Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Clinton leads Obama by 9 in Indiana, catches up in N.C., gets endorsement of N.C. Governor too

By

A new SurveyUSA poll

out today has Hillary Clinton increasing her lead in the state of Indiana.

Hillary Clinton 52

Barack Obama    43

Undecided        2

1600 Indiana adults were questions between April 25 and April 27th. This poll has Hillary Clinton increasing her lead over Barack Obama from a poll released yesterday which had Clinton leading by 5%.

It also appears that she is gaining ground on Barack Obama in North Carolina. Obama’s 25-point lead has been narrowed to 12 percent over the course of a week. Nationally, a new poll shows Clinton beating McCain by a much larger margin than an Obama vs. McCain race, which shows those two virtually tied.

Public Policy Poll, April 26-27, 1121 Likely Voters

Clinton 39

Obama 51

Undecided 10

According to this poll, Obama still has an advantage over Clinton in North Carolina, but his lead had ranged from 18-25 points in PPP’s previous five North Carolina polls.

Last week’s PPP poll conducted April 19-20 had Clinton at 32 vs. Obama at 57 with 11 percent undecided.

It also doesn’t hurt that North Carolina’s Governor is going to endorse Hillary either.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • The guy posted a fairly humorous cartoon which he almost certainly didn’t create himself. It was obviously meant to be humorous and in no ways deserved a 0 by two commenters: get off your Hillary soap box and learn to be a little lighthearted and take a joke. Or prove him wrong. But zero-dropping, in my opinion, should be grounds for removal from the site… it’s just freaking lame.  

      • I’m not exactly enthused by Obama, but that cartoon was funny.  I have given it a six for zero balancing, humor, and Python related reasons.

      • It needed to happen.  I would think those who gave this a 6 explain why it’s Excellent.  To say it’s to offset another rating is idiotic.

        • Just bloggers being grownup.

          <

          p>I haven’t done much here on BH to warrant any backup. Until the nom is settled, I’m in it to spin it.

        • Ah, yes, the old “he had it coming to him” excuse.

          <

          p>Nothing to actually do with the post at hand; you just decided to bitch-slap him for some prior perceived slight.

          <

          p>Nice.

          • Just the repetitive postings, and repetitive themes, including this one.  Again, that’s including this.  He didn’t have it coming to him, he continues to post offensive items that warrants a zero.  

      • Upon further reflection and a perusal of all the dubious links and personal irrational bias spewing forth, I’ve also decided that a zero is warranted.  It has nothing to do with the cartoon.  It’s the incessant pushing of a meme without substantiation, links or logical thought.  I don’t care who wins at this point, I just want the attacks to stop.  If this blog becomes DailyKos, I will give up altogether.  I know you’ve switched over to Obama, but that’s not the issue.  As you know, some people need to be reminded about the RoR.  It’s about time.

        • Are you saying that the poster who posted the (funny) cartoon is likely to use the word “Hillary” and the phrase “sully herself” in a sentence?

          <

          p>I guess I didn’t pay close enough attention to catch it from this guy, but I did express frustration at this phenomenon recently.

        • You are cherrypickng the posts dedicated to winding up the bots.

          <

          p>I have watched CMD, TOS, Sabutai, Matt-zip spill copious amounts of, lets say “pro-Clinton Rhetoric” to be nice, onto this forum. The markers you touted substantiation, links or logical thought are absent in most cases. You of course just used “godde” in a post. That was enough for me. A paradigm challenger, how cool.

          <

          p>Political correctness and the tyranny of the minority are two of the demons of the left.

          <

          p>I am not here to be anyones friend. This race is war.

          <

          p>Now I did my dance with the Iraqis, that was war. After, I let it go. They were just soldiers. No grudges. However, before the cease fire, there were no pleases and thank yous on the tip of my bayonnet.

          <

          p>I have given you plenty to work with in your efforts to demonize me. Blunt force is dirty work, so my words ar terse and hostile at times. Don’t pay any attention to some of the other posts that I have put up. Please feel free to ignore.

          <

          p>Maybe I’ll get banned from BMG. But I have found the commity is over rated and as true feelings seethe behind the pretense, the velvet shivs get polished for use at a later date.

