MA: Survey USA: Clinton Leads MA by 13%; Obama & McCain Tied

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

New Poll: Massachusetts President by Survey USA on 2008-03-17

Summary: D: 55%, R: 42%, U: 3%

Poll Source URL: Full Poll Details

If there were an election for President of the United States today, and the only two names on the ballot were Republican John McCain and ... Democrat Hillary Clinton, who would you vote for?  



42% McCain

55% Clinton

3% Undecided



What if it was John McCain against Democrat Barack Obama?  



47% McCain

47% Obama

6% Undecided

[© tweed]

thanks for the 902 threads, bro.

[© tweed]

oh, and bro, SUSA doesn't screen for likely voters.  try not to create 987 threads and screw up the database next time.  thanks

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

oh, and bro, SUSA doesn't screen for likely voters.  try not to create 987 threads and screw up the database next time.  thanks

Most of what we have is SUSA - so it's not screwing up the database any more than it already is.

As I've said with the threads - when I get a complaint from the mod of the board, or Dave, I'll stop.

[© tweed]

my point was that you listed all of the SUSA polls as LV when they were in fact RV.  I since have gone and edited every single poll you entered.

[The Hack Hater]

Damn. I remember reading here how the Democrat electorate of Massachusetts is largely composed of working-class whites, but still....

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

my point was that you listed all of the SUSA polls as LV when they were in fact RV.  I since have gone and edited every single poll you entered.

Gotcha - really sorry about that - I feel like an idiot.

[minionofmidas - supplemental forum account]

Wow.

[Padfoot]

I'm not buying any of this Obama tied with McCain in MA stuff.  No Republican has broken 40% here in 20 years.  This is all just noise because the Dem primary is still undecided.  Once the GE campaign starts and they're forced to choose between John "100 years" McCain and Barack "opposed from the start" Obama theses polls will straighten out and it'll be 54-38 for Obama.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

At this point, I seriously believe that the race for president here in Massachusetts will be a single-digit race.

Closer to 53–44, but still, a single-digit race.

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

I'm not buying any of this Obama tied with McCain in MA stuff.  No Republican has broken 40% here in 20 years.  This is all just noise because the Dem primary is still undecided.  Once the GE campaign starts and they're forced to choose between John "100 years" McCain and Barack "opposed from the start" Obama theses polls will straighten out and it'll be 54-38 for Obama.

If the worst thing Democrats can say about McCain is bring up his "100 years in Iraq" comment, then boy you guys are REALLY screwed.   Anti-war candidates don't win presidential elections. 

This is what happens when DailyKOS liberals take over the Democratic Party:  they push candidates that are unelectable in a general election.   And if the race comes within single digits in MA, Obama is screwed.     

[agcatter]

I agree with most Democrats that J John McCain doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning Massachusetts.  I think he has a real chance of keeping it in the high single digits however.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Just for fun, take a look at the internals of the poll, specifically the crazy huge gender gap here in Massachusetts.

OBAMA: Leads women by 15; trails men by 17.  (32 point gap)
CLINTON: Leads women by 32; trails men by 8.  (40 point gap)

[Aizen]

I agree with most Democrats that J John McCain doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning Massachusetts.  I think he has a real chance of keeping it in the high single digits however.

56-43 wouldn't surprise me. Same with Texas, although in reverse.

[Gustaf]

I agree with most Democrats that J John McCain doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning Massachusetts.  I think he has a real chance of keeping it in the high single digits however.

56-43 wouldn't surprise me. Same with Texas, although in reverse.

I suspect both Texas and Massachusetts will be significantly closer compared to 2004. Not close enough to flip, of course, but still not as ultra-Republican/Democratic as then.

[Padfoot]

I'm not buying any of this Obama tied with McCain in MA stuff.  No Republican has broken 40% here in 20 years.  This is all just noise because the Dem primary is still undecided.  Once the GE campaign starts and they're forced to choose between John "100 years" McCain and Barack "opposed from the start" Obama theses polls will straighten out and it'll be 54-38 for Obama.

