New Polls Out Today

Survey USA has Hillary ahead by 12 points in PA. She's down 2 points from three weeks ago, Obama is up 5. Where is he making the gains?

[P]articularly in cities like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and among older voters, men and conservative Democrats.....There is also movement to Obama from conservative and anti-abortion Democrats.

Where is Hillary stronger? On Obama's signature issue, the war in Iraq. And the economy and health care.

Rasmussen also has a PA poll that finds Hillary ahead by 5 points over Obama, and Obama leading by 17 points on Iraq. Very different numbers.

Rasmussen's daily tracking poll has Obama at 46% and Hillary at 45%.

In Kentucky, Survey USA shows Hillary leads Obama 2:1, 58% to 21%.

< Tuesday Open Thread | Will Obama Fight For MI Uncommitted Delegates? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't know (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    I have yet to see a Obama sign in a yard but plenty of Hillary signs. I have yet to meet a person in NE Penna who is voting for Obama but maybe my circle of friends are because we all have similar thought politically.

    Obama up 10 pts w/ blacks (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    in the new SUSA, as I predicted.

    Also, he takes the lead with men. Still below 50% there, so he could see further growth. At the end of the day, I still think he loses by 10-15%, which is what I predicted a week ago.


    Hard to say (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    with men. He will win A-A men 100-0 practically.

    But I doubt he has a chance with white men.

    Most of ther variance in the SUSA poll is Obama up 5 and Clinton down 5 with A-As and a uptick in expected A-A turnout.

    Obama is up 4 among whites to 33.

    I think this poll actually is good for Clinton. This is probably her worst possible outcome.

    I predict a 15 point win for Clinton.


    I agree (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:05:53 PM EST
    I'm with you BTD too.. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Rainsong on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:27:08 PM EST
    For what its worth, its still weeks out, and may just be a wobble reflecting the Bosnia story.
    Can see why its a swing-state though - city vs rural, conservative pockets vs liberal ones etc.

    Also, could be an outlier, as the survey orgs always put in their standard caveats and disclaimers. Sometimes, your random selection comes up with a biased sample.

    I tend to distrust national daily tracking polls this far out from the GE too, as they can wash out spikes and dips in individual states. Indiana appears better for Clinton that I would have guessed.


    Signs don't vote (none / 0) (#7)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:36:50 PM EST
    We didn't have anyone with Obama yard signs here in Charleston, SC.  He did pretty well without them.

    Pennsylvania is not South Carolina (none / 0) (#88)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    If you get my drift. More Catholics heh. That is the way they keep describing Penna. I figured it must be the PC code no one told us about.

    I disagree with the rating (none / 0) (#60)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:42:51 PM EST
    your comment received. I think there are some cranky people here today. I have friends who live in PA and they are firmly in Sen. Clinton's camp.

    where the delegates are (none / 0) (#70)
    by delandjim on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:55:52 PM EST
    I heard that Pa has a delegate allocation similar to Tx in that it is based on where the vote occurred in the last election. Areas that had a heavy turnout last time have extra delegates. This could hurt Clinton in the final delegate count since he is stronger in the cities where the bigger delegate allocation is.

    The delegate allocation is NOT apparently in response to population.


    polls reflect the media (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    airing videos of Hillary's exaggeration on Bosnia while the media conceals negative info about Obama - including the false narrative he created about his father's connection to the Kennedys (on video).

    talked about endlessly here. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:52:51 PM EST
    on this thread. Please comment about it there.

    sorry, (none / 0) (#57)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:37:33 PM EST
    just getting a little tired of that nonsense.

    Hillary Lied (none / 0) (#19)
    by OhioBuckeye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    Hillary lied while Obama mis-spoke about a historical event.  Obama thought his father was part of the Kennedy's plan to bring young Africans to America to study.  This is an event to which he was not there.  Clinton states she was there.  A lie is a lie.  Let's just face facts and move on.  

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:06:40 PM EST
    What is the difference? Why can't it be that she misspoke and he lied?

    I am not advocating either, just pointing out a rather interesting distinction.


    no worries... (1.00 / 1) (#66)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:50:13 PM EST
    I have a nice set of screencaps for the posts including mine being gone now as well...you're borderline here, there was nothing offensive and it was no more OT than the others in this thread...granted its your blog, but your credibility is shot.

    made a new account to spam some more? (1.00 / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    We heard you the first time, and the second, and the 20th.

    Wow (none / 0) (#87)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:24:12 PM EST
    Its funny, I only see myopia in posts like yours. I don't see it nearly as much in Clinton supporters here.

    Yeh, nyah-nyah comments (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    add so much to discourse, huh?  Or . . . nyaht.:-)

    Don't know how to read that (none / 0) (#93)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:27:24 PM EST
    Care to clarify?

    "Talkiall that's left" <nyah nyah> (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:32:36 PM EST
    "for Hillary and her supporters. . . . This nomination is O-VER." <nyah nyah>

    I learned so very much from that.  But at least this comment of O-MAMA's was about 100 fewer lines less than others here.  <snore>


    of course... (none / 0) (#99)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:14:56 PM EST
    the true meaning of the issue is completely ignored here, perhaps a refresher is in order...



    Bosnia (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:16:12 PM EST
    She went to Bosnia and took 2 sidetrips to see the troops in the field.  She did not bring along Chelsea or Sinbad on those trips.  

    From the Charleston Gazette:
    "Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday...This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone..."

    So she may have gotten confused among the three events she attended in Bosnia. It happened 12 years ago.


    that's your opinion (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    please state it as such, not as fact.

    In fairness (none / 0) (#24)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:58:23 PM EST
    you should acknowledge that BO's historical mistakes are more in line with HRC's comments regarding the origin of her name, which (rightly) doesn't get much coverage.

    in fact, sen. clinton was there. (none / 0) (#56)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:35:47 PM EST
    at that point, bosnia was still considered a war zone, the dayton accords notwithstanding. if it weren't, US military personnel stationed there wouldn't have been receiving hazardous duty pay, they were. the bit about "well gee, if it was so dangerous, why did she bring then 16 year-old chelsea along?" is nonsense.

    i had a gf in college who's father was a retired army brig. gen. during vietnam, he was the CO of a post near saigon. guess what? he had his wife and two young children with him, in a combat zone. my gf was a sort of vietnam vet. rank has its privilages.

    so, while it's true that there were no snipers shooting at that particular point in time, the danger most certainly existed. bear in mind as well, the USO goes into combat zones, and has been known, on occasion, to come under enemy fire. it's an inherent risk of the job.

    what combat zone was sen. obama last in, that wasn't on a video screen?


    On the SUSA PA Poll (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:01:00 PM EST
    Clinton lost 5% there (her only losses in the poll I think) and Obama gained 5.

    Obama gained 4 with white voters.

    What I do not know is the turnout expectation but my back of the envelope math tells me that SUSA raised turnout for A-As by a couple of points.

    Obama has stretched this all he can I think. Maybe a couple of points gain with A-A voters. But I think white voters are going to worsen for him. He will lose probably 70% of the white vote.

    Based on this poll, I predict a 15 point Clinton win in PA.

    If you're talking about PA (none / 0) (#34)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:06:00 PM EST
    Clinton went down 2, not 5.  From the link above:

    Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released three weeks ago, Clinton is down two points and Obama is up five, with Clinton's previous 19-point lead cut to 12, the survey found.  

    Or are you getting your 5% from a different calculation?


    5 among A-As (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:07:56 PM EST
    I know it is bad form, but this a demographic race.

    What to watch now is expected turnout.

    We are not at the expected Obama 85-15 win among A-As. And Clinton will get close to 70% of the white vote.

    The turnouts for these groups is the issue now.


    Aahh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:09:32 PM EST
    Got it.  Thanks for explaining!

    Polling math (none / 0) (#40)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:08:49 PM EST
    I don't mean to sound as though I were challenging you, I hope that's clear and apologies if it's not.  I'm just asking abut your figures, because they seem to be different and I'm not all there with the polling math myself.

    Obama's new registration drives (none / 0) (#37)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    were a huge focus of his early campaign there.  I predict it will be more like a 10% win for Hillary.

    Turnout drives are not worth 5% (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:09:01 PM EST
    This poll result is really bad for Obama.

    This seems to be the best he can do in PA. I think it will be worse.


    Hillary Wipeout (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Athena on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:16:02 PM EST
    New Obama campaign slogan:

    "Get her out of the race before he loses again."


    Yup (none / 0) (#43)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:12:34 PM EST
    I agree with you.  At this point, barring a complete collapse of the Clinton campaign, which I don't expect will happen, I don't see how Obama manages to have a "respectable" loss in PA. Even given that Clinton is supposed to run away with it, I think this will be a not inconsequential hit for Obama.

    I didn't say they were worth 5% (none / 0) (#44)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:13:57 PM EST
    I'm not tacking that on to your numbers... I was looking at the two polls.

    Well ikf yopu believe in the (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    track records of the polls, SUSA has been by far, the best pollster. Ras has been pretty bad, especially in undercounting Clinton support.

