Obama's Sour "Apples to Apples", Part One

Barack Obama is hemmorhaging support against John McCain in states where Democrats can/should win in November.

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support, while Hillary Clinton has gained support, when matched against McCain. Much of Clinton’s additional support is from voters who were undecided in late February, and Clinton essentially “split” the “recent deciders” with McCain; as a result there is little change in her margins against McCain. But people who were undecided whether they preferred Obama or McCain are also making up their minds – and choosing McCain. As a result, Obama’s margins against McCain are looking much worse.

This is true among all major demographic categories that were available for comparison – if Obama improves in a category, Clinton has shown greater improvement in that category. And in categories where Clinton is not doing as well as she was in February, Obama is doing consistently worse.

These conclusions are drawn from an “apples to apples” comparison of Survey USA polling done April 11-13 in nine states (California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin) with similar polling done in late February as part the SUSA 50 state poll (conducted Feb. 26-28).

In only one of those states (MN) has Obama improved his position relative to Clinton when matched against McCain. In the other eight, the “electability” trend is in Clinton’s favor – in many of those states, significantly so.

Charts A-1 and A-2 provide a graphic representation of what has happened to the margins for Clinton and Obama when matched against McCain. Chart A-1 shows the actual margins in late February and mid-April in Clinton v McCain (February—red and April-pink bars) and Obama v McCain (February-dark blue and April-light blue bars)

CHART A-1

Chart A-2 shows how the margins in Clinton v McCain and Clinton v Obama have changed.

CHART A-2

· .Clinton has improved her margins against McCain in 4 states (CA, MO, OH, OR) while Obama has improved in only one (OR).
· Overall, Clinton’s average margin against McCain in the 9 states was basically unchanged (+0.1%, from +3.6% to +3.7%), with a range of +6% (OR) to –4% (WI).
· Obama’s nine state average margin against McCain has decreased by an average of –4.9% (from +7.1% to +2.2%). In 5 states (CA,MA,NM,OH,WI), his margin decreased by 4% or more.
· In February, Obama was doing better than Clinton against McCain in two states where Clinton now does better than Obama (CA, NM),
· In Ohio, where both were beating McCain by 10 points, Clinton now leads by 11%, while Obama is behind McCain by 2%.
· In 5 of the six remaining states (all but MN), Clinton improved her “electability” relative to Obama.

In the majority of these 9 states, Clinton gained support. Clinton’s 9 state average margins don’t improve because the increase in her overall support comes from a decrease in undecided voters (from an average of 9.1% to 6.6%), which she splits with McCain.

CHART A-3

. The “Obama v McCain” undecideds also decreased (from an average of 9.2% to 7.4%), but despite the fact that fewer people were undecided, the percentage of people who supported Obama actually declined on average.

CHART A-4

· Obama gained overall support in only one state (OR).
· In 2 states (MN, MO), his level of support remained the same, despite a decrease in the percentage of undecided voters.
· In the other six states, Obama’s overall support decreased.
· In 5 of those 6 states (i.e. except for Iowa), this decrease occurred despite the fact that more people had decided who to support.
· In other words, not only did Obama not gain any support from previously undecided voter, the percentage of people supporting Obama over McCain declined.

CHART A-5

· Clinton, on the other hand, increased her overall support in six states (CA, IA, MA, MO, OH, OR) and lost support in only 2 (NM, WI).
· Clinton gained overall support in four states where Obama lost support (CA, IA, MA, OR).
· Overall support percentages for both Clinton and Obama were unchanged in Minnesota, and in Wisconsin both lost the same percentage of support.
· In the remaining three states, Clinton either lost far less support than Obama (NM), gained significantly more than Obama (OR) or gained support while Obama’s support remained unchanged (MO).

CONCLUSION
Obama is tanking, while Clinton is holding her own.

While these 9 states are not representative of all 50 states (no Mountain/Plains or Southern states), they do represent the states that Democrats have to win in order to take the White House. Obama’s weakness in states like California and Massachusetts – states that this year a Democrat should not have to be very concerned about, is worrisome. Even more alarming is what is happening in Missouri and (especially) Ohio – Obama’s loss of support in those states raise serious questions about his electability.

The advantage in the “electability” argument that Obama held six weeks ago has vanished. Six weeks ago, Obama was doing significantly better than Clinton in these nine key states, now Clinton is doing better than Obama.

And, as shall be seen in the next part of this series, Obama’s problems exist across all key demographic groups. He’s losing male and female support. He’s losing White support, and losing support among “Independent” voters and “Moderates” as well, while Clinton is either increasing her support, or at least holding her own, in all these key demographics.

NOTE: Data tables used for this post can be found at http://www.glcq.com/election08/apples/ap…

Obama's Sour "Apples to Apples", Part Two

DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW, MALE AND FEMALE VOTERS

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support in virtually every key demographic category when matched against John McCain, while Hillary Clinton has gained support. Obama has lost support among men, women, White voters, “Independents”, and “Moderates”, while Clinton has gained support in all those categories.

Obama’s margins against McCain have fallen significantly in all of these categories, while Clinton is “holding her own” in these key categories as previously undecided voters make up their minds.

These conclusions are drawn from an “apples to apples” comparison of Survey USA polling done April 11-13 in nine states (California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin) with similar polling done in late February as part the SUSA 50 state poll (conducted Feb. 26-28).

THE BIG PICTURE

Hillary Clinton’s nine state averages shows that she picked up 1.3% more support overall between late February and mid-April, while Obama lost 1.6% of his support (Chart B-1). Clinton improved in all the key demographic categories; although her average improvement among Moderates is negligible (+0.1%), she has managed to pick up significant support in a Clinton v McCain matchup among those groups that she is considered weakest, male voters (+1.8%) and Independents (+2.4%).

