CBS Poll: Obama Surges Ahead Nationally (54-38)

[loveangelc]

(CBS) A new CBS News/New York Times poll finds Barack Obama with a 16-point lead over rival Hillary Clinton among Democratic primary voters nationwide.

Obama, coming off 11 straight primary and caucus victories, had the support of 54 percent of Democratic primary voters nationally. Clinton had 38 percent support.

In a CBS News poll taken three weeks ago, shortly before Super Tuesday, Obama and Clinton were tied at 41 percent. Clinton led by 15 points nationally in January.

The former first lady has lost her advantage among women, according to the poll: The two leading Democrats now have even levels of support among female primary voters.

Men, meanwhile, disproportionately favor Obama. He leads Clinton among male Democratic primary voters 67 percent to 28 percent, and leads among white men 61 percent to 33 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/25/opinion/polls/main3874915.shtml <~~~the rest

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. God DAMN this country hates women

"He leads Clinton among male Democratic primary voters 67 percent to 28 percent"

That is a shocking number... no Republican has ever enjoyed that kind of male gender gap.

And yes, it is a male thing. Women have LOTS of practice voting for men. All female voters have voted for male candidates.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. LOL

That's almost as bad as those heathens out in Hawaii.

:rofl:

[adoraz]

3. lol enough with the "everyone is sexist" BS- you're just angry

I sure hope if Obama loses to McCain we don't hear any "racist" remarks.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

8. Um, if Obama loses to McCain racism will obviously be a factor

It's hard to see any other reason for a charming, likeable man to lose to McCain, who is a walking fossil and quite nasty.

[Occam Bandage]

19. So if Hillary loses to McCain, it's sexism. If Obama, it's racism. What

if it were John Edwards who were to lose? Anti-Lawyerism? Or was John Edwards incapable of losing to John McCain?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

40. You are being silly

If you cannot see the significance of the gender gap in this poll you're not taking a fair look at it. It seems that people prefer to overlook the obvious and take my comment as saying that all Obama supporters are sexist.

My post was not aimed at partisan nit-wits, it was aimed at people who have some idea what those numbers represent, historically.

They are INCREDIBLE. A gap like that cannot be explained in terms of who's a better candidate.

The poll says that candidate support in this primary is as skewed by gender as the viewership of NFL broadcasts!

Either women are blindly supporting Clinton or men are blindly rejecting her... one or the other. Take your pick.

There is ZERO possibility that this gender gap is not driven by gender attitudes. That would be as absurd as saying Obama's gigantic advantage among black voters is based only on his policies.

Since the gap is a factor of gender attitudes, it seems likelier to be driven by antipathy toward women than by slavish female devotion to female candidates because slavish female devotion to female candidates is not supported by history, and people voting against women in general is the defining demographic trait of democratic elections.

QED

So everyone can drop the "maybe he's a better candidate" snark because it has nothing to do with the point. If he is Jesus II the point remains exactly the same. I am talking about politics and sociology.

[Occam Bandage]

42. I have no doubt it is driven in part by gender attitudes. But, at the same time, her campaign

is hardly "blameless" in that gender split. Ever since the Potomacs, her advisors (Wolfson especially) have been very open about the fact that her campaign has been targeting older hispanics, uneducated whites, and white females; if you run a campaign in which you target a few demographics, it is hardly surprising that you will see a demographic split. The same goes for Obama and blacks; he has been exploiting his natural slight advantage with blacks, and Hillary left the demographic uncontested--hence the unheard-of splits.

Clinton has been steadily losing ground among all constituencies; her white-female support from two months ago has slightly increased, while practically everything else has plummeted. Crying "America hates women" is duplicitous--and laughable, given that she was the prohibitive, inevitable frontrunner three months ago.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

47. Neither duplicitous nor laughable

The evidence I was reacting to was not that Obama will win the nomination. That's old news, and doesn't say much about gender attitudes one way or another.

The evidence was a staggering, unprecedented gender gap in a poll that cannot be explained by who campaigns for whose votes.

The poll suggests that Clinton has so utterly collapsed among white men in an historically remarkable way. So whatever it is that people don't like about Clinton lately, it's white men who aren't liking it.

I know Obama supporters are touchy about this, but I am not branding anyone here. DUers are uncommonly politically involved and do not make decisions in the way everyday people do. (Compare Edwards supporters on DU to Edwards voters in the primaries.) National polls are composed of a lot of people with very reactive, shallow political attitudes.

Again, if one wants to turn it around and say women just support Hillary beyond reason, that's fine. It is kind of weird, given everything we know of human nature, but it at least would explain the phenomenon in question.

The fact that she once led does not undermine my statement. Obama has had some whopping leads over McCain in polling back when it was kind of a fantasy question. Today he does not lead McCain nationally by large margins, or even at all.

Let's say you and I looked at an Obama poll a few months ago that showed him crushing McCain, and I said, "wait until October... when push comes to shove this country is too racist to elect a black man." And then October came and Obama collapsed, with his collapse all came among white people, and he lost to McCain. And I said, "see... racism." You could point to old polls showing Obama way up, and offer them as evidence that racism wasn't the reason all the white folks jumped the Obama ship, but you and I would both know that was not really very compelling evidence.

(I remember when Dukakis was way up in the polls in early 1988 and I said to friends, "This country isn't going to elect a short liberal Democrat with an ethnic name this year." And I was right. Built in antipathy for Dukakis was the reason people jumped on trivia like the tank or the rape question... people were looking for an excuse to dump him.

I submit that a lot of men have been predisposed to dump Hillary, but there was nowhere to jump to because she was the only candidate on the news.

When a viable male candidate became available, they started jumping in much greater numbers than women. Women (in broad, general terms only) were truly satisfied with the female candidate. Men were not... they were grudging supporters.

Similarly, a number of white people who kind of support Obama today will be more susceptible, due to racial attitudes, to arguments to jump from Obama to McCain. The fact that Obama CAN win doesn't mean America isn't racist... it means that America is not doctrinaire white supremacist.

There's a lot on DU about racism or sexism as if the baseline is the Klan. But it's a phenomenon of tendencies.

And as to the broader truth of the statement that seems to have people exercised, that this country really hates women... outside the context of this primary election, would anyone care to argue the point?

Saying "This country just hates women" was not a controversial statement on DU a year ago, and will not be a year from now. So the dudgeon is of momentary convenience.

In point of fact, American culture is quite hostile toward women. Who would even care to dispute it?

This fad of people (not you) saying the opposite of what they have believed their whole lives in the throes of primary frenzy is upsetting to me.

[boppers]

51. An honest cultural reflection from a white male:

An authority figure screaming at us, waving papers at us, and demanding an apology from us is a major turn off.

Women are more used to taking this kind of abuse, and thus consider it more acceptable.

Minorities are more used to taking this kind of abuse, and thus consider it acceptable.

White males, and especially privileged white males, would find it utterly shocking and unacceptable.

I agree that sexism is in play here, but I also humbly submit that racism is part of Hillary's recent loss in numbers, too.

The kind of mocking, screaming, and otherwise questionable behavior that Hillary has been practicing lately is something that our less-privileged classes still consider acceptable, if for no other reason than having been treated that way all of their lives.

[woolldog]

55. So Kurt

did white men suddenly become sexist over the last couple of months? Because it's not like Clinton was never winning the white male vote. She had the white male vote and then lost it.

So I doubt it's sexism. She's obviously done something to turn them off.

[DLnyc]

49. Despite your logical-sounding statements, what you have said is almost

entirely opinion, not fact. I don't favor Hillary and it really wouldn't matter what sex, race, religion or anything else was involved and that is pretty much exclusively what I hear from others. In fact, I've NEVER heard anyone say that they oppose HRC because of her being a woman. On the other hand, I've heard quite a few people say they support Hillary because she is a woman.

So, in all humility, I would like to suggest to you that your idea of Hillary's numbers being bad because of an 'anti-woman' thing might be wrong. It could be they are just better than they would be because of an enthusiasm, among women, to elect a first woman president.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

50. I concede that possibility

I have reasons I find persuasive to come down on the other side, but neither explanation is impossible.

The only thing that's impossible is for such an amazing (and seemingly growing) gender gap to not be largely a product of gender attitudes one way or another.

One can say Obama's strong black support is racial pride, or because black voters hate white people. Since black voters lined up around the block to vote for Hillary's husband twice, I find that powerful evidence that Obama's black support is due to positive racial pride, not negative animosity toward her.

So that analysis would match up with the idea that women are supporting Hillary beyond reason, and men are making more considered or neutral decisions.

Hillary is the first "serious" female presidential candidate, so it's a new situation. But we have a lot of history, and there is nothing on the female side to match the well established tendency of black voters to favor black candidates when available, hispanic voters to favor hispanic candidates, etc. (Catholics favored JFK)

Women have been the majority of the electorate since getting the vote, and have never shown an inclination to vote as a bloc and have not elected many women.

Ethnic groups, on the other hand, almost always elect members of the group wherever they enjoy a majority.

That's why I think female pride is a dubious explanation. It's possible, but where has it been all these other years? Women are a majority in every state, but we have 8 female governors (a record, I think) and 10-20 female senators... so we are talking about a majority that only manages to fill about 15% of statewide offices.

One very simple explanation of that would be if men were somewhat more inclined to vote against women than woman are inclined to vote for women. That dynamic would result in few females elected despite being a majority.

But your explanation is also arguable and worthwhile, as long as one concedes an explanation is needed.

[DLnyc]

56. All true. But in my experience, talking to people, listening to people,

Hillary has really succeeded in being taken seriously as a candidate who is a woman, not as a woman who is a candidate. I really don't hear people referring to her gender as a problem. Many people (including me) resent her Iraq war vote, her failure to support filibuster, many many items. We have all long ago gotten over (or, more likely, never cared) about her gender.

On the other hand, I have heard several (women) friends say they are/were inclined to vote for her because they feel it will help empower women and/or they empathize with her struggle as a woman.

I certainly agree that this is still a male-dominated society and there are various kinds and levels of overt and covert, conscious and unconscious animosity and defensiveness toward women in general and particularly women in power. I just don't see these things really playing a role in Hillary's case among people I know and have talked to. In fact, I think it is a rather impressive thing that Hillary has made such a powerful case for herself that most people have come to think of her as one of the candidates, not so much as the 'woman' candidate.

However, if she withdraws I have no doubt the media will try to say a woman can't be a serious candidate. That, to me, is a lie and shows that the media likes to keep women down, not that the American people do. She's a VERY serious candidate. Not every serious candidate wins, though.

[adoraz]

20. well you also have to remember

for hillary, she gets extra support from all the women who vote for her because shes a woman, and yes she gets some taken away from some male supporters because she is a woman. Overall, I think it cancels out. the majority of the party is female anyways.

for barack, he gets an overwhelming amount from the black community, with a lot of it being because he is black. some won't vote for him due to racism, but I think that will cancel out as well.

[GodlessBiker]

4. Yes. That's it. That must be it. What else could it be?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Childish naysaying aside, it's a staggering gap, and worthy of comment

[GodlessBiker]

14. I don't know what "This country hates women" means. Do you hate women?

I don't. My mother is a woman. My sister-in-law is a woman. I love women. I support Obama.

[Occam Bandage]

She was, for most of this race, leading Obama, sometimes by 25 points. Is America's woman-hatred

a new phenomenon?

[apocalypsehow]

21. Worthy of any number of comments - just not yours.

n/t

[scheming daemons]

5. No.... this country hates THIS PARTICULAR WOMAN....

....

There are lots of women who would make fine Presidents who men of America wouldn't hate so much.


Hating Hillary Clinton is not the same as Hating Women.

[billyoc]

37. and all her friends in the DLC. nt

[NJSecularist]

6. ROFLMAO!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Hillary's latest attacks don't jive well with men.

[Kahuna]

32. Of course not. She's a "scold." You think men want to hear THAT

for the next four years? :scared:

[Arkana]

7. W...what?

Did you ever stop to consider that maybe, JUST MAYBE, more people might prefer Obama?

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Ignore must've said something really juicy.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Having trouble with English?

Did you even read the post?

I was referring to the gender breakdown in the poll, which speaks for itself.

Of course more people like Obama. That's beyond dispute.

But if everyone has such good reason to love Obama then man and women should love him equally. The gender gap in the poll cited is staggering and well worth noting.

[Occam Bandage]

16. No, just Hillary.

[NJmaverick]

29. Please show some class and restaint

Many people worked hard to support Hillary. Many gave her their hard earned money. All fought hard for her. It's got to be very difficult to accept that it may end up for naught. Remember the pain when Gore and Kerry lost. How would you have felt of there were Republicans gloating and making fun of you and your candidate?

[ContinentalOp]

30. Nah,

We just hate white people. :P

[RBInMaine]

33. Are you serious? Take a breath and step of the gender card.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

41. Just because you cannot seem to understand the post doesn't mean it's erroneous.

[yardwork]

43. It is very interesting. I see your point.

You're pointing out that, no matter how unpopular Hillary Clinton might be, the fact that she is much moreunpopular among men is significant.

I'm not sure that it means that the country hates women. It does seem to indicate that Democratic men are not ready to support a woman.

[anonymous171]

54. No, they don't.

Perhaps the women are voting FOR her because they want a women president and therefore hate men (by your logic.) WHOAH!

[Laelth]

58. I'd argue that you're right, mostly.

It's not that men hate women, per se, it's that so many fear women. In fact, I think that the main reason people keep voting for Repukes over and over is their fear of women. That fear is present in the Democratic Party too, just less so.

imho ...

-Laelth

[Drunken Irishman]

9. America doesn't count.

[Arkana]

12. Clearly. It's full of "activists" and "crossover voters"!

[The River]

15. The Handwriting Is On The Wall

but we'll have to wait till March 4th until
it's legible to everyone.
At that point I expect Clinton to do the
correct thing and "suspend" her campaign.
If she doesn't, I hope her friends and
supporters can persuade her.

That said, I'm an Edwards supporter.
When he suspended his campaign I was very disappointed.
I was more than disappointed, I was pissed. I didn't care for
Obama or Hillary, but in a few days they both a looked 10000% better
than any of the Republican choices.
I looked at their web sites, listen to the debates and
I made my new choice. I'm guessing it was the same for
DK supporters and Biden fans too.
Hell, most of us wanted Gore at one time.

Sorry to say, Shit happens, we adjust.
Hillary will not be the nominee and
you, and you and even you will get over it in time.
You'll vote or not and the world will go on.

[BuyingThyme]

17. That probably doesn't bode well for Hillary.

As boding goes.

[TexasObserver]

18. "The former first lady has lost her advantage among women"

[Thrill]

22. LOL They begged for the debate

I guess we see who America thinks won it

[NJmaverick]

23. Please show some class and restraint

Obama is doing well. That's good news. What is the point in trying to rub it in the noses of the Hillary supporters. That shows a lack of class and a lack of empathy. Imagine if the tables were turned. Would you want the Hillary supporters doing this to you?

[BuyingThyme]

25. But it's fun.

[NJmaverick]

26. Is it fun to make fellow Democrats suffer?

Freepers have fun hurting/upsetting others. Are we not better than they are?

[BuyingThyme]

27. No, just fun like checkers.

[NJmaverick]

28. I am an avid football fan

There are fans that visit the board of opposing teams. Of those, there are two types. The ones that conduct themselves with class and honor and the trolls. The good ones engage in respectful discussion and debate. After the game if their team one they don't rub it in on the loser's board. They say good game and with them well. Those are the good ones. They are great fans and great human beings. When they lose, they congratulate the winners and stay classy. They have the strength of character to take it during the bad times and be gracious during the good. They are very much like Democrats.

The other types are the trolls (or more crudely the a-holes). They talk a lot of trash. Then if they win, they go over to the other teams board to gloat and abuse the fans, who already feel bad. I can tell you these low life individuals also dissappear when they lose. They are not big enough to take the treatment they dish out. They are very much like Republicans.

[BuyingThyme]

31. I don't play like that.

But once my cat came along and smacked all the checkers around. I think he felt left out. It was pretty ugly.

[NJmaverick]

34. It appears you are "playing like that"

Right now. I suggest you think back to how you felt when Kerry lost (if you are old enough). It hurt pretty badly and the last thing you needed was some a-hole republican making fun of you and your candidate, after the defeat.

[BuyingThyme]

36. I didn't even know Hillary lost.

And I had not been particularly against her until today.

[ArfDogMNO]

46. Actually, both forums are remarkably similar in that regard.

Some posters there call for civility and sanity as well amongst the sea of trash-talk and insults also.

[knixphan]

24. I adore women.

If the choice was between Obama and Barbara Boxer, I'd actually be flipping a coin at the polls... A win-win, in my book.

But Hill isn't Barbara. I support Barack.

[loveangelc]

38. :)

[LadyVT]

35. Results of a dozen polls from pollster.com

Pollster Dates N/Pop Clinton - - Obama Undecided
Fox 2/19-20/08 391 RV 44 - - 44 8
Gallup 2/18-20/08 1218 LV 45 - - 44 9
Gallup 2/15-17/08 1201 LV 42 - - 49 7
Diageo/Hotline [phone] LV 45 - - 43 8
Zogby 2/13-16/08 494 LV 38 - - 52 8
Gallup 2/12-14/08 1217 LV 45 - - 47 6
ARG 2/9-13/08 600 LV 45 - - 47 8
Gallup 2/9-11/08 1262 LV 45 - - 44 9
AP-Ipsos 2/7-10/08 520 A 46 - - 41 5
USA Today/Gallup 2/8-9/08 A 44 - - 47 -
Gallup 2/6-8/08 1226 LV 48 - - 43 7

ALL of these are within the margin of error, meaning they are too close to call. CBS' poll is a statistical anomaly. Unless it gets replicated a few times by other sources, it's not worth anything. These things really can vary widely. Asking 1200 people (or not even 400 people) nationwide to speak for 300 million means the results are not golden, no matter how good the methodology.

[loveangelc]

45. the new gallup poll has him up double digits...

[dailykoff]

39. It looks like the Clinton strategy worked...

for Obama.

[FarCenter]

44. Current statewide officeholders who are women

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Facts/Officeholders/stwide-current.html lists the current state-wide officeholders.

5 out of the 8 women governors are Democrats, so apparently Democrats will vote for women candidates.

[WillyT]

48. Woo Hoo !!! - K & R !!!

:bounce::woohoo::bounce:

[CreekDog]

52. This poll is skewed by many states that do not count

:eyes:

[apocalypsehow]

53. LOL!

:thumbsup:

:rofl:

[DesEtoiles]

57. Time for Hillary's theme song; the "loser" song from Price is right >>>

wuh wuh wuh wuhhhhhhhh