If the worst thing Democrats can say about McCain is bring up his "100 years in Iraq" comment, then boy you guys are REALLY screwed.   Anti-war candidates don't win presidential elections. 

This is what happens when DailyKOS liberals take over the Democratic Party:  they push candidates that are unelectable in a general election.   And if the race comes within single digits in MA, Obama is screwed.     

lol, hackery at its best right there.  I suppose Nixon was just a fluke then?  Granted he wasn't as virulently anti-war as Obama but he was still promising an end to a war the American people had grown increasingly frustrated and confused by.

and the 100 years comment isn't the only thing Democrats have on McCain.  With the economy being a huge issue you can also expect him to get hammered on the Bush tax cuts and health care.  Plus they'll be plenty of ads tying McCain to Bush himself who, in case you didn't know, isn't exactly on the best of terms with MA voters.  I'm also fairly confident they're pretty big on abortion rights up there, another thing McCain opposes.  So tell me, what reason do MA voters have to pick McCain over not just Obama but any Democrat?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

and the 100 years comment isn't the only thing Democrats have on McCain.  With the economy being a huge issue you can also expect him to get hammered on the Bush tax cuts and health care.  Plus they'll be plenty of ads tying McCain to Bush himself who, in case you didn't know, isn't exactly on the best of terms with MA voters.  I'm also fairly confident they're pretty big on abortion rights up there, another thing McCain opposes.  So tell me, what reason do MA voters have to pick McCain over not just Obama but any Democrat?

The problem is that Barack Obama is running a near identical campaign as Governor Deval Patrick, who honestly has not impressed very many in the Bay State.  Patrick's kind of inexperience is not something we desire replicating on a federal level with a President Obama.

I'd like to think that Massachusetts voters are smart enough to understand what a disaster immediate, poorly planned withdrawl in Iraq would be.  We didn't want the Iraq War, but that's almost irrelevant now—we're stuck with the war, and our next president better damn well have an idea what's required to deal with a conflict in an unstable region.  McCain impresses in that he was criticizing an unsuccessful Bush administration strategy when it was unpopular to do so; that he was supporting a surge when I thought it to be political suicide because he was convinced it was the right strategy—and turned out to be correct.

Experience, experience, experience.  Why else do you think Clinton is cruising in a General Election campaign while Barack Obama can't outpace McCain by more than a handful?

[Democratic Hawk]

Experience, experience, experience.  Why else do you think Clinton is cruising in a General Election campaign while Barack Obama can't outpace McCain by more than a handful?

Yes, but McCain being right on Iraq aside, if that experience has aided and abetted His Ineptness, who was soundly rejected by Massachusetts in 2004, more than either of the two prospective Democratic presidential nominees it shouldn't count for very much

I'd like to think that either a President Clinton or Obama would proceed cautiously on Iraq; yet what is to say that a President McCain wouldn't drag it out as long as he possibly could so as to reinforce the claim that only a Republican can be trusted to lead in a time of war? Republicans in the White House in perpetuity? No thanks

Indeed, quitting Iraq seems to be an area where Clinton is doing her best to outscore Obama in the Democratic primary

Furthermore, is Clinton that more experienced? Was she quite the 'executive' First Lady she'd like voters to believe? True, she has been served in the US Senate longer than Obama; while McCain has been in the Senate much longer. Too long, perhaps

I'm closer to McCain on defense and national security but Bush, being abysmal as he has, has made any 2008 endorsement of McCain untenable. And I'd desire closure on Bush more than anything else, which is something I highly doubt McCain has to offer

Dave

[agcatter]

I don't think Obama would withdraw cautiously from Iraq.  He'd listen to his kook supporters who raised the $$ for his campaign and who elected him.  All you have to do is go over to Daily Kos and read what they expect him to do.  The modern day McGovernites will be the ones demanding that he give us an immediate defeat.  They can't wait - sooner the better.

