Interesting findings (pdf) from a new poll, just in from California — the biggest of the Super-Duper Tuesday prizes. Horserace: Clinton’s up 39-27, with Edwards at 10. 20% remain undecided. But the breakdowns are the interesting stuff. First, the “no surprise” department:
Clinton is perceived by voters as holding a big advantage over Obama as being the candidate with the right experience and who has the best chance of winning in the November general election [well, maybe that second one is a bit surprising — on that question, respondents favored Clinton over Obama 45-20, with 11% saying “both”]. Obama, on the other hand, is viewed by more voters as being the candidate who best represents change.
Clinton voters are much more likely to consider jobs/the economy as being the most important issue to them when deciding whom to support for President. By contrast, Obama supporters are more likely to view the war in Iraq and foreign policy as their top concerns.
Here’s some more interesting stuff which perhaps is relevant to recent questions about favorable/unfavorable ratings:
Clinton holds a thirteen percentage-point lead among registered Democrats, and a narrower four-point lead among those non-partisans who say they will vote in the Democratic primary…. Democrats have a high regard for both Clinton and Obama. About three in four likely Democratic primary voters hold a favorable impression of Clinton (77%) and Obama (74%). Very few have an unfavorable impression of either Clinton (15%) or Obama (13%). There has been a small yet significant improvement in the regard Democratic voters have of Clinton since October.
And, in light of the recent discussions on BMG reporting anecdotal evidence about acquaintances who say they’d never vote for Clinton, even though they’d normally vote Democratic, consider the following:
There are large differences in voter preferences across subgroups of the likely Democratic primary electorate. Clinton leads by wide margins among women, Latinos, seniors, non-college graduates, and those with annual households incomes of less than $40,000. Obama is preferred by blacks, college graduates and those with household incomes exceeding $80,000.
Think about your friends, and about which of those subgroups they fall into.
<
p>That is a very insightful observation. We all tend to think that the world is as we perceive it. But, if volunteering on this campaign has taught me anything, it is just how few people I know in my town (population ~25,000) let alone across the state.
<
p>Every one of us lives in a bubble, often surrounded by people pretty much like us. Even with internet usage as high as it is, the blogosphere has a very skewed demographic in itself, and I bet that demographic is tilted heavily towards higher education and incomes.
David, that is interesting …the most important stuff is always found in the crosstabs and is so much more meaningful than the anecdotal testimony of partisans.
<
p>I remember all of the folks that said they would actually move out of the country if Reagan were elected…but, I don’t remember the exodus. Somehow we survive, in spite of not because of, even poor presidents with great rhetoric.
David:
“And, in light of the recent discussions on BMG reporting anecdotal evidence about acquaintances who say they’d never vote for Clinton, even though they’d normally vote Democratic, consider the following:
<
p> There are large differences in voter preferences across subgroups of the likely Democratic primary electorate. Clinton leads by wide margins among women, Latinos, seniors, non-college graduates, and those with annual households incomes of less than $40,000. Obama is preferred by blacks, college graduates and those with household incomes exceeding $80,000.”
<
p>The issue of anecdotal evidence is not about who will be voting in the primaries but who will be voting in the general election. Obama seems likely to draw a much greater percentage of independents and even Republicans, regardless of income, than Clinton. This is what the anecdotal evidence is saying. Primary results so far have borne this out.
I don’t think you’re saying that large numbers of lower-income voters who are trending towards Clinton now will support the Republican in the Fall if Obama is the nominee. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence of this.
I am more than a little annoyed with BMG. I thought this blog was supposed to be different from the MSM! Yet you all fall into their trap by focusing on the two front runners that the corporate-owned media manufactured out of very thin air before a vote was cast or a caucus held.
<
p>Why not look at the Reuters/Zogby poll that shows Edwards surging in South Carolina for three straight days now, eclipsing Hillary?
<
p>Come on. Show you are the real stuff, not fluff!!!