home

Quinnipiac Poll: Clinton Has Big Leads In OH And PA

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:44:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Via Mark Halperin, the latest Quinnipiac polls for Ohio and Pennsylvania:

Ohio: Clinton 55, Obama 34

Pennsylvania: Clinton 52, Obama 36.

Dates conducted: Feb. 6-12. Error margin: 4.1 points.

I've seen nothing new on Texas.

< Would Obama Accept The Nomination If He Loses The Popular Vote? | Seton Hall Report: Every Guantanamo Interrogation Was Videotaped >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Quinnipiac Poll: Clinton Has Big Leads In OH And PA | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Like New Hampshire? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    Or maybe California?

    Hillary supported the sanctions? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    I did know that Hillary said in New Hampshire that she supported the sanctions.

    Do you have a cite for that?  from news.google, or www.google, or, anywhere?

    Democrats still feel that the 2000 election (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    was stolen from them based on the popular vote, etc. so ignore the popular vote at your own peril folks.....

    The popular vote isn't the same as (none / 0) (#124)
    by seattlegonz on Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 11:45:44 PM EST
    pledged delegates. Hillary supporters agree with you -- the majority vote should select the nominee.

    Parent
    But only delegates counted a couple of days ago (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by RalphB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:09:14 PM EST


    Penn (none / 0) (#1)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:51:23 AM EST
    Kinda' off-topic...

    From TPM:

    A quote from Mark Penn that should go over extremely well: "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."
    What an idiot.

    I can just see the McCain ads now:

    Hillary may have won the democratic nomination.  But she made it quite clear that you are insignificant.  Do you want to vote for someone who thinks you are insignificant?
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#4)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:53:39 AM EST
    that there are still a fair number of medium and small states left. I get why they're making the argument, but they should be making it to the supers, not to the general public (since apparently only non-significantly black large states count in the democratic nominating process - great way to lose all of the rest of the states).

    Parent
    They need to make the argument artfully (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:57:26 AM EST
    to the Media.

    Penn is a dolt.

    I submit my opwn work as the way to phrase the issue.

    Parent

    I'm not sure it matter that much in the media (none / 0) (#11)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM EST
    Unless it somehow influences how the remaining post Pennsylvania states vote. At that point, almost all the delegates will be locked up; the biggest pool of open delegates then will be the remaining Super Delegates and it's them that the campaigns will have to win over one way or another.

    Parent
    IT matters very much in the Media (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:10:18 AM EST
    unless you believe the SDs are not swayed by what the Media says about "fairness."

    I think your comment is way off base.

    Parent

    it doesnt bother you.... (none / 0) (#122)
    by jor on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:19:40 PM EST
    ... that the hillary campaign is full of dolts at the most senior levels? What do you think would happen with President hillary?

    Parent
    Badly stated (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:56:42 AM EST
    I feel confident what Penn was trying to say is what I have said here - that Obama needs to win a contested big state.

    I do not want to rehash that argument here.

    Indeed, Your comment is off topic and normally I would delete but you are one of our best commenters, so I will let it slide this once.

    Parent

    woo! (none / 0) (#9)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:02:05 AM EST
    Your comment is off topic and normally I would delete but you are one of our best commenters, so I will let it slide this once.
    Thanks!

    Though it really isn't off-topic, the more I think about it.  This post is about OH and PA, two of the "significant" states.

    I understand what both you and Penn are trying to say.

    I disagree with it, but I understand it.  

    But for Penn to say it like he did?  Wow.  He deserves to fired just for that comment alone.

    Parent

    Nice argument (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:09:23 AM EST
    Touche an othe off topic point. A very fair point.

    Parent
    Seriously? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:23:02 AM EST
    Fired? It's a political war of nerves. The Obama side is painting Hillary as someone who wants to subvert democracy and the" voices of millions." How would that look if she wins? The nominee who stole the election from the people?

    Parent
    Yup... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:27:21 AM EST
    ... seriously.  Fired.

    Of course, I thought that Penn should have been fired months ago.  Shoot - I though he never should have been hired.

    But this comment from Penn is inexcusable.  It has nothing to do with my support for Obama.  I think this comment hurts Hillary, both in the primaries and in the general election if she wins the nomination.

    Parent

    Brilliant (none / 0) (#26)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    I continue to be amazed.

    Parent
    Amazed? (none / 0) (#27)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:34:37 AM EST
    Amazed at what?

    If you disagree with me, tell me why.  

    I think Penn is awful.  I don't think he is a progressive.  And I don't think he is a good political consultant. And I don't understand why Hillary likes him so much.

    Again, this has nothing to do with my support for Obama.  I think that Penn is bad for the Democratic Party and progressive values.

    Parent

    The Penn attack (none / 0) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:21:34 AM EST
    Now everyone is attacking Penn, the meme starts. Fire Penn. So, demonizing Penn and the campaign. Good grief. Progressive, who is a progressive, there are no Progressives. Like she will fire Penn this far in the campaign? Now how would that look. Give me a break. Axelrod is a progressive? They are hired guns, get over it.

    Parent
    now? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    I have long been critical of Penn.  It has nothing to do with "now."

    Again... it has little to do with the Hillary campaign.  It has everything to do with Penn.

    I simply have no respect for him.  Especially his union busting.  And I think that he is an awful strategist.  It is is pretty simple.  I think he is bad for the Hillary Clinton campaign.  And I think his continued work for the Clinton campaign actually helps the Obama campaign.  

    As for firing Penn this far in... did they not just do the same with Patti Solis Doyle?  Sure... she "stepped down," but I don't know if anyone actually believes that.  

    Parent

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:30:03 AM EST
    I very much like Hillary, but she should never let Mark Penn speak to or release memos to the press.  He's terrible, mostly because he's so desperate to buck up his own work and justify himself.  I cringed in NH when Penn released a memo claiming polls showed Obama got no bounce out of Iowa when, of course, predictably the next day the bounce appeared.  

    He's a terrible strategist and a terrible press person.  He does appear, however, to be a decent pollster.  

    Parent

    Penn (none / 0) (#61)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:25:28 AM EST
    is not helping Hillary's campaign.  He should never have been hired.  At the very least they should keep him away from the press and cameras.  I rather think he's part of the reason her campaign isn't doing as well as it should in some areas.  

    Parent
    Penn stinks (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:28:45 AM EST
    He should never have even been hired.

    Parent
    Particularly as a Strategist (none / 0) (#73)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:31:47 AM EST
    The main has no ability for any big strategic thought whatsoever.  Thankfully, I think at this point he's been reduced to pollster, but because of his position (campaign strategist) he's still allowed to deal with the press.

    I understand why they haven't fired him - because it would only be touted as more turmoil and a campaign in trouble, but I always feel so much better about Clinton's chances when I hear Maggie Williams speak than Mark Penn.


    Parent

    Yup, it will look terrible (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:57:54 AM EST
    If Obama silences the voices of millions and uses the party's elite to steal the nomination from the people's choice, it will look real bad.
    If Obama has the best interests of the progressive movement and Democratic Party in mind, as opposed to his own best interests, then he will not proceed with this approach.


    Parent
    Silencing millions (none / 0) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    Let's talk about caucuses and how they silence older people, women, people who may not feel comfortable arguing in public, on and on...How about all those millions?

    Parent
    Oh... (none / 0) (#28)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:38:10 AM EST
    ... and if Hillary doesn't want to be seen as subverting the "voices of millions," then her top strategist should not be out saying that all but one of the states Obama has won are insignificant.  

    Parent
    mindful (none / 0) (#44)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:09:18 AM EST
    And  if  Obama  doesn't  want  to  be  seen as  subverting  the  "voices  of millions,"  he  will   follow through on his promise  to  reinstate    Florida  and  Michigan.  

    With  all due  respect.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Lena on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:55:03 AM EST
    This meme is put out by Obama supporters to justify his loss in Florida, where we, incidentally, set a record for voters in our Democratic primary.

    In my county (Alachua) Obama won. I don't think the Obama supporters here were refusing to take the election seriously.

    By the way, we have TV and the internet here too. We had plenty of campaign coverage in our newspapers as well. We aren't living in a black hole of information over here.

    Parent

    look... (none / 0) (#49)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:13:57 AM EST
    ... I have gone on record to say that I believe that MI and FL should be sat.

    But I don't think that they should be sat with their current numbers.  

    All sides knew the circumstances.  All sides agreed to the circumstances.

    A compromise should, and probably will, be reached.  Which is a good thing.  Which means that they will almost assuredly be sat in some form.

    Just curious, because I don't know.  When did Obama "promise" to reinstate Florida and Michigan?

    Parent

    During (none / 0) (#58)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:24:48 AM EST
    his  illegal  press  conference  right  before  the  election.  

    Floridians  are   expecting him  NOT  to  renege  on  that  promise.  

    Parent

    No matter how many times you say this (none / 0) (#72)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:31:18 AM EST
    it doesn't make it so.

    Parent
    The time to prove (none / 0) (#77)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:36:55 AM EST
    The time to prove she put party above herself is fading pretty fast.

    If she can't win big in TX/PA/OH she needs to step a side.

    Parent

    Yeah that's a winning McCain ad there (none / 0) (#59)
    by doyenne49 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    Not.

    Parent
    That is not true.. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Richard in Jax on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:25:34 AM EST
    The man said nothing like that. That is your distorted impression and reflects not o what Penn said but on your willingness to put forth bad information. NO member of ANY campaign would say that.

    Parent
    Location (none / 0) (#67)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:29:37 AM EST
    The location of polling headquarters really does not matter, as long as their methodology is strong.

    Parent
    Good news for Clinton (none / 0) (#2)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:51:48 AM EST
    But, given the length of the poll and what's happened since then, it will probably be a good baseline to see if all of the wins post-ST have had any effect or not.

    Well let's hope that (none / 0) (#3)
    by Polkan on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:53:06 AM EST
    Williams is capable of pulling out all the stops for the solid ground operation. I can't shake a gnawing feeling that the Obama campaign has really done nothing other than exploit Clinton's tactical mistakes. Good for them. Sad for Clinton supporters. I really hope that her operation is wide awake, sleeves rolled up and on caffeine.

    It will be an interesting dynamic (none / 0) (#5)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 08:55:27 AM EST
    Now that the roles are clearly reversed as insurgent and front-runner. Obama and Clinton have both never been in these respective positions before, and whichever of them can manage that transition better will be in good shape.

    Still, it's better to be up than down, all other things equal.

    Parent

    yeah, half the data... (none / 0) (#8)
    by mike in dc on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:01:46 AM EST
    ...was gathered prior to Obama's winning streak, so I'd be interested to see if there was an uptick for him in the later days of polling.

    He hasn't campaigned in OH, TX or PA yet.  PA is over two months away.

    It does give some idea of her baseline strength and the size of the job ahead for Obama.  

    Question:  if she starts out with 15-20 point leads in these states, how does she have to perform in them to meet expectations?  If Obama starts out 15 to 20 points behind, how well does he have to perform to meet expectations?  In terms of delegates, how much of a blowout does Clinton need in Ohio and Texas to wipe out Obama's pledged delegate lead?  How close does Obama have to make it(I'm assuming the fight is basically over if he manages to win one or more of these states) in order to reduce their relevance?

    I think Obama, bare minimum, has to break 40 percent in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania in order to avoid them being characterized as "blowout" wins for Clinton.  He has to get within 9 or 10(44-45%) to minimize her delegate gain relative to him, and to reduce the headline to "big wins for Clinton".  If he gets within 5(46-48%), it's "Clinton wins in close races, keeps campaign alive", which is kind of a best case losing scenario for Obama, and worst case winning scenario for Clinton(since she would barely make a dent in his pledged delegate lead, and probably fall behind again within a week).

    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:08:30 AM EST
    SUSA had it at 17. Fair to say we have two data points that show a substantial Clinton lead.

    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#16)
    by mike in dc on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:12:42 AM EST
    ...and we will see how recent events impact that lead.  Polling ten days prior to March 4th(after the two debates, after Wisconsin and Hawaii) should give a pretty clear picture of how steep a hill Obama still has to climb.  My guess is that he'll be within 10 points in both states.  But your guess is as good as mine.

    Parent
    Momentum has limits in this election (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:28:01 AM EST
    My concern about Obama winning contested big states remains valid I would say.

    Parent
    Momentum/BTD (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:13:25 AM EST
    Inside  numbers  on  that Ohio  poll:  

    Women     Clinton   56   Obama 30
    Men       Clinton   52   Obama 42

    Whites    Clinton  64    Obama  28
    Blacks    Obama 64       Clinton   17

    Seems  to prove  SEVERAL   of your  premises  in  terms  of  demographics,  BTD.  

    Parent

    Only 64% (none / 0) (#86)
    by Fultron on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:45:46 AM EST
    of blacks going to Obama? This seems completely out of line with every result so far.

    Parent
    And what is the CW re the reliability (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:02:44 AM EST
    of the Q poll?

    According to this grading of pollsters (none / 0) (#12)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:05:44 AM EST
    link, it seems that they're middle to upper pack of the group. I seem to remember them blowing NH badly, but then everyone blew NH.

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#17)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:14:46 AM EST
    Rasmussen has really been poor this go round.  I seem to remember them being pretty good in 2004.  Then again I seem to remember SurveryUSA being pretty far off in 2004 but they have been very good in this one.

    Makes you think that the political environment really affects the various methodologies used by the polling groups.

    Parent

    Rasmussen (none / 0) (#18)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:16:19 AM EST
    Has Clinton up 14 in Ohio. That was a one-day poll, done yesterday, after the Potomac Primaries.

    So it's safe to say, looking at these combined polls, that she has a lead in the teens in OH.

    Rasmussen also confirmed that WI is somewhat close: 47-41 for Obama. With 25% saying they might change their mind.

    14, 17, and 21 (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:26:58 AM EST
    With Rassmussen documented as understating Hillary's support consistently.

    He had Obama tied with Clinton in California.  

    Parent

    Wisconsin up for grabs (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:10:18 AM EST
    no doubt about it.  I've been here half a century and have no idea what will happen.

    I do think that Obama's refusal to debate here, meaning no debate before our primary, does not help him -- as much as it does not help her.  But he is the one who ought to want to keep ramping up the visibility here, which is going well for him.  He got the front page of the largest paper in the state two days in a row now (although Huckabee got bigger play today -- it is a Republican paper), met with the ed board yesterday for a good inside story, too.  

    So momentum could be his, after the big Madison rally two days ago -- but interestingly, his people are quoted in the paper as saying that the strategy now is meeting with "small groups" of Wisconsinites.  Quite the reverse for him!  And later in the story, it notes that his rallies in Wisconsin yesterday brought out 1,000 at one and 1,500 at another.  Small groups, indeed, for him.

    We'll see if the Clinton campaign can grab the headlines today, with Bill Clinton here.  But the CANDIDATE needs to get here, and now -- we read that she will be here for the last four days, which is great because she is good at getting late deciders -- but we want to get out the vote by getting out there for her and helping to grab the headlines, too.  We're just waiting for word. . . .  Mark Penn, Maggie Williams, Teresa Vilmain -- get it the heck together and get to us!

    Parent

    Wisconsin (none / 0) (#51)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    But  the  key   to  Wisconsin   is   Clinton   holding  Obama  to  a  narrow  win...delegates,  delegates,  delegates.  

    It  appears  that  his  win  may  very well  be  extremely  narrow.   :)

    Parent

    You are too funny. (none / 0) (#123)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    Did you know that she used to work at Walmart?'


    Parent
    We'll see (none / 0) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:09:22 AM EST
    Did not work in California (where 2 weeks out, Obama was within 10, and the day of was tied or ahead in many polls) or MA or NJ, states that are similar or worse for Obama.

    We'll see.

    Parent

    Probably Much Closer (none / 0) (#24)
    by Bear2000 on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    The Quinnipiac poll was conducted between Feb 6 and Tuesday, before the Potomac Primaries.

    Rasmussen was conducted the day after - not a lot of time for those results to sink in.

    If you think that after Wisconsin, which Obama will win easily, she's going to be up in the teens in these states, you're deluding yourself.

    She may win them, but by much closer margins. I expect she'll lose one of the three, and then the remaining primaries quite convincingly will be won by Obama.

    Yes (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:09:40 AM EST
    We are the ones deluding ourselves.

    Obamaland is a bastion of objective reason.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#64)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    ROFLMAO

    Parent
    Just slightly delusional.... (none / 0) (#119)
    by jor on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:12:56 PM EST
    you pick the poll with that was taken the longest ago (first day longest ago), with the fewest voters, and has the biggest margin for clinton.  

    Pollster(Date) Clinton/Obama/Undecided  
    Rasmussen(2/13) 51/37/12    (Clinton +14)  n=754
    SurveyUSA (2/10) 56/39/2   (Clinton +17)  n=720
    Quinnipiac (2/6) 55/34/9   (Clinton +21) n=564

    data here

    Looked at that way, those margins seem to be shrinking heh :-P. Like I said, for the Survey USA Poll, neutral to slight + for Clinton.  Ohio is do-or die. And looking at the trend in the margin across pollsters doesnt make one happy.

    Parent

    And outside of the Primary (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    * Florida: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 42 percent; McCain 41 percent - Obama 39 percent

    • Ohio: McCain 44 percent - Clinton 43 percent; McCain 42 percent - Obama 40 percent

    • Pennsylvania: Clinton 46 percent - McCain 40 percent; Obama 42 percent - McCain 41
    Yep (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:08:42 AM EST
    Those GE numbers are interesting.

    Meaningless, but interesting.

    Parent

    at least.... (none / 0) (#120)
    by jor on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:13:55 PM EST
    ... you're consistant.

    Parent
    Ohio looks good (none / 0) (#29)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:01:03 AM EST
    ... for Clinton, as of now.  OTOH, trend lines in Texas don't look so good for her.  

    For Ohio, see here.

    For Texas see here, and note that doesn't include any polls taken from after Super Tuesday.

    Texas (none / 0) (#54)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:18:27 AM EST
    Houston  Chronicle  polls  showing  Clinton   up   10-12   points  in  Texas.  

    She make  take  all   3,  and  hold  Obama  to a  narrow  win  in   Wisconsin.    

    And  that's  ALL  good.  

    Parent

    Great. (none / 0) (#74)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    that she's leading in OH. TX not good? Hmmm.

    She needs to get some big endorsements. Lincoln Chafee came out for Obama today.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:39:01 AM EST
    Nothing warms democratic hearts more than the endorsement of a Republican Senator who lost.

    And yes I know Linc Chafee is a moderate Republican and very popular in Rhode Island and we must all kowtow to the Republicans and independents if we want to win the election because god forbid we try to beat them on ideas and principles.

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    Linc Chafee.

    That's funny.

    Parent

    if he takes her to task.... (none / 0) (#121)
    by jor on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    .... for the Iraq war vote --- that could cause her some pain and suffering. Especially in anti-war RI. He already said the democrats were pussies when it came to the vote.

    Parent
    Do you (none / 0) (#114)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    research those endorsement?

    Chafee switched his party affiliation to independent after losing his seat to Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse, who is supporting Hillary Clinton

    AND OLD JOE move... If Sen Obama was an Independent then it might help... But he is a DEM.

    Parent

    I predict those polls become closer (none / 0) (#33)
    by maritza on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:12:56 AM EST
    as Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries draw closer.  I remember that Clinton was ahead in California in various polls by 20% but by the election date it was down to 10%.

    By the Cali Election (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:41:20 AM EST
    Zogby has Obama up 13.

    Rass had it tied.

    Obama collapsed, as AndrewW might say. Same thing in Mass and NJ.

    Parent

    It's andrewwM (none / 0) (#52)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:17:35 AM EST
    thank you very much :-P not to be confused with the other andrewW (I made my name before I ever saw him post).

    Parent
    zogby was just wrong... (none / 0) (#118)
    by jor on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 03:03:10 PM EST
    ... but I still haven't seen what the cali results would have looked like minus the early votes. I'm guessing the-on-the-day voting was closer than total margin she won by. I.e. California was closing in, Obama still woudl have lost, but maybe by 5 points, instead of 10 -- if we just count votes on the day of the election.

