Oregon Poll: Barack tops McCain

Riley Research Poll on Oregon voters’ choice for president:

McCain vs. Obama
Barack Obama…46%
John McCain…….38%
Undecided……….16%

McCain vs. Clinton
John McCain……..46%
Hillary Clinton……38%
Undecided………..16%

Notes from the Riley Research press release 2-26-08:

John McCain is the clear delegate leader and front-runner for the Republican Party, while Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton are the front-runners for the Democratic nomination. Voters were asked who they would likely vote for in a race between McCain and Obama, and McCain and Clinton.

Between John McCain and Barack Obama, Oregon voters give Obama the edge with 46 percent, compared to 38 percent for McCain (16 percent were undecided).

Candidate……….Overall…..Democrat…..Republican…..Other
Barack Obama…46%………74%…………..17%…………..44%
John McCain…….38…………15………………63……………..38
Undecided……….16…………12………………19……………..18

When voters were asked who they would likely vote for in a race between John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton, McCain has the edge with 46 percent compared to Clinton’s 38 percent (with 16 percent undecided).

Candidate………..Overall……Democrat……..Republican…Other
John McCain……..46%………15%…………….78%………….47%
Hillary Clinton……38 …………69……………….8………………30
Undecided………..16 …………16………………14……………..23

While voting generally along party lines, Republicans were roughly twice as likely to vote for Obama, as they were to vote for Clinton (17 percent vs. 8 percent). Other party/independent voters also showed significantly more support for Obama than for Clinton (44 percent vs. 30 percent).

Nearly all age groups were more likely to vote for Obama than Clinton in a race against McCain. The exception was voters age 65 years and older, who were about as likely to vote for either Obama or Clinton (43 percent and 42 percent, respectively) in a race against McCain.

Against McCain, Obama garners more support from female voters (48 percent) than does Clinton (42 percent). Among male voters, Obama draws much more support (44 percent), compared to Clinton (just 34 percent).

McCain vs. Obama…Overall….Male….Female
John McCain………….38%……..39%….37%
Barack Obama……….46………..44……..48

McCain vs. Clinton….Overall….Male…..Female
John McCain…………..46%…….50%…..41%
Hillary Clinton…………38……….34……..42

Share
  • Jared

    “Republicans were roughly twice as likely to vote for Obama, as they were to vote for Clinton”

    This is some interesting data. According to the American Conservative Union, Obama is actually more liberal then Hillary–and yet more Republicans are more likely to vote for him. Really, is it that surprising? Hillary has a record of Liberalism. Obama has no record (comparatively).

  • Sybella

    Obama presents himself well, but his lack of affirmation of what he will do exactly is sadly lacking. What does he really stand for? who is he really wanting to promote? I think these are questions Republicans, Democrats and Independents need to think long and hard on before voting him for president.

    His race is not an issue as it should not be. I could care less if he was green, but I do care if his interests lie with the country or with Obama. What has he done? what do you think he will do? Our country is in a pickle, These questions need to be answered honestly, not as a backlash against either Bush or Clinton.

  • CRAWDUDE

    Well, this is Oregon, I think many minds will be changing over the course of the presidential campaign. Personally, I don’t really care who is elected, they are all corrupt in my opinion.

    • dean

      As one of the few Dems who tunes in here, I’ve spent some time comparing and contrasting Clinton and Obama. I think it is not helpful to try and figure out which one is more or less “liberal” than the other. They line up pretty close on all the most significant issues:

      1) phasing down the Iraq war
      2) re-committing to the Taliban-al Queda war effort
      3) Repairing our overseas reputation by disavowing torture, eing less unilateral, less arrogant.
      4) A serious effort at reducing greenhouse gas emissions
      5) A significant (but insufficient in my book) reform of health insurance that makes it more widely available and affordable
      6) A dialing back on “free trade” to better account for differential labor and environmental issues
      7) Letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 10% or so expire
      8) Reinstituting the estate tax
      9) Appointment of judges who are more civil rights oriented, and less big business friendly

      Their big differences are in governing philosophy and style. Clinton is battle scarred and realistic about the opposition she will face. Obama is still fresh, widely liked, and bleieves he can cut across ideological and party lines to build a bigger constiuency for the above policy initiatives.

      And it sure looks like Obama is going to be the nominee, in large part because of the poll numbers cited int his post. Democrats (me included) want to win this time.

      CD… there is “Chicago corruption,” and then there is ‘philosophical corruption”. As far as I can tell all three are “clean” politicians in the sense is they are not in this to enrich themselves or their supporters, as in Chicago style corruption. They may be ‘corrupt” in the sense of being impure, or non-ideological philosophicaly, which I think is a good thing.

      I know you will respond “Keating 5…Whitewater…etc…” but in my view these were much ado about nothing with respect to the above parties.

    • carol

      C’mon C’Dude, I am inclined to agree with you about corruption in politics, that’s why I’m leaning towards Omama. He has had less exposure to the corrupting powers, thus less opportunity to become corrupted. I would have voted for McCain in 2000 before he was swift-boated, but many things cause my non-support this time around. Primarily his age, he will be pushing 80 by the time his term ended.

      Hillary reminds me of my mother! Ga-a-h-h

  • Rupert in Sprinfield

    I hate to say it but you really have to question the poll a little. Drawing conclusions is a little bit risky, but I just have a hard time believing that 8% hates Clinton so much that they will vote against her in M vs C but will flip and vote for Obama in M vs. O. I just don’t believe people really vote like that, but who knows?

    Dean – Obama is less unilateral and would repair our reputation? Are talking about the same guy that said he would attack Pakistan because that’s where the terrorists were?

    Personally I wouldn’t look to the Democrats to do much repairing. If Pelosi is any sign of the Democrats attitude on how to repair things, we are in a heap of trouble. Remember the whole “lets resolve to condemn Turkey for the Armenian genocide” thing Pelosi tried as an end run? Well, that sure helped. Pissed off the Turks and now they are pretty much going into Iraq after the Kurds at will. Kind of hard to hold them back after that fiasco. What’s to repair anyway? Under the Clinton administration we were being attacked at will and I sure don’t think most Americans want to repair things and go back to that.

    And please, if there is one thing that would be nice is to not have is not any more left leaning judges who tend to rule against individual rights and more in the interests of Government and big business ( the Kelo decision being the most famous recent example ). Anything but that.

    • dean

      Rupert…I’m not saying the list I made is good or bad for you, just pointing out the policy psoitions of the 2 candidates.

      Obama did not say he would “attack Pakistan, ” and I suspect you know better. He said we should be prepared to send forces into the lawless tribal part of that nation if we had reliable information on bin laden’s whereabouts. In other words, given we are at war with al Queda, if Mushariff or his successor won’t grant us permission, and they themselves have no control or ability in that areas, then we go anyway. Yes, that is unilateral, and Bush would do the same thing if he had any troops available. Note I said LESS unilateral. No American President should ever cede decision making on critical matters to other nations, and neither Clinton nor Obama would.

      The Turks committed genocide in the wake of the collapse of the Ottoman empire, and everyone but them knows it. Pelosi is from California which has a very high number of Armenian Americans including a few who survived the genocide, but are now very old and passing from the scene. She was trying at long last to get small measure of justice for these people. To blame the Turks attack on Kurdish terorists who are taking refuge in a country we are supposed to be in control of on Pelosi is a stretch, don’t you think?

      On the larger question of international public opnion of the US, it has never been lower according to the Pew research center. In Turkey, we have a 9% favorable. Prior to Bush and the Iraq invasion, we were well liked and respected.

      I would think a whole lot of Americans would prefer the inernational attacks we got under Clinton to what we have experienced since Bush took office, but maybe I talk to different people than you do.

      Kelo was decided by the current Supreme Court, which last I looked had 7 Republican appointees and 2 Democratic ones. So don’t blame us. In my view it was a constitutionally correct decision (upholding the right of takings for a public purpose) in favor of a questionable public policy. And anyway aren’t judges supposed to not legislate from the bench? I thought that was a conservative principle?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Obama did not say he would “attack Pakistan, ” and I suspect you know better.

        Not really, lets go to the Quote from Reuters, reported Wed, Aug 1, 2007

        “Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
        “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.”

        >if Mushariff or his successor won’t grant us permission, and they themselves have no control or ability in that areas, then we go anyway.

        Um, ok, well, lets put it this way, if you, or anyone thinks us sending troops into the “tribal areas” of Pakistan, without approval of the Pakistani government is going to be seen as anything but an attack on Pakistan both by that country and the world at large, they are dreaming.

        >Yes, that is unilateral, and Bush would do the same thing if he had any troops available.

        Unlikely as we do have troops available for this and Bush has offered to help the Pakistanis with the insurgency in the tribal areas.

        Jan 25th Associated Press:

        The Bush administration is willing to send a small number of U.S. combat troops to Pakistan to help fight the insurgency there if Pakistani authorities ask for such help, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

        “We remain ready, willing and able to assist the Pakistanis and to partner with them to provide additional training, to conduct joint operations, should they desire to do so,” Gates told a news conference.

        Therefore, you base this rather astonishing conclusion, that Bush would attack unilaterally the same as Obama on what?

        >She was trying at long last to get small measure of justice for these people. To blame the Turks attack on Kurdish terrorists who are taking refuge in a country we are supposed to be in control of on Pelosi is a stretch, don’t you think?

        Its not like this issue hasn’t been dealt with before, and lets face it, its 100 years old. Although Regan was the only president to openly call it genocide, this sort of measure has come up before, the last time being 2000, when Clinton killed a similar measure so as not to jeopardize an arms deal with Turkey.

        At any rate, my point was that Pelosi was hardly expert at “repairing” our international standing as with this one move she completely inflamed the Turks, made the war in Iraq harder on us as Turkey is our main supply route, and obviously made it much harder for the Turks to hold back elements within their government that wanted to proceed and attack the Kurds. Since those attacks were launched days after Pelosi’s foolishness, the conclusion is inescapable, but I will let the Turkish officials quote speak to it:

        “Unfortunately, some politicians in the United States have once more dismissed calls for common sense, and made an attempt to sacrifice big issues for minor domestic political games,” Gul said. “This is not a type of attitude that works to the benefit of, and suits, representatives of a great power like the Unites States of America. This unacceptable decision of the committee, like similar ones in the past, has no validity and is not worth of the respect of the Turkish people.” President Abdullah Gul in a statement to the Anatolian News Agency

        “The committee’s approval of this resolution was an irresponsible move which, at a greatly sensitive time, will make relations with a friend and ally more difficult” Turkish Foreign Ministry in a statement to the Anatolian News Agency

        Your idea that its a stretch that Pelosi’s actions had severe consequences in the region is based on what?

        >Kelo was decided by the current Supreme Court, which last I looked had 7 Republican appointees and 2 Democratic ones. So don’t blame us.

        I wasn’t blaming you, I was blaming the kind of judges I gather tend to like. All the members who voted in support of Kelo were the ones typically described as “liberal”. Who appointed them is of no consequence to me ( Republicans tend to nominate both liberal and conservative judges to the Supreme court, Souter and Blackmun being the primary examples, Democrats tend to nominate only liberals ). Are you therefore arguing that you support the judges like Scalia, Rehnquist Thomas (dissenters in Kelo), and not Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg (sided with the majority in Kelo)? Or what do you mean by this, you only care who appointed a judge, and what they actually think is of no consequence to you?

        >In my view it was a constitutionally correct decision (upholding the right of takings for a public purpose) in favor of a questionable public policy

        You honestly think that a “public purpose” can reasonably be construed as forcing someone to sell simply because someone who will pay higher taxes comes along? I sure don’t, and obviously most Americans don’t, witness the Kelo pre-emption legislation that was passed throughout the country immediately following the Kelo decision. As far as I am concerned, the last thing this country needs is more judges like Ginsburg, Breyer or Souter. I don’t care who appoints them, I just don’t want any more judges that will find any reason to sacrifice individual liberties and rights for the good of the state as Kelo, and upholding the entirety of McCain-Feingold (also thanks to the usual liberal judges) did.

        >And anyway aren’t judges supposed to not legislate from the bench? I thought that was a conservative principle?

        It sure is, so lets go to the quote one last time:

        “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation” the fifth Amendment to the Constitution

        I construe public use to mean its plain and simple language, not as taking land from one, to give to another, for private development. Thus my opposition to the decision as “we like this guy more than you because he has more money and will pay higher taxes” aint public use in my book. Obviously I am not alone in this as the judges that tend to be more strict constructionists ( Scalia, Rehnquist, Thomas), which tends to lead to inclination toward individual rights and liberties, agreed.

  • Alan

    The polls probably reflect what people know from news reports, and those haven’t been favorable to Clinton as of late. There are no TV ads, or mailings, or voter statements for Oregonians to make the same judgement as early primary states.

    • dean

      Alan….true but the Oregon poll matches national polls very closely. I think the polls acurately reflect that both McCain an dObama have crossover appeal, while Clinton does not.

      • Harry

        Once Obama is not compared only to Hillary, but to a real war hero and an experienced Senator, Obama will wilt like a daisy plucked and left on the bare asphalt on a hot Alabama day in July.

        Obama has not been vetted like Hillary and McCain. And once the Repubs get his best on YouTube, he will look less good, and more bad. Willy Hortan?

        And if (when?) Hillary folds, the Clinton campaign will switch fulltime to defeating Bama (unless she is the VP candidate), and electing McCain, since Hillary cannot wait another 8years for Bama to rule (she’d be 68). If she can’t get elected this time, she wants a clean shot at 2012, instead of 2016.

        • dean

          Harry…like war hero Dole against Bill Clinton?

          Willy Horton? You mean the Republicans will resort to racial scare tactics to win this election? They wouldn’t stoop to that would they?

          The problem is making a skinny, intellectually gifted constitutional law professor look like a gangster. It just won’t play, and is very likely to backfire big time. And anyway I don’t think McCain will stand for it being done on his behalf. He just denounced a conservative radio talk show moron who tried to rally a crowd with repeated use of Obama’s middle name as an attempt at scare. McCain does not play that way.

          As for the Clintons undermining Obama, don’t hold your breath. It won’t happen.

  • desertvet

    Oregon ‘Blue State Republicans’ have always been on the moderate to utterly ‘wierd’ side of the GOP for decades. Compounded by the fact that repubs are surrounded by Dem friends & neighbors, the repub lean toward Obama is not surprising. Republicans Tom McCall and Hatfield were not part of the GOP status quo in their time, and Oregon’s “visit but don’t stay” tradition permitted locals to be republican & anti-republican at the same time, hence why Oregon remained a “Republican” state as recent as the Clinton Era when people started to label/package/market political party platforms into a blue state/red state thing– leading Oregonians (and newcomers) to stop the B.S. and simply vote Democrat nowadays.

    But here’s my challenge to all readers. Given that Oregon is still a stubborn “visit but don’t stay” state (City of Portland doesn’t count), wouldn’t Oregon lean toward McCain in 2008 who is running on a smaller government, leave us alone, secure border ticket?

    *Background info: Ron Paul is favored by protectionist anti-global libertarian repubs, McCain is favored by global free market anti-tax libertarian repubs. (huge difference)