home

SUSA PA Poll: Clinton By 14

By Big Tent Democrat

The new SUSA PA poll is out:

54 percent would vote for Clinton and 40 percent would vote for Obama. Three percent chose the "other" category. The 1,600 interviewees were questioned for the poll Saturday through Monday.

SUSA's site does not have the internals. I will add to this post as soon as we get them. We have now seen the SUSA Internals. Obama has solidified his African American support, just as we suspected. He trails by 2-1 with whites.

< Obama Launches New and Deceptive Lobbyist Ad Against Clinton | PA Likes Its Annie Oakley >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Track record (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:07:27 AM EST
    SUSA has proved itself over the primaries, so it's the poll that carries the most water with me.

    As a Clinton supporter, I'd say she needs something like a 8-9 point spread to make a dent in the popular vote and to shut up the bellyaching for a while, but probably something closer to 10-11 or more to send a message.

    I hope SUSA's numbers are a correct reflection of the state of the race, and I hope they'll hold up.


    Media spin (none / 0) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:31:48 AM EST
    has moved in her favor on this.  It used to be she needed a blowout of 20 pts.  Now... she needs double digits.  She's up against massive amounts of money though.  

    Can hardly wait for the actual vote. Are we there yet?  Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

    Parent

    Who knows? (none / 0) (#57)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:42:54 AM EST
    Perhaps the word has already come down from Mt. Olympus to mortal punditocracy that it is o.k. not to go negative on Clinton anymore.  Wallstreet and other world markets are getting nervous about the global economic mess.  With Obama or McCain, it can only mean a minimum of two years of bumbling about, huffin' and puffin'; and the mess keeps getting worse and more and more ordinary people get hurt.

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#79)
    by kayla on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:26:48 PM EST
    They could be preparing a narrative where his big loss in PA is all due to Hillary's negative tactics.  She was gaining back momentum, according to SUSA, before clingate (or whatever we're calling it) but if SUSA turns out to be right, and she wins PA by double digits, prepare to see Keith and Chris shame Hillary for damagaging Obama for the GE.

    Parent
    What I expect to see: (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:19:12 AM EST
    Hillary wins in Pa, Ind. W. V. Montana, Kentucky, Puerto Rico with enough popular votes to surpass Obama and pledged delegates within 50 then it becomes an issue of electability that the SD's will have to decide at the convention. By then, the economy would have gotten worse (foreclosures; business bankruptcies; unemployment increases, high prices, Iraq war casualties; deficit--problems that are going global) that the economic and political establishment, independent voters and even world leaders would want Hillary Clinton (with Bill at her side) to fix the mess because she is the only one who could be trusted to grapple with all those elements competently.  

    That is my expectation as well, (none / 0) (#48)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    and at that point, the SD's will have to consider MI and FL no matter what Obama or the DNC says or does.

    Parent
    Definitely! (none / 0) (#54)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:37:13 AM EST
    and I think the Obama camp knows this as whell which could account for their current show of great anxiety.  We will surely see more "attitude after Pennsylvania and Indiana.

    The 'bitter/cling' comment has implications beyond PA: (please link)
    www.helenair.com/articles/2008/04/15/state/101st_080415_kennedy.txt

    www.register-herald.com/local/local_story_105221505.html


    Parent

    So much was riding on HRC exiting before PA (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:02:44 PM EST
    ... and essentially taking a dive. How much becomes more and more apparent as much of this smoke clears.

    Parent
    Scary (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:48:27 AM EST
    That's my reaction to this poll because the margin (14%) matches the prediction made by a MyDD diarist applying the race/economic model of Ohio voters to Pennsylvania - see here.  

    BTW, the same diarist also did Indiana, see here.  And, amazingly, it predicts a 16% win, the same as the recent SUSA poll.
     

    I've been saying 10-15 (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    for weeks.

    Obama has a demographics problem (so does Hillary of course, but I honestly think hers is easier to solve).

    Parent

    An 18 point lead shrinks to 14 points (none / 0) (#1)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:32:03 AM EST
    Is it that Bittergate has helped Obama,  or that there is blowback against Clinton for her approach on the issue?