CHART B-1

At the same time, Obama lost support against McCain in all the major groups – including among his supposed “strong suit”, the “Independent” vote, where he lost, on average, 4.2% compared to late February. Obama also lost considerable support among White voters (-3.2%) and Moderates (-2.9%)

The news isn’t all good for Clinton, however. Despite gaining support in every category, she lost some ground to McCain, as her margins (Chart B-2) among White voters (-2.1%) and Moderates (-2.3%) declined, while her overall margins (0.1%), and margins among men (+0.8%), women (-0.7%), and Independents (no change) showed little change.

CHART B-2

But if the news isn’t all good for Clinton, it is all bad for Obama. His average margins against McCain decreased by well over 4 points in all key demographic categories; men (-4.8%), women (-5.2%), White voters (-8.8%), Independents (-11.4%), and Moderates (-7.8%). As a result, his average margin against McCain has dropped by 4.9 points.

CHART B-3

That 4.9% average margin drop in support is especially telling, given that the percentage of undecided voters dropped only 1.8% in the hypothetical Obama v McCain matchups. While in the Clinton v McCain matchups, undecided males trended slightly in Clinton’s favor, and slightly in McCain’s favor among white and moderate voters, the “newly decided” voters in all demographic categories went to McCain in Obama v McCain.

MALE VOTERS

Overview: While Obama managed to increase his support by small amounts in a majority of the nine states, major losses in male support in three states results in average net loss of support. (Chart B-4) Morever, where Obama does achieve modest gains in male support, McCain has gained even more support, and Obama’s margins among males versus McCain are consistently lower than in February. Clinton’s performance among males is more mixed, but results in a net average increase in overall male support, and in her average support among males against McCain. As a result, Obama’s advantage over Clinton among male voters was cut in half.

CHART B-4

· Clinton shows significant losses in male support in three states, Massachusetts (-6%), New Mexico (-4%), and Wisconsin (-4%).
· Obama also shows losses among males in three states (MA –10%, NM –7%, OH –6%) but his losses are more severe than Clintons.
· Obama shows a significant gain in male support in only one state (MO +6%); Clinton shows significant gains in 4 states (CA +17%, MN +3%, MO, +7%, OR +7%).
· Overall, Clinton’s 9 state average level of support among males rose by 1.8%, while Obama’s had a small average net loss of support (-0.9%), despite a 2.4% decrease in undecided male voters.

CHART B-5

· .In the two state where Clinton was leading among male voters in February, she now lags behind McCain. In Massachusetts, her margin among males was +10%, now its –9%, and in Ohio it was +5%, now its –3%. (Chart B-5)
· Clinton now lags significantly further behind McCain in three other states; Iowa, where she lost an additional four points (to –19%), New Mexico where she lost 3 points (to –14%), and Wisconsin (losing 4 more points to –16% among males.)
· In California, Clinton picked up significant male support, going from –9% to +7%.
· In two other states, Clinton cut into McCain’s male support significantly, gaining 13 points in Missouri (to –4%) and gaining 11 points in Oregon (to –13%)

CHART B-6

· Obama significantly improved his margin among males in only one state (by +13 points), Missouri, where he went from –15% against McCain to –2%
· Obama is now losing among males in two states where he lead in February, Ohio, where his margin declined by 16 points (from +9% to –7%), and Massachusetts, where his margin dropped 23 points (from +6% to –17%).
· Obama’s margin among men also dropped significantly in New Mexico, where he went from –2% among males to –16%.

The nine state averages show that Clinton’s margins against McCain among males held steady (+0.8%, from –10.2% to –9.4%) while Obama’s margin’s against McCain among males deteriorated (-4.8%, from –0.7% to –5.4%). As a result, Obama’s advantage over Clinton among males in these nine states decreased by about half, going from an average 9.5 points to an average of 4.2 points.

FEMALE VOTERS
Overview: Obama increased his overall support among women in only two of nine states, while losing at least 3% among women in 5 states. (Chart B-7) resulting in an average net loss of female support for Obama. Obama’s lead among women against McCain decreased by an average of more than 5 points (Charts B-8, B-9). . As with male voters, Clinton’s performance among female voters is more mixed, but does result in both a small overall increase in support among women, and a small increase in her average margin against McCain among women. . As a result, Clinton’s overall advantage over Obama among women voters in these nine states increased substantially.

CHART B-7

· Clinton shows significant losses in female support in one states, California (-7%).
· Clinton shows significant gains in female support in two states, Massachusetts (+8%) and Ohio (+6%).
· Obama shows a significant gain in female support in only one state (MA, +6%);
· Obama shows a significant loss of female support in two states, New Mexico (-6%) and Ohio (-5%). .
· Overall, Clinton’s 9 state average level of support among females rose slightly (by 1.0%) which is only one third of the decrease in the average female undecided vote
· Obama’s had an average net loss of support among females of –1.8%, despite a 1.8% average decrease in undecided female voters.

CHART B-8

· In Missouri, Obama’s margin against McCain among women is now negative, dropping 15 points from +2% to –13%.
· Obama also lost significant ground among women in 4 other states, California (dropping 8 points, from +16% to +8%), New Mexico (-13 points, from +16% to +3%), Ohio (-9 points, from +11% to +2%), and Wisconsin (-9 points, from +25% to +16%)
· Only in Massachusetts did Obama’s margin among women increase significantly, going up 10 points, from +9% to +19%.

CHART B-9

· Clinton’s margin among women against McCain decreased in 5 states, three of them significantly: California (-13 points, from +31% to +18%), Minnesota (-7 points, from +22% to +15%), and New Mexico (-6 points, from +12% to +6%)
· Clinton significantly increased her margin among women in 3 states, Massachusetts (+11 points, from +25% to +36% Ohio (+7%, from +16% to +23%), and Oregon (+4 points, from +12% to +16%)

Clinton’s nine state average margins against McCain among women decreased only slightly (by -0.7 points, from +16.4% to +15.8%.), Obama’s average decrease in margins among women was more than 7 times that of Clintons (-5.2 points), and his advantage over McCain among women was cut by more than a third, going from +14.3% to +9.1%. As a result, among women, Clinton tripled her relative advantage over Obama when matched against McCain in these nine states, going from an average of 2.1% to 6.7% between February and April.

SUMMARY OF MALE AND FEMALE DATA

CHART B-10

The results for Clinton (CHART B-10) are decidedly mixed. She improves her overall margins against in four of nine states, improves among males in three states, and among females in 4 states. The gains and losses are offsetting each other, resulting in very small in average increased margins overall (+0.1%) and and among male voters (+0.8%), and a small average decrease among female voters (-0.7%)

CHART B-11

But the news for Obama is almost all bad. He increases his overall margin in only one state (OR), and is generally losing ground among both male and female voters – in the two states where he does substantially improve his margins with one gender (MA, MO), the gains have been offset by reduced margins in the other gender, resulting in a net margin decrease. As a result, his average margins against McCain have decreased significantly among both male (-4.8%) and female (-5.2%) voters, resulting in an overall average margin decrease of –4.9%.

The mixed news for Clinton, and the generally bad news for Obama, results in good news for Clinton.

CHART B-12

Out of nine states, in the last six weeks, Obama outperformed Clinton overall when matched against McCain in only one state, Minnesota, and only outperformed Clinton among males in two states (IA, WI), and among females in two state (CA,MN). Everywhere else, and in both gender categories and overall, Clinton did better than Obama in the last six weeks among these nine “should be Democratic this year” states.

When Obama improves his margins, Clinton improves hers more. When Clinton’s margins decrease, Obama’s go even lower. On average, Clinton outperformed Obama by 5.0 points overall, and by 5.6 points among men and 4.6 points among women.

Perhaps “outperformed” is the wrong word to use, because Clinton’s average margins against McCain didn’t change significantly. Clinton looks better than Obama in these nine states because during the last six weeks previously undecided voters are saying “no” to Obama, and supporting McCain, and Obama is losing some of the support he had six weeks ago. Obama is tanking, while Clinton is hanging in there.

NOTE: Data tables used for this post can be found at http://www.glcq.com/election08/apples/ap…

Obama TANKING with Independents, Losing Moderate Voters

AKA OBAMA’S SOUR ’APPLES TO APPLES’, PART THREE: INDEPENDENTS AND MODERATES

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support in virtually every key demographic category when matched against John McCain, while Hillary Clinton has gained support. Perhaps most disturbing is Obama’s decline among Independent voters: Between late February and mid-April, in 9 key states for Democrats

· Obama lost an average 4.2% of his support among Independents
· While Obama was losing support among Independents to McCain, McCain was also picking up new support from previously undecided Independent voters, resulting in major decreases in Obama’s margins against McCain among Independents.
· In February, Obama led McCain among Independents in 5 of the 9 states, By mid-April, Obama was leading in only one state – by only 2%.
· Clinton has held her own among Independents during this period, and as a result Obama’s relative advantage over Clinton among Independents has been cut by two thirds.

But Independents are not the only category that Obama is doing poorly in. In February, when matched against McCain, Obama was doing better among Moderates and Liberals. In mid-April, Clinton was doing better. And Clinton has increased her relative advantage over Obama among Democrats.

These conclusions are drawn from an “apples to apples” comparison of Survey USA polling done April 11-13 in nine states (California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin) with similar polling done in late February as part the SUSA 50 state poll (conducted Feb. 26-28).

This is the third of a multipart series examining the polling data in these states. Part One provided an overview of the polling results, and showed how Clinton was doing better than Obama in 8 of those 9 states. Part Two provided an overview of key demographic categories, and took a close look at male and female voters. Part Three will examine the “Party Identification” and “Ideological” demographic breakdowns, with an emphasis on the “Independent” and “Moderate” subcategories.

INDPENDENT AND MODERATE VOTERS:

Moderate voters make up a much larger percentage (9 state average =39.8%) of the overall electorate than do Independent voters (9 state average = 23.7%). While “Independent” tells you nothing about an individual voter other than their “unaffiliated with either the Democratic or Republican” party” status, “Moderate” tells us what people’s political views are – i.e. Moderates are voters who consider themselves neither “Conservative” nor “Liberal”. In general, “Indepenndent” does not mean “Moderate” – while many Independents are “Moderates”, many are “Conservative” or “Liberal” as well.

CHART C-0

Chart C-0 shows the demographic breakdown by party and ideology for each of the 9 states surveyed in April, along with the 9 state average. While “GOP” and “Conservative” percentages are pretty close in most states, “Liberal” is always considerably smaller than “Democratic”, and “Moderate” is always larger than “Independent”.

“Independent” is probably the single most volatile of all the major demographic categories. “Moderate” contains large percentages of people who consider themselves Democrats (and some Republicans as well), and is far less volatile as a result – but because of its size, relatively small changes in the Moderate vote can have a significant impact on overall margins.

INDEPENDENT VOTERS

In these nine states, Independents make up an average of 23.7% of registered voter. While the Obama campaign has been emphasizing how much better their candidate would do than Clinton among “Independent” (non-party affiliated) voters when matched against McCain, in the past six weeks Clinton’s independent support has increased while Obama’s has been falling.

