At last, a local presidential poll! SurveyUSA reports that voters don’t seem to care much about big-name Obama endorsements from John Kerry and Deval Patrick — Hillary Clinton is way ahead. On the GOP side, a bit to my surprise, Mitt Romney has a solid lead over John McCain.
Dems:
59% Clinton
11% Edwards
22% Obama
2% Other
6% Undecided
GOP:
6% Giuliani
7% Huckabee
29% McCain
50% Romney
3% Paul
1% Other
2% Undecided
Will these numbers hold up, or can Obama and/or McCain make a late run in the Bay State?
Please share widely!
Unaffiliated voters, Hillary leads by 40% over Obama. With all of the discussion about Obama and Hillary on Iraq and the Iraq vote, those who believe the Iraq is the top issue, Hillary leads by 37%.
<
p>As for His Expediency, all I can say is if he gets the nod that it will be fun.
<
p>
He looks like he is about to check someone’s prostate.
Last week, he was “Mr. Fixit”, maybe for the next round he’ll be “The Guy That Made The Entire Commonwealth Bend Over And Grab Its Ankles”.
The shit-eating grin.
especially Willard.
it will be hard for anyone to make up gaps like that over the next week and a half.
<
p>I’d figure it would have been closer given all the exposure the candidates had from the NH airways. Maybe Massachusetts is just a follow the leader like State.
This has been a strong state for the Clintons for many years (though not in 92 primary). Both have been here often, and not just in Boston — Worcester, New Bedford, etc.
<
p>HRC has notable progressives out there — Barney, McGovern, has strong support among women legislators and activists, unions, etc. Obama just hasn’t spent as much time here, NH notwithstanding. He will certainly get delegates here though.
From the Statehouse News poll:
Clinton36.7%Obama25.4%Edwards14.3%Kucinich1.2%None/Other/etc.7.1%Don’t Know11.2%
Now, that was January 9-12, so it’s a little stale. I know you can’t really compare these polls, but since SUSA pushes undecideds more, it seems like they may be breaking for Clinton.
An anxious Commonwealth awaits.
<
p>Another possibility, of course, is that SurveyUSA is as inaccurate as a lot of other polls we have seen.
First of all, if this is evidence of anything it’s evidence that Clinton’s support is very soft in MA.
That’s pretty soft. Next, should Obama win in SC and do better than expected in Florida, he may get a boost here in MA. Even though a lot of people who follow politics know that he’s likely to win in South Carolina, a lot of folks who don’t follow politics don’t know that, and so it can look like a resounding win. Third, “This SurveyUSA poll was conducted by telephone in the voice of a professional announcer.” aka – a recorded device. Lately, there has been a lot of discussion as to how accurate such polls in fact are, especially after NH. Fourth, look at the crosstabs by age:
<
p>18-34 35-49 50-64 65+
50% 57% 57% 68% Clinton
27% 25% 22% 16% Obama
<
p>I find those numbers hard to believe. They simply don’t jive with what’s been happening in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina — especially in a state with as many universities as we have here.
Actually, these numbers are right on point with what happened in NH.
<
p>Obama won the 18-24 demographic, but Hillary won the 25+ group.
<
p>In the 18-34 bracket, there are more people in the 25-34 group than the 18-21 group, and the older young people are more likely to vote.
<
p>Most importantly, many students are registered to vote in other states, and many of those who wanted to vote here came back from their winter breaks after the voter registration deadline had passed (it was January 16th for the February 5th deadline).
This sentence:
<
p>In the 18-34 bracket, there are more people in the 25-34 group than the 18-21 group, and the older young people are more likely to vote.
<
p>Should instead say:
<
p>In the 18-34 bracket, there are more people in the 25-34 group than the 18-24 group, and the older young people are more likely to vote.
that Obama does generally very well among those under 40 period. SurveyUSA in general has a pretty bad history of polling. In another poll they had Hillary up 33% in FL, and then then next week for no reason only up 17%. I wouldn’t read much into this poll.
Kucinich, as of yesterday, has dropped out of the race altogether.
<
p>I’ll still vote my conscience, however; I plan on voting for Edwards in our SuperTuesday primary on Feb. 5th, because, to me, he seems the most real and authentic, and a real vehicle for discernible change here in this country, given his long history of standing up to corpporate excesses. Obama, although he talks a great deal about hope, unity, etc., doesn’t sound as real or authentic to me. Not the same as many of the 1960’s politicians and messiahs, anyhow. Just my two cents.
It doesn’t change my vote either. Edwards has been my favorite all along and I’m sticking with him ’til the end. Obama and Hillary are just two sides of the same coin, and the coin is minted by corporate wealth and special interests. It can only be spent in the company store. Thanks, but no thanks.
<
p>discentra: The above-mentioned quote from your post illustrates and articulates precisely the point that a great many people have about Hillary Clinton vs. Obama, which there is something to be said for.
I just got a robo-call poll purporting to be from the Clinton campaign. Press “1” for Clinton, “2” for Obama, “3” for Edwards. No “4” for Gravel, though.
<
p>Funny thing is that they called a business line- there are no people in my office registered to vote in the town where the office is. I don’t know how they expect to get accurate responses for either voter IDs or tracking polling, if they’re just dialing random numbers.
pressed “3”, of course
after all, mass knows just how ‘conservative’ romney really is. thus many of our gop moderates accept him. for instance, the ardently pro-choice peter porcupine, who i’ll wager knows not to take his womb control harangue seriously. as for the mass gop non-moderates, it’s ‘the devil that you know’ phenomenon. imho, of course.
At a gut level, Romney’s numbers don’t ring true. I don’t think he endeared himself to anyone in Massachusetts, either Dem or GOP. I would be shocked if those numbers are even close to the final results.
<
p>Massachusetts seems designed for a McCain: the 2000 version certainly–he even peeled away this reliably Dem voter–but 2008 also, if for nothing other than a whisper of momentum. Or maybe nostalgia.
<
p>Karl
that the Bay State electorate at large allowed itself to have the wool pulled over their eyes, thus making them unaware of who and what Romney was/is, and voted him into office. Many, if not most people here in the Bay State realized too late that Romney screwed them…..bigtime.
they were the same brilliant lights who re-elected the shrub…
that the Shrub got appointed president by the U. S. Supreme Court…twice. That being said, “They’re the same brilliant lights” who allowed the Shrub to steal the Presidency….twice.
The only thing here that truly surprises me is that I thought Ron Paul and Huckabee’s numbers would be inverted. I always figured that Paul’s brand of libertarian Republicanism sold better around here than Huckabee’s holy-roller act.
They were wrong about Nevada:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
…from Hillary on the sanctity of the New Hampshire primary?
<
p>Take a look at this from CNN.
Romney’s good showing in that poll can be attributed to one thing: The Peter (Porcupine) Principle
John McCamnesty is not a Republican, he is a RHINO like Bush. All closed primaries(ones where Dems can’t vote Rep and visa-versa)John McCamnesty will lose.
<
p>Conservatives understand John McCamnesty is a fraud, Globalist, Illegal Alien Supporter, and has a real disdain for the American Worker.
<
p>Examples:
<
p>Voted for NAFTA and other Global Trade Agreements costing millions of American Manufacturing job.
<
p>Was a “no show”-“did not vote” on bill to stop Mexican Truckers from entering the US. This is part of NAFTA.
<
p>Wrote the traitorous McCain-Kennedy Amnesty Bill of the past 2 years.
Voted to give Illegal Aliens Social Security Benefits and a number of other tax-payer benefits to Illegal Aliens.
<
p>It’s comical hearing the majority of the media both print and media anointing John McCamnesty the Republican Nominee. Mark my words: “not going to happen.”
<
p>Mitt Romney will win Massachusetts easily, the Republican nomination and I believe the General election as well.
<
p>Some huge factors will be the Democrats support for Illegal Immigration(btw a path to citizenship is support for Illegal Immigration), taxes, and American jobs going oversees(Bill Clinton signed NAFTA). Both parties can be blamed for the loss of jobs though.
<
p>Correction – It’s comical hearing the majority of the media both print and network/cable anointing….
Or did you immigrate here?
YOU, sirrah, are the true immigrant!!
<
p>(btw – Team – it’s RINO, not RHINO – initials stand for Republican In Name Only…BMG routinely excoriates DINO’s, overly conservative Democrats who form the obverse of the RINO)
Peter – thanks, I stand corrected on the RINO comment, second time I have done that..
<
p>Bob stated:
<
p>Wow I have never heard that one before. You open borders crowd are all the same.
<
p>I was born here so that makes me an American Citizen of which my parents are also American Citizens. Illegal Alien’s children born here should not automatically become American Citizens, hopefully that will be changed soon.
<
p>Bob, I’m going to make this simple for you and your crowd. Immigrants are people who come to America through the LEGAL and proper channels. File the paperwork, wait their turn, learn English, pass the Citizenship exam, etc. Like my great Grandparents did. These are the people who help to make America great.
<
p>ILLEGAL ALIENS are not Immigrants, they are criminals who have no respect for America, its Citizens and Laws.
<
p>If the Native Americans had immigration laws and enforced them we probably would not be having this conversation right now, would we Bob? Ironic isn’t it?
…no change in heck of changing the rules for native born citizenship. It would require an amendment to the Constitution. Ain’t gonna happen.
<
p>I have never seen one definition of immigrant other than yours that speaks to legal status. You made that up and it is very self serving and etymologically unsupportable.
<
p>
<
p>That may be one of the silliest things I have ever read. Give me one example of a powerful European country during the centuries of empire building that got to a “new” place and respected the laws and customs of the native inhabitants while they were taking the land away from them.
you correctly, you’re talking about Mitt Romney running against illegal immigration, right? You believe that this will be a “huge factor” in his favor against Democrats?
<
p>That’s the same Mitt Romney who was caught not once, but twice , using illegal immigrants to work on his house in Belmont. Same guy?
<
p>Hey why not, it’s the modern GOP. War is peace, debt is wealth and tyranny is democracy.
Obama put money, time, and reputation on the line to get Deval in office. Granted, that was partly to test out his own campaign ideas, but it certainly had an eye toward help later on.
<
p>Now it turns out that Deval can’t make that difference in New Hampshire, apparently can’t deliver Massachusetts either. If Obama wins the presidency, don’t be so sure that he’ll keep a cabinet position open for his understudy.
deval cant make people like obama if obama cant do that himself…
Mitt Romney and Clinton are way ahead in the Bay State polls?! I noticed that, and, not to go into a whole big schpiel about it, I will say this:
<
p>If the people of Massachusetts are gullible enough to vote for either of them after the stuff they’ve pulled, then they’re even more gullible than I realized.
Shame on the Bay Staters if MA carries either of their vote(s).