Survey USA Poll: Clinton Up By 9 in Indiana

Finally, some new data on Indiana’s numbers:

Clinton 9 Atop Obama, 5 Weeks to Indiana Democratic Primary: In a Democratic Primary in Indiana today, 04/01/08, 5 weeks until votes are counted, Hillary Clinton defeats Barack Obama 52% to 43%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WHAS-TV Louisville and WCPO-TV Cincinnati. Obama leads 3:2 among the youngest voters. Clinton leads 2:1 among the oldest voters. Clinton leads by 21 points among whites. Obama leads by 58 points among blacks. Obama leads in greater Indianapolis. Clinton leads in Northern, Central and Southern Indiana. Clinton leads by 2 among men and by 17 among women. Among voters focused on Iraq, the candidates tie. Among voters focused on the Economy, Clinton leads by 14. Among voters focused on health care, Clinton leads by 10. Clinton leads by 12 among those who describe themselves as Democrats. Republicans and Independents are technically eligible to vote in Indiana’s ‘open’ primary. Obama leads by 26 points among Independents. Clinton leads by 21 among Republicans. Some in talk radio have urged Republicans to vote for Clinton in states where laws permit Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries. It is unclear to what extent this is happening in Indiana. Without the Republican voters, Clinton would still lead, though by 7 instead of 9.

This contradicts the Howey poll from February, but perhaps it’s to be expected after several weeks of Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea making multiple visits to the state vs. Obama’s one visit.

Perhaps the most important numbers are those who said they could change their minds: 45% of Clinton voters vs. 41% of Obama voters. It sounds like the support of both candidates could be stronger. Also the African-American numbers seem a little low for Obama.

Despite these numbers, I’ll stick to my original prediction of an Obama win in the state, given the weak support of both candidates and Obama’s history as a strong finsher.

Advertisements

21 responses to “Survey USA Poll: Clinton Up By 9 in Indiana

  1. Obama was absent from the Illinois Senate
    on November 4, 1999. His name was on 2 bills
    mentioned during that session.
    Does anyone know where Obama was on November 4?

  2. Where were YOU on November 4, 1999?

  3. You know, Wells, enough already.

  4. Kip, thanks. I think I just formulated my policy on thread-jacking trolls.

    Wells is welcome to post here if it’s even tangentially on-topic no matter how much I might disagree with him. Off-topic crap designed to stir the shit don’t really do any of us much good.

    Posters are welcome to disagree with me on any issue and I will approve their comments if they are on-topic.

  5. I’m guilty of not having really followed the Indiana numbers, so I’m not sure what the trend has been. What does strike me is that Clinton’s lead shrinks to seven (7) from nine (9) when you take out Republican voters. Rather telling, I’d say.

    Also interesting, a poll out today shows Obama up by two (2) in Pennsylvania. I’m uncertain as to the credibility of the organization that put it out (Public Policy Polling) but they showed him down by 24 only two weeks ago. Even if their numbers are off – and it does seem to be an outlier – it could indicate a trend.

  6. Excuse me, I thought the post was about the candidates and the election. I have an excellent
    command of the English language and do not have to resort to expletives to attempt to make
    a point. Kip, you have shown your hand. Are you
    being paid by the Obama team?
    raford, Kip has been posting some comments on
    my blog reminiscent of middle school.
    By the way, I am not getting paid for this, but I
    really care about this country. I posted the comment because it definitely relates to the election and the polls. Are you guys afraid of something?

  7. PS-raford you are welcome to post on my blog.
    I would appreciate meaningful comments on or off topic, with no racist comments or expletives.

  8. PS-Kip is posting on many blogs attempting to discredit others’ comments. Check it out.

  9. GB, don’t feel bad for not following Indiana polling data; there’s been very little. And I do think, as you suggested that the Limbaugh effect may have a role here.

    PA polling is is definitely trending toward Obama, and when I saw the PPP poll this morning, I found it hard to believe, but they claim to have had the most accurate results in their polling of previous primary states. If they’re correct in this case is anyone’s guess, but I tend to think it’s an outlier. That said, I do think Obama has a bit of a chance in PA.

  10. Wells, I’m not all that interested in your dispute with Kip. And if your delicate sensibilities are offended by a little profanity, this is probably not a good blog for you to visit.

    As far as the Larry Sinclair allegations, I think you’d get a lot more sympathy and serious attention if you laid them out more clearly rather than asking us if we knew where Obama was on November 4, 1999.

    I’ve seen Sinclair’s videos and have read his blog. He simply doesn’t come across as credible, especially since he threw the “Obama killed the gay choral director” allegations. Besides, Whitehouse.com used a lie-detector on Sinclair and it perceived there were deceptions by Sinclair.

    You can believe whatever you want to believe about Obama; I’m never going to convince you. Likewise, unless Sinclair produces credible witnesses who can corroborate Sinclair’s story, you’re not going to change my mind.

    This reminds me of the old story about a politician being advised to call his opponent a pig-fucker. The politician responded that his opponent didn’t fuck pigs. The advisor replied, “Yes, but I want him to have to deny he is a pig-fucker.”

    You’re always welcome to post here if your posts have to do with the issues raised and have nothing to do with Sinclair. If Sinclair’s allegations are proven to be true, well, you can post here all you want about Sinclair to rub my nose in my mistake.

  11. Apparently ayou are interested in what Kip says:

    Kip, thanks. I think I just formulated my policy on thread-jacking trolls.

    You can apologize for that whenever you are ready. The Sinclair comments have to be taken in context. I dismissed them at first. Then did some research.
    Here is an exerpt from my blog:
    When I first read the allegations of Larry Sinclair, I was very skeptical. I am still somewhat skeptical. However, I went to the records of the Illinois Senate for November 4, 1999 and Barack Obama was not present. Sinclair alleges that he had 2 encounters with Obama from November 3 to November 8 1999. The first encounter was allegedly in a rented limo and involved drugs and gay sex. This alone was not a red flag for me but when you couple this information with Obama’s known association with criminals, with racists and hate mongers and his failure to provide his records while in the Illinois Senate, there is a legitimate need to get straight answers from Obama.
    Lynn Sweet, a columnist and the Washington Bureau Chief for the Chicago Sun-Times states:

    “Instead, since I have some reporting history here, I am noting a pattern that has emerged: This is Obama’s third ethical conversion of convenience — taking on a higher standard, but only when it appears to be politically expedient. Obama is making government transparency and ethics a centerpiece of his presidential campaign.”

    From a Chicago Tribune interview of November 12, 2007:

    “The status of any government records Sen. Barack Obama might still have from his time as a state lawmaker in Springfield has come up as he has repeatedly criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for how slowly records from her husband’s administration have been released.

    This is a small part of the post.
    Do you want to know the truth?

  12. Citizenwells,

    You are, of course, correct in asserting that the post is about the candidates and the election. Specifically, it’s about some poll results. To turn that into a discussion of drug use and sex in the back of a limousine takes quite a leap.

    However, the complete absence of relevance is the lesser offensive thing about your comments.

    Larry Sinclair quite simply seems to be a disturbed person, and disturbed people do strange things. Of greater import, Mr. Sinclair is a convicted felon, having been found guilty of credit card fraud, a crime involving deception.

    So his veracity is, shall we say, compromised. Add to this the fact that he failed two polygraphs. Now, I will be the first to question the accuracy of a polygraph as it cannot take into account when someone is saying something untruthful but genuinely in their own mind believes it to be true. But that’s not even the case with Mr. Sinclair. He failed. He doesn’t even believe what he’s saying.

    And here’s what I love about your assertions. You’re inclined to believe that Senator Obama did indeed engage in drug use and sexual acts with Mr. Sinclair because, in your words, he has a known association with criminals, racists and hate mongers – for the sake of argument and brevity, I won’t tackle the problems I have with that statement. Moving on, it seems you assert guilt on the part of Senator Obama based on a consistent pattern of behavior – what we in the legal profession refer to as evidence of prior bad acts. Now – apply that same standard to the fact that not only does Mr. Sinclair associate with liars and criminals, but he has been adjudicated to be one himself.

    I fail to see how the Lynn Sweet quote buttresses your point in any way whatsoever.

    Further, Mr. Ford never said he wasn’t interested in what Kip said. What he said was that he was uninterested in your apparent dispute with her. A distinction I think even an eight-year old would be able to grasp. So I’d keep right on waiting for that apology you’re so keen on receiving.

    As for your problem with people here using off-color language, well, it’s not your fucking blog so you don’t get to set the fucking rules. It’s a shame I’m so damn busy today, because I would love to go to your blog and just let a fuck storm rain down on it.

  13. My, my, something seems to be getting to you.
    Do you want to know the truth?

  14. Question:
    Why is my asking a few simple questions about the whereabouts of Barack Obama on November 4, 1999 and why he is not supplying records upsetting? I agree that the Larry Sinclair allegations alone don’t carry much weight. I have always called them allegations and not facts. I also stated that I was skeptical at first. It is a matter of record that Obama was not present at the senate on November 4, a date which happens to fall during the period of Sinclair’s allegation. Once again. Show me the records. I will be the first to post them. Once again, I hope the allegations are false.

  15. One more comment about Larry Sinclair. He certainly has a dubious record. However, the government routinely uses the testimony of criminals against other criminals.

  16. CW,

    It becomes difficult to reply to your remarks when you cannot summon the intellectual wherewithal to put them all in one solitary comment.

    Regardless, I assure you, nothing you advance is getting to me. What does tend to piss me off is a baseless assertion – as would fairly describe that made by Mr. Sinclair. As for knowing the truth, you strike me as one of those people who feels that the truth is elusive until/unless it reveals what you want or expect it to. You are, by your own admission, inclined to believe the remarks of a con man and convicted felon. To quote the song, I’ve got some oceanfront property in Arizona I’d love to talk to you about.

    Now let’s turn to what appears to be the crux of your argument: that Obama bears some guilt, or at least bears the penumbra of guilt, due to the fact that (gasp!!!) he happened to not be present in the state senate on the days Mr. Sinclair claims their episode/s transpired. You’ve apparently happened on this information, so I’m surmising it’s not that difficult to obtain. Perhaps Mr. Sinclair employed the same approach. At any rate, his voting record is a matter of public record….no secrets there. Further, just because someone is absent from work doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable to conclude something illicit was taking place because a convicted felon says so. I was out of my office last Monday, and I’m quite sorry to report that I was not engaging in drug use and acts of consensual sex in the back of a limousine.

    What Obama has said is not that he won’t produce records from his time in the Illinois state senate, but rather that they don’t exist. You are guilty of the same failure to distinguish that the AP was guilty of in their November story on this subject. They don’t have archivists working in state legislatures, and most state senators/representatives have but one or perhaps two staff members. What records are available have been made public and released by the campaign, or can be obtained through the state of Illinois. Obama has been clear that he doesn’t have his past schedules because he didn’t have a scheduler, and anyway – what the hell do you think it would say?? I doubt that it would look like:

    8:00 Coffee with Mr. Smith
    10:00 Conference Call
    11:00 – 4:00 Meet Sinclair to do some blow in the back of the limo

    Moving on to your third comment, Mr. Sinclair does not have a dubious record. Quite the contrary, his record is quite clear. What he has is a criminal record. As to your assessment that prosecutors routinely use the testimony of convicted criminals or co-conspirators to build their cases against other suspects, this is an exaggeration. Such testimony/evidence is typically used only in the absence of other testimony/evidence. The reasons for this should be manifest. And that’s exactly what’s going on here.

    Quite simply, with these accusations, there’s just no there there.

  17. Nice try!
    If, as you say, Obama has no records, he is either incompetent or an idiot.
    Let’s get to the bottom line.
    He had to have some records for tax purposes.
    Your right, his voting record is available. I am sure you mean voting present many times. Or being in Hawaii when his vote was needed for important gun control legislation. Is that what you mean?

  18. Records for tax purposes? Wells, my friend, I’m a tax attorney, and I assure you, there is nothing in legislative records that would at all be relevant to his or his wife’s or their joint tax situation/profile. That is just a ridiculous and uninformed statement. But it gave me a good laugh on an otherwise dreary morning.

    He was a state senator. Exactly what records are you so convinced exist? And I’m assuming that in pressing the issue you can point to some expertise in the mechanics of state legislative bodies. Actually, you can’t be, or you would realize that voting ‘present’ is a technique frequently utilized so as not to kill good but in some way flawed legislation. I don’t often play this card, but I’m an attorney – I know something about these things.

    This little thread has been great, but it’s tough to have a dialogue with someone who is uninformed. I mean, it’s like I ask you what day it is, and your answer is “Phoenix.”

    That, and as a matter of basic principal, I refuse to engage with someone who says “your” when they mean “you’re”. So much for that excellent command of the English language.

  19. Anyone in business, or functioning at a higher level than a lower level employee, is going to have records of meetings, mileage, etc.
    And your record, big deal.
    My first job was with a major accounting firm in management advisory seervices and information services.
    I have over 30 years in business systems and IT.
    Half of that time was in my own consulting business.
    I have been VP of Administration in a company.
    And……my record in court opposing a lic attorney is 1 win, o losses.
    Do you have any more 1 upmanship comments to make?

  20. PS-I am a lousy typist.

  21. PS-As an attorney you know you are supposed to know the answer to the question before asking it. Likewise, you jumped to conclusions about me. What is your motive for being defensive about Obama and attacking someone for asking legitimate questions?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s