MyDD :: New Rasmussen General Election polls

New Rasmussen General Election polls

by DPW, Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:04:27 PM EST

Rasmussen released two polls today involving general election matchups in two potential swing states. The most dramatic differences appear in the poll of Colorado:

Obama 46
McCain 39

Clinton 35
McCain 49

More after the jump.

Some internals from the article:

Sixty percent (60%) of Colorado voters currently have a favorable opinion of Obama while just 36% hold an unfavorable view.

McCain earns favorable reviews from 55% and less flattering assessments from 42%

Clinton is viewed favorably by 44% and unfavorably by 54%.

The economy is considered the top voting issue by 30% of Colorado voters while 17% name the War in Iraq and 15% say immigration. Health Care is the only other issue in double digits at 11%.

Among those who consider the economy most important, McCain holds a slight edge over Clinton but trails Obama by twenty-three percentage points. Among voters who cite the War in Iraq as the top issue, Clinton and McCain are essentially even, but Obama holds a twenty-five percentage point lead over McCain. McCain leads both Democrats by wide margins among voters who view immigration as the top voting issue of Election 2008.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/colorado/colorado_2008 _presidential_election

Note that Bush won Colorado by 5 points in 2004.

Now, first of all, I have no idea how McCain would manage to beat Clinton on the economy (especially while losing so badly to Obama on this subject), but that's what the participants in this poll feel.

The other state polled by Rasmussen was New Hampshire, where the poll yeilded the following results:

Obama 49
McCain 36

Clinton 43
McCain 41

And, the article discusses some internal info:

In New Hampshire, McCain currently trails Clinton by twenty-five points among women and Obama by twenty-six. Among men, McCain leads Clinton by nineteen while holding just a single point advantage over Obama.

McCain wins 78% of Republican votes when matched against Clinton but just 64% against Obama.

Overall, Obama is viewed favorably by 62% of New Hampshire voters. McCain earns positive reviews from 58% and Clinton from 48%.

Thirty-two percent (32%) of New Hampshire voters have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama. Just 21% are that upbeat about Clinton while 14% say the same about McCain.

Thirty-four percent (34%) have a Very Unfavorable opinion of Clinton. Eighteen percent (18%) hold that view of Obama while 14% are that pessimistic about McCain.

. . . .

Among voters in New Hampshire who consider the economy most important, Obama leads McCain by eighteen points. Clinton leads McCain by five.

. . . .

Both Democrats have a big advantage among those who consider the War in Iraq and health care as the top issue.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/new_hampshire/new_hamp shire_2008_presidential_election

One interesting thing about these internals is Obama's strength with women. Many have questioned Obama's ability to attract support from white women in a general election, so these numbers are comforting. Also, considering the fact that New Hampshire has been so friendly to McCain in primaries, I must say that I'm happy to see both our candidates on top.

Finally, I will close by saying that these polls should be taken with a grain of salt considering how far away November is. Moreover, I'm sure there are swing states, such as Ohio, where Clinton outpolls Obama in general election matchup. So, I'm not suggesting that we extrapolate too liberally from this. However, these seem like numbers of interest to junkies like us, so I thought I'd share.

Tags: Obama, McCain, Clinton (all tags)

Permalink :: 19 Comments :: Post a Comment

I guess Obama (none / 0)

does make us viable in Colorado and both candidates do fine against McCain in the red state of Missouri.

by bigdcdem on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:11:48 PM EST

Obama and the South (none / 0)

It sounds nuts but I think Obama will not only be competitive in the South, he'll actually win a handful of southern states. Black turnout (which doubled yesterday in the Chesapeake primaries) should continue to rise, while conservative Christian turnout will likely be low due to their irrational hatred of McCain. Look for Obama to be close in Virginia (which I think he'll win), North Carolina, Georgia, and maybe even Mississippi (which is nearly 50% A-A).

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.

by jkfp2004 on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:16:52 PM EST

Ha, ha. Mississippi. That's rich! (none / 0)

He won't win any of those states. Here's a more appropriate way to look at this:

Take a state like Virginia. Subtract about 15%-20% of the votes he received last night because it came from right leaning Independents and Republicans that were voting against Hillary and have no intention of voting for him in the Fall. Add about 20% or more of the vote received by Hillary and all other Democrats to the Republican total. Now, for those who didn't vote last night but will in the November, split those anywhere from 50/50 to 55/45 GOP.

For Mississippi, the split of that last group will be closer to 65/35 GOP or more. And, MS is about 35% black in population, not 50%.

by lombard on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha, ha. Mississippi. That's rich! (none / 0)

I'm not entriely sure you're right on the independents, also you should realize that it's not MS that he was talking aobut VA and NC on the other hand could be in play (and at the very least should help downticket races).

by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, maybe I've overestimated the % (none / 0)

But thousands of voters who voted for him last night were anti-Hillary voters (not pro-Obama voters) who are voting in the Democratic primary because the GOP race is effectively settled. A portion of the VA Democrats (particularly older Democrats) who did not vote for him last will also not vote for him in November. Right now, I'd guess 15%-20% of those people but I might be a bit high on that figure. I'd say the same predictions on Democrats would apply to NC but I expect the race to be over by then.

by lombard on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:51:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ha, ha. Mississippi. That's rich! (none / 0)

You're an idiot.

I live in Virginia.

It's a tough race for both Hillary and Obama in Virginia in the fall.

But the democratic primary has nothing to do with it.

I've seen the internals in Virginia from the Mark Warner campaign. Hillary Clinton's negatives are at about 65%. Barack Obama's are at about 25%.

Obama will have a tough time winning in Virginia, but Hillary Clinton won't even spend a dollar in the state. In fact - her best shot at winning it is as a result of reverse coattails from Mark Warner. But that can only happen if she stays out of the state throughout the campaign and Virginia voters forget about her.

by mcdave on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 10:15:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't call me an idiot, you lowbrow cretin (none / 0)

And I don't give a rat's ass where you live or what polls you've seen.

I don't even understand the purpose of your insults because you don't appear to be saying anything much different than me.

by lombard on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 11:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (2.00 / 1)

But those stupid, sexist Obamabots don't count.

So really, what this means is:

Obama 0
McCain 39

Clinton 35
McCain 49

and:

Obama 0
McCain 36

Clinton 43
McCain 41

So in reality, Clinton wins.

M Hussein Garvey

by MGarvey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:20:07 PM EST

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

Don't forget koolaid drinking!

- Just another Obamabrat

by Trent on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

Whud'ya wanna bet this diary never makes it to the rec list?

M Hussein Garvey

by MGarvey on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:40:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good thing you didn't make that bet (none / 0)

John McCain

by MILiberal on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 09:08:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not meaningless (2.00 / 1)

This may sound nit picky, but I think it is important: head to heads are not "predictive," but they do have "meaning." As you say these poll give us a basic outline of who will be most competitive in the fall. Obama consistently wins more Indies and disaffected Repubs.

by upper left on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 05:48:07 PM EST

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

One other thing to keep in mind about these numbers is that turnout could hopefully improve dem showings as well. I'm not the only one to notice the spectacular dispararity in turnout among dems v. repubs in primaries. Moreoever, the conventional wisdom is that McCain will likely face unique difficulty motivating the base. I think this may make more of a difference in Colorado than New Hampshire, since New Hampshire's electorate is more independent than deeply ideological. Still, I expect the mismatched enthusiasm to benefit dems in the general, and I suspect that these polls don't necessarily capture the potential impact of that phenomenon.

by DPW on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:18:09 PM EST

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

So its basically looking like if Hillary wins the nomination its the 271 Strategy yet again, but if Obama wins we gun it for all 50.

What would LBJ do?

by Socks The Cat on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:34:56 PM EST

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

Not quite all 50 (not full throttle, at least), but if we end up having a lot more money than the republicans (which seems likely), then we're in a position to campaign in a lot more states. And, that forces the republicans to spend their limited resources in red states, leaving us with potential advantages in the normal swing states and even a possible upset or two in solid red states. Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but our money advantage, coupled with Obama's broad appeal and enlarged map, could produce a substantial victory. He certainly looks extremel good in Colorado, Iowa, and New Hampshire GE polls--and we lost two of those last time. Moreover, the turnout numbers from the Virgian primary leave me feeling pretty confident about that state.

On the other hand, I sense that Obama might be weaker in Florida. We will still campaign there--hard--but, I think there are a number of nontraditional swing states if Obama is the nominee.

by DPW on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:42:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

That, of course, should say "Virginia."

by DPW on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:43:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

Polls so far out are absolutely meaningless. remember that Hillary was ahead of everyone a few months ago.

When the primaries are over, the country will push the reset button and start over.

"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."

by LadyEagle on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:51:39 PM EST

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

Fair enough, ough one should note that Hillary's negatives never seem to go down regardless of time.

by Socraticsilence on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: New Rasmussen General Election polls (none / 0)

Yeah, just wait until even the scandals with no "there-there" become there.

Republicans won't be as nice to BO as Hillary was.

by Sensible on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 07:47:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.