[HardRCafé]

Yes, but McCain being right on Iraq aside, if that experience has aided and abetted His Ineptness, who was soundly rejected by Massachusetts in 2004, more than either of the two prospective Democratic presidential nominees it shouldn't count for very much

I'd like to think that either a President Clinton or Obama would proceed cautiously on Iraq; yet what is to say that a President McCain wouldn't drag it out as long as he possibly could so as to reinforce the claim that only a Republican can be trusted to lead in a time of war? Republicans in the White House in perpetuity? No thanks

Indeed, quitting Iraq seems to be an area where Clinton is doing her best to outscore Obama in the Democratic primary

Furthermore, is Clinton that more experienced? Was she quite the 'executive' First Lady she'd like voters to believe? True, she has been served in the US Senate longer than Obama; while McCain has been in the Senate much longer. Too long, perhaps

I'm closer to McCain on defense and national security but Bush, being abysmal as he has, has made any 2008 endorsement of McCain untenable. And I'd desire closure on Bush more than anything else, which is something I highly doubt McCain has to offer

Dave

Your whole post is ignoring reality and daydreaming.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, but McCain being right on Iraq aside, if that experience has aided and abetted His Ineptness, who was soundly rejected by Massachusetts in 2004, more than either of the two prospective Democratic presidential nominees it shouldn't count for very much

I'd like to think that either a President Clinton or Obama would proceed cautiously on Iraq; yet what is to say that a President McCain wouldn't drag it out as long as he possibly could so as to reinforce the claim that only a Republican can be trusted to lead in a time of war? Republicans in the White House in perpetuity? No thanks

Indeed, quitting Iraq seems to be an area where Clinton is doing her best to outscore Obama in the Democratic primary

Furthermore, is Clinton that more experienced? Was she quite the 'executive' First Lady she'd like voters to believe? True, she has been served in the US Senate longer than Obama; while McCain has been in the Senate much longer. Too long, perhaps

I'm closer to McCain on defense and national security but Bush, being abysmal as he has, has made any 2008 endorsement of McCain untenable. And I'd desire closure on Bush more than anything else, which is something I highly doubt McCain has to offer

Dave

Your whole post is ignoring reality and daydreaming.

Just being OPTIMISTIC that America will turn a page come November and slowly, but surely, RISE AGAIN following the abject failure that has been the incompetent George W Bush

Dave

[auburntiger]

It's hard to believe that MA might not the most Democratic state this year, judging by the polls of course. I guess the most Dem state this year would be Vermont?

[Lief 🐋]

It's hard to believe that MA might not the most Democratic state this year, judging by the polls of course. I guess the most Dem state this year would be Vermont?

Probably. Illinois and Hawaii (due to Barack Obama's homestate advantage) also have shots at being the most Democratic.

[Joe Republic]

It's hard to believe that MA might not the most Democratic state this year, judging by the polls of course.

It shouldn't be that hard to believe.  Massachusetts has only been the top Democratic state (excluding D.C.) in three elections of the last twelve (1972, 1996 and 2004), and one of those was when the candidate was from that state.

It's interesting to note that MA still wasn't the top Democratic state even in 1960 and 1988, both of which also saw the candidate hail from there.

[auburntiger]

It's hard to believe that MA might not the most Democratic state this year, judging by the polls of course.

It shouldn't be that hard to believe.  Massachusetts has only been the top Democratic state (excluding D.C.) in three elections of the last twelve (1972, 1996 and 2004), and one of those was when the candidate was from that state.

It's interesting to note that MA still wasn't the top Democratic state even in 1960 and 1988, both of which also saw the candidate hail from there.

I didn't really follow politics at all, much less this closely, until the aftermath of 2000. I guess I'm still set in red state-blue state mode, and therefore find it hard to imagine presidential elections that actually end on Election Night.