SurveyUSA Virginia General Election
- Barack Obama 49% (49%)
- John McCain 47% (42%)
Survey of 630 likely voters was conducted June 20-22. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted May 16-18 are in parentheses.
Looks like SurveyUSA is following in the footsteps of Newsweek and the LA Times:
So, how on Earth is Obama leading in this survey?
In the 2004 presidential election, the breakdown by party was: 39% Republican; 35% Democrat; 26% Independent.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Why do all these VP polls only mention Jindal, Bloomberg and Fiorina? How about polling of candidates that actually have a shot at being chosen to run?
June 29th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I’m surprised Kaine and Webb didn’t do any better.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I’m still trying to figure out why they’re polling McCaskill…is there really any chance of that happening? If you want to poll a woman running mate, at least poll Sebelius.
And of course I’d love to see some Palin polls
June 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Compared to the SUSA VA poll last month, they have McCain going from -7 to -2 so that’s a positive trend. At this rate he’ll be up comfortably by the time november rolls around.
Also, Obama was +4 among men in may, in June he’s -18, and among women he went from +11 to +22. The dem ID advantage went from 8 to 12.
Some fishy numbers. But these polls do show that if McCain can narrow the gap among women to even a 10 pt margin, he wins easily
June 29th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I suppose there really isn’t a reliable way to predict party affiliation of likely voters, but given the current climate, it’s hard to argue with a 12 point Dem lead. Besides, I’d rather have them oversample Dems and consider this a worse case scenario.
June 29th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Why are people attracted to Bloomberg? Is it his business background?
June 29th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
#6: I think people basically think Bloomberg = Ross Perot, which means that they think he is a non-ideological businessman who will get things done.
What they don’t realize is that Bloomie has basically declared war on pro-lifers, thinks no one should own a handgun, and wants to tell people where to smoke and what to eat. Perot never did any of those things. He thought social issues were outside of the purview of the government.
I do think though that Bloomberg is something other than a liberal on a lot of other issues. He sounds DLC-esque on fiscal issues, particularly on unions, trade, and budgets, and certainly isn’t a liberal on defense. I agree that he would never have become a Republican absent his run for Mayor. But I don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that he is just another liberal Democrat. That just fuels the fiction that all politics is social issues.
June 29th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Incidentally, the big news here is that the undecideds are breaking for McCain.
June 29th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
REVENGE OF THE BAD OLD DAYS
FIXING THE LITTLE THINGS MADE NEW YORK CITY SAFE. THEY’RE STARTING TO BREAK AGAIN.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/06282008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/revenge_of_the_bad_old_days_117615.htm?page=0
June 29th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
#1, it is so idiotic and frustrating… They did a few states with those that have a chance, then switched to others as they got to states that the others could have shown some real differences.