AJC Georgia poll: Obama-36, Clinton-33, Edwards-14

[BeyondGeography]

Huck has a double-digit lead over McCain on the other side.

AJC poll: Obama, Clinton neck and neck in Georgia

By AARON GOULD SHEININ
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 01/11/08

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a tight race for the Feb. 5 Georgia Democratic primary, while Republican Mike Huckabee has opened up a major lead in the GOP race, an exclusive poll for the AJC found.

The survey found Obama leading Clinton, 36 percent to 33 percent, with John Edwards trailing with 14 percent.

Among Republicans, Huckabee enjoys a 31 percent to 18 percent lead over John McCain, with Mitt Romney a close third with 14 percent. Rudy Giuliani is fourth with 9 percent and Fred Thompson fifth with 8 percent.

The survey was taken before and after Tuesday's New Hampshire primaries, which were won by Clinton and McCain. The poll also follows last week's Iowa caucuses, where Obama lead all Democrats and Huckabee won among Republicans.

The poll was conducted for the AJC by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research of Washington. The firm surveyed 400 likely Democratic primary voters and 400 likely Republican primary voters from Jan. 7-10. The results for each party have a margin of error of 5 percentage points.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/01/11/prespoll_0112.html

[HeraldSquare212]

1. Cool! nt

[skipos]

26. We have come a long way from the days of Clinton leading every poll everywhere

Thank God.

[Big Blue Marble]

2. If he wins SC, these numbers will change in his favor. n/t

[jackson_dem]

3. If Obama loses Georgia on Super Tuesday

Don't expect him to win many other states. The Clinton campaign must be ecstatic about this poll.

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Nice spin, but not quite....Hillary has enjoyed a firm lead here until this poll.

[jackson_dem]

7. Obama's black support increased after Iowa

Which is why the Clinton campaign must be happy that she is still within the margin of error in Georgia. If Hillary beats her even in Georgia expect a Clinton landslide on Super Tuesday.

[Joe the Revelator]

9. I don't think you quite grasp the political atmosphere of Southern states

The fact that Obama can hold a lead, after trailing her for over a year, is very good news for his campaign.

[jackson_dem]

11. Not when you realize there are two dozen states voting on Super Tuesday

If Obama is only three points ahead in Georgia that is not a good sign for what he will do in the Super Tuesday states without a large black population.

[Joe the Revelator]

16. So far he's competitive or leading everywhere aside from NY

The fact that he can play in south, a place that most people wrote him off in, is great news for his Campaign.

[jackson_dem]

24. There haven't been any recent polls on the Super Tuesday states

This and one from New York are the only ones I know of. It does not bode well for Obama. If he is only leading by three in Georgia it is unlikely he is ahead in California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and other places.



Where is Obama going to win besides Illinois if he is going to have to hold on to dear life to win Georgia, a big state Hillary will definitely fight for?

Things can change if Obama wins South Carolina and they will definitely change if he wins both Nevada and South Carolina. All this poll means is things are not looking great for him as of today.

[sandnsea]

21. Many are midwestern states, they hate Hil

Hate hate hate her. He's had ground operations in most of those states for months. Take another look.

[jackson_dem]

28. Only four midwestern states vote on Super Tuesday and one is Illinois

In Missouri he is locked in a tie with Edwards for second and Hillary leads by double digits. There hasn't been a poll in Minnesota and it is a caucus so maybe Obama can win there. The remaining state is North Dakota and no polling has been done there either. In theory he should have a good chance there and in Minnesota because he is from the midwest. The problem for Obama is most of the Super Tuesday states are western or northeastern states. If he can't hold the South he may be swamped by Hillary everywhere else. Alabama has a large African-American population like Georgia so it is important that he win both. He will probably lose Tennessee where he is running third.

For all the talk of Edwards being done the most likely scenario is Edwards and Obama will both win only a couple of states on Super Tuesday. Hillary will dominate it but thankfully we have a proportional system so the race will not be over even if she does win 16 or 17 states.

[sandnsea]

30. OK, KS, ND, UT, CO, MO, MN

I'm looking at these states, not all midwest, but not inclined to embrace Hillary. Missouri is not electing Hillary, forget it. I'm betting McCaskill is the female senator endorsing Obama. He also has Conrad and Johnson. The media can say this doesn't matter all they want, it does.

AK, AZ, CO, ID, KS, MN, MO, NM, ND, OK, UT,

Then there's these states

AL, GA, IL, MA, TN

And then CA, which has an open primary.

Then NY, CT, NJ, DE, which will probably go Hillary and I think AR votes Feb 5 too.

I may be missing some.

Obama has a very good chance to do very well Feb 5.

[jackson_dem]

32. Edwards is a problem for him in some of the states he is close to Hillary

I missed Kansas. Three is a three-way battle in Kansas. Obama could win there but it is a small state that is likely to be targeted by Edwards. Would Obama invest a lot into Kansas when he is playing for California and New York?

Hillary may lose Missouri but Edwards is as likely as Obama to win there. Obama may win it or he may come in third.

AK - no polling.

AZ - Obama once caught up to Hillary here (4-5 points) but then faded badly. Unless he got a big post-Iowa bounce, or gets one from SC and Nevada, I would put this in the safe for Hillary column.

CO - It is like Kansas. Obama could win but there is a three-way battle. CO is more important than Kansas so I would rate Obama's chances of winning it as higher than Kansas simply because Edwards is less likely to win Colorado if Obama or Hillary invest heavily in it because of his financial disadvantage. They won't invest in Kansas.

ID - Obama had a slim lead in a July poll here. Considering that Obama is doing much better nationally now than at that time and since there is no reason to believe this hasn't held true in Idaho as well I would put Idaho in the safe for Obama column.

NM - Exactly like Kansas now that Richardson is out. Obama has a shot to win but he also has a good chance of finishing third.

OK - Oklahoma is a two-way battle between Edwards and Hillary. This is Edwards' best chance to win on Super Tuesday so he will be targeting it like Clark did on Mini Tuesday. Given its relative lack of importance I think the other campaigns will cede it to Edwards and spend their resources on the big states. Put this in the Edwards column.

UT - No new poll since last February. That one had Obama 13 behind Hillary but Vilsack was a strong third. If Obama won most of Vilsack's supporters he may win it. His national surge probably also happened in Utah. I would say this leans to Hillary but Obama has a good chance of winning Utah.

AL - Obama caught Hillary but faded in the most recent polls (November). Given his surge among black voters after Iowa he should be competitive here. This is not a must win but it represents one of his best chances of winning on Super Tuesday. This is why the Georgia poll should be worrying for the Obama campaign. He has always been much stronger in Georgia than in Alabama and he has a small lead in Georgia. That means he is likely still trailing in Alabama.

IL - A lock for Obama.

MA - There is no polling from MA since April but the two polls there had Obama and Edwards essentially tied and about 11-13 points behind Hillary. Obama may have a shot because of Kerry and Patrick. I would still say Hillary will probably win it.

TN - Hillary was up by 15 there and Obama was tied with Edwards. The black population in TN is smaller than it is in Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama so I expect Obama to finish third here behind Hillary (winner) and Edwards.

NY, NJ, AR are locks for Hillary and she will probably win CT and DE too.

California is the biggest prize. Both campaigns will pour resources into California. If Obama wins California (along with obviously Illinois), even if he wins only one or two other states I think Super Tuesday will be considered a success for him. Hillary has a significant lead there and with Obama not doing well among Hispanics I would put this as strongly leaning toward Hillary. You can expect the Obama campaign to put everything it has into California, though, and that may result in a win. Even if he loses getting 30% of California's delegates is much better than 20%. It is a better investment to get that extra 10% in California than to try to win a given small state or two.

Obama will win delegates in all of these states which is important, unless he loses a rare winner-take-all state.

I did not go through all the states to be a dick. I did it to assess Super Tuesday out of curiosity. As of right now I would predict Hillary winning most states, Obama a handful, and Edwards two or three. The big question for Obama is where those wins will come.
Expectations are going to be a big factor. What is doing well for Obama? If that means winning 4-5 states he is very likely to do that. If it means he will split the states evenly with Hillary I think that is unlikely. If Obama can win California, Georgia, Massachussetts, Illinois, and a couple small states it will be a great night for him.

[sandnsea]

33. Edwards could put a chink in it

But the thing is, I think Edwards will throw his delegates to Obama at the convention or towards it. If it goes the other way, that's okay with me too.

With Napolitano's endorsement, big shift to Obama. Don't underestimate the ground team. That will also influence the region. Same with Johnson and Conrad in the plains, midwest.

MA is Obama.

The rest of it I see more or less the way you do. I think Obama's national grassroots organizers, who have connections to the UFW and AFSCME, will play a bigger part than a lot of people think. I remember a DUer did a straw poll in Salinas, big numbers for Obama. That was quite interesting to me.

Obama has 32 offices in 17 states, including Alaska. Has had for a while. Those millions didn't all go into Iowa, that was a big fallacy.

[jackson_dem]

34. He does have a great organizaton and agreed on Edwards and the convention

[jefferson_dem]

17. I agree with you - GA is a state Obama must win to be competitive.

Sweet moniker, jackson.

Imitation is...you know.

[Joe the Revelator]

4. And this doesn't take in effect Shirley Jackson's endorsement

She's very well liked in Atlanta.

[William769]

6. Thats it?

[Joe the Revelator]

8. Where's "your gal's" bump after NH?

I can't find one ANYWHERE.

[William769]

10. It's gone to NV before moving on to SC. NT

ON EDIT: Love that bounce from Iowa to NH! :rofl:

[jefferson_dem]

12. Great News!

GA for Obama! Shirly's endorsement should help.

Michelle is stopping by the ATL this weekend, by the way.


https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/atlanta0113?source=20080109_moatl

[antiimperialist]

13. Great news, just like the pre-NH polls, right?

Hillary must be so sad that Obama's lead in Georgia is even smaller than the lead pollster assigned to him in NH, where he lost.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Your snark is cute, in a playground sort of way.

NH was an anomaly on the Dem side. It remains to be seen if the same unreliability of polls plays out in other states.

However...

To say that a positive polling trend for Obama is meaningless, as you have done here, is ... stupid.

[antiimperialist]

19. I don't get it. We don't know anything yet, but it's stupid to be skeptical?

I think Obama's supporters are puzzled and confused, and they wish to trust polls, but they are tormented by their unreliability.

[antiimperialist]

22. And it was just an anomaly when McCain and Bush were "deadlocked" in NH in 2000

right?

Even the National Council on Polls has expressed their dismay over how terrible pre-primary polls have been, historically.

[jefferson_dem]

29. The Dem side was an anomoly for this season..so far.

Look at the Repug side in NH. The final result mirrored almost perfectly the polling predictions. We saw the same reliability in IA on the Dem side, even though it was a caucus. NH was fucked up bad.

[Joe the Revelator]

15. Is this going to be the new angle every bad poll for Hillary is going to be met with?

Her numbers should at the very least be trending toward a bump after NH. Instead, every poll since then has shown her losing ground or staying stagnant. If I was her I'd be real concerned about that, because it would appear that her numbers have maxed out.

[antiimperialist]

18. Why ignore how terrible polls were in NH?

Welcome to the real world.

[jefferson_dem]

20. I've been thinking about the NH polling screw-up.

I wonder if it's that voters are ashamed to tell pollsters they actually support Hillary, which deflates her numbers. On election day, in the privacy of the voting booth, they exercise the guilty pleasure of pulling her lever. I hope that's not the case. SC will be a proving ground.

[antiimperialist]

23. Your theory would be valid if it had been true in Iowa. It wasn't.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

25. Iowa was a caucus not a primary

During Caucuses people can see who you are voting for, while in primaries you can "excercise your guilty pleasure" by voting for Hillary Clinton secretly.

[Nimrod2005]

27. Way to go Senator Obama!

[Occam Bandage]

31. Super Tuesday is looking better and better.