          <

          p>We Dems are known for our circular firing squads and back stabbing.

          <

          p>With John Mitchell you know where you stand.

          <

          p>

          • is enough for me to give you another 3.  I feel the same way about anyone who use Obamatrons, or whatever.  Sick of it.  Really disgusting and infantile.  The other posters you mention do not use such terminology to make their points.  You might want to read what they write for examples or at any other number of posters who write about Obama with some thought.  Charley, Bob and David would be two excellent examples.  

      • 2 or 3 people don’t agree with the crowd, and you’re upset over that?  different people perceive the same things differently.  i think you know that.  maybe it is you who needs to get off the high horse?  i can completely see zeroing the cartoon because, for example, it uses physical violence as humor.  one need not be on a “Hillary soap box” to be disturbed by this type of humor.

    • Considering Obama had a 25 point lead last week and now it’s a 10 point lead, I’d say it is looking good for her. Especially since there’s a week to go.

      • it’s one thing to support your candidate, and it’s entirely another to be disingenous about the data.  Obama’s “25 point lead from last week” is non-existent and your comment just plain baffling.  The graph indicates that to anyone who can see–or read a graph.

        <

        p>If you need more data, I suggest you go to Pollster.com and educate yourself.  Your statements are just plain silly and factually inaccurate.  

        • I get my data from Pollster.com as well.

          <

          p>If you look at the Public Policy Polling poll released 4/21 and conducted 4/19-4/20, you’ll see that it reads:

          <

          p>Obama 57
          Clinton 32
          Undecided 11

          <

          p>Using simple mathematics, it’s clear that Obama has a 25 point lead in North Carolina according to this poll.

          <

          p>Now, in the latest PPP poll released today, Obama has only a 12 point lead at 51-39, with 10 undecided.

          <

          p>As someone once said to me, “If you need more data, I suggest you go to Pollster.com and educate yourself.  Your statements are just plain silly and factually inaccurate. “

          • doesn’t accomplish much.  I provided you the range of poll data because you clearly did not wish to acknowledge the trend over time.  You wish to misdirect and trot out one or two polls (from Pollster, apparently, which makes your disingenuous manipulation more egregious) as somehow meaningful because it suits your sensibilities.  Nevertheless, your proposition is still factually inaccurate, no matter how defensive you become.  

            <

            p>And as an aside, I’ll tell you that trying to be clever does nothing for your argument; it only makes you look more childish.  Your attempt to invoke my statement against me makes no sense whatsoever but I’m sure the masturbatory thrill was too hard to resist.  

            • …according to the slew of polls that are collected on Real Clear Politics, Obama was up in North Carolina by as much as 25 percent little more than a week ago.  There were numerous polls that had him up by between 18 and 25 percent in the past few weeks.

              <

              p>Now, most of the latest surveys are showing his lead is more in the range of 9 and 12 percent.

              <

              p>You can call this “cherry picking”…I see it as a trend.  I guess we’ll find out more next week.

              <

              p>In any case, a little civility would go a long way here.  No need to be so insulting to those who differ with your opinions.

              • Why the “4” rating?  A call for a little more civility here “needs work”?   🙂

                • The call for civility was just your last sentence. I totally agree with that.

                  <

                  p>

            • Pollster graphs all polls for a consensus, he’s probably taking an outlier to cherry pick numbers.  But because of the averaging of polls Pollster is also slower in graphing changes, if Hillary is picking up points you won’t see it in Pollster until later.  I would follow a trend on a more trusted poll to see if there are any fluctuations.  Survey USA has been doing fairly well. Here are their polling results for NC:

              <

              p> Dates      N/Pop     Clinton   Obama  Undecided  
              4/19-21/08   734 LV   41   50   5
              3/8-10/08   713 LV   41   49   4
              2/11-12/08   580 LV   40   50   4

              <

              p>Doesn’t look like it’s moving dose it?  I don’t see how Hillary is gaining in NC.

                • I escaped a censorious “0” from you, unlike the individual who posted the Monty Pythonesque cartoon.  Tone indeed.  

                • I don’t give a crap.  The repetitive tone is becoming increasingly annoying, I’m done being bludgeoned by the posters remarks and postings.  It’s getting close to spam at this point.  Enough already.  It’s stupid.

                  <

                  p>You made the comments not me.  The point you made was right on the money, your further comments not so much.

                • you gave the person who posted the cartoon a zero. I saw it and checked, because it made me laugh when it was brought up. I’m only suggesting that you change it if you want to suggest someone lose the ‘tude, because dropping zeros is essentially the same thing and hypocrisy is never fun for those who fall in the its webs.

                • I think it’s warranted, just my opinion.  It’s not like I will go out of my way to rate another persons postings.  This one just struck me and I rated it.  That’s all.

              • 4/26-4/28
                727 Likely Voters

                <

                p>Clinton  44
                Obama    49
                Undecided 3

                <

                p>So now that there is movement in the SUSA poll, it must mean that there’s some movement, right?

                • Let’s see how that trends, if she continues to maintain or further erode Obama’s lead then Hillary has something.  But pitting one poll to another isn’t going to make a strong argument.  The SUSA one does.

            • First, your tone in this debate adds nothing to the argument.

              <

              p>Second, I’m not “cherry picking” data, but rather showing new polls out this week and last. The trend is showing Obama losing ground, and there’s no way one can dispute that, and that is the information I was pointing out. The fact that your diagram looks as though Obama is way ahead is because the majority of those plots are based on past polls. If this were to play out for another few weeks, you would see Obama’s line dropping and Hillary’s rising, right about now actually.

              <

              p>Third, how can you criticize my using Pollster.com as a source? They provide an accurate analysis of all polls in all states holding primaries based on the information provided by the polling companies. It’s also curious that you referred the site to me and then continued to imply it was not a reputable source of information.

              <

              p>Fourth, please don’t compliment yourself to think you are providing me with “thrills”. It saddens me that people can be so  misinformed, and continue to believe they are correct in their thinking even when provided with facts to disprove their beliefs.

              <

              p>  

              • Misinformed? I think she’s right – you are cherry picking polls and Hillary isn’t going to win NC. It’s natural that the race will tighten up as the election approaches, but that doesn’t mean the race in NC has suddenly become close. It’s still a ten point lead and, based on my past experience from looking at this kind of phenomenon in other states, I doubt will get any/much closer.

                <

                p>Even I’ve moved on – the only way Hillary can possibly win is if the Supers steal it from Obama, and it’s obvious they’re moving in the other direction now anyway. BTW – that’s a good thing, too, because if the Supers subvert the will of the Democratic Party, bad things will happen – such as Obama supporters staying home in November, which will 100% stop us from winning.

                <

                p>Hillary isn’t going to get the nomination, which is a reality I came to only a week or two ago, but it’s a fact (you’ll remember I supported her). Obama is a good candidate and will make a good President; let’s stop propagating myths and setting ourselves up for a nasty convention and next few months ahead.  

                • Ryan,

                  <

                  p>For various reasons, I am so tired of this whole meme being pushed by Donna Brazil and others that if the superdelegates exercise the authority given to them by the DNC and use their votes to nominate who they feel is the best candidate, they will have somehow “stole” the nomination and therefore all these Obama supporters will stay at home.  

                  <

                  p>A friend of mine and I were having this conversation this morning, and I think he put it well, so I am going to steal his words.  By way of background, he was initially undecided and then became a Clinton supporter.  He wavered a bit and thought of flipping to Obama (and he is a delegate in his state’s nominating process, so this somewhat mattered) but has since come back to Hillary because of arguments that the Obama people have been pushing.  Here is his take:

                  <

                  p>So let me get this straight: I’m supposed to endorse and protect the delicate sentiments of a bunch of kids who will, essentially, take their ball and go home if they lose? I’m supposed to cultivate the participation and support of fair-weather folks whose commitment to politics is precisely one-nomination-deep? I’m supposed to prefer the involvement of these dilettantes over the participation of dyed-in-the-wool DEMs who have fought over and over and who really understand the stakes–and the reality of losing? It is SO infuriating to hear serious insiders trying to prop up the value and importance of these young BHO voters–who, by all accounts, are simply bandwagon folks.

                • You think it a good idea that the elites of our party come together and tell the actual voters across the country “thanks for trying this Democracy thing out, but our 800 or so votes should count more than the whole of yours. Sorry.”

                  <

                  p>That’s not a Democracy; that’s an oligarchy. Sorry, I never signed up to be part of the Oligarchic Party.

                  <

                  p>Tell your friend that he’s not supposed to “protect the delicate sentiments of a bunch of kids,” because those kids are his CONSTITUENTS and he better freaking respect them. Honestly, with that kind of attitude, I would never, in a million years, vote for your friend.

                  <

                  p>

                  I’m supposed to prefer the involvement of these dilettantes over the participation of dyed-in-the-wool DEMs who have fought over and over and who really understand the stakes–and the reality of losing?

                  <

                  p>Again, more elitism. This is the kind of attitudes that make us, as a party, lose so often. Your friend isn’t any more of a “dyed-in-the-wool” dem than I am; I fight freaking hard to put more and better Democrats in office. Yet, because of the Kool Kid insider club, I couldn’t become a convention delegate if I had been solely working toward that goal for the past year – heck, I wouldn’t even have the money for the plane ticket. So tell your friend to get off his soap box and to take a dose of reality: his statement is blatantly elitist and I don’t care how special he thinks he is, we shouldn’t have a system set up designed so people like him get to subvert the will of the lowly people like us. (And this was a Hillary-supporting voter who’s saying this. She lost. Get over it.)  

                • First off, I don’t believe the ratings system on here is designed to be used based on how much you agree or disagree with a poster, but goes to the quality of the post.  I don’t really think my post warrants a 3 as it actually puts forth a cogent response to your arguments above.  

                  <

                  p>Second, the rules are the rules.  The superdelegates are there for a reason and there is nothing that binds them to vote in any particular way other than what they feel is best.  As you are aware, this isn’t unusual in U.S. politics.  For example, we have the electoral college so that our votes for President don’t actually go to elect the President directly.  And we used to not allow direct election of U.S. Senators.  Are these notions elitist.  Sure.  But they are part of the system.  If you don’t like the system because you don’t get the result you like, it’s poor form to say that someone cheated.  

                  <

                  p>The superdelegates are there to serve as a check against the electorate.  It may be elitist, but it’s the way it is.  Let’s try framing this a different way.  I think that if the superdelegates do not do their job and make sure that the most electable democrat is nominated, then the system is broken, the nomination was stolen, and I am going to sit out or vote for the Republican.  

                  <

                  p>Third, I have heard over and over for the past year about how Obama is bringing new voters to the Democratic party and how they are going to save the party etc.  But now I hear that if Obama isn’t the nominee, all these folks are going to stay at home.  So, these people aren’t coming out for the party, they are coming out for Obama.  And they won’t have any impact that benefits the party in the long run, only Obama.  

                  <

                  p>And, btw, my friend has never held elected office or served as a delegate before this year.  He decided he wanted to become more involved this year so he did, at the party level, and is committed to helping the Democratic nominee whoever she or he may be, as well as helping Dems at the local and state level.  So he went to his local caucus and became a delegate to the state convention (I never said he was a delegate to the National Convention).  

                  <

                  p>Ryan, my posting wasn’t aimed at you.  It was addressing this idea that all these so-called new-Democratic voters/activists really aren’t anything of the sort.  They are Obama supporters and nothing more.

                • Back at the Mass primary, I voted for HRC just because I thought she had a better shot in November, but didn’t mind Obama either.  Six to one, half a dozen to the other, but I had to pick, so I did.

                  <

                  p>Since that time, my view of Obama has grown increasingly negative.  Not because of anything Obama did, but because of the attitude of his supporters.  I have been frustrated by the “Hillary must withdraw” BS and irked by the “continue to sully herself” nonsense.  But this does not explain the degree to which I am simply fed up with the Obama campaign.  At this point, I am reaching the same stage with Obamites that I have been at with Bush for years: as soon as I hear I hear the name Obama, I turn off the radio.

                  <

                  p>This last exchange made a light bulb go off:  the Obama campaign has lately mirrored one of the single most grating aspects of the Bush administration: which is, winning by 50.0000001% and then behaving as if one has won by 99.9997%, essentially telling half the country to go fuck itself.

                  <

                  p>The Obama campaign– or its supporters at  least– have now spent three straight months telling 49.9999998 of Democratic voters to go fuck themselves.

                  <

                  p>And guess what?  It really pisses people off.

                • That revelation rings true to me too! I’ve found myself doing the same thing.

                  <

                  p>For instance, i used to LOVE Randi Rhodes, but as her radio show grew more and more to be a 3-hour long Obama ad in which she bashed Clinton on everything and praised Obama for simply breathing, I couldn’t tolerate it. It was like listening to Rush, only, these were supposed to be progressives and liberals. They were supposed to be people with open-minds and the courtesy to let everyone have a say. But they turned. They became everything they used to go out and speak against without realizing it.

                  <

                  p>So I stopped listening to her show. I called in a few times before I completely stopped, and got through once to stand up for Hillary, but I felt unwelcomed. Then Randi made those comments about Hillary being a “fucking whore” and I knew it was over.

                  <

                  p>But yes. I like the way you think.

                • CMD and Matt-zip can contribute to HRC’s campaign for Gov of NY.

                  <

                  p>Can you hear me now?

                • …that’s fine that you’ve “moved on”, and that you now support Obama over Clinton.  I respect your opinion.  I like Obama, too.

                  <

                  p>I, however, am supporting Clinton because I think she is the better candidate, and I think she is the candidate who has the better chance of winning in November.  I would hope that you, too, would respect the opinions of Clinton supporters such as myself.

                  <

                  p>Your pronouncements that “Hillary isn’t going to win NC”, that “Hillary isn’t going to get the nomination” and “it’s a fact” may be a tad premature.  Just because you have “moved on” doesn’t mean that the electoral process shouldn’t play itself out.  

                • Heck, I just voted for several of her newly elected convention-goers a few weeks ago at my congressional caucus. But the writing is on the wall, and the closer I get to this, the more I know I don’t want to see the Supers subvert the will of the Democratic Party. It could be a disaster. Seeing as how that’s the only chance Hillary has in winning, I just can’t support her that strongly, when I know Barack Obama will mount a very good challenge to McCain and be a good President.  

                • Just to clarify, I didn’t say Hillary was going to win in North Carolina, just that the polls were tightening. This is supposed to be a HUGE win for Obama, and the fact that the race there is narrowing may be a sign he may be in trouble. That was my point.

                  <

                  p>I know you’re a pretty sane minded person (or at least your posts make you seem that way). I respect your opinion but I have to disagree. I don’t think this thing is quite over yet, if it were, there would be no point in holding the rest of the contests.  

                • because there’s a federal requirement that we do so, not because they’re going to turn the results of the election. I thank you for your kind words and – believe me – I’m not trying to be offensive. Hillary would have to be winning the remainder states by amounts upwards of 50% to overtake Obama and that’s just not going to happen. She’s trying to play it close enough that she can warrant the Supers overriding the votes of Democratic Primary voters. Just like I think voters in Florida and Michigan should have their say, so do I think of voters in the other 48 states. If the Supers override Obama at the Convention, bad and maybe even terrible things will happen – at the very least, it will turn off people during the general election. But it threatens to break the entire coalition that gives this party any sane hope of winning national elections, and that I could never stand by.

        • …that Clinton supporters have just as much right and cause to spin a narrowing gap in NC as Obama supporters did with regard to PA.  Barring a landslide based on delegate allocation, they are probably going to come out roughly even in pledged delegates from any given state anyway.

    • From ANYBODY.  ON anybody.

      <

      p>EVERY race they’ve been wrong, and then spin like tops to cover their tracks.

      <

      p>THE ONLY POLL THAT MATTERS IS HELD EVERY OTHER YEAR IN NOVEMBER.

      <

      p>Thus endeth the lesson.

      • are you suggesting that I don’t have to go out in the rain today to vote for a town of selectman and board of health member? it won’t take much to convince me… LOL

  3. hey, anyone can blow a lead down South, just ask the Celts …

    <

    p>must be those Dukies who didn’t like BHO shooting around with Hansborough …

    <

    p>seriously though, if those numbers are anywhere near real, it’s going to change some resource allocations on both sides the next couple of days ….

    <

    p>yikes!

Archives