    Inquiring minds would like to know?

    neither (none / 0) (#6)
    by Nasarius on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:36:42 AM EST
    Lacking further evidence, 56-38 to 54-40 is fluctuation within the margin of error.

    Parent
    I'll go with the sensationalist interpretation (none / 0) (#9)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:40:16 AM EST
    TYVM.

    Besides,  I suggested the more boring interpretation in my comment further down.

    Parent

    Need the internals to know (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    Could be Obama consolidating the A-A vote in the SUSA poll. Imo, SUSA had Obama's support among A-As way way low.

    It is why I adjusted the previous 18 point result down to a 15 point result.

    Parent

    This is how it's gonna be (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:45:50 AM EST
    within a few points.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#27)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:52:06 AM EST
    10-15 point margin and Obama will beat expectations.
    15-20 point margin and Hillary will be seen to have met expectations and get some positive press.
    20+ point margin and I think it's a big win for Hillary and pretty unspinnable for Obama.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:56:02 AM EST
    if Obama can't keep Hillary below a 10 point margin, his huge spend will look wasteful and silly.

    Parent
    Well, given that Hillary started with a 20%+ (none / 0) (#34)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:57:52 AM EST
    lead,  anything below 15% looks good for Obama.  Especially given that he is likely to follow PA with a 20 point win of his own in NC.

    Parent
    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:01:54 AM EST
    A 14 point loss for Obama in PA will look good? that seems an amazing statement to me.

    If that is true, Obama is doomed in November.

    I think he can win in November even if eh loses PA by 14, but he can not if a 14 point loss in PA is considered a good result.

    I said 5-6 is the best Obama can imo in this primary. I do not think it is GOOD for Obama that that is so.

    Parent

    But BTD - it's a primary (none / 0) (#45)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:14:47 AM EST
    There is no correlation between winning a primary and winning the state in GE.

    Hence see the recent polls showing Obama winning Michigan within the MOE against McCain,  and Hillary losign it by 9 points to McCain.

    Seems to show that even in a state where Hillary won by 55% to 0% against Obama,  he actually is a better GE candidate!  Someone should tell some superdelegates!

    Parent

    No correlation? (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:45:10 AM EST
    Why do people keep spreading this falsehood? Not all correlations are 1 to 1.

    Parent
    oh please. (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:05:16 AM EST
    This is such a blatant attempt to spin results, its unbelieveable.

    I mean if a candidate is spending 3.3 million bucks a week on air and will do anything, from bowling to feeding a calf and offer kisses to women for votes, I think you have to say that he his going all in.

    There aren't any points for losing. But I will concede that if its a small single digit margin, it will be a good outcome for Obama.

    Parent

    Nah, (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM EST
    honest reporters will see a demographic nightmare. The party is now split racially.

    Parent
    Oh my goodness! (none / 0) (#40)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:01:59 AM EST
    Every race has tightened as Obama spends tens of millions of dollars in advertising in each state.

    Nice try at moving the goalposts, though.

    Parent

    Hahahahaha (none / 0) (#78)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:43:39 PM EST
    That is very funny. Hey why not 30? She wins by 9-10+ and its a loss for him. He pulls within 5 and its a loss for her.

    Parent
    The four point (none / 0) (#55)
    by bjorn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:37:52 AM EST
    difference may be within the margin of error so it may be meaningless.  I think the best bet is to figure Clinton will win by 10-15 percentage points.  I don't think bitter-gate changes many minds in the primary, but you are missing the point if you do not realize it will hurt him in the GE.  Obama's description was more in line with the stereotype of white working class that vote Republican, and I expect they would be more offended.  This is why I don't understand why he said it in the first place. He should be courting white working class dems who vote in the primary.  

    Obama has never seemed able to connect with white working class dems, so i don't think bitter-gate hurts him in these polls. They were never voting for him anyway.

    Parent

    Backs up your analysis (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:32:17 AM EST
    of the other polls.  Great job!!!

    At least in that it (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:33:30 AM EST
    has the 15% spread you predicted.  Can't speak to the internals yet.  So I (temporarily) qualify my praise.

    Parent
    I mean 14% (none / 0) (#4)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:33:56 AM EST
    aaargh..can't type today.

    Parent
    I'm interested in whether the change (none / 0) (#7)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    is purely down to the MOE (i.e. 18% was just a touch high), or whether it's down to some real movement in the last week or so since the last poll.

    It certainly doesn't seem to show any positive impact for Clinton from the whole "Bitter" imbroglio,  though that might just be down to the original 18% margin being a bit too high?


    Parent

    Time (none / 0) (#15)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:44:40 AM EST
    If Friday is bad news day because people watch less news during the weekend, doesn't that mean impact from this, if there is any, would take more than the weekend to see?

    Parent
    I thnk so. (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:58:56 AM EST
    I know I didn't even hear about any of it until Sunday, but I'm not in PA.  Hard to tell one way or another.  Anyway we we'll know actual primary results in a week, so the time for speculation is becoming mercifully short!

    Parent
    Will this matter in PA? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:35:59 AM EST
    I was reading this morning and saw that Clinton isn't going to be giving any PA street money either. Knowing nothing about PA I'm not sure how much the money impacts turnout or support. But since neither is giving money will it matter at all? And would it be reflected in a poll like this one or not until the actual vote?

    Daily News

    Neither campaign will be making traditional payments, known as "street money," to ward leaders willing to support them on election day, and some are unhappy about it.

    One ward leader said that Obama is even charging him for buttons and lawn signs.

    "We're not going to pay for votes or pay for turnout," Obama told the Daily News yesterday before speaking to hundreds of ward leaders and committeepeople at the party's pre-election day fundraiser.

    Clinton wasn't available to reporters to discuss her campaign's decision to stiff the party faithful, but her chief Pennsylvania booster, Gov. Rendell was.

    "Senator Clinton has no street money," Rendell said. "We barely have enough to communicate on basic media. Senator Obama has money to burn."



    I can't imagine it will, especially as neither (none / 0) (#8)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:39:21 AM EST
    candidate is playing ball.  Even if one did it's hard to imagine these local pol's being able to influence the votes cast by the people they were turning out.  Most Obama or Clinton supporters are not going to be influenced by their local ward leader pimping one candidate "because they got a couple of hundred dollars".

    Just doesn't seem realistic.

    Parent

    Since it is universally known (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:43:12 AM EST
    that Obama has a trazillion dollars in his war chest, I can see them getting really mad at him, though not mad at Clinton, because of what Rendell said (which I think was poor-mouthing, but hey, whatever works!)

    Parent
    Phillie (none / 0) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    She was not gonna get Phillie, why pay?  Pay to play.  

    Parent
    He really can't win can he. (none / 0) (#21)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    He refuses to take part in a local tradition which looks awfully like buying votes,  and it can be spun as him being a cheapskate!

    Parent
    You are right (none / 0) (#23)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:48:10 AM EST
    He can't win.

    Parent
    I meant with you Kathy, (none / 0) (#26)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    but hey, que sera sera.

    Parent
    That's not why he can't win (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:49:41 AM EST
    but if it's true, it could cost him a few points.

    Parent
    Thats true (none / 0) (#28)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:54:31 AM EST
    It is lose-lose for him. But it's a lose-lose for Clinton as well. If she paid and then won PA, it could be spun that she won because she paid and Obama stood on principle.

    Parent
    So you're saying GOTV efforts (none / 0) (#16)
    by ChrisO on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:44:43 AM EST
    have no impact? You'd better communicate that to every campaign in the country. They're all wasting a lot of time and money.

    Parent
    So your saying GOTV operations should be (none / 0) (#25)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:50:02 AM EST
    based on handing out bundles of cash to local pol's to distribute as they see fit?  

    Good plan,  no possible way of that going wrong.

    Parent

    That's how it works in cities (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:55:27 AM EST
    Okay, Ed, (none / 0) (#11)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:41:46 AM EST
    I'm giving more money to Hillary now. Jeez! ;-)

    Parent
    I wondered if folks (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:41:56 AM EST
    were gonna start getting ticked off about having to pay for buttons and signs.  That's Obama's small donor strategy--to make folks "donors" when they buy a five dollar button.  As far as I know, no other national campaign has ever done that.  

    Considering all the stories about how much money his campaign has, it's a bit cheeky to be charging wards for those items.

    Parent

    I went (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:45:00 AM EST
    to an early rally of his, before my Obama bubble burst, for which they charged 10 dollars, and so I am part of his "small-donor" list. Of course, the event was not advertised as a fundraiser, it was advertised as a rally.

    Parent
    but you willingly paid $10 to get in? (none / 0) (#22)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:47:56 AM EST
    And it was to an Obama rally,  seems fair enough to me to count you as a donor.  Where did you think the $10 was going, to help elect Hillary Clinton as President?  the local Dog and Cat shelter?

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:01:46 AM EST
    This is the first I've heard of this. So everyone at a rally gets counted as a small donor, even if they just went out of curiosity?

    Parent
    me either (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:35:00 AM EST
    what a great topic for a post. Are you saying his small donors aren't all supporters. Some bought buttons, some ponyed up some $ to hear him speak at a rally and instead of recording  these receipts as income to the campaign he counted it as campaign contributions and listed every button buyer or attendee as a campaign donor?

    Parent
    The Campaign Has To List as a Donor (none / 0) (#56)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    Because they have to report the donation to the FEC and the purchase of these small items is a donation, just as my Hillary T-shirt was a donation to her campaign.  It will be reported the same way (or would be if I hadn't also donated money and so I'm already counted as a donor).

    The problem isn't in Obama's reporting it this way, it's in the media not making it clear that when he says he has X small donors, that includes anyone who bought a button at one of his rallies.  

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#70)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST
    I went to a rally back in the fall when I wasn't sure which candidate I would be supporting yet. I didn't even think about the $10 and figured they would be used to cover expenses for the event...I didn't even think about the fact that I would then be considered a donor. I suppose I should have, but it just seemed weird to me because there was only one rally where I live, so I paid and went to help me decide since it was a relatively small sum. I didn't realize that paying 10 dollars automatically made me count as a supporter...

    Strange. I remember the HRC campaign called him on it early on and it was reported that it was disingenous for him to be reporting all of these people as donors, but nothing more was made of it.

    Parent

    Numbers from opensecrets.org (none / 0) (#73)
    by marcellus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:28:48 PM EST
    Not sure you'd want to do that... it leads to an electability argument against Clinton.  Certainly, total donors are skewed by these "purchases" but it's not a complete stretch to count those who buy  t-shirts/signs as supporters?  I think early rallies were charged, but now they're free.  If you want to start counting at $200 level, Obama leads in donors.

    Donors $200-499: Clinton 19937, Obama 34908

    and Clinton has a huge lead on maxed out donors($20m+ for contributions that can't be used till the GE.)

    Donors $4600(max): Clinton 6817, Obama 2115

    from opensecrets.org

    Parent

    At the 39th LD caucus week before last (none / 0) (#83)
    by lookoverthere on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:51:41 PM EST
    the Obama campaign was selling gear. Everyone had to fill out the usual donor paperwork.

    The Clinton table gave away signs and candy. There were some t-shirt sales, but those funds went to the local Dem Party. (I can check if you like.) When I asked how come we weren't selling crap, A national Clinton campaign worker told me that was against their policy.

    A Clinton volunteer said afterward that while there were Obama volunteers and local party officials around, everyone came up to the women at the Clinton table for information. This included Obvama supporters sporting their new flare.

    (I have a funny story about an Obama supporter demanding to know why there wasn't any food from a Clinton supporter, as if she was responsible for packing his lunch.)

    I was a Clinton volunteer and I was asked to do more general caucus stuff like direct traffic, answer questions, and tally counts. Happy to do it, but it was noticeable that the regular work of running the caucus was handled by Clinton volunteers (primarily old-time Dems who were women), while all of the party officials with power were Obama supporters: they put on their flair after getting all the delegates seated.

    Last weekend at the 10th and 40th LD caucus, the Clinton team gave away signs, stickers, and other crap. Buttons and t-shirts were sold, proceeds to local Dem parties.

    Sandwiches sold during that caucus had proceeds go to the state party. Clinton volunteers handled the local party stuff, like collecting money and cleaning up. There was one guy selling state party flare, but I don't know how well he did.

    Just my observations.

    Parent

    Name (none / 0) (#14)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    You have to fill out forms as well so they get your name.  

    Parent
    They use payments for small items (none / 0) (#42)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:05:36 AM EST
    to come out with a small average contribution to allow the campaign to claim that they have mostly small donors. Gimmicky but legal.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:21:29 AM EST
    Nothing wrong with it, but people touting his 'number of small donors' as a meaningful metric should mention this.

    So if I go to two rallies, am I counted as two donors?

    I have to ask - since I live in Florida, I never got to go to a rally.

    Parent

    Probably. (none / 0) (#51)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:30:18 AM EST
    amounts less than a hundred, can be reported as small cash donations.

    Parent
    Rallies should be free (none / 0) (#74)
    by marcellus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    so you don't need to worry as long as you're not tempted to buy a t-shirt.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:57:50 AM EST
    I thought that any money under $200 you did not have to give your name, no?

    Parent
    That was the rule in the past (none / 0) (#81)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:14:18 PM EST
    and I don't think it's changed.  What I read was that the Obama campaign was the only one counting these small dollars as donors/donations.  


    Parent
    That strategy probably only works well... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:14:44 AM EST
    ...in affluent areas.

    Parent
    Cue the braying media (none / 0) (#18)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    If Hillary wins PA by 14% or more, they will still claim it as a defeat for her.

    Honestly, anyone know where I can find the numbers for what she needs to win in the next few races to be ahead in the pop vote? I know there were a slew of links a few weeks ago, but I can't for the life of me find them!

    There are two factors (none / 0) (#29)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:55:05 AM EST
    to figuring out vote totals: percentage and turnout.  Turnouts are unknown so you're left with a "best guess".  14% will not be treated as a loss. 10% or less will be.

    Parent
    Don't know exactly (none / 0) (#49)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:22:47 AM EST
    But Real Clear Politics has popular vote numbers. I've seen some numbers floating around, but nothing that showed the work behind the numbers.

    I know in closed primaries voter turnout has been around 41% and Pennsylvania has 4.2 million Dems. That's around the same amount as Florida (had to throw that in). So it would be expected to have around a 1.7 million turnout. Obviously that could vary. If that turnout holds each percentage point would be an increase of 17k in the popular vote. So a 14% victory would close the gap 238k.

    You would have to estimate for each state per their type of primary and number of voters how many voters would turn out to calculate the percentages.

    Parent

    As I've Posted Before (none / 0) (#69)
    by BDB on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:08:32 PM EST
    Jay Cost's spreadsheet on the popular vote.  It allows you to change turnout numbers and margins and see where the popular vote will stand (although it does not include the 5 people who will be voting in Guam).  The current turnout model is based on the average percentage of Kerry voters who have turned out in closed and open primaries.  But in recent primaries that number has increased (and in red states like Texas, there were more primary voters than Kerry voters).

    Parent
    Anyone have a guess? (none / 0) (#31)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:55:39 AM EST
    John McCain announced his economic plan in Pittsburgh today. Now, while I don't agree with most of it, it does carry the buzzwords of "cutting taxes" - including temporarily eliminating the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and doubling the exemption for each dependent.

    LINK

    The article quotes Obama's (lame) response, but of course, has no response from Hillary.

    But McCain did have a good line that against both Democrats, but really against only one.  See if you can figure it out:

    'The Arizona Republican said those tax hikes are "the fine print under the slogan of `hope': They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year -- and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind."'

    Guess I should have finished my thought (none / 0) (#33)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:56:16 AM EST
    Any guess on how this will play in the Dem race next Tuesday?

    Parent
    I'm starting to see a pattern here... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:58:22 AM EST
    ...when people actually vote, Obama loses non-African Americans by large margins. This has been the case in every medium to large state primary, except for Wisconsin. Luckily, the "metrics" of the general election will be much better for Obama... especially after Wright, bittergate, and the media haven't even explored 9/10 of the other stuff; ) But, of course, the super delegates really don't want to win and will not notice Obama's inescapable unelectability.

    Reality check (none / 0) (#50)
    by djork on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:25:02 AM EST
    I agree - no matter how much the expectations game plays out, how can any kind of double digit loss by Obama in PA not be a sobering moment for the Dem party, especially after he practically bought the state.

    Parent
    Super D process is already stacked for O (none / 0) (#64)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    Whoever they vote for, their vote will be public, correct? That's just like a caucus, where they have to answer for their very public votes to the screaming hordes waiting on the convention floor, the loudest and most vitriolic of which will be Obama's fans (yeah, go ahead and deny it. Kathy's around somewhere...).

    No matter how much you pay the Super D's, nobody likes to be bullied. I think the Super D vote will go the way of the caucus - bent by bullies.

    Parent

    Up until January (none / 0) (#76)
    by marcellus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    both campaigns raised the same amount.  The spending disparity is due to mismanaged debt and failure to have an effective Plan B.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#77)
    by djork on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:33:15 PM EST
    The spending disparity is due to Obama's decision to spend $2.2 million a week in PA, more than any other pol ever has. The fact that he has the money to do it is a separate issue.

    Parent
    You want him to (none / 0) (#80)
    by marcellus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 02:33:47 PM EST
    return the money they raised?...or maybe skip the fundraisers in San Francisco? :)

    The money has been there the entire election for Democrats mainly because people are really frustrated with Bush.  Both campaigns had the basically same amount of money prior to Super Tuesday.  Clinton made some critical money management mistakes by "going all in" for Super Tuesday and not getting a knockout.  This led to a debt cycle of being behind in payments, and is the main factor for the spending disparity now.

    Parent

    Not true (none / 0) (#75)
    by marcellus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    but that is Mark Penn's view of the world where states like Iowa, Colorado, and Washington are insignificant.

    Parent
    Does a big win in PA bring back FL & MI? (none / 0) (#60)
    by gmo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    FL & MI were nearly completely out of play before Clinton's March 5 contest victories.  With those victories, she brought them back into play, and gave full-throated support to her pre 3/5 whispers about fighting for seating the delegates or a revote.

    The issue has been marked "dead," but will a big victory in PA give Clinton more collateral in arm-twisting to count the states as they voted? (Or even just FL?)

    If not the FL/MI issue, where do you think she'll spend her victory collateral?  Just cycling it into the remaining contests as momentum?   What will the Clinton story be after the win?

     

    Win by 10-15 in IN and keep O to 10 (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:55:10 AM EST
    in NC.

    And yes, fight for FL and MI rights.

    Parent

    Would it also.. (none / 0) (#68)
    by gmo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:04:56 PM EST
    ...get her a few more superdelegate votes?   They've been relatively quiet, even after the victories on 3/5, but is this enough to tip the scales for a few SDs?

    Parent
    She doesn't (none / 0) (#71)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:21:11 PM EST
    need 10-15 in Indiana, she just needs to win. He has a HUGE advantage there given how close Chicago is. He is sending in his devoted ground troops, his campaign headquarters is right there, he has the Chicago media market in at least the north western part of the state. A 10-15 point win for her would be beyond embaressing for Obama and I don't think it will hold up. If she wins I suspect it will be by 5 or less.

    Parent
    The polling that exists now (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    sets the expectations at 10 points. I think she can and should win by that much.

    Parent
    We never left (none / 0) (#66)
    by Step Beyond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:03:55 PM EST
    Clinton hasn't marked the issue "dead". She gave an interview to the St Pete Times which ran yesterday. Interesting read if the topic interests you.

    I don't think a victory in PA will give her any more power to influence on this issue. She clearly is going to keep mentioning it anyway. I think the poll showing Obama losing to McCain in Florida is more likely to influence the DNC than Clinton's victory in PA. Not that I expect any action from the DNC either way.

    Parent

    It would be funny to see Obama ask for revotes (none / 0) (#67)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    only after he is losing in the popular vote or even the delegate count NOT COUNTING FL AND MI.

    He'd sure as hell be wanting to risk a revote then, wouldn't he?

    Parent

    clearly Hillary will win PA (none / 0) (#82)
    by white n az on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 03:52:53 PM EST
    but I think the bigger question is the amount of white voters in percentage that Obama gathers...and I'm wondering is 33% of the white voters a victory for Obama? I'm trying to establish an over/under number here...