    Parent
    She is not (none / 0) (#34)
    by talkingpoint on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM EST
    only leading in TX, OH, and PA but within the magin of error in Wisconsin. Obama is running out of steam and have possible reached hs climax. Clinton is also doing better against mcCain than Obama in the latest polls.

    running out of steam? (none / 0) (#38)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    Where do you see evidence for that?  He just won three primaries two days ago, if you recall.  His trend lines are going up in Wisconsin.  They are going up nationally (see here).

    Yes, he may run out of steam . . . but I don't see a shred of evidence of it at this point.

    Parent

    Clinton's Campaign (none / 0) (#35)
    by Joike on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 10:15:11 AM EST
    Could she please get rid of Mark Penn?

    Maybe it is her bad luck to have so many supporters stick their foot in their mouths or maybe she approved the concept, but denigrating other states seems a poor way to go about building up support for his boss.

    I'll be interested to see poll numbers taken after the latest contests.  I would expect to see a bump for Obama.

    Right now, it looks like Clinton will win Ohio and Pennsylvania with Obama having a shot at Texas, but polls are so fluid.  It is a campaign lifetime before March.

    In California, one poll (Zogby) had Obama winning by almost 10 points.  Of course, Zogby usually designs his polls backwards (decide what you want the numbers to be and work out how to get them).

    I would think new polls would come out on Friday.

    Zogby (none / 0) (#55)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    Zogby  polls  have  been wrong  about  everything.  

    Best  find  another  source.

    Parent

    California (none / 0) (#53)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:18:23 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton won pretty big in California.  9% is a pretty significant margin of victory.

    And I say that as an Obama supporter.

    compared to Obama's sweep (none / 0) (#79)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    9% looks pretty small compared to Obama's sweeps.

    Parent
    i guess... (none / 0) (#83)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:43:22 AM EST
    ... but I don't think you can make the claim that 9% is small or close win.

    It may not be as big as Obama's recent blowouts, but it is significant.

    Parent

    OH & TX (none / 0) (#56)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:22:56 AM EST
    Well  gee.......lying  eyes?

    Quinnipiac   has  Clinton up   21 points in Ohio.  

    And   Houston  Chronicle  shows  her  up   10-12  points  in  Texas.  

    Quinnipiac  also  shows  her  up   52/36  in  Pennsylvania.  

    It  may  very well  be    a  Clinton  sweep.    

    And  if  she  holds  Obama to a very narrow   win  in    Wisconsin,    she  wins,  like  BTD  predicted.

    The best (none / 0) (#78)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    news in three weeks!

    Parent
    if she fails... (none / 0) (#85)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    And if any of those new firewalls fail, Hillary should drop out.

    Parent
    While Ohio looks good for Hillary, Texas... (none / 0) (#97)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:57:35 AM EST
    ... is not showing a good trend for her (see here, and further note that the latest poll there was from before super Tuesday).

    Furthermore, it has three of top eleven the most expensive media centers in the US.  It's gonna take a lot of money there.

    And Ohio ain't too cheap, either.

    Parent

    Questions from a novice (none / 0) (#66)
    by barryluda on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:29:16 AM EST
    I'm brand new at this, and find the discussion fascinating, but have a few questions...

    Do we know what the trends are?  Where were Clinton and Obama in the Quinnipiac polls the last few months or weeks (I have no idea how often they are done).

    Also, with respect to the how each stack up against McCain, isn't that really misleading right now?  I mean, I would expect that most all democrats would vote for either Clinton or Obama against McCain, but might not say that while it's still in doubt who the democratic nominee is.  I would think that it would be much more important right now to look at how much of the independent vote each gets, and even whether either of them pick up (however marginal) any republican votes in a match up with McCain.

    In a word (none / 0) (#76)
    by tek on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    yes, it's waaaay misleading. There are so many variables in the GE, no one can possibly know who will stack up against McCain the strongest. Really, what will happen is that whoever gets the nomination will have to craft a new strategy around the opposition.

    Parent
    I still THINK that the only answer to secure the (none / 0) (#75)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM EST
    win in November is a combined ticket....All else pales in comparison....

    Hillary wont except VP (none / 0) (#89)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:47:49 AM EST
    and the winner shouldn't have to take the second place medal.

    Parent
    I dont know what HIllary would do (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:53:43 AM EST
    however, as a women, I feel like that would be a prime example of the more experienced woman having to take a backseat to the younger guy...which is a sterotype that most women across this nation won't like...I was thinking of her as president and him as VP....However implausible that might seem to you...

    Parent
    I Think It Will Tighten (none / 0) (#82)
    by BDB on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:41:42 AM EST
    Those AA polling numbers do seem likely to break more favorably for Obama.

    But I don't think Ohio can be compared to Obama's home state because Illinois is Obama's home state and Hillary did not contest it.

    I, for one, however have no intention of taking Ohio or Texas for granted and will be making calls to Wisconsin on behalf of Hillary this weekend.  

    nope (none / 0) (#88)
    by jdj on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 11:46:35 AM EST
    He seems a lot more energetic than her lately

    Please stop stealing (none / 0) (#100)
    by echinopsia on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:05:56 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton's words.

    Obama will be lucky if he's ready on day one thousand.

    Quinnipiac Pennsylvania Results (none / 0) (#101)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:08:55 PM EST
    Quinnipiac actually has a large amount of historical data, if you want to take it into account.

    Feb 2008: Clinton 52 Obama 36
    Dec 2007: Clinton 43 Obama 15
    Nov 2007: Clinton 48 Obama 15
    Oct 2007: Clinton 41 Obama 14
    Aug 2007: Clinton 42 Obama 12
    Jun 2007: Clinton 32 Obama 18
    Apr 2007: Clinton 36 Obama 14
    Mar 2007: Clinton 36 Obama 17
    Mar 2007: Clinton 29 Obama 18
    Feb 2007: Clinton 37 Obama 11

     Pennsylvania Primary: April 22, 2008

    A clear trend (none / 0) (#106)
    by marcellus on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:20:13 PM EST
    A trend up for Obama in Pennsylvania, and now with Gov. Ed Rendell inexplicably campaigning hard for Obama, there's a good chance it'll be the opposite of New Hampshire here (voters get upset at the bigoted coverage and make a statement against).

    Parent
    Leadership vs cowardice profiles (none / 0) (#104)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:15:52 PM EST
    The problem with these kind of arguments in this election is that they both have the same record on this issue.  They both failed.  So using this to say Hillary has a profile in cowardice is dangerous since your guy is in a fragile glass house.  You know what they say about throwing stones.  

    Illinois is his home state. (none / 0) (#105)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    Using a home state to compare doesn't work.  You need to find a state that isn't his home state and compare that.  

    He is the Senator of that state (none / 0) (#110)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 12:28:54 PM EST
    He's been a state senator there.  He's lived there for awhile.  You can't say he's not favored there.  It skews the comparability.  The fact he won big there doesn't show he can win a comparable state to the same degree.  Hillary won in both NY and even more in AR.  She also did not grow up in both states.  It would be just as ridiculous to compare results in either of those two states to comparable states and say it means anything.  You can't use a home state to compare and think it means anything.  

    Your original post (none / 0) (#116)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 14, 2008 at 01:18:37 PM EST
    discussed the demographics of Ohio vs Illinois.  You can try to say that you're only discussing his Senate run but you talked about current demographics and compared IL to OH.  Your backtracking doesn't change the fact that you were trying to compare a home state with a non home state.  You can't do that.  Backtracking and saying it was all about his Senate run doesn't make comparing the demographics more favorable to him.  It's still comparing apples to oranges.  Find another comparable state that isn't a home state before you say he can win it.  BTW this isn't a Senate run it's a presidential run.  People who will vote in a Democrat on the Senate or House level may not vote for them at the Presidential level.  We have states where they reliably vote Republican at the presidential level but put in Democrats for the Senate or House.  So even if you were intending to use his Senate run for a comparison it doesn't work.  

    "I can just see the McCain ads now" (none / 0) (#125)
    by Canaan on Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 02:46:55 PM EST
    So can I:

    "He talks about campaign finance reform.  I passed McCain-Feingold.  He talks about reaching across party lines.  I sponsored McCain-Kennedy.  He talks about hope.  I survived torture."

    Clinton is winning Reagan Democrats, who will become McCain Democrats if Obama is the nominee.

    Quinnipiac Poll: Clinton Has Big Leads In OH And PA | 98 comments (98 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment