Final SurveyUSA Poll Released
SurveyUSA has released its final poll of Oregon voters in the primary election, conducted for KATU. The poll has results for the Presidential and US Senate democratic primaries, both primaries in Oregon's CD5, and the Portland Mayoral election. For President, Obama has a wide lead over Clinton:
An exclusive new KATU poll shows Sen. Barack Obama building his lead over Sen. Hillary Clinton in Oregon's 2008 primary.The poll, conducted by SurveyUSA exclusively for KATU News, showed Obama leading Clinton by 9 points among the 77 percent of likely voters who have already returned a ballot.
When taking into consideration all likely voters, including those who say they plan to return their ballot before the 8 p.m. deadline on Tuesday, Obama defeats Clinton 55 percent to 42 percent. That's a two-point increase for Obama since last week's poll.
The margin of error is 4 percent.
For US Senate, the poll shows Novick with 37% and Merkley with 34%, though Novick's lead is within the margin of error. 17% remain undecided.
In the OR-5 democratic primary, Kurt Schrader has a wide lead over Steve Marks. Schrader polls at 43%, Marks at 19%. On the Republican side, Kevin Mannix has a slight lead over Mike Erickson, 46% to 42% respectively, within the margin of error.
The poll also has Sam Adams on the cusp of winning the election for Portland Mayor outright with 49%, while Sho Dozono trails with 36%.
|
May 19, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
May 19, '08
Would love to know if this is the same poll that called us twice in the space of maybe 36 hours or a bit more.
Likely voter filter was "if you don't intend to vote, please hang up now".
"This is a poll about the presidential election" except it also had the other major races: Senate, AG, etc.
If the primary were held today..."press 1 for this candidate, 2 for this candidate" etc. and "press 1 if you are a woman" and other demographic information. Last was "if you have already returned your ballot, press 1 now".
I gave the same answers both times.
8:17 p.m.
May 19, '08
last SUSA neither candidate showed movement outside the margin. Merkley still hasn't, although over two polls he's up 6. But since last week Novick is up 10. That's significant.
He appears to be trending with Obam in this poll as well. That's pretty good new ffor Steve,
May 19, '08
It's interesting that in the US Senate race (and presidential) SUSA is saying that likely voters are only about 41% of the total sample. That seems very low to me. Yet in the SUSA Mayoral race, likely voters make up over 72% of the sample. I'm not sure what that tells us, but it's odd.
The PPP poll said that their entire sample was made up of likely voters, which I also find hard to believe.
May 19, '08
Sorry, I now see that of course they're only counting the responses of those who are deemed likely to vote.
Still, I'm curious why the initial count in the Mayoral race would be so much higher than in the statewide? Is the initial sample made up of Dems and Republicans, and they have to discount all the Rs? Whereas the Mayoral race is nonpartisan?
May 19, '08
The only reason that Novick is winning in this poll is due to the fact that the poll is portland based mostly. Portland only voters make up 61% of the poll while non portland voters prefer Merkley 41 to 26%.
May 19, '08
"Portland only voters make up 61% of the poll while non portland voters prefer Merkley 41 to 26%."
Nice theory not borne out by facts. As Kari notes in his post above Portland makes up 69% of the electorate.
May 19, '08
No matter how much of the electorate live and vote in Portland, when was the last time someone won statewide by winning Multnomah County but very little else?
If Steve wins Mult. County, is it all over for Merkley because the votes of those of us in the state don't matter?
"Portland makes up 69% of the electorate"
Yes, and has been discussed here, some in Portland act as if they are the only voters who matter, so we should all see politics through their eyes, not look at politics as it relates to where we live. Is that really the way to win statewide?
May 19, '08
LT,
Not sure if your testy tone is in response to what I wrote or not or why you hold it. I certainly didn't intend it- simply to point out a fact. In response to you:
"No matter how much of the electorate live and vote in Portland, when was the last time someone won statewide by winning Multnomah County but very little else?"
Don't know. On the other hand when was the last time someone won statewide without winning Mult County? (I'm certain there are examples).
"If Steve wins Mult. County, is it all over for Merkley because the votes of those of us in the state don't matter?"
Have a cup of warm milk. Who said this? Who contends that votes in every part of the state don't matter? Seems to me both campaigned state wide. On the other hand, It MIGHT be over for him in this race because he will have lost. Period. On the other hand, he may pull it off. It will be interesting to watch.
"discussed here, some in Portland act as if they are the only voters who matter, so we should all see politics through their eyes, not look at politics as it relates to where we live. Is that really the way to win statewide."
I am sure that there are all kinds of pure and pious ways to win that might pass your test. A win, however, is a win. Would it be great for whomever wins to have a statewide mandate? Obviously. That's not always the way it works out. My guess is that whether Novick or Merkley wins on Tues they will be celebrating- and then turning their attention to Smith. As should all of us.
10:08 p.m.
May 19, '08
LT, Portland means "Portland area"--ie, Multno, Clack and Wash.
So let's ask the question again: how many times has someone won the big three and little else, and won the race?
Answer: Almost always, I'd say. Kulongoski swept them and that was all she wrote. They called it when they realized Saxton had lost Clackamas, in fact.
10:19 p.m.
May 19, '08
TJ, you're confusing a primary with a general election. In a general election, a Republican can't win statewide without winning in Clackamas County.
It's probably not possible to win while losing all three counties - but it's certainly possible to win a Democratic primary while losing narrowly in Multnomah. It's all about the margins. (And note that so far, turnout in Multnomah is below average - while turnout in the rest of the state is above average.)
May 19, '08
"Have a cup of warm milk. Who said this? Who contends that votes in every part of the state don't matter? "
is not really about Novick and his opponents, so much as it is a debate carried on here and elsewhere for years.
Ever since the party office moved to Portland, those of us who don't live in the METRO area sometimes feel like poor stepchildren.
I have no clue who will win US Senate.
May 19, '08
Plus, TJ, in your analysis you forget that Kulongoski also took Hood River, Marion, Wasco, Clatsop, Tillamook, Columbia, Lincoln, Benton and Lane Counties.
What's more, just because Novick's ahead in 'Portland Metro' doesn't necessarily mean he's ahead in Washington and Clackamas Counties.
Conversely, Novick could be ahead in some of the non-Portland Metro counties.
So it's not a zero-sum game with winning the three big counties. If Merkley can hold Novick to a modest margin in this region, he should do fine.
11:19 p.m.
May 19, '08
"it's certainly possible to win a Democratic primary while losing narrowly in Multnomah. It's all about the margins."
Right--but we're not talking about Multnomah, we're talking about all three. And it's not so much the sheer vote volume as it is the breadth of voters in the three counties. There are wide swaths of both counties that remind no one of the Pearl or Southeast. If you can carry the voters in all three counties, your appeal should generally be high enough in other parts of the state to allow PDX to make your nut. You may not win the rest of the state, but you will likely perform well enough in the smaller cities and towns to hold the advantage overall.
I didn't forget that Kulongoski took those other counties; they were functionally irrelevant to calling the victory. It was not known which counties Ted would win exactly when the race was called; watching the results of the big three, when Clackamas went down they knew he'd perform well enough elsewhere to counteract the most deeply red regions.
It's of course correct that you can carry "Portland" while winning Multno and losing the other two, but that's more of a math probability question than one of political reality. If you're not winning the two suburban counties, your margin in Multno stands a good chance of not being high enough to counteract it, either. And if you've got a good enough cushion in Multno to withstand losing the other two, chances are you're not actually losing there either. Typically a more liberal candidate gets Washco but fails to get Clackamas.
With all three counties now D-dominant, hard to say what the dynamic is currently. But if turnout does reach the record it looks headed for, the odds are that's not good for Merkley.
May 20, '08
16.5+ million people deserve a voice in the General election.
Keep Running, Hillary. Even if you have to go Independent.
http://DontStopHillary.com
7:07 a.m.
May 20, '08
Really? That's more important than beating McCain?
Suuuuuure.
May 20, '08
There is a new PPP poll out that has Obama up by 19 pts. That's in line with the Hibbitts poll this past week that has him at 20 pts.
Don't Stop Hillary- A spammer.
May 20, '08
Not a spammer- just trying to spread the good word. :)
http://www.dontstophillary.com
8:00 a.m.
May 20, '08
DSH -- You're violating our #1 rule around here: Don't Be Boring.
Keep up the spam, and we'll turn off your access. Thanks.
8:02 a.m.
May 20, '08
BTW, DSH, you do understand that the entire premise of your site is flawed, right? Hillary can't run as an independent. Almost every state in the country has "sore loser" law, which says that if you lose the primary, you can't run in the general as an independent. (Except Connecticut, rather famously.)
8:12 a.m.
May 20, '08
She could run on the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party line... really bring it into prominence.
Sorry, I'm bad.
May 20, '08
"Hillary can't run as an independent. Almost every state in the country has "sore loser" law, which says that if you lose the primary, you can't run in the general as an independent."
The way she runs her life, and being so uptight as she is, I would not be suprised if she challenged that issue in the courts. All uptight people do that, eventually.
May 20, '08
Eric, Not sure if you saw but Kari just pointed out the #1 rule, "don't be boring." You're making me yawn.
May 20, '08
Without trying to violate "Don't be boring"- consider that many people think that the "Sore Loser" laws are unconstitutional, and are in place to keep the people in power. . . well, in power.
Thanks for your time.
May 20, '08
They are only unconstitutional because you are so bored with your life that you have to do something with the idle time on your hands. Only extremely bored people think up garbage on why any amd all laws are unconstitutional.
Don't you have anything better and more constructive to do?
12:16 p.m.
May 20, '08
In a state-wide race, a candidate needs a massive blow-out in Portland metro to offset results elsewhere if they are 10% or more deficit in the rest of the state.
12:57 p.m.
May 20, '08
"In a state-wide race, a candidate needs a massive blow-out in Portland metro to offset results elsewhere if they are 10% or more deficit in the rest of the state."
Apparently, "massive" means a 10-point edge. If you believe SUSA, he's behind 15 points in the "rest of the state", ahead by 10 in PDX...and would win that race.
So explain how your math pencils out again?
6:48 p.m.
May 20, '08
DSH, a hypothetical.
For the sake of argument, let's say Hillary wins the nomination.
Will the 16.7 (or .whatever) Obama voters then have no voice? Should they encourage / want him to run as an independent?
What is the difference in the two cases? Are you claiming that somehow Hillary would speak for Obama voters in a way that Obama wouldn't speak for Clinton voters?
Or is it just possible that in either case, at the end of the day, most of the voters for either will find that the other speaks more for them than does John McCain?