Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Rasmussen Connecticut - Obama: 50, McLame: 38; Hillary: 47, McInsane: 44

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:51 PM
Original message
Rasmussen Connecticut - Obama: 50, McLame: 38; Hillary: 47, McInsane: 44
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 06:55 PM by NJSecularist
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics...

In Connecticut, Barack Obama currently leads John McCain by twelve percentage points, 50% to 38%. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that Hillary Clinton leads McCain by just three, 47% to 44%. Last November, a time when Clinton was still the Democratic frontrunner and McCain was an afterthought in the GOP race, the former First Lady held an eight point lead over the Arizona Senator.

McCain now trails both Democrats by nearly twenty percentage points among women in Connecticut. Among men, McCain leads Clinton by double digits but trails Obama by four.

Obama is viewed favorably by 67% of Connecticut voters, McCain by 58%, and Clinton by 54%. Connecticut is the only state surveyed in 2008 where all three candidates have favorable ratings over 50%.

Fifteen percent (15%) of voters in the Nutmeg State rate the economy as good or excellent. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say fair and 46% poor. Just 4% believe the economy is getting better while 82% say its getting worse. Nationally, the Rasmussen Consumer Index has recently shown consumer confidence to be near the lowest levels of the past seven years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Thepricebreaker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. Mccain is doing too good there for being a VERY blue state. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anonymous171 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Thank Hillary for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. George W Bush won 44% of the state in 2004.
It's pretty reasonable, I would guess. Most of the undecideds will probably break for the Democrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. Too many polls
They need to be cut down.

Congress must pass the POll Control Act at once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HockeyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
5. Why did Ct. buck the Tri -State Trend for Hillary?
I am very curious about this. My daughter used to play hockey for a Ct. team and we traveled around quite a bit in Ct. My husband's cousin also lives in West Hartford.

Nice state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Ned Lamont's endorsement for
Edited on Sat Mar-15-08 06:57 PM by zidzi
The Lucky Man? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Booth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wait... I thought Obama couldn't win big blue states?!
There must be something wrong with this poll.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Connecticut isn't a big state.
Did you mean "I thought Obama couldn't win true blue states like Connecticut and Rhode Island and New York."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:58 PM
Response to Original message
8. 49 more posts to get 'em all!
Got your work cut out for ya! :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Huh?
I don't understand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Don't even try

Thanks for the post!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. I figured you might want to post the polls for all 50 states for completeness
It wasn't a complicated request I don't think, even if you got advice to the contrary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Oh, I understand now.
:)

If you ask me for my opinion, I think that both candidates each have their own electoral strengths. It'll be interesting to see how this develops over the next few months. I think each candidate has a feasible path to the presidency. The point of my post wasn't to show Obama's relative strength to Hillary in CT, just to show I think this state is pretty secure for us regardless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Yeah, that's cool
I'm a little leary of looking at these numbers too early - look what one story can do to a candidate in 2 days! Granted, this current event will likely blow over, but something can and likely will pop up before the election to influence the results. Also, I think people will realize how weary they are of Bushco and will want to get away from the terrible economy and wars that Bush has saddled us with. I think we are likely to win handily this fall barring any unrecoverable gaffes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJSecularist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-15-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. You may be right.
I still worry about a bloody battle that takes us all the way to the convention. That is what we don't want, and it could put these numbers and all this political capital we have from Bush's incompetence in jeopardy.

I really don't care who our nominee is, I just want a nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Nov 22nd 2014, 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC