Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Upcoming: New L.A. Times/Bloomberg polls for Pennsylvania, N.C. and Indiana

Pollsters for the L.A. Times and Bloomberg have been in the field in the three states that will next shape the careening Democratic presidential race, and the results will be welcomed by the recently battered and bruised Barack Obama campaign.

We're not quite ready to reveal the numbers; the findings and an analysis of them will be available here about 2 p.m. (PDT). But, in line with a Quinnipiac poll released today for Pennsylvania, the Times/Bloomberg survey reports little change in what had been the trend in the state as its April 22 primary approaches, despite the firestorm over Obama's comments about the mentality of some denizens of small towns.

Same goes for North Carolina -- prevailing voter attitudes there in the May 6 face-off between Hillary Clinton and Obama do not seem to have been reshaped by the controversy.

The big surprise emerged from Indiana, which also holds its primary on May 6. So far, little polling has been conducted there, but what has been done has been positive for Clinton. No so with these new numbers.

The furor currently surrounding Obama erupted Friday afternoon; our polls were conducted Thursday through Monday.

A caveat about Pennsylvania -- along with the Clinton/Obama fight, a battle is shaping up there among pollsters. Two other fresh surveys (see here and here) give Clinton the double-digit margin most analysts believe she needs to get a major boost from the state.

More broadly, even if Obama dodges bullets in the upcoming primary -- and goes on to claim his party's nomination -- veteran progressive journalist John Judis sounds the alarm about his prospects in November, due in part to his "bitter" comments, in this New Republic piece.

-- Don Frederick   

 
Comments () | Archives (18)

The comments to this entry are closed.

HERE IS WHY THE VOTING PERCENTAGES HAVEN'T CHANGED MUCH vis-a-vis 'BITTER'

"...Obama said Monday that he would "never walk away from the larger point" he was trying to make. Obama argued that politicians had fostered a legacy of cynicism by continually pledging to address what he called "the downside of globalization" and then going back to Washington to fight "over the latest distraction of the week." At a Democratic party dinner Monday at a union hall in Philadelphia, Obama tried to blend his controversial San Francisco comments with his longtime campaign message about the need for political change. "Sometimes hope and anger go hand in hand," Obama said. "You've got to be angry about your circumstances to want to bring about change. And you've got to have hope to believe that change can happen."

Clinton, who followed Obama to the podium at a candidate forum held by the Alliance for American Manufacturing in Pittsburgh, drew scattered boos as she began her remarks by criticizing Obama's comments. She pressed on, however, and tried to distinguish herself as a candidate who really understood working-class Americans.

DO YOU SEE AND HEAR OBAMA WHINING ABOUT THE MEDIA GOING EASY ON CLINTON FOR HER BOSNIA story, the MEDIA never describing her account of Bosnia sniper fire (on three different occasions) as LIES but as "misspoken", "having an adult moment" by Bill Clinton, etc. Had that been Clinton describing small town America as 'bitter', she would be accusing the the MEDIA of a double-standard, going too easy on Obama, and accuse the MEDIA of being the lap dogs for the Right Wing.

Clinton can lie, mis speak, her husband can take money from the Colombians, her strategist can lobby for Free Trade, while she votes against it(so she says). And the media lets it ride. Clintons do not disclose millions in donations from China, Arab Nations, and questionable favors that might arise from other large donors to the Clinton Library and Foundation...but the media lets it ride.
While Hillary tells Pres Bush to boycott the Olympic games, her husband accepts monies from China collaborators Alibara who post "Most Wanted" lists of Tibetan Activists just last week...but the media lets it ride. Clintons are in bed with lobbyist, can't tell the truth from a lie, and have questionable motives and personalities...but the media lets it ride. Yet the spin on bitter, guns and religion is unreal, portraying him to be an elists! Go figure. I will never understand.

ARG has been notoriously inaccurate this primary season. Their poll just last week had Obama and Clinton tied in PA. I would take their numbers with a huge grain of salt.

The polls haven't changed because the public is smarter than the pundits. Obama said the same thing (more clearly) 3 1/2 years ago on Charlie Rose:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xkrL0G9wonE

The Republicans are sounding more and more like The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Obama has my better interest at heart compare to the LIAR Hilary. who will do or say anything to win.

It shows we can handle truth rather than have our politicians lie to us about why we must invade Iraq or about NAFTA when Hilary has always been PRO-NAFTA, or lie about Tuzla Bosnia etc.

Obama is the real deal, we must vote our economic concer this time and not be deceived by Hilary or Bush McClone.

Hasn't SurveyUSA been the most accurate polling outfit this political season?

Obama's comments may have been somewhat elitist, but they were not condescending. Obama did speak the truth. It was a truth, I'm sure, that some politicians may feel threatened by. I find it curious that the only people who do find the comments offensive are those who may not have a strong command of the English language, but I'm sure Hilary has taken that into consideration.

No one cares about Sen. Obama's comments, except the media and Hillary Clinton's campaign. Both want this primary election to continue as long as possible. Why? Because, for once, the media has seen an increase in ratings and readership. Once again, profits trump the peoples' interests. The media is trying to help Hillary Clinton win in Pennsylvania in an effort to accomplish their selfish goal. And, of course, Mrs. Clinton thinks that the longer the campaign lasts, the more she has a chance of winning, no matter how far fetched that idea is.

