible that he has raised more money and managed it better.  SHame on him.

    Parent
    The national polls (none / 0) (#28)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    really don't matter very much at this point...also, who knows who they actually poll! Like Rasmussen says she leads by 7 points among Dems, but he leads others likely to vote in Dem primaries (indies and republicans) by 2:1...well, if I remember correctly, they poll 2/3 dems and 1/3 non-dems likely to participate...this cancels out her DEM advantage in a DEM primary!

    Parent
    this is a Primary poll (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salt on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:55:26 PM EST
    check out the other States same wins exception Iowa.

    Parent
    Wow. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:20:41 PM EST
    ...Just wow.  I wonder what Obama's supporters will say the reason is for this very wide lead?

    Its all Hillary's fault. (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:56 PM EST


    Parent
    eventually (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:23:51 PM EST
    they had to be right about something

    Parent
    he has gone bowling in Bowling Green yet (none / 0) (#10)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:23:40 PM EST


    Parent
    I mean - Obama hasn't gone bowling yet (none / 0) (#13)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:24:10 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm worried he is undercutting her (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:03:05 PM EST
    support amongst low info, working class voters with this bowling deal.  But, I've never been into bowling, so who knows.

    Parent
    He's a crappy bowler (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:24:00 PM EST
    so I don't know how that makes him more relateable (sp?). It just says he doesn't bowl, lol!~  ;)

    Parent
    The state polls should be the only ones that (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by athyrio on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM EST
    count, since it is winning each state for their electoral votes that elect a president...Right now, Obama is losing the electoral match to Clinton and they both lose to McCain according to this website that is updated daily....

    Hey.... (none / 0) (#77)
    by proseandpromise on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 09:44:00 AM EST
    Where are you taking that goal post?  :D  I enjoy hearing the candidates do this.  Don't get me wrong - my candidate does it too.  It's just a funny part of the election cycle.

    Parent
    that popular vote doesnt seem (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:27:56 PM EST
    so far out of reach does it?
    could I just say.  I am really proud of Hillary.
    what a tuff lady.

    I think it must be the spill over (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    effect of her mining grandpa from PA.

    Parent
    This is worse than my prediction (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:31:08 PM EST
    I want to cry, because the implications are not pretty.

    unfortunately (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:36:52 PM EST
    its about in line with mine.
    more of this to come I also predict.  I think you are going to see numbers like this in other "Kentucky like" states. like mine Arkansas.
    hopefully it will be in time to impress the supers.
    otherwise I share your tears.


    Parent
    Implications? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:56:42 PM EST
    re: what?  The GE?

    Sorry, I'm not following you.

    Parent

    What happens (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:01:14 PM EST
    when nominee Obama can't even pull 40% of white Democrats?

    This isn't just some late contest: he's supposedly inevitable now.

    Parent

    There was a MYDD Diary (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:03:01 PM EST
    about this topic...written by a Latina activist who was explaining that Kerry got about 43 percent of the white vote...if Obama can't pull in at least that percentage, he would need nearly 70 percent of the Latino vote, which just isn't going to happen...he needs to be able to pull at least 43 percent...

    Parent
    Demography has been destiny (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:05:33 PM EST
    in this primary. If that's true in the general as well, Obama is toast.

    Parent
    My sister (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:39:12 PM EST

    lives in Louisville and she said Obama has had a presence there for awhile, but Clinton not so much. So this is GREAT news because despite his presence she is still leading slightly in Louisville!

    My Old Kentucky Home (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:02:54 PM EST
    I posted video of excited Kentucky voters over at Correntewire.  As I said in comments there, this is really great for the Kentucky Democratic Party, which used to control the state but has been taking it on the chin for the last 15-20 years.  McConnell is up for re-election and it will be great if the databases of voters and money raised for the local party can be used to help defeat him.  There are good things about this race continuing.

    I grew up in Kentucky and I'm not surprised by these numbers at all.  I suspect a large portion of remaining Kentucky democrats are rural and working class whites, aka Hillary's base.  Very few latte liberals in Kentucky.

    If Hillary can pull off Indiana (no recent polls there, either could have an advantage), she'll greatly improve her position over the next five contests since she's favored to win three states, possibly by double digits (PA, WVA, KY).  Only North Carolina has recent polling that shows Obama ahead.  No wonder so many Obama supporters want Clinton to quit.  

    WVPR (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by liminal on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:20:26 PM EST
    West Virginia Public Radio claimed in a report tonight that something like 3/5 of the remaining delegates come from states with a foot in the Appalachian region (WV, KY, PA, NC).  I don't know if it's true; they then interview some muckety muck (I was working, listening half-heartedly) who said that some people will claim that Clinton is winning the Appalachians because of race - but in fact, she has higher trust levels among the Appalachians, and people in the states believe that HRC will remember the region while Obama just seems to be... passing through on his way to the White House, if that makes sense.  I saw a brief snippet of a "week in review" news story on the local news last night about Bill Clinton's WV tour last week, which included footage of an 80 year old woman who was very emotional about Hillary Clinton's candidacy.  It was quite moving.

    Clinton's experience with rural healthcare and rural economies and rural concerns in Arkansas plays well in the region.  

    I lived in WV for over 15 years, (5.00 / 7) (#60)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:19:34 PM EST
    and I was there for the first Clinton election. I have two anecdotes from that time. One is a joke that was very popular..Two politicians talking and one of them says, "You know, it's not so bad that they are from Arkansas.." The other one says, "Yeah, but did their names have to be Hill and Billy?". That was always greeted by gales of laughter, and comments to the effect that "they" hate it that he(Clinton)is a "Bubba". Just like them. He too is from the mountains and knows how hard life can be there. So does his wife. The two of them have done a lot to help poor people in the mountains. And they appreciate that in WV.

    The other story involves my truck, and how it got Bill Clinton a vote. I got hit by a jack-knifing tractor trailer hauling two trailers one rainy day. My truck, a Ford 250 XL, was totalled. The frame was bent sideways and the tires on the driver's side were torn off by the impact..and that includes BOTH back tires. I ended up in the hospital for two weeks. A couple of days after the election, which I voted in, a lady came up to me at the local store and asked if I was the person who was in that truck that got run over by the semi. I said, yes I was. So she told me the most amazing thing. She saw the truck, and the big bumpersticker in the middle of the tailgate that said "DUMP BUSH". When she found out that I had survived the wreck, she decided it was sign from God to vote for Bill Clinton. So she did.

    Parent

    This is so unfair to Obama (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:22:25 PM EST
    That so many people would support Hillary just because she's white. Absolutely nothing like South Carolina. At. All. [/snark]

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by sas on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:33:43 PM EST
    if Florida is counted as is, I believe the delegate lead is much closer.  She can overtake him with these primaries.

    Now, He'll get pounded in KY, Wva, PA and Puerto Rico.
    She'll probably take Indiana.

    He'll take NC for sure (will Edwards endorse Hillary?), and Oregon  but that will be closer.

    I don't know anything about South Dakota.  but I understand of Montana's three Democrats, two are for Barack and 1 is for Hillary.

    As far (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by sas on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:35:49 PM EST
    as polls go, wait for Survey USA.  They are routinely the closest to actual results.

    This one (none / 0) (#67)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:31:20 PM EST
    is Survey USA!

    Parent
    If Clinton can win by that margin (1.00 / 1) (#29)
    by maritza on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:37:34 PM EST
    in the rest of the 10 states than I think she could pass Obama in pledged delegates.

    If Hillary doesn't than she won't.

    If Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#42)
    by clapclappointpoint on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:19:33 PM EST
    maintains leads like this throughout this rest of the primary, in every state, she'd have a decent chance at catching up in pledged delegates.  Unfortunately, for her, these numbers aren't going to hold up.

    MLK... (none / 0) (#2)
    by mike in dc on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:19:50 PM EST
    ...could come back from the dead to endorse Obama, and he'd still lose in KY by at least 20 points.  

    Come on.  It's Kentucky.

    in the same vain (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:21:36 PM EST
    it's Idaho, Utah, Wyoming...Alabama, South Carolina...any others?

    Parent
    "Vain" or "vein"? (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:00:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Wrong meme (5.00 / 16) (#14)
    by dianem on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:24:29 PM EST
    Obama is a post-racial candidate who has broad appeal across all American ethic, gender, and racial groups. Except for the white people who won't vote for him becuase they are racists. And the women who won't vote for him because they are narrow-minded feminists. And the Hispanic people who won't vote for him because they hate black people. And the black people who won't vote for him because...well, we're working on that one. But everybody else will vote for him because he is the unity candidate, and has broad appeal.

    Parent
    Come on (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:29:32 PM EST
    It's Ohio, KY, PA and MI. Not to mention FL. The list is getting longer.

    Parent
    and the same with (none / 0) (#53)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:45:47 PM EST
    TN, MO and WV.

    Parent
    whatever... (none / 0) (#70)
    by mike in dc on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:32:34 PM EST
    He's going to win at least 30 states, BTD.  He'd have a decent shot at winning a Michigan re-vote.  But let's not pretend Kentucky and West Virginia are not, in the final analysis, Kentucky and West Virginia.  The racial politics there are pretty similar to Mississippi.  A flawless candidate running a flawless campaign there would still lose, so long as that candidate happens to be African-American.  Not "playing the race card", just   a factual statement supported by all available data.

    Counter question: why should we nominate a candidate  who can't even win 20 states in a two-way race?  

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#21)
    by BrandingIron on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    because Kentucky is a backwards redneck state full of anti-progressives.

    But wait...wasn't Kentucky a state to recently pass something that benefitted same-sex partners?

    Parent

    You mean... (none / 0) (#40)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:12:26 PM EST
    ...a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, domestic partnerships, civil unions and health care benefits?

     Ditto MI and OH.  FL will consider one in November.

    Parent

    No, I'm talking about (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:57:45 AM EST
    the defeating of the bill that would've axed domestic partnership benefits for KY people who work for universities and other government agencies.

    Even if the bill had gone on to the House and passed, it might not have become law. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear had said he would veto any measure that banned universities from offering domestic partner benefits.

    A little bit of reading helps.

    Parent

    Is this poll contrary to (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    expectations?  If so, is the change attributable to media coverage of The Rev. Wright?  How did KY go in 2000 and 2004?

    P.S.  Will the revelation the young girl in Bosnia doesn't remember sniper fire adversely effect HRC's numbers in KY?  <snark>

    Not treally I guess (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:28:53 PM EST
    These are Ohio/PA numbers.

    Parent
    Bill won KY (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:40:44 PM EST
    in 1996 and 1992 in a three way race with Perot.  Gore and Kerry lost KY.

    Parent
    The two girls (none / 0) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:34:56 PM EST
    The Bosnia and the 3:00 am girl.  Man, that Hillary is flawed.  

    Parent
    My daughter in Ireland reports (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:02:06 PM EST
    [in response to my probing questions]:  (1) not much in the news there about Hillary and Bosnia; (2) more coverage of Obama's pastor.  

    Parent
    If you want to know (none / 0) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:25:56 PM EST
    how folks are explaining this away....but, they won't vote for an AA in Kentucky!!! ....but they would in Idaho -- home of the Aryan Nations??

    Whoops (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:28:55 PM EST
    I meant to say, if you want to know how people are explaining this away, go to MyDD and look for the diary on the same subject.

    Parent
    Ouch. (none / 0) (#16)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:27:17 PM EST
    He has a serious "white" problem.
    Wow.
    I mean the places he is expected to win are the places with significant black populations. This has to hurt.

    So much for inevitability and the no-way-anyone-else-can-win meme. Although I doubt anyone in the media is going to pay attention to this.

    Oregon is mostly white (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by maritza on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    and Obama probably will win that state.

    White people will vote for Obama.  Perhaps not in Kentucky.

    Parent

    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ajain on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    When you say mostly you mean what - 60%, 70%, 80%?
    Despite what the population is in the state, the Democratic primary voters will have a high percentage of AA voters in the primary.

    But lets see. Maybe his bowling and hot dog eating will change stuff.

    Parent

    Have you been to Oregon? (none / 0) (#41)
    by maritza on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:13:40 PM EST
    My sister lives in Oregon and there isn't a huge African-American population there.

    Obama is going to win the white vote there as he did in Washington state.

    There is a difference with people of the "west" versus people of the "south".


    Parent

    West Is More Sexist (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:23:10 PM EST
    than the South.  See Paul Lukasiak's voting analysis here.  Which, of course, is not to say the South doesn't have problems with racism (and sexism, Obama won the vote among Mississippians who said "gender" was a factor in their decision), it clearly does.  But I'm sick of this idea that certain parts of the country are filled with various prejudices and other parts are pure.  This is America, racism and sexism are everywhere.


    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:28:29 PM EST
    I have not seen any numbers, but we should keep in mind that the Washington primary - where many more people voted - was actually quite close.  And where Oregon's demographics differ, they mostly differ on the side of HRC:  ie older, a little poorer, a little less education.  And hispanic and asian populations are on the rise.  Not sure if it's significantly more than in '04, but definitely fastest growing groups.

    Parent
    Do you know the exact (none / 0) (#54)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:53:48 PM EST
    numbers of the WA primary compared to the Caucuses?  I have heard about the issue but haven't been able to see the exact figures.

    Parent
    He won (none / 0) (#68)
    by nell on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:33:17 PM EST
    the primary by 3 percentage points, I think 50 to 47, while the caucus was a blow out.

    Parent
    primary v caucus (none / 0) (#69)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:56:48 PM EST
    Caucus - obama 67.5, clinton 31 - 32,000 votes

    Primary - obama 51.2, clinton 45.6 - 691,000 votes

    Parent

    Says a lot doesn't it? (none / 0) (#74)
    by hairspray on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 10:21:31 PM EST


    Parent
    I live in Oregon (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by caseyOR on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 07:15:41 PM EST
    and have for over 30 years. The AA population is very small, less than 2%; latino is around 9%; asian a little bit more than 3%.

    Oregon might go for Obama, but much of its population falls in the Clinton demographic-- older, white, latino, asian,  more working class.

    Oregon is not Washington. Portland is not Seattle. Our economy has had a much harder time than has Washington's. These two NW states are not mirrors of each other.

    Parent

    Yep.... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:21:12 PM EST
    I live in Northern California and used to live in Wash.  I know those "white people".  They left California cause there are way too many minorities.  Yeah, they say it's cause of the crowding, or environment or cost of living.

    They are wonderful theoretical liberals.  They took their kids out of public schools, they moved out of the integrated neighborhoods.  Obama makes gives them nice credentials that they are not racist.  I know those people really well.  They ran and keep on running cause they want to preserve the white enclaves of privalege.  


    Parent

    Isn't Kentucky (none / 0) (#20)
    by riddlerandy on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:29:07 PM EST
    one of those small states that doesn't really matter?

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:35:28 PM EST
    Just like Iowa, Wyoming, South Carolina, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, Virginia, and Mississippi. You know, all those states that voted for Obama and voted for Bush last election. The Hope Pony will turn them Dem!

    Parent
    It might contribute to her popular vote (none / 0) (#30)
    by nellre on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:38:34 PM EST
    Kentucky has voted for the ultimate winner since 1964.

    So in spite of her being able to win the state from Obama...
    And given this poll
    http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_surveyusa_ohio_missouri_k.php

    We have a long ways to go.

    KY is a racist state. (none / 0) (#45)
    by lilybart on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:21:37 PM EST
    I lived there once. I worked at the oldest restaurant in Louisville --- Hasenour's.

    All the busboys were black (waiters and everyone else white) and they were NOT ALLOWED TO SERVICE TABLES WHILE PATRONS WERE SEATED. They could pour cofffee or more water. They could only clear AFTER the patrons left.

    I lasted a couple of weeks, I was so disgusted.
    Also, we had to call management Mr. And Mrs First Name. After awhile, Mr. John sounded a lot like Master John.

    So the racist whites won't vote for Obama. big deal.
    The state will not go DEM if Hillary is the nominee either.

    Let's play madlibs (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by blogtopus on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:26:02 PM EST
    "So the racist whites won't vote for Obama. big deal.
    The state will not go DEM if Hillary is the nominee either."

    Let's swap out some names...

    "The state will not go DEM if OBAMA is the nominee either."

    Sounds like the first half of the primaries, if you ask me. So now Obama fans are screaming about racism, not realizing that all those wonderful states Obama used to pump up his delegate counts will never go DEM either. Wah.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sumac on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:56:38 PM EST
    I am not sure this is the most compelling or effective argument to make. It's sad really that either candidate is benefiting from any hint of racism on the part of the voters. But I think we can agree that has been and remains a factor. We're not so enlightened a country as we like to think.

    And if I recall correctly from the couple of restaurants I worked in, bussers always had to wait until after the patrons left before bussing the table. Any bussing or clearing away of dishes while the patrons were at the table was done by the server. That's not to say that Hasenour's isn't a racist establishment. I'll take your word for it that it is.

    Parent

    You lived there once and worked in a restaurant (none / 0) (#73)
    by leis on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:49:23 PM EST
    once and the management was racist ergo the entire state is racist? Insightful. Not really the way to get people to vote for your guy.

    Parent
    Today's Gallup should worry Clinton a bit (none / 0) (#51)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:35:53 PM EST
    Gallup daily tracking has Obama's lead is back outside the margin of error for the first time since the dip from the Wright stuff (no pun intended) and his number is back up to 50%.  I find that pretty surprising and it shows a resilience to Obama's support that I was not sure existed (and an inability of Clinton to make lasting inroads into that support).  Now it may be a blip from the Bosnia stuff, we will have to wait and see.  Its hard to know how much of the apparent volatility is statistical noise, even in a tracking poll.

    In some sense this does not matter, only the states that are left do.  On the other hand this is something that may influence the superdelegates.

    That was three days ago (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:39:00 PM EST
    Clinton ticked back from a 10 point lead to an 8 point lead.

    Parent
    I think you mean his lead, right? Anyway, (none / 0) (#62)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:26:01 PM EST
    Rasmussen has them only three points apart.  Do you have some insight into which poll is more reliable?

    Parent
    this one: (none / 0) (#71)
    by Arcadianwind on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:34:02 PM EST
    http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/Mar31.html
    http:/I should say: this composite.

    Parent
    For Gallup Days Polled Seems to Matter (none / 0) (#63)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 06:27:25 PM EST
    See this interesting post at Pollster.com.  The upshot is that "Obama typically does best on three-day samples that end on Saturday (combining interviews from Thursday, Friday and Saturday), while Clinton typically does best on samples ending on Tuesday or Wednesday night (covering Sunday through Wednesday)."  

    Parent
    Flashback (none / 0) (#72)
    by rebrane on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 08:34:54 PM EST
    For a candidate who has sewn up the nomination, John Kerry sure does badly in some states' primaries. Vermont:

    Dean 58
    Kerry 34
    Kucinich 4

    Yes, I'm aware that it's not a perfect analogy. The point is, cherrypicking states gives you highly misleading results.

    SUSA KY Poll: Clinton By 2-1 | 76 comments (76 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment