MO-SurveyUSA: Obama leads McCain by 6%, Clinton leads by 7%
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:11:41 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  2008 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls
  MO-SurveyUSA: Obama leads McCain by 6%, Clinton leads by 7%
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: MO-SurveyUSA: Obama leads McCain by 6%, Clinton leads by 7%  (Read 986 times)
TheresNoMoney
Scoonie
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,907


Political Matrix
E: -3.25, S: -2.72

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 22, 2008, 12:37:30 PM »

2/15-2/17, 544 Registered Voters, +/- 4.3% MOE

Obama    49%
McCain    43%

Clinton     51%
McCain     44%

Link
Logged
Eraserhead
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,405
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 22, 2008, 09:05:25 PM »

Cool.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 22, 2008, 09:09:05 PM »

Ha ha, I like how Clinton does better without a primary bounce than Obama does with a primary bounce.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2008, 12:17:19 AM »

Ha ha, I like how Clinton does better without a primary bounce than Obama does with a primary bounce.

 1% isn't really doing better.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2008, 12:24:13 AM »

Ha ha, I like how Clinton does better without a primary bounce than Obama does with a primary bounce.

 1% isn't really doing better.

Have you seen the latest SUSA Ohio poll? She's doing a lot better.

In these polls, Obama never seems to break 50, and that should be cause for concern because of all the positive coverage he's been getting and the tendency of undecideds to break against him in the primaries.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2008, 12:32:28 AM »

Ha ha, I like how Clinton does better without a primary bounce than Obama does with a primary bounce.

 1% isn't really doing better.

Have you seen the latest SUSA Ohio poll? She's doing a lot better.
I'm talking about MO

In these polls, Obama never seems to break 50, and that should be cause for concern because of all the positive coverage he's been getting and the tendency of undecideds to break against him in the primaries.

First, In some polls he does break 50% and Clinton doesn't break 50% in a lot of states too.  Secondly, Wisconsin, the latest primary, had Obama winning the late decider's.
Logged
Aizen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,511


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2008, 12:36:38 AM »

Ha ha, I like how Clinton does better without a primary bounce than Obama does with a primary bounce.

 1% isn't really doing better.

Have you seen the latest SUSA Ohio poll? She's doing a lot better.

In these polls, Obama never seems to break 50, and that should be cause for concern because of all the positive coverage he's been getting and the tendency of undecideds to break against him in the primaries.

You seem to warping Clinton into somehow a stronger GE candidate


1% in Missouri is negligible. She's been significantly behind Obama in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even New York. She is outright losing states like Oregon and Washington. She gets absolutely decimated out West while Obama is proving himself more than competitive. She does better than Obama in Ohio but that isn't "cause for concern" considering he was still beating McCain there. Hillary is a horrible GE candidate.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,806


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2008, 12:43:07 AM »

Ha ha, I like how Clinton does better without a primary bounce than Obama does with a primary bounce.

 1% isn't really doing better.

Have you seen the latest SUSA Ohio poll? She's doing a lot better.

In these polls, Obama never seems to break 50, and that should be cause for concern because of all the positive coverage he's been getting and the tendency of undecideds to break against him in the primaries.

You seem to warping Clinton into somehow a stronger GE candidate


1% in Missouri is negligible. She's been significantly behind Obama in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even New York. She is outright losing states like Oregon and Washington. She gets absolutely decimated out West while Obama is proving himself more than competitive. She does better than Obama in Ohio but that isn't "cause for concern" considering he was still beating McCain there. Hillary is a horrible GE candidate.

I disagree about Pennsylvania. Besides Ohio Obama's also doing worse in states like Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and most states in the Southeastern United States. The problem for Obama though is that currently, although the polls show him doing better, he seems to be winning mostly in states that the Democrat already needs to carry, plus Western states, and this is during his "primary bounce". You can argue about the size of the primary bounce but the candidate who is seen as winning the most press coverage at the moment seems to get an advantage.

A huge chunk of electoral votes come from the populist areas that Ohio and Missouri border on and partially encompass. Those areas will be a problem for Obama.
Logged
Aizen
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,511


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -9.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2008, 12:52:29 AM »

Ha ha, I like how Clinton does better without a primary bounce than Obama does with a primary bounce.

 1% isn't really doing better.

Have you seen the latest SUSA Ohio poll? She's doing a lot better.

In these polls, Obama never seems to break 50, and that should be cause for concern because of all the positive coverage he's been getting and the tendency of undecideds to break against him in the primaries.

You seem to warping Clinton into somehow a stronger GE candidate


1% in Missouri is negligible. She's been significantly behind Obama in Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and even New York. She is outright losing states like Oregon and Washington. She gets absolutely decimated out West while Obama is proving himself more than competitive. She does better than Obama in Ohio but that isn't "cause for concern" considering he was still beating McCain there. Hillary is a horrible GE candidate.

I disagree about Pennsylvania. Besides Ohio Obama's also doing worse in states like Massachusetts, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Arkansas, Kentucky, and most states in the Southeastern United States. The problem for Obama though is that currently, although the polls show him doing better, he seems to be winning mostly in states that the Democrat already needs to carry, plus Western states, and this is during his "primary bounce". You can argue about the size of the primary bounce but the candidate who is seen as winning the most press coverage at the moment seems to get an advantage.

A huge chunk of electoral votes come from the populist areas that Ohio and Missouri border on and partially encompass. Those areas will be a problem for Obama.


All of those states were relatively strong Bush states though. Obama can make up Ohio with Colorado/Iowa and/or New Mexico/Nevada. Virginia could be interesting too. Obama is also proving he can hold Kerry states rather easily. With Hillary suddently we are forced to play defensive with Oregon, Wisconsin etc. Ohio is a sucky state for Ohio and PA could be too but it would be tough for Hillary to get them too.
Logged
agcatter
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,740


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2008, 11:22:01 PM »

Obama will struggle in Florida, Ohio (relative to Clinton), the South (which any Democrat will lose anyway.   He runs better in Oregon and Washington.

His problem area in Ohio will be white blue collar workers.  That is where race will rear its ugly head.
Logged
Flying Dog
Jtfdem
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,404
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2008, 11:27:03 PM »

If Wisconsin is any harbinger, then perhaps Obama is winning over those blue-collar voters.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 23, 2008, 11:28:35 PM »

Obama will struggle in Florida, Ohio (relative to Clinton), the South (which any Democrat will lose anyway.   He runs better in Oregon and Washington.

His problem area in Ohio will be white blue collar workers.  That is where race will rear its ugly head.

I don't think Obama will really do worse than Clinton or any other Democrat in the south.  Black turnout would be higher for Obama than with Clinton or the others, and the white vote in parts of the south is already so solidly GOP its hard to imagine all that much could make it more GOP than it already is.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.224 seconds with 16 queries.