Also, as far as the polls go, let's not kid ourselves. The margin of Hillary Clinton's victory will be determined by the number of Jewish votes she receives and NOT by the votes of blue-collar whites (as she only wins in states with significant Jewish populations). Jewish voters feel it necessary to conceal their voting, so they always credit any victory or blame any defeat on some other voting bloc. In the South, they use black voters, and, now, in Pennslyvania, they will use blue-collar white voters. But we all know that the Jews support Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama. I find it quite insulting, elitist, and supremacist for Jews, as well as blue-collar white voters to think that it is perfectly fine for blacks to vote for Jewish or Gentile white candidates, but it is sacrilege for either of them to vote for a black candidate. I know I will be telling every black voter I encounter to take note of this double standard and consider it the next time the Democrats need them to vote for Jewish or Gentile white candidates.

The polls are just proving what Obama has known all along: The voters aren't stupid and can be talked to like adults. Shillary and McSame are stuck in the Clinton/Rove brand of politics, which most Americans finally see for what it is: Shallow, condescending manipulation that gets us to vote against our own interests. When we see a new breed of politician like Obama come along and tell it like it is without pandering, it's refreshing and we respond to it. It's the politician that runs the next kind of campaign that wins. Those running the campaigns of the past are bound to fail.

Jim Webb said the same thing a couple years ago in a more traditional way; ie that poorer people are duped into voting against their own economic interests because of emotional religious, gun, or immigration campaigns.

Sounds to me like Rev not only has a huge chip on his shoulder, but is a HUGE and unabashed Antisemite. One of those who blame everything from the AIDS epidemic to hurricanes on Jews. Yes, we Jews are the cause of all world problems and calamities. If only we would disappear from the face of this earth, the world would be a perfect place. P.S. just as an FYI Jews, like all other Democrats are split on who they support, and just from my own little poll of the Jews I have spoken to, most support Obama, but many also support Hillary. What a disappointment it must be to Rev that the world isn't the perfect black and white place that he can put in a box and tie with a neat little bow!!!

Michelle, it seems I have hit a nerve. The truth often does. But let me first address your comment about my being anti-semitic. First, it is impossible for me to be anti-semitic toward people who are NOT semitic. Modern-day Jews are Eastern Europeans, whose ancestors converted to Judaism during the Middle Ages. As much as you like to promote that misconception, we both know that modern-day Jews are no more related to the ancient, Biblical Hebrews than there is a man in the moon. Secondly, I AM anti-sin, and the fact that AIPAC and the Jews have high jacked the American Political process by hand-picking presidential candidates (like Hillary Clinton and John McCain) whom they believe are "good" for Israel and then, lying, cheating, stealing, etc. to get him/her elected, is a violation of God's principle found in the Book of Daniel, chapter four, in which God states that He, ALONE, rules over the kingship/leadership of men, and He gives it to whomever HE pleases. Your usurping of His authority is a sin. Finally, if you Jews are too afraid to own up to your political behavior, STOP IT! It only hurts this country.

Obama = Empty Suit

Rev, you have just proven by your response how ignorant and how crazy you are. Most Jews from eastern Europe migrated there from country to country, due to the persecution they had to suffer becasue of ignorant people like you. They migrated there, as well as to North Africa, not only from Israel, but from Spain, during the inquisition, which I am sure you would have wholeheartedly supported. Your response shows the level of paranoia and insanity you are living with in your life. People like you are a true danger. I suggest you seek Psychiatric help!!!

Hillary has won in states without significant Jewish populations. ( New Mexico,Oklahoma,Arkansas,New Hampshire,Rhode Island,Massachusetts,Texas,Ohio,Arizona) The jewish comunity is not significant in any of these states as a % of the total population. There are Jews in all of these states, but nothing like the % found in New York, New Jersey,Florida and California.

I think Obama's statements are offensive because he lumps religious believers in with intolerance and guns etc.. He says he was just saying that people turn to what they can count on and what is good in their lives. during bad economic times. ( hatred of immigrants, religion and guns?)

I think the problem is that even if he never said this comment, Obama believes that people who are stauch opponants of illegal immigration are intolerant and the working people who oppose his plans to legalize illegals and give them drivers licences are intolerant. He has said it publicly more than once. They are not intolerant, they are standing up for their interests, Obama is pandering to ethnocentric pressure groups, ignoring working americans.

It sound like ths obama supporters are racist& anti semetic just like their candidate. It doesnt cease to amaze me how stupid people really are. The fact is that Obama is twice the liar Hillary ever was, and I am not a Hillary fan. Obamas comments were made by Obamas. Obama attended a racist anti American church for twenty years, and then lied that he didn't know. He attended the million man march to support that pig of a man Farrakan. He is friendly with terriorist, and does not deny it, but all of you idiots blame Hillary for what Obama has done his entire life. You all are nothing but sheep that follow a racist lying sheppard, and then have the odasity to call Hillary a liar when you support the biggest liar of all. It just shows how mindless people really are.

the tail is wagging. but not the dog. george "hanitty's hand puppet" stephanopolous and his sidekick charles gibson, who were clearly sucking up to hillary, got booed. so naturally all the talking heads are claiming today that hillary beat up obama last night. but nobody's buying it.

Obama is arrogant, cocky, and immature. After seeing Obama give Hillary "the finger", I won't vote for him if he is the nominee. He has no class. I'll be writing in Hillary's name. Polls have gotten it wrong several times. Obama was supposed to win big in New Hampshire. Hillary won New Hampshire. Hillary and Obama were tied in California and Ohio. Hillary won big in both states. Since Republicans are re-registering as Democrats to vote on our side, the polls aren't going to be accurate.


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: