MT-Mason-Dixon: Obama defeats Clinton easily

[Tender Branson]

The Lee Newspaper poll was done by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. of Washington, D.C between May 19-21. Pollsters interviewed by telephone 625 registered Montana voters who all said they regularly vote in Montana elections. The survey includes an over-sampling of 400 likely Democratic voters for the presidential primary question. The Democratic primary portion of the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Obama: 52%
Clinton: 35%
Undecided: 13%

"Looking closer at the Democratic poll primary results, Obama leads Clinton among every subgroup except in Eastern Montana.

Obama is ahead of Clinton among men by 58 percent to 33 percent, and among women by 48 percent to 36 percent, the poll showed. Voters under age 50 favor Obama over Clintonby 56 percent to 30 percent, while those 50 and older back Obama 49 percent to 39 percent, it showed. The rest are undecided. In the 18 counties in western Montana, Obama holds a commanding 62 percent-to-25 percent lead over Clinton, the poll showed. These counties include Gallatin, Flathead, Lewis and Clark, Missoula, Ravalli and Silver Bow.

Clinton leads Obama 47 percent to 40 percent in the 38 counties designated as Eastern Montana in the poll. These counties include Cascade and Yellowstone.

“Obviously, Obama is the favorite,” said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research. “We’re seeing the same patterns (in Montana) we’re seeing elsewhere. His strength is with male voters and voters under 50. Clinton does better but still trails with voters over 50 and with women.”

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2008/05/25/top/65st_080525_leepoll1.txt

Mason-Dixon normally conducts GE polls too, I´m trying to find those results as well ...

[War on Want]

*yawn*

Anyone who didn't expect this is on something. Montana will be one of Obama's best states.

[Alcon]

62-25 Obama in western Montana?  Maybe he isn't sucking in Butte that hard.  Or he's absolutely slaughtering in Helena, Bozeman and Missoula.

I'm not totally surprised by the E. Montana numbers.  The rural areas tend to have more conservative Democrats, and Billings has always seemed like a reasonably Clinton-friendly area to me.

I don't know by what definition Cascade County is Eastern Montana while Gallatin County is Western, but whatever...

[Flying Dog]

Yea, Clinton is likely drawing a lot of her support from Yellowstone County. The county has a lot of working-class folk and service-industry jobs. Should be her best county.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Yea, Clinton is likely drawing a lot of her support from Yellowstone County. The county has a lot of working-class folk and service-industry jobs. Should be her best county.

No, her best county will be one of those rural ones where she'll win 2 out of the 3 votes cast there or something similar.

[Aizen]

Obama will win Montana easily? Shocking.

[Eraserhead]

He should break 60%... makes you wonder how bad the slaughter would have been if it had been a caucus instead of a primary.

Now we just need a serious SD poll...

[War on Want]

He should break 60%... makes you wonder how bad the slaughter would have been if it had been a caucus instead of a primary.

Now we just need a serious SD poll...

If it was a caucaus I would predict a margin that would almost threaten Idaho's margin. I think Obama 75% as a limit and 65% minnimum, but it is possible it would be less simply because Clinton has been campaiging more.

[The Ex-Factor]

Does anyone know why the Midwest/Northwest likes Obama so much? That's been a real surprise for me in this campaign.

I mean, look at the Clinton favorability ratings in that poll.  29 - 50. Yikes.

[Meeker]

Does anyone know why the Midwest/Northwest likes Obama so much? That's been a real surprise for me in this campaign.

I mean, look at the Clinton favorability ratings in that poll.  29 - 50. Yikes.

It has to do with him being the best choice for President and her being a lying, deceptive banshee.

[Franzl]

Does anyone know why the Midwest/Northwest likes Obama so much? That's been a real surprise for me in this campaign.

I mean, look at the Clinton favorability ratings in that poll.  29 - 50. Yikes.

It has to do with him being the best choice for President and her being a lying, deceptive banshee.

You can use that as a reason for any candidate winning any primary.

Seriously, why is it that the western states like Obama so much, or rather, why do they hate Hillary?

[War on Want]

Does anyone know why the Midwest/Northwest likes Obama so much? That's been a real surprise for me in this campaign.

I mean, look at the Clinton favorability ratings in that poll.  29 - 50. Yikes.

It has to do with him being the best choice for President and her being a lying, deceptive banshee.

You can use that as a reason for any candidate winning any primary.

Seriously, why is it that the western states like Obama so much, or rather, why do they hate Hillary?

Western states tend to like Obama's message much more than Clinton. They are much more affluent on the whole and I don't think that lots of people connected at all with Clinton's recent message. Also Clinton looks like a lying, scumbag to many Democrats out east, and not to mention Bill Clinton was never really popular out west. Many western states also have lots of latte liberals as well.

[Lief 🗽]

Montana is the fifth poorest state in the nation and is over 90% white. Clearly, Obama has a gigantic working class white problem that will doom him in the general.

[Gustaf]

Montana is the fifth poorest state in the nation and is over 90% white. Clearly, Obama has a gigantic working class white problem that will doom him in the general.

Bringing Montana into single digits will sure go a long way to giving Obama the election. In fact, it may net him as many as...0 electoral votes.

But, hey, losing Michigan and Pennsylvania would only amount to 38 EVs lost (58 if you include Ohio as a lost opportunity) so the white working class problem is to be ignored, plain and simple.

[Flying Dog]

Montana is the fifth poorest state in the nation and is over 90% white. Clearly, Obama has a gigantic working class white problem that will doom him in the general.

Bringing Montana into single digits will sure go a long way to giving Obama the election. In fact, it may net him as many as...0 electoral votes.

But, hey, losing Michigan and Pennsylvania would only amount to 38 EVs lost (58 if you include Ohio as a lost opportunity) so the white working class problem is to be ignored, plain and simple.

Obama is going to win Michigan by a larger margin than Kerry did.

Count on it.
He's strong where it matters. People are paying way to much attention to the fabled Macomb Reagen Democrats while not paying attention to Oakland County which Obama will win handily, easily negating Macomb

[Verily]

Montana is the fifth poorest state in the nation and is over 90% white. Clearly, Obama has a gigantic working class white problem that will doom him in the general.

Bringing Montana into single digits will sure go a long way to giving Obama the election. In fact, it may net him as many as...0 electoral votes.

But, hey, losing Michigan and Pennsylvania would only amount to 38 EVs lost (58 if you include Ohio as a lost opportunity) so the white working class problem is to be ignored, plain and simple.

Michigan is all about the black "working class", not the white "working class". Just FYI

[Stranger in a strange land]

Does anyone know why the Midwest/Northwest likes Obama so much? That's been a real surprise for me in this campaign.

I mean, look at the Clinton favorability ratings in that poll.  29 - 50. Yikes.

It has to do with him being the best choice for President and her being a lying, deceptive banshee.

You can use that as a reason for any candidate winning any primary.

Seriously, why is it that the western states like Obama so much, or rather, why do they hate Hillary?

Western states tend to like Obama's message much more than Clinton. They are much more affluent on the whole and I don't think that lots of people connected at all with Clinton's recent message. Also Clinton looks like a lying, scumbag to many Democrats out east, and not to mention Bill Clinton was never really popular out west. Many western states also have lots of latte liberals as well.

yes, also these states are very white and have little racial tension. Clinton is seen as pro-big government, while Obama isn't.

[Gustaf]

Montana is the fifth poorest state in the nation and is over 90% white. Clearly, Obama has a gigantic working class white problem that will doom him in the general.

Bringing Montana into single digits will sure go a long way to giving Obama the election. In fact, it may net him as many as...0 electoral votes.

But, hey, losing Michigan and Pennsylvania would only amount to 38 EVs lost (58 if you include Ohio as a lost opportunity) so the white working class problem is to be ignored, plain and simple.

Obama is going to win Michigan by a larger margin than Kerry did.

Count on it.
He's strong where it matters. People are paying way to much attention to the fabled Macomb Reagen Democrats while not paying attention to Oakland County which Obama will win handily, easily negating Macomb

Actually, I'm paying attention to the polls that are consistently showing Michigan as extremely close.

Verily: Sure, but I doubt the black working class is the source of Obama's problems in MI.

[Flying Dog]

Montana is the fifth poorest state in the nation and is over 90% white. Clearly, Obama has a gigantic working class white problem that will doom him in the general.

Bringing Montana into single digits will sure go a long way to giving Obama the election. In fact, it may net him as many as...0 electoral votes.

But, hey, losing Michigan and Pennsylvania would only amount to 38 EVs lost (58 if you include Ohio as a lost opportunity) so the white working class problem is to be ignored, plain and simple.

Obama is going to win Michigan by a larger margin than Kerry did.

Count on it.
He's strong where it matters. People are paying way to much attention to the fabled Macomb Reagen Democrats while not paying attention to Oakland County which Obama will win handily, easily negating Macomb

Actually, I'm paying attention to the polls that are consistently showing Michigan as extremely close.

Verily: Sure, but I doubt the black working class is the source of Obama's problems in MI.

That's the cycle in Michigan. Voters toy around with the Republican in the summer, but by September-October they chicken out.

See DeVos-Granholm race.

[The Ex-Factor]

Does anyone know why the Midwest/Northwest likes Obama so much? That's been a real surprise for me in this campaign.

I mean, look at the Clinton favorability ratings in that poll.  29 - 50. Yikes.

It has to do with him being the best choice for President and her being a lying, deceptive banshee.

You can use that as a reason for any candidate winning any primary.

Seriously, why is it that the western states like Obama so much, or rather, why do they hate Hillary?

Western states tend to like Obama's message much more than Clinton. They are much more affluent on the whole and I don't think that lots of people connected at all with Clinton's recent message. Also Clinton looks like a lying, scumbag to many Democrats out east, and not to mention Bill Clinton was never really popular out west. Many western states also have lots of latte liberals as well.

yes, also these states are very white and have little racial tension. Clinton is seen as pro-big government, while Obama isn't.

Which in my opinion is kind of crap, Obama's not any more a libertarian than Clinton is, although he did teach constitutional law.

[Verily]

Montana is the fifth poorest state in the nation and is over 90% white. Clearly, Obama has a gigantic working class white problem that will doom him in the general.

Bringing Montana into single digits will sure go a long way to giving Obama the election. In fact, it may net him as many as...0 electoral votes.

But, hey, losing Michigan and Pennsylvania would only amount to 38 EVs lost (58 if you include Ohio as a lost opportunity) so the white working class problem is to be ignored, plain and simple.

Obama is going to win Michigan by a larger margin than Kerry did.

Count on it.
He's strong where it matters. People are paying way to much attention to the fabled Macomb Reagen Democrats while not paying attention to Oakland County which Obama will win handily, easily negating Macomb

Actually, I'm paying attention to the polls that are consistently showing Michigan as extremely close.

Verily: Sure, but I doubt the black working class is the source of Obama's problems in MI.

Nope, his "problem" are all the people who say they are undecided and then vote Democrat. I'm not 100% certain this is the case, but given the huge undecideds n Michigan polls, and given the fact that this is a tried and true fact in New Jersey, I'm willing to guess that it happens in Michigan, too (probably in all states with an unpopular governing party that nonetheless seems more appealing than the alternative).

[Gustaf]

I don't knowwhy this would be the case in Michigan, really. Look at the 2006 senate race, for instance. Looking at the Atlas database there were 41 polls conducted in the period from mid-January to early November. Stabenow led in everyone of those. There was also no obvious trending in any direction. Take out Strategic Vision and the last batch of polls were spot on. I see that the gubernatorial race was a good case for the theory that Obama will have an easy time, but again:

Gore won it by 6%. Kerry won it by 3%. Is it unreasonable to think that McCain could improve a couple of percent on that? I don't see why Michigan would be safe for Obama. And, in fact, going back to the 2004 presidential, in early June Kerry was getting 47% in 4 polls in a row. No late breaking undecideds there. In fact, only 4 out of 46 polls on the Atlas that year showed Kerry below 45%. So I can't say I'm very convinced.

[Verily]

I don't knowwhy this would be the case in Michigan, really. Look at the 2006 senate race, for instance. Looking at the Atlas database there were 41 polls conducted in the period from mid-January to early November. Stabenow led in everyone of those. There was also no obvious trending in any direction. Take out Strategic Vision and the last batch of polls were spot on. I see that the gubernatorial race was a good case for the theory that Obama will have an easy time, but again:

Gore won it by 6%. Kerry won it by 3%. Is it unreasonable to think that McCain could improve a couple of percent on that? I don't see why Michigan would be safe for Obama. And, in fact, going back to the 2004 presidential, in early June Kerry was getting 47% in 4 polls in a row. No late breaking undecideds there. In fact, only 4 out of 46 polls on the Atlas that year showed Kerry below 45%. So I can't say I'm very convinced.

Eh, June of 2004 is more like August of 2008 than like June of 2008. But you may be right.

[Flying Dog]

I don't knowwhy this would be the case in Michigan, really. Look at the 2006 senate race, for instance. Looking at the Atlas database there were 41 polls conducted in the period from mid-January to early November. Stabenow led in everyone of those. There was also no obvious trending in any direction. Take out Strategic Vision and the last batch of polls were spot on. I see that the gubernatorial race was a good case for the theory that Obama will have an easy time, but again:

I don't think you can use the 2006 senate race as a reasonable comparison. Gore, Kerry or Obama for that matter aren't or weren't incumbents running for reelection against joke candidates.

Gore won it by 6%. Kerry won it by 3%. Is it unreasonable to think that McCain could improve a couple of percent on that? I don't see why Michigan would be safe for Obama.

I don't think anybody is arguing that Michigan is safe for Obama.

 And, in fact, going back to the 2004 presidential, in early June Kerry was getting 47% in 4 polls in a row. No late breaking undecideds there. In fact, only 4 out of 46 polls on the Atlas that year showed Kerry below 45%. So I can't say I'm very convinced.

If Kerry was getting 47%, then it is likely that he was losing independents to Bush in those polls. Since Dems usually will get you about 48% in Michigan. Kerry ended up winning indy's by a 49-47 margin over bush in 04' according to the exits. He was losing indy's in the run-up to the election.

[Erc]

Do Clinton's good results in "Eastern Montana" in this poll mean that Clinton has a shot of winning "Old CD-2" on Tuesday?  Or is the "Eastern Montana" in this poll much smaller than CD-2?

Delegate-wise, remember that this is the breakdown:

Old CD-1: 5
Old CD-2: 5
At-Large: 4
Pledged PLEO: 2

Unless Obama has a shot of breaking 70% in the western half of the state, the only two delegates up for grabs is one associated with Old CD-2 (whoever wins Old CD-2 picks up the fifth delegate), and one for At-Large (if Obama breaks 62.5% statewide, he wins an extra delegate...which doesn't currently look likely according to this poll).