Newsweek Poll: Obama's Lead Drops by Half

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:38:08 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, 2008 (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Just out from Newsweek:

After an important primary win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton has reduced Democratic rival Barack Obama's double-digit lead among registered Democrats and voters leaning Democratic by more than half, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll. Plagued by controversies over Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments and the candidate's own "bitter" remarks, Obama has seen his favorability rating slip significantly in the last week, the poll found.

The survey found that Clinton now trails Obama by seven points, down from 19 just one week ago. The previous NEWSWEEK poll, conducted on the eve of the Pennsylvania primary, found that more than half (55 percent) of registered voters believed Obama was more electable, while 33 percent gave the edge to Clinton. The current poll finds Obama leading 46 percent to 38 percent.

Complete poll results are here.

< So Much For the 50 State Strategy | Hillary Challenges Obama to Non-Moderated Debate >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Newsweek Poll: Obama's Lead Drops by Half | 34 comments (34 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

re: (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Double Standard on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:41:15 PM EST

I think that 19 point lead in their last poll was a clear outlier anyway.

Also, gallup is now tied, while rasmussen shows Obama at +4.

And that's a 10-point margin gone in days (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:57:43 PM EST

-- only four or five days -- for Obama in the Gallup poll, which was at 50-40 and now is tied up.

Of course, this has oscillated throughout, so it will be interesting to see when it starts to stick one way or the other. I bet that time is soon.


speaking of dem support... (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by p lukasiak on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:29:13 PM EST

I just posted part 3 of my look at what has happened in the Clinton v McCain and Obama v McCain matchup in 9 states that were polled again by SUSA in mid-April...

While it concentrates on "Independents and Moderates",(Obama is tanking with Independents) I also looked at how Clinton and Obama were doing against McCain with Republicans and Democrats.

Clinton continues to do better than Obama among Democrats in late February, she had on average 5.9% more Democrats than Obama, in mid-April, that had grown a bit to 6.6% more.

(sorry, J. didn't realize that the word 'b########g' was frowned upon here. )


: It's a problem for the respectable (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:37:55 PM EST

lawyers with their names on this place, and probably for others whose computers could be confiscated and searched and who-knows-what, because certain words put into google searches and the like then can bring up this blog along with the sort of sites that promise you girlsgirlsgirls, if you get the drift. :-)
Teachers are losing their jobs for that sort of pop-up problem, like one in my town (a setup by the school district, it seems, as it refused to put filters he requested on his computer, and he just happened to be the teachers' union president). A teacher elsewhere lost not only her job but, in the stress of the court trial, her unborn child.
Jeralyn, it seems somewhat on topic here to also thank you for the diary last night on the latest attempt to let the gummint -- and our employers, although for me, they're one and the same -- get into our computers, any which way that they can. It is an increasingly horrendous problem for those of us in gummint employ and being forced to do all sorts of things -- corporate credit cards, online data banks by the day -- to set ourselves up for firing as well as identity theft. And for firing if we object to set up ourselves up for identity theft. I had to have quite a go-round at my place of work when told by my state to set up a corporate credit card in such a way that it violated every warning about what not to do, as posted online by my state attorney general. :-)

We had to endure the 19 (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:57:39 PM EST

So let's at least enjoy the 8 for the weekend at least.

Not much to enjoy (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:29:47 PM EST

That's like Obama supporters being giddy he only lost by 9 instead of 10 in Pennsylvania. Except that this is just a poll and doesn't count at least.


: Polls can change media messages (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM EST

with the bandwagon/boyz on the bus much-documented effect by the lemmings of the press and airwaves. Well, except for those already over the cliff's edge and now in freefall like KO, who just hasn't felt the splat! (I now can only picture him as a cartoon, a caricature of what he had seemed to be.)
Even a brief bit of relief from the pontificating types telling us voters how little we know, a bit of comeuppance for them as we remind them that some of us still would like to vote and really don't mind making them wait for a candidate picked by we-the-people and not them . . . heck, I could take a few days of that sort of coverage.
And if the boyz on the MSNBC bus look like they lost their BFF, it would be fun to watch, too. :-)

The electoral vote picture has swung (5.00 / 5) (#16)
by cymro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:42:55 PM EST

Yesterday:

Clinton leads McCain by 284 to 244 electoral votes
Obama leads McCain by 264 to 259 electoral votes

Today:

Clinton still leads McCain by 284 to 244 electoral votes
McCain now leads Obama by 269 to 243 electoral votes

The tide is turning.

: That map (none / 0) (#39)
by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:46:29 AM EST

iiritates me. To color Texas as "barely GOP" seems disingenuous to me, no matter what polls they're going by. It should look pretty red. And I don't think New Hampshire would be a weak red if Clinton was running against McCain. Maybe, but maybe not. NH's a funny state.

Not that I've studied it... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by white n az on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:18:44 PM EST

but it seems as though Newsweek writers running a Chinese fire drill around MSNBC suggests to me that they all have drunk the Kool-Aid.

Heck, Alter was the one to lead the original chant for Hillary to withdraw from the race.

Their hands aren't clean - they aren't to be trusted.

Debate is about US -- we, the people (5.00 / 2) (#36)
by Cassie1 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 07:15:12 PM EST

Jeralyn and all

Everyone is missing the point about the debate. It is not about Clinton or Obama. It is about us, we, the people. A debate lets us understand their platform and what they would do about the economy, what is their explanations for things they have done or said (Hillary and Bosna and Obama and Wright for example).

Obama would not talk to the press for 2 weeks. This is not about Obama. I'm sorry he does not perform well in debates, but that is not Hillary's fault and not the fault of the questioners. He did not take responsibility. In fact, some think he actually gave her the finger and brushed her off his coat to diminish her.

When he doesn't talk to the press for 2 weeks, it hurts us. They do not call the press the 4th branch of government by accident. It is our only connection to the candidates, to officials and so on.

Someone needs to write about this. Everyone is forgetting the point. His refusal to debate hurts we people. It's the only way some of us can hear them talk and explain their beliefs...see how they respond as people and so on. If he won't even debate so we know him better, how on earth does he expect to unite us?

Plesae Jeralyn, write about this.

Thanks, Cassie

: exactly, and that's why it's (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by jpete on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:41:57 PM EST

offensive to hear that Clinton should drop out before people have the chance to vote.

Honestly, (4.50 / 2) (#2)
by 1jpb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:44:32 PM EST

wasn't the 19 number BS?

yes, it was pure BS... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by p lukasiak on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:50:16 PM EST

it didn't actually reflect Dems preferring Obama, they were being told by the media that he would be the nominee, so they were falling in behind him.

that huge lead for Obama didn't exist in the states that hadn't voted in the primary yet. After that "old" poll was taken, Clinton won the democratic voter in PA by 12 points (56% to 44%)

and the most recent SUSA polls in the "upcoming primary" states had this to say about Dem preferences...

North Carolina Obama 48% Clinton 41%
Indiana Obama 33% Clinton 60%
*Kentucky Obama 26% Clinton 62%
*Oregon Obama 52% Clinton 42%

*closed primary...no party breakdown.
(there was no SUSA polling data for WV or SD.)


: Oregon (none / 0) (#38)
by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:42:42 AM EST

always struck me as a state that embodies the crunchified Berkeley-types. Like, if Berkeley was a state, it'd be Oregon. So I guess that's why it doesn't surprise me that they'd pick Obama over Clinton up there.

B.S. Just What I Was Thinking....10 in Others... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:55:45 PM EST

now they are about tied I believe, in other polls.


Well (4.00 / 1) (#3)
by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:47:25 PM EST

I think it was but most Obama supporters were touting it.

Anyway it's informative for trends and perhaps how much Wright/cling etc. have affected things. Past that it's pretty worthless imo.


Funny (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:49:57 PM EST

That those who supported the 19 number are now saying that it was inflated, in order to minimize the drop. No surprise in that.


Touting any natrional polls is wrong (4.00 / 2) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:55:45 PM EST

imo. Unlike J, I do not like even referring to them.


One caveat (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:22:23 PM EST

They are a very broad indicators of the pattern of the campaign, not reflecting on the states that are left, but to me they show whos message is working, who is facing difficulties etc.


Many of us appreciate Jeralyn (5.00 / 8) (#14)
by diplomatic on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:25:56 PM EST

and what she chooses to share with her readers. You've made this point over and over about her and the polls, we get it already.


when a poll is in Newsweek (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:21:19 PM EST

it is news and will be reported by others. Ignoring it because you don't think it's valid doesn't change that millions will read it and perhaps be influenced by it. It's well worth discussing.


: Electability and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:55:35 PM EST

His supporters use the national polls as the electability indicator, so it's great to know.

Er ... who posted this thread? (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by cymro on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:51:29 PM EST

Just saying ;-)


yeah, most O supporters (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:51:06 PM EST

were touting it--including the one to whom GA dem is responding. (If not that poll, then others, including Clinton's insurmountable "negatives," the Gallup poll from last week and other outliers that have since been blown out of the water)

Really, this is getting so old.


I always thought it (3.00 / 1) (#6)
by 1jpb on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST

was BS, and that's why it's useless to try and use the first poll as a comparison basis.

The true influence of this new number will on the Real Clear Politics average, which has been ridiculously skewed because it included the 19 number.


Question (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:23:22 PM EST

Did you post here to that effect before today?


: Yes, 1jpb has dissed polls several times (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:20:34 PM EST

I can't vouch for always, but 1jpb has noted weird outliers like the 19-point lead from a pollster's posterior. I think the office party started too early that day, too -- numbers like that would have sent anyone sane back to the raw data for a double-check and certainly called for a lot of cagey prose in the press release. :-)

Yep (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 02:54:53 PM EST

This is horrible reporting (4.00 / 1) (#22)
by boredmpa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:17:25 PM EST

I mean wtf??
"Obama owes his current lead in large margin to nonwhite voters (62 percent of whom support him, compared to 30 percent whites)"

What the %^&*!!!! They avoid mentioning the AA vote at all and instead talk about the white vs non-white vote. It's a poll, it reduces things to categories and they don't even comment on one of the most interesting data points--in fact they HIDE it by changing the categories.

And please don't tell me they decided to only collect data on white/non-white for a poll /eyeroll.

It's possible that the polling numbers (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:30:19 PM EST

become too few to report separately as AAs, Asians, Hispanics, etc. Last week, one of the pollsters generous enough to share more data with pollster.com came off looking pretty silly in listing separately, as a total of 8 Hispanics was reported -- owing to extrapolations, of course, but it still looked silly -- as splitting something like 49.34 to 49.66. :-)


: thanks (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by boredmpa on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 05:28:32 PM EST

I should have looked at the numbers...lazy/cheap pollsters, good point.

no, its to avoid... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by p lukasiak on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 04:45:58 PM EST

sorry, but its to avoid acknowledging that Obama's support is concentrated in the AA community.

I've looked at the data, and there is a lot of variability in states with significantly sized non-white/non-AA populations. In some states, its for Obama. In others its for Clinton.

This is important to keep in mind -- "hispanics" aren't an actual voting bloc, Mexican-Americans vote differently from Cuban-Americans, who vote differently from those whose roots are in Puerto Rico, etc...

And the "other" category includes not just a number of Asian American communities (who don't all vote alike) but different indigenous American communities (I don't use Native Americans, because people forget that we have indigenous populations in Hawaii and Alaska that don't fit the traditional understanding of 'Native American) who also don't vote alike.


: Eeeeehhyyy... (none / 0) (#40)
by BrandingIron on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 03:50:59 AM EST

...Iiii dunno about Asians. The Asians sure seem to stick together/vote together, at least around here they do. And if they don't vote at all, that's another problem. There are a LOT of Asians who don't vote at all because they're not registered/don't understand the process or care how it effects them because they're normally resourceful in their own right. My barber (a lovely Vietnamese woman) told me this, because I asked if she was voting in the primaries. She said that there are many Asians in the community who just don't vote, but if they do vote, they go with whoevere their neighbor's voting for, LOL.