CHART C-1

In these nine states, Obama’s advantage over Clinton in support among Independents was cut by nearly two thirds. In February, Obama was able to attract an average 10.4% more Independent when matched against McCain than Clinton. In April, Obama’s advantage over Clinton had shrunk to 3.8%.

· In 7 out of 9 states, Clinton’s support among Independent voters has increased.
· Clinton saw significant increases in support from Independents in 5 states: California (+9%), Minnesota, (+5%), Missouri (+5%), New Mexico (+6%), and Ohio (+6%).
· Obama’s Independent support increased in only 2 of 9 states (WI, MO). Only in Missouri was the increase over 2% (+10%)
· Clinton lost Independent support in two states, Massachusetts (-9%) and Wisconsin (-3%)
· Obama lost Independent support in 7 of 9 states. In 5 of those states, the loss of support was more than 2% (CA –9%; IA -10%, MA –3%, MN –7%, NM –6%, OH –13%)
· Overall, Clinton’s nine state average gain in support among Independents against McCain was 2.4% (from 37.0% to 39.4%). Obama lost an average 4.2% of his support among Independents (from 47.4% to 43.2%).

CHART C-2

While Obama was losing support among Independents to McCain, McCain was also picking up new support from previously undecided Independent voters, resulting in major decreases in Obama’s margins against McCain in this category.

· In February, Obama lead McCain among Independents in 5 of 9 states. He now leads in only 1 state, Ohio, where he leads McCain among Independents by 2%, a 30 point reduction in his Independent margin in that state.
· Obama’s margins against McCain among Independent fell in 6 of the remaining 8 states, usually by very high percentages.
· In four of these states, the loss was so severe it resulted in McCain taking over the lead from Obama among Independents: California (-22 points, from +20% to –2%), Iowa (-22 points, from +14% to –8%), Minnesota (-19 points, from +12% to –7%), and New Mexico (-11 points, from +7% to –4%).
· And, in Massachusetts, Obama’s disadvantage among Independents by -10 points, going from –4% to –14%.
· Obama saw a significant improvement in his margin against McCain among Independents only in Missouri, where he gained 12 points (-12% to 0%).

CHART C-3

When comparing Clinton’s Independent support to McCain’s, the results were mixed.

· Clinton improved her margin among Independents against McCain in 4 states.
· In three states, Clinton’s independent margins increased by more than 3%: California (+10 points, from 0% to +10%), Missouri (+4 points, rfrom 13% to –9%, New Mexico (+12%, from –29% to –17%).
· Clinton lost ground to McCain among Independents in 4 states overall, and in 2 states by more than 3% Massachusetts (–25 points, from +3% to –22%) and Wisconsin (-4 points, from –13% to –17%.

The overall average margin among Independents for Clinton remained unchanged, at –12.7%. At the same time, Obama’s average margin went from +7.0% to –4.4% against McCain. As a result, Obama’s relative margin advantage over Clinton fell by almost 60%, going from 19.8% to 8.3%.

INDEPENDENTS, CROSS-OVERVOTING, AND DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT

While Independents are considered a key demographic, strength among Democrats, and “cross over” voting – Republicans voting for Democrats, are also factors.. Here again, while the news for Clinton is mixed, the news for Obama is pretty bad.

CHART C-4

· Only in Iowa did Obama’s (light blue bar) margin among Democrats improve, (+18%) going from 50% to 68%. But his gains’s among Iowa Democrats were offset by losses among Republicans and Independents.
· Obama’s margins among Republicans (pink bar) improve in Minnesota (+3) and Massachusetts (+10), but were offset by losses among Independents and Democrats.
· In 4 of 9 states, Obama’s margin among Democrats decreased by more that 3 points: Massachusetts (-7 points, from +44% to +37%), Minnesota (-6 points, from +70% to +64%), Missouri (-14 points, from +51% to +37%, and New Mexico (-9%, from +44% to +35%).
· Obama’s cross-over appeal is fading as well, as his margins against McCain eroded further in 6 states, IA (-7%), MO (-9%), NM (-17%), OH (-16%), OR (-10%), and WI (-17%).
· Overall, Obama’s margins among Democrats against McCain decreased by an average 2.1%, despite no change in the percentage of “undecided” Democrats, which indicates a net loss of support among Democrats for Obama when he is matched against McCain.
· Obama’s 9 state average margin against McCain among Republican voters fell an additional 7.0%, while undecided Republicans declined by an average of 3.7%, indicating a net loss of support among Republicans for Obama.

CHART C-5

There was far less volatility in Clinton’s margins among Democrats and Republicans, and the results were mixed.

· Clinton’s margins improved among Republicans in two state (MA, OR), and decreased further in the other seven, but in only 4 states was the decrease greater than 3% (CA, MO, OH, WI).
· Clinton’s margins among Democrats improved in 4 states, and declined in 4 states.
· Overall, Clinton’s margins against McCain among Democrats was reduced by an average of -1.1%, and among Republicans by –0.2%

CHART C-6

Chart C-6 shows how Clinton and Obama did relative to each other against McCain within the “Party” demographics between late February and mid-April in these 9 states. Unlike the previous charts, this data is weighed to show the impact* of each Party on the overall (green bar) outcome.)

· Clinton outperformed Obama among Independents (purple bar) in 6 of 9 states.
· Clinton outperformed Obama among Republicans (pink bar) in 7 of 9 states.
· Clinton outperformed Obama among Democrats (light blue bar) in 5 of 9 states.
· As a result, when matched against McCain, Clinton outperformed Obama overall** (green bar) in 8 or 9 states between late February and mid-April.

MODERATE VOTERS

The picture is mixed for both Obama and Clinton as as far as Moderates are concerned. Clinton maintained her levels of support among Moderates, but her margin against McCain fell among Moderates as the percentage of undecided Moderates went down. Obama’s overall support among Moderates declined, and his margins among Moderates declined even more than Clintons.

CHART C-7

· Clinton lost support among Moderates in 4 states (CA –4%, MA –6%, MN –7%, WI –3%).
· Clinton gained at least 3% more support among Moderates in 3 states (MO +3%, OH +9%, OR +7%).
· Obama gained support among Moderates in three states (IA +4, MO +3, OR +3)
· Obama lost support among Moderates in 6 states (CA –10%, MA –10%, MN –4%, NM –8%, OH –3%, WI –3%)
· Clinton’s nine state average of support from Moderates when matched against McCain remained steady (at 53.4% a +0.1% gain).
· Obama’s nine state average dropped by 2.9 points, going from 55.9% to 52.6%.

In February in these nine states, Moderates supported Obama over McCain more than they did Clinton. Obana’s loss of moderate support means that now, more Moderates support Clinton than Obama when each is matched against McCain.

In terms of margins, both Clinton and Obama lost ground to McCain among moderates between late February and mid-April, but Obama did significantly worse than Clinton.

CHART C-8

· McCain now leads Obama among Moderates in 2 states, Obama’s margin dropped 21 points in Massachusetts (from +13% to –8%) and dropped 18 points in New Mexico (from +12% to –6%).
· Obama’s Moderate margins also decreased by 20 points in California (from +21% to +1%), by 11 points in Minnesota (from +29% to +18%), by 8 points in Ohio (from +21% to +13%), and by 10 points in Wisconsin (from +21% to +11%)
· Obama improved his support among moderate by 3% or more in only two states, Iowa (+6 points, from +23% to +29%) and Oregon (+10 points, from +17% to +27%).

CHART C-9

· In 4 states, Clinton improver her margin among Moderates against McCain by 3% or more, Missouri (+3 points, from +16% to +19%), New Mexico (+3 points, from +5% to +8*), Ohio (+16 points, from +19% to +35%) and Oregon (+11 points, from +3% to +14%)
· Clinton’s margin among moderates dropped by 3% or more in 4 states: California (–10 points, from +17% to +7), Massachusetts (-17 points, from +24% to +7%), Minnesota (-20 points, from +25%to +5%), and Wisconsin (-6 points, from +17% to +11%).
· Clinton still leads McCain among Moderates by at least 5% in all nine states. Obama leads by 5 points or more in only 6 states.

Clinton 9 state average margin among Moderates against McCain dropped by -2.3% (from +15.2% to +12.9%. Obama’s average dropped by -7.8%, from +20.2% to +12.4%. In February, Obama did better than Clinton against McCain among moderates by 5.0% overall. In April, Clinton is doing slightly better (0.5%) than Obama among Moderates.

MODERATES, CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS

While the moderate demographic is considered the “swing” Ideological category, changes in support also occur among Liberals and Conservatives that can have an impact on elections.

CHART C-10

· Clinton’s overall average margins against McCain among Liberals and Conservatives changed even less that her margins among Moderates. Overall, her average margin among Liberals dropped by -0.7 points (from +61.9% to +61.2%), while her average margin among conservatives improved shightly (by +1.2%, from –64.8% to –63.6%).
· Clinton’s margins among Liberals against McCain increased in five states (CA, MA, MN, OH, and WI) and decreased in 4 states (IA, MO, NM, and OR).
· Clinton’s margins among Conservatives also improved in 5 states (IA, MA, MO, NM, and OR), and got worse in 4 states (CA, MN, OH, WI)

CHART C-11

· Obama’s average margins among Liberals against McCain decreased by almost as much (-7.7 points, from 64.1% to 56.4%) as his margins decreased among Moderates.
· As a result of these decreases, while Obama was doing better against McCain among Liberals in late February (by 2.2%), Clinton’s average Liberal margin against McCain was, by mid-April, better than Obama’s (by 4.8%).
· Obama’s margins among Liberals against improved in only one state (MA). In California, they were unchanged, in the other seven states, his margins decreased.
· Among Conservatives, Obama’s margins improved in two states (CA, NM), were unchanged in Ohio, and got worse in the six remaining states. Despite that, Obama’s margins among Conservatives are still slightly better (by 1.2 points) than Clinton.

CHART C-12

Chart C-12 shows how Clinton and Obama did relative to each other against McCain within the “Ideology” demographics between late February and mid-April in these 9 states. As with Chart C-6, this data is weighed to show the impact* of each Ideology on the overall (green bar) outcome.)

· Clinton outperformed Obama among Moderates (purple bar) in 7 of 9 states.
· Obama outperformed Clinton among Conservatives (pink bar) in 5 of 9 states.
· Clinton outperformed Obama among Liberals (light blue bar) in 8 of 9 states.
On average, Clinton outperformed Obama in all the Ideological categories***, including the crucial “Moderate” demographic.

CONCLUSION:
Obama’s supposed vastly superior appeal for Independents may turn out to be a myth, at least when it comes to a Presidential contest against John McCain. In six weeks, Clinton reduced Obama’s advantage among Independents by two thirds. Clinton’s Independent margins against McCain held firm, as previously undecided Independents split their votes between McCain and Clinton. But when considering an Obama v McCain match-up, previously undecided Independents chose McCain, while some of Obama’s Independent support from February had fallen away by April.

Obama still does better than Clinton among “Conservatives” and Republicans, but as with Independents, Clinton is holding her own in those categories while Obama’s margins deteriorate.

Moreover, in late February Obama’s margins against McCain among both “Moderates” and “Liberals” were better than Clinton’s, by mid-April that situation had been reversed. And Clinton expanded her advantage over Obama among Democrats during the six week period.

All this does not bode well for Obama’s electability, despite Clinton’s high negatives, she outperformed Obama against McCain over a six week period in 9 key states – states that a Democrat could/should win in 2008.

Data tables used for this post can be found at http://www.glcq.com/election08/apples/ap…

NOTES
* Weighing is the process by which percentages within demographic groups are used to show the impact on overall totals. For instance, in April in California, where Independents made up 18% of voters, Obama received 43% of the Independent vote against McCain. By multiplying Obama’s 43% of Independents by that 18%, you find that Obama’s Independent support constitutes 7.7% of all voters. Rounding errors make these numbers imprecise, but they give a good approximation of how each demographic contributes to the overall totals. All data used for this table can be found at http://www.glcq.com/election08/apples/ap…
** The Party averages are weighed data. Overall, Clinton outperformed Obama among Democrats by 1.0% (0.5% of all voters), among Republicans by 6.8% (1.9% of all voters), and among Independents by 11.4% (1.7% of all voters).
*** The Ideological averages are weighed data. Overall, Clinton outperformed Obama among Liberals by 7.0% (1.3% of all voters), among Conservatives by 3.6% (08% of all voters), and among Independents by 5.4% (2.1% of all voters).

Clinton Hangs On, Obama Drops in Polls, With Negative Media Attention

Aka Obama’s Sour Apples to Apples, Part Four

Between late February and mid-April, voters in nine states that should/could be “Democratic” in the 2008 Presidential Election were exposed to a considerable amount of negative informative concerning both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The negative information had little impact on how Hillary Clinton was regarded when compared to John McCain. But it has had a major impact on their perception of Barack Obama, and on the perception of the relative merits of Obama and McCain.

Overall, the worst that can be said about Clinton is the negative press attention has resulted in more previously undecided voters in certain demographic categories expressing a preference for McCain rather than for Clinton. But Obama is not merely losing “undecided” voters in most demographic categories because of negative media coverage, a significant percentage of voters who had supported Obama over McCain have switched their preferences.

The impact of negative media stories can be seen in the changes in the support of White voters for both candidates in hypothetical match-ups against McCain, and the margins among White voters in those match-ups. Clinton gained support among White voters overall, but her margins against McCain declined in that demographic as more previously undecided voters expressed a preference for McCain. Obama, on the other hand, saw a decrease in White voter support, and his margins against McCain among White voters dropped precipitously.

These conclusions are drawn from an “apples to apples” comparison of Survey USA polling done April 11-13 in nine states (California, Iowa, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin) with similar polling done in late February as part the SUSA 50 state poll (conducted Feb. 26-28).

This is the third of a multipart series examining the polling data in these states. Part One provided an overview of the polling results, and showed how Clinton was doing better than Obama in 8 of those 9 states. Part Two provided an overview of key demographic categories, and took a close look at male and female voters. Part Three examined “Party Identification” and “Ideological” demographic breakdowns, with an emphasis on the “Independent” and “Moderate” subcategories. Part Four will look at the media context in which these changes took place, and examine the impact of “new” information on Clinton and Obama in the White voter demographic.

THE MEDIA ENVIRONMENT BETWEEN THE TWO POLLS – AND ITS OVERALL IMPACT

In order to understand the differences that appear in the late February and mid-April polling of the Clinton v McCain and Obama v McCain match-ups, it is necessary to consider the media environment prior to the February poll, and what that environment looked like between the two polls.

In late February, Obama was at a high point; having won 11 straight post Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses. Texas polls (and the media) were suggesting that Obama would win in Texas, and perhaps even in Ohio. Up until that point, Obama had received very little in the way of negative media attention and scrutiny, while Clinton was a constant target of attacks in the media.

But between the two polls, a number of significant events for the campaigns took place. On the whole, negative media attention and scrutiny was focused on Obama during the first three weeks after the February poll was taken, but that focus shifted to Clinton in the weeks prior to the mid-April poll.

· Hillary Clinton released her “3 AM” ad on February 29th.
· The Rezko trial began on March 6th and increased scrutiny of Obama’s relationship with Rezko was not far behind.
· The “Jeremiah Wright” controversy erupted —ABC was the first broadcast network to feature the story, on March 13th
· Clinton’s “appointment calendar” from her years as First Lady was released on March 19th
· The “phantom Bosnian snipers” story received a great deal of media attention, beginning around March 21st.
· Clinton released her tax returns on April 4th.

All of this information was being digested by voters in the time between the two polls. In addition, stories about Obama’s “bitter/clinging” remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser were gaining currency just as the April poll was being taken – the “bitter/clinging” story first appeared on April 11th, the first of the three days of April polling.

In other words, between the two polls, the media was full of stories raising questions about the character and experience of both Clinton and Obama. Clinton has weathered these storms – despite all the negative press that was concentrated close to the mid-April polls, Clinton’s average margins against McCain held firm. But the questions raised in early March about Obama’s character and experience had a strong negative impact on his margins against McCain.

CLINTON AND OBAMA MARGINS AGAINST McCAIN
	CLINTON MARGINS	OBAMA MARGINS
    Late Feb  mid-April    Late Feb  mid-April  
CA	10%	13%	     11%	7%
IA	-5%	-6%	      9%	7%
MA	18%	15%	      7%	2%
MN	 4%	 1%	      7%	6%
MO	-4%	 1%	     -6%       -8%
NM	 0%	-3%	      7%       -6%
OH	10%	11%	     10%       -2%
OR	-5%	 1%	      8%	9%
WI	 4%	 0%	     11%	5%
AVG    3.6%    3.7%	    7.1%      2.2%

·

Clinton was behind McCain in 3 states in February, and in 2 in April. Obama was trailing McCain in 1 state in February, and 3 in April.
· Clinton maintained the double digit leads she held in three states (CA, MA, OH). In the three states that Obama had double digits leads in February, those leads declined to the single digits in 2 states (CA, MI), and in one state Obama is now trailing McCain (OH)

CHANGE IN MARGINS AGAINST MCCAIN FEBRUARY TO APRIL
	CLINTON	   OBAMA    
CA	  3%	    -4%
IA	 -1%	    -2%
MA	 -3%	    -5%
MN	 -3%	    -1%
MO	  5%	    -2%
NM	 -3%	   -13%
OH	  1%	   -12%
OR	  6%	     1%
WI	 -4%	    -6%
*AVG*	0.1%	  -4.9%

· Clinton gained ground against McCain in 4 states by +1% (Ohio) +3% (California), +5%, and +6% (Oregon). Obama gained ground against McCain in only one state (Oregon), and only by +1%.
· Clinton lost ground to McCain in 5 states by –1% (Iowa), -3% (Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico), and –4% (Wisconsin). Obama lost ground to McCain in 8 of 9 states, by –1% (Minnesota), -2% (Iowa, Missouri), -4% (California), -5% (Massachusetts), -6% (Wisconsin), -12% (Ohio), and –13% (New Mexico).

There is only one conclusion that can be reached from this data – Hillary Clinton is far less vulnerable to negative media messages than Barack Obama. Voters seem to treat negative media attention about Clinton as ambient, albeit unpleasant, noise – it’s just the same people saying the same things about Clinton that they’ve been saying for years. While negative information about Clinton may be reinforcing impressions about her, it does not appear to be changing many people’s minds. Absent some “blockbuster” revelation about Clinton, her support appears firm, and because her negative public image stands in stark contrast to what people see when they focus on the “real” Hillary Clinton, she has strong potential to increase her support and improve her margins against McCain.

But Obama’s support is “soft”, and he is extremely vulnerable to negative media attention. Voters do not really know who Barack Obama is, and what he really stands for and believes, and all the information about Obama is “new” to most voters. Information that raises questions about his readiness for the Presidency, his character, and his political philosophy has had a major impact on people’s views of Obama, especially when they are comparing Obama to McCain. Negative information about Obama is likely to lead to continued deterioration of Obama’s overall support and his margins against McCain.

THE “WHITE VOTE”: IDEOLOGICAL/PARTY IDENTIFICATION CHANGES IN THE SAMPLE

While the purpose of this study is to compare shifts in support between late February and mid-April for Clinton and Obama when matched against McCain, it is important to keep in mind that, while Survey USA’s methodology was the same, the population samples are not identical. Differences in Party Identification and Ideology should have the most impact on the overall support and margins for Clinton and Obama when they are matched against McCain, rather than in changes in Clinton’s and Obama’s relative support and margins. Nevertheless, changes in the sample may have some impact on how well Clinton and Obama do relative to each other among White voters when each is matched against McCain. (e.g. given the GOP “Southern Strategy”, changes in the percentages of Republican voters could have an impact on the percentage of White voters who will not vote for Obama based solely on his race.)

CHART D-0

Chart D-0 shows the changes in the relative percentages of Democrats and Republicans, and Liberals and Conservatives, in each of the 9 states (and on average.) It should be noted that the chart describes the relationship between the parties/ and deologies, and that “More Democratic” can mean merely that fewer Republicans and more “Independents” were part of the April sample.

· California – Less Republican/Conservative (more Independents and Moderates)
· Iowa – More Republican and more Liberal (fewer Democrats and Independents, more Liberals)
· Massachusetts – Less Republican, More Liberal (more Democrats, Independents, and Liberals)
· Minnesota – More Democratic, less Conservative (fewer Republicans and Conservatives, more Democrats and Moderates)
· Missouri – Less Republican, more Liberal (more Independents, fewer Moderates)
· New Mexico – More Conservative (fewer Moderates)
· Ohio – More Republican and Conservative (fewer Moderates)
· Oregon – More Democratic and Liberal (fewer Moderates)
· Wisconsin – Less Republican, more Liberal (more Independents and Moderates)
· NINE STATE AVERAGES – Republicans –0.8%, Democrats +0.1%, Independents +1.4%, Conservative +0.6%, Liberals +3.0%, Moderates –1.3%

THE “WHITE VOTE” – OVERALL SUPPORT AMONG WHITE VOTERS

Overall Clinton outperformed Obama among White voters between late February and mid-April in the nine “Democratic should/can win” states surveyed. Clinton gained support among White voters, while Obama lost support. But both lost ground among White voters to McCain – with Obama losing far more ground than did Clinton.

CHART D1

· Clinton gains White voter support in 5 states, but in only 2 (MO, +3%, OR +6%) is the increase in support at least +3%.
· Obama gains while voter support in 3 states, but only in Oregon (+5%) does he gain 3 points or more among White voters.
· Clinton loses White voter support in 2 states, but only in New Mexico (-5%) is that loss more than -2%.
· Obama loses White voter support in six states, including 4 where the loss is -3% or more (CA -9%, NM –12%, OH –8%, WI –4%)

CHART D-2

· In terms of gaining addition support from White voters during the six week period, Obama outperformed Clinton in only one of 9 states – Massachusetts, and the difference there was less than 3%.
· Clinton outperformed Obama by 3% or more in terms of White voter support in 5 states: California (10 points better, Clinton +1%, Obama –9%), New Mexico (7 points better, Clinton –5%, Obama –12%), Ohio (10 points better, Clinton +2%, Obama –8%), and Wisconsin (4 points better, Clinton unchanged, Obama –4%).
· Clinton had a nine state average gain in White voter support of +0.8%, while Obama had an average net loss of White voter support of –3.2%.
· In late February, Obama had more support than Clinton among White voters in these states by an average of 1.9% (Clinton 45.2%, Obama 47.1%). By mid-April, Clinton had 2.1% more support among White voters (Clinton 46.0%, Obama 43.9%).

THE “WHITE VOTE” MARGINS AGAINST McCAIN AMONG WHITE VOTERS

Although Clinton gained and Obama lost White voter support between late February and mid-April, both lost ground with White voters when matched against McCain as previously undecided White voters made up their minds. But Clinton’s margin losses were far less severe than Obama’s.
CHART D-3

· Clinton lost ground against McCain among White voters in 7 of 9 states, and in 4 state the loss was –3% or more: California (–5 points, from +3% to –2%), Massachusetts (-6 points, from +15% to +9%), Minnesota (-3 points, from +2% to –1%), and New Mexico (-12 points, from –14% to –26%).
· Clinton gained ground among White voters in 2 states, Missouri (+4 points, from –7% to –3%) and Oregon (+9 points, from –4% to +5%).

CHART D-4

· Obama’s margins among White voters improved in only one state, Oregon, by 6 points (from +3% to +9%).
· Obama margin’s among White voters declined by 3% or more in 6 of the 9 states: California (-21 points, from +10% to –11%), Iowa (-4 points, from +10% to +6%), Minnesota (-3 points, from +5% to +2%), New Mexico (-27 points, from a tie to –27%), Ohio (-18 points, from +5% to –13%), and Wisconsin (-10 points, from +11% to +1%).

Clinton’s 9 state average margins against McCain among White voters declined by –2.1 points (from –0.44% to –2.55%.

Obana’s average margins decline much more severely, by –8.8 points (from +3.7% to –5.1%); Obama had been leading McCain overall among White voters in February in these 9 states, but was losing to McCain by mid-April.

· Clinton’s average margin loss (-2.1%) was less than the average reduction in undecided White voters(-3.2%) in Clinton v McCain.
· Obama’s average margin loss (-8.8%) was more than three times the average reduction in undecided White voters (-2.3%) in Obama v McCain.
· In late February, McCain lead Obama among White voters in only 1 of 9 states. In mid-April, McCain beat Obama among White voters in 4 states.
· In February, Obama’s average margin among White voters was higher than Clinton’s (Obama +3.7%, Clinton –0.4%). By mid-April, Clinton was doing better than Obama among White voters (Obama –5.1%, Clinton –2.6%).

THE “WHITE VOTE”: SUMMARY:
In the period between February 26-28 and April 11-13, the myth of Barack Obama hit the wall of reality. The significant decline in White voter support is mirrored in his significant loss of overall support (see Part One), loss of support among both men and women (see Part Two), loss of support among Liberals and Moderates, and the extraordinary level of decline in the support of “Independents” (see Part Three).

During the same period, Hillary Clinton showed her staying power. Her numbers among White voters can best be described as “mixed, but stable overall”, reflecting the mixed results with varying demographic groups, and stability of her margins against McCain.

While these nine states cannot tell us what is going on in the other 41, they do represent states that Democrats need to win, or at least be competitive in, for the November election, and they are the kinds of states that Democratic Party super-delegates have to keep their eye on when deciding whom to support for the Democratic nomination.

APPENDIX: NON-WHITE VOTERS
Chart D-5 shows the “two-survey” average demographic breakdown for “White”, “Black”, “Hispanic”, and “Other” voters. Unfortunately, most of the nine states surveyed had relatively small percentages of non-White (“Black”, “Hispanic”, and “Other”). This results in completely unreliable data for non-White demographic groups in most cases (e.g. the survey data shows Obama going from having 73% of the “Black” vote in Iowa to only having 47% of the Black vote in mid-April. This is highly unlikely, and probably the result of the extremely small sample of Black voters from Iowa.)

CHART D-5

But there are sufficient non-White voters in two states in each category to do an “apples to apples” comparison. But because of the relatively small sample sizes, these numbers cannot be considered authoritative.

CHART D-6

· Both Clinton and Obama increased their African American support in Missouri (Clinton +2%, Obama +3%) and Ohio (Clinton +9%, Obama +12%), with Obama showing greater gains in support in both states.
· Both Clinton and Obama showed small losses (-1%) in support among Hispanics in New Mexico. In California, Clinton shows a slight increase (+3%) in Hispanic support, while Obama saw a significant increase in support (+13%) among Hispanic voters.
· In California, where the “Other” category consists mostly of Asian-Americans, Clinton gained support (+9%) while Obama lost support (-7%)
· In New Mexico, where the “Other category consists mostly of Indigenous/Native Americans, Clinton’s support was unchanged, while Obama lost support (-9%)

CHART D-7

· Both Clinton and Obama saw slight decreases in their margins against McCain among African Americans in Missouri. In Ohio, Clinton’s margin increased by +7% against McCain, while Obama’s margin improved even more (+22%).
· Among Hispanic voters in California, Clinton saw an increase in her margin against McCain (+5%) while Obama’s margin improved substantially (+22%). In New Mexico, Both Clinton’s (+1%) and Obama’s (+2%) margin among Hispanics saw a small increase.
· In California, Clinton saw a significant improvement (+29 points) in her “Other” (primarily Asian American) margins, going from –12% to +17%., Obama’s advantage over McCain in this category decreased by –5 points (from +16% to +11%).
· In New Mexico, Clinton’s margin in the “Other” (primarily Indigenous/Native Americans) category declined slightly (by –2 points, from –23% to –25%), while Obama’s margin deteriorated significantly (by –26 points, from –2% to –28%.)

Data tables used for this post can be found at http://www.glcq.com/election08/apples/ap…