    Didn't undercount her in Mississippi (none / 0) (#64)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:47:40 PM EST
    or Wisconsin, or Virginia or even Missouri.  SUSA totally blew Missourri ane others.  I think they all have been hit or miss and always will be. We'll see where we are next week...  

    But he did (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:06:36 PM EST
    in Ohio, FLa, CA, Texas, AZ etc.

    Which state does PA most resemble?

    But I leave you to your devices - EVERYONE, Obama and Clinton supporters, have recognized SUSA's poll superiority in this contest season.


    Clinton's margin (none / 0) (#97)
    by PennProgressive on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 06:03:04 PM EST
    This is in relation to BTD's prediction of Clinton's margin in PA. I have been talking to lot of folks involved with the party and in general. It seems that Clinton should win but not by 15. Word on the street, so to speak, is she will win by about 12. Some have put it at about 7. My own feeling is (based on just being in PA  I guess) she will  win by 10-12.

    Clinton's April Fool's Joke (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:05:36 PM EST
    She challenged Obama to a bowl-off, winner take all!  It is funny:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23902765#23902765

    That is hilarious. (none / 0) (#51)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:25:33 PM EST
    The extremely deadpan delivery is great. :-)

    Nice (none / 0) (#54)
    by eric on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:28:40 PM EST
    That's great.  I love it that she has a sense of humor.

    The reporters (none / 0) (#71)
    by americanincanada on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:56:27 PM EST
    giggling and groaning in the background was my favorite part of that.

    Interesting: (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:31:47 PM EST
    The survey concluded that there is also movement to Obama from conservative and anti-abortion Democrats.

    I've read Obama wasn't getting the Catholic vote.  Then the Caucasian Catholic priest invited The Rev. Wright to the Angelou tribute in Chicago.  Any effect?

    Maybe... (none / 0) (#9)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:39:47 PM EST
    ...it is because he went bowling with us (according to you) stupid, out-of-touch keglers.

    A good percentage of which are Catholic in the Keystone state.  


    Ah. But "according to you." (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM EST
    What is that supposed to mean?  As you know, I grew up in SE Iowa, where bowling was the default choice for entertainment.  

    Your... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:47:24 PM EST
    ...little quip about bowlers being low information voters from a day to two ago.  

    Not only did I grow up in Iowa, I literally grew up in a bowling alley as my Mother was (and is) an avid bowler.  And, nobody calls my Mother stupid.  That's just how I roll (ha, ha--get it?)


    I still support Hillary... (none / 0) (#32)
    by miked on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    Despite having a 200 average.

    Advice for Obama: It shouldn't take more than 15 minutes of coaching to do better than 37, for cryin' all night. You might consider getting a little practice in before doing that in public again. Maybe get one of those wrist braces (they're OK for beginners...).


    Not even a wrist brace... (none / 0) (#39)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:08:35 PM EST
    ...would have helped.  The gutter guards perhaps.  

    I've never, ever bowled a 37--not even when I was a little tyke who could barely walk, let alone lift a bowling bowl.  

    But then, I am a Polock, so it is a pretty inbred skill...


    could this be a metaphor for the bigger contest? (none / 0) (#81)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:33:09 PM EST
    I read both candidates (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    just brought Catholic outreach organizers on board this week to go after the Catholic vote. Sorry I don't have time to search for the link.

    McCain is going after the Catholic vote big time too.


    Maybe he can get Hagee to make (none / 0) (#74)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:03:55 PM EST
    a couple appearances with him (/snark)

    Wow (none / 0) (#4)
    by Faust on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:33:20 PM EST
    Those numbers are seriously different. What accounts for such huge variation? I'm not a poll guy, anyone know what methodologies they use that could explain the huge disparity?

    Different voter turnout methodologies (none / 0) (#15)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    It's one thing to survey people (count heads), but the real art is in predicting which voters will turn out and in what percentages. If two polls find Clinton ahead among working class women by 60-40, but one polling company predicts those voters will comprise 10% of the actual voters on election day and the other predicts they will comprise 30%, you would get very different predictions as to the candidates' relative level of overall support.

    Hillary wins PA by 20% (none / 0) (#5)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:33:34 PM EST
    and she can has a chance a reasonable path to win the nomination. 10%-19% and she stays in...  Less than 10% and there's not much point.  Less than 5% and she really should drop out.

    I think this will change. (none / 0) (#6)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:35:47 PM EST
    Its a week of terrible press and everyone saying she has to get out and coronation of Obama. Plus he is outspending her 5:1. I think she will bounce back. These things go back and forth.

    Terrible press - I agree (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Suma on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:02:55 PM EST
    And she is still ahead! I am surprised she is still in contention in spite of the media bias. Imagine where she would be in a level playing field. She lied about Bosnia, but the video clearly shows her sorrounded by military - not exactly the peaceful times that media would have us believe. And where may I ask, is the 24/7 media coverage of Obama lies?

    the Bosnia thing is such BS ! ~ (none / 0) (#82)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    I haven't seen hardly any INK in the MSM but bloggers are keeping it alive.

    ah those Gen Xers gone wild.


    Might be the Casey endorsement (none / 0) (#8)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:39:03 PM EST
    for the Anti-choice Democrats. Casey & BHO were bus  traveling in Central Penna and they are a lot more conservative there. Most Catholics who are Democrats do separate Church and State but if Casey endorsed him, they might get the idea that Obama is not Pro-choice. Since no one is pointing anything out, people can swing back and forth.

    Casey's influence? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:43:07 PM EST
    "I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." - Obama

    "Punished with a baby?" (none / 0) (#86)
    by esmense on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST
    Did he really say that? I have long been deeply committed to the pro-choice position, but it makes me uncomfortable to hear an affluent father make such a dehumanizing statement.

    Elite Liberals have long missed the boat on this issue because they seem unable to recognize that abortion is a "choice" only for those who have the means to make it a choice.

    Few women see potential children as a "punishment" and many women would prefer to have the economic means to make a different "choice" than the only option some liberals are willing to recognize  


    Yes, he said it, and the Casey endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 04:18:24 PM EST
    worries me a lot.  I think this one is not a What-Obama-Really-Meant case.  Casey's endorsement tells me this is what Obama really does mean.

    And that tells me a lot, as this is one of my main issues, too -- that combined with what Illinois NOW said, and his plan to initially vote for Roberts . . . we need to know much more about how Obama might handle SCOTUS.

    With Clinton, we know, without question -- a long and unassailable record on reproductive rights, pro-choice all the way.  I haven't found another Senator with a better record than hers on this issue.


    Don't forget "the Bus" (none / 0) (#23)
    by MKS on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:57:14 PM EST
    and Franco were on the bus too.

    The only notable recent poll missing (none / 0) (#10)
    by magster on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    in this post is PPP affirming last week's results in NC.

    I'd like to see a recent Indiana poll.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:02:48 PM EST
    18 now, 21 before, within the MOE. But PPP's polling has a new turnout model which reflects this point.

    The question is is the model right?


    Gallup is out (none / 0) (#16)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:45:41 PM EST
    And it's tightening again, though that is predictable with a tracking poll.  Still:

    Obama 49
    Clinton 45

    Obama trending down and Clinton trending up.

    KY and PA The Same (none / 0) (#17)
    by OhioBuckeye on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:46:42 PM EST
    KY and PA are the same outside of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, either will ever vote for a black man for president. It is what it is!

    Good news for Obama (none / 0) (#21)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:52:52 PM EST
    if either will.  I'm not sure you're right about about KY though...

    It think that the commentor (none / 0) (#50)
    by eric on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:23:15 PM EST
    meant to write "neither", not either.

    Polls are worthless this season (none / 0) (#25)
    by miked on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 12:59:35 PM EST
    I don't think I've ever seen an election season with such wildly inaccurate and variable polling data. What is going on with this? They are all over the map.

    I would have expected likely-voter methodology to have become more accurate over time, not less. It seems to me the polls are more screwed up this year than ever.

    SUSA has been incredibly accurate (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:01:24 PM EST
    Your comment is ill informed.

    Psychological warfare (none / 0) (#28)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Expectations game (none / 0) (#29)
    by reality based on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:02:20 PM EST
    Obama will try to get it under ten points and argue a moral victory to the superdelegates and the remaining primary voters with the press carrying his water in that regard.  Movement this early toward him, however, could be premature.  Timing is important in hard fought elections as the Texas primary demonstrated.  The babies as punishment quote should be devastating among conservative and pro-life voters if handled right, although I guess there are some who would view pregnancy as an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.

    He doesn't seem to care about the base. (none / 0) (#55)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:31:30 PM EST
    He brags about his Republican support and urges Indy/Repubs to become "Democrats for a day." How he thinks this will translate in the GE is beyond me, especially since those folks will almost certainly vote for McCain in large numbers.

    I also don't understand why he is viewed as the more progressive choice by so many. Is it the AUMF vote? (Honest question here.)

    Mark Penn disagrees with you (none / 0) (#65)
    by fuzzyone on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:48:53 PM EST
    He says Obama is too liberal to win the GE

    Most liberal... (none / 0) (#73)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST
    Obama was rated the most liberal member of the Senate by a conservative group (National Journal).  They also rated Kerry as the most liberal in 2004.
    As per Mark Twain, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

    That's what I've sensed. (none / 0) (#67)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:51:11 PM EST
    Thanks - sorry if it's OT.

    IMO (none / 0) (#69)
    by spit on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:54:32 PM EST
    it's partly the AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman, and it's partly the left's history with Bill Clinton, who is seen (IMO sometimes fairly, sometimes less so) as having thrown progressive causes under the bus.

    These things provided the initial fodder, from which we've now seen a spiral form over campaign tactics (most of which is pretty silly, IMO).

    As far as I'm concerned, there is no real progressive in the race, and they're within inches of each other on most points of policy. OTOH, I'm basically okay with either candidate, and somebody far enough left for me to actually really like their positions would be destroyed in a general election in this country. At this point, I genuinely don't care who wins, as long as the process is basically a legitimate one.


    She hasn't been in the state since (none / 0) (#61)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    his bus tour started, right?

    It's possible the gap will widen again when they get back in there.

    could be i suppose. (none / 0) (#63)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:45:40 PM EST
    I also don't understand why he is viewed as the more progressive choice by so many. Is it the AUMF vote? (Honest question here.)

    except, by his own admission, he doesn't really know how he would have voted, had he actually had to, which he didn't. thank you, i do weddings & bar mitzvahs too!

    i suspect, outside of the major concentrations of AA, sen. obama gets trounced handily in both PA & KY. as well, the AA community in both KY & PA isn't nearly what it is in SC. not even close. as someone noted above, it is what it is.

    geez, no wonder he wants sen. clinton to drop out, now, before he gets thrashed again! lol

    It should be obvious... (none / 0) (#72)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 01:57:08 PM EST
    but he doesn't seem to understand that all this whining about how she should drop out makes him look weak.

    A true front-runner would be more gracious.


    He's not whining, in fact (none / 0) (#77)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:09:57 PM EST
    he went out of his way to make a case for why she should stay in.
    I really think it's time to STOP holding each candidate responsible for things their supporters say.

    he voted to keep funding it. (none / 0) (#84)
    by thereyougo on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    and when it was politically expedient he voted present. Its the Karl Rove strategy of government.

    I agree all of them do it, but at some point you have to show your convictions. Obama seems to be the empty vessel without core values.

    this bothers me greatly. I don't know what I'm getting. Unfortunately, the trend has taken over since GWB.

    I'm  getting tired of this kind of politics; just don't like the rock star  approach. Its too focused group and too artificial. Its like you're shopping for cereal at the supermarket.


    internet polls (none / 0) (#76)
    by wasabi on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:07:16 PM EST
    There is no way to determine the margin of error in internet polls, so the data is worthless.

    Sample selection bias (none / 0) (#79)
    by Maggie on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    The people who chose to answer an on-line straw poll are unlikely to be representative of the population.  That's why they aren't counted.  Another way of saying it is that you would lose a lot of money on average if you bet according to straw polls rather than according to polls which try for representative samples.

    because they don't have (none / 0) (#80)
    by cpinva on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 02:32:08 PM EST
    the controls built into actual statistically valid polls. the demographics of an online poll would not be reflective of those of the actual population voting.

    Hillarry is running strong in Northeastern PA (none / 0) (#95)
    by PennProgressive on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    Both Hillary and Obama were in Scranton/Wilkes Barre (Northeastern PA) today. Obama had stops in both Wilkes Barre and Scranton. Hillary was holding a town hall meeting in Wilkes Barre. I could not attend any event sincce both were held when I teach. However I saw the news coverage. The usual stuff--people were impressed by whoever they went to see. One young female student (an Obama supporter) attended HRC's town hall meeting and could not stop saying how impressed she was by Hillary. The TV news station (WNEP 16) talked about the  SUSA poll and said they worked with SUSA. They reported (and I have not seen any data from the poll) that Hillary is running very strong in Northeastern PA. It does not surprise me. I wrote here that her strength in Northeastern PA will be critical to control damage in Philadelphia (and now  it seems perhaps in Pittsburgh). A side note about the popularity of the Clintons here. Bill Clinton will attend a private  fund raiser in Scranton at thhe  residance  of Scranton mayor Chris Doherty.

    Not surprising that Hillary is down (none / 0) (#100)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 10:43:05 PM EST
    slightly given the flap over Bosnia which will fade. But Obama's gains will be short-lived I think. He is running 5 ads to her 2. He is outspending her 2:1. There is a debate to come and that should bring Hillary back to a